Problem Of Evil Mackie Analysis

This is in contrast to ‘moral evil’, which refers to evil stemming from human action or inaction. As summarized by Plantinga (1977, p. 58), his defense suggests that God must create free beings capable of moral evil in order to create free beings capable of moral good. These beings cannot be prevented from doing evil

The Problem of Evil “Evil has no positive nature but the loss of good has received the name of evil” said St. Augustine.The problem comes from the fact that if there is a deity that is all good, all knowing and all powerful, how can evil exist? The problem of evil (or argument from evil) is the problem of reconciling the existence of the evil in the world with the existence of an omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) and perfectly good God. The argument from evil is the atheistic argument that the existence of such evil cannot be reconciled with, and so disproves, the existence of such a God. Therefore, the “problem of evil” presents a significant issue. Mackie theorizes there is no possibility all three facts can be true and coexist together.

In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned. However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person.

The logical form of the problem pertains to the view that “the existence of evil in our world is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God.” This form is demonstrated by the statement, “An omnipotent, omniscient, good being will prevent the occurrence of any evil whatever.” In other words, an existence of a God who has these qualities of being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent is logically inconsistent to the thought that evil exist granting these qualities He possess. On the other hand, the evidential form of the problem of evil refers to the view that “the variety and profusion of evil in our world, although not logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God provides, nevertheless, rational support for Atheism, for the belief that the theistic God does not exist.” This form of problem is basically about the suffering that people experiences in the world which can be considered evil for serving no purpose at all. Though there are sufferings which are considered to be evil since all for form of suffering are evil but still it brings about good consequences, so that they are considered justifiable. However, pertaining to the occurrence of sufferings that are pointless such as the killing of a one-year-old child evidently proves that God does not exist since if he exists he should have prevented pointless sufferings to

Defining the boundaries of where these sciences take authority is definitely a limitation. Regarding this, bias is another limitation that this model has to deal with. In regards to this, bias can be implemented when someone favors one of the two sciences over the other in a way that creates an unbalance. The Allies model does not serve either science, but rather, it serves God and God alone. In that, God has created both sciences and hold them in an equal stance.

Furthermore, defenders of the divine command theory like Alston have faced the Euthyphro dilemma by says that although God’s commands make right actions right, God is morally perfect and hence would never issue unjust or immoral commandments. On their eyes, God’s nature is the standard of moral goodness, and God’s commands or words are the origin of all obligation and kindness. (Jeremy Koons, n.d.) One well-known objection to divine will/divine command moral theories is that they commit us to the view that God’s will is arbitrary, and the arbitrary will of God is not a plausible basis for morality. (Thomas,

The big question to ask yourself people of the jury is, “If God is all good and powerful, then where does evil come from. God cannot be the creator of evil if he is all good. If he is all good and powerful and he did create evil, then why does he not get rid of

This is because critics may question the origins of God based on Descartes’s claim that perfection precedes imperfection and “something must come from something”. (Bennet 2004, 12) It is important to note that perfection in itself reaches a limit because it is incapable of improving further, thus when God possesses the sum of all possible perfections, it would mean that God does not have potential for anymore improvements. This presents a dilemma for Descartes because if God is already perfect, and perfection is viewed to be a form limit itself, then there must be no being who is more perfect than God himself. However, since everything has a cause, God must have origins as well. This means that God either comes from nothing or something.

Regardless of whether or not the idea is correct or wrong, just or unjust, it can be argued that every party possesses the right to evaluate the ideas in the first place. Not addressing such a statement illustrates the contradictory nature of Plato 's philosophical beliefs. An example can be illustrated with the address of religion. It is argued that having a system of belief is more important than whether or not that system is true. That being said, regardless of whether a belief or system is true or false, one should still possess the right to evaluate it so.

The purpose of this essay is to analyze and substantiate the evilness of human nature. By taking examples of historical events, Xunzi’s teachings and various research studies, this essay seeks to provide valuable insight into the vile behavior of most human beings, while