Blood upon the Risers: Droopy and Evil

[_Droopy]

Over at ironically named MD&D board, my good friend Loran Blood (hereafter: Droopy or Droops) has started a thread about an LDS Themed Theodicy, where he requested:

Pursuant to this, I'd like to continue the exploration of the subject, from an LDS standpoint, and engage the default positions of the broad secular culture (moral value relativism/situational ethics/nihilism) from that perspective. A civil, reasoned, rigorous philosophical discussion would be appreciated.

SAUCE
If it’s rigor my friend wants, then allow me to help him out! Since I’m apparently not a part of the broad secular culture (I’m not a moral relativist, situational ethicist, nor nihilist), I can’t defend that, but I can help Droops tighten up his game. See here:

From a gospel perspective, this is much clearer. Evil and good are core ontological categories of existence and are conceptually and definitionally linked by necessity. If one exists, the other must, by definition, also exist as the basis upon which the other is conceived.

First, congrats to Droops for making up a new word (definitionally). Second, Droops is correct that what he describes is a gospel perspective:

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

I have to say that I’m impressed with Droop’s use of the phrase “ontological categories”, now if he has any idea what that really is cannot be answered by me, but I’ll assume he knows how such terminology works.

To Droops, good and evil are ‘core ontological categories of existence’ which I take to mean existence(hereafter: M) is a primary ontological category, and good(hereafter: G) and evil(hereafter: E) are secondary categories. To me, these categories are modally robust (e.g.. not subjective, like the ontology used in biology to divide kingdoms and such, nor prone to change) and so it follows that M, G, and E are natural classes (I hope Droops isn’t a good Lockean, because this flies in the face of Locke), with G and E being natural subclasses of M.

Sadly, Droops doesn’t explicitly explain how G and E are linked by necessity, but I understand the sentence, “If one exists, the other must, by definition, also exist as the basis upon which the other is conceived” to mean that E is the absence of G and vice versa, that is to say, when you posit the existence of G, you also posit it’s negation, not good( ~G). If you have ~G then you have E.
So let us lay out the 4 premises of Droopy’s thought:

(P1): G -> ~G
If Good, then not Good, on the surface, (P1) looks like a contradiction, but you should understand it just to mean that if something Good is taking place at location X, then something not Good is taking place at location Y. In Droopy‘s post, you need the not Good to be able to understand the Good.

(P2) ~G -> E
If not Good then Evil. Recall that Droopy made it explicit that Good and Evil are linked by definition

(P3) E -> ~E
If something Evil happens at X, something not Evil happens at Y

(P4) ~E -> G
If not Evil, then Good

(P1) through (P4) seem viciously circular, but really, we should look at this as some kind of tautology, such as saying all bachelors are unmarried (again, this fits Droop’s thesis that good and evil are linked by definition).

All This seems appropriate for Droops, how often have we heard the trite and quite false idea expressed in terms like, “You wouldn’t know joy unless you knew misery”. This idea is, quite fittingly, espoused by the Book of Mormon passage above.

But what if you had a proposition like this?

(P5) Darth J sat on the chair.

(P5) seems to defy classification as either good or evil (more precisely; G v E), but by Droops’ own espoused ontology, (P5) must fit into some natural subclass of M. In the question of G or E, it seems we must posit a third subclass of M to deal with things like (P5), let us call it N (for neutral).

Now the problem becomes clear, since something can neither be both E and N (they are mutually exclusive, same for G and N, G and E), wherever one finds ~G, you may or may not find E:

(P2*)~G à E v N
( If not Good then Evil or Neutral)

So it follows when (P5) obtains, and Darth J sits on a chair, we are seeing something that is not good (~G), but this instance of ~G is also ~E, in the very least ~G and ~E are necessary for N, so:

(P6) N -> ~G & ~E
(If Neutral then not Good and not Evil)

So, let’s look at this little argument:

(P4*) ~E ->G v N
(P7) N
(P8) N -> ~G & ~E
(C1) ~G & ~E

So (P7) and (P8), shows us (by way of modus ponens) that something neutral is both not good and not evil , and since we know these concepts to be linked by their very definition (recall Droopy’s own words, “If one exists, the other must, by definition, also exist as the basis upon which the other is conceived.“), it reasonable to state:

(P9) ~G & ~E -> G & E

Now what follows is a simple chain argument:
(P7) N
(P8) N -> ~G & ~E
(P9) ~G & ~E -> G & E
(C2) G & E
(C3) N -> G & E

Droopy’s ontology and attempted LDS themed theodicy will inevitably lead to the contradiction that a neutral act is both good and evil, or if N is not allowed for some reason, then (P1) through (P4) is at best, an unconvincing tautology and at worst, a vicious circle.

I may start a new thread in the Celestial if you really want to discuss this at length. However, I will amend your own arguments and edit them down to some core criticisms of my arguments, as I have no interest in propositional or symbolic logic, as I find much of it, as good an intellectual exercise as it is, irrelevant to the kind of serious discourse possible only with natural language.

There are too many shadings, nuances, coloration, and permutations of language meaning and context for such a narrow, deductively confined argument strategy.

[_brade]

I may start a new thread in the Celestial if you really want to discuss this at length. However, I will amend your own arguments and edit them down to some core criticisms of my arguments, as I have no interest in propositional or symbolic logic, as I find much of it, as good an intellectual exercise as it is, irrelevant to the kind of serious discourse possible only with natural language.

There are too many shadings, nuances, coloration, and permutations of language meaning and context for such a narrow, deductively confined argument strategy.

I think that's a fine idea. Despite the worries you've expressed about the symbolic logic, I do hope you address it. In terms of symbolic logic there really isn't anything that sophisticated going on there and it's mainly being used, I'm sure, for convenience.

Just for starters, do you believe that there are neutral acts? The discussion will, I think, go in quite different directions depending on your answer.

[_stemelbow]

I'm just trying to think of Dj here, so keep that in mind. Perhaps there's a monster who enters a room that has DJ and about 12 little kids. The monster says, "I will eat everyone who is not sitting in a chair". There are but three chairs. Two of the chairs are quickly occupied. The third chair has a sweet little girl about to sit down, but just as she reaches the chair and begins to sit, DJ picks her up and tosses her at the monster. DJ watches happily in his chair as the monster eats all the kids. All of the sudden, DJ sitting in a chair can be seen as evil.

Or let's be a little gracious to ol' DJ for some odd reason. Let's say he's somehow grown a heart and helped his neighbor. Perhaps 3 feet of snow falls. DJ comes home and finds his littleold lady neighbor trying to clean snow off the drive way. DJ heads inside to eat because he hasn't eaten for a couple hours but after that he decides to go out and help the old lady clean up her driveway. It turns out she needs to get the hospital. DJ drives the lady tot he hospital in his car and calls her family. he then heads back to her place and cleans up the snow for her. Well, DJ had a long day this day. He went to work and worked himself up a hearty appetite. he then rushed a lday to the hospital and then cleaned off her snowy driveway and walks. After all of this we'll say he calls the family to see how the lady is doing and it turns out she is doing just fine but really hopes to come home to a cleaned up driveway and walks so she can go inside and rest. Exhausted DJ takes a seat on a chair in his house.
In this instance there can be seen as something good to DJ sitting down. Its not necessarily neutral, its good. He can rest his weary bones.

More likely DJ comes home and camps himself on his favorite chair parking it in front of the TV eating twinkies for 18 straight hours. His acition of sitting in the chair can then be cateogrized as evil, I'd say.

I wouldn't say DJ sitting in a chair is neutral. Its his intent that matters. If he sits for no reason, then perhaps he's being slothful. If he sits to rest for a few then its a good thing. If he sits to work at his computer then it can be good. if he sits to whimper and whine while posting nonsense on MormonDiscussions then its probably evil again.

[_Darth J]

The OP is questioning a simple-minded, Manichean idea of morality that implies.everthing has to be forced into categories of good or evil because of the shallowness of the thinking behind it.
And then Stemelbow, deep thinker extraordinaire, refutes the OP by confirming it.

Stemelbow talking about anyone else whimpering and whining about nonsense is like a crack whore lecturing about the law of chastity.

[_brade]

I'm just trying to think of Dj here, so keep that in mind. Perhaps there's a monster who enters a room that has DJ and about 12 little kids. The monster says, "I will eat everyone who is not sitting in a chair". There are but three chairs. Two of the chairs are quickly occupied. The third chair has a sweet little girl about to sit down, but just as she reaches the chair and begins to sit, DJ picks her up and tosses her at the monster. DJ watches happily in his chair as the monster eats all the kids. All of the sudden, DJ sitting in a chair can be seen as evil.

Or let's be a little gracious to ol' DJ for some odd reason. Let's say he's somehow grown a heart and helped his neighbor. Perhaps 3 feet of snow falls. DJ comes home and finds his littleold lady neighbor trying to clean snow off the drive way. DJ heads inside to eat because he hasn't eaten for a couple hours but after that he decides to go out and help the old lady clean up her driveway. It turns out she needs to get the hospital. DJ drives the lady tot he hospital in his car and calls her family. he then heads back to her place and cleans up the snow for her. Well, DJ had a long day this day. He went to work and worked himself up a hearty appetite. he then rushed a lday to the hospital and then cleaned off her snowy driveway and walks. After all of this we'll say he calls the family to see how the lady is doing and it turns out she is doing just fine but really hopes to come home to a cleaned up driveway and walks so she can go inside and rest. Exhausted DJ takes a seat on a chair in his house.
In this instance there can be seen as something good to DJ sitting down. Its not necessarily neutral, its good. He can rest his weary bones.

More likely DJ comes home and camps himself on his favorite chair parking it in front of the TV eating twinkies for 18 straight hours. His acition of sitting in the chair can then be cateogrized as evil, I'd say.

I wouldn't say DJ sitting in a chair is neutral. Its his intent that matters. If he sits for no reason, then perhaps he's being slothful. If he sits to rest for a few then its a good thing. If he sits to work at his computer then it can be good. if he sits to whimper and whine while posting nonsense on MormonDiscussions then its probably evil again.

So, do you believe there are no neutral acts?

[_stemelbow]

So, do you believe there are no neutral acts?

nah...I just saw the OP and spotted a reference to DJ and thought I'd give a poke. I love how upset he gets. Sometimes I can't help myself.

[_Buffalo]

I'm just trying to think of Dj here, so keep that in mind. Perhaps there's a monster who enters a room that has DJ and about 12 little kids. The monster says, "I will eat everyone who is not sitting in a chair". There are but three chairs. Two of the chairs are quickly occupied. The third chair has a sweet little girl about to sit down, but just as she reaches the chair and begins to sit, DJ picks her up and tosses her at the monster. DJ watches happily in his chair as the monster eats all the kids. All of the sudden, DJ sitting in a chair can be seen as evil.

Or let's be a little gracious to ol' DJ for some odd reason. Let's say he's somehow grown a heart and helped his neighbor. Perhaps 3 feet of snow falls. DJ comes home and finds his littleold lady neighbor trying to clean snow off the drive way. DJ heads inside to eat because he hasn't eaten for a couple hours but after that he decides to go out and help the old lady clean up her driveway. It turns out she needs to get the hospital. DJ drives the lady tot he hospital in his car and calls her family. he then heads back to her place and cleans up the snow for her. Well, DJ had a long day this day. He went to work and worked himself up a hearty appetite. he then rushed a lday to the hospital and then cleaned off her snowy driveway and walks. After all of this we'll say he calls the family to see how the lady is doing and it turns out she is doing just fine but really hopes to come home to a cleaned up driveway and walks so she can go inside and rest. Exhausted DJ takes a seat on a chair in his house.
In this instance there can be seen as something good to DJ sitting down. Its not necessarily neutral, its good. He can rest his weary bones.

More likely DJ comes home and camps himself on his favorite chair parking it in front of the TV eating twinkies for 18 straight hours. His acition of sitting in the chair can then be cateogrized as evil, I'd say.

I wouldn't say DJ sitting in a chair is neutral. Its his intent that matters. If he sits for no reason, then perhaps he's being slothful. If he sits to rest for a few then its a good thing. If he sits to work at his computer then it can be good. if he sits to whimper and whine while posting nonsense on MormonDiscussions then its probably evil again.

[_Themis]

I'm just trying to think of Dj here, so keep that in mind. Perhaps there's a monster who enters a room that has DJ and about 12 little kids. The monster says, "I will eat everyone who is not sitting in a chair". There are but three chairs. Two of the chairs are quickly occupied. The third chair has a sweet little girl about to sit down, but just as she reaches the chair and begins to sit, DJ picks her up and tosses her at the monster. DJ watches happily in his chair as the monster eats all the kids. All of the sudden, DJ sitting in a chair can be seen as evil.

Perhaps DJ being much more intelligent then you piles the kids sitting on top of each other on each chair and realized that the girl had to be put on top of him so as to not crush her and all could survive. :)

[_brade]

Hmmm, stak, I've been going through the argument and I'm not sure it does follow that Droopy’s ontology and attempted LDS themed theodicy will inevitably lead to the contradiction that a neutral act is both good and evil. Give me some more time to think this through. I'll post about it later.

[_stemelbow]

Hmmm, stak, I've been going through the argument and I'm not sure it does follow that Droopy’s ontology and attempted LDS themed theodicy will inevitably lead to the contradiction that a neutral act is both good and evil. Give me some more time to think this through. I'll post about it later.

Is it impossible to find oneself in the complete neutral realm? Either whatever you do is at least somewhat evil or is it somewhat good? Does it lean more to the good, even if it appears evil?