In “Theodicy”, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz argues for philosophical optimism. Perhaps the strongest argument provided by Leibniz relies on the claim that the contrasting yet complementary nature of evil and goodness allows us to better appreciate God and why he lets evil exist. In this paper, I will defend Leibniz’s argument by showing that the existence of evil, no matter how much, facilitates the opportunity for a greater good to arise.
In “Essays on the Justice of God and the Freedom of Man in the Origin of Evil,” Leibniz argues that God in his supreme wisdom and connection to all existence can only have chosen to create the best world or universe possible because “if it were not the best among all possible worlds, God would not have produced any. (p.128)” In other words, given the many worlds that there may have been to choose from, if it was not the best possible then that world would ultimately not have been made at all. Further explanation by Leibniz follows that.” if the smallest evil that comes to pass in the world was missing in, it would no longer be this world (p.128).” Evil exists in our world not because God is cruel but that if evil did not exist then our world would not exist. Allowing evil was the best choice that God could make. Leibniz claims that God does not only perform acts of goodness but that he has a role in both the good and evil that occur in our world. God, “by permitting of sins” has enabled even “greater goods than such as occurred before sins” (p.130). The period following the entrance of a sin “has been, in effect, better than another sequence without sin. (p.130).”An example of this would be the case of the appearance of Jesus Christ who came to be through sin.
There are many arguments provi...
... middle of paper ...
... by my shattering my shattering my legs will teach me the value of the fragility of the human body. I would add on to his reasoning that my unfortunate circumstance has given me a newfound respect toward the physically handicapped. In response to the repetition of the news broadcasts Leibniz might claim that it allows us to experience virtues such as sympathy as well as bring into light the problems with building too many high rises or high density neighborhoods in areas with questionable geographical safety. I would go on to add to this that although many had died their deaths could possibly allow more actions to take place now that can save many more lives than were lost.
In conclusion, I have argued that this is indeed the best of all possible worlds even when taking into account the existence of evil, and that Leibniz’s arguments supporting this claim are true.
An Analysis of Peter van Inwagen’s The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy
In, “The Problem of Evil,” Eleonore Stump holds the belief that the existence of evil in our world does not automatically disprove God’s existence. The belief that God cannot live alongside evil is considered to be the Evidential Problem of evil and this is what Stump is arguing against in her paper. Stump argues, the ability to fix our defective free will makes Union with God possible, which overwrites all the un-absorbable evils in the world, showing both God and un-absorbable evils can coexist. In this paper I hope to show that God can exist, but also show that human free will is limited.
"The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces"~Philip Zimbardo. It is hard to not cross the line between good and evil because if someone is getting you mad, you might want to harm them in some way. But you have keep your cool and let it go. Being good or evil is your own choice. Even if you are good, you always have an evil side. This quote fits perfectly because it talks about how evil is really only in people under certain situations. People are essentially good, but under certain circumstances, turn evil.
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...
...owardice or evil (2) must then work to minimize good (1) and maximize evil (1). This process can continue ad infinitum
The problem of evil arguably the most personal and haunting question in apologetics. No heart is untouched by the sting of another’s words and the ultimate display of evil, death. For some, like Elie Wiesel in his autobiography Night, the full scope of human evil is unbearably clear as they are faced with the full measure of human evil. This reality of evil often leads to two responses: “since there is evil, there cannot be a god” or “if there is a god, he cannot be loving or powerful, or worse, he enjoys evil.” By exploring the nature of evil, developing loving, Christian responses, and historical evils like the persecution of the Jews, the problem of evil and the hope depicted in scripture comes into focus.
Leibniz maintains that, since the world was created by God, and since God is benevolent and capable, the world must be the best world imaginable. To Pangloss and followers of Leibniz, to have any evil in the world would be a sign that God is not all knowing and all powerful, because God is omnipotent, and must know some evil will occur. Any evil that is perceived in the world is so because humans cannot understand the ultimate good that the “evil” is meant to serve. In Candide, Voltaire stakes a different claim, demonstrating that it could also be possible that this world is not the best, and that because it is not the best God is not controlling it. Where Pangloss represents theism, Voltaire and fellow enlightened thinkers believed there may have been a god, and he created the universe, but once he created it he stepped back and watched events play out. These “Deists” believe God can be known through reason. It is for these differences that Voltaire mocks the idea of a completely good world, and is unfair in his satire, making Pangloss a caricature of a person and magnifying his flaws. The novel’s characters, especially Pangloss and
Shirley Jackson’s short story “ The Possibility of Evil” is about a little old lady named Miss Strangeworth. She thinks she’s in charge of the town and to make sure it’s free from all evil because her grandfather built the first house on Pleasant Street. At first Miss Strangeworth is a nice little old lady, worrying about people and wondering what others are up to. Then in the middle of the story she becomes a little rude to a few of the townspeople. In the end Miss Strangeworth thought she was getting rid of the evil in the town, but in reality she was causing evil in the town by showing her true colors and being extremely mean and cruel to others. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover because people aren’t always what they seem to be.
Leibniz, a German philosopher and mathematician of Voltaire's time, developed the idea that the world they were living in at that time was "the best of all possible worlds." This systematic optimism shown by Leibniz is the philosophical system that believed everything already was for the best, no matter how terrible it seemed. In this satire, Voltaire showed the world full of natural disasters and brutality. Voltaire also used contrast in the personalities of the characters to convey the message that Leibniz's philosophy should not be dealt with any seriousness. Leibniz, sometimes regarded as a Stoic or Fatalist because his philosophies were based on the idea that everything in the world was determined by fate, theorized that God, having the ability to pick from an infinite number of worlds, chose this world, "the best of all possible worlds." Although Voltaire chose that simple quality of Leibniz's philosophy to satirize, Leibniz meant a little more than just that. Even though his philosophy stated that God chose "the best of all possible worlds," he also meant that God, being the perfection he is, chose the best world available to him, unfortunately it was a world containing evil. It seems as though Voltaire wanted to ridicule Leibniz's philosophy so much that he chose to satirize only the literal meaning and fatal acceptance of evil of Leibniz's philosophy.
Throughout the book, Voltaire critiqued Leibniz theory that we live in the “best of all possible worlds.” Pangloss was our optimist philosopher, who contended for the Leibniz theory. He argued that, “since everything was made for a purpose, everything is necessarily for the best purpose” (Voltaire, 16). After Candide was beaten, his love raped, his tutor sick with syphilis; After earthquakes, shipwrecks, slavery, being exiled, and l...
“…And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” (Matthew 6:9-13) As it says in the Bible, we wish to be led astray from evil. However, evil is a very curious subject. For most intensive purposes, evil can be described as cruel, heinous, and unnecessary punishment. Evil is a relatively accepted concept in the world today, although it is not completely understood. Evil is supposedly all around us, and at all times. It is more often than not associated with a figure we deem Satan. Satan is said to be a fallen angel, at one point God’s favorite. Supposedly Satan tries to spite God by influencing our choices, and therefore our lives. However, this presents a problem: The Problem of Evil. This argues against the existence of God. Can God and evil coexist?
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.
Tooley, M. (2002). The Problem of Evil. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved (2009, October 16) from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
In an attempt to comprehend this titular question, I will embark upon a close analysis of Benatar’s argument, as I believe it offers one of the strongest cases against coming into existence. I will begin by outlining his argument, secondly identifying two key assumptions, and finally attempting to show that Benatar’s argument is only strong insofar as one takes a hedonistic approach to life- that is, to judge pleasure (and the absence of pain) as the greatest value of life.
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