Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2014, 11:33 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:19 AM)tear151 Wrote:  How can there be a reasonable definition to an entirely subjective concept? A definition of benevolence can only be regarded as reasonable by you in a subjective system. Can you please provide what all the "Reasonable ideas of benevolence are" and why they are reasonable, otherwise what you said it meaningless, because no one other than you in this thread knows what you mean by that.

Benevolence is really a pretty simple concept. Its etymology is "good will" (bene + volens).

It is the desire to benefit others, and not harm them. And it is reasonable to assume that what benefits or harms oneself generally benefits or harms another.

You've assumed goodness is benefiting others or not harming others, that is an objective standard you've held the term goodness too, not a subjective one, you need to justify it further for it to be rational.

You've left a dichotomy for your position

1. You do accept morals are subjective and that statement is wrong by your own beliefs

2. You believe helping others to be an objective moral goodness and need to provide a rational basis for such that isn't your personal emotions.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:39 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:33 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  Benevolence is really a pretty simple concept. Its etymology is "good will" (bene + volens).

It is the desire to benefit others, and not harm them. And it is reasonable to assume that what benefits or harms oneself generally benefits or harms another.

You've assumed goodness is benefiting others or not harming others, that is an objective standard you've held the term goodness too, not a subjective one, you need to justify it further for it to be rational.

You've left a dichotomy for your position

1. You do accept morals are subjective and that statement is wrong by your own beliefs

2. You believe helping others to be an objective moral goodness and need to provide a rational basis for such that isn't your personal emotions.

Did I use the word 'goodness'? Nope.

I was clarifying the meaning of the word 'benevolent', not defining 'goodness'.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:33 AM)tear151 Wrote:  You've assumed goodness is benefiting others or not harming others, that is an objective standard you've held the term goodness too, not a subjective one, you need to justify it further for it to be rational.

You've left a dichotomy for your position

1. You do accept morals are subjective and that statement is wrong by your own beliefs

2. You believe helping others to be an objective moral goodness and need to provide a rational basis for such that isn't your personal emotions.

Did I use the word 'goodness'? Nope.

I was clarifying the meaning of the word 'benevolent', not defining 'goodness'.

Benevolence "the quality of being well meaning; kindness."

Well meaning: Having intentions that are good

Also, Good will implies that the will was good, if you claim that helping others is rationally benevolent, then you also accept that intending to help others is rationally good, rationally good is the same as objectively good, your position is objective.

Thus by dictionary definitions benevolence is being well meaning, i.e trying to be moral. Would you dispute this definition, if so, how would you define it? Note, if we disagree on this definition the discussion becomes pointless, as the two of you have different conceptions of benevolence. One of you is calling a house a rose, the other a spade a rose, and arguing over what a rose is.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:43 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2014 11:48 AM by Rik.)
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:42 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  Did I use the word 'goodness'? Nope.

I was clarifying the meaning of the word 'benevolent', not defining 'goodness'.

Benevolence "the quality of being well meaning; kindness."

Well meaning: Having intentions that are good

Thus by dictionary definitions benevolence is being well meaning, i.e trying to be moral. Would you dispute this definition, if so, how would you define it? Note, if we disagree on this definition the discussion becomes pointless, as the two of you have different conceptions of benevolence. One of you is calling a house a rose, the other a spade a rose, and arguing over what a rose is.

Yes, I certainly dispute your definition. You are overreaching.


benevolent
[buh-nev-uh-luh nt]

adjective

  1. characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings:
    a benevolent attitude; her benevolent smile.
  2. desiring to help others; charitable:
    gifts from several benevolent alumni.
  3. intended for benefits rather than profit:
    a benevolent institution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:43 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:42 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Benevolence "the quality of being well meaning; kindness."

Well meaning: Having intentions that are good

Thus by dictionary definitions benevolence is being well meaning, i.e trying to be moral. Would you dispute this definition, if so, how would you define it? Note, if we disagree on this definition the discussion becomes pointless, as the two of you have different conceptions of benevolence. One of you is calling a house a rose, the other a spade a rose, and arguing over what a rose is.

Yes, I certainly dispute your definition. You are overreaching.

What is your definition? What is the problem with mine?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  Benevolence is really a pretty simple concept. Its etymology is "good will" (bene + volens).

It is the desire to benefit others, and not harm them. And it is reasonable to assume that what benefits or harms oneself generally benefits or harms another.


Notice you're the one proposing that the standard of good to be "one between benefit and harm". This doesn't apply to those who might subscribe to a deontological view, or a virtue ethics view of morality, or those who view right or wrong based on intentions, rather than actions or consequences.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:45 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:42 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  Did I use the word 'goodness'? Nope.

I was clarifying the meaning of the word 'benevolent', not defining 'goodness'.

Benevolence "the quality of being well meaning; kindness."

Well meaning: Having intentions that are good

Also, Good will implies that the will was good, if you claim that helping others is rationally benevolent, then you also accept that intending to help others is rationally good, rationally good is the same as objectively good, your position is objective.

Thus by dictionary definitions benevolence is being well meaning, i.e trying to be moral. Would you dispute this definition, if so, how would you define it? Note, if we disagree on this definition the discussion becomes pointless, as the two of you have different conceptions of benevolence. One of you is calling a house a rose, the other a spade a rose, and arguing over what a rose is.

I did not define any of those extensions to the meaning of benevolence. Re-read my post, please.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:47 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2014 11:52 AM by tear151.)
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:42 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Benevolence "the quality of being well meaning; kindness."

Well meaning: Having intentions that are good

Also, Good will implies that the will was good, if you claim that helping others is rationally benevolent, then you also accept that intending to help others is rationally good, rationally good is the same as objectively good, your position is objective.

Thus by dictionary definitions benevolence is being well meaning, i.e trying to be moral. Would you dispute this definition, if so, how would you define it? Note, if we disagree on this definition the discussion becomes pointless, as the two of you have different conceptions of benevolence. One of you is calling a house a rose, the other a spade a rose, and arguing over what a rose is.

I did not define any of those extensions to the meaning of benevolence. Re-read my post, please.

You defined it as "good will"

Thus if it follows that helping others is benevolent, then it also follows from your definition that helping others is "good willed"

If something is "Good willed" then it is "Good", not simply you finding it to be "Good" but "Good", you need a different definition really, or to at least clarify it more.

To put it mathematically

Let Good willed= Benevolent

Let Benevolent = Helping others

=> Helping others = Good will

Let Good will (Is a proper subset of) Good

=> Helping others (Is a proper set of) Good

If you disagree with that analysis then I'm afraid you're simply not being clear.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ethical stances can be arrived at rationally and logically. As in any system, it requires some assumptions, such as defining basic human rights. But even those definitions can be logically arrived at.

So are you arguing against the view of moral relativism, that there are no right or wrong answers to moral disagreements?

No.

Quote:Are you claiming there is in fact objective morality, and we can uncover this through rational and logical inquiry?

No.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: Is Suffering Compatible With God's Existence?
(09-12-2014 11:43 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(09-12-2014 11:42 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Benevolence "the quality of being well meaning; kindness."

Well meaning: Having intentions that are good

Thus by dictionary definitions benevolence is being well meaning, i.e trying to be moral. Would you dispute this definition, if so, how would you define it? Note, if we disagree on this definition the discussion becomes pointless, as the two of you have different conceptions of benevolence. One of you is calling a house a rose, the other a spade a rose, and arguing over what a rose is.

Yes, I certainly dispute your definition. You are overreaching.


benevolent
[buh-nev-uh-luh nt]

adjective

  1. characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings:
    a benevolent attitude; her benevolent smile.
  2. desiring to help others; charitable:
    gifts from several benevolent alumni.
  3. intended for benefits rather than profit:
    a benevolent institution.

I dispute 2, that seems to have been written by people who have already assumed that desiring to help others satisfies definition 1, definition one matches the actual usage of the word more closely.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: