what's evil?
evil is bound to human suffering. a world without humans in it is not evil. and this bring us back to the problem of free will. animals are not free --> they can't be evil.
there are two kinds of evil, moral evil and natural evil. they both cause suffering, but natural evil is not brought about by free will.
it's just pure cause/effect. so, our problem is MORAL EVIL.
we need a distinction between necessary and unnecessary evil.
necessary evil: is the evil that prevents further evil or brigs forth goodness. how about making someone suffer because they deserve it (as in the state killing a serial killer, or a person killing in self-defense? how about punishing a child for their misdeeds?
unnecessary evil: is evil for its own sake. more of this later.
theodicies must address the problem of evil while attempting to make the existence of an omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of moral evil in the world.
Here comes an argument from evilfrom skeptics:
1. If God exists, then a being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good exists.OR these three attacking God's attributes:
2. A being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good would not create a world in which there is (avoidable) evil.
3. But there is (avoidable) evil in the world.
Therefore: God does not exist.
A. If God is omnipotent, he would be able to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
Counter: It's actually possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. If God were to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, would it be possible for God to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and yet for there to be evil and suffering? Theists believe the answer is YES.
B. If God is omniscient, he would know about all of the evil and suffering in the world and would know how to eliminate or prevent it.
Counter: Not if doing so undercuts human free-will. What good is there in having humans behave like robots?
C. If God is omnibenevolent, he would want to prevent all of the evil and suffering in the world.
Counter: Unless God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.
Iranean Theodicy: Second-century philosopher Irenaeus developed a theodicy based on the idea that God's creation is still in progress. Creation is a theater stage that requires humans to develop and grow into the likeness of God. Humans must be given free choice, with the actual possibility of choosing to do evil. For humans to have free will, God must be at an epistemic distance from humans, far enough that belief in God remains a free choice.
Augustine theodicy: Augustine tries to respond to the evidential problem of evil. If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, there should be no evil in the world.
1. Evil exists as a corruption of goodness, caused by humanity's abuse of free will.
2. God did not create evil and is not responsible for its occurrence.
3. Evil doesn't have existence in its own right, but is the privation of good –a corruption of God's good creation.
Counterargument to the concept of evil: Inga Clendinnen argues that the concept of evil cannot explain the performance of actions because it is an essentially dismissive classification. To say that a person, or an action, is evil is just to say that that person, or action, defies explanation or is incomprehensible.
Answer to Clendinnen: Explaining something as repulsive as sexual abuse of an infant, for example, cannot be explain merely by psychological or social concepts which explain, for instance, the abuse the abuser was submitted to. How do you begin to address the insurmountable suffering the abused has been subjected to without using moral evil as a starting point? Applying the concept of evil to sexually abusing a child is not dismissive, it's in fact quite descriptive.
No comments:
Post a Comment