The problem of Evil

Question 1

What is the problem of evil concerning?

Answer 1

• If god is supremely good then he has the desire to eliminate evil
• If god is omnipotent then he is able to eliminate evil
• If god is omniscient then he knows that evil exists + how to eliminate it
• Therefore if god exists and is supremely good, omnipotent + omniscient then evil does not exist
  However evil does exist
• Therefore a supremely good, omnipotent and omniscient god does not exist.

Question 2

What are the 2 types of evil?

Answer 2

• Evil refers to morally wrong actions or motives of human beings. However moral evil isn’t the only type of evil. There’s Moral + Natural Evil.

There is also ‘natural evil’ which refers to the suffering caused by natural events + processes i.e. suffering caused by earthquakes etc. In the first instance the two types of evil are distinct as what people choose to do is not usually any cause of natural events + suffering however sometimes it can be ie a famine causes people to commit moral evils of stealing etc.

Question 3

What is ‘ the logical problem of evil’?

Answer 3

The mere existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of god.

The amount and distribution of evil that exists is good evidence that god does not exist or perhaps arguable evil doesn’t exist just the absence of goodness. Something just lacks the qualities of something ‘good’

The following claims cant all be true;

God is supremely good
God is omnipotent
God is omniscient
God exists 
Evil exists.

Question 4

What is the ‘Free will theodicy?

Answer 4

A free will Theodicy;
Free will is very valuable the implications of not possessing free will would lead to us;

Being unable to have anymeaningful relationship with god, morally significant lives + we sometimes choose to do evil.

So a world without evil would be a world without free will. Therefore evil , arguably, is compatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient surely good god.

Question 5

What is the objection to the Free will theodicy?

Answer 5

Objection;
Why doesn’t god make us choose good or determined to be good majority of the time like regular human beings?

Reply;
Because this is logically impossible - to be free our choices cant be determined by someone/ something else.

Question 6

Explain Plantinga’s Free will defence against the problem of evil

Answer 6

Plantinga’s Free will defence;

• A world containing creatures that are significantly free is better than a world containing no free creatures
  God can create significantly free creatures
• To be significantly free is to be capable of both moral good + moral evil

If significantly free creatures were caused to do only what is right, they would not be free;

Conclusion 1 - Therefore god cannot cause significantly free creatures to only do what is right
Conclusion 2 - Therefore god can only eliminate the moral evil done by significantly free creatures by eliminating the greater good of significantly free creatures
Conclusion 3 - The conclusion is not defended as true but instead as possible, if its possible then the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of god.

Question 7

Explain the criticism against Plantingas Free Will defence ‘natural evil’ + Plantingas counter

Answer 7

But ‘appealing to free will only deals w moral evil not natural evil’

Plantiga; it is possible that Satan exists and natural evil is the effects of his actions so natural veils a form or consequence of satan’s free will

Therefore its possible that god can only ever eliminate natural evil via eliminating the greater good of significantly free creatures

The conclusions are not asserted as true but instead its possible because there is no other possible better answer.

Question 8

Explain Plantingas argument for the Free Will defence ‘The world is better with some evil’ and the counter

Answer 8

• There are some goods that require some evil. Virtues such as benevolence + sympathy. God will only eliminate those evils unnecessary for the greater good

Seek to minimise first order evils but we can’t exist without them because they drive our virtues ie courage to fight evils.

Second order goods are more valuable than first order evils.

Counter;
No - surely we can learn these virtues form other means evil being inflicted isn’t necessary. What about second order evils eg cruelty, cowardife, malevolence, ar these logically compatible with a good god, cant we have a cold without second order evils

Reply; we can only develop virtues in the face of temptation + weakness

Question 9

State the main criticism against Plantings Free Will Defence

Answer 9

• ‘appealing to free will only deals w moral evil not natural evil’

Question 10

What does Mingley argue about Human Evil?

Answer 10

There’s 2 ways of attempting to explain the evil that human beings do/act on;

• The first is to refer to free will - someone does something because they choose to don so + of they make bad choices repeatedly the they are an ‘evil’ person
• The second is to think that people are only caused to do evil as a result of their environment + upbringing.

Mingley argues that neither offers a complete account of human nature + the complex interaction between the individuals human choices + society.

Suppose we argue evil only arises from social causes and a bad upbringing. Then how do any of these causes start - how do they spread? Suppose we talk of evil purely in terms of free will - would evil develop unless we were prone to human emotions as spite, resentment + cruelty. Neither explanation is complete.

To understand evil in human beings we have to analyse individual psychology. There are 3 points that are central.

Question 11

What are the 3 points Mingley argues are essential to understanding Human Evil?

Answer 11

Mingley - natural evil may be a problem because that interferes with free will whereas moral evil is caused by human beings free will.

1) - Evil isn’t aggression - some aggression is good, i.e. friendly competition and aggressively protecting someone’s life. Much evils brought through motives such as fear, greed or laziness.
2) - Someone who does evil need not be thoughrilly evil/ be entirely evil and perceive themselves as evil. Often people do evil actions on the intentions that they understand them as good + they can equally act in good moral ways in other contexts or environments.
3) - Mingley argues evil is the result of a failure to live as we are capable, It arises out of our natural capacities which give rise to both evil + good. Human beings are by nature concerned wit power + maintaining power + this concern is mimicked and expressed in our capacities for aggression, defending our territory and dominating others. All of these have good aspects however none alone aim at the overall good for a person.

Question 12

What does Mingley argue makes ‘evil a failure’?

Answer 12

Mingely argues some positive capacities we possess logically entail the capabilities for veil ie the capacity for courage can give us capacity for cowardice.

• Evil is the absence of good. Virtues are needed for a ‘good life’ because of the dangers of vices. Its only because human beings have certain weaknesses (greed etc) that certain other good traits like courage and justice emerge which are virtues.
• Evil motivates people to act and so undoubtedly is powerful however just because it motivates power doesn’t make it positive. To say human beings have a ‘nature’ including thm to do evil is to deny people free will. Motives causing us to do evil aren’t natural.

Question 13

What is the Evidential Problem of Evil concerning?

Answer 13

The evidential problem of evil is concerning whether the distribution of evil in the world can be logically compatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and, supremely good god?

Question 14

Explain the argument posed by the Evidential Problem of Evil

Answer 14

The arguments concerning whether evil be logically compatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and, supremely good god?

• The amount and distribution of evil that exists is good evidence that god does not exist. Eg moral luck by Thomas Nagel concerning how some people have it really good whilst others don’t.
• Therefore it gives more ammunition to the idea that apon analogy belief in god and his characteristics is not convincing. Given evil as we experience it is not impossible that god exists. However it is also not reasonable to believe god exists

The argument is not deductive but inductive. It appeal to scientific types or instances of evil whilst some evils are necessary for certain good eg acquiring virtues like sympathy there’s also unnecessarily evil e.g. natural disasters such as tsunami that kill millions + illness etc.

Question 15

State what Determinism is

Answer 15

Determinism = idea that our actions are determined by our environment or our nature

Question 16

Explain the argument from Determinism

Answer 16

• If Determinism is true our choices have causes.
• Those causes might be part of human nature, part of the external environment, our upbringing or social situation, or even previous states of the brain.
• Therefore, each choice we make has a particular set of causes and takes place in a particular situation.
• Therefore, given those causes and situations, no choice is possible other than what we actually choose.
• If we couldn’t make any other choice, then we do not have free will.
• Therefore, we don’t have free will

Question 17

State what Incompatibilism is

Answer 17

Incompatibilism argues that the evidential problem of veil + existence of evil and concept of god are logically incompatible. They can’t coexist simeltaniously as they contradict one-another.

Question 18

Explain Mingleys argument against Incompatibilism

Answer 18

Against Incompatibilism; - basically arguing against the evidential problem of evil:

The argument of incompatibility assumes that determinism and free will are incompatible. Midgley rejects this.
- Determinism: events occur according to laws, and so are predictable in advance with sufficient information.

But we should reject ‘necessity’: determinism does not say that events are forced to happen or that only one outcome is possible. Determinism is not fatalism
(Fatalism: human action is useless, since whatever one does, the outcome will be the same)

• To think determinism is incompatible with free will is to treat determinism as fatalism

Therefore free will and determinism are compatible, Mingley rejects incompatibilim.

Question 19

Explain Mingleys argument for Compatibilist free will

Answer 19

• Free will is the opposite of being forced to act by external forces or internal constraints on the capacity to choose
• Free will is not random nor omnipotence. People choose on the basis of their character and life experience
• There are psychological regularities and many actions are predictable – understanding people requires this.
• Free will is rational
• To be free is to think and act in ways that understanding and overcome difficulties

Question 20

Explain the objections to Mingleys argument for compatibilist free will

Answer 20

Objection:
- If determinism is true, then each state of someone’s brain can be predicted in advance. Thoughts depend upon the physical states of the brain. Therefore, we can predict someone’s thoughts and choices in advance, using laws of neurophysiology. This is incompatible with free will.

Mingleys Reply;
- Suppose Pythagoras is about to discover his famous theorem. This would not enable us to predict the next thought unless we have a complete account of the relationship between brain states and thoughts.

Physical processes of the brain don’t force our thoughts to occur as they do, as though thoughts don’t make a difference to what we think next.

Mind and brain are interdependent – we can even predict brain states on the basis of thoughts. Free will is rational.

When we try to predict rational thought, we move from prediction to joining in. Rational thought has creativity (Pythagoras’ discovery). All free will demonstrates this creativity (in small ways).

Question 21

What is the name of John Hicks theodicy?

Answer 21

‘Soul-Making Theodicy’

Question 22

In a nutshell what is Hicks theodicy arguing?

Answer 22

In seeking to explain (what a theodicy is) why evil exists, theodicies seek to justify it in terms of some greater good than evil enables, such as free will or the development of virtue.

Hick develops the argument that existence of evil is necessary for us to become good evil, for us to grow morally and spiritually so evil is compatible with God.

Question 23

Explain Hicks Soul-Making theodicy

Answer 23

We are unfinished creations - when God made humans he made them imperfectly.

Theres 2 stages of our creation:

Stage 1- evolution of creatures capable of a relationship with God
Stage 2 - individual development towards virtue and relationship with God.

Such virtuous developments is impossible unless there is evil to respond to and correct. This applies to both natural + moral evil. This involves bringing each person freely towards personal and ethical and spiritual values and a relationship with god.

Its these struggles and suffering, not only with natural disasters but also with our own motives + actions of other people that we mature + develop spiritually as human beings, thus it would be impossible to undergo individual development without the presence of any evil in the world as you’re therefore unable to respond to it.

Objection;
Why doesn’t god just make perfect human beings that are finished creations;

Reply;
God could create a finished being however it’s Because of free will, we choose to develop virtuously otherwise we have no free will, how we respond to immoral actions or evil influences how virtuous we are. Therefore God does not seek to minimise pain, because it enables us to develop. God cant create beings that respond to god in authentic faith + love without our free will thus it would not be real.

Question 24

Explain the 3 major objections to Hicks Soul-Making theodicy

Answer 24

We can object that the argument addresses the logical problem but hasn’t yet offered a response to the amount, kind or disruption of evil. In essence the theodicy only justifies all evil if evil leads to spiritual growth. Therefore we can object;

1 - What about animal suffering? Animals don’t grow spiritually so how is the natural veil that they suffer justified in any way? So natural evil holds no legitimate or justified reason here

2 - Is it plausible that terrible evils are really necessary for our moral and spiritual growth?

3 - A great deal of evil doesn’t (appear to) contribute to spiritual growth at all. Many people suffer in teribe ways that break their spirit i.e. children who never recover from being abused; people die prematurely and are denied opportunity to grow spiritually whilst people that undergo a lot of spiritual growth do not experience suffering at all.

Question 25

How would Hick respond to criticism No.1 on Animal suffering?

Answer 25

Hicks reply;

Animals aren’t conscious in the same way we are, they live without fear of death or the future. To be alive means to be su jevt to pain (much of our suffering they don’t share ie self pity or the desire to escape mortality)

Question 26

How would Hick respond to criticism No.2 Terrible evils?

Answer 26

Hicks reply;

Terrible evils are terrible in contrast to more ‘ordinary’ evils. If we remove the terrible ones, the nxt-terrible ones will seem exceptional and we’ll wonder why those are permitted. Hick Basically draws on gradients + perspective - If we remove evils, the world with little veil is also a world with little human freedom, responsibility + development.

Question 27

How would Hick respond to criticism No.3 on Evil not contributing to the soul

Answer 27

Hicks reply;

Evil that appears not to contribute to soul making cannot be rationalised. However the existence of such irrational evils is part of the process of soul making.

Imagine such a world in which we knew on every occasion when someone suffered it was for the best. We would lack deep sympathy faith and hope so for us to develop, it must look like evil is unjustified.