The purpose of this paper is to discuss a particular objection to the problem of evil—that which states that good cannot exist without evil. I will introduce and lay-out the problem of evil, discuss two variations of this objection that Mackie puts forth, and offer a third variation to test the stregnth of the problem of evil against this particular objection.
The problem of evil aims to expose the apparent inconsistencies of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic formulation of God. That is, a God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If the problem of evil is compelling, it is supposed to show that at least this conception of God is incoherent. While the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God (hereafter referred to as the monotheistic God, or simply …show more content…
Good versus evil is a theme strung throughout literary works, movies, and television shows. There’s of course the trope of the angel on one shoulder, the devil on the other, or the recurring plot of the good guys verses the bad guys. In short, good versus evil is a binary you can’t help but be aware of, so it’s no wonder we place good and evil as opposites. In one sense, the objection that good cannot exist without evil plays on the semantic relationship between good and evil. In the same way cold can be defined as an absence of heat, this version of the objection argues that good might be understood as lacking evil, or evil lacking good. That is to say, we can only understand these concepts by understanding their opposite. Yet, for Mackie this argument carries no weight because evil is not simply “the privation of good” (Mackie 204). While good and evil might be thematic opposites in the movies, they are not logical opposites. Mackie draws the example of ‘redness.” It is true that redness occurs only where there is non-redness, but good and evil are not counterparts in this way. Because evil is not merely understood as non-goodness, they are not “genuine logical counterparts” (205). However, Mackie also charitably conceives of a scenario where everything is red. If it were the case we “observe and give names to qualities only if they have real opposites,” (205) then we’d never …show more content…
One might argue that evil is necessary to appreciate the good in the world. This is distinct from the two earlier versions in that it is not placing good and evil as counterparts, and it is slightly different from the “evil as a means to good” objection (which I will not discuss) in that it is not strictly a consequentialist argument. It’s not an uncommon view that overcoming adversity and struggle is what makes life meaningful. By this view, self-growth is apart of what it means to be human. Struggles such as disease, natural disasters, or even human malice are what ignite us to come to know ourselves and find meaning. Relationships are formed by shared struggle, horrible diseases push us toward scientific advancements, natural disasters bring communities together. Thus someone in this camp might put forth the notion that evil is necessary to appreciate what’s meaningful in this world, or push us to become our best selves so we “deserve” the reward of the afterlife. This version of the objection is at least initally compelling, as it gives perspective as to why there might be so much evil in the world, but it ultimately falls short. By this view, although evil gives our lives meaning, it also seems cruel of God to suggest evil is the only way to achieve it. Perhaps hard work and pursuing happiness are enough to give life meaning. It’s unlikely evil is the only force that could promote
The problem of evil aims to expose the apparent inconsistencies of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic formulation of God. That is, a God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If the problem of evil is compelling, it is supposed to show that at least this conception of God is incoherent. While the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God (hereafter referred to as the monotheistic God, or simply …show more content…
Good versus evil is a theme strung throughout literary works, movies, and television shows. There’s of course the trope of the angel on one shoulder, the devil on the other, or the recurring plot of the good guys verses the bad guys. In short, good versus evil is a binary you can’t help but be aware of, so it’s no wonder we place good and evil as opposites. In one sense, the objection that good cannot exist without evil plays on the semantic relationship between good and evil. In the same way cold can be defined as an absence of heat, this version of the objection argues that good might be understood as lacking evil, or evil lacking good. That is to say, we can only understand these concepts by understanding their opposite. Yet, for Mackie this argument carries no weight because evil is not simply “the privation of good” (Mackie 204). While good and evil might be thematic opposites in the movies, they are not logical opposites. Mackie draws the example of ‘redness.” It is true that redness occurs only where there is non-redness, but good and evil are not counterparts in this way. Because evil is not merely understood as non-goodness, they are not “genuine logical counterparts” (205). However, Mackie also charitably conceives of a scenario where everything is red. If it were the case we “observe and give names to qualities only if they have real opposites,” (205) then we’d never …show more content…
One might argue that evil is necessary to appreciate the good in the world. This is distinct from the two earlier versions in that it is not placing good and evil as counterparts, and it is slightly different from the “evil as a means to good” objection (which I will not discuss) in that it is not strictly a consequentialist argument. It’s not an uncommon view that overcoming adversity and struggle is what makes life meaningful. By this view, self-growth is apart of what it means to be human. Struggles such as disease, natural disasters, or even human malice are what ignite us to come to know ourselves and find meaning. Relationships are formed by shared struggle, horrible diseases push us toward scientific advancements, natural disasters bring communities together. Thus someone in this camp might put forth the notion that evil is necessary to appreciate what’s meaningful in this world, or push us to become our best selves so we “deserve” the reward of the afterlife. This version of the objection is at least initally compelling, as it gives perspective as to why there might be so much evil in the world, but it ultimately falls short. By this view, although evil gives our lives meaning, it also seems cruel of God to suggest evil is the only way to achieve it. Perhaps hard work and pursuing happiness are enough to give life meaning. It’s unlikely evil is the only force that could promote