Moral Evil vs. Natural Evil Essay

“The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n…Here we may reign secure, and in my choice to reign is worth ambition “ (Paradise lost.120-21). This explaining humans can't be naturally born to act evil but it can

The reason that we even have an experience of a perceived evil is because for the soul to experience itself as any particular thing, the exact opposite of that thing must come into the realm of existence. In other words, in this relative existence, hot cannot be hot without cold, darkness cannot be without light, and you cannot be you without that which is not you. So I believe that what we call evil is just the opposite end of the spectrum of good, not something separate.

This is the problem of evil. Augustine summed it up most effectively when he said, “Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not. If he cannot then he is not all-powerful. If he will not then he is not all good.” Augustine viewed evil as merely the absence of good just as dark is the absence of light, a non-being “a name for nothing but the want of good”. He looked to the Bible for an explanation for the existence of God and believed that the fall of humanity from grace, as shown in Genesis, showed the origin of evil. He believed that evil came into the world because human beings had deliberately turned away from God and his goodness. This suggests that both moral and natural evil is a result of original human sin.

One of the oldest dilemmas in philosophy is also one of the greatest threats to Christian theology. The problem of evil simultaneously perplexes the world’s greatest minds and yet remains palpably close to the hearts of the most common people. If God is good, then why is there evil? The following essay describes the problem of evil in relation to God, examines Christian responses to the problem, and concludes the existence of God and the existence of evil are fully compatible.

In the world of the living, evil is not inherent and can change or influence a person’s aspect of the world based on the community they are in. Evil is the force of things that are morally wrong and the matter of suffering, wrongdoing and misfortune (Merriam Webster). Evil is not inherent because an evil community can change or influence a person’s way of thinking, can consume people the more they are relinquished to it, and can mold a person when a person has power or feel a certain way. Furthermore, evil can be claim as not inherent from reading about Josef Mengele, Stanley Milgram, and the Stanford Prison Experiment. I will persuade my point that evil is not inherent from the sources that depicts the claim of evil.

To begin, I will discuss what I believe evil to be. Conceptually speaking, there are two forms of evil, natural and moral. Natural evil consists of phenomena which occur due to natural sources within creation. This form of evil includes weather disasters, cosmic barriers such as asteroids or collapsing stars, planetary movements such as earthquakes and volcanoes, animal instincts such as viral outbreaks or bear attacks (i.e. anything that drives self-preservation in the animal world), and so on. Conceptually, natural evils are not affected by human involvement. In other words, these phenomena would occur regardless if humanity existed in creation or not. Once an otherwise naturally occurring phenomenon happens as a result of human behavior, i.e. global warming, it no longer fits this form of evil, conceptually speaking.

Nelson Pike shows that St. Thomas Aquinas presents three possible solutions to the problem regarding the incoherence between God’s inability to sin and His omnipotence, or ability to do anything. Only the third solution will be discussed in this paper. St. Thomas’ goal is to prove that God can coherently be both omnipotent and impeccable. In this instance, impeccable means perfectly good and lacking evil. At this point, it may be helpful to specify how the terms “good” and “evil’ will be used moving forward. In his discussion, Pike defines “evil” as “Any situation which is such that if one were to (knowingly) bring it about (though it is avoidable), that individual would be morally reprehensible” (212). This definition should suit our purposes,

The problem with imperfection and evil in the world claims (McCloskey) is that it goes against the divine design or purpose in the world, the limitations in the cosmological argument and that there must be a first cause. McClosley’s point is that because of the imperfect state in which the world is in that there is no such being who would allow the evil and imperfections that are plaguing the universe and that this is the evidence that a divine being does not exist or at least a reasonable explanation as to why evil is allowed to happen. One question that has come up is that,” is there a logical reason as to why God has allowed evil and suffering among his people and what is the purpose of it? McCloskey wants proof that God does or does not

In the course of this essay I will argue that evil is not compatible with the existence of god. This means that evil and God cannot coexist because if god were present, the existence of evil would contradict all that god is believed to be. Abrahamic religions insist that God both created the world and that he preserves and maintains it. Christianity claims that God is all knowing and is boundless in his abilities. Religions claim that God is benevolent, and only wants the best for humanity and the universe, as his creations. If all of the above statements be true, then it is hard to understand why god would allow evil to thrive right from the beginning of time.

Two types of evil exist in our world today. Natural evil occurs when earthquakes, hurricanes,

Whether or not humans are essentially evil or sympathetic is a question that has long left many philosophers in a state of conflict. Through the evaluation of natural human qualities, many different opinions have been formed. The so called “laws” of the world attempt to define a set of uncertain rules which are to govern society in its most raw form, dictate moral rights and wrongs, and create boundaries. Every single action can be separated into any of these three categories, depending upon the action. The Bible states that it is only through baptism that a sin may be removed from the carrier. Non-religious opinions may offer a similar opinion in a sense that humans possess the capability of committing evil acts. Human beings are in

To understand evil we must first understand the concept that good and evil are term or words referring to what one given individuals believes to be the right and wrong thing to do. Good, many times

In this universe, the creation can be freely chosen. By their degenerate nature, mankind chose to be far from God. Therefore, moral evil is everywhere, but all these are not contradictory to God's love and omnipotence. On the contrary, because of his lover's nature, he wanted man to live, be free and independent in his own style. The good news is that God is in charge of everything. He supervises the good and the evil movement and prevails. He uses such evil to bring about his good intentions and molds his purpose for

The creation of the idea of ‘responsible evil’ discussed in the first of essay of GM appears therefore to be at the origin of Christian concepts and values of ‘good’, ‘bad’ and ‘evil’ that are still dominant in mentalities to date. In fact, although its consequences affect the slave morality as a whole, it seems that the creation of ‘responsible evil’ is most of all the one of priests . This supports the idea that the successful creation of ‘responsible evil’ has resulted in a spread of Christian influence and authority that still exists in modern societies. What is more, this slave’s invention is at the origin of the concepts of ‘guilt’, ‘bad conscience’, ‘mercy’, and of a God “that commands them [the slaves] to do and be what their weakness requires them to do and be” . In this way, with

Evil is not inherent to human nature nor is it caused by environment, evil is what we perceive as morally wrong from our standpoint, for example if in a universe far away domesticating animals is unthinkable, than our planet and it’s people would be considered evil. As mentioned before evil’s definition can change greatly between people, although the general consensus is that it is an act that is considered morally wrong from a majority standpoint. If a person commits actions that from their perspective are for the greater good, they would not be considered evil because there “Moral Compass” is telling them that their actions, no matter how much they go against society's norms are good.