Hi, Donna, thank you for your reply!Donna Walker 1 wrote: ↑February 21st, 2023, 1:45 pm "There is no "Problem of Evil" because there is no evil."
Every time I see this statement, I am perplexed.
What about the sentence before that one: There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.
Do you agree with that one?
As I use the terms, they are essentially the same statement.
I typically think of the word "evil" as simply meaning "something that really ought not be" or in yet other synonymous words as meaning, "something that should not have happened".
Imagine one person says, "The hurricane that happened yesterday is evil". And a second person says, "That hurricane that happened yesterday should not have happened." And a third person says, "That hurricane that happened yesterday ought not have happened." And a forth person says, "That hurricane that happened yesterday was morally wrong."
I would interpret all four people in the above situation as all saying the exact them thing, just with different words. Likewise, I would interpret it as all four people either (1) saying something exists that I do not believe exists or (2) saying something that doesn't make sense.
Generally, if someone says "Bob is evil", I interpret that as meaning the exact same thing as saying, "Bob should not be the way he is." Is that what you mean when you call people "evil"?Donna Walker 1 wrote: ↑February 21st, 2023, 1:45 pm The acts done to them are the choice of someone else, who, in my mind, has to be evil to enjoy doing those things to children.
Generally, if someone says "That thing Bob did yesterday is evil", I interpret that as meaning the exact same thing as saying, "Bob should not have done that thing he did." Does that match the way you use the terms?