Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil

1
Introduction to PhilosophyLecture 7The argument
from evil

• By David Kelsey

2
J.L. Mackie

• He lived from 1917-1981.
• An Australian philosopher.
• Wrote a paper on the argument from evil titled
  Evil and Omnipotence.

3
Two formsof the argument from evil

• Argument for Atheism The argument from evil is
  an argument against the existence of God.
• The argument from evil comes in two variants.
• The logical argument from evil tries to show that
  theists beliefs are inconsistent and so must be
  false.
• The evidential argument from evil claims that the
  existence of evil is evidence that God doesnt
  exist.
• Which form of the argument from evil is Mackies?

4
What is evil?

• Evil any kind of wrongdoing, injustice, pain or
  suffering.
• Two different kinds of evil
• Moral evil is wrong or unjust actions by moral
  agents.
• Natural evil is suffering and pain not caused by
  agents.

5
An inconsistent triad

• Three inconsistent beliefs
• According to Mackie, these three beliefs are
  inconsistent
• A. There is an omnibenevolent (I.e. all good)
  being.
• B. That being is also omnipotent (I.e. all
  powerful).
• C. There is evil.
• Atheists, of course, reject A and B.
• But what can Theists reject?

6
Inconsistency

• Inconsistent Propositions
• A set of propositions is inconsistent iff they
  cant all be true at the same time.
• How can we show by argument that some
  propositions are inconsistent?
• We have to use a reductio

7
The argument from evil

• The argument from evil
• 1. God is omnibenevolent. (A)
• 2. Any omnibenevolent being prevents evil as far
  as it is able to.
• 3. Thus, God prevents evil as far as he is able
  to. (from 1 2)
• 4. God is omnipotent. (B)
• 5. Any omnipotent being is able to prevent all
  evil.
• 6. Thus, God is able to prevent all evil. (from 4
  5)
• 7. Thus, God prevents all evil. (from 3 6)
• 8. Thus, there is no evil. (from 7)
• 9. But there is evil! (C)
• 10. Thus, either A, B or C is false.

8
Evaluating Mackies argument

• Evaluating Mackies Argument
• Is the argument valid?
• What about the premises? Do any seem false?
• Premises 2 and 5?
• 2. Any omnibenevolent being prevents evil as far
  as it is able to.
• 5. Any omnipotent being is able to prevent all
  evil.
• Mackie calls these premises quasi-logical
  rules.
• They are supposed to clarify the meaning of
  omnibenevolent and omnipotent.

9
Possible replies

• Possible Theist replies to Mackies argument?
• He could deny that God is omnipotent or that he
  is omnibenevolent.
• Or he could deny that evil exists.
• But the Theist wants to really hold all three of
  these claims doesnt he?
• Maybe the Theist should deny the 2nd or 5th
  premises?
• To do so the Theist needs to explain why
• An omnibenevolent God might allow evil or why
• An omnipotent God might be unable to prevent evil
• Explanations of Gods reasons for allowing (or
  not preventing) evil are called Theodicys.

10
Theodicys

• The three types of Theodicy's that we will
  discuss
• The Means-end Theodicy
• This reply rejects premise 2 by claiming that God
  uses evil means to bring about good ends.
• The Higher good Theodicy
• This reply rejects premise 2 by claiming that
  evil forms part of a pattern that is good
  overall.
• The Free Will Theodicy
• This reply rejects premise 5 by claiming God
  cant prevent evil outcomes of free human actions.

11
Means-end Theodicy

• Means-Ends Theodicy
• Sometimes evil means are necessary to obtain a
  good end.
• The end justifies the means.
• An end
• Means
• Surgery example
• Good must outweigh evil But the good end must be
  good enough to outweigh the evil means used to
  get the end.
• Theists sometimes think that God uses evil to
  teach us, or to obtain goods he couldnt
  otherwise.

12
Problems for the means-endtheodicy

• Objection God can create any state of affairs he
  likes since hes omnipotent.
• He can just actualize the good end without the
  evil means
• Objection the connection between means and ends
  is a causal one.
• God could have just set up the laws of causation
  so that evil isnt necessary to secure good.

13
The Higher good Theodicy

• The Higher Good theodicy
• evil is a necessary part of a higher good.
• The whole pattern of pain and pleasure
  constitutes situations in which goods such as
  heroism and compassion occur.
• And yet omnibenevolence consists in promoting
  higher goods, not merely pleasure.

14
Problems with theHigher goods theodicy

• If God is out to promote 2nd order goods why
  doesnt he prevent 2nd order evils?
• 1st order good and evil 2nd order goods and
  evils
• 2nd order evils cruelty and cowardice

15
The Free WillTheodicy

• The Free Will Theodicy
• Rejects premise 5
• says that evil is the result of the actions of
  free creatures such as humans.
• God would like us to freely do good but he cant
  force us to do good, for then we wouldnt be
  free.
• We arent saying here that evil is a necessary
  part of freedom of the will

16
Mackies reply to theFree will Theodicy

• Mackies reply to the free will theodicy
• comes in the form of a dilemma.
• Mackies dilemma
• The eitheror premise offered is this
• Either it is possible that every free creature
  only do good or it is impossible.
• From either alternative Mackie leads us to the
  conclusion that either God isnt omnipotent or he
  isnt omnibenevolent.

17
Mackies dilemma

• Mackies dilemma
• 1. Either it is possible that every free creature
  only do good, or it is impossible.
• 2. If it is possible, and God cant make free
  creatures only do good, then there is a possible
  state of affairs God cant bring about and so he
  isnt omnipotent.
• 3. If it is impossible that every free creature
  only do good, then by creating free will, God
  failed to prevent evil and so he isnt
  omnibenevolent.
• 4. Thus, either God isnt omnipotent or he isnt
  omnibenevolent.

18
Replies to thedilemma

• The Theists possible replies to Mackies
  dilemma
• Give up on Theodicy and reject one of the members
  of the inconsistent triad.
• Give up on the free will theodicy
• Reject premise 3 or premise 4 of Mackies dilemma.

19
Rejecting premiseThree

• Questioning premise 3
• The theist might reject premise 3 by claiming
  that it is possible that free creatures do only
  the good,
• but God cant force them, because then they
  wouldnt be free.
• Mackies reply
• There is a possible state of affairs that God
  cant bring about so God isnt omnipotent.
• Question But what is it for God to be omnipotent
  anyway?
• Maximally powerful

20
Omnipotence

• Omnipotence and states of affairs
• There are many possible states of affairs.
• Only some of the possible states of affairs are
  actual though.
• Actual state of affairs
• Possible and not actual
• An omnipotent being can do anything
• Means an omnipotent being can actualize, or make
  actual, any state of affairs it wants.

21
The paradox of omnipotence

• Question Can God make the impossible possible?
• A Paradox Can God create a stone too heavy for
  him to lift?
• Either way, there is something he cannot do
• Revising our definition of Omnipotence
• What about this definition of omnipotence
• A being is omnipotent iff it can bring about any
  state of affairs that is logically possible.
• If we define omnipotence like this then the free
  will theodicy will work and premise 3 of Mackies
  dilemma is false.
• Premise 3 is false because
• It is logically impossible that a creature be
  free, and yet also be forced to only do good by
  God.
• So God is still omnipotent

22
But what is free willanyway?

• Indeterminism
• According to the Free Will Theodicy, my having
  free will is incompatible with God or anyone else
  determining what I do.
• This view is called Indeterminism.
• That is why God cant bring it about that I
  always freely do good.
• But maybe this is an incorrect definition of free
  will.
• Here is an argument that purports to show that no
  one has free will
• 1. Either my actions are determined by God,
  society, my upbringing, the physical states of my
  body, etc. or they are random.
• 2. If my actions are determined then I dont have
  free will.
• 3. If they are random then I dont have free
  will.
• 4. Thus, I dont have free will.

23
The argument against free will

• If we want the free will theodicy to work we need
  to show both
• The argument against free will is unsound
• Indeterminism about free will is correct.

24
Last thoughts Natural Evil

• Redefining Omnipotence
• Suppose we redefine omnipotence in a way that
  allows us to reject Mackies argument.
• A further Question, Natural Evils
• What about natural evils such as earthquakes or
  disease?
• How do you suppose the Theist might explain
  natural evils?