Soul-building evils are meant to force human beings to live through adversity and in turn strengthen our characters (Sober, pg. 111). Another criticism that exists to this second premise is called defense, which attempts to explain how evil can exist logically, given the existence of God (an all-PKG God) (“The Problem of Evil”). However, defense does not presuppose the existence of God or the existence of evil. If God and evil can
(3) The world contains moral evil. Therefore: (4) It is not the case that God exists. In response to these arguments, the “free will defiance” holds that God chose to create humankind to be free, and that evil is the result of society’s abuse of that freedom. This defiance applies only to moral evil because society does not and cannot control natural evils. Natural evils, by definition, are those evils that occur as the result of natural processes.
This means that the only thing that makes and act morally wrong is that God either commands or prohibits it. Whether he will support or be against them, it is entirely up to him. This theory shows that actions can either be accepted or denied based solely upon God’s judgment and whether he agrees or disagrees with what is at hand. If God agrees with certain actions or circumstances, then it is right just because God says that it is right. 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.
However, if God exists and one does not believe he/she will receive eternal punishment. Therefore, any sensible person should believe in God because the risk is greater to do otherwise. By breaking down this wager one is able to perceive what he/she risks by not believing in God and in turn causes them to evaluate their future in the after-life. One of the most criticized elements of Pascal’s Wager is that it assumes God rewards belief. Is it really rational to believe that God will reward blind faith and punish those who do believe in moral justice but do not necessarily believe in him?
Boethius argues that the following statements cannot be all true; evil exists, God is omnipotent, and God is all-loving. He says if God can prevent evil, but don’t, then he isn’t all loving. If God intends to prevent evil, but can’t then he isn’t omnipotent. Also, if God intends to prevent evil and is capable of doing it, then how can evil exist? Lady Philosophy counter argument will attempt to show that this is not actually the case.
3. Explain why Kant claims that according to the Categorical Imperative, it is wrong to lie even to an ‘inquiring murderer’. Explain the concept of the Categorical Imperative, and how Kant’s answer is derived from it. Discuss whether you think the Categorical Imperative yields the correct moral answer in this case, giving reasons in defence of your view. Immanuel Kant was a deontologist who believed that reason was the final authority for morality, not the consequences of one’s actions as believed by the utilitarians.
He is malevolent. Is God both able and willing? Then whence commeth the evil. If he is neither able nor willing then why call him god?” This is called the inconsistent triad; if God has all these Omni qualities then why does evil still remain on earth? Augustine’s soul deciding theodicy was the demonstration that God is not responsible for the existence of evil.
Evil as Disproof of a Perfect God Proving the existence of God is a tricky matter. The fact that no definitive empirical evidence for God exists is not the proof of non-existence. In other words the “absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”, (Carl Sagan). To refute the existence of a theistic God, one would have to provide some sort of proof against the notion. Theologians have long struggled over the philosophical problem of evil.
In this respect, morality and Socratism are the expressions of a vital drive analogous to those which give birth to the figures of Apollo and Dionysus, as they are both connected to the metaphysical inquiry into the nature of things. Still, the Socratic worldview fails in seeing its dependency and connections to these drives, and thus fails to see its connection to life and its irrational kernel . According to Nietzsche, this mindset is the result of a pathology, as it gives too much merit to appearances while it excludes the Will from its view, making the former absolute and arranging them in a rational but insincere way. Socratism is then made of the same substance of the drives which inspire tragedy insofar as it is an expression of life, but, in both a literal and a metaphysical sense, it is the result of a sick form of this substance – it presents a metaphysical view of reality, just like art, but at the same time causes life to retreat within the safe walls of reasonableness, as by contrast art pushes the person to transcend them . In some respect, we can see here one of the seeds of Nietzsche’s later intuitions, and I believe there is no harm in employing them to elucidate this point.
Critique of Kant’s Indiscriminant Use of the “Categorical Imperative” In terms of the discussion of morals, it all comes down to whether one believes the “good” in a morally good action lies in the cause or the effect of the action. For philosopher Immanuel Kant, the answer lies in the cause, or the initial motive of the action, rather than the consequences that arise from it. However, one cannot rely on his system of morals, as the more they get grounded into real life situations, the harder it is to justify certain actions. If one were to accept a higher and definite system of moral law that applies to any and all rational beings, it cannot be morally permissible for people to only consider the beginning motives of an action with blatant disregard for the potentially horrifying consequences that may follow. In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers.