Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aquinas on natural and moral evil
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aquinas on natural and moral evil
The problem of evil is a lasting philosophical problem that goes back as far as Epicurus. Aquinas believes that the problem of evil is not a proper question to be asking because those asking it are not taking into account God’s nature. However, I maintain that Aquinas’s philosophy does not refute the problem of evil. To illustrate this I will raise three objections to Aquinas. First, I will show that although Aquinas is not attempting a theodicy, his arguments lead him into a position where one must defend how God can exist in a world with evil. Next, I will argue that moral agency is required for goodness. Then, I will contend that the problem of evil requires a moral justification. The problem of evil examines how can God exist given …show more content…
Nonetheless, Aquinas believes there is evil in the world. Evil is the “displacement of a good.” He illustrates this view in the Summa Theologiae when he states, “Like night from day, you learn about one opposite from the other. So, you take good in order to grasp what evil means.” When we say X is bad, we are implying that X lacks goodness. Nevertheless, if something is lacking goodness it does not necessarily entail that it is evil. Something is not bad because it lacks the qualities something else possesses. For Aquinas, the fact that a man is not as strong as a lion does not entail evil. Evil is the privation of …show more content…
One should never ask if God should be morally responsible for allowing evil. It is not a question that would arise in the first place if one was familiar with God’s nature. God is not a morally good individual. God does not have any moral integrity. Being a moral agent is not something that we ascribe God, in the same way we ascribe it to people. Saying God is good for Aquinas is not the same as saying God is moral.
Despite Aquinas’s unique solution, Aquinas’s philosophy does not sufficiently resolve the problem of evil. To illustrate this, I am going to examine what Aquinas directly says regarding the problem of evil. Aquinas acknowledges the problem of evil when he states,
It seems that there is no God. For if one of two contraries were infinite, the other would be completely destroyed. But by the word ‘God’ we understand a certain infinite good. So, if God existed, nobody would ever encounter evil. But we do encounter evil in the world. So, God does not exist.
Aquinas replies to this argument by stating, “ As Augustine says, ‘since God is supremely good, he would not permit any evil at all in his works, unless he were sufficiently powerful and good to bring good even from evil. So it belongs to the limitless goodness of God that he permits evils
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (Lewis, 1994, p. 91). Throughout history man has had to struggle with the problem of evil. It is one of the greatest problems of the world. Unquestionably, there is no greater challenge to man’s faith then the existence of evil and a suffering world. The problem can be stated simply: If God is an all-knowing and all-loving God, how can He allow evil? If God is so good, how can He allow such bad things to happen?Why does He allow bad things to happen to good people? These are fundamental questions that many Christians and non-Christians set out to answer.
Among some of the subjects that Aquinas tackles in On Law, Morality, and Politics is the dilemma of War and Killing. Aquinas sums up the legality of war through three criteria: that the war waged is done by a legitimate authority, that the war is just because the enemy has done something grossly wrong, and the intention of the war is to solely right the wrong. Also we see Aquinas say that the killing of an innocent person is justified if God will's it.
The problem of evil is a difficult objection to contend with for theists. Indeed, major crises of faith can occur after observing or experiencing the wide variety and depths of suffering in the world. It also stands that these “evils” of suffering call into question the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The “greater good defense” tries to account for some of the issues presented, but still has flaws of its own.
In this paper, I will use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments
Aquinas argues that humans’ rational nature incline them for good because they are inclined to know about God and live in society with one another under natural law (94.2, p. 43-44). Aquinas also connects natural law with an eternal law. Aquinas argues that natural law is humans sharing in eternal law which is innate in humans (91.2, p. 18). Hobbes does not leave any place for God in his state of nature. Hobbes argues that in the state of nature there is no right or wrong, just or unjust, or sin, only man’s passions exist (13, p. 90). Every man wages war against every other man. Man is not inclined to live in a society like Aquinas states, but rather, out of the fear of death, man comes together to form a common power (13, p. 90). Hobbes bases this common power on contracts between people. Hobbes argues that a contract with God is impossible unless someone has some supernatural revelation because one cannot know if the contract has been accepted or declined (14, p. 97). It follows that, if man cannot make a contract with God, in the state of nature right and wrong fail to exist, and government arises out of necessity, then in the same state of nature, humans are not inclined for good, share in some sort of eternal law, or live in society with one
A contemporary reader would argue that Aquinas neglects that the laws of physics and nature can exist beyond a creator. Even though the world is complex, a creator does not necessarily have to exist. For example, in Aquinas’ example in the text, the archer applied force in order move the arrow. This would follow Newton’s laws of motion and these principles are things that people can not violate because they are always true. Therefore, the intelligent being himself moved the arrow, but that the law of physics was also involved to get the arrow to its end. Another problem is in Aquinas statement that things “reach their goal by purpose, not by chance” (Aquinas 26). However, how do we know that the world does not have randomness or chance? Actually, there are some examples in science that debunks Aquinas’ statement. For example, Richard Dawkins believed that random mutations in species allows for variation and a bigger genetic pool in support of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Lastly, Aquinas claims that the designer has to be God because He is an uncaused cause. Even if people accepted this, Aquinas does not substantiate why it must be the case that the Catholic conception of the one and only true God is the only intelligent designer of all natural things. Aquinas leaves room for polytheism to exist, and hence more than one intelligent designer can move material things. If this is the
Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows what is going to happen before it actually happens, would he not be morally obligated to stop people from doing something evil to others, or preventing suffering by those who have been hurt by evil?
If God exists and is all-knowing, then there is no evil that God does not know about. If God exists and is morally perfect, then there is no evil that God would permit that He cannot prevent.
In the Confessions, Augustine wrote about his struggle with understanding how evil exists in a world created by God. He questioned how it was possible and why God allows evil in his creations because God is supremely good. After delving into finding a solution, Augustine concluded that evil does not exist, and the things deemed as evil are caused by free will. This paper will argue that Augustine has successfully proven that evil does not exist by explaining his earlier explanation of the origin of evil taught by the Manicheans, explaining Augustine’s teachings, and finally, using the textual descriptions of Augustine’s unwillingness to convert as support for his conclusion.
Both Augustine and Boethius agree that evil could not, by definition, come from God. Augustine abolishes this problem by declaring evil nonexistent while Boethius agrees and expands the idea so that the ability to sin is a weakness. Humans remain responsible amidst God's Providence due to the free will bestowed on Adam in the beginning. Although a difficulty to early Christian thinkers, the problem of sin does have answers consistent with Christianity's fundamental belief in a sovereign, perfect, and lovingly-good God.
Scholars Press, Atlanta : 1991. Armand Maurer. Being and Knowing: Studies in Thomas Aquinas and Later Medieval Philosophers, Papers in Mediæval Studies, no. 10. Pontifical Institute of Mediæval Studies, Toronto : 1990. Thomas Aquinas.
God is the source of evil. He created natural evil, and gave humans the ability to do moral evil by giving them a free will. However, had he not given people free will, then their actions would not be good or evil; nor could God reward or punish man for his actions since they had no choice in what to do. Therefore, by giving humans choice and free will, God allowed humanity to decide whether to reward themselves with temporary physical goods, and suffer in the long run from unhappiness, or forsake bodily pleasures for eternal happiness.
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 closer he was really moving toward God. He began to realize that God is all good, so nothing he creates will be of evil. “God does not create evil but it is of the world” (Augustine 230-31). Once he took responsibility for his personal life and spiritual walk, Augustine began to uncover the truths to his life. He reveals one must take responsibility for their actions and confess to develop a stronger connection with God. He then comprehends; God allows bad things to happen in your life to show you that you need him. Evil is not a lesser good, but it is a reflection of ones moral well-being. In order for one’s well being to be saved one must confess their sins to Christ.
The Middle Ages saw a period in time that was deeply rooted in Christianity. Almost every aspect of life was monitered and ruled by the Church. This period in time also saw the emergence of men beginning to question whether the existence of God can be proved by faith , reason, or as Thomas Aquinas insists, by both faith and reason. There were differing opinions of this matter in both scholarly and religious circles. Faith is what all believers must have within them, it is a crucial part of man’s relationship with God. On the other hand, reason is a part of science and some believed that matters of The Divine should not be subjected to reason; there should not be a justification for God.