However, in the case that he lacked omnibenevolence, evil would still cast a dark shadow in the world because perhaps God does not desire to relieve it. In actuality, God can be all three, and evil can and does exist. This is true because God is not responsible for the evil in the world. Evil blemishes the world wherever the world is lacking in goodness. If evil did not taint the world, the world would lack good and freewill, too.
Agnosticism is the purely epistemological stance that sufficient evidence does not exist for or against theism therefore the best stance on the argument is no stance at all. Combinations of these positions are possible due to their varying natures, but here only the argument between theism and atheism is examined more closely. The problem of evil is described and used to argue against the existence of God. Richard Swinburne’s solution to the problem of evil is explained and used to revise the original atheist’s argument from evil to its best, but still insufficient, form. Commonly, atheists hold the view that organized religions are corrupt and actually cause more harm than good.
You could eliminate those who have been the prime instigators of war and crisis, couldn’t you? The notion of killing the people who caused the most damage to the world is so enticing that I would bet most people would do it; not only would you improve the state of the world, but you would have the added bonus of achieving great fame and fortune. Think what a hero you would be if you, for example, killed Hitler as an infant. You could stop the slaughter of countless people, you could stop a genocide (Repetition). But I for one would not.
What if there is also an evil demon that is on the same par as God, and is able to deceive us? Descartes does not argue this at all and it is not taken into account (nor is the fact that God may be evil, or very nonchalant about our existence) so I think this is both a strong and weak point. Overall, I do believe that Descartes had many strong and weak points in his accounts. What annoyed me most was the disappointing conclusion of the meditations. As I have stated above, I believe that there was so much more to the theory of an evil demon or a nonchalant God.
He speaks of how a world with humans is better than a world without, and because of this it is just does not make sense to have a world without evil. But this could also just lead us back to the original problem, bringing to mind the thought that if God is able to do anything and everything, then he should be able to create a perfect world with no evil. The fifth premise states simply “But, there’s evil.” Laurence distinguishes between the two different kinds of evil when explaining this argument. He says that natural evil can
Sam Harris uses this idea in one of his quotes saying that “Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes or he doesn’t care to or he doesn’t exist. God is either: impotent, evil or imaginary. Take your pick and choose wisely.” This can speak to many of those who don’t believe in God as this shows how even with this earth God didn’t create it perfectly which leads to natural disasters and if he did create this earth then he must be evil to have created it imperfectly and if a perfect being wants to create something imperfect when he can create it perfectly how is this justifiable? Some people also say that if we are a
-- Plato. Society may have a lot of affect on perfectly good people turning evil. At the end of the day if all of society turned evil, then the good people would turn too. People aren't just born evil they choose to be evil. "It's hard to accept that all the evil in the world comes down to something so simple.
People like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King bring out humans best qualities, but others like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin prove my point in saying humans are cruel and may do evil things. Why are humans so cruel? I believe it’s our nature. It’s not the humans that are born cruel, it’s just the society they live in and they were brought up that way in this corrupted society formed by humans, but a couple of evil doesn’t make up the society. “You must not lose faith in humanity.
• Situation ethics can even be a way to approve of what are considered in society as ‘evil’ acts. For example, killing or lying may in fact be right in situation ethics, if it leads to a sufficiently good result. Perhaps, lying to someone to ensure that no pain is caused is a good act? Or even killing a person in self-defence is acceptable. However, surely lying and killing in general are bad acts, so how can they be
In the article “A Defense of the Death Penalty”, written by Ernest Van Den Haag, the author believes that it is immoral to allow murderers to live because they have the potential to kill more innocent people. He argues in favor of capital punishment by responding to six objections to the death penalty. With one of the objections, Van Den Haag responds by stating that the death penalty does deter crime and that it is actually beneficial to a society. He believes that people will refrain from committing crimes if they know that it will lead to their death. I reconstructed Van Den Haag’s argument below: 1.