Augustine defends the god of theism by rejecting the existence of evil as a force or power opposed to god as it would reject the premise that god is omnipotent. Below are the ways in which he justifies moral and natural evil, which respectively mean evil caused by human acts, and evil events caused by the processes of nature. To justify evil, he solves the problem by defining evil as a ‘privation’ – which means when something is ‘evil’, it is not defined to contain bad qualities but is seen to be falling short of perfection, or what it is expected to be. Take a rapist as an example. Adopting Augustine’s idea of ‘evil’, we are to say that he is not living up to standards expected of human beings.
‘Is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?’ In Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma, Plato is asking ‘is x good because God loves it or does God love x because x is good?’ An example of this is murder; is murder wrong because God says it is or is murder wrong because it is wrong morally? If ‘x’ was already good before God commanded it then there would be no purpose to God whereas if God commanded ‘x’ because it’s good, then God would have a purpose as he would have to guide us with what is moral and what isn’t. The view that moral rules are true are good because they were commanded by God is called the divine command theory. ‘The Good consists in always doing what God wills at any particular moment.’ If moral actions are good or bad because they are commanded or forbidden by God, certain things follow such as; if they had not been commanded or forbidden by God then they wouldn’t have been good or bad. Furthermore, if God had said the opposite to what He did say then the things that would have been good is now bad.
This raises problems for Boethius' argument, however he addresses this and creates a counter assertment. As argued above free will is needed for just rewards/punishments, some people say this because it would be unfair to punish people who could not choose to do otherwise. Others such as Augustine believe that free will is necessary because without free will there should be no evil in the world as there is no choice to create evil where as evil does exist, without free will this must have been created by God, contradicting God's omnibenevolence. Irenaeus' view is simelar to Augustine however he adds that human beings could not be perfect, God is all that is perfect so we were given an imperfect world and free will, so that we would be a reflection of God but not perfect. Hick's approach to the necessity of free will grows from the idea that God wants humans to genuinly love him and show faith, without free will we could not make a decision as to whether or not we had faith, belief or even love for God, we would merely be robots designed to love him.
Deontology, as espoused by Immanuel Kant, would argue against the morality of lying from a moral absolutism standpoint. Lying is wrong no matter what, and any good that comes from it is discounted by the evil of lying. Utilitarianism, as espoused by John Stuart Mill, would consider lying to be acceptable as long as a greater good for society at large to come from it. A virtue ethicist such as Aristotle would look less at the act of lying but more at the decision to tell a lie and what that says about the person in question as a moral being. A person that lies to protect someone’s feelings or pride isn’t
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our
Thoreau implies that people should not begin to act unless they are ready to face the consequences of their action. DR. King , with a different perspective, explains how one decides which laws to break or observe. He claims that there are two type of laws: just and unjust law. People have not only legal but also moral responsibility to obey just laws: A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.
He firmly thought that God is a righteous one who at the end of time will deal with those who rejected him. Augustine`s argument that evil is a `deprivation of good` rather than a positive substance created by God has been supported by some modern thinkers. Brian Davies describes evil as `a gap between what there is and what there ought to be`. Augustine`s argument that evil has resulted from the abuse of human free will has also been supported by modern thinkers. It seems clear that humans choosing to act in the wrong ways cause much of the evil and suffering in the world.
The evidential argument from evil is necessitated through the lack of closure provided by another argument - the logical problem of evil, a proposition which attempts to assert that God and Evil are logically incompatible. It is largely rebutted by Alvin Plantinga’s free will defence, stating that for God ‘To create creatures capable of moral good…He must create creatures capable of moral evil’ , thereby arguing that the very presence of evil in the world does not count against God’s existence as ‘He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.’ Plantinga’s defence is thus based on the concept of libertarian free will, that free will is incompatible with determinism and so even an all-knowing god could not stop humans from committing morally wrong acts. This defence is readily accepted by most philosophers, leading to the creation of the Evidential Argument from Evil – an argument that similarly prescribes to a key facet of anti-theistic arguments; that if one can prove the absence of benefits one may expect to be bestowed on mankind under an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good God – namely a world without evil - then one may attempt to disprove such a God’s very existence. It is regularly cited as the most powerful argument against the existence of God, and differs from the logical argument in the sense that it attempts to illustrate not that the existence of God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil but rather the presence of moral and natural evils in the world damages theistic interpretations of a higher being in the sense that it lowers the likelihood of such a being’s existence. However it should be noted that the evidential argument from evil it is not without its responses – some of which do hold convincing merit.
Deterrence takes a general and specific form. With general deterrence, a person is punished in order to convince the general community to avoid criminal conduct in the future. The criminal is used as a means to reduce crime through the example that has been made of him. The individual criminal’s punishment teaches us what conduct is not allowed. It also instills fear of punishment in would-be violators of the law.
Key Ideas Non-violent Protest Martin Luther King developed a strong belief and philosophy on non-violence which became the basis of his action to his country to put aside the shackles of racism and segregation. He declared that non-violence is directed against evil, not the people who are committing the evil. The fight was not between two races, but between justice and injustice. Through violence you may murder hater, but you do not murder hate. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.