“I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering.” said Ivan to his brother Alyosha after reflecting on the unjust evil innocents face because of humanity’s sinful actions. Ivan’s words shed light to the idea of idealism versus reality. Realizing that cruelty is present in the lives of the most innocent, lead me to assert that evil is a real problem as it intervenes between the harmonic and idealistic view that the world consists of genuine, good people. Additionally, in the theist point of view, God has the absolute power to manipulate the circumstances his people are encountering. In The Problem of Evil by Fryodor Dostoevsky, Ivan mentions how children pay for their parent’s wrongdoings and it’s unjust as the children are …show more content…
Although the extermination of maliciousness seems ethical, it actually is quite the contrary. Ironically, God would be taking away the free will he once gave us at birth. Not only is our liberty taken away, but also our knowledge of what evil consists of would be erased. There wouldn’t be an adequate definition of good and evil because one could not exist without the other. Also, the foundation of our knowledge of God’s true intentions is purely based on assumptions. There isn’t factual evidence that God’s decisions benefit the world directly other than having faith and trusting in the goodness of his persona. The only way humans cope with evil is by assuming God sent it for a reason. One general example would be when thousands die at war defending their country. We rationalize their death as a sign from God that the community should be more supportive of each other in times of hardships, yet God could have sent death to punish humanity for the innate evil within us. Ultimately, there is not an all-powerful God who has the duty to abolish evil from the world. Evil in this world is inevitable whether it was planned or not. It is the dark part of life, yet because of evil, we know the good. We hope to think humanity has the power to choose evil over good or vice versa because we received the right, yet because of our limited
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
William Rowe addresses the problem of evil through an examination of the relationship between the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient creator. His argument stems from the notion that because human and animal suffering is so intense, an atheist is rational in their belief and that the co-existence of evil and God is unlikely.
Some people may argue that it is not fair for God to compensate for evil in the afterlife, when the people who suffer have already experienced the evil in this life. Effingham, Nikk. “Using Wormholes to Solve the Problem of Evil.” TheoLogica, vol. 5, no. 1, Jan. 2021, pp.
My favorite book from this semester has to be the Grand Inquisitor by Fyoder Dostoevsky. First off, what compelled me to pick this book was the originality of the content by having the Grand Inquisitor appear to conversate with Jesus Christ. However, more specifcally, I appreciated the main themes like the ideas that the masses are innately naïve, a majority of people would rather be told what to do rather than to follow their own logic, and people are satisfied as long as they are comfortable. The idea of the masses seeking refuge and protection over their freedom due to being unintelligent is mentioned frequently in the Grand Inquisitor.
In addition, how can humans treat each other as though another human is just a bug that needs to be exterminated? Through the shocking stories, the reader also begins to question where God is; however, there needs to be a separation of blame. Human’s evil actions are not the responsibility of God. It must be recognized that humans have freewill to choose to do good or evil. Evil is of the world, but since God is not of the world, God is not responsible for the evil in the world.
Except there would be no explanation for the death of millions of jew since they did die before becoming stronger. Evil is a problem as it compromises the freedom of all individual if it is erased because there would no longer be free will. There is no concrete answer for the neglection of god light during the holocaust and most importantly in the concentration
Questioning if God is not omnipotent, the entire idea of God creating the world can be called into question. Another issue is that if it is said that God is no longer entirely good there is the possibility to say that God has evil or bad intentions, and we should denounce him. Lastly, if one says that evil does not exist, then there is no possible way to separate those people who are considered to be deviants of society. This would mean that those who commit crimes that are evil in nature like murder and rape would be considered to be normal and acceptable.
It is part of many religious traditions that bad things do happen in the world. And independently of that, denying this premise seems very implausible. It is very implausible to say that rape, murder, torture of innocent people is not a bad thing. c. mystery reply People who hold this "solution" say things like, "God works in mysterious ways; who are we to judge God?"
Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. First, I begin with Swinburne’s views on the kinds of evils. According to him, there are two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil refers to all evil caused deliberately by humans doing what they ought not to do and also the evil constituted by such deliberate actions or negligent failure
e Cycle of Evil In his article titled “the frivolity of evil,” Dr Dalrymple defines evil as,” the elevation of passing pleasure for oneself over the long-term misery of others to whom one owes a duty.” Dr. Dalrymple describes how his community and the people who live there are stuck in a cycle of evil. He believes that this cycle is a side effect of Great Brittan’s transformation in to a welfare state along with our culture of entitlement. The many years of dedicated study and extensive observations, has granted Dr Dalrymple unique perspective and a deep insight regarding the human condition and their social concerns.
Another Milestone that effects the way we define the notion of “Good and Evil” is largely based on our religion. Therefore, the way we see right from wrong, heaven and hell, light and darkness, Good vs. Evil and God and the Devil comes from the moral criterion that we attempt to apply to our worldviews. However, given the conspicuous contrasts amongst religions, ranging from Christianity to Islam to Judaism. Many people believe that due to the simple fact of religious diversity, this provides the basis to discredit any assumption of moral truths. Some religions define evil as “the result of human sin” or that “Evil is the result of a spiritual being who opposes the Lord God”
In this reading reflection I will be discussing Richard Swinburne’s argument on “Why God Allows Evil” which starts on page 254 in “Exploring Philosophy: An Anthology” by Steven M. Cahn. This was also discussed in class on 9/15/16. In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254).
Theodore Dalrymple is a British doctor who worked for the NHS (National Health Service) until retirement. Most of his writings come directly from his experience in his field and more often than not he writes about the situation in which low-class citizens are living in. This is the case for “The Frivolity of Evil”. The author main concern in this essay is to answer to the question “why do people commit evil?” and how it could be, eventually, prevented or even suppressed.
All creatures in this world have an ability to do whatever it is willing to do. As an illustration, a mother uses drugs, yells at her son every day, forces him to do what he does not want to, and also violently abuses him. One day, that boy kills his mother. That is murder, and that is evil. God might see that, but he let it happen due to two possibilities.
Is a God unable to suppress the evil or does he have no solution to problem of evil? The thesis posited by Mackie that evil exists and there is no God to stop the evil is still relevant to today. We still have wars, incurable diseases and struggles on this planet.
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).