Problem Of Evil Mackie Analysis

J.L. Mackie discusses the problem of evil in a logical sense in his article inside our textbook. There are four beliefs when discussing the problem of evil. These beliefs are that God is Omnipotent, God is Omniscient, God is Omnibenevolent, and that Evil and Suffering exist. The common conception we have of God is that he is the best possible being that can exist. He is all good, knows all, and all powerful. The problem seems to be that if God is all of these things, how can there possibly be evil and suffering? If a tri-Omni God does truly exist, then it is not possible for evil and suffering to exist. And vice versa, if evil and suffering exist, then a tri-Omni god cannot exist.

Mackie discusses four fallacious solutions to the problem of evil including that Good cannot exist without evil, since evil is its counterpart and that Evil is necessary as a means to good. For the first fallacious solution it is basically saying that God could

not have made a world without some evil. The problem with this solution according to Mackie is that if something is bigger than X, there has to be something smaller than X as well. Which means that good and evil are not opposed and that good does not try to eliminate evil because it requires it. Another reason is that Mackie rejects the claim that any real quality must have a real opposite. For example, redness can only occur if no redness can, but on the other hand, everything can have redness and nothing can have non-redness. If it were necessary for non-red to exist in order for red to exist, then even a tiny spec of non-red would be sufficient. This also leads to the possibility that God could have made everything good and we would not even notice. Another point made by Mackie is that if good can’t exist without evil, it limits God’s power and sets limits to what he can do. With this point being made it basically means that God is either not Omnipotent or there are limits to what omnipotent beings can do. The second fallacious solution is that evil is necessary as a means to good. If this is true, according to Mackie, it involves a severe restriction of God’s power and requires us to reject God’s omnipotence. If God had to bring evil into our world because he brought good in, that would mean he had to follow casual laws, which, again, goes against God’s omnipotence.

In my personal opinion, my belief is that Mackie is correct in his sayings because it is not possible for a quality to not have an opposite for example, dry=wet, loud=quiet, small=big, and again red=non red.

That completely eliminates argument one. Now the second, evil is necessary as a means to good. This goes hand in hand with the previous “solution” because if evil is a necessary means to good, dry would be a necessary means to wet, etc. which is true. Mackie also believes that the failure of these fallacious solutions generalizes and thus that there is likely no valid solution to the logical problem of evil. Mackie believes this because there has been no contest to his “fallacious” solutions which appears to him that it is not possible for there to be a valid solution to the problem of evil and suffering. My opinion is that again, Mackie is correct. If there is no one to defend the opposing side to what Mackie is proving, how is it possible that there can be any valid solution that explains the problem of evil and

suffering?