The question of good and evil

 The good and evil debate has been going on since the beginning of time. Is it socially conditioned? Or is it a biological imperative, or maybe there is some objective reality to it. In any case, the central premise of the debate revolves around the fact that if we have to raise the question of good and evil then we have to be able to tell them apart and in order to do that we will need some sort of a standard by which to classify them first. The question then arises where should such a standard come from and how to convince everybody to accept it without undue coercing.

The most hotly debated aspect of the debate naturally focuses on the notion of the standard giver, divine or otherwise and the related issue of sovereignty. First look does support the premise that if there is no standard giver then there will be no standard and when there is no standard then good and evil lose its respective supposedly inherent properties.

The other possibility is that the standard sort of developed or evolved through the ages. But in that case, there can be no compulsion for it to be accepted unconditionally by all in the present. More importantly, what should we do with those who reject it? If we don't do anything then things going seriously wrong should either be accepted as part of its evolution or try to convince those who remain unconvinced. What should be the consequences if we fail to convince them? Should we threaten them if they refuse to accept it? But that will obviously bring the whole premise of the self-evidencing standard in question.

Similarly, if we assume that the standard has evolutionary characteristic it will still not solve the problem of acceptance by all. Somebody can simply turn around and say so what if it is evolutionary? And we are back to square one.

Unless the issue of standard with sufficient juice behind it can be resolved it is illogical to raise the issue of good and evil and expect everyone to fall in line. Neither is a show of hands a solution. Coercion either by force or force employed after a show of hands is both problematic.

We may attempt to dissect the debate further and look at it from different angles. Should it be tackled Ontologically, epistemologically, normatively, cognitively or something else? In doing so we usually feel satisfied that we did something about it but in reality, we simply kicked the can down the road.

Some have even tried to tie the presence of evil as evidence against God's existence. The absurdity of the claim can be summoned up in the following exchange:

P1. If pointless evils exist, then God does not exist

 P2. Pointless evils do exist

 C. Therefore, God does not exist

The problem with that is that one can very easily turn it around to:

P1. If pointless evils exist, then God does not exist.

 P2. God does exist.

 C. Therefore, pointless evils do not exist.

To muddle the issue further different forced classifications of evil are laid out in order to "prove" that God doesn't exist and when one is refuted another is propped up. All presumably in a futile attempt to camouflage the real issue of justifying morality without God. Hence, first, it was just evil till many reasonable explanations were put forward. Then came the logical evil until Plantinga articulation pushed it back. Predictably the evidential argument from evil was made the focus and the semantics merry-go-round was spun further.

Irrespective of how evil is classified, there is a fundamental issue with the argument: Should God intervene unconditionally in each instance of an evil act being committed? Does God intervene selectively?

Most of those who are of the opinion that God should step in to prevent acts of evils haven't really thought this through. So how will all this work in practice? Should God intervene on demand? Furthermore, how should competing demands be handled? Those who say God should know better still insist on second-guessing God.

Instead of a separate definition of evil or a wrong or oppression, a displacement of something from its rightful place makes more sense. Some of the resulting displacement can be remedied in this world but some needs a total reset of the world to right a wrong. Hence, the hereafter is a logical progression of the notion.

Ironically, it is in this ontological domain that an actual proof of God was articulated by arguably the finest practitioner of the art, Kurt Friedrich Gödel. The proof was checked and crossed checked recently to put the matter beyond doubt.

If there is no objective morality or Devin moral code then all that is left is fear of the tribe but in that case, if one genuinely believes they can get away with it should they be classified as immoral or evil? In the fear of the tribe scenario, should obedience of the type "I was following orders" be deemed as "Good" enough when clearly it contradicts the rest of the equation?

If we were to go by what has survived, historical record keeping is a relatively new phenomenon, hence, it is impossible to trace back how killing someone for material gains became a bad thing or giving up your scarce resources voluntarily became a good thing. Furthermore, in a "just" war, killing is not a bad thing because it is "necessary". Not to mention how to deal with the inevitable "collateral damage". And don't get me started on the good and bad of sex.

5,000 years of philosophical debate has failed to resolve the central issue of good and evil to the satisfaction of all. (If you feel lucky dive in here and explore) And that makes it subjective. Morality by itself is nothing but an anthropical fantasy at best. The Trolly Problem is one of the better demonstrations of it.

That brings us to the intertwined question in the good and evil debate; all this towards what end? No amount of wishing it away has worked. To pretend it is not relevant is absurd. As somebody put it "What does that matter if I'm just going to kill myself?" or the less radical “I am going to die anyway”.

A quick cap on how the philosophical debate has panned out: The current focus on intelligence is nothing new. In fact, "Cogito ergo sum" never moved beyond the Modernist debate of Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz, forming one camp and Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume sitting on the opposing team. Generally speaking of course. Existentialist, on the other hand, decided more or less to shelve serious reasoning and logic. So we have already been through the nonstarters like happiness for the sake of happiness and duty for the sake of duty and in the case of Existentialist, freedom for the sake of freedom, I guess. And many similar half-cooked notions. Latecomers should at least look up the history of these debates before insisting on a position as if they just invented the wheel.

That was all about the modernists, the postmodern philosophies, of course, made mincemeat of the earlier misadventures and in the process “thinking” itself in some way. According to some of them why we continue to sacrifice reality? Why don’t we acknowledge Nietzsche’s wake up call that knowledge is what the mighty says it is? And by implication good and evil. What about Heidegger, Derrida, and Wittgenstein who drove an 18-wheeler through the philosophy of old and identified the limitation of language and logic.

Furthermore, what about the structuralism and the post-structuralism, the Bartheses, Kristevas and Derridas of the world, what is to be said of Lyotard’s attack on progress and Foucault siding with Nietzsche to yet again reminds us that power and knowledge are mutually complicit. Napoleon was right to highlight the fact that victors write the history in these words “ History is a set of lies agreed upon”, ironically he is reported to have declined to take credit for it.

And while we are at it, what about the hyperreality of Baudrillard, where would one fit Feyerabend’s epistemological anarchism or is Thomas Kuhn right? Or for that matter is pragmatism the way to go? Predictably the whole postmodernism movement was taken to task and accused of Obscurantism. Some went on to declare it "Fashionable Nonsense". Fake news label is not far behind. And it continues.

The funny part is that this same mindset sneaked into the science space. As previously highlighted, the likes of Futuyma, Gould, Dawkins, and Krauss have a right to their philosophy but they do not have the right to try and pass the mixed sophistry as though it is all science. Essentially, a book selling racket running after the lunch money of impressionable young minds.

Philosophical gymnastics to date have concluded that we cannot hope to go beyond proving the existence of our own consciousness, yes just our own and even that when we get to that final stage if ever. Reality check is that we are still struggling with the most fundamental questions of philosophy. And it doesn't look like we are going to get answers any time soon. We need help from beyond.

After a while, it became clear to many of us that between the fence sitters and the blind faith proponents there must be a third way. Although the militant Atheist deserves to be ignored (I don’t know and you don’t know), along with the Existentialists ( at best an idealistic doctrine), my question to the fence sitters was; How long are you willing to wait? If we were all immortals than I would jump up and sit on the fence right beside you and wait. This belief, non-belief is not going to help me as an individual if the answers are not forthcoming within my lifetime and preferably earlier part of it. I have to shape my life now and ensure I don't miss a trick. By taking on Pascal's wager I am spreading my bets. The write and wrong of it from a philosophical point of view is irrelevant to me as an individual because of time constraints.

The funny thing is it doesn't matter which way you jump from a reason and logic perspective, there are intelligent people on both sides with very compelling arguments to support their respective positions.

So next we took on the blind faith proponents and explored the possibility of verifiable belief. It may appear counter-intuitive but “it is true because it says so in the book” actually makes sense if one first verifies the origin of the book and/or the author.

Hence, those of us who took out the time to verify and validate genuine revelations have no doubt that good and evil are what the creator determine them to be. In all my research along with many others like me, the justification for an objective morality and most fundamental jurisprudence has exclusive roots in the revealed word of God. Just because people have liberally borrowed from the scriptures throughout the ages and then forgot or deny how they know what they know doesn't mean it is their own efforts.

Most scriptures are clear on its Universality and timelessness. We are the ignorant ones who repeatedly fail to differentiate between the fixed laws for our unchanging needs and freedom to formulate laws based on changing needs. The latter by its very nature is amendable and/or can be deleted from the books but the former is fixed in the book (s) of God. The most important factor that frames both is the environment where both can be justly obeyed and enforced. The underlying theme of the Divine message is closer to situational and not disproportional when judging people.

End of story for now.