Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
10 comments
The problem of evil has been debated by many philosophers, with religion and morality in its core. The problem is considered one of morality and moral considerations and challenges the goodness and even God's existence. If evil prevails despite the existence of God, then why is God not preventing this gratuitous suffering? For some others, the question is about morality and the meaning of life. Human life exists, yet evil exists, so how can life have meaning if nothing good can ever come out evil? One of the more famous philosophers who have talked about the problem of Evil is Leibniz. Leibniz described God as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and argued that He was a being of supreme goodness. Leibniz’s solution or rather an argument is that there is no such thing as evil, and this argument is called the argument of the best possible world. The crux of the argument is that evil and God can co-exist, and evil is just a variation of God's divine goodness. His entire argument relies on the assumption that God exists (a monotheist) and works for all humanity. His beliefs in God and his properties are almost the same as Descartes when he believes that "God an absolutely perfect being." He goes on to say, "power and knowledge are perfections, and, insofar as they belong to God, they do not have limits"; "Whence it follows that God, possessing supreme and infinite wisdom, acts in the most perfect manner, not only metaphysically, but also morally speaking…" However, Leibniz, believes that God is the most perfect being out of the circumstances and qualities he can have, which is a variation of perfection. Leibniz disagrees with the idea that evil is good in disguise and calls it offensively off base since it is still a variation of God's omnipotence.
His concept of possible worlds is one which Leibniz heavily relies on as one of the major premises to his argument for compatibility between God and evil. A "possible" world is a description of an invented world, a world of things that might have been, or could be, concerning the human mind. In a sense, a possible world is a world where things could have been other than they are, and those things are a lot of different ways an action or an event could have been. To better understand a possible world, we can turn to the meaning of an actual world, as Leibniz describes it, is how things will turn out to be. The actual world is a construction of God's will, which is the future and how things will turn out. The actual world is the best of all possible worlds possible, according to Leibniz. He believes that since God is a perfect being who contains all the knowledge in the universe, he will choose the best decision possible. In other words, God's divine goodness is so strong that even when choosing an alternative world that contains evil, it is chosen because of reason. So, in creating the best possible world, God is creating it with sufficient and clear reason, and that reason is that this world is the best of all possible worlds. In Leibniz's writing, the best possible world is a choice that God makes given all choices. So, 'this' world, in Leibniz's writing, is the actual world we are living in, created by God through sufficient reasoning. This actual world results from logical necessity: God's omniscient and omnipotence properties always make the best possible choice for this world we live in. His logical necessity here is that God's properties make it impossible for the actual world not to be the best possible world, so saying that this is not the best possible world is impossible. So, the actual world is the only possibility because no other world could exist.
So, Leibniz's solution to this problem of evil is that there is no problem. To Leibniz, evil is a variation of God's divinity, and that is not a problem since it is the best alternative. However, he does not believe that evil is a necessity. Leibniz believes that evil's role in the world makes it the best combination of events in the world. However, this does not mean that this evil was the best possible choice individually. Using this argument, he rejects the argument that this is not the best possible world because evil exists. For example, according to Leibniz, the Holocaust was an act of evil by itself, but the act, combined with all the other events in the world, created the best possible world. Evil on its own is not the best choice. However, when combined with other world events, it is the best choice because God has free will in the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Thus, there is no such thing as evil, but only variations in Divine Goodness to create a world that is formed from all the best alternatives God knows.
Sources
Leibniz, G. W., Latta, R., Loptson, P., Montgomery, G. R., Leibniz, G. W., & Leibniz, G. W. (2012). Discourse on metaphysics and other writings: Discourse on metaphysics, The principles of nature and of grace, The monadology. Broadview Press.
Look, B. C. (2013, February 8). Leibniz's Modal Metaphysics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-modal/.
Look, B. C. (2013, July 24). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/.
Murray, M. J., & Greenberg, S. (2013, February 27). Leibniz on the Problem of Evil. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-evil/.
God did not create evil. If you look at the Bible and read it through, which I highly recommend, you will discover that God created Lucifer, who had free will and could choose for himself. Lucifer chose evil. Evil is the absence of good, therefore it cannot BE good.
There is no such thing as evil because notions of 'evil' are contextually and culturally specific. Evil is not an absolute category of thing.
Is absoluteness the criteria of something's existence? I would argue that the notions of 'good' and 'evil' existing in essentially every culture, despite differences of what those things are, suggests that there is such a thing as evil.
Evil is simply a term that we prescribe to acts that we consider irredeemable. What that act may be can vary from person to person, culture to culture, but ultimately, if we as an individual consider it to be evil, then evil surely does exist, even if just on a personal level.
If we liken good and evil to hot and cold, then we can see how our personal experiences affect how we view things on a personal gauge. Cold is the absence of heat, and not necessarily an absolute temperature. As such, our consideration of what is cold will vary based on our background, such as the climate we are accustomed to. And yet we still accept the existence of things being 'cold', because language when used in this way helps others to understand our experiences.
Surely the same can be said of the word 'evil'? Whilst not an absolute and objective truth, it is still a term that helps others to understand what we consider to be right or wrong. If I say that rape is an evil act, surely that must mean that evil does exist to me, and does so in the form of such an act?
Completely agree with all your points here.
And I wonder whether it means we need a 'definitions' section on Parlia...?
If you are are taking the perspective that something does not exist unless it can be completely and perfectly defined and understood, then nothing exists, as our very understanding of reality is founded upon incomplete information and inherently subjective perceptions.
If there is no such thing as evil, how did the word and its meaning come into existence? Evil does exist. Just because you say it does not exist, doesn't make it true. If I stand in the middle of the highway and deny the fact that trucks exist, the trucks whose existence I deny will run me over and I will be no more.
Hi Sanjana!
So, if we look have a look at all the very many definitions of the concept of evil and what they all say, you will see for yourself that there is one underlying message that comes through with all of them - evil in it's most basic can be defined as the lack or absence of good. Conversely, if we look at all the very many definitions of good there is one underlying message that comes through from all of them as well - that which is morally right.
Based on this then, this is how we generally know whether something feels right or not, is good, bad or just truly evil.
However, if we touch briefly on some on some of the other concepts that you've mentioned in relation to evil, namely, God and morality, we see that it's not just as simple as good vs evil. Or is it?
Well, we didn't create ourselves, clearly - because we don't have that kind of knowledge and power. Also, if we associate the concept of evil with experiences or actions that were not morally right, wouldn't we want to change it?
Therefore, there had and has to be a divine and higher power (even if you don't believe in God) that created us. And if this higher power created us then he must be all divine, completely holy and perfect - basically devoid of any evil. So, there's no evil there.
But we see evil or bad things/experiences in our lives constantly in some way or another. Why? Because the higher power created us with free will. Meaning, we have the ability to use our own freedom and free will in order to act against our creator (if we want). This we know because we make our own decisions/mistakes. So evil is introduced or brought into existence in this way. But this does not mean that evil exists. Although, evil can exist.
What do you think, Sanjana?
If I rape and murder your whole family, am I still "not evil"?
No matter how extreme you make the example, good and bad (or evil) will always be subjective.
Furthermore, as a hard determinist I do not believe you have any free choice in the matter. People can not be inherently evil - people just follow the path dictated to them by the unravelling of prior events.
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!