J.L. Mackie | inconsistenttriad: 1. God is perfectly good | 2. God is all-powerful | 3. evil and suffering exist » only 2 at most can be true simultaneously all 3 cannot be believed at the same time due to contradiction — logic a priori argument
| “the problem of evil…is a problem only for someone who believes that there is a God who is both omnipotent and wholly good. and it is a logical problem, the problem of clarifying and reconciling a number of beliefs” |
|
|
John Stuart Mill | Natural world is evil, lots of suffering that humans and animalsendure Evidence suggested for a posteriori arguments to prove God’s existence do not suggest an omnibenevolent God but instead one who is sadistic and believes in all ways that we condemn when we see them in criminals Argues against supporters of teleological arguments e.g Paley, Paley had argued only evidence you need of God’s existence, power and care is obvious
| “...the order of nature, so far as unmodified by man, is such as no being whose attributes are justice and benevolence, would have made with the intention that his rational creatures should follow it as an example...”
| Talks of the nature of the world’s inhabitants, rather than how the world was originally intended to be Mill is able to cite specific examples that occur in nature of how both good and evil have a “predominant tendency” of producing further good and evil respectively, over The existence of evil is necessary for individuals to exercise their free will and make moral choices Focuses on importance of individual autonomy and personal happiness: emphasis on personal freedom resonates with many, aligning with the values of self-determination and individualism
| Mill is a utilitarian – he argues that good behaviour is behaviour that brings the most pleasure in the world, and he wants to get rid of anything that acts contrary to creating pleasure. Many people that oppose the problem of evil say that true happiness can only be achieved through suffering, an idea which Mill would likely oppose. For nature to be guilty of the same crimes that humans are, we have to prove that they commit crimes with the intent and knowledge that they are causing harm. We cannot prove this – natural ‘agents’ are not sentient. A person who accidentally commits a crime that brings harm is not seen as evil, so if nature has no intention to cause harm then it also cannot be evil.
|
Irenaeus | argued that God allowed a deliberate mix of good n evil, so we can develop and grow into mature and free relationships w/ God evil is there so we can appreciate good — good is a qualitative n comparative judgement in order to grow into the likeness of God, we must be able to choose between right n wrong
| “ …that man should be made after the image and the likeness of God, having received the image of good and evil.” |
|
|