In this paper, I will argue against two of the many proposals that Andrea M. Weisberger represents in her book, Suffering Belief. I will first argue against her claims that evil is not necessary as a means of bringing forth good and that it is not a counterpart to good because she is not successful in acknowledging that the very basic elements of compassion are driven by the roof of suffering, and that one without the other, only results in the absence of higher consciousness. My second argument will be against her proposal which states that evil is not necessary for a long term good because she fails to recognize that the evil which involves millions of deaths due to natural disasters or man-made events, is necessary to maintain the earth’s carrying capacity in the long run. Weisberger’s claim that evil is not necessary as a means of good branches into two different points. Her first point, being that evil is not necessary to maintain the earth’s carrying capacity in the long run, and second, that evil is not necessary for long term goods. I will argue with her proposal against long term goods later in my paper, and for now, focus on her proposal against short term goods and how evil can’t be a means in bringing forward good in general, along with her rejection of the idea that it can’t be a counterpart to good. …show more content…
She believes that pleasant feelings involving taste, sight, touch, and smell don’t need the presence of prior painful events since they exist independently. Weisberger further questions that if evil really is a counterpart to good or that if evil truly does bring goodness, there is no significance of an animal dying in solitude in the wilderness because this event takes place alone, detached from any other beings who it can influence, therefore rejecting the idea that evil has any
An Analysis of Peter van Inwagen’s The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy
Barbara Huttman’s “A Crime of Compassion” has many warrants yet the thesis is not qualified. This is a story that explains the struggles of being a nurse and having to make split-second decisions, whether they are right or wrong. Barbara was a nurse who was taking care of a cancer patient named Mac. Mac had wasted away to a 60-pound skeleton (95). When he walked into the hospital, he was a macho police officer who believed he could single-handedly protect the whole city (95). His condition worsened every day until it got so bad that he had to be resuscitated two or three times a day. Barbara eventually gave into his wishes to be let go. Do you believe we should have the right to die?
One fear that Octavia Butler illustrates in the relationship, between Shori and her human symbionts, is the overwhelming influence that pleasure has over human beings. The euphoric feeling inspired by the venom of the Ina combined with several health benefits cause humans to leave their normal ways of life and adapt to a foreign culture. Brook, a symbiont that Shori inherited from her father articulates this point when she says, “They take over our lives. And we let them because they give us so much satisfaction and…just pure pleasure.” (Butler 127) Another example of the use of pleasure as a means of domination is visible in the way that humans become highly sensitive to the suggestions of Ina once they have bitten them. It is only after Shori bites her proposed assassin that she is able to question him. After exposure to her venom, the man has no choice but to answer her questions. This embodies the fear that people act against their...
A second and stronger objection to Mackie’s version of the problem of evil is explained to us using the terms 1st and 2nd order goods and evils. 1st order goods/evils are purely physical. Examples are pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. It is claimed by many theists that 1st order evils such as pain and suffering are necessary for 2nd order goods like courage and charity. However there exists what Mackie calls a “fatal objection” to this claim and that is that along with 2nd order goods there must also exist 2nd order evil...
On The Genealogy of Morals, Essay I refers to the second stage of human morality—the emergence of the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" as categories o...
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
Theodicy juxtaposes evil and God’s ambivalent “all good, all knowing, and ever-present” condition in attempt to explain the reason why bad things happen to good people. Karma, in the other hand, simplifies the complexity of evil’s existence in the world by blaming ourselves for the bad things we have done not only in this, but also in other past lives. This paper will analyze how both theodicy and karma explain the existence of evil. My goal is to stimulate the discussion about karma as a solution to the problem of innocent suffering in the world. This paper argues that Karma is a symptom rather than a target of a capricious God adamant in e...
Author Christine Mitchell’s “When Living is a Fate Worse Than Death” told the story of a girl Haitian named Charlotte. Charlotte was born with her brain partially positioned outside of her cranium which had to be removed or she would have not survived. Her skull had to be concealed by a wrap in order not to cause further damage. Charlotte was born with less brain cells which allowed her only to breath and not feel much of the pain. Charlotte’s parents thought that the doctor’s in Haiti did not know what was best for their daughter. The doctors in Haiti thought Charlotte should not be resuscitated, undergo anymore horrible treatments and die peacefully. Charlotte’s parents were not happy with the doctor’s guidelines and thought the United States medical care would have better technology and could save their daughter. Charlotte’s parents bought her a doll which
Peter Singer begins with a simple assumption, that suffering and death from a lack of food, shelter, and or medical care is bad. From this, Singer derives two forms of his argument, a stronger form and a weaker form. The stronger argument goes as such, “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” The weaker version of the argument goes, “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer, 614). The key distinction between the stronger and weaker argument is about sacrificing anything of moral significance or something of comparable moral significance.
The following analysis deals with the nature and source of evil and whether, given our innate motives and moral obligation, we willingly choose to succumb to our desires or are slaves of our passion. From this argument, I intend to show that our human nature requires that we play into our desires in order to affirm our free will. This is not to say that our desires are necessarily evil, but quite the opposite. In some sense, whatever people actually want has some relative value to them, and that all wanted things contain some good. But given that there are so many such goods and a whole spectrum of varying arrangements among them, that there is no way we can conceive anything as embodying an overall good just because it is to some degree wanted by one or a group of persons. In this light, there arises conflict which can only be resolved by a priority system defined by a code, maybe of moral foundations, which allows us to analyze the complexities of human motivation. I do not intend to set down the boundaries of such a notion, nor do I want to answer whether it benefits one to lead a morally good life, but rather want to find out how the constructs of good and evil affect our freedom to choose.
Bad things happen to all of us. It is an unavoidable feature of humanity. When we are born, we are born to suffer. So what if we had never been born? What if we had never been introduced into this world of inevitable hardship? Would we be better off? Such thoughts are entertained by David Benatar in his essay ‘Why it is Better Never to Come into Existence’ (Benatar, 1997)- who, rather unsettlingly for his readers, argues that it is rational to think that it is not better to exist than to have never come into existence.
The question of whether existing can be judged as a benefit or a harm, or if this judgment can even be made, has been addressed in the writings of David Benatar and Derek Parfit. In his paper Why it is Better to Never Have Come into Existence, Benatar progresses the view that it is always a harm to have been brought into existence. Parfit, however, takes a different position on this question, arguing that a person can be benefitted from being brought into existence in his paper Whether Causing Someone to Exist Can Benefit This Person. For the purpose of this paper, I will begin by offering a brief summary of each author’s main claim, and then provide a critique of their arguments. I then will then offer an objection from the point of view of
How does the individual assure himself that he is justified? In Soren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, Abraham, found in a paradox between two ethical duties, is confronted with this question. He has ethical duties to be faithful to God and also to his son, Isaac. He believes that God demands him to sacrifice Isaac. But, Abraham, firmly adhering to his faith, submitted to what he believed was the will of God. By using his perspective and that of his alternative guise, Johannes de Silentio, Kierkegaard concentrates on the story of Abraham in such a way that his audience must choose between two extremes. Either Abraham is insane or he is justified in saying he will kill Isaac.
In the beginning, God created the world. He created the earth, air, stars, trees and mortal animals, heaven above, the angels, every spiritual being. God looked at these things and said that they were good. However, if all that God created was good, from where does un-good come? How did evil creep into the universal picture? In Book VII of his Confessions, St. Augustine reflects on the existence of evil and the theological problem it poses. For evil to exist, the Creator God must have granted it existence. This fundamentally contradicts the Christian confession that God is Good. Logically, this leads one to conclude evil does not exist in a created sense. Augustine arrives at the conclusion that evil itself is not a formal thing, but the result of corruption away from the Supreme Good. (Augustine, Confessions 7.12.1.) This shift in understanding offers a solution to the problem of evil, but is not fully defended within Augustine’s text. This essay will illustrate how Augustine’s solution might stand up to other arguments within the context of Christian theology.
the concepts of good and evil as an impermanent construct that is nothing more than an