The Problem of Evil

Back

One of philosophy's most enduring questions: How can evil exist in a world created by a perfect God?

The problem of evil is the philosophical question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.

The Core Paradox

The logical structure of this ancient dilemma can be expressed simply:

  1. If God is all-powerful, He could prevent evil
  2. If God is all-good, He would want to prevent evil
  3. Evil exists (observable reality)

Therefore: Such a God either does not exist, or God is not all-powerful and not all-good.

The Complexity of Defining Evil

But here is where we wander off and the definition of evil becomes problematic.

The Problem with Broad Definitions

A broad concept of evil defines it as any and all pain and suffering, yet this definition quickly becomes problematic.

Marcus Singer argues that a usable definition of evil must be based on the knowledge that:

"If something is really evil, it can't be necessary, and if it is really necessary, it can't be evil"

Beyond Simple Pain vs. Pleasure

John Kemp warns that evil cannot be correctly understood on "a simple hedonic scale on which pleasure appears as a plus, and pain as a minus".

The National Institute of Medicine provides crucial context:

"Pain is essential for survival: Without pain, the world would be an impossibly dangerous place"

Contemporary Perspectives on Evil

While many of the arguments against an omni-God are based on the broadest definition of evil, "most contemporary philosophers interested in the nature of evil are primarily concerned with evil in a narrower sense".

The Narrow Concept of Evil

The narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, and is applicable only to moral agents capable of making independent decisions, and their actions. This perspective allows for the existence of some pain and suffering without identifying it as evil.

Christianity, for instance, is based on "the salvific value of suffering" - the idea that suffering can have redemptive meaning.

Distinguishing Evil from Ordinary Wrongdoing

Eve Garrard suggests that the term evil cannot be used to describe ordinary wrongdoing, because:

"There is a qualitative and not merely a quantitative difference between evil acts and other wrongful ones; evil acts are not just very bad or wrongful acts, but rather ones possessing some specially horrific quality"

Calder argues that evil must involve the attempt or desire to inflict significant harm on the victim without moral justification.

Multiple Frameworks for Understanding Evil

Evil takes on different meanings when seen from the perspective of different belief systems. While evil can be viewed in religious terms, it can also be understood in natural or secular terms, such as:

A Comprehensive Definition

John Kekes provides a systematic definition, writing that an action is evil if it meets all five criteria:

  1. Causes grievous harm to
  2. Innocent victims, and it is
  3. Deliberate
  4. Malevolently motivated, and
  5. Morally unjustifiable

The Relationship Between Good and Evil

An alternative perspective suggests that evil is the consequence of the existence of good through three interconnected principles:

1. Free Will as a Double-Edged Good

Free will is a good, but the same property also causes harm. The capacity for moral choice that enables goodness necessarily includes the possibility of choosing evil.

2. Good Through Process

Good is a goal that can only be developed through processes that include harm. Growth, virtue, and moral development often require overcoming challenges, suffering, and adversity.

3. Constitutive Inseparability

The existence of good is inherently and constitutively inseparable from the experience of harm or suffering. Good and evil may be fundamentally interdependent concepts that cannot exist independently of one another.

Personal Reflection

We've just touched the surface of this philosophical labyrinth. The relationship between good and evil appears far more nuanced than simple binary opposition - they seem to be fundamentally interconnected forces that define each other.

Evil, I believe, is not an absolute but rather a quantitative and contextual phenomenon. What we perceive as evil often depends on perspective, cultural context, and temporal distance. The same action that causes immediate suffering might catalyze long-term growth or prevent greater harm. Good and evil exist on a spectrum, with most human actions falling somewhere in the gray areas between extremes.

The interconnectedness is profound: good loses meaning without its contrast to evil. Compassion only exists because cruelty does. Courage emerges from the presence of danger. Love gains depth through the possibility of loss. Perhaps evil is not the absence of good, but rather its necessary shadow - the price we pay for the existence of genuine choice and authentic virtue.

If we accept that good requires the potential for evil to be meaningful, then we arrive at an uncomfortable truth: no being can simultaneously possess unlimited power and perfect goodness. The capacity to prevent all evil would eliminate the conditions necessary for authentic good to exist. Therefore, a person cannot be all-powerful and all-good simultaneously - the very attempt to be both would be self-defeating.

Source

Wikipedia: Problem of Evil (opens in a new tab)

© anurag.RSS