Evil is something caused by living things with free will which is intended to cause harm or misery to something or someone else, though different people have different views on what evil is. One argument is the atheist argument, and that God can’t exist if he allows evil. John Mill, an atheist philosopher, says that God can’t be real because if he was then he would not allow this much suffering to happen, especially to innocent people. Another non-religious view is that sometimes bad things happen, not because a ‘God’ has made it, but just because not everything that happens in the world is good. For example, there was a mini-bus crash where 12 children and a teacher were killed, and an atheist would say the mini-bus and lorry were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that it certainly did not have anything to do with God.
-- Plato. Society may have a lot of affect on perfectly good people turning evil. At the end of the day if all of society turned evil, then the good people would turn too. People aren't just born evil they choose to be evil. "It's hard to accept that all the evil in the world comes down to something so simple.
Mencius felt greed might eventually push man to turn evil. He felt it was will power that man lacked if this happened. Many people believe in good and evil. Though in reality good and evil is a fine line. What is a good deed to someone might be conceived as an evil deed to someone else.
This was morally acceptable to the Japanese; though the United States saw this as inhumane. The United States goes on to drop the atomic bomb which kills thousands of civilians.It is widely accepted, with some discrepancy, that Truman made this decision to save Japanese and American lives that would be lost in a land invasion. This also was considered morally wrong by other nations. This is where Blackburn’s argument of relativism threatens ethics. What may be seen as ethically acceptable to one region may be seen as a monstrosity to ethics in another.
We promote goodness and happiness using nature and experience, we can work out thus, that murder, for example, is wrong because committing murder does not cause happiness. Ergo, Ethical Naturalism produces universal laws which can be used as a benchmark to measure our own and other people’s moral conduct. Meta-ethics on the other hand believes that no ethical language is universal and objective. Non-naturalists and non-cognitivists such as Cambridge philosopher G. E. Moore believe that ethical language is subjective, as by claiming that they are objective is committing the ‘naturalistic fallacy’. This states that it is a mistake to define ‘good’ in terms of things that exist (natural properties) that we already
Slurs, on the other hand, are simply wrong. Although all slurs are harmful, society does not seem to react unless enough people have made a big deal about it. The use of the “N” word from a white person would be a huge deal, while the use of the word “cracker” would likely be overlooked. Why is it that schools would punish people for the use of the “N” word and not “cracker”? It is because no one has made a big deal about it.
Can one be moral and not believe in God? Have you ever judged or been judged unfairly? How about thinking someone’s a bad person because they don’t believe in God? In the world today we are beginning to see an ethical system being built based on tolerance and enlightenment; apart from God. A person undoubtedly can ne moral without believing in God.
Are people born good or bad? Michael Caballero Although Hobbes was right about nature of people that is evil he was wrong about government having absolute power, in the other hand Locke was right about power corrupts the people but wrong about people being born with a clean slate. For example Adolf Hitler, he was the worst because he killed a lot of innocent Jews. Hobbes thought that the world was evil because he lived during a war and saw stuff that nobody would want to see. Ayatollah Khomeini one of the 20th century's most ruthless leaders.
For example, in the case of lying, a deontologist would argue that lying is always wrong, doesn’t matter even if it holds any potential to creating a greater good. While the consequentialist would say that to lie is a wrong thing to do because it would cause negative outcomes as a result, however lying could still be allowed, knowing that it would lead to the creation of a greater good. While as for a virtue-ethicist would care less on just about lying, but focus more on what does the decision say about his/her own traits and character. So here are several features that make the theory of virtue ethics distinctive compared to the other
Agnosticism is the purely epistemological stance that sufficient evidence does not exist for or against theism therefore the best stance on the argument is no stance at all. Combinations of these positions are possible due to their varying natures, but here only the argument between theism and atheism is examined more closely. The problem of evil is described and used to argue against the existence of God. Richard Swinburne’s solution to the problem of evil is explained and used to revise the original atheist’s argument from evil to its best, but still insufficient, form. Commonly, atheists hold the view that organized religions are corrupt and actually cause more harm than good.