Theory The argument about the existance of evil is a good formula

[SecularNeo-Khazar]

It is an schematic that takes into consideration X's power and abilitites/traits + context (like [a set of presupositions or axioms; definitions of words] that serve as conditions from which we derive questions providing information) and asks whether the subject is able to comply with the wanted outcome. I think its a good method of quickly aswering the question wheter something was good and provides the thinker with an excelent argument for one's decision that is manifested out of the observable conditions.

Lets use a hypothethical human being who is attacked and has a weapon with himself.

We can ask all the same questions the argument makes when reffering to god and his traits, but here we're working with the traits of a simple someone. The open questions must be necceserly determined by the question asked, that is common sense because we ask questions that will provide us information to come to a conclusion about our problem.

If the victim is attacked and kills the attacker with his gun, however we know that before even the victim was able to pull out his gun the attacker was defeated and there is reasonable evidence to suggest the attacker was willing to surrender and follow the instructions of the victim at gun point, we would most likely agree that the defender should go to prison for excessive use of force.

When talking about god, we take into consideration his omniscience (knowledge), omnipotency (what he's able to do) and omnibenelovence (that he is absolut good)

So, lets do it with our human, the problem will be whether what he did was moral, (in [context of western standards]) and lets for a start list some of his traits and ask the questions that must align thematically with the topic of the problem:

Is killing without an ethical foudation wrong? Yes.
Is it permisible to kill someone is self defense? Yes
Is he an intelligent agent? Yes
Is he able to perfrom a range of acts in compliance to the material conditions? (his strength, his tools, his wisdom etc) Yes.
Is it permissable to use violence in defense? Yes
It is possible to punish unproportionally to the done offense? Yes
Can it be said that the attacker was weaker or that the circumstances benefited the defender because he defeated the attacker? Yes
Can situations change? Yes
Is it considered right to act respond accordingly to present circumstances? Yes

And more which could substantially change the outcome, all are as valid as they can get.

1. The victim has the potential and chance to safeguard his wellbeing without killing the defender albeit having the ethical foudation for doing that.
2. The defender achieves victory over the attacker and kill him afterwards
3. If the attacker showed reasonable evidence that suggests he will not do anything that will risk the life of the defneder after being defeated, the defender looses his ethical foudation for the use of violence against the attacker.
4. If the attacker doesn't show reasonable evidence for the defender to think that his life isn't at risk, the defender can still use violence against the attacker.
5. Since both are not true and then and only then would the actions of the defender be moral if one of the scenarios was true, it means his actions were not moral.

Though I am not skilled in creating syllogisms, and I am sure someone here would do a better job at it, my whole point of this thread is that great and powerful arguments are actually a product of schematics inherent to our universe that we can discover.

 

[Mentally lost cel]

Evil and morals does exist

 

[blackraven]

 

[Gutless]

Written like a pseudointellectual low iq baboon