[Buddha-l] Fighting creationism

[SJZiobro at cs.com]

Richard Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu> wrote:

>On Wednesday 04 April 2007 17:17, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:
>
>> I did say that the spread of AIDS became a moral evil once it's origins and
>> the ways in which it is spread were known.  It therefore becomes morally
>> incombent upon any human being to cease engaging in the sorts of activities
>> whereby he or she is exposed to AIDS, or, if s/he already has the HIV
>> virus, exposing others to the illness.
>
>In other words, it is morally incumbent on people to use condoms, despite 
>their use being discouraged by many Christian communities. I quite agree with 
>you on this. 

I don't think abstaining from sex is a particularly Christian phenomenon.
In fact, it isn't.  For instance, some Buddhists do so.  

>> You are
>> absolutely right to draw our attention to there being an evil that is not
>> moral in kind, and that I guess you could call a natural evil.
>
>It's not my way to be absolute about much of anything, so I resent being 
>accused of being absolutely right. Also, I am not at all comfortable with the 
>phrase "natural evil." Evil, it seems to me is a moral term, and nature it 
>seems to me has no connection at all with morality. Morality is a human 
>artifice---a departure from nature, I would claim. Natural evil therefore 
>strikes me as a category mistake.  

Well, you're apparently absolute with being not absolute about much of anything.  I had forgotten that.  I'll try to keep that in mind for the future.  If you don't like the term "natural evil" then "non-moral evil" would just as easily suffice.  The point is that there are evils which are not moral but still the lack of a due good or integrity.  So, it is a non-moral evil when a rock loosens from a cliff face and falls onto a tree, sheering off a branch.

>The rest of what you say about God is something that presupposes adherence to 
>a particular brand of Christian theology and is really irrelevant on 
>buddha-l. One could, I suppose make it relevant by referring to medieval 
>Indian Buddhist arguments against certain Brahmanical theological claims, but 
>why rehearse a bunch of arguments from 1500 years ago?

I was wondering when you'd bring up the claim of irrelevance.  The one who mentioned God in the first place was one of the other denizens of Buddha-L.  That, however, led to a few posts with interesting claims and further inquiry.  To my mind seeking to understand reality through the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, or was I mistaken?  But if any mention of God in a Christian context here is irrelevant, then I suggest people here should be entirely consistent and not mention God in the context of ridiculing Christians, however politely and however much in the tradition of humor.  By the way, what is lost by referring to mediaeval Buddhist arguments against Brahmanical theological claims?

>> Considering the millions of people who have HIV/AIDS, I suspect that the
>> numbers where malice is operative are higher than you might grant.
>
>My guess is that quite a few people on this planet are sexually active, many 
>of them with more than one partner. That seems enough of an explanation to 
>account for the spread of AIDS. In comparison with lust, I'd guess malice is 
>a very trivial factor.

I don't think malice is ever trivial, and the question we were discussing centered around how the spread of AIDS can be noted as morally evil.  The context was whether one would really, deliberately do so out for the sheer evil of it.  As far I can discern the matter, we actually agree that nobody acts for an evil end inasmuch as it is evil.

>> Anecdotally, though, I know of instances where somebody
>> knowingly, intentionally, willingly gave another HIV/AIDS.
>
>I have heard of one such case. Offhand, I'd say that the number of people who 
>deliberately spread AIDS is infiitesimal  in comparison with the number of 
>people who deliberately fire bullets into the bodies of others or detonate 
>bombs in the presence of others. On the list of moral concerns facing us in 
>the world today, I think the issue of AIDS is close to the bottom of the 
>list. Nearer the top would be war, consumerism and other forms of collective 
>and individual acquisitiveness and greed and stupidity.

Well, I'd say all of these issues are of great concern.  They all do great harm to the human family.

>> I agree with you here, Richard, although I don't rule out the possibility
>> (even the probability) there there are some who come close to willing evil
>> as evil.
>
>I have always subscribed to the view that every action is motivated by a 
>desire to do some kind of good. I have never yet heard of a single instance 
>of an action that does not seem like an attempt to do something good. My view 
>is that what some call evil is better understood as a case of settling for a 
>lesser good than one might have aimed for. This , of course, is not an issue 
>that can ever be proved. It is just how I prefer to look at human affairs, 
>because it makes it easier for me to forgive actions that annoy me. 
>Forgiveness is very high on my list of priorities. I tend to agree with Lee 
>Thorn's dictum: "Evil is an abstraction that enables you to look at someone 
>and not see the person." (Read more about Lee Thorn at 
>http://www.since1968.com/article/13/jhai )

I actually agree with you 100% here, though my source is different.

Stan Ziobro