There can be a natural evil - something like a natural disaster (like the 2010 devastating earthquake in Haiti that killed almost 200,000 people and possibly left a million people homeless); diseases like cancer, AIDS, (or yes, I'll say it, COVID - 19); accidents or other things that don't seem to have an intent to do harm but just happen (an agentless cause).
- What about lung cancer? If lung cancer is caused by someone's smoking habit, then it can be considered evil. The cigarettes themselves, however, cannot be thought of as evil, because they needed to be used in order to become toxic. If a person develops lung cancer b/c he/she lives in a high pollution area and has lived w/ heavy smokers his/her entire life, then the person wouldn't be considered evil. An evil has been done to him/her by another person's free will (the smoker, the polluting company).
- What about the use of the atomic bomb? - Can an object itself be evil w/o an agent to use it? If the atomic bomb was never exploded over a population but used as leverage by the countries that owned them, is that evil? Does the threat of its use make it evil? Or is the threat itself evil? If the bomb is created but never used or even its use threatened, does the bomb cease to be evil?
Then there are moral evils. These have an agent as the cause or someone or something doing the evil with intent. We tried to break things down to universals - is there a universal evil in every society (like Satan)? Wikipedia broke the nature of moral evil down into 4 groups:
"Views on the nature of evil tend to fall into one of four opposed camps:Moral absolutism holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by a deity or deities, nature, morality, common sense, or some other source;Amoralism claims that good and evil are meaningless, that there is no moral ingredient in nature;Moral relativism holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice;Moral universalism is the attempt to find a compromise between the absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view; universalism claims that morality is only flexible to a degree, and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans. Author Sam Harris notes that universal morality can be understood using measurable (i.e. quantifiable) metrics of happiness and suffering, both physical and mental, rooted in how the biology of the brain processes stimuli."
As discussed in the chapter "Two Cultures", St. Augustine thought that evil was not doing God's will. He also believed that we as humans are born with original sin (because of Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden).
Then there is the problem of evil - why does it exist at all? This is the school of thought that if God (or any all knowing, all powerful good diety) existed, why would that diety allow evil to exist? If it did allow evil to exist, then is the diety really good and/or all powerful? There are many ways to look at this - see Problem of evil - here - and here - and here - for ideas. Some religious types think that this argument is so corrosive that they devote a lot of energy to debunking it - they think it might lead to atheism.
C.S. Lewis, author of the Chronicles of Narnia, wrote this about his early athiest days:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies"
Occam's Razor is an idea credited to 14th Century friar William of Ockham which states that the conclusion based on the fewest assumptions is most likely the right one.
Questions (pick 3 of 5 questions to answer):
1. Is it better to prevent evil than to promote good when making rules or standards to live by? Why?
2. Do you agree with the problem of evil - that a benevolent, omnipotent diety wouldn't allow evil? Why or why not?
3. Are we making this more complicated than it has to be? Or should we just reduce it to the simplest explanation (Occam's razor - see above)?
4. If we as humans can conceive of evil or evil acts and thoughts, does that mean we are evil by nature? Why or why not?
- What about lung cancer? If lung cancer is caused by someone's smoking habit, then it can be considered evil. The cigarettes themselves, however, cannot be thought of as evil, because they needed to be used in order to become toxic. If a person develops lung cancer b/c he/she lives in a high pollution area and has lived w/ heavy smokers his/her entire life, then the person wouldn't be considered evil. An evil has been done to him/her by another person's free will (the smoker, the polluting company).
- What about the use of the atomic bomb? - Can an object itself be evil w/o an agent to use it? If the atomic bomb was never exploded over a population but used as leverage by the countries that owned them, is that evil? Does the threat of its use make it evil? Or is the threat itself evil? If the bomb is created but never used or even its use threatened, does the bomb cease to be evil?
Then there are moral evils. These have an agent as the cause or someone or something doing the evil with intent. We tried to break things down to universals - is there a universal evil in every society (like Satan)? Wikipedia broke the nature of moral evil down into 4 groups:
"Views on the nature of evil tend to fall into one of four opposed camps:Moral absolutism holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by a deity or deities, nature, morality, common sense, or some other source;Amoralism claims that good and evil are meaningless, that there is no moral ingredient in nature;Moral relativism holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice;Moral universalism is the attempt to find a compromise between the absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view; universalism claims that morality is only flexible to a degree, and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans. Author Sam Harris notes that universal morality can be understood using measurable (i.e. quantifiable) metrics of happiness and suffering, both physical and mental, rooted in how the biology of the brain processes stimuli."
As discussed in the chapter "Two Cultures", St. Augustine thought that evil was not doing God's will. He also believed that we as humans are born with original sin (because of Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden).
Then there is the problem of evil - why does it exist at all? This is the school of thought that if God (or any all knowing, all powerful good diety) existed, why would that diety allow evil to exist? If it did allow evil to exist, then is the diety really good and/or all powerful? There are many ways to look at this - see Problem of evil - here - and here - and here - for ideas. Some religious types think that this argument is so corrosive that they devote a lot of energy to debunking it - they think it might lead to atheism.
C.S. Lewis, author of the Chronicles of Narnia, wrote this about his early athiest days:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies"
Occam's Razor is an idea credited to 14th Century friar William of Ockham which states that the conclusion based on the fewest assumptions is most likely the right one.
Questions (pick 3 of 5 questions to answer):
1. Is it better to prevent evil than to promote good when making rules or standards to live by? Why?
2. Do you agree with the problem of evil - that a benevolent, omnipotent diety wouldn't allow evil? Why or why not?
3. Are we making this more complicated than it has to be? Or should we just reduce it to the simplest explanation (Occam's razor - see above)?
4. If we as humans can conceive of evil or evil acts and thoughts, does that mean we are evil by nature? Why or why not?
5. Do you believe that free will is at the root of most evil? Why or why not?
Your responses to the questions due by Saturday night, May 2. 400 words for your total answer.
