What is it about man’s freedom that necessarily requires error and hence the doing of wrong?

Assignment should not have an introduction and conclusion (should not be written as a formal
essay) but should directly respond to essay prompt chosen.

Choose one topic from the three listed below.

1. Imagine you are a theist, someone who believes in a single all-powerful, omnibenevolent, omniscient God who intervenes in the personal affairs of men. How would you – as a theist – respond to the objections which J.L. Mackie raises against the four traditional explanations of why God tolerates the existence of evil in the world? (The four explanations, along with Mackie’s criticism of them, can be found on pages 99-105 of Mackie’s essay.)

Remember: Mackie thinks that these explanations appear to solve the problem of evil (the theodicy problematic) either (1) by subtly changing the meaning of the words “good” and “evil,” or (2) by shifting back and forth between different conceptions of how good and evil are opposed to each other, or (3) by restricting the meaning of “omnipotence.” According to Mackie, all these moves are illegitimate. In order to successfully defend the theist, your solutions to the problem of evil should avoid making these moves. Otherwise you, as a theist, will be contradicting yourself.

Since the last two explanations for why evil exists are more complicated than the first two, feel free to concentrate on these two if you think that what you have to say in defense of these two explanations is enough to fill two pages. In each case, you should begin your criticism of Mackie’s argument by carefully restating what you take Mackie’s position to be.

2. When philosophers speak of “the problem of evil” or the theodicy problematic, the word “evil” is ambiguous between human suffering (i.e. the kind of evil caused by natural catastrophes or disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, plagues, famines, etc.), on the one hand, and sin (i.e. the kind of evil caused by human wrongdoing such as acts of cruelty or malevolence), on the other. The first kind of evil is called by philosophers “natural” or physical evil, the second “moral” evil. Which of the four explanations for the existence of evil which Mackie considers on pages 99-105 would be of no use to the theist in trying to justify why God, in creating the universe, had to make room for physical or “natural” evil? Explain why this explanation is, for the theist, a non-starter.

Of the remaining three explanations for why God tolerates evil in the world, which would the theist find the most difficult to accept in defending physical evil? Which of the five core features that define the theistic conception of God would this explanation force him to give up and why?

In the case of the remaining two explanations, how can the theist respond to Mackie’s objections and show that God is not to blame for the presence of natural or physical evil in the world He created? (If you think only one of the two remaining explanations can be defended, explain why you think that the theist cannot successfully defend the other, i.e. why Mackie’s objections are unanswerable.)

3. Traditionally, theists wishing to solve the problem of evil and so overcome the theodicy problematic have been eager to show that good can actually come out of evil. For that reason, such theists have tended to prefer the last two explanations for the existence of evil, which Mackie discusses on pages 101-105, over the first two.

Critics, however, have argued that what these theists must establish is NOT that good can come out of evil but that good could come in no other way. In other words, it is not enough to show that evil can be turned into a higher good, regardless of whether this higher good is human freewill or a dynamic universe in which good gradually overcomes evil. It has to be shown that this was the only way to achieve that higher good (whatever it is) and that God had no other choice but to accept evil.

Take the fourth explanation: “Evil is due to human freewill” (pp 102-105). God cannot be exonerated from the charge of allowing evil if He could have chosen another way of realizing human freedom that brought forth less evil (or no evil at all). What is it about man’s freedom that necessarily requires error and hence the doing of wrong? Mackie argues that God could have created man in such a way that he always chooses the good but is still free. Do you agree with his reasoning? Mackie also argues against the theist’s conception of free will, claiming that it is contradictory and confuses two different senses of freedom. As a result, free will, as the highest good, cannot be used to justify God’s tolerance of evil. Explain Mackie’s argument here. Do you think he is right? Why or why not? If not, how do you think the theist could defend himself here?

Take the third explanation: “The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil” (pp. 101-102). The argument here is that evil is in some sense only partial and is more than offset by the good it does for the whole. Mackie asks how exactly this is possible if God’s promotion of virtuous behavior, which is a higher (or second-order) good, only leads to more (second-order) evil like callousness and malevolence. (See p. 102 for Mackie’s argument). Do you accept Mackie’s argument? Why or why not?

Mackie also questions whether partial evil – i.e. first-order evils like pain and misery – are truly cancelled out through their place in the whole so that only the goodness of the whole is real or whether “partial” evil is still in some sense evil. Even if people are encouraged to be benevolent and heroic so that they actively reduce the amount of first-order evil in the world, some people will still have suffered, perhaps grievously, and others will continue to suffer, since not all can, or will, be helped. Again, the question is whether there was no other way for God to achieve the goals of sympathy and benevolence other than by allowing first-order evils like pain to flourish. Do you think the theist has a good answer for this? If so, what do you think the theist’s response should be? If not, explain why his prospects of justifying first-order evil seem dim.

Last Completed Projects