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. Mackie’s Argument
…The problem of evil, in the sense in which I shall be using the phrase, is a problem only for someone who believes that there is a God who is both omnipotent and wholly good.  And it is a logical problem, the problem of clarifying and reconciling a number of beliefs….
        In its simplest form the problem is this: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists.[1]  There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false.  But at the same time all three are essential parts of most theological positions.  The theologian, it seems, at once must adhere and cannot consistently adhere to all three….
        However, the contradiction does not arise immediately; to show it we need some additional premises, or perhaps some quasi-logical rules connecting the terms “good,” “evil,” and “omnipotent”.[2]  These additional principles are that good is opposed to evil, in such a way that a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can, and that there are no limits to what an omnipotent thing can do.[3]  From these it follows that a good omnipotent thing eliminates evil completely, and then the propositions that a good omnipotent thing exists, and that evil exists, are incompatible”

6. 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)

7. Possible replies to the argument
Possible Theist replies to Mackie’s argument?
Denying that God is omnipotent or that he is omnibenevolent.
Denying that evil exists.

8. More replies: theodicy’s
We might reply to Mackie by trying to explain why God might allow, or not prevent, evil. This move is known as Theodicy.
The Theist could deny premise 2 of the argument:
2. Any omnibenevolent being prevents evil as far as it is able to.
To do so the Theist needs to explain why an omnibenevolent God might allow evil or why
Or the Theist could deny premise 4 of the argument:
4. Any omnipotent being is able to prevent all evil.
To deny the 4th premise the Theist needs to explain why an omnipotent God might be unable to prevent evil

9. 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.

10. 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…
But the good must outweigh the evil
Question: Can you think of any examples in human history where the good might be said to outweigh the evil?

11. Problems for the means-end theodicy
Mackie’s response to the means-ends theodicy:
But couldn’t God just actualize the good end without the evil means…
Maybe we must learn the hard way…

12. The Higher good Theodicy
This reply says that evil is a necessary part of a higher good.
A higher good is a 2nd order good. 2nd order goods are patterns of 1st order goods and evils that are themselves good.
1st order evil: pain
1st order good: pleasure
Examples include Heroism and Compassion.
And so the response goes that omnibenevolence consists in promoting higher goods, not merely pleasure.

13. 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 include cruelty and cowardice…

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

15. Mackie’s reply Mackie’s reply to the free will theodicy:
Mackie suggests that it is possible that free creatures always choose rightly. (If I choose rightly once, then it is possible I always do…)
But then because God is said to be omnipotent he should have the power to create that state of affairs.
So because humans sometimes choose wrongly then God cannot be omnipotent…

16. God’s omnipotence
Question: But what is it for God to be omnipotent anyway? We might wonder whether God can be omnipotent because we might wonder if omnipotence is even possible.
Consider this question: Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift? Note that either way, there is something he cannot do…

17. A new definition of Omnipotence
The paradox of omnipotence suggests the following definition of omnipotence: a being is omnipotent iff it can bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible.
But It is impossible that a creature be free and yet be forced to only do good by God
Thus, God is omnipotent and we maintain freedom…
Replies to this definition of omnipotence: didn’t God invent the laws of logic?

18. Do we have free will?
But maybe we aren’t free anyways. Consider this 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: a false dilemma

19. 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? Would the means/ends theodicy?