Solve the Problem of Evil

[Love]

If the thread is useless, don't post in it. Otherwise you are basically openly admitting to making useless posts yourself.

As I do not make already?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

One fact that may be relevant: Mormon theology says that we existed before we were born, in a sense our consciousness has always existed. However, in order to become morally perfect takes time and effort. Some day we can be expected to always make the morally correct decision because it will just be part of our nature; we haven't reached that point yet.

Its fairly close to how we make ordinary perceptual observations, in my view. We make judgments about what seems to us to be the case. This goes for moral judgments (e.g. "burning kids to death is wrong") as much as perceptual judgments (e.g. "that banana is yellow"). Sure, you can apply an arbitrary amount of skepticism here, but thats a general sort of skepticism towards reason and our capacity for judgments, not a morality-specific skepticism. Its also highly difficult for the religionist to be a moral skeptic, since religionists tend to be moral realists.

It is certainly wrong for us to burn kids to death. (Well, in pretty much every case that we can be expected to face. It's always possible to make an elaborate scenario in which such a thing may be morally justifiable, that sort of thing pops up on threads here from time to time.) I don't agree that it was wrong for God to make a universe in which kids face the prospect of burning to death.

Also remember that the Christian tradition (maybe not the Mormon tradition?) is that God does not determine what is right and wrong.

That's correct, basically. God may give His followers specific commandments not to do things that are not of themselves entirely wrong (I don't think it is some great evil for other people to drink coffee, really I don't) because there is some value to them in following them. But for the most part, what is morally correct is what will ultimately make us more like God.

The problem here is that you're going back and forth between which picture of ethics you want. To answer Mise's objection about having the ability to do evil you push yourself in a virtue ethics direction, but here you seem to be pushing yourself in a consequentialist direction. If morality really is grounded in moral character, than the evil that happens in these few decades really is significant (significant enough even to condemn someone to a stint in hell, so clearly God does not take these decades lightly).

Well, the actions we take in the decades we live is significant because it has an effect on who we are. The suffering that we experience is not, except insofar as it affects who we are. That's what I meant.

In my view, God is a utilitarian. What He considers right and wrong, and what motivates Him to do or not do what He does or doesn't do, is simply whether it will have a net positive effect on the world. We cannot do this however, as unlike Him we do not have a perfect knowledge of the circumstances and ultimate consequences of any given action. Thus we have moral principles to follow, because most of the time following these principles will yield the best result.

Intuitively, would it be wrong to torture someone mercilessly for 5 minutes and then at the end of the 5 minutes wipe their memory so they don't remember being tortured? Of course its still wrong, even if the amount of time spent torturing is relatively minor and does not have any effect on their future happiness.

It would be wrong because of the effect it had on us, not on them. If I murder my neighbor it has a surprisingly minor effect on them (I mean, yeah, they are dead, but only a few decades earlier than they would otherwise.) It is not so good for me. I willingly did something I knew I shouldn't have.

This is especially true if morality is grounded in moral character. Someone who would be responsible for great evil is not a good person, regardless of whether the great evil causes long-term harm.

The reason I think that God is exempt from this judgment is because I believe that when He acts it is with a complete and perfect knowledge of the consequences.

Why is that the one logically possible thing he cannot do?

I am afraid that I just can't bring myself to see it as something that actually is morally possible. One day, perhaps, when we are perfected, we will all act morally correctly all the time, but I cannot conceive ot true free will always leading to good.

As far as I'm concerned this is just grasping at straws. Sure, occasionally natural evil strengthens character, but there are a whole range of cases of gratuitous, pointless evil. Spinning a story about how this giant range of cases might really be good is just irrational in the same manner as the YECer spinning stories about evolution.

We only know what effect a situation has on someone until they are dead, after that we lose track of them so to speak. I am not trying to prove here that my view is the right one, but if we really do live forever then we can't say for sure what effect anything will have on us over time.

As I do not make already?

Admitting to spamming is never a brilliant idea. Not that you are spamming, just something to bear in mind.

 

[Eukaryote]

God didn't create evil, he created a world which is a blank canvas on which mankind paints.