Malebranche and Leibniz Solution to Evil - Essay Example

Malebranche and Leibniz solution to evil The problem of evil has been categorized variously, but the major categorizations of evil entail the physical evil on the one hand, and the moral evil, on the other hand. Physical evil has been defined as the occurrence of a physical suffering and destruction that is caused by the operation of natural laws, with no involvement of the human intention in the occurrence of such events (Kremer and Latzer, 89). On the other hand, moral evil has been defined as the occurrence of events that violates the natural laws, for which humans are responsible (Kremer and Latzer, 89). In this respect, while in the physical evil there is no participation of humans, the moral evil is contributed by the involvement of the personal will and intellect in doing what naturally should not be doe, or what is simply considered morally wrong. The two concepts of the problem of evil in the world have been a subject of much debate, with diverse views regarding the role of God in the occurrence of events and actions that causes human beings to suffer. Thus, while there is a total agreement between Malebranche and Leibniz regarding the role of God in creating the world, where both agrees that God did justice in creating the world, there has been a disparity in their view regarding the role of God in the occurrence of actions and events that causes human beings to suffer. Thus, Malebranche advances the theory of occasionalism, which holds that God is the only causal agent in the world, and is therefore responsible for all the evil that happens in the world, because God’s creatures do not have significant causal abilities upon which to act (Brown, 82). Therefore, according to Malebranche, the acts of humans to cause an event or act that goes against the natural laws and causes suffering to humans is not out of the actual performance by the human beings, but a mere granting of an occasion to God by the people, so that God can act or express his attributes through the actions of the people (Brown, 87). Simply put therefore, it is Malebranche’s perspective that we utterly depend on God in every way, because God remains the only genuine cause of everything that happens in the world, whether good or bad (Brown, 84). Malebranche therefore promotes the view that there is no causal relationship between the mind and he body, and thus the reaction of the body in whichever form, good or bad, is simply an occasion for expressing God’s attributes, since Malebranche held that what control human beings is definitely above humans (Brown, 82). Therefore, Malebranche advocated for physical evil as the significant form of evil that controls the world, which is purely a function of the nature and God’s creation, without any involvement of humans and their intellect. In this respect, Malebranche holds that; since God is the sole and genuine cause agent, and considering that God is all-powerful, it is important to look both at the world as it exists, and the means through which it was created (Nadler, 42). In looking at the world in its natural form that it exists, the world contains evil. In looking at the means at which the world was created, God is all-powerful and therefore He is able to create a world that has no evil, where human beings can exist without suffering and pain. Thus, “the world contains evil and so is less perfect than it could be” (Nadler, 22). This argument and conclusion forms the point of departure between Malebranche and Leibniz. While Leibniz agrees with the view that God is all-powerful and capable of creating a perfect world where sin and evil does not exist, and while also agreeing with Malebranche’s view that human beings depend on God in everything, Leibniz holds that “actual world is in fact the best of all possible worlds” (Leibniz, 7). In defending this argument, Leibniz holds that the view advanced by Malebranche, which implies that God created an impotent human being who is not capable of doing anything on his own unless there is divine intervention to make the human function, is misleading (Leibniz, 14). In his view, Leibniz held this argument to be an affront to the divine wisdom, since it is God’s will that human beings should live in the world and do good only, without performing any sin that can cause harm either to the world as God created it, or to the other humans. Therefore, the fact that humans have consistently been engaged in performing sin, thus going against the will of God and that of the natural laws, is a true indication that humans were created with their own intellect and further given the choice between doing good or evil (Leibniz, 12). Therefore, it is through the application of the will and the intellect of the people that is moral evil in the world as a function of the actions by man, as opposed to actions by nature or God. Therefore, according to Leibniz, the view that God created the world in a manner that everything must be controlled divinely, while holding that man is created in a useless design that must be controlled meticulously at every point is completely inconsistent with the wisdom of God (Leibniz, 13). Thus, Leibniz holds that the occurrence of evil and sin in the world is a pure function of intellect and will of the humans, who were created with sufficient reason capabilities, and through it, they can seek to do either good or bad (Nadler, 36). Therefore, Leibniz argues for the moral evil perspective, as opposed to the physical evil perspective that is advanced by Malebranche. Additionally, the other major point of departure in the philosophical arguments between Malebranche and Leibniz is in relation the excellence of the world as it was created by God. According to Leibniz, the actual world as it was created by God is the best that there could ever be, because God designed the world in such a manner that there would be the power of sufficient reason bestowed on the humans, which means that God would not be constantly required to supervise and monitor the world (Leibniz, 27). Thus, as it stands now, the world remains the very best that God could have possibly created, because God gave humans the impotent body, abut went ahead and created for them the potent mind, so that the body would be led and directed by the potent mind in every of its actions. To this end, Leibniz adds that there is the direct connection between the causal dominance of God as the causative agent of things that happens in the world and the causal ability of the mind, which directs the body that is impotent (Nadler, 47). The essence of this is the creation of the concept of choice, where the mind is caused to know the good and the bad, but it has the causal ability to direct the body to do either good or bad. Consequently, the mind can choose not to cause the body sensations that might result the body to suffer pain (Leibniz, 21). In line with the above arguments regarding the perfectness of the world as it exists, as advanced by Malebranche and Leibniz, it is the opinion of this discussion that the view advanced by Leibniz is more plausible. This is because, considering the fact that God is all-powerful, He has created the conscious as the tool that directs humans to know the right and wrong, but the will of God from the beginning has been that man shall do what is right (Leibniz, 2). Therefore, the fact that bad things happen is contributed by the choice of man to ignore the conscious that defines good or bad, and instead to do against the will of the conscious. Therefore, God is no t responsible for the human actions that are directed by the humans own intellect and will (Brown, 91). For this reason, Leibniz is plausible. Works Cited Brown, Stuart. “Malebranche’s Occasionalism Leibniz’s Pre-established Harmony: an ‘Easy Crossing’ or an Unbridgeable Gap? Van Gorcum & Comp., 1991, 81-93. Print. Kremer, Elmar J, and Latzer, Michael J.. The Problem of Evil in Early Modern Philosophy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Print. 89 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil. Trans. E. M. Huggard. : Open Court, 1988. Print. Nadler, Steven M. The Best of All Possible Worlds: A Story of Philosophers, God, and Evil in the Age of Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print. Read More