Subj : Knowledge of Good & E 1/2 To : KEVIN GIBSON From : LEE LOFASO Date : Sun Jul 22 2001 08:29 am Hello Kevin, >LL>Without a point of reference, there can be no "good" or "evil". KG>Yes, yes, I understand. From what point of reference do you understand? >LL>In other words, in order to do "good" one must have knowledge of both >LL>"good" and "evil", otherwise whatever one does cannot be known by >LL>him or her as being either "good" or "evil". KG>Yes, but... what do you mean by "have knowledge?" First, one should have an understanding of what knowledge *is*. How can knowledge be defined, in an understandable way? Assuming that a man's reason is developed, he/she should be able to recognize the existence of a natural moral law. That in and of itself does not make a man "good" or "evil", or even give him the knowledge of good and evil. But it does give him a basis on which to discern what is good and what is evil. >LL>Since one cannot make a good choice if there is no bad choice >LL>available, it is not possible for one to do good. We would therefore >LL>become victims of a nanny state, not having the need or desire >LL>to think for ourselves. KG>I'd like to disagree with this. In what way? KG>If a state restricts your choices, you have the choice to >disregard the restrictions. Sometimes, individuals do not have a choice. The state seeks to impose its will on the individual, in which the individual is forced to comply. KG>That, in itself, can be a bad choice. It can also be a *good* choice. Suppose that a state chooses to go to war, drafting all able-bodied young men age 18-25. Any individual who refuses to comply with such order faces the firing squad. The war itself is suicidal, not many men returning home alive. And those who do are so mangled and disfigured from fighting that their lives are no longer worth living. In the face of such tyranny and oppression by a state, does the individual choose to comply with the state's wishes or does the individual rise up to lead a rebellion to overthrow those in charge? Which is better for the individual? Which is better for the common good? KG>One often needs only one example of a bad choice as a reference >in order to narrow the options. Does it? We all make choices, not all of them "good". KG>LL>What is a "good" act, and what is an "evil" act? How is one able to KG>LL>know the difference? KG>Can you make this a multiple choice test? I only wish that life was so simple. :) >LL>It cannot be said that the forbidden fruit was "evil", or even a >LL>temptation. KG>The forbidden fruit has something to do with knowledge. It is the tree of good and evil, not the tree of knowledge. Two different things. The result of eating the fruit from the tree of good and evil was that one would have *knowledge* of good and evil. KG>It *is* a temptation. Neither the fruit nor the tree was a temptation, at least not until the serpent tempted them. And even then, was it the fruit/tree that was the temptation, or was it the desire for *knowledge*? KG>If we define "evil" as inferior, we might look at mortality as >inferior to immortality. Mortality resulted from the choice. That may be one way to look at things. But if so, one would be stating an impossible happening. For instance, mortality implies that there is a definite beginning and a definite end. Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. In fact, this argument can be extended to include all living things. It can also be extended to include all things animate and inanimate. Therefore, can anything truly be *immortal*? >LL>If that were so, then God Himself would be "evil", creating "evil" >LL>creatures for His own "evil" purposes. KG>That depends on who defines God, evil, and does the assessing. KG>Can we define God? We do it all the time. But just because man defines God in his own image, does it make it necessarily so that that is what God *is*? >LL>Given that morality is a convention of man, any definition of what >LL>constitutes a morally good act would be subjective, in light of >LL>absolute truth. And what is absolute truth, if such truth cannot >LL>be ascertained by man as absolutely true? KG>All evidence is subjective in part because of the way we perceive. However, given that a man's reason is developed, he can recognize the existence of a natural moral law. In that light, man can discern what is absolute truth, at least in certain cases. >LL>How then, can we come up with a definition of "good" and "evil", and >LL>how such good and evil can be measured by man? KG>This is much more of a response than I expected. KG>Where are you going? It could be anywhere, depending on the nature of this thread. :) >LL>That brings us to what constitutes a moral evil. If there is a good >LL>and an evil, both good and evil must have an origin. By making >LL>a premise that God is the source of all good, then what is the >LL>origin of evil? KG>Is God the author of all things? Could be. After all, can you or anyone else come up with any truly original thought? I can't. Perhaps this whole world is a result of God having a bad dream. I have no way of knowing for sure. >LL>Can good come from evil? KG>Yes. But did you mean can evil come from good? There are two basic views on this. Either man was created good and is tempted by evil, or man was created evil but capable of doing good. >>> Continued to next message * SLMR 2.1a * And I declare it's too bad, that it is! --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140) .