2 of 6

Write now Article Tools

Page 4 of 5

again, to a higher order good; a third order good. Let's call this justice. Of course, now you see the problem. Every higher order good will imply a higher order evil to contrast and then that evil will need to be explained by an even higher good. The explanation will always be inadequate because it will never fully explain the existence of evil.

4. One of the most popular solutions is called the free-will defense. Evil is the result of free choices made by human beings. God gave us the ability to do that which is good but this also implies that we have the ability to do evil. It is our choice and sometimes we choose evil. As the argument goes God had two alternatives when he created us. 1. God could have created us without freewill and thus we would always do that which is good. 2. God could have created us with freewill which entails the possibility of evil. Clearly option two is the better one and so that explains evil.

Mackie's response to this solution is clever if not completely convincing. Still, its worth considering. Freewill doesn't imply random action anymore than it precludes doing the same thing each and every time. For example, if I order the same dish every time I go to a certain restaurant that doesn't imply that I have no freewill. It just implies that I'm always freely choosing the same option. With this in mind Mackie suggests that God could have created us such that we always freely choose to do good. This would solve the problem of evil and it also shows the inadequacy of the freewill defense. Needless to say, many people find his reasoning inadequate! Still, the logic of the problem of evil seems troubling.

Perhaps the problem is in using logic to solve it. Perhaps evil is irrational. This was the approach offered by Albert Camus. In a work titled The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus considered the absurdity of existence and how to live in the face of that absurdity. Part of the problem is in our very attempt to give evil, and life for that matter, a meaning. There is no meaning but we still must face the question of whether to live or not. This Camus calls the "fundamental question of philosophy." We have two options when confronting it and evil. We can give in: suicide. We can turn and face it: conscious revolt. Camus advocates the latter and uses the image of Sisyphus, who was condemned for all eternity to roll a rock up a hill only to have it roll back down and start over, to convey this response. While many see Camus' answer as pessimistic,

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about God allows suffering?
We want to hear your view. Write now!