Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What words describe natural disasters
The nature of evil in
The nature of evil in
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What words describe natural disasters
Upon reading Claudia Card’s “Evils” she deepens her understanding of evil post 9/11. Card goes on to write that her adjustments to the accounts of evil include first that evils are inexcusable and not just culpable, she also states that evils need not be extraordinary and that all institutional evil implies individual reason to blame. Claudia Card continues to define evil as reasonably foreseeable intolerable harms produced, maintained, supported and tolerated by culpable wrongdoings. Evils have two parts, harm and agency. How Card identifies the difference between evil and lesser wrongs is the harm component. Also she has named her theory the atrocity theory because atrocities are her paradigms of evil. But natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods and earthquakes can be disastrous they are not considered atrocities because they are not produced, aggravated by culpable wrongs. They are also not foreseeable. Some examples of evil include genocide or premeditated murder.
Claudia Card describes the harm of evil as an intolerable harm. An intolerable harm, Card means a harm that mak...
An Analysis of Peter van Inwagen’s The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy
...ess of who gets hurt. I began to wonder if it was truly evil to take what one desires, to satisfy your own gluttony even if doing so will cause someone else pain. For a split second, I thought of evil as a suitable answer to an unforgiving and prejudiced world.
Claudia Card sees evil as “foreseeable intolerable harms produced by culpable wrong doing”, thus she builds her theory and views around this definition (Card, pg.3). She distinguishes wrongdoing and evil acts by the consequences and results of those actions, and to what extent they harmed the victim. She sees evils as actions that ruin people’s lives that achieve significant harm that causes permanent or difficult to recover from damage (Card, pg.3). However, she does make a point of differentiating evildoers from evil people, as they do not always have the purposeful intention to do the evil that they cause (Card, pg.4).
The lines that define good and evil are not written in black and white; these lines tend to blur into many shades of grey allowing good and evil to intermingle with each another in a single human being. Man is not inherently good or evil but they are born innocent without any values or sense of morality until people impart their philosophies of life to them. In the words of John Locke:
Jackson, Shirley. “The Possibility of Evil.” Literature Reading, Reacting, Writing. Kirszner, Laurie. Mandell Stephen. 4th edition. Sea Harbor: Harcourt College Publishers. 2001. 463-474
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...
The problem of evil is inescapable in this fallen world. From worldwide terror like the Holocaust to individual evils like abuse, evil touches every life. However, evil is not a creation of God, nor was it in His perfect will. As Aleksandr
The atrocities of the Belgian Congo and the Holocaust are two of the main events in history that have been responsible for the mass murdering of millions of people. Although these events significantly changed the course of humanity, and the story behind each one is very different, there are significant factors that make them alike as well as different. Many would agree that comparing two atrocities that affected the lives of so many people and gave a 180-degree turn to each of their countries would be something very difficult to achieve. However, by comparing the behavior of both the perpetrators and the victims of both cases we might be able to further understand the lack of morality and the inspiration that led to these awful events. The perpetrators in both atrocities tended to have a similar pattern of behavior when it came to the way they saw their victims. But, they also acted in ways where you can draw the conclusion that one set of events was not inspired by the other. These two sets of atrocities were reported to have a very similar number of victims. However, the Holocaust is one of the most reminded events in history as a period of shame, tragedy and sadness, while many still ignore the atrocities in the Belgian Congo.
Evil can be a difficult thing to speak on, as it makes people uncomfortable. There is inherent evil in everyone, and Philip Zimbardo presents a compelling and frighteningly true case showing this. Zimbardo is the psychologist who headed the controversial Stanford Prison Experiment of 1971, and was also an expert witness at Abu Ghraib. He has a book out called The Lucifer Effect, which explores the evil’s of the human mind, and how people will change when put into the right (or wrong) situations. Needless to say, Zimbardo is more than qualified to seriously explain the evils of the human mind.
...r dehumanizing individuals and turning them away from their ability to tell right from wrong, as the one reliable explanation of the atrocities committed during the Second World War. Now accepted as a sound concept, the banality of evil is often questioned when our world witnesses new forms of evil, such as terrorism.
There are two general types of evil. There is natural evil and moral evil (Erickson, 2000, p.437). Natural evil does not involve the willingness or actions of man. It is simply a part of nature that seems to create an obstacle against the well-being of man. Examples of natural evil would be tsunamis, hurric...
Immanuel Kant’s theory of Radical Evil presents a secular position defining evil in away of which the agents performing evil acts can be held accountable. It centres around the concept that evil, specifically evil is performing acts of atrocity rooted from placing self-love ahead of duty. Therefore right action is acting out of duty in obedience with the Universal moral law, and in contrast what can be seen as an evil act is an act carried out with the motivation being self-love or self centred tendencies. Furthermore, choosing to perform an evil act in order for superiority or even evil for the cause of being evil is seen by Kant as diabolical evil, but he denied its possibility in accordance with moral agents. Kant believes that all moral
Evil is everywhere. Some people do not mean to hurt others, and do not mean to be careless about others. Some people can convince others to make the wrong choice or to make a big mistake. Sometimes people do not know what position to take or what decision to make. That is why there are people who can convince others to be something bad such as a murder.
If evil cannot be accounted for, then belief in the traditional Western concept of God is absurd” (Weisberger 166). At the end of the day, everyone can come up with all these numerous counter arguments and responses to the Problem of Evil but no one can be entirely responsible or accountable for the evil and suffering in a world where there is the existence of a “omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God.” Does the argument of the Problem of Evil or even the counter arguments help the evil and suffering of innocent human beings across this world? No. However, the Problem of Evil is most successful in recognizing the evil and suffering of the world but not presenting a God that is said to be wholly good and perfect to be blamed and as a valid excuse for the deaths and evil wrongdoings of this world.
Evil is a destructive force; it causes harm to those who embrace it and their victims. In Shakespeare's Macbeth, the protagonist Macbeth and Lady Macbeth fall into the hands of evil. Evil is what drives people to commit unnatural actions of destruction. Macbeth succumbs to evil through his fatal flaw, greed, and it causes him to disrupt the chain of being. When Macbeth willingly murders, massacres, lies and deceives, he loses his heath and sanity. Evil corrupts everything it touches, and Macbeth decides to be evil's servant. But, when Macbeth embraces evil, it corrupts him, and it ultimately destroys him as well. Lady Macbeth is a victim of Macbeth's fatal flaw, since she is drawn in, and becomes greedy for power herself. She pushes Macbeth into destruction when she adds the small touch that plunges Macbeth into a chain of murder, destruction, and lying followed by the loss of their sanity and health. After Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are well into the depths of corruption and greed, it is clearly seen that their guilt will haunt them for the rest of their lives. The harm they have caused others will be returned to them as revenge and they have lost their sanity in order to gain power. The fate of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth clearly illustrates that to embrace evil is to negate our own need for order and well being.