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.
Will Drake
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1:
When taking a look at this question, the way that I interpret it is to mean should we, as a society, crack down on people and restrict their freedoms in an effort to prevent wrongs or should we allow people to have their freedoms while promoting good behavior and actions. Now, this is just the way that I view this question and others may have a different interpretation of it. Personally, I believe that we, as a society, should allow people to maintain more freedom while promoting what is considered good behavior. Additionally, if the other route were taken and we were to try to prevent evil, then government or a governing force would need to decide what constitutes “evil.” This is not a power I wish to give to the government. Overall, I think that more freedoms are preferable to less freedoms and that we should also promote what is considered “good” in schools and other places in order to influence people to partake in benevolent activities.
Question 2:
I find this question particularly interesting to me because I have never been especially religious or a big believer in a higher power. I agree the argument that a good, omnipotent God would not allow evil does seem valid on the surface and may cause a believer in a higher power some trouble in answering. If the God that many people believe in is real and all powerful, why would he/she/it not use their power to prevent the wrongs in the world? But, I can see the opposite side of this argument as well. When watching the Crash Course video on the problem of evil, the most pressing argument for the existence of a God (even though evil exists) was that good cannot exist without evil. We cannot understand what good is without there being evil in the same way that we cannot understand what being hungry is without having been full before. Removing the argument of whether or not a higher power exists, it makes sense to me that evil will, unfortunately, always exist because that is the world we live in. The world is not perfect and there are flaws to it.
Question 5:
I do not believe that free will is the cause of most evil. Rather, free will is necessary to evil existing in the world. Evil is an exercise of free will that is contrary to what is best for everyone else and is completely unavoidable when people have free will. It is a great thing in today’s world that people are able to make their own decisions and decide their own future and it would be wonderful for people to always do what is moral and what would bring the most to others, but this is not always the case. Additionally, referring back to the first question I think it is best for everyone to maximize freedoms and people can decide what they wish to do with their lives.
https://joeysphilosophical.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the first question, most people would immediately think that preventing evil is more important than promoting good when creating rules. However, there are a number of factors that make promoting good a far more important and effective standard. Psychologically, humans respond better to reinforcement than punishment. Thus, punishing malicious behavior will do less to better society than rewarding benevolent acts. Moreover, preventing evil and promoting good requires some central institution - most often the government - defining what is evil and what is good. Even if you trust your government now, no one knows how it will change; the government often changes suddenly, which is the case with coups. Allowing the government to define good behavior would not infringe on people’s freedoms, whereas defining evil behavior would allow the government to do so, whether it is in the form of imprisonment or fines.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the notion presented by the problem of evil - that God (swt) would not allow evil. First, there must be evil for goodness to exist. Without it, people would not know what is to be expected, and would not be able to appreciate their blessings. More importantly, I do not believe that God (swt) needs to protect us from evil. He (swt) does not need our faith or our attention; rather, we need to believe for our own good. Thus, God (swt) can allow both good and evil to occur on Earth while still being the most benevolent and powerful. Belief in God (swt) in spite of the evil that exists in the world demonstrates that we are true believers and deserve to be rewarded in the present life and the afterlife.
Although humans can be evil or have evil thoughts, it does not necessarily mean that we as humans are evil by nature. Most importantly, not all people are capable of evil. Most would find it inconceivable to steal someone’s life from them unless in an act of self-preservation. Furthermore, even those who can find it within them to drive themselves to act maliciously are not always evil by nature. I believe - and history agrees - that people can be rehabilitated after commiting egregious acts. Not all evil acts were done because the person themselves is evil; often, external factors - such as one’s environment - can drive people to act unlike themselves. Evil exists in spades in this world, and while some of it can be attributed to the evil nature of certain people, many good acts are linked to the benevolent nature of some people.
Natural evil
ReplyDeleteI believe that natural disasters are not evil. They are very tragic and very painful, that is a fact. But in my opinion, I think natural disasters are a test from God. To me, I think it is like a wake-up call as we have done something wrong, or we need a reminder. What I mean by this is that we have natural disasters to help people bring each other up together and be together as one world and not be divided. It kind of helps us realize that we’re all people and bad things happen to everyone, and we need to work together. Therefore I think natural disasters are not evil and that God could prevent them, but he chooses to do them to test us as people.
Lung cancer
I believe lung cancer as a disease is evil because it brings down your body and kills you. But to me, long cancer, it is not as evil as companies of cigarettes, which are only money hungry. They know the risks of how bad it is but still choose to sell cigarettes and make poison for everyone. And for the people who smoke cigarettes and know that is bad for them, they are not necessarily evil, but they are terrible people to themselves because they know they are harming themselves and supporting the evil people who are the companies of cigarettes.
The atomic bomb
The atomic bomb itself is not evil. But the people who threatened to use atomic bombs or who have used them are evil. What I mean by this is that they know they have a weapon that could kill a large group of people, and it is profoundly immoral, but they choose to use it as a threat to scare people instead of finding other solutions. So, in my opinion, this is an act of evil.
Overall
I feel that there are people who are evil but they are evil out of their own free will they choose it from their desires in their place. And yes, God could prevent it not because he has sent evil to the world that he is not there it is he sent it for a reason to teach us as people as a lesson that we can choose our paths. And sometimes the bad things that happened to us is a punishment to us from God. So I believe overall that sometimes we over complicate or over think evil in what it is.
Eleen Laham
2. Personally, I don't necessarily believe in God, or a higher power, so I do not know if an all kind and powerful god wouldn’t allow evil. How I approach it, is that I think evil just kind of happens. I don't believe that evil is caused by someone up above or a higher power. Yes, there are bad people in the world that commit miserable crimes, but I do not conclude they were born that way or rather God told them to do it. Moreover, I feel there are multiple factors that go into moral evil occurring. For example, if someone is mentally unstable and cannot control themselves, they might commit something horrible, but I don’t think that act of evil had anything to do with a higher power involved. Also, there is natural evil. I know a lot of natural evil is caused by changing seasons and climate, such as earthquakes and hurricanes. But, there are some examples of natural evil like colon and lung cancer that to some extent can be avoided by living a healthy lifestyle and not smoking. On the other hand, there is an argument that says we can't have good without evil. It is basically saying, we can't have exciting things happen in this world, like getting a new iPhone, without let’s say someone getting kidnapped. I see how this argument is valid because if only good things happened in this world, no one would know what it would feel like to struggle or be sad. So, if something bad did happen people wouldn't know how to function because everything so far in their life had been perfect. Thus, I don't believe any evil happens because of God, but rather by luck or choice.
ReplyDelete3. I do think sometimes people commit crimes or a natural disaster occurs, simple as that and you just have to deal with it. On the other hand, it is sort of interesting to dig down deeper to see if there is a deeper meaning or reason for why various examples of evil happen. Like, why did someone actually die? Was it actually just because of “natural causes,” or is there more to it? Or why did Bob kill someone at a 7/11 at exactly 7:00pm on a Saturday? Like why wasn’t it at 7:01pm or on a Sunday? Maybe there is no deep reasoning for the specifics of a crime or someone getting cancer, it could just be a coincidence or some form of luck, no one will ever know. Some of these questions won’t ever be answered and some of these insistences will never have a deep meaning behind why they occured, but it is interesting to think about.
4. I don't think humans are by nature good or evil, but rather we are greatly influenced by our environment and upbringing. If someone is born into a high crime area, they might be more likely to join a gang or commit a crime. On top of that, if someone is born into a family that has poor eating and exercise habits, they may be more likely to develop diabetes or obesity. So, I think everyone is just born and life is what they make of it. If you choose to follow in the footsteps of your surroundings, you can, or if you choose to venture out and make something positive out of the life you have, you can do that as well. But, I know there are many factors such as having mental issues, a disability, or lack of money and opportunity that can keep you from leaving your roots, which is very unfair, but I don’t think it was meant to be or happened on purpose for people in that unfortunate situation. Overall, I don’t believe anyone was born evil, but rather other factors either in or out of their control provoked that behavior.
2) The problem of evil has been a very strong counter-argument against the existence of god. Many believers of God believe him to be an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent being. The problem of evil states that if an “omni” god did exist then evil should not because it is contradictory to the nature of god to allow evil to exist. Many atheists cite the problem of evil as the biggest problem with theism and many theists find it hard to reconcile their beliefs with what they see around them. To try to solve this “problem of evil” we must first define what evil is. Evil is generally considered to be the absence of good. If we look around us at the world, we notice that there are two main forms of evil. They are “natural evil” and “moral evil”. “Natural evil” is considered to be evil that is caused by sources out of the control of humankind such as natural disasters. “Moral evil” is considered to be evil caused directly by humankind such as murder, rape etc. Theists believe that moral evil is caused by free-will and that god gave us free will to be able to choose good willingly. Therefore it is not his fault if someone chooses to do something wrong. Moral evil exists due to free will and does not contradict the existence of god. “Natural evil” on the other hand, is evil done without an apparent perpetrator. Often “natural evil” takes its form in hurricanes, forest fires, earthquakes, or tornados. I believe that the processes of nature cannot be inherently good or evil. Nature is not an agent that can make a choice between good or evil. Nature does as nature does. As outsiders looking in at nature sometimes it can appear that nature is evil but that is simply not the case.
ReplyDelete4) Human beings are meant to do good and are born with a capacity to do so. I believe that human beings are good by nature. Some human beings can be evil, however, due to their free-will. A relevant analogy is this: a knife’s purpose is to cut but not all knives cut well. It could be that only a few knives cut well, but this doesn’t change the nature of the knife.
5) Yes, I believe that free will is the root of most if not all evil. Evil is primarily caused by human beings that have the choice to do good. We have discretion to act as we choose and we may choose to do evil. Evil caused by humans is perhaps the worst evil. People have chosen to do many horrible things throughout history and have done so with free will.
I think that in preventing evil you are inadvertently promoting good. Rules aren't made with the assumption that everybody is a perfect human because if that were the case, they wouldn't be necessary. One thing about rules though is that people feel the need to push for breaking said rules. From a psychological standpoint, Punishment doesn't work, instead you typically see that people just find ways of avoiding the punishment but this doesn't mean that you're following the rules. If we as a society put a large emphasis on the idea that everyone needs to walk the straight and narrow, that would never work, but if parents instill core values and foundational morals that they are producing less of a chance for a seed of evil to sprout. But that being said, it is ultimately up to you as a person to decide what path your life takes. All of the rules in the world cannot stop someone from going out and killing someone if that is what they truly desire.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't know where exactly I stand on my beliefs with God, and I don't know if or how the bible references the evil that man has created, but I don't see how that could be true. The way that I see his question is asking if a deity that wants to promote peaceful and tranquil living, would that deity prevent that evil from happening. The way that God has always been discussed is that he is someone you want to lay your troubles on to. You confess the evil to him and allow him to heal you and relieve you of your evil burdens. In that sense i guess i would have to say a higher power is supposed to guide you through your battles, not to eliminate them completely.
I don't think that humans are evil by nature. Some of the things that can be considered the cruelest things weren't exactly made out of spite. Weapons started as means to protect yourself or to help hunt, and they were seen as necessities of survival and self protection. It's in the hands of the beholder what they chose to do with these tools. I think humans' curiosity has led them to explore what they can create. Curiosity is not an evil characteristic. I also think that there are experiences that lead to evil acts and thoughts forming in people but even that does not mean that person as a whole is evil. To label an entire person as evil is extremely deep and I think that in order to do that fairly, you would truly have to consider that person as a whole, and not judge them off of one malice act.
2
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the problem of evil argument. I see how it can be hard to look at all the evil, suffering and injustice in the world and go on to believe there is an all knowing, all powerful, all loving god watching over us, but I disagree with the point. Just because God is omnipotent and loving, does by no means mean they will intervene in the world to make it perfect. A loving God, like any loving parent, lets their children have some amount of freewill and control of their own life. Unfortunately, evil comes as a consequence to that as evil is routed in freewill. When granted freewill, we are able to act selfishly in our own self interest instead of doing what will help the greater good of the world.
4
While a big part of being human is resisting evil, I don't think humans are evil by nature. The temptation of evil is something we all fight against, but I don't believe evil is built into our beings. Just because we have the ability to be evil doesn't make us evil just as the ability we all have to be good does not make us good by nature. By nature, we are all blank slates and we later choose our paths, whether it be good or evil (in pretty much all cases it will be a mix of both).
5
As a matter of opinion, not only do I think freewill is the root of evil, but also there would be no evil without freewill. If we were all, for lack of a better word, programmed by a power greater than ourselves, temptation of sin and evil would not be a factor in our world. When we are able to act on our own, we are tempted to act out of greed to give ourselves an edge on everyone else. If we were controlled by one being with one uniform interest or goal with no contradictions, greed would be non-existent, temptation would be non-existent, and therefore evil would be non-existent.
ReplyDelete1)When making rules to live by the best option is to promote good. Promoting good is a simple but stable option because it lessened the chance of evil to grow or even originate. When promoting good the idea is to keep it from letting evil ideas from spawning. Evil starts as a seed and when fed and given into grows and causes chaos. Promoting evil destroys the seed. This keeps evil out of the thought process since you replace it with good. Keeping good in the thought process is important because it keeps the thought process pure. positive/ pure thoughts keep the evil thoughts at bay. 2) if evil and good could be represented by (people) good would be superheroes and evil would be the villain. Then onto the movie Megamind, in the movie the main character that was a villain needed the super hero to balance him out. Just like Megamind I think evil needs to be balanced out by good. If there is no good there is no use of evil, there would only be despair and vice versa. If a deity did create good then they would also have created evil for balance. Balance is a key essential for life, there would be no point I just one of them there has to be both. 4) Humans are not born or made evil, if that was the case then humans wouldn't be able to conceive good thoughts and actions. Humans could be completely free from evil and be innocent all its life. But humans' flaw is our susceptibility to corruption. Humans can commit the most evil of crimes and come up with the scariest ideas, but that doesn't mean that they are evil by nature. Now that doesnt mean there aren't some people who embody evil more than others. People change as quickly as the seasons there are always two changes; good and bad. Though humans aren't born in evil. Evil can root deep inside them and live in them. Evil also spreads like a wild fire or pollen. Evil can be prevented but once it latches on can also be almost impossible to defeat. Though humans can alpesh evil they still blame evil when evil things happen. This is what makes humans so special we can embody something and still believe it's not our fault. Evil takes advantage of this and lives inside some humans and causes distress and despair for others
1. I think it depends from person to person. Some people may respond better to guidelines of what they can’t do, while others may respond better to a set of rules that tell them what they should do. Typically I think it makes sense to say what you can’t do though. If my mom tells me I can’t go out, I won’t. But if she tells me to clean my room, maybe I will but I probably won’t. I think both ways of trying to stop evil can compel people to rebel. When some people are told not to do something it might make them want to do it more. For others, when they are told to do something it might make them want to do it less. When talking about a personal moral compass, however, I don't think it matters which approach you take as long as you make it clear to yourself why or why not something is moral other than that you’re told not to. Instead of thinking “I can’t kill someone” think “I would never kill someone because I would be taking someone's life away and hurting their family and friends, and I would also likely go to jail and ruin my own life”.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with this idea because I don’t think that there is a higher power that actively influences what happens on Earth. I like to think that the higher power created the universe and then just let it be. I disagree that if there is a higher power it would prevent evil. I also think that even if it was involved in what happens in the world, it still might allow these evils to exist as a punishment for all the terrible things that humans have done to harm its creation.
4. I don’t believe humans are inherently evil or good. We are all born neutral and our nature is formed by our environment and experiences. However, I feel that some human brains are more susceptible to committing evil acts and having those thoughts and some are more likely to remain good even when they have had traumatic experiences. This is when people who lived in good households end up turning bad and people in troubled households who were raised poorly end up achieving big things. I think that being good is the ability to follow your moral code, so if you have bad thoughts its ok as long as you don’t act on them.