The Problem of Evil

1
The Problem of Evil

• The Theistic Problem

2
Why a Problem?

• Suffering simply happens why is this a problem?

• Any compassionate being (human or otherwise)
  would like to see suffering relieved, or at least
  explained

• Theistic doctrines do not seem to offer either
  present relief from, or consistent explanation
  of, suffering.

3
Epicurus famous formulation of the problem

• Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
  Then he is impotent.

• Is God able, but not willing? Then he is
  malevolent.

• Is he both able and willing? Whence then evil?

4
The Suffering Dilemma

• The Definition of God
• God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent and
  perfectly good.
• OOG this definition

• The Data of Experience
• There is personal and historical evidence of
  massive suffering

5
Simple Solutions to the Problem of Evil

• The problem is presented as a polarity of
  opposites.

Hence, denying the truth or accuracy of one of
the poles will easily resolve the problem in the
abstract.
1. If God is indifferent or malevolent, evil
makes positive sense.
2. If there is no evil (that is, if suffering can
be explained), then the existence of the OOG God
is not challenged.
6
Beyond the Simple Solutions

• Doctrinal and common-sense considerations work
  against simple solutions of this problem.

Theodicy A justification of the ways of God to
humans, by offering explanations of both kinds of
suffering in light of the existence of an
all-powerful God.
7
Thinking about evil

• There are different kinds of suffering

• Natural (caused by natural laws)
• Earthquakes, droughts, etc
• Moral (causes by moral agents)
• War, murder, rape

8
On the Relativity of Defining Evil

• It can be argued that suffering is not evil. If
  so, suffering requires no particular explanation.

Example 1 Evil is not a positive reality which
opposes good, but is rather a privation or lack
of good.
Example 2 Suffering is a part of, or a means to,
a greater good.
9
Responses to the idea that Evil is a Privation of
Good
Assumes that goodness is a metaphysical
rather than moral idea Good complete, full
being Evil incomplete, deviation from fully
developed nature
May assume the OOG God To most humans, certain
kinds of suffering just are morally unacceptable.
10
The Logical v. the Evidential Problem of Evil

• Just how strong is this claimed incompatibility
  between God and evil?
• It is insurmountable (the logical assertion)
• It is strongly persuasive (the evidential problem)

11
The Logical Problem of Evil

• The logical problem focuses on the compatibility
  of the following two claims
• 1. God is omnipotent, omniscient and loving.
• 2. Suffering exists, and is evil.

Alternately put It is claimed that the evil
of suffering is logically incompatible with the
good of God, much as the claim that this is
red is logically incompatible with the claim
that this is not colored.
12
Assumptions of the Logical Problem

• 1. A good thing always eliminates evil, as far as
  it can.

2. There are no limits to what an omnipotent
being can do.
13
Response to the Logical Problem Assumption 1

• It may not be true that a good thing always
  eliminates evil.

It is possible that some evil (suffering) is
necessary to some end or some state of reality.
Necessary suffering is suffering which is
proportionate to a particular goal/state of
reality, and which is apportioned justly to
suffering beings.
14
Response to the Logical Problem Assumption 2

• Omnipotence does not necessarily entail the
  power to do what is logically impossible.

Creating a square circle
Controlling a free being
Counter-Response If logic itself is created by
God, then God is not bound by logical possibility
or impossibility.
15
The Evidential Problem of Evil

• The evidential problem questions the likelihood
  of Gods existence (as described), given the
  quantity and quality of human suffering that has
  existed throughout history.
• This problem defines such suffering as gratuitous
  (unnecessary).

Most responses to the problem of evil address
this evidential issue.
16
On suffering as a means to an end

• If suffering is necessary to the achievement of a
  good, it is not evil.

• Kinds of unnecessary evil
• That which produces no good
• That which produces a good but this good could
  have come into existence without the suffering,
  or this good is insufficiently valuable to
  outweigh the evil
• That which is inflicted unjustly

17
Examples of Responses to the Evidential Problem
of Evil

• Evil is necessary as a means to good.

Evil builds character
Good cannot be recognized/appreciated without
the recognition/perception of evil.
Evil is due to human free will.
18
Responses to the explanations of evil from the
evidential perspective

• The necessity argument exhibits bias in favor of
  the preferred solution
• Character is destroyed as well as built
• If good and evil are mutually dependent, either
  one could be offered as a foil to highlight the
  other
• Assuming the value of free will outweighs the
  evil it necessitates
• Divine intervention is possible in the outcomes
  of free actions without interfering with the
  commission of those free actions.

19
A Final Thought

• It cannot be presumed that suffering is
  justified. The point of argument is to
  demonstrate from objective data and principles,
  that ones conclusion is supported.
• This raises a troublesome question if joy and
  suffering is ambiguous in life, why assume that
  God prefers the former (other than, of course,
  the assumption that this is what He would prefer)?

20
Evil and Karma

• Moral Chance in a Just Universe

21
Two principles of karmic justice

• Universal Justice
• Each person should have an equal opportunity to
  achieve happiness and liberation

• The Moral Law
• unless there is a necessary connection between
  an actions morality and pain or pleasure, there
  is no reason to be moral

22
The necessity of multiple lives

• The two principles of karmic justice necessitate
  more than one life
• An absolute response to evil and good is a
  necessity of justice
• pleasure and pain is the mechanism through which
  this necessity is enabled
• an equitable distribution of pleasure and pain
  doesnt occur in one life

• This is similar to saying that the goodness and
  power of the OOG God necessitates a way to show
  that our suffering is not gratuitous

23
Karma and responsibility

• Karma refers to that (morally) causal force which
  ensures universal justice through the working of
  the moral law.

• Karma is an action-reaction model, not a
  punishment-reward model

• Since your karma emanates from your own freely
  chosen behavior, your subsequent life is both
• Deserved
• A motivation to self-improvement

24
Some Questions about Karma

• What is the mechanism (a real explanation)
  through which a personal action/event affects the
  future?
• How does a subjective event cause an objective
  event to occur?
• How do we know that experienced
  suffering/happiness is in fact a just response to
  prior actions?