The Problem of Evil - Essay Example

? The Problem of Evil Table of Contents Introduction 3 and Analysis of Philosophers' Views 4 Evaluation of Philosophers' Views 5 My Position on the Topic 7 Conclusion 8 References 9 The Problem of Evil 1. Introduction The problem of evil has caused a significant objection to the conviction regarding God’s existence. However, considering the extent and aptitude of suffering evident in the world, there is need to determine whether it results from inhumanity or natural disaster (Kibler, 2004). Nonetheless, there is not ample evidence to approve or disapprove that God exist. There are people with numerous doubts, but others hold on to their faith in God. The paper establishes a discussion of the topic though a description, analysis and evaluation of arguments by various philosophers, and it will also establish the stance of the paper concerning the topic. Emmanuel Levinas is one of the philosophers who asserts that evil influences people into doing the wrong things; thus, he seeks to develop a discussion that accounts for evil. In fact, his argument is based on the role of rationality through the propagation of evil, which seems to be underestimated (Katz, 2005). Moreover, he argues that evil is infused in everyday transformation of temptations that are forbidden concerning impulse of good. Furthermore, his approach to the problem of evil is based on the discount of the conventional perception of theodicy that is considered a justification or rationalization of evil along with suffering inflicted on people. The other philosopher is Morilyn McCord Adams with an argument that the problem of evil relates to problem of reconciling existence of horrendous evils with God’s existence, which is suitable for people. In fact, Adams offers proposals as solutions of the problems, whereby she appeals to various forms of intimacy with God. Furthermore, this intimacy is focused on participants of horrendous evils (Earl, 2011). Adams explains that fifty percent of the problem relates to the victim of horrendous evils, while the other fifty percent of the problem of evil is similar to the perpetrators of the evil, and their lives are potentially defeated. Immanuel Kant is the other philosopher, who associates the problem of evil with humanity’s inclination to engage in evil things. However, Kant fails to clarify the propensity of evil; thus, there is need to focus on interpretation of the propensity of evil and association with claims of evil of humanity (Duncan, 2011). Nevertheless, there are features that distinguish interpretation of the issue, whereby there are commentators who have ignorance of the issue. Moreover, there is serious analogy drawn by Kant concerning the propensity of evil and addiction. In this case, Kant has plausible argument regarding the assertion of human race, and it is reasonable. 2. Description and analysis of philosophers' views Levinas's views offer a chance of creating a perception of evil in a different light, whereby he considers evil as a disregard of acts and not a destruction of life, and he considered the source of evil to be inability of attuning to other. In fact, this form of evil offers a capacity of detachment from humanity, whereby people fail to see their responsibility. Therefore, this leads to an assertion that there is a precondition of other forms of evil. On the other hand, Levinas raises claims that indicate that evil makes people stand suffering, whereby one may seek to invert the relationship between suffering and evil. Furthermore, he poses a rejection of the conception of suffering, whereby he considers suffering to be a substantial component of the meaning of human life. Adams focuses on worry associated with respect to horrendous evil concerning the way God would defeat horrendous evil, which is in the context of participant’s lifetime. In fact, she argues that God would be supporting good people suffering from horrendous evil, thereby allowing their lives to subdue to evil (Swinburne, 2012). Therefore, her style of answering the problem of evil is based on sort of intimacy with God concerning the component that suffers from horrendous evil. In fact, she considers defeat to be horrendous evil that entails the context of the sufferer’s lifetime. However, concerning the nature of intimacy and the precise defeat of evil, there is a form of difficulty experienced in applying approaches that overlooks it. Nevertheless, Adams’s assertion lacks arguments that address problems regarding the chance that God can defeat horrendous evils. In addition, there is a threat of lives to be defeated through participation of horrendous evil, thereby creating a problem of horrendous evil that should be addressed by theists. Kant develops arguments that present the immorality, which reflects the problem of evil. However, his argument fails to present the moral evil, which is necessary to emanate into these factors (Mawson, 2004). Therefore, Kant establishes a perception that there is a possibility of giving a substantive explanation of the origins of moral evil in human beings. In this case, the philosopher’s argument concerning the propensity of evil forms the key component of substantive explanation of way of grounding radical evil that Kant believes to be an attribute of human species. 3. Evaluation of philosophers' views Levinas's perception of the problem of evil can be evaluated by focusing on the story of Cain and Abel, whereby he depicts Cain to be detached from humanity. In fact, Levinas emphasizes on his reply to God after the murder of Cain. Therefore, his perception of the problem of evil is based on the reply from Cain, whereby he indicates that there is no chance of assuming the responsibility of his brother’s death. On the other hand, through his perception, there is an argument that Cain experienced a detachment from humanity (Flew & Mitchell, 2012). Therefore, Levinas's argument seems to be supported by reasonable analysis of the story of Cain and Abel, whereby he relates the source of evil to be a detachment of humanity. However, through his argument, he fails to account for a defensive response that can give a clear indication of the reason why God leaves a space for people to be detached from humanity. Evaluation of Adams arguments focuses on her answers to the problem, whereby she focuses on the intimacy with God concerning the components that suffers from horrendous evil. Therefore, this evaluation seeks to establish her perception concerning her view to answer issues that regard intimacy and the defeats of evil. Her view fails to address problems of the chance that God has to defeat horrendous evil for people, who decides to be involved in evil things. Therefore, this evaluation focuses on the defence of two ideas, whereby Adam focuses on the styles of failure to solve the problems of evil; in fact, this regards to people who suffer from horrendous evil. On the other hand, there are strategies in Adams perception that fails to solve the problem of evil in relation to perpetrators of evil. Evaluation of Kant’s views indicates that he does not depict the necessity of moral evil as a factor in the problem of evil. Instead, he had a conviction that there was a possibility of accounting for the origin of moral evil in human beings. Numerous, philosophers considered the propensity of evil as a fundamental component of substantive explanation of the views regarding the problem (Vroman, 2009). Therefore, the radical explanation of evil leads to a conviction by Kant that is attributed to characteristics of human beings. In this case, the interpretation of his views, which are based on propensity of evil, can be crucial to explain the attributes of a human being. Furthermore, this leads to a conviction that there is a mistake in arguments relating to propensity of evil. There are interpretations, which leads to assumption that propensity of evil can be considered an account of the origin of evil; in fact, this is supported by a notion that propensity increases the possibility of evil. 4. My position on the topic My perception is drawn from the distinction of types of evils outlined by philosophers in their arguements. Therefore, I seek to differentiate between the intellectual and emotional problems of evil, whereby intellectual problem of evil relates to rationality of account given on coexistence of God and evil. On the other hand, an emotional problem of evil relates to dissolution of detest towards God that result to anguish. However, there are two types of problems, which include logical problem of evil and probabilistic problem of evil. In this case, logical problem of evil asserts impossibility of God and evil co-existence, while probabilistic problem of evil asserts that there is a possibility of God co-existing with evil. The problem of evil that is confusing relates to the thinking of God’s existence, his goals on human life and happiness of people in the world. God has the role of providing a comfortable environment for people in the world. Numerous, evils have been occurring in people’s lives that may be considered pointless concerning human happiness in the world. Therefore, justification of respect to God that leads to happiness and knowledge offers a basis for understanding the problem of evil. In this case, people may be subjected to suffering, which leads to a deep dependency and trust in God. In addition, God’s purpose to us is achievable and it depends on people’s response to different situations. Similarly, the decision of being involved in evil is made by human beings, whereby they contribute to the problem of evil through their own actions. 5. Conclusion The paper has explored issues regarding the problem of evil, whereby ideas from different philosophers are identified, and explained. The paper commences with an introduction of the topic, whereby the problem of evil is briefly described and an overview of ideas of different philosophers established. The other section of the paper offers a detailed description and analysis of the arguments from three philosophers: Emmanuel Levinas, Morilyn McCord Adams and Immanuel Kant. In the other section, the paper seeks to evaluate the views of these philosophers in a way that can provide a basis of understanding their stance on the issue and determine credibility of their argument. The final section of the paper focuses on discussing my view on the topic. Therefore, the paper covers the objectives set by thesis statement by proving a substantial discussion of the topic regarding the problem of evil. References Duncan, S. (2011). "There is none righteous": Kant on the hang zum Bosen and the universal evil of humanity. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 49(2), 137-163. doi 870654397. Earl, D. (2011). Divine intimacy and the problem of horrendous evil. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 69(1), 17-28. doi 10.1007/s11153-010-9233-x. Flew, A. & Mitchell, B. (2012). “Theology and Falsification.”Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. (Ed). Steven M. Cahn. New York: Oxford University Press Katz, C. E. (2005), Raising Cain: The problem of evil and the question of responsibility. Cross Currents, 55, 215-233,281. doi 214943172. Kibler, R. E. (2004). Responses to inhumanity in the Balkans and a preliminary discussion concerning the problem of evil. East European Quarterly, 38(4), 463-472. doi 195173738. Mawson, T. J. (2004). The possibility of a free-will defense for the problem of natural evil. Religious Studies, 40(1), 23-42. doi 197234390. Swinburne, R. (2012). “Why God Allows Evil.” Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. (Ed). Steven M. Cahn. New York: Oxford University Press Vroman, B. (2009). The problem of evil and the poverty of the free will theodicy. Think, 8 (22), 65-73. doi: 10.1017/S1477175609000098. Read More