ARGUMENT FROM EVIL phil 101 first exam
first-order evil/goodness:
-EVIL: a bee sting -GOODNESS: pleasure of a good meal; ocean breeze; sexual pleasures ---good things but immoral goods (not morally bad/good)
second-order evil/goodness:
-EVIL: rational beings responding viciously to evil -GOODNESS: moral goods
Mackie's reply to the third theodical argument:
-Even if second-order goodness justifies the existence of first-order evil, it doesn't justify second-order evil (eg cruelty and cowardice). For unlike first-order evil, second-order evil is as evil as second-order goodness is good.
what is the difference between natural and moral evil?
-MORAL evils are things like murder, reacting ferociously to an evil; has to do with your virtues, instead of through nature. -NATURAL evils are things like tornados, hurricanes, floods, fires, earthquakes, etc.
theodacy/theology proponents
-defending theology -logically impossible (evil); nonsense to talk about; doesn't show limitations on God
Mackie's reply to the 2nd theodical argument:
-he thinks it's the worst argument (so does my professor) -Theism says that causal laws (eg Water boils at 212 F; E=mc^2) are contingent: water boils at 212 F only because God made it the case that it boils at that temperature. To say that God is limited by causal laws, such that he can only produce good by means of evil, is an assault on the very claim that God is omnipotent.
--additional to 4th theodical argument:
-moral evil is worth it for free will -moral evil is a result of free will -therefore, you can't blame God for moral evil
St. Augustine attempts to avoid the problem of evil in a famous theodical argument. It denies (c):
1. Anything that exists is either corruptible or incorruptible. 2. If it exists, evil is not incorruptible; only God is. 3. If it exists, evil is not corruptible; a thing is corruptible only to the extent that it's good. 4. Evil doesn't exist; it is literally nothing: the absence of proper order.
Mackie's reply to the 1st theodical argument:
1. By "good" theists mean good in the absolute sense; not merely good in the relative sense -(a) goodness in the relative sense is comparable to largeness: largeness makes sense only where there are at least two things of unequal size (if there were only one thing in the universe, would "large" apply?) ---if "good" were a strictly relative term, then if God were the only thing in the universe, God wouldn't be good, for there would be nothing to compare him to. ---Theists avoid that claim. Why? Why do they insist God is good in an absolute sense? -(b) Goodness in the absolute sense does not require evil as its counterpart. Everything in the universe could be good. (Just as everything in the universe could be red, since red is not a relative property) ----Could theists concede that it's false that, for anything good to exist, there must be some evil in the world, yet resist Mackie's atheistic conclusion? (Hint: would knowledge of good and evil be possible in a world where everything is good, and there is no evil?)
Argument from Evil (gist of Mackie's version):
1. Consider the following propositions: (a) God is omnipotent; (b) God is omnibenevolent; (c) Evil (natural and moral) exists. 2. At most, two of a-c can be true. 3. C is true. 4. At least one of a and be is false; God doesn't exist.
FIRST THEODICAL ARGUMENT
1. Evil is a logically necessary counterpart of goodness; goodness without evil is inconceivable, just as the idea of a square without a ninety degree angle is inconceivable. self-contradictory 2. Thus, it implies no limitation of God's power to say that he cannot create a world with goodness but without evil. To say God can't do the self-contradictory is not to suggest a limitation of his power, for a self-contradictory "concept" is really meaningless, a non-concept
SECOND THEODICAL ARGUMENT:
1. Evil is causally necessary as a means to producing good. 2. Thus, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God would have reason to create a world containing evil.
PEOPLE FROM THIS SECTION:
1. Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1888) was one of the great Russian novelists of the nineteenth century 2. J. L. Mackie (1917-1983) taught philosophy at University College, Oxford 3. (critique) John Hick (1922-2012) taught at Birmingham University and Claremont Graduate University. He wrote many works in theology and the philosophy of religion.
FOURTH THEODICAL ARGUMENT:
1. Second-order evil is due to human free will. 2. Thus we, not God are responsible for it. 3. Furthermore, free will is worth the cost in terms of the evil that will surely result from the activity of some free agents.
THIRD THEODICAL ARGUMENT
1. The best possible world logically (not causally) requires evil. a. First-order evil (pain and suffering) is necessary for the existence of second-order goodness (courage, compassion, etc). b. the possibility of second-order goodness is worth the cost in terms of first-order evil. 2. Thus, God could allow first-order evil so that second-order goodness might exist. *look at picture in NB*
How many theodical arguments against Mackie are there?
4
Problem of Evil:
Argument of theists with arguments against from atheists Problem posed for theists: If God is all-good, omnipotent, and omniscient, how can his existence be compatible w/ the existence of evil?
Mackie's reply to the 4th theodical argument:
Why didn't God, who is supposedly all powerful, omnipotent as well as omnibenevolent, make us (a) free and (b) such that we always freely choose the good? -If there is no logical impossibility in a man's freely choosing the good on one, or on several occasions, there cannot be a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion. -Clearly, his failure to avail himself of this possibility is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good.
what kind of argument is the classical version (the gist of Mackie's version)?
an atheistic argument
Hume's Argument for Evil:
can't be creator omnipotent and all good because there would be no evil in the world
Mackie's Argument states that:
world where God knows in advance that free beings always choose right