What is the relationship between evil and happiness? In order to have a complete overlook of this question, I will observe in a first part how evil and happiness are deeply linked and opposable forces. Then In a second part I will ask if evil isn’t necessary to achieve happiness. And finally I will expose the idea that evil and happiness are two concepts of same nature that serve the function of structuralizing and justifying morality. Since evil is a concrete cause for unhappiness (which is immediately opposed to happiness) because
If my reason erroneously commands me to do something evil, can I have a good will? Why or why not? In this essay I will support the claim that one can have a good will if their reason erroneously commands them to do something evil if the evil act is antecedent. It was also asked if the statements “I loved evil even if it served no purpose” and “Evil would never be sought, not even incidentally, unless the good involving evil were to be sought more than the good evil takes away” could be reconciled. Why or why not?
He speaks of how a world with humans is better than a world without, and because of this it is just does not make sense to have a world without evil. But this could also just lead us back to the original problem, bringing to mind the thought that if God is able to do anything and everything, then he should be able to create a perfect world with no evil. The fifth premise states simply “But, there’s evil.” Laurence distinguishes between the two different kinds of evil when explaining this argument. He says that natural evil can
It is straight from the belief, for example: I believe this is right, so I should do this. Kant says that we can’t believe that it is right to do something without believing that we should do it and we can’t believe it’s wrong to do something without believing that we shouldn’t do it. Categorical imperative is different from hypothetical imperative because it’s bound by rational nature, not your affection nature of desires. According to Kant, everyone has a reason of acting in certain way. For Kant, the moral law binds us absolutely in virtue of our capacity for reason: to act immorally is to act irrationally.
My view on why god allows evil is that he does allow evil simply because of free will. I believe this because god is all-knowing he knows our next move but he gives us free will to choose evil from good or vice versa, but natural evil people wonder why god would allow this and simply I will state why. There are two kinds of evil in the world: moral and natural; both appear to exist in abundance. Moral evils are those evils that are freely inflicted upon humankind by humankind: Larson, adultery, murder, theft, etc. ; they result from the choices of free will.
According to Kant’s deontology, this would be perfectly reasonable. Although the universalizability system is clear, it doesn’t work and takes away from the adequacy of the theory. Secondly, we can explore the pragmatism of the theory. Again we can look at Kant’s belief that we should never consider our emotions when making an ethical decision. In a real
A follower of natural law would say that the statement is flawed, and that the theory can be extremely useful when dealing with issues concerning the environment. However, there are those who would believe otherwise, and suggest an alternative ethical approach to be more appropriate. One way in which natural law is of no use when dealing with issues concerning the environment is that some rules formulated by the theory do not work when applied. For example, Aquinas’ synderesis rule of ‘do good, avoid evil’ is the foundation of his ethical theory, this principle implying that the exploitation and abuse of the environment would be wrong as it is regarded as evil. Despite this, his synderesis rule consequently cannot be applied to all situations when dealing with issues concerning the environment as it is impossible to ‘avoid evil’ completely.
Agnosticism is the purely epistemological stance that sufficient evidence does not exist for or against theism therefore the best stance on the argument is no stance at all. Combinations of these positions are possible due to their varying natures, but here only the argument between theism and atheism is examined more closely. The problem of evil is described and used to argue against the existence of God. Richard Swinburne’s solution to the problem of evil is explained and used to revise the original atheist’s argument from evil to its best, but still insufficient, form. Commonly, atheists hold the view that organized religions are corrupt and actually cause more harm than good.
5. Reconciling belief in the existence of God with the existence of evil is a grave problem for the theist. Among the responses to the two versions of the problem of evil include a defense of free will and the plausible reasons God may have for allowing evil to
Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma shows that the Divine Command Theory has several problems. If something is good simply because God commands it, then God arbitrary – He could have given different commands just as easily. According to Leibniz, this would be destroying all of God’s love and glory – “for why praise him for what he has done if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing exactly the contrary?” On the other hand, if God commands something because it is good, then that would mean good is independent of God. Therefore, we should not follow a God who is arbitrary, but rather, think about it separately. James Rachels states that we should be autonomous, and think about what is right and wrong for ourselves.