Morality does not come directly from God. This is the idea behind the Autonomy thesis. This option says that an act is either immoral or moral based on things apart from the commands of God. Actions are right or wrong in and of themselves regardless of God’s commands. The issues with this option mainly deal with the definition of a theistic God.
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.
The strongest criticism to the free will defense is that God, being an all-powerful being, should be able to create free agents who make only good choices, freely. There is the option of having no free will, and no evil, and have free will and having evil, but the third option, which is less known, is the option that God can create a world where free will is possible, and evil does not exist. This would be possible
However since we already have an idea of God as this perfect and infinite being, he must exist. Furthermore, since the natural light clears deception as an imperfection as well as not existing, God is a non-deceiver, he exist and is perfect. After the cogito argument and natural light examination of the deceptive God, Descartes discards the hypothesis that God is a deceiver. Since God is all-good, he would not deceive us. For that reason, Descartes introduces the evil demon/genius instead.
Hume concluded that the three points are inconsistent. If God is omnipotent, He is aware of existing evil and suffering, and knows how to put a stop to it. If God is omnibenevolent He will want to put a stop to it. If God is both of these attributes, then evil cannot exist. Since we know evil and suffering is a necessary bi-product of human life, we must acknowledge that evil does exist.
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.
For example, if it is morally wrong to lie, then everyone should never lie. Even if the consequences of a lie are great, it must not be done. Kant’s theory is cold and unemotional. However, Kant viewed this as the best way to make ethical decisions. Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences.
As previously stated, in order to be a KoF, you must be willing to nullify the ethical standards you are most accustomed to in order to comply to the declaration of God or any other divine or spiritual medium. The definition of a Tragic Hero, (TH) is quite easy to understand. A TH can also be a good or bad guy, also depending on your religious stance and how you view the biblical accounts of the story of Abraham and Isaac. The TH is the person who will never defy the moral ethics of
Martin Luther King stated, “A just law is a man-made law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (Schaefer, 2011, p. 187). King believed, “that people have the right to disobey unjust laws under certain circumstances” (Schaefer, 2011, p. 187). I agree with King’s beliefs in regards to civil disobedience. If a person feels strongly about something, the only way for things to change, are for people to take a stand.
3. For Thomas Aquinas, any act that implies a contradiction falls outside the scope of God’s omnipotence. As for divine goodness, Thomas holds that God is a-moral. All beings participate in the goodness of God, and evil is the privation of such goodness. 4.