Evil results when man disrupts the natural processes, Taoism says, and the cure is to be found in flowing effortlessly with the tide of nature. Confucianism holds that evil is caused by man’s ignorance or refusal to know and obey the laws of the universe. Western Explanations of Evil: If it is assumed that the universe is self-existent – that there is no creator and no transcendent meaning – the existence of evil has to be explained only in terms of the universe. If one views the world as negative, without order, or perhaps as essentially destructive, there would be no problem in explaining evil; instead, the problem would be to explain the good. However, the philosophical and theological traditions of the West have affirmed that there is a transcendent reality that is essentially
Mackie theorizes there is no possibility all three facts can be true and coexist together. The problem of evil exists through the liberty and free will of human beings and their right to choose. Evil can be categorized into two main types, moral and natural evil.
Good and Evil Are not Real The concept of good and evil is one of the most foundational apothegms ever known to humankind. It was a crucial stepping stone for other morals, and it is what averts society from pandemonium, by providing structures for laws. But, one may ask oneself; where did the conceptualization of good and evil arise? I believe that good and evil does not exist and are entirely artificial. Ludicrous is what one might be thinking after I’ve stated such a radical exposition, but I disagree and can justify my argument with factual evidence.
Free will can influence universal morality. Free will can implement a stricter and more rigid form of morality. Without the influence of free will, the need for moral responsibility is absent. Nietzsche believes that free will was created to punish and impute guilt upon people. Free will was not created for that sole purpose but Nietzsche's belief is true.
However, if one accepts the second argument, that God commanding something makes it good, then it implies that there is a form of arbitrariness around what really makes an action morally good because it means that whatever God commands is good even if we find it completely absurd – for example, if God were to command that torturing someone is good and something we ought to do, then if we accept the second argument, we would have no choice to do it, even if we know that it is morally wrong. This concludes that either God is not really, morally, good, or He's not almighty. Both conclusions lead to a scenario where it does not matter which statement theists choose to be right as it will ultimately be the lesser of two evils and will still question either God’s morality or His
Shelley could be mocking the concept of a god, and Christianity itself. 11. The monster would probably be trustworthy. It only wanted a companion and to be accepted for who it was. Victor wouldn 't be trustworthy because he created a monster and refused to take responsibility for his own creation.
Religion is just an easily controllable/ corruptible system that can affect the people who believes in it. One example is U.S.A. U.S.A separated religion and state so that unethical/ corrupt politicians could not infiltrate it and use it to justify war. If I were to explain it I would say, U.S.A does not allow religious arguments to triumph or make a difference as to whether a certain thing should be done or not. Everything that is decided (such as war) needs to have a valid explanation, not something such as, “God is telling us to fight so we have to fight” or “we are not allowed to fight because that is not the will of God”, these arguments are not accepted by the state as a reason to act. If you put a
Philo concludes that for those who already believe in an omnipotent and all-good god, these four causes are not enough to invalidate their beliefs. INSERT CITATION He says this because all four of his causes can be dispelled under the assumption that there is some divine explanation that reconciles god’s goodness with the evil in the world. However, coming from an unbiased perspective, Philo says that we certainly cannot infer the existence of a benevolent god when these causes of natural evil are taken into account. In fact, if we do attempt to divulge god’s moral attributes from the state of the universe, then Philo concludes that the only proper deduction we can draw is that god is neither good nor is he evil, but rather he is entirely indifferent to the principles of morality altogether – in essence, god is morally neutral. INSERT
Aristotle believed that higher law could be discovered from nature whereas Aquinas believed that this law came from god in the form of the 10 commandments. He also believed that there were two ways in which laws could be unjust. One of the ways being that the law could be unjust if it went against human good and if this was the case then such laws should be disregarded. The second way the laws could be unjust according to Aquinas was if it went against God’s will and violates natural law it should be disregarded. Arguably the government dislikes natural law as it holds more power than the
While positive thrust justifies state’s coercion, it supports harm prevention . From religious perspective, the true freedom exists only in the service of good and just, other than that is an abuse of freedom and lead to slavery of sin. J.S Mill opined the state should not encroach individual autonomy based on public morality as criminal law is not used to promote moral values but protecting against harm . Liberal does enforce moral but only if that part of morality constituted by harm principles. In Brown, the consent was limited for legal