Do you believe in evil? Do you believe in free will?

[Ferguson97]

I believe in both.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I don't really see the connection between these questions, but yes to both. As a matter of principle, there cannot be good without something to contrast it with and vice-versa. I believe in free will insofar as it implies moral responsibility, but there's so many outside influences, be that our own biology/genetics or life experiences, that free will must exist on the condition that it exists within a certain context.

[°Leprechaun]

Free will is too abstruse and abstract a concept in which to believe. Does anybody really understand what it is?
Unfortunately evil is all too real.
I voted for option 2.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Both are concepts necessary to describe essential aspects of the human experience, so yes, of course.

Free will is widely misunderstood in some circles, leading to the utterly incoherent concept of "libertarian free will" and a lot of absurd thought patterns it encourages. And plenty of people have wrongheaded understanding of evil as well, for that matter. But they're undoubtedly both real all the same.

[nicholas.slaydon]

yes to both

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As a matter of principle, there cannot be good without something to contrast it with and vice-versa.

Why would this be? This is how we generally think of the world, yes, but why is it conceptually necessary?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As a matter of principle, there cannot be good without something to contrast it with and vice-versa.

Why would this be? This is how we generally think of the world, yes, but why is it conceptually necessary?

Because that's our way of understanding material, as well as moral, reality, from how I look at it. Would light mean anything to us if we didn't understand darkness? Can we understand heat without also understanding cold? Or to be more technical with these examples, can we understand the presence of light and heat without also understanding and experiencing their absence? I apply the same dichotomy to good and evil, whether we want to define evil as "the absence of good" (which would be a very myopic way of understanding it), or as we practically understand the question as to where something exists in shades of gray.

Whether we use a binary or gradated system, we understand these things as they exist alongside the alternatives. Certainly with the question of evil, the latter is more appropriately used. But if our understanding of "good" doesn't play any role, then what else do we have to determine the severity of one evil thing without looking at what might precede or follow that degree?

[Torie]

To posit an absurd hypothetical, if every human experience was the same, then there is a point that one could not characterize it as good or bad. But if there is a range of human experiences one could, and that I don't think requires having to experience evil or whatever to appreciate such differences. There could be a continuum of only degrees of relative good.

Just another reminder to self that philosophy just isn't my cup of tea.