The Problem of Evil Essay

The Problem of Evil A) For what reasons may suffering create philosophical problems for a religious believer? (10) B) Outline two solutions to these problems and comment on their success (10) A) The problem of suffering has been around since the dawn of time, or as religious philosophers believe; since Adam and Eve first sinned in the Garden of Eden. The first problem that arises from evil is that we believe that the God of classical theism has certain attributes.

A famous philosopher Socrates once said, 'the unexamined life is not worth living.' With that idea, the question 'Are Human Beings Intrinsically Evil?' has been asked by philosophers for many years. It is known as one of the unanswerable questions. Determinists have come to the conclusion that we are governed by the laws of science, that there is nothing we can do about ourselves being evil because we naturally are. Evil is simply the act of causing pain. In this essay I will argue that human beings are born with a natural reaction to 'fear and chaos' to be instinctively evil.

The Story, The Possibility of Evil is a truly interesting story that demonstrates the evil of a community that seems almost perfect. This story demonstrates how there is probably no place on Earth that evil has not reached. The story bases itself on a small suburban town and the people that live there. The reader meets Miss Strangeworth who is a sweet little lady that smiles to everyone during the day and starts conversations, but by the time she gets home she starts writing letters revealing secrets and unpleasant facts of her neighbours and fellow townspeople and

In Richard Swinburne’s section entitled, “Why God Allows Evil,” Swinburne states that evil is necessary for human beings to allow for the ability of free and responsible choice. He then divides evil into two categories, moral and natural evil, and argues that both are significant and necessary for free and responsible choice, but for different reasons. Moral evil is, “All evil caused deliberately by human beings doing what they ought not to do…and also the evil constituted by such deliberate actions or negligent failure,” (p.90). While natural evil is, “All evil which is not allowed by human beings to occur as a result of their negligence. Natural evil includes both physical suffering and mental suffering, of animals as well as humans; all the trail of suffering which disease, natural disasters, and accidents unpredictable by humans bring in their train,” (p.90). Furthermore, Swinburne claims that natural evil makes it possible for human beings to have free and responsible choice in a fairly significant way. I disagree to an extent and believe this claim to be weak due to Swinburne’s reasoning because of the implication that natural evil is the only way to experience these choices and the majority of the fundamental instances of choice that natural evil provides human beings with can be found within moral evil.

Swinburne, however, argues that the presence of evil does not necessarily negate the idea of God. God may possess good reason for allowing evil as the price for a deeper benefit, such as free will. Swinburne separates evils into two categories: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is a deliberate evil caused by man, such as murder, and natural evil is one not deliberately caused by man, such as disease. Free will allows moral evils to occur, but

Introduction: The problem of evil is, in my opinion, the best point of departure for a fruitful dialogue between Christianity, traditionally conceived, and those strands of modern philosophy which have been perceived--indeed, have sometimes perceived themselves--as a threat to that tradition. As such, I will attempt first, to outline the problem of evil in the starkest terms possible, presenting Augustine's approach to its solution followed by a critical analysis; second, to present an alternative approach to the questions which give rise to the problem--an approach derived in large part from Spinoza and Nietzsche; and, third, to show how this more philosophically acceptable alternative can be expressed

It is said that perception is reality. I suppose that would all depend on where you are standing and depend on what sort of person that you are. Our perception of "evil," on a nearly universal level, is often compared with that of, the Devil and Adolf Hitler. It is no surprise to very few that Adolph Hitler is one of the most infamous humans ever to have been born. To this day, the mention of his name can conjure up emotions deep within us. He is responsible for the deaths of millions of people either directly or indirectly. The fascinating aspect of his life is what was the true motivation behind his prejudice, cruelty, and heartlessness. The five stages of Freud's psychosexual theory of development include the oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital stages, but in Hitler’s case it seems that the anal stage might have angered Hitler’s mother as she was known for her dislike of dirt, “She employed rather stringent methods in the toliet training phase.” (Inside The Mind of Adolf Hitler) Hitler and his mother lived in a small apartment but as the doctor said it was known for being spotless, one could only imagine what could have happened during the anal

The presence of unnecessary evil in the world has sparked controversy about the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient being. The problem of evil, in its most basic sense, claims that the evil in the world is unnecessary and contradictory to the existence of God. In this essay I will briefly summarize the logical problem of evil given by J. L. Mackie and the evidential problem of evil provided by William Rowe. I will then dispute that these arguments are irrelevant because humans are incredibly limited and cannot comprehend the purposes of God. I will then present an objection to my argument claiming that despite not knowing God’s true intentions humans have subjectively defined suffering and as such an all-good and all-knowing

As personal morals influence motivations and intentions, free will ceases to exist because of the relationship with one’s morality, whether that be impacted by religion, media, or the law. Similar to this, personal morals affect the definition of good and evil, making these terms different to each individual. Seven articles show how free will truly does not exist amongst society, how morality influences lives, and how good and evil is an intuitive choice within each person.

Many people throughout history have found themselves asking why evil exists. Or why, an all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect God allows evil into the world that he/she created. This question has brought about many answers and much debate between believers and non-believers. I have done a lot of reading on this dilemma and hope to address it through looking at a few key points. First, I want to address the question, what do we, as humans perceive as evil. To answer that question, I will look at both physical and moral evil, as well as try to explain what both are, and how they should not be blamed on God. Secondly, I will address the question why would an all-good God allow evil to exist within his creation. To answer that question, I will look to freewill to help explain why God would allow evil to take place. Finally, I will address the major question, why do bad things happen to good people. I feel to answer the question we have to look to our own perception of the situation, and what Gods plan is. The problem of evil has been of great debate throughout time, and continues to be today. The best place to start to understand this debate, and try to make heads or tails of it is to discuss what we as human beings see as evil.

To a great extent, the theory of personhood rests on a breaking down and clarification of what it is to be an agent. Human rights, as understood by Griffin, are protections of our status as functional human agents, grounded in our interests in autonomy, liberty and the minimum material provision requisite to make the exercise of our agency real and possible. Griffin acknowledges that the human interests in autonomy and liberty are not the only important interests that exist, but it is the protection of these particular interests that generate a human right . In this sense, autonomy and liberty are the special, determinant grounding elements identified by Griffin as the interests required for normative agency.

Ever since the start of time, from stories being told by mothers to their children all the way through modern films, good versus evil has been a very common theme. Disney classic movies such as Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Hercules, and many others would always have a plot centered on this idea, along with love, for little kids. The kids that watched the movies since they were little would always be glad to watch it again when they are older because it is a very simple theme that outstands the test of time unlike any other movie that’s a trend now such as the annoying, overrated, Twilight series. At least for me I still love the Disney Classics and probably always will. In The Scarlet Letter there are many

The area between good and evil are muddled with uncertainty and dualistic outcomes. Christopher Marlowe’s complex play, The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, implores readers to evaluate the theological concepts of good versus evil. This play tells a story of an educated man who signs a deal with the devil in order to be on the same level as a God. Through this journey, Faustus fights with himself over the implications of his actions and becomes scared of his impending damnation. Despite a breach of contract, Faustus should be damned at the end of The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus based on the rules that were established and the general theological concepts of good and evil that are examined throughout the play.

We always have the freedom to do things but we often forget about choosing the right from the wrong doings. We become selfish that we only think of our own good and pleasure. In that case, freedom leads us to different paths in our lives. It can slowly destroy us and the plans we have for the future. So it only means that with freedom, we should have the responsibility. We should possess the responsibility to be morally aware of the things and the choices that we will pick up and make for

Morality, by its very nature, is a quite fickle and subjective thing. What is often defined as morally good is typically characterized by altruism and generosity, whereas immoral acts are defined as the antitheses to such behaviors; however, when arbitrating the moral nature of an act, the motive behind said act must also be considered, and it is at this point that the typically stark dichotomy between moral and immoral becomes quite unclear. If, out of a gesture of good will, somebody were to inadvertently harm or wrong another, is said person guilty of an immoral act? Moreover, if someone helps another simply out of a selfish or malevolent interest, is the person in question still able to be considered moral? These are the difficult questions that define Anthony Burgess’s novel A Clockwork Orange, in which anti-hero Alex, after a spate of heinous and objectively immoral acts, is forced by the government to undergo a treatment rendering him unable to commit such acts. The acts of murder, larceny, and rape that Alex commits prior to his treatment portray him clearly as an objectively immoral character. After his treatment, he is rendered incapable of committing such acts. This, however, begs the question: Is an individual moral if they do not have the free will to choose to be moral and instead must be coerced?