Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The relationship between good and evil
The relationship between good and evil
The nature of evil in
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The relationship between good and evil
In his essay “Why God Allows Evil” Swinburne argues that the existence of evil in the world is consistent with the existence of all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good God. To start, Swinburne bases his argument on two basic types of evil: moral and natural. Moral evil encompasses all the ills resulting from human action, whether intentional or through negligence; natural evil included all evils not caused or permitted by human beings. Whereas moral evil such as abortion, murder, terrorism, or theft comes from humans acting immorally, natural evil, in the form of suffering caused by earthquakes like the Haitian’s, hurricanes such as Katrina, wild forest fires or diseases such as HIV/AIDS, results from pain and suffering that comes from anything other than human action with predictable consequences. Swinburne's argument is that God allows suffering because it's necessary to make humans good of their own accord by giving them the free will to freely choose among their competing deliberations.
To understand why moral evil is necessary, Swinburne urges us to imagine the sorts of goods an all-powerful God would bestow upon humans. In addition to pleasure and contentment, Swinburne supposes that such a God would "give us great responsibility for ourselves, each other, and the world, and thus a share in his own creative activity of determining what sort of world it is to be."1 This kind of responsibility requires that humans have free will because we cannot be responsible for our actions without the freedom to choose from other available competing options. As a consequence, humans must have the opportunity to harm other people in addition to helping them. Moreover, he argues that humans should be expected to have so...
... middle of paper ...
...ng? The response to those puzzles, according to Swinburne’s argument, is that, by having significant freedom and responsibility, people must make a choice between what would be beneficial and harmful.
Therefore, Swinburne’s argument provides the best possible answers to the old questions posed by those who argue against the existence of God based on the existence of evils. As he indicates, moral and natural evil bear upon human responsibility, which are both obligatory for human wholesomeness. In the event that these propositions don’t fully justify the necessity of evil in the world, Swinburne maintains that humans should rest assured because God will compensate the victims by providing them with an afterlife in which they will have an invaluable and worthwhile existence. Hence, the problem of evil is not a good objection to the existence of God.
In his essay, "The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy," Peter van Inwagen alleges a set of reasons that God may have for allowing evil to exist on earth. Inwagen proposes the following story – throughout which there is an implicit assumption that God is all-good (perfectly benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient) and deserving of all our love. God created humans in his own likeness and fit for His love. In order to enable humans to return this love, He had to give them the ability to freely choose. That is, Inwagen holds that the ability to love implies free will. By giving humans free will, God was taking a risk. As Inwagen argues, not even an omnipotent being can ensure that "a creature who has a free choice between x and y choose x rather than y" (197)1. (X in Inwagen’s story is ‘to turn its love to God’ and y is ‘to turn its love away from God,’ towards itself or other things.) So it happened that humans did in fact rebel and turn away from God. The first instance of this turning away is referred to as "the Fall." The ruin of the Fall was inherited by all humans to follow and is the source of evil in the world. But God did not leave humans without hope. He has a plan "whose working will one day eventuate in the Atonement (at-one-ment) of His human creatures with Himself," or at least some of His human creatures (198). This plan somehow involves humans realizing the wretchedness of a world without God and turning to God for help.
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 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.
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
A foundational belief in Christianity is the idea that God is perfectly good. God is unable to do anything evil and all his actions are motives are completely pure. This principle, however, leads to many questions concerning the apparent suffering and wrong-doing that is prevalent in the world that this perfect being created. Where did evil come from? Also, how can evil exist when the only eternal entity is the perfect, sinless, ultimately good God? This question with the principle of God's sovereignty leads to even more difficult problems, including human responsibility and free will. These problems are not limited to our setting, as church fathers and Christian philosophers are the ones who proposed some of the solutions people believe today. As Christianity begins to spread and establish itself across Europe in the centuries after Jesus' resurrection, Augustine and Boethius provide answers, although wordy and complex, to this problem of evil and exactly how humans are responsible in the midst of God's sovereignty and Providence.
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
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.
The article I picked to show the evil in the world today was about a man named Abner Louima. This man was arrested in 1997 and is suing the state of New York for being beaten in a restroom in the station while being questioned. The sole witness Conelle Lugg, 19, he heard loud screaming and banging noises against the wall of the bathroom while he was in his cell, he then saw a police officer push Louima into a cell pants down and blood rushing out of his open wounds. The officer then proceeded to tell Louima to get on his knees. After all this Lugg said, that Louima fell to the floor and screamed in pain and begged to be taken to a hospital.
When anyone thinks of the word “evil” they do not think it is within themselves. In reality, without a structured and well-followed society, people are apt to follow their own corrupt desires and neglect the thought of consequence. In the allegory, Lord of the Flies, William Golding reveals that man’s selfishness and sinful nature will be unmasked when the structure of a society deteriorates.
“…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.
In the article "Why God Allows Evil," Swinburne separates evil into two sections, moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil sprouts from the wrongdoings of humans. Having free will can lead us to make certain choices that we make can have consequences. On the other hand, natural evil does not result from human action making it unpredictable. Natural evil associates with natural occurrences such as earthquakes, hurricanes, or diseases.
“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.
If (1), then the content of morality is solely dependent on God’s whim; rendering morality nothing more than blind obedience to divine arbitration. If (2), then the action is evil independently of God, in which case God is simply redundant. Moreover, if the theist claims that morality is not arbitrary then God must recognize a moral code superior to Himself – in this case, God’s sovereignty devolves into subordination. Therefore, recognizing that humans have the agency of freewill, it must be the case that our motivations to be moral are independent of God’s
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.