Spinoza Pantheism Defined

Okay, so for Evil we are looking at HUMAN actions.Looking at the definition you supplied it seems that there is another requirement.From the definition:

quote:

---

In religion and ethics, Evil refers to the "bad" aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings ” those which are deliberately void of conscience, and show a wanton penchant for destruction.

---

Does the latter part of that imply intent?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nope. You've had hints - and building blocks has some, comments on Deism show others. But, I don't feel it is my place to preach my belief, rather that everyone needs to find their own path.I do see a lot of resonance with anglagards 'spinozan pantheism' in general (and his resonance with taoism\buddism), but an essential difference is that I don't believe {god\essence} currently exists, while being the root cause and the end result of all (universe) existence.Is that clear?

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

If animals have no free-will, they can not change God's plan. If they have no knowledge of good and evil, they can not be accountable for evil.

Yes, intent is implied. Isn't intent a subjective human action?

I am not sure intent is an action. The behavior is the action, but is intent?Going back to your definition, so you can help me work this through, it contained: Note: "void of conscience".This is where I question intent.Often someone who does Evil may not Intend to do Evil. To use the old and worn example of Hitler, "Did Hitler intend Evil in the Final Solution?"How does one qualify "Deliberately" "void" "of conscience" or "wanton" "penchant" "for destruction"?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Do I detect some *intent* with this seemingly wanton usage of capitals? I think you are up to one of those incredible and trade-marked analogies again.

Intent is an action of the mind but it is not an action of behavior. Using the term action in regard to intent is confusing however, so it would have been better to use something like "a subjective human motivation." It's actually Wikipedia's definition used for convenience to illustrate the difference between evil and bad to answer your question if they are synonomous. I do not claim personal ownership of the entire definition nor do I necessarily agree with all parts of said definition. He and his supporters probably didn't view it as evil as they personally benefitted. Somehow I don't believe Nazi's were global utilitarians, nor would the greater part of the world population. In fact, subjective or not, the term 'evil' would probably be a common descriptor among most people. You got me, maybe we should ask the author.Apparently, the Wiki definition is not real useful beyond showing that evil requires a human agent.My original 'intent' is that terms such as bad, evil, good, etc. are subjective. I don't see anything yet disputing this point. Now if we need to find a good or even perfect definition of good, evil, bad, etc. to continue, we may be here a long time. Perhaps we could find a better definition of the terms that we may mutually agree on just for the sake of discussion as opposed to finding the 'ideal' definitions. Do you have any suggestions?Or would the task prove too difficult, thereby confirming their subjective nature?

Good vs evil or good at the other end of evil? isn't it a spectrum of behavior that we are discussing? from "saint" to "devil".What I see these as, is more a reflection of our intellectual belief in a capability to act outside of "natural" behavior, whether that belief is true or not. You say lions can't be evil, but we don't know how they see it.We have seen instances in primates and apes where moral behavior attributes can be assigned and appear to operate:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...17_monkeyfairness.htmlSo is this moral, or just normal behavior for a social animal? If it is normal, then by your definition for the lions it is not evil.Same for murder etc?Evil would have to be so much more -- as would the other extreme of good behavior (that has so few synonyms in our vocabulary ... interesting?).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I absolutely agree that they are subjective. Evil though as opposed to bad carries a distinct moral judgment. That is the part I think needs to be addressed.Folk, you for example, say stuff like "God would not allow Evil."But EVIL, seems to be very much a product of human creation. It is one group judging another groups intentions and motivations.An asteroid strikes wiping out millions. Very bad but not Evil.Allies invade Europe, killing millions, bombing whole cities into oblivion. Very bad but perhaps not Evil.Final Solution. Evil.So EVIL is not so much the event, the action or even the result but a judgment of humans by humans.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If the definition of evil requires a human agent, then lions can't be evil. If the definition is extended beyond just applying to humans, than perhaps lions could be called evil according to lion standards, but it would stil be subjective.Who could divine what the absolute standards are for good or bad lion behavior, or for that matter even primate behavior, when we can't even agree on standard definitions of good, bad, or evil human behavior that work across all cultures and all times under all circumstances?Sociability and cooperation are usually considered good traits but is their opposite bad? Are hermits bad or to the extreme, evil?Still seems subjective to me.Just because moral judgments are subjective does not provide an excuse for making no moral judgments. We all have to do it to the best of our understanding to live as social beings.

Logically, if God is separate from creation, and God is all-powerful, and God is intimately involved with human affairs, and God is against all evil even if it is a subjectively-derived human idea, then by definition evil should not exist.Now if God has nothing to do with any subjectively-derived human idea of evil, and such an idea is entirely a human construct, then what any given human may call evil could exist. This may also apply to any deity that simply created and is not further concerned with human actions.Therin lies the rub. When some members call evil an objective reality that exists outside of human judgment, some theological problems concerning an all-good, all-powerful, hands-on managment deity begin to appear.That is my point, I hope this helps to clarify what I said, which was evidently not well-defined and lent itself to some misunderstanding.

I think a better contrast would be tigers rather than lions - loners versus social animals, as what would be "moral" for different kinds of animals depends on the animals eh?Subjective for sure, but there is another side here, where we consider moral behavior to be {outside} natural behavior, and the problem is in defining the limits of natural behavior. The concept of evil is really behavior that is outside natural behavior.We see empathy in animals so empathy is natural, and thus behavior based on empathy alone is natural rather than moral.I also find it curious that we seem to have an ultimate bad in evil but not an ultimate good in ____ (blank word?). Does that not tell us that "morality" is more about controlling bad behavior than in rewarding good?Wouldn't that be a natural behavior for a social animal? Good only needs to be good enough to keep friends, but unrepentant evil gets ostracized.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Human further does not mean 'God'. If God exists, we can not prove 'deliberate *void* of conscience, or wanton *penchant* for destruction as part of His intent in creation. He can not be said to have created evil, but good. WE have created evil. Good is absolute to me, we just can not perfectly know its face.

I am not sure I see a spectrum. I see 'natural' behavior as a universal tv screen, for lack of better analogy, and 'evil' as a temporary obstruction of parts of the transmission. The spectrum is in our own minds, and the extent of the evil is detemined relative to our view of the screen, the size and duration of the obstruction. I may believe that there is an absolute transmission possible, and an absolute lack of transmission as well, but so far, since I have not seen that, I have no 'proof' outside of these beliefs. All I can do is say 'relative to what I HAVE SEEN, this action was worse, or better'.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

That looks like a spectrum to me.