Since we know evil and suffering is a necessary bi-product of human life, we must acknowledge that evil does exist. This proves problematic as it then brings into question the traditional theist’s view of God. However, no traditional theist would accept Hume’s conclusions because it denies God of His perfection. There are ways of sidestepping this issue such as, atheism, deism and polytheism, but none are accepted by traditional theists, and are therefore not a true solution to the problem. A theodicy is seen as a true solution as it defends God’s nature in the face of evil and suffering.
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.
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.
The second is that God is omnipotent but not wholly good and allows evil to happen or even promotes it, which would also nullify the status of God. The third is that God is neither omnipotent nor wholly good where that being should never have had the title of God in the first place. The way Mackie has presented his argument against the existence of God relies heavily on the logic of the incompatible triad premise which creates quite an interesting situation for the theist to explain since the triad is a solid paradox. Mackie discusses the arguments made by theists to defend that God and Evil are not mutually exclusive, and why the arguments don’t adequately address the issue of the incomplete triad. The first premise is that God
At the beginning of the play Lady Macbeth takes control and masterminds the murder of King Duncan. When she receives Macbeth’s letter her first thoughts are to kill Duncan, and to influence Macbeth’s rise as king. However, by the end of the play her guilt gains on and her drives her insane, ultimately leading. Lady Macbeth should be blamed for murder of King Duncan. Lady Macbeth is very manipulative and wants to be queen.
But on the other hand, if God does not agree with certain actions or circumstances, then it is wrong because God says that it is wrong. Whatever God wants to command becomes a standard of moral rights. So if God commanded someone to rape another person, the Divine Command theory proves that rape would be moral because doing the right thing is the same as doing what God commands. It is impossible to imagine God commanding to do such a wrong act. The Divine Command Theory is solely based upon what God commands.
It suggests a certain foreshadowing of things to come in the play, implying that all may be not what it seems. The quote can also be said to represent the characteristics of Macbeth and his wife Lady Macbeth. In the beginning of the play, Lady Macbeth is the foul, ruthless woman who tries to convince her husband to commit regicide in order to become King. She manipulates him into killing the King, sparking the many murders to follow this event. Initially, she differs from Macbeth in this way because he is reluctant to kill his kinsman.
The issues with this option mainly deal with the definition of a theistic God. If morality is independent of God and God’s commands only exist because the moralities of actions are predetermined, then God is no longer sovereign. If morals are independent of God’s commands then God is not sovereign over morality. This goes against the definition of a theistic God which defines God as the creator and ruler over everything. It also puts limits on God’s power.
They are afraid to die, therefore they have a force resulting in procreation, they will in another way continue to survive by their offspring. Nietzche believed that it was not only the will to survive, but to succeed (power) and that everyone has this power, even subconsciously. Everything strives for power. The overman (Ubermensch) is the superior man who justifies the existence of the human race. It is described to be the one who is willing to risk all for the sake of the enhancement of humanity.
Since every ethical system should evaluate itself as the best and only moral system, and every other system is flawed and immoral, it is assumed that moral judgements about ethical systems are meaningless. Moral Relativism rests on the belief that values are subjective. It is holds the belief that there is no objective morality, that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. Only that, moral systems are just made up and supported by the circumstances of the action. Moral Relativism cannot and does not accept the idea that an objective moral system exists.