Picking up on what my learned friend, humegotitright, said: I propose that all of the world’s evils exists as logically necessary components of greater goods, and that is why God allows evil to exist. My learned friend disagrees, I think.
Do you, and why?
Regards,
R
Disregarding the ‘God allows it to exist’ idea, evil, or bad, must exist for good to exist; they need each other to exist, they are mutually dependent. One cannot conceive of one without the other; they need to be compared and contrasted. There is no good in-itself, or evil in-itself, but rather only degrees of relation.
Hi, Fent,
Thanks for getting the ball rolling. As it happens, I agree with you. Others may not, of course, and (hopefully), it is from this point that the arguments begin. Let’s look forward to that.
Regards,
R
Hey,
Yeah basically the whole, ‘evil as necessary for realisation of good’ idea I disagree with. I’ll try outline why below.
Firstly, it suggests that no good can be achieved without first the existence of some evil. Now that evil may not necessarily have to be experienced by me, but it must exist somewhere. This seems clearly wrong. I can experience many goods without having evil. Love, happiness, joy can all be experienced by me without some prior evil. And there is no evidence to suggest that my experience of love, is a result of some counter evil elsewhere. I took great joy in seeing my 2 year old daughter open and play with her birthday presents last week. What possible evil occurred that allowed that joy to be possible?
Secondly, it is true that some goods can only be accessed through the existence of evil, courage, sympathy, generosity , etc… However I think there is a lot of explaining to be done to show why these goods are better than the ones we can have without evil. For if they are no better than love, joy or happiness, then what is their purpose? I would suggest they are not better goods, and hence their existence along with the existence of evil that accompanies them is not justified in this sense.
Thirdly, as Mackie suggests in his writings, the ordering of goods, leads us to an infinite regress. If second order goods are better than first order goods, then logically there will be second order evils, with third order goods to defeat them, and so on.
Fourthly, by thinking in this way, it seems to suggest that because evil makes necessary good, we should promote evil. The more famine and disease there is to overcome the more good will be achieved. That seems to be a completely backward notion, but yet seems logical under this theory.
Fifthly, by saying God could not create good without evil, limits his power. I can imagine a being who could create good without evil, and this being is surely greater than God.
Lastly, if we must have evil to know what good is, as Fent proposes, I would reply by saying why do we need to know what good is? Why must we contrast it with evil? If we lived in on a planet where only one degree of heat was possible, we wouldn’t have terms like hot, cold, mild, and freezing because there would be no need. In fact the whole scale of temperature would be redundant. So similar is the notion of good and evil. The fact there is a comparative scale is obvious by this discussion, but if only one level of good/evil existed then we would again have no notion for any of these terms. My question is why is this not possible? I believe for God, it should be.
I think we can experience goods without first experiencing evil – in particular, those goods (let’s call them ‘non-moral goods’) for whose existence evil is not necessary. For example, I can experience a good meal without first throwing up due to eating poison.
There are ‘moral’ goods, too, for whose existence evil is necessary, like generosity, courage, fortitude, compassion, and so on. Why should God’s creation contain these as well as other, non-moral’, goods? A good question. I think that they add to the moral beauty of the world, such that the inclusion of them, plus the evils from which they spring, constitutes a better state of affairs, overall, that one in which neither the goods nor the evils existed at all.
A world in which goods and evils were so restricted as to constitute a uniform group (e.g., first-order evil + second-order good) might be a less desirable place in which to exist than the world we find ourselves in, with its greater variety of these things. The former world strikes me immediately as a rather bland, dull place.
Should we promote evil? “Oh, let’s have far more earthquakes so that we can have that much more bravery, compassion, healing, pleasure in being alive, etc.” This seems to turn evil, or our conception of it, into something positive. Evil has value, IMO, only insofar as it serves as a precursor to, and a contrast with, goods of various kinds.
Love. I could (but won’t – this is a forum, not a research paper) draw your attention to a fascinating article by F. Mora* who argues that evil is necessary for deeper kinds of love. In sum, she argues that love springs most strongly from the loved-one’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities, in virtue of which we cherish, nurture and protect those whom we love. If people (and animals) were invulnerable to pain and suffering, it is hard to see how love could have a function. Love, she argues, springs foremost from individuals’ weaknesses and needs and only secondarily from their strengths, virtues and excellences.
I’m a little tired just now, but I’d like to throw out one small remark. So much of this sort of debate seems to center around God’s ability or willingness to create a world without evil. As far as I can tell, it’s a pretty standard teaching of Christianity that He did.
Thanks for the thought, Uccisore. The official version is, I believe, that the Original Sin wrecked God’s spotless world – or at least introduced evil into it.
Why did this Sin happen? The exercise of human free will. What, then, of the evils resulting from natural disasters, that have little if anything to do with the exercise of free will (except God’s)?
God’s punishment for the Original Sin’s occurrence? Really? 4,000 years later? Deformity, disease, starvation, famine . . . all to make up for that one Sin?
Worthwhile thought, though, and thanks again.
Evil is the absence of good, like darkness is the absence of light.
God gave us free will which is the ability to choose good–or not. If He took away that ability to choose, if he intervened on behalf of good, He would take away our free will, which is, IMNTBHO, the whole purpose for creation. IOW, we must have the ability to choose evil for there to be good.
Evil existed before Original sin, since Satan’s fall from grace was before that. So natural evil being brought into the world could, in theory be traced back to that original corruption of Creation. Also, I don’t believe God punished us for the original sin, I believe that the sin naturally resulted in these evils. I concede, though, that the idea of God punishing us is a very popular misconception- pretty much universal among Protestants.
Rasputin believed that one must experience evil in order to know what good is. Is this Op agreeing with the mad monk?
I would say that to appreciate the good, evil must exist. There can be certain good things in the absence of evil (as mentioned above) in addition to those whose existence depends on evil. I think none of these goods can be appreciated in the absence of evil. Just how much evil, and who exactly has to experience it, is up for debate, IMO.
By ‘appreciate’ I mean, roughly, to understand that what is good is good, and to value it as such.
If this is what the vodka-swigging reverend had in mind, then I for one agree with him.
Regards
R
Sounds like an interesting article. However I would be inclined to say she is wrong. Also she would have to show why love that springs from evil, is better than love that does not.
So Christianity says it, so its true? Even if God did create a world without evil, why would he then allow it to de-generate so much. Kinda like the kid who doesn’t look after their toys.
In ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’, Hume states that if natural disasters and the like are functions of the earth which without would render life on the planet impossible, then God is a pretty shabby designer. Yes wind is needed, so is ocean currents, a core of magma, tectonic plates, etc…, but rather than fine tune the workings of the planet, God just threw them together quite shabbily, resulting in natural disaster.
Also another point, in defence of God allowing natural disasters. Would earthquakes, hurricanes and the like be ‘evil’ if there was no life on the planet? I would say no. But the point is, that life of all shapes and sizes exists on the planet, and if God is supposed to be all loving, then it is really quite irresponsible to put us in this play pen of doom. Akin to me putting my children into a colourful, delightful and stimulating nursery that was run by paedophiles.
Again with the scale. We only notice this because there is more than one degree of evil/good. If there were only one level of evil, or one level of good, then we would have no need for such notions as evil and good, because how could we make the distinction?
The free-will defence is another long and vast topic. A few points, which no doubt will raise further debate.
That’s kinda cutting your nose of to spite your face. Say the only level of good/evil was absolute bliss. Now we wouldn’t appreciate it, because we wouldn’t know any different. Similar to saying we appreciate the warmth of a blanket because we know how cold we would be without. But with the blanket scenario, would I be any less warm if I didn’t know how cold I would be? Do polar bears benefit from their furs coats any less because they don’t know what it would be like without one? I don’t think so. So if we want to, as well as experience good, appreciate it by introducing another level, i.e. evil, that to me just seems silly. Why do we need to understand what good is to appreciate it and benefit from it?
This is where my poor little mind gets stuck…
I simply do not see “any” evil in the world. There is not one instance that you can show me that demonstrates evil “exists” to me.
Maybe that is just how my sad little mind works.
From the Philokalia: St Maximos the Confessor (580 - 662 AD)
Evil as a force of it’s own volition, no. But evil as a choice to employ a moral double standard, yes indeed. The NAZI SS is one instance of hard core evil–or you’ve made up another definition for it.
What if one supposes that our categorical definition of evil; is wrong?
Many have stated the argument that free will leads to the act(s) of evil. Yet, to me (incoming personal perspective) evil is an act which is simply struggling for genetic advantages; not a mere folly of free will but rather a fight for advancing one self to a biological success.
Another key issue I have is this; essentially 1.) God created Humanity
2.) God gave humanity free will
3.) Free will = creation of evil
now insert our category of evil to say…animals and this whole argument is lost unless we supposed that animals have free will and are capable of making inclinations towards evil.
Before anyone steps in and says “Animals are simply doing what Nature forces them to do”. Listen to my reasoning perhaps it is fallacious but it seems to hold up in my head (of course we all wish to think we are right). Anyways let’s do a comparison of evil in humans to evil in nature. In fact, let’s go Disney with it. Lion King even. Now, when Scar takes over the pride of lions they only show him attempting to slay the one cub, our precious Simba. Take away the anthropomorphizing, cute eyes, and the animation and Simba is one of say 20 or more cubs killed when a new male lion takes over a harem. The males kill off all of those not carrying their genetics and in fact the females gain estrus right after the cubs are killed.
Now, where am I going with this, initially I wanted to lay forth the premise that animals are committing evil using the premises which we use to define evil but at the same time it is not evil it is just biological instincts. Ok, now that I have suckered you into that one I throw a new piece of information in. The number one cause of death in children…step-parents.
Now, I fully believe humans are capable of great things but they are also great at doing wrongful things. Such as, placing themselves outside the realm of animals. I could go on discussing the various activities labeled as evil in our world but I suppose the question that I have is should we broaden the definition of good and evil or perhaps we should simply take away the whole definition?
Merely my two cents.
Free will doesn’t lead to evil, it merely affords the opportunity to choose evil.
Immunity from the struggle for genetic advantage only applies to the innocent (non self-aware). The double standard (evil) is only possible with sentience.
???
There is no evil in nature unless there is self-awareness.
You can’t apply the premises which we use to define evil. Lions are innocent until you anthropomorphize them and incapable of evil.
Step-parents are not of the innocent animal world morally.
I agree with humegotitright that the ‘we need evil to understand good’ is a lame duck argument. I’m not convinced that humans having this level of understanding good is substantial enough of a good in itself to warrant evil. A world in which everything is awesome all the time, and yet people don’t realize how good they have it- that really doesn’t seem so bad. At least, not bad enough to compel God to allow evil merely to avoid it.
Hiya TPT,
Why is the Nazi SS one instance of Hardcore evil…
I have not made up any new definitions:
Note the date that this Saint was Alive… I have given Volume #1 to a friend and so cannot get an earlier definition of evil (but I can in time). I think volume #1 goes back to 300- 400 AD or so (that is prior to the split of the Church).
Or the above definition can be reworded as: Evil has no substantial existence, it is the souls forgetfulness of what is good.
Do you agree/disagree with Saint Maximos’ definition and if so why?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximus_the_Confessor
Picking up on humegotitright’s comments on the free-will defence, which, as he says, is a vast topic, I think I broadly agree with him. May I just add a thought or two to his words?
But, IMO, this reply misses the mark. Mackie asks: Why God could not have made men such that they always freely choose the good? The key phrase is “such that”. Does this phrase do the work needed to escape the charge of determinism?
Well, engineers are causally responsible for making machines with certain characteristics. One might make a machine that, for example, travels on a track and pulls fifty trucks. Then again, he might make a machine that travels on a track and pulls fifty trucks “such that” the sky is blue; that is, “such that” any fact about the machine for which he is causally responsible is logically compatible with any other true proposition. In the same way, God could make men who have free will and always freely choose the good, such that God is causally responsible for bringing these men about in the first place, but not for making it true that they always freely choose the good.
It is commonly supposed, in law, for instance, that evil freely performed is worse than evil constrained. Thus, Jones’s freely killing Smith with a knife because he hates him is thought to be a greater evil than Jones’s killing Smith because Brown held a gun to his head and forced him into the act.
And yet if freedom has a value in itself, then perhaps we should think the opposite. Jones’s freely killing Smith is an evil, but, given the intrinsic value of freedom, inasmuch as Jones’s act was free, to that extent the evil in question would be mitigated by the freedom involved in its occurrence. No such mitigation would be warranted in the case where Jones’s killing Smith was constrained. Whatever might be said about the value of freedom, such a change of view seems not to be forthcoming.
There is much, much more to say. But that’s enough for now.
Regards to all,
R
Just another word, please . . .
The Painful Truth and mmm philosophy seem (to me, anyway) to regard evil in the time-honoured fashion as being ‘nothing’ in itself, something which lacks any positive essence. This may be understood in two senses, both of which are problematic as far as I can see:
(a) that evil is an illusion – something we only imagine or conjure up in our minds; and as such, no-one is to blame for it, except, perhaps, our own wild imaginations. I think the simplest of understandings can spell out what is mistaken about that. Pain, anguish, humiliation, suffering . . . not real? Well . . . get real!
(b) that evil is a privation of good and consists in the absence of normally-present positive characteristics. Blindness, on this view, is an evil but only in the sense of being an absence of the capacity to see. It has no essence and so God cannot be blamed for blindness.
But aren’t pain, suffering and the like, more than mere absences? They can, after a fashion, be measured and quantified. So they must be ‘real’.
Even if we went along with this account, that would not let God off the hook, for although he could not properly be described as the cause of evil, he still allows it. A bridge builder whose construction didn’t meet in the middle by a few metres would naturally be blamed for failing to come up with enough positive material for the job, rather than exonerated on the basis that the gap consists of an absence of the positive for which he cannot be blamed. A moral agent can be blamed as much for what he doesn’t do as for what he does.
Now, I’ll shut up and allow others to have their say.
Apologies for being pedantic/boring.
Regards,
R