dimanche 8 mai 2016

Independent Scientology Milestone Two adopts moral relativism

Independent Scientology Milestone Two adopts moral relativism.

Independent Scientology Milestone Two's adoption of moral relativism is not surprising given that it promotes a religion (or purported religion), Scientology, in which moral decisions are made based on the quasi-Utilitarianism theory of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics.

It is also not surprising that for Scientologists the ends all too easily justify the means.

Milestone Two: The problem of evil

http://ift.tt/1q80W6f

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

The problem of evil

Posted by Lana M.

May 9, 2016

by Ian

The Problem of Evil has plagued mankind ever since he could reason; he has been unable to successfully reconcile the existence of evil with God, and, perhaps far more importantly, he has been unable to resolve evil itself.

It is therefore of little surprise that the most common current solutions to this dilemma are to do one of three things: deny the existence of God, claim ignorance of God’s will, or deny the existence of evil. Unfortunately, none of these options actually solves anything, especially not for those suffering the effects of evil.

Needless to say, these options above also help to understand why so many reject the idea of a God, especially when evil is undeniable and experienced; at best individuals can claim naivety about God’s will when experiencing or witnessing evil. That isn’t to say that these options do not contain truths in themselves, but it thus far has not posed a solution to the actual reduction or eradication of evil.

Therefore, it is absolutely vital to recognize and understand the components and mechanics of evil if man is ever to solve it as a problem and create a better world. After all, any problem demands a solution, and any unsolved problem indicates that one or more components of it have been either ignored or omitted. Once all these factors come into view, only then can a solution arise.

In observing acts of evil and acts deemed as evil, the first and foremost component common to all is that a life form must be present for evil to exist. For pain, discomfort, loss, or suffering to persist, regardless of the cause, there must be an organism experiencing these effects either directly or indirectly in the first place.

The second component then naturally and logically follows that a viewpoint must therefore be present for evil to exist. A view can be an individual’s or a group’s. Even if that viewpoint is not directly experiencing the effect, one must on some level experience, observe or learn of an evil act for its cause to occur.

It then follows that a natural extension of this logic that evil is a consideration; more specifically, evil is something that should not be, per that viewpoint. It is for this reason why some may consider an act to be good, whereas others may consider the same act to be an evil one.

It then follows that evil is a relative term, not an absolute. This is not saying that evil does not exist, but rather that one act believed to be evil does not necessarily exist in an absolute, fixed, universal sense for all life forms.

But what of things that would be harmful to all of life – at least on this planet? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a hostile alien race attacked the search and wiped out all of life. Would the act be evil? From our vantage point it certainly would, but not necessarily from the alien race. Taking a slightly more likely scenario, what if a meteor wiped out all life on earth? Would this be evil, considering that the inanimate object – per our knowledge of it at this time anyway – lacks a viewpoint? From our viewpoint, some could construe it as an evil act of nature or of God. But the question then becomes why? The answer lies in the fact that our survival is threatened or destroyed, and so it follows that anything which destroys, harms, threatens or undermines the odds of the survival of one’s own life or group is, to varying degrees, evil, per the viewpoint of that living being.

Whether a believer or non-believer, one can see that these definitions involving evil will apply across the spectrum. Even God, if one indeed exists, has a viewpoint (or perhaps a number of viewpoints or even all viewpoints) which itself defines good and evil; yet these definitions still apply even without a God or without knowledge of God’s intentions. It also does not deny the absence of evil, which is insulting to those who experience its effects, although for some it might be troubling to have to face the reality that evil is, always has been, always will be, and can only be, a relativistic term. Nothing is inherently evil outside of considerations on the subject.

As a side note, the above article was written prior to my discovery that L. Ron Hubbard simply summed up evil as “A thing which does more destruction than construction is evil from the viewpoint of the individual, the future, group, species, life, or MEST that it destroys” in Science of Survival. I would like to think that I expanded upon his statement and verified it for myself

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
Independent Scientology Milestone Two adopts moral relativism

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire