The eyes of many, Socrates argued, were of no importance because one should shadow the wise, and pay little importance to public opinion. Socrates states “if the many could do the greatest evil; for then they would also be able to do the greatest good--and what a fine thing this would be! But in reality they can do neither; for they cannot make a man either wise or foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance” (Plato). I believe that this statement forces Crito to look at the bigger picture. To realize what is just and unjust to get a bigger picture of who we might gather opinions from.
A lot of arguments have been known to prove or disprove the existence of God, and the Problem of Evil is one of them. The Problem of Evil argues that it is impossible to have God and evil existing in the same world. Due to ideal characteristics of God, evil should not have a chance to exist and make human suffer. In this essay, I will examine the argument for the Problem of Evil, a possible theodicy against the argument, and reply to the theodicy. First of all, to be clear, the Problem of Evil is an argument that shows that God cannot be either all- powerful, all-knowing, and/or all good.
JL Mackie was persuasive in his argument by showing that belief in an almighty God is not rational. He proves this by posing the problem of evil. According to JL Mackie, if God exists and is omniscient, omnipotent, and good then evil would not exist. However, evil exists in this world, sometimes in the form of undeserved suffering (diseases that affect humans, earthquakes, famines ...) and others perpetrated by man (murders, wars ...). If God exists and has the capability to be powerful, good, omniscient and omnipotent, why would he let evil be perpetrated?
No one knowingly does evil is the argument introduced by Socrates. Socrates believed that individuals just dedicated evil deeds out of ignorance. So when he fights that no man fails willingly, he's speaking to the notion that, had one possessed the right kind of knowledge going into a specific circumstance, they would without a doubt benefit the deed. This argument reasons that the individuals who do evil things do them involuntarily. That is, individuals would prefer essentially not to do evil things, yet do them without wanting to.
In this essay I hope to illustrate two key themes in relation to the work of Heraclitus; that in sameness and difference is a notion of unity and that such unity can be identified by Heraclitus’ notion of flux and his understanding of there being a harmonic unity of opposites. The view that everything is always changing has been attributed to Heraclitus due to a fragment in Plato’s Cratylus claiming that ‘Heraclitus said that everything is in a stage of change and nothing stays stable, and likening things to the flow of a river he says that you could not step twice into the same river’. In this regard, Plato’s interpretation of Heraclitus’ river example distinguishes the view I think Heraclitus thought most important to convey; that reality
However, if mental love chooses to turn towards evil, then it is turning against God. “As long as it’s directed toward the First Good… those whom He made have worked against their Maker.” (Purg. 17. 97-102) However, to direct mental love towards the First good can never be easy, for mental love involves the free will, and man’s free will always has that tendency to turn towards evil than what is really
In On Free Will, Augustine comes to a very similar conclusion. In the dialogue Evodius asks Augustine whether or not God is the creator of evil, in order to answer this Augustine must work with Evodius to determine what evil is and from there who are its creators. Augustine demonstrates that God is not the creator of evil, only just punishment, and the evil humans create is of their own doing, is a form of ignorance, and because evil is punished by God, being evil is harmful to evil beings. Meno’s definition of Virtue at this point in the dialogue states that virtue is “desiring fine things and being able to acquire them” (Baird and Kaufmann, 156). Socrates replies with the observation that it seems some people desire evil, which he defines later on as what brings about unhappiness and misfortune.
Euthyphro’s Dilemma is when Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Does God love goodness because it is good, or is it good because God loves it?” Euthyphro’s Dilemma is that God determines what is good and evil, right and wrong. This dilemma challenges the Divine Command theory because according to Euthyphro’s Dilemma we would be obligated to do something wrong because God commanded it. This conflicts with the Divine Command theory because it would imply that cruelty could be morally right if God told us to do so. The idea that cruelty can be morally right goes up against the belief in the Divine Command Theory because it proposes that an action's status that is morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God
Philosophical thinking uses three acts of the mind: understanding, judgement, and reason. In order to have a sound argument all of the concepts must be applied. Socrates didn’t want to please the people by saying or doing what they wanted him to say or do. Socrates thought it was not important to seek wealth or fame; he was concerned with truth and virtue. He wanted to create an impact on humanity by relying on the truth and shining a light in people’s lives, even if they put him on trial.
Furthermore, just decision making should not be interfered with in the face of death because we simply do not know that death is a bad thing. Socrates explains this further in passage 29a, “You see, fearing death, gentlemen, is nothing other than thinking one is wise when one isn’t, since it’s thinking one knows what one doesn’t know. I mean, no one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all goods for people, but they fear it as if they knew for certain that it’s the worst thing of all. Yet surely this is the most blameworthy ignorance of thinking one knows what one doesn’t know,” (Plato, 44). In this passage, Socrates conveys that because man does not know what the consequences of their own death are, whether it is the worst thing or best thing that can happen to them, it is selfish and irrelevant to let their irrational fears of the unknown interfere with their lifestyle and decisions if they believe themselves to be leading a just and honorable
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. In Mackie’s Fallacious Situation, there are four main points that are discussed.
According to Hegal, If Abraham is a “father of faith”, then he shouldn’t do something a human would do that is considered irrational, which is murdering people to prove God exist. God mustn’t tell us to do something irrational to society that can be labeled “evil to us, for he is above all and morally perfect. However for us human beings, we need to follow something that IS powerful than us and can lead us to something great at the end. Thus, we question when do we ignore something that is not considered ethical. Hegal wants to prove that he Abraham can be the “tragic hero” of the story, but he can still make rational decisions by his own and not by his “God” he follows.
When he thinks negative of an idea or thought he wonders if an evil demon plotted those thoughts. If demons exist, so must God. Descartes believed God will not allow any evil demons to deceive anybody. We can not be for certain if God had a reason to teach humanity a lesson or allow an evil demon to do that
The difficult of evil exists undoubtedly the leading problem to trust in the being of God. The dispute from cruel or problem of evil is the dispute that an omnipotent, omniscient, and flawlessly moral God would not let someone or definite types of evil or grief to happen. Only individuals who have faith that there exists a Deity who is both all-powerful and wholly good are bothered by the problem of evil. The issue of evil grips all five of the subsequent propositions are: First, God is entirely moral; He wishes the supreme on behalf of everybody in the universe, Second, God is all-powerful; it means that He can do what is logically impossible, God can do all He wants, Third, Evil subsists; “Evil” signifies whichever deficiency in the world,
If God is an all loving God how can he allow for evil to exist? Philosopher J. L. Mackie argues that “the existence of evil and the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God are logically incompatible. And since we know evil exists, therefore God must not exist” (Muehlhauser). In other words, if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, how can he allow for evil to exist in the world? Per Mackie’s logic, it does not make sense that such a being who is wholly good would not eliminate evil.