Dominick Iwaniec Philosophy 002 Due: 3/15/2012

Complications of Evil

Worldwide theologians strive to not only prove the existence of God, but to maintain that he is a good, omnipotent, and omniscient being. The world being what it is, however, there is one great problem with the aforementioned theory of Gods existence: the problem of evil. In three parts, masterfully phrased, If God can prevent the destructive suffering of the innocent, yet chooses not to, God is not good. If God chooses to prevent the suffering, but cannot, He is not omnipotent. If God cannot recognize the suffering of the innocent, He is not wise. (Soccio 233) Thus we have faults in what is supposed to be the ultimate being as defined by Judeo-Christians. For if God is able to see and know everything, be able to do anything, and is good to everyone, how can there be evil. When you define God in this way, how is possible to believe that if He does and knows all, that he does not also cause evil? Thomas Aquinas believed that no one can actually choose evil as evil. Rather they may be doing something that everyone would see as evil, but it may be good for them, or seen by them as good. This action lacks good and therefore is evil. He believed that Evil is not a positive or created entity brought into being by God, but is instead a lack of any goodness, which Aquinas referred to as privation. This is a necessary bi-product of free will, as anyone may see something they are doing as a good thing. For example, a person committing adultery is engaging in sexual practices which provide sensual pleasures, something good in itself; however, they are not doing it in a good way and therefore it is evil. Aquinas

also believed that God could foresee evil, but also that humans and life would be pointless if free will was not given to them. If free will is provided then, It means that the inescapable price for awareness and feeling is the possibility of pain. (Soccio 235) To me this solution for the problem of evil is severely lacking. For one thing, deeming evil as a lack of goodness by definition must mean that the natural state of things must then be evil; and good is merely an addition of a created and positive entity. Even if you could say that evil is not an actual positive entity, how can it be that something such as adultery, genocide, or murder could in any way be considered anything but an act of evil, regardless of what is gained or achieved. Augustine claims that no one can knowingly choose evil, but I argue that many people in our state and federal jails would acknowledge that they willingly made the choice of not only premeditating, but also committing many crimes including larceny and homicide. How could someone be capable of premeditating the death or harm of another individual, but not define the act as evil? Though I do not believe the existence of God, I pose this: even if Aquinas is accurate, would it not be worth it to have a slight lack in will, if there was also an extreme lack of evil, pain, and suffering.

Citations: Douglas J. Soccio. Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. Belmont:: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2010.