Throughout time, the act of anonymously sending a hateful message, regardless of factuality has always been prevalent. In the past, it could have been through rumors or ink letters, but in modern times they’re most commonly seen in online messages. This act is vile to its purest form, yet it is still a distinguishable part of human society. In the short story “The Possibility of Evil”, this vile act was presented by the protagonist Miss Strangeworth. Throughout the story, she has been seen writing toxic letters to her neighbors, uncaring about the truth and the feelings of those around her.
In Richard Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game” , Rainsford is the positive force in a classic good vs. evil showdown against a psychopathic man-hunter. For example, Rainsford non - evilness is displayed when he declines General Zaroff’s “ We will hunt - you and I,” (10). This is substantial evidence towards Rainsford morals and integrity as a human. Based on the short story, a good and decent person would not want to hunt someone, it is an act of cold blood. General Zaroff shows his true wicked being when he makes the statement of , “ Let me show you my collection of heads,” (9). That quote truly showcases General Zaroff’s evil roots. There is not a person in the existence of the world with any sort of morals or respect that would have a
The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil.
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
Through out history evil has been best depicted as the absence of goodness and goodness as the absence of evil. With goodness being comprehended as the direct opposite of evil. It is under speculation that maybe there can 't exist only one general meaning of good vs. evil. I trust this, in light of the fact that any one individual 's perception of good or evil is without a doubt directed by one 's social comprehension of certain qualities and ethics within their culture, i.e. the power of social conformity (Muncaster-Social Psychology Lecture, 2016). Yes, there can be cases of evil that is seen as malevolent all over the world but due to the ethnocentric component of the perception of cultural morals and values, one is unable to categorize another individual as evil or good based upon their own cultural understanding of this notion. As they have been socially and culturally influenced to believe contrary to the fact.
Louise M. Antony argues an important ethical concern in her article, “Good minus God”. Can a person do good deeds without God? Arguing from an atheistic point of view, Antony believes that a person does not need to depend on God in order to complete good deeds. I agree, whether Christian or Atheist, all can perform good deeds, but who ultimately defines good versus evil? Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source. In contrast, I believe God created all things and defines good and evil through His creation and Word. And finally, as followers of God, our motivation for accomplishing good comes from our love for all God has done for us. Imagine a world without order, chaotic without a specific guide to right or wrong–a world without God.
The problem of evil has been a major concern in the human race with various attempts being made to reconcile the belief in God with the existence of evil in this world. The Christian conception of God as supremely good and powerful has made the problem of evil to be very difficult simply because such a being will make the world a better place than it is by preventing evil from causing pain and suffering to humanity. Both Christianity and Judaism face a great challenge to solve the issue of evil and its existence because of the impact of evil that the holocaust caused on millions of people. Scholars have devoted their time to account for the horrifying events that took place during the holocaust by examining different theodicy
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 this paper, I will begin by stating the Problem of Evil. Following this I will include two objections to the argument and why I find the argument to not be convincing. The Problem of Evil is an argument concerning the existence of God and why God cannot exist because of the presence of evil in the world. The argument begins by saying that God is both all-powerful and wholly good, and that evil exists in the world. However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true. The next statement is that there are no limits that can be placed on an all-powerful thing. Also, a wholly good being will eliminate evil as much as possible. If these two statements are true then an all-powerful, wholly good being is able to eliminate all evil in the world.
Hume (textbook, p. 305) develops, in detail, what is presumably the most grounded contention against the presence of God in a valid deductive argument. He states, “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” In a similar vein: If God exists, he is all-knowing, omnipotent, and ethically flawless. If God were all-knowing, God would know about all the terrible occasions that occur in our reality. If God were omnipotent, God would have the capacity to do something. Furthermore, if God were ethically flawless, then unquestionably God would want to do something about all the evil and suffering. But, yet there are still countless instances of evil that fills our world. Concluding, since God does not prevent or eliminate all unnecessary suffering, logically, God does not exist. Hume concludes that if you want to make sense of all the evil randomness of the universe with the sense of God’s attributes, “You must prove these pure, unmixed, and uncontrollable attributes from the present mixed and confused phenomena, and from these alone. A hopeful undertaking!”
“The Problem of Evil” is simply the question, why does God allow evil to happen? God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, and rational, therefore why does evil exist? There is either no God or he is not what we think he is, since evil could be prevented by him with no risk. Atheists and anti-theodicist see a problem with the idea that God could prevent evil. They believe that because God is so powerful and perfect, that he would not allow such immoral actions to be done. 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.
My goal in this paper is to show that Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. I begin with a formulation of Swinburne’s thoughts about the similarity and difference between moral evil and natural evil. I then formulate the connection between evil and free will. Next, I consider the potentiality objection to this argument, and Swinburne’s response to this objection. Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive.
An argument from the divine hiddenness states; if there were an omniGod there would be no non-culpable disbelief, there is non-culpable disbelief, therefore there is no omniGod. I intend to look at this argument in further detail and attempt to find evidence on whether or not this argument should be accepted by focusing on the first premise and trying to see if it is accurate, whilst also discussing the plausibility of premise two.
One might object to the Problem of Evil by giving a theodicy. A theodicy is basically a justification that explains why God allows evil things to happen even though he is all-PGK. In addition, a theodicy is on the “God is all-PGK” side because it might prove that evil is needed in this world in intention of God, and evil is, of course, under control of God. One theodicy is free will. Free will is a gift from God. 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. First, killing his mother is what the boy needs to do to free his life, and God sees that as a solution for that boy. That is the boy’s free will. If God ever stops the son, there is no longer free will. Second, the mother needs to be removed out of this world because she is evil, and she is wrongful in treating her son. Here we can see that God intervenes to help the boy decide to stop the
Good and evil is present everywhere. In many shapes and forms, good and evil manifest. It is always around us and always within us. Good is that which is morally right. Someone who is good does the right thing regardless of whether or not anyone will know. People of virtue go out of their way to put others first and think about how they can help others and the world around them. Conversely, evil is understood to be morally repugnant behavior or acts which intentionally cause harm to others. Someone who is bad only thinks about themselves and how they can use others to their own benefit.