Existence Of 2nd Order Evils example essay topic

The Problem of Evil The philosopher J.L. Mackie wrote a very convincing piece on the problem of evil called "Evil and Omnipotence", in which he attempts to show that one of the following premises must be false in order for them to be consistent with each other. #1. God is omnipotent. #2. God is morally perfect. #3.

Evil exists. The problem of evil is a deductive a priori argument who's goal is to prove the non-existence of God. In addition to Mackie's three main premises he also introduces some "quasi-logical" rules that give further evidence to his argument. First he presumes that a good thing will eliminate evil to the extent that it can and second, that omnipotence has no limits. From these two "additional premises", it can be concluded that a completely good and omnipotent being will eliminate all possible evil. After establishing these added premises Mackie continues with his piece to list and negate several theistic responses to the argument.

A common objection to the problem of evil is to claim that good and evil are both necessary for each other to exist. They must be looked at as counterparts. Another way of putting it is that without experiencing evil, we couldn't possibly recognize or know what is good. Evil must exist in order for good to exist in the same way that the concept of up must exist if there we are to conceive of down. Mackie denies that this is true however.

He explains that good and evil cannot be logical opposites like up and down (or great and small) because up and down are not qualities. It wouldn't make sense to favor up over down or vice versa as one could do with good and evil. Also, even if it were true that evil is necessary for us to conceive of good, we would only need a very small amount. And it wouldn't seem right to say that very little evil exists in the world.

A second and stronger objection to Mackie's version of the problem of evil is explained to us using the terms 1st and 2nd order goods and evils. 1st order goods / evils are purely physical. Examples are pleasure and pain, happiness and misery. It is claimed by many theists that 1st order evils such as pain and suffering are necessary for 2nd order goods like courage and charity. However there exists what Mackie calls a "fatal objection" to this claim and that is that along with 2nd order goods there must also exist 2nd order evils such as greed and cruelty. Surely a completely good and omnipotent God would not allow for such evils and this response is once again deemed inappropriate given the initial premises.

Mackie saves the strongest and probably the most popular theistic response to this argument for last. The free will solution claims that the existence of 2nd order evils is not a product of God but of mankind's own freewill. The supporters of this claim hold that freedom is a good even greater than 2nd order goods and believe that God is justified for letting 2nd order evils exist in exchange for the ultimate good of freedom. This is to say that even though God is omnipotent he chooses not to use his power to control the will of men.

In comparison to the first two theistic responses this one seems to be the best. So it is surprising how easily Mackie disproves it. He asks, if God is all good and all powerful, and if free will is good enough to justify 2nd order evils, why didn't he create men so that they would freely choose to do good? The only possible objection to this is to say that God's power is limited and that he is not omnipotent. Also if God is omniscient doesn't he already know the outcomes of the men which he has created? To truly allow man to have free will God would have to restrict his own power in order to be unable to control men and this leads us to the Paradox of omnipotence.

Another attempt to prove the problem of evil is the evidential version of the argument. This argument attempts to show inductively that the existence of God is not likely. This form is much weaker than the logical form in that it deals with an entire body of evidence for and against the existence of God. It is weaker because the evidence that induces the non-existence of God is far outweighed by the evidence inducing or deducing God's existence. The Cosmological Argument The final version of the Causal Argument is put together in a deductive a posterior i form. In other words, it attempts to prove the existence of God through certain known empirical truths.

To start off we can state two premises which seem fairly obvious. #1. There are things that have come into existence. #2. Whatever comes into existence must be caused to exist by something else. However, the major problem with this argument exists in the third premise, #3.

There cannot be an infinite series of past causes. which leads us to the conclusion that, #4. There was a first cause, (which we are assuming to be God.) The problem with premise three is that no matter how hard one tries there is no good evidence to support the fact that there cannot exist an infinite series of past causes. Through observation of our world we can see that premises #1 and #2 are true but there is nothing we can observe to prove the third premise. Yet many theists have still come up with several defenses for it. The next two arguments are defenses for premise three: 1. a. There is no end to an infinite series. b.

A series of past causes in time does have an end, or stopping point, which is the present time. c. Therefore, it is impossible for a series of past causes in time to be infinite. 2. a. It is impossible to complete or go through an entire infinite series. b. It is impossible to reach the present time period if a series of past causes in time is infinite. c. We have reached the present time period. d. Therefore, a series of past causes in time cannot be infinite.

At first both of these arguments seem to effectively defend the third premise of the Causal Argument. However it is fairly easy to shoot them down. All one must do is think of the series of negative numbers which is infinite but has an end or stopping point, which is zero. This example of the set of negative numbers {... -3, -2, -1, } contradicts both arguments by making us think of the series as "beginning less" as opposed to endless. In fact argument 2 does not make logical sense because we cannot even conceive of actually "going through" an entire infinite series.

Where would we start? Obviously we wouldn't start at the beginning because there is no beginning. Thus the Causal Argument may be valid (because if the premises are true than the conclusion must also be true) but unless premise #3 can somehow be proved the argument is not assumed to be sound. Also even if #3 was proven to be true, how could we assume that the first cause is God? Another form of the Cosmological argument is the Contingency Argument. This argument like the Causal Argument relies on the concepts of cause and effect.

However it differs from Causal for a number of reasons. First before one can even accept the premises of this argument one must fully accept a certain principle called the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR). According to PSR, there must be a sufficient reason for every truth and for the existence of every being. This is to say that every being must be either necessary or contingent, which means that a being must exist by reason of something else (a contingent being) or by reason of itself (a necessary being). As long as we assume that PSR is true it is impossible for any being's existence to be explained by nothing. The Contingency Argument assumes that every part of our universe is a contingent being, and therefore the universe as a whole exhibits contingency.

It can then be assumed that if the universe is contingent, it's existence has to rely on something else other than itself. This being is concluded to be a necessary being which we can call God. Having said that, another difference between the Causal and Contingency Argument can be seen. With the Causal argument the debate was whether or not a series of past causes in time could be infinite. It can now be seen in the Contingency Argument that whether a contingent series of causes is infinite or not, that fact is now irrelevant because as long as the series as a whole is thought to be contingent the existence of God can still be proven.

So the Contingency Argument looks something like this. #1. The universe as a whole is a contingent being. #2. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is true. #3.

The existence of a contingent being must be explained by something other than itself. #4. There must be an external, necessary being. (God.) The obvious problem with the Contingency Argument is that we do not know whether or not PSR is true. It has been suggested by some philosophers that the existence of the universe is merely a "brute fact", or that it is possible for the existence of something to be explained by nothing.

Also one can easily reject the first premise due to the fallacy of composition. Just because all the parts of something exhibit a certain quality doesn't mean that the whole of something exhibits that same quality. So although the Contingency Argument seems stronger than the Causal Argument, it still fails to prove anything because some of the premises can be rationally denied.