1. Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 7 The argument from evil By David Kelsey

2. J.L. Mackie He lived from 1917-1981. An Australian philosopher. Wrote a paper on the argument from evil titled “Evil and Omnipotence’.

3. An argument for Atheism Argument for Atheism: The argument from evil is an argument against the existence of God. –Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism

4. What is evil? Evil: any kind of wrongdoing, injustice, pain or suffering. –Two different kinds of evil: Moral evil Natural evil

5. The argument from evil The argument from evil: –1. God is omnibenevolent. –2. Any omnibenevolent being prevents evil as far as it is able to. –3. God is omnipotent. –4. Any omnipotent being is able to prevent all evil. –5. Thus, if God exists there is no evil. (from 1-4) –6. But there is evil! –7. Thus, God doesn’t exist. (from 5 & 6)

6. Possible replies to the argument Possible Theist replies to Mackie’s argument? –He could deny that God is omnipotent or that he is omnibenevolent. –Or he could deny that evil exists.

7. More replies: theodicy’s More replies for the Theist: –The Theist could deny Premises 2 or 4 of the argument. 2. Any omnibenevolent being prevents evil as far as it is able to. 4. Any omnipotent being is able to prevent all evil. –Mackie calls these premises ‘quasi-logical rules’. They are supposed to clarify the meaning of ‘omnibenevolent’ and ‘omnipotent’. To deny the 2nd or 4th premises? –To do so the Theist needs to explain why: An omnibenevolent God might allow evil or why An omnipotent God might be unable to prevent evil Explanations of God’s reasons for allowing (or not preventing) evil are called Theodicy’s.

8. Theodicy’s The three types of Theodicy's that we will discuss: –The Means-ends Theodicy This reply rejects premise 2 by claiming that God uses evil means to bring about good ends. –The Higher good Theodicy This reply rejects premise 2 by claiming that evil forms part of a pattern that is good overall. –The Free Will Theodicy This reply rejects premise 4 by claiming God can’t prevent evil outcomes of free human actions.

9. Means-ends Theodicy Means-Ends Theodicy: –Sometimes evil means are necessary to obtain a good end. The end justifies the means. Surgery example… Theists sometimes think that God uses evil to teach us… –Good must outweigh evil: But the good end must be good enough to outweigh the evil means used to get the end. –Question: Can you think of any examples in human history where the good might be said to outweigh the evil?

10. Problems for the means-end theodicy Objection: God can just actualize the good end without the evil means… Reply: examples of cases where it seems the only way to truly learn is the hard way…

11. The Higher good Theodicy The Higher Good theodicy: –evil is a necessary part of a higher good. –A higher good is a 2 nd order good. 2 nd order goods are patterns of 1 st order goods and evils that are themselves good. 1 st order evil: pain 1 st order good: pleasure –Examples in Heroism and Compassion. –And yet omnibenevolence consists in promoting higher goods, not merely pleasure.

12. Problems with the Higher goods theodicy If God is out to promote 2nd order goods why doesn‘t he prevent 2nd order evils? –2nd order evils: cruelty and cowardice…

13. The Free Will Theodicy The Free Will Theodicy: –Rejects premise 4. Premise 4: Any omnipotent being is able to prevent all evil. –Says that evil is the result of the actions of free creatures such as humans. –God would like us to freely do good but he can’t force us to do good, for then we wouldn’t be free.

14. Mackie’s reply Mackie’s reply to the free will theodicy: –Mackie argues that since I can choose rightly once, it is possible I can choose rightly always. –But then if it is possible that free creatures can always choose rightly and yet God cannot make this the case, then God isn’t omnipotent. Note that if God can make it the case that free creatures always choose rightly and yet he hasn’t then according to Mackie God isn’t omnibenevolent…

15. God’s omnipotence Question: But what is it for God to be omnipotent anyway? –Maximally powerful…

16. Omnipotence defined Omnipotence and states of affairs: –There are many possible states of affairs. –Only some of the possible states of affairs are actual though. Actual state of affairs: Possible and not actual: –An omnipotent being can do anything: Means an omnipotent being can actualize, or make actual, any state of affairs it wants.

17. The paradox of omnipotence Question: Can God make the impossible possible? A Paradox: Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? –Either way, there is something he cannot do…

18. A new definition of Omnipotence Revising our definition of omnipotence: A being is omnipotent iff it can bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible. –It is impossible that a creature be free and yet be forced to only do good by God –Thus, we can say that evil is the result of the choices of free creatures and yet God can still maintain his omnipotence… Replies to this definition of omnipotence: didn’t God invent the laws of logic?

19. Compatibilism Incompatibilism: –According to the Free Will Theodicy, my having free will is incompatible with God or anyone else determining what I do. This view is called Incompatibilism. –That is why God can’t bring it about that I always freely do good. –Might it be possible for someone to have free will and yet be forced to only do good by God? Compatibilism…

20. Do we have free will? An argument against free will: –1. Either my actions are determined by God, society, my upbringing, the physical states of my body, etc. or they are random. –2. If my actions are determined then I don’t have free will. –3. If they are random then I don’t have free will. –4. Thus, I don’t have free will. –Replies…

21. The argument against free will If we want the free will theodicy to work we need to show both: –1. The argument against free will is unsound & –2. Incompatibilism about free will is correct.

22. Last thoughts: Natural Evil Redefining Omnipotence: –Suppose we redefine omnipotence in a way that allows us to reject Mackie’s argument. A further Question, Natural Evils: –What about natural evils such as earthquakes or disease? –How do you suppose the Theist might explain natural evils? The means/ends theodicy?