Short version of my argument: Artifacts can be evil, but nothing existent can be evil, so artifacts do not exist.
Long version:
Paradigmatic instruments of torture are evil.
Nothing that exists is evil.
So, paradigmatic instruments of torture do not exist.
All non-living complex artifacts are ontologically on par.
Paradigmatic instruments of torture are inorganic complex artifacts.
So, non-living complex artifacts do not exist.
The argument for 1 is that paradigmatic instruments of torture are defined in part by their function, which function is evil.
The argument for 2 is:
Everything that exists is either God or created by God.
God is not evil.
Nothing created by God is evil.
So, nothing that exists is evil.
I think 4 is very plausible, and 5 is uncontroversial.
(My argument nihilism about artifacts is inspired by a rather different but also interesting theistic argument for the same conclusion that Trent Dougherty just sent me, but his argument did not talk of evil.)
25 comments:
Function is a consequence of evil (it has duration); the creation of evil has no duration, therefore no consequences.
So is your view on this similar to Van Inwagen's in his 'Material Beings' ?
And isn't it just obvious that there are things created by God that are evil such as evil persons? It would seem odd to say that those in hell aren't evil.
Dr Pruss
Is fear an artefact or an existent?
Did God create fear?
OR
Is God the cause of fear?
Alex
Doesn't this argument imply that there can be no evil persons either?
4.All non-living complex artifacts are ontologically on par.
Is this saying that all complex artefacts are irreducible?
For example, a mouse-trap consists of five parts; removal of a single piece of this complex artefact results in this complex artefact becoming inoperative. The purpose of this complex artefact is to kill, i.e. unqualified change.
However, a torture artefact is intended to torture, i.e. qualified change. Here, even the mouse-trap could be use to affect torture.
What comes to light is that complex artefacts are irreducible in complexity and function.
Walter:
That's a good point. I want to distinguish two senses in which something can be evil: it can be evil by its very nature and it can have one or more evil qualities. Persons can be evil in the second sense, but not in the first. But instruments of torture are evil in the first sense. More needs to be said about "by its very nature".
Philip:
I do not think fear is an evil thing, at least not by its very nature.
It's worth noting that the argument is quite compatible with the view that there are physical objects shaped just like artifacts and located where we think the artifacts are. But these physical objects are not artifacts, because they are not defined by the functions that the artifacts are defined by (and may not have the same persistence conditions, either). I do not actually think there are such physical objects either -- just the underlying fields or particles -- but I wanted to admit that the argument doesn't rule them out.
Dr Pruss
If the above is indeed the case and:
Its worth noting that the argument is quite compatible with the view that there are physical objects shaped just like artifacts and located where we think the artifacts are.
Then like matter (think of your simple syllogism) then Evil must be a real existent since it is the substratum of qualified change.
THEN:
Evil=substratum which is the subject of qualified change
Subject(Evil, intention) = substratum, i.e. Being
Artefact(Function, consequence) = qualified change, i.e. Becoming
If God creates a being that can create things, then your
"Everything that exists is either God or created by God"
would be false. Can we not take artifacts to be evidence
that God has indeed created such a being?
Alex
But instrumants of torture were/are made by persons. Making instruments of torture would be a result of the person's evil qualities.
Walter Van den Acker
You are correct. This phenomenon is directly related to Dr Pruss's take on Aristotle's pessimism. For Aristotle comes to the conclusion that a bad man will always be bad; should such a man do something that is good it cannot be accorded to his intention for he will always revert to type.
Interestingly, the Apostle Paul relates that the nature of all men is evil; it is impossible for them to become good (Wittgenstein echoes a similar sentiment).
The only manner in which a man can become good is to be re-made into a new creation, i.e. to be Born Again.
Can we really speak of a mindless artefact being evil 'by nature' as opposed to expressing the evil intentions of the people who made it? An identical object could have been constructed as part of an anti-torture exhibition or human rights prosecution mock-up. OK, we could tell some necessity-of-origin story about that particular object (it's intrinsically something made by Torturer A in this place at that time for that reason) but then, that applies to some indisputably very good things ie a child deliberately conceived from rape.
Helen Watt
Your rapist analogy is interesting...but, isn't the analogy more a case of making peace with evil rather than a good?
Philip Rand
But isn't the child's life itself an immediate good (like anyone's life) albeit wrongly intended by the rapist? (presumably intended not qua good but qua punishment for the woman, her tribe etc). In trying somehow to process the evil and put it behind her, the mother doesn't have to value that intention in any way of course but only the result of that intention. In the same way, if her child is alive because the father stole another child's food, she can and should still value the life saved (for one thing the father could be dead before the child benefits from his wrongful choice - the choice and its result are separable even in time).
...to process the evil and put it behind her, the mother makes peace with theEvil intention ending the consequences of Evil.
Yes - if making peace means forgiving the evil intention and placing it in the past as best she can. But the evil intention will of course go on having consequences, both bad ones (trauma for her, bad effects on the rapist's character and that of those who hate him) and also the good ones of her child's continuing life and her own motherhood
Doesn't sound as if anything good has come out of the rape then after all...
But if the baby's life, like anyone's life, is a massive good in itself? even leaving aside the good of the woman's motherhood warmly testified to by some women who conceive due to rape (actually lots of women choose to bring up the child themselves in these situations, so we're looking at social motherhood, not just genetic/gestational motherhood, important as that is).
If that is the case Helen.... then the devil lies in the details...
Well - the woman herself of course can only do her best, try to forgive the rapist and encourage others to do likewise and give her baby the best life she can (whether with her or with adoptive parents). The baby's conception is one immediate good outcome; other good outcomes are perfectly possible but depend on contingent good choices (choices of the woman/her family to forgive the rapist, choices of the rapist to express remorse, turn his life around, maybe give himself up to the authorities, etc - all of which has actually been done if not as often as it should be). How much good comes out of evil does depend to some extent on the people on the ground...
Helen:
It's not just essentiality of origins, but the essentiality of function for artifacts. Suppose I have two objects, A is a bow and B is a costume prop for a dressing up as Robin Hood, and both A and B are molecule-by-molecule identical. Both A and B are strung. However, I now pour chemicals over A and B that replaces the tensed wood fibers with stone (basically, super-fast fossilization). This destroys the bow -- a stone arc-shaped object with a string isn't a bow any more -- but the costume prop is still just as good, as long as it looks the same as before. Thus, the same physical interaction can destroy A without destroying B. And probably vice-versa (imagine some science-fictional interaction that makes the objects completely transparent without affecting their mechanical properties; the Robin Hood costume prop is thereby destroyed, while the bow is merely a little less convenient).
The same goes for your torture instrument and museum exhibit. They are different kinds of objects. One is evil and one is good.
The same point does not go through for people (or other organisms). For while the nature of an artifact is at least partly defined by the intentions of the maker and/or user, the natures of people (or any other organisms) is innate to them. Of course, someone might have a baby in order that the baby serve some evil end, say to grow up into an SS officer. But that function doesn't "stick": while the parent intends the child to grow up into an SS officer, the child has the function defined by the human nature, namely to love and know God, to serve all his fellow human beings, etc. (This is true even if the child follows the parent's wishes and wants to be an SS officer and doesn't want to love and know God.)
Alexander:
I'm still uncomfortable with calling objects evil as opposed to saying they recall the evil of their producers. Pointing to your identical bows (one intended for homicide let's say) can you really say 'this one is evil'? It doesn't even clearly express an evil sentiment, which an evil sentence in a book might express (though even there, an 'evil' book seems a short hand for 'a book by an evil person/expressing evil ideas'). And what if the homicidal bow was created by two workmen, one intending it for homicide, the other for sport?
Yes, I completely agree that the 'nature' of the person is not defined by evil parents at least in the sense that their evil plans for their child are beside the point when it comes to their child's flourishing. The only thing is, if we believe in the necessity of origin (I do myself) then surely this child was not only conceived from this sperm and this egg at this time, in this place, but from these two Nazi parents who deliberately made that happen. A son for the Fuhrer! It doesn't make me necessarily a Nazi but does make me necessarily a child produced by them for that purpose. And by God for quite other purposes, of course.
So another proof of Godwin's Law...
Pruss: Of course, someone might have a baby in order that the baby serve some evil end, say to grow up into an SS officer.
Watt: A son for the Fuhrer!
This means that this internet discussion is over. It also means that the first person to mention a Nazi comparison has lost the argument.
Since, you were the first to commit Goodwin's Law... You admit you have lost the argument Dr Pruss!
And here is how you lost the argument:
Pruss: Of course, someone might have a baby in order that the baby serve some evil end, say to grow up into an SS officer.
Evil=substratum which is the subject of qualified change
The qualified change is SS officer, i.e. the SS.
So, then the question is: What is the substratum of the SS?
ANSWER: Christian Replacement Theology
Post a Comment