The Problem of Natural Evil, by Luke Gelinas

Evil can be categorized into two forms, moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is brought about by bad choices that stem from our free will. Natural evil is bad things that happen to people, whether they deserve them or not. The problem with evil is, “Either we must say that God is not wholly good, and that he permits or is even the author of evil. Or we must say that God is not omnipotent, and although he is wholly good and would prevent evil if he could, he is powerless to stop it.” (Fitzgerald 340).

Another way of putting it is that without experiencing evil, we couldn’t possibly recognize or know what is good. Evil must exist in order for good to exist in the same way that the concept of up must exist if there we are to conceive of down. Mackie denies that this is true however. He explains that good and evil cannot be logical opposites like up and down (or great and small) because up and down are not qualities. It wouldn’t make sense to favor up over down or vice versa as one could do with good and evil.

God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, which makes us wonder what kind of morally sufficient reason justifies God to allow evil. We know that evil exists in our world, but so does God, so would God be the source of evil as well as good? We have established that God is the omnipotent and benevolent free creator of the world, but suffering and evil exist. Is God unable to prevent evil? If so, he would not be omnipotent.

He explains that the only way to defend divine benevolence is to oppose the evils that are sent upon us humans. Demea attempts to prove that good occurs more than the bad but we tend to focus and put emphasis on the evil more. Philo comes back saying if he allows what Cleanthes said to be true with their being less bad than good than Cleanthes must also admit that the evils that humans suffer through is still forevermore worse than the good. It is much... ... middle of paper ... ...no cause to believe that one could. If the character chooses to believe that a God exists than they are only creating an irrational and inconsistent argument.

Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify. Regarding the justification of punishment philosophers are not of the same opinion. According to the utilitarian moral thinkers punishment can be justified solely by its consequences. That is to say, according to the utilitarian account of punishment 'A ought to be punished' means that A has done an act harmful to people and it needs to be prevented by punishment or the threat of it.

Since the arguments for Cacodaemony is disproved, so is the one for the theodicist, since these two arguments are equally likely and equally weak. By looking at Cahn's "Cacodaemony," one can see how improbably it is that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnimalevolent Demon created the world. Cahn's argument, however, exactly parallels Swinburne's in "The Problem of Evil." Both use the free-will defense to attempt to explain how evil or goodness could exist in a world created by God or a Demon. Both arguments have the same strength, as Cahn notes, and both are very weak arguments.

330). The inherent evil conflicts with Augustine’s view which attributes the origin of evil to a will favoring lesser things, because this claims that “Human beings therefore, are not ultimately responsible for their own actions” (Confessions Glossary. p. 330). This would mean that God had created evil things, which is in direct conflict with Gods good nature and evil is caused by the divine. Augustine ultimately rejected the M... ... middle of paper ... ...lighted” Augustine’s body (Confessions VIII.

Correspondingly, in order to comply with the currently recognized definition of evil, the action must be done solely because it is wrong and harmful. Therefore, it can be argued that the government in Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta is not evil in the modern sense. While some believe that murdering innocent peo... ... middle of paper ... ...gly made the world” (55). Ultimately, however, Bernstein arrives at the conclusion that individuals are never in a position to doubt God or gods because humans cannot even begin to fathom the complexity of a more powerful entity. Therefore, humans are also not in a position to question the choices that may have been made by any type of god.

These replies are unsuccessful, because Van Inwagen's response is to say that God entails "being the playthings of chance." living in a world with no justice is a consequence of our separation with God; it's one more evil thing about our world. God's infinite perfection allows him to control how much evil is necessary to bring to whom, but he is executing his plan and waiting people to recognize how horrible it is to be apart from God. In my opinion about the replies of Van Inwangen’s objection, if God is infinitely perfect, then we are limited to comprehend God, we can allow that God's infinite perfection and the evil of his great plan can be reconciled in some unknown way.

While Philo agreed with Demea that it is apparent that there is evil in the world, he disagreed in that Gods nature is impossible to know. Like Cleanthes, he agreed that God’s attributes can be derived empirically, however he disagreed in that he said that God cannot have his triad of attributes while evil is existent. Philo said that while there may be more good than evil, the fact that there is any evil in the world indicates that God is contradicting his triad. So, Philo concluded that while it is evident God exists through his necessity of being the prime mover, and while his attributes can be derived empirically through observations of nature, it is evident that he is lacking one of the supposed attributes. Philo says that for God to exist he must not be anthropomorphized; God is blind to good and evil, he is an indifferent prime mover.