Suffering

[joe1776]

Category?

I'm talking about individual behaviours, not broad categories.
Doctors used to prescribe arsenic, with the best of intentions...

Okay, acts like those might fall into the categories of dumb or negligent but not immoral intentional acts that cause harm to others.

 

[74x12]

Most people would agree with you, but you're wrong. The idea that we are going downhill morally is a popular myth.

Did you click on the link I offered for support?

The chart is very flawed since it's not based on the Bible.

Besides, even if that was "real morality" then it's still not being adherred to by the modern world. In secret they do all the worst things and you just don't get to know about it. The world is under an evil control grid. It's basically ran by an evil shadow government at this point. The people aren't in charge. Democracy, republics they're fake as far as I'm concerned we live in a dystopian hellscape.

 

[shunyadragon]

In this argument, the Creator is offered not on faith but as a conditional premise.

The conditional premise is based on faith

I don't think it matters in this argument whether we act on free will or the illusion of free will.

I believe in the limited of potential free will, but that is another story. To act on the illusion of Free Will is not acting on Free Will, which is most likely the fallible human case.

True. But that isn't a counter-argument to the OP.

The OP is inadequate and needs explanation. The nature of suffering is more complex and the OP does not deal with it. The differentiation between natural suffering and caused human suffering is an important distinction.

Yet we are making moral progress.

There are limits to this assumption. We are making progress in the potential of moral universal standards, but humans remain fallible humans.

Bloom is one of many social researchers over the last 20 years who have identified our moral sense (conscience) as innate and intuitive (not the product of reasoning),

In a limited way, I conditionally agree with Bloom. Our sense of moral conscience did evolve as an omnivorous social animal that requires cooperation on the family, group, and tribal levels. I hope we evolve socially to the world consciousness level.

 

[ppp]

It sounds like you still have me defining terms when my premise asserts cause and effect. I'll restate the premise omitting the words bad and good.

If you agree that we have a conscience which enables us to discern moral from immoral behavior, then my premise can be restated

-- immoral behavior can cause suffering and moral behavior can ease suffering.

Immoral and moral are just synonyms for bad and good in this situation.
I think you are missing my point of disagreement. Think about what a world without suffering means. It's a world where getting punched in the face does not cause suffering. Which means that if I punch someone in the face, I am not causing suffering, and therefore am not exhibiting bad behavior. There is only cause and effect, when the effect exists.

I regard it as necessary because I can't think of a better way to teach humans capable of free will how to make moral progress than by challenging them with suffering. If you can, I'll quit this argument.

You are getting ahead of yourself. I have accepted your conditional premise that a creator exists (conditionally), but you have done nothing to establish that humans have free will, or that moral progress in humans is a goal of this creator. These are just assumptions that you made. You are basically trying to get us to agree with all of your assumptions. Not just the first one.

 

[joe1776]

The chart is very flawed since it's not based on the Bible.

Besides, even if that was "real morality" then it's still not being adherred to by the modern world. In secret they do all the worst things and you just don't get to know about it. The world is under an evil control grid. It's basically ran by an evil shadow government at this point. The people aren't in charge. Democracy, republics they're fake as far as I'm concerned we live in a dystopian hellscape.

If we humans are going downhill morally, you should be able to pinpoint a past era when things were much better than they are now. What era would that be?

As for me, as bad as things are now, I can't think of a past era that wasn't much worse.

 

[shunyadragon]

The chart is very flawed since it's not based on the Bible.

Unfortunately, the morality of the Bible is based on an ancient tribal morality some good and some problematic today, and includes justification of slavery.

Besides, even if that was "real morality" then it's still not being adherred to by the modern world. In secret they do all the worst things and you just don't get to know about it. The world is under an evil control grid. It's basically ran by an evil shadow government at this point. The people aren't in charge. Democracy, republics they're fake as far as I'm concerned we live in a dystopian hellscape.

One too many 'noids.' This is a dangerous ancient tribal paranoid view of the contemporary world that causes violence against those who believe differently

 

[ppp]

The chart is very flawed since it's not based on the Bible.

Besides, even if that was "real morality" then it's still not being adherred to by the modern world. In secret they do all the worst things and you just don't get to know about it. The world is under an evil control grid. It's basically ran by an evil shadow government at this point. The people aren't in charge. Democracy, republics they're fake as far as I'm concerned we live in a dystopian hellscape.

The Bible is very flawed since it it is not based on reality.

 

[74x12]

Unfortunately, the morality of the Bible is based on an ancient tribal morality some good and some problematic today, and includes justification of slavery.



One too many 'noids.' This is a dangerous ancient tribal paranoid view of the contemporary world that causes violence against those who believe differently

The Bible is right. If you disagree with it; then you're wrong. So don't be a slave. The Bible says not to be slaves of men but only to God. (1 Corinthians 7:23)

As for violence. That's what they'll do to Bible believers soon enough with the excuse that they're causing "violence" and harm by believing and teaching the Bible. It's already happening. That's the real violence of satan and his children. So I don't listen to nonsense like when people tell me the Bible causes violence. I know the truth. It's satan and his children who cause violence. The Bible stands against them and so they hate it and try to stamp it out by force.

 

[stvdv]

That is simply god-awful.

Some people offer something positive
Some people offer something negative

@joe1776 offered something positive
@stvdvRF

 

[joe1776]

The conditional premise is based on faith.

A conditional premise requires that the premise be considered as fact but only for the purpose of this argument if you want to participate.


]quote] I don't think it matters in this argument whether we act on free will or the illusion of free will. [/quote]

I believe in the limited of potential free will, but that is another story. To act on the illusion of Free Will is not acting on Free Will, which is most likely the fallible human case.

If the purpose of suffering is to teach, it shouldn't matter whether one has free will or believes he acts freely but is mistaken.

The OP is inadequate and needs explanation. The nature of suffering is more complex and the OP does not deal with it. The differentiation between natural suffering and caused human suffering is an important distinction.

My p3 premise covers the need to ease natural suffering and the problem of human causation.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

There are limits to this assumption. We are making progress in the potential of moral universal standards, but humans remain fallible humans.

Well, sure. That's true.

In a limited way, I conditionally agree with Bloom. Our sense of moral conscience did evolve as an omnivorous social animal that requires cooperation on the family, group, and tribal levels. I hope we evolve socially to the world consciousness level.

I'm not sure what Bloom believes beyond certain basic questions.

 

[firedragon]

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

p2 We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

p4 We humans have indeed been making moral progress. We have learned to treat each other far better today than at any time in the distant past.

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process. Suffering was needed as a challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

We are born with the basic structure of conscience. Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist quote:
Paul Bloom Quotes

We humans have been making moral progress
Chart: The Historical Trend of Moral Progress

In my opinion, this chart is just a gathering of sentences given some position arbitrarily. I don't think it's valid. Said with all due respect.

 

[Clara Tea]

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

p2 We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

p4 We humans have indeed been making moral progress. We have learned to treat each other far better today than at any time in the distant past.

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process. Suffering was needed as a challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

We are born with the basic structure of conscience. Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist quote:
Paul Bloom Quotes

We humans have been making moral progress
Chart: The Historical Trend of Moral Progress

I'd prefer not to suffer. A good God wouldn't allow it or demand it.

Moral progress? Torture at Guantanamo? A million Iraqis dead? Ignoring homeless? Demanding gun rights? Opposing universal health care? Lying us into wars?

Mafia murdered and extorted, yet enjoyed the good life. No proof of punishment or reward in the afterlife.

 

[Clara Tea]

In my opinion, this chart is just a gathering of sentences given some position arbitrarily. I don't think it's valid. Said with all due respect.

Ditto.

 

[Clara Tea]

I assume that you really mean:
p1: An existent creator designed and made humans with free will and a the ability to distinguish moral right from moral wrong. (conditional premise)

This is not a premise. You are merely defining terms. How we generally define good and bad behavior.

Again, trivial. If bad behavior is defined as behavior that contributes to suffering, then in a world without suffering, there would be no bad behaviors. There could be no behavior that contributes to suffering.

And the recent past.

That does not follow. A creator could be unconcerned with humans. Or mildly sadistic. You have no method of calculating the probabilities.

Schlemiel = spills soup

Schlimazel = soup is spilled on them

Theives get richer, their victims poorer. Perhaps the afterlife makes things fair (but I doubt it). If God unfairly allows pain, then how fair could he be running heaven?

 

[Clara Tea]

Okay, acts like those might fall into the categories of dumb or negligent but not immoral intentional acts that cause harm to others.

Negligence can be just as harmful, and just as preventable as an intentional act of harm.

 

[Koldo]

Not explaining or justifying really.

I'm posting this argument as just one answer to the often-asked question: Why might a well-meaning Creator allow suffering?

The answer to that question is a justification as in: there is a just reason for a well-meaning creator to allow suffering. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[joe1776]

Immoral and moral are just synonyms for bad and good in this situation.
I think you are missing my point of disagreement. Think about what a world without suffering means. It's a world where getting punched in the face does not cause suffering. Which means that if I punch someone in the face, I am not causing suffering, and therefore am not exhibiting bad behavior. There is only cause and effect, when the effect exists.

This was my premise: p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it. I'm referring to the cause-and-effect relationships of behavior to suffering in a world with suffering like the one we inhabit.

You are getting ahead of yourself. I have accepted your conditional premise that a creator exists (conditionally), but you have done nothing to establish that humans have free will, or that moral progress in humans is a goal of this creator. These are just assumptions that you made. You are basically trying to get us to agree with all of your assumptions. Not just the first one.

Earlier you said that you accepted the free will premise. Not to worry. It probably doesn't matter to my argument if people act on the illusion of free will because the instruction they get from conscience will be the same and their reaction to their instruction won't change. In any case, I'm not going to debate free will with you.

I don't know how you got the idea from what I wrote that I'm arguing that a Creator exists and I know its intentions. My argument answers the often-asked question: Why would a well-meaning Creator allow suffering? It offers an answer in the form of an argument. Nothing more..

 

[joe1776]

Negligence can be just as harmful, and just as preventable as an intentional act of harm.

Of course. But the point is that it's not immoral.

 

[joe1776]

The answer to that question is a justification as in: there is a just reason for a well-meaning creator to allow suffering. Wouldn't you agree?

Okay, where do you want to take that?

 

[joe1776]

I'd prefer not to suffer. A good God wouldn't allow it or demand it.

You think like a God? I admire your self-confidence.

Moral progress? Torture at Guantanamo? A million Iraqis dead? Ignoring homeless? Demanding gun rights? Opposing universal health care? Lying us into wars?

You can't cherry-pick like that. Comparing eras morally is far more complicated.