Is evil the lack of good?

Is evil the lack of good?
t. privation theory fan

Other urls found in this thread:

reddit.com/
salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo1/koukl.php
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Is this the right board for this thread?
t.

it's philosophy with potential references in literature

ive found that Veeky Forums is a better ground for discussion in regards to philosophy than Veeky Forums desu

anyway OP,
no

thats basically whats happenin

Which is exactly why you should encourage better posting on Veeky Forums!

Evil can be one of two things: the lack of good or misdirected good.

so God is good basically
he can't be good if he allows evil
does privation theory of evil apply to athiests?

>Evil can be misdirected good
Then how is it good?

INTENT MATTERS

what if you're insane

Privation theory is one of the more reasonable-sounding excuses that have been created in order to rectify the inconsistencies in the fanfiction that is Christianity.

>evil
No such thing.

You tend to be evil because of natural selfish tendencies.

It doesn't matter what metaphysical semantics you use to define evil. The real, subjective experience of evil (suffering, fundamentally) still exists. It doesn't solve the problem. Good may not be "perceivable" without evil, or vice versa, but neither have any existence without being experienced in some mind, and this experience's reality is independent of any perceived distinction or differetiation.
t. Gnostic

>Is evil the lack of good?
>Is evil
>Is good

Things are, only, and will only ever be.

The words you seek to define have no correspondent form outside the echo chamber of consciousness.

>>reddit.com/

>The words you seek to define have no correspondent form outside the echo chamber of consciousness.
Is that because you have to be unconscious to not believe that evil exists, you retard?

>pizza is good
>I lack pizza
>pure evil!

Privation theory just sounds crazed and neurotic allowing for no calm middle ground.

That's... not what privation theory is

Evil is an illusion, and a very convincing one at that.

Seems pretty evil

if you can't explain a theory via pizza analogy then get that theory the fuck out of my face

Can you show me evil?

"Show"? No. If I mended a wound, did I take it and put it elsewhere? No, I mended the body. If my shirt has a tear in it, has anything been added? No, something has been removed.
I avoid wounds and tears not because they in themselves are bad, but because my body and my shirt are good.
I can't show you a wound or a tear, all I can show you is the absence of a body and the absence of a shirt.

>I can't show you a wound
Even pizza based logic makes more sense than this.

>I can show you the absence of a shirt.
Post torso.

To be practical, sure, that person does "have" a wound and his shirt might "have" a tear. But where do these things come from? Was a wound added to their body? No, skin was taken away. The same goes for good and bad. We can all agree that things should be good, but does it really make sense for us to say that things should "not be bad"? Unless it's just a coincidence that all things evil just so happen to be things that good is not, then clearly there is no "good and bad" but "good and not good" or "good and the privation of good".

Space is mostly vast expanses of fuck all. Within that fuck all, I doubt you can find any 'good'. Therefore, space is evil.
Fuck, I love this theory.

No, evil is the desire or intent to cause suffering.

An abrasion has skin taken away, a puncture wound has little take away. The wound is definitely added to the body in an actual and "practical" sense. Ignoring basic biology to try and make your point isn't very convincing.

>a puncture wound has little take away
What?

>The wound is definitely added to the body in an actual and "practical" sense
No, a wound is the removal of the structure and function that are part of what makes the body worthy of protection. If you get a cut on your foot, some of your body has been taken away and you are then less able to walk. This is a very straight forward analogy and there are many more that could be made.

...

God is good, but people are not (after the fall). Since we have free will we are free to do evil.

so why did he let us have free will

> le good and evil are objective and quantifiable mey mey xD

What's your point?

there is no evil and good beyond human thought

It's a gift

>I avoid wounds and tears not because they in themselves are bad, but because my body and my shirt are good.

How are these distinctions made?

Which distinctions? If you're asking why my body and shirt are good, it's because they achieve their purpose. A body is good for movement and a shirt is good for comfort. These are just examples. My point is that while in language and thought we say that there are bad things like "I have a wound on my arm", "I have a tear in my shirt" or "I am sad", in reality these things don't actually exist. However, what does "exist" is the absence of arm, the absence of shirt or the absence of happiness. We don't necessarily have to determine which things are good to recognise that evil is a construct that is often confused with the absence of good. Good is real and sometimes it is absent.

>reasonable
Take your fedora back to tumblrland.

What if I'm outside the tent?

Hah, are you still hacking at that atrocious analogy? Well I suppose if it convinces you then it's all good.

You assign the purposes of movement and comfort, and state that the achievement of these purposes is good.

Is a body not also good for decomposing, or a shirt for burning? Is an arid desert bad for preventing the decay of a corpse, is water bad for preventing the burning of a shirt?

A sword is good for wounding, but dullness in a sword is bad for making the sword harder to wound with?

"Evil" and "good" being entirely subjective, contingent, selfishly-used terms of convenience with no useful definition, sure, why not?

If you want to help somebody get physically stronger then you have to put them through suffering in order for them to get there. No pain, no gain basically. Does this count has evil?

Clearly that good and evil are subjectively or perhaps collectively established and don't relate to absolutely or universalities.

Look, a sane person. How'd you get here, user? The rest of you: tell me one real thing that is undeniably evil in any situation from any perspective, you amateur philosopher hacks.

No. Evil is intentionally causing harm to others/their well-being.

>Clearly that good and evil are subjectively or perhaps collectively established and don't relate to absolutely or universalities.

/thread

Life would be much easier if there was some natural and universal concept of good and evil, if there was a concept of good and evil that was outside of our own perception, something not created by our own minds, our own society and culture. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

The vast majority of people would feel that to strangle a baby in the cradle would be an evil deed, yet what makes it evil? Is there a real proof of a God or Gods that state that this is wrong? Is this wrong according to Nature (remind that animals constantly kill the offspring of babies of the same species, for example: a male lion killing babies that are not his own)?

I tend to value that golden rule of empathy; to never do to others what you would not like to suffer yourself. However, even such a rule does not have any avail either in nature or in some divine law.

Good and Evil are human values, created by human beings, and although many of them are universal there are great differences among cultures and communities.

I should read Maldoror, but then I'd need to learn to read French, or resort to a
>translation
I thought it was 2016; no one takes Enlightenment nonsense seriously anymore.
It's 2016 guys, relativist nonsense isn't taken seriously anymore.

>relativist nonsense isn't taken seriously anymore.

What makes it nonsense? Care to explain?

It presumes what people think to be evil is truly evil rather than a reflection of a metaphysical evil.

No man: It starts that there is no evil: nothing is in itself evil or good

Do I have to go find that quote or are you going to stop coddling yourself?

Metaphysical evil? Lol

That's... that's not what relativist means. Do you read bullshit like this stuff?
salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo1/koukl.php

no because they are both subjective terms

Sure, what we consider good and evil may vary, but our definitions should not differ that much.