Chuang Tzu believed that how we perceive things are directly related to each of our separate pasts, or our “paths”. Also, that we need to realized that our conclusions and dispositions would be completely different had we experienced another past, even possibly just one single instance. Confucius believed that all things are naturally good. It is only if you haven’t pursued the way that you can turn out evil. He also believed that the most important characteristic of our personalities is created by how we treat others.
It is an irrefutable fact that we should help each. However sometimes help to others poses some danger to either us or others. Thus Peter Singer’s argument that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” in my view is a better school of thought or a sound moral law. We shall find out how he arrives at this conclusion and how convincing he is. Singer begins his argument by outlining some very important facts about human beings.
Self-forgiveness is similar to interpersonal forgiveness, for which there is much more literature available, but self-forgiveness is classified as intrapersonal forgiveness. Interpersonal forgiveness involves forgiveness from the offender to the person offended, therefore interpersonal. On the other hand, self-forgiveness is intrapersonal because it does not involve another person but rather one-self. Hall and Finchman attempted to show the similarities and differences between these two forms of forgiveness by providing a chart, which seems to be a very informative and useful chart. The most important observation is the fact that the person must first acknowledge the wrong done and then accept responsibility before the process of self-forgiveness begins.
The freewill defence argues that freewill is an essential part of humanity, without which we would be like robots. This explains why freewill is sufficiently worth the risk of evil, as many circumstances of evil are a part of the soul-making process according to John Hick. Genuine freewill requires the possibility of evil and without this possibility we would have freewill. It then argues that all the accounts of evil that have happened throughout history were necessary to our freewill. This explains why God did not simply step in and save us from the worst effects of our choices.
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.
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
Evil is simply the lack of good. Which ties into the next issue Augustine addresses; that god allows us to choose evil, while he can prevent us from doing so, given that he's all-powerful. Augustine argues that god knows what is going to happen, yet he isn’t the cause of it. We as humans have free will, and god knows what would happen if they make choices using their wills. Augustines concepts and views really interest me and I have taken to checking out books from the public library to read about his views.
However, per Webb, if we are, then it is a very ultra-soft patriarchy. Except for some light disagreements with some of his criteria selections, I agree overall with Webb that the spirit of the Scripture should definitely play a part in how we stand on certain issues in today’s culture. It’s imperative that we look behind the static words on the page, so to speak, and look at the context of the situation to determine what God is trying to tell us. Webb does a fairly good job of making us understand this. One may not agree with his methods of choosing the criteria, but you can’t disagree with his assessment that the spirit of what is trying to be said in Scripture should rule the
The Free Will Defense In this essay I will talk about why the free will defense is a logical and reasonable solution to the problem of evil. I will first define what the problem of evil is, and then I will define and explain why the free will defense works to solve the problem. I will also bring up and support all criticisms against the free will defense. I will continue by responding to those criticisms, and then conclude by summing up my main ideas. 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.
Furthermore, in the article, Aquinas states that if God exists, he is considered to be “Infinite Goodness.” It also states, “If god existed then there would be no evil discoverable, but there is evil in the world.” I believe that this is a good argument made against God because it is so true. If God is suppose to be “good,” and “powerful” then why did he create evil? To me this is an example that clearly shows that God could possibly not exist. All in all, there are many arguments for the