Evil

[Taure]

Wouldn't the world be dull without evil?

No one would have a sense of humour for a start. There is always someone who is the butt of a joke, but this is evil, and so can't exist in a world without evil.

Team sports would be out, as would any other competitive game. In competitive games, there is a loser, and making a person lose is mean, and being mean is evil.

Science would be gone, as it often creates disagreement, and disagreement unhappiness, and unhappiness is an evil.

In fact, pretty much everything that we enjoy in society has some unpleasant part of it, some downside.

Many people create fancy theodicies explaining away evil in the world - its there so that people can make a choice, or as a test, or that without it Good could not exist.

I postulate that God created evil to make the world more interesting.

It seems to me that the extreme evil (e.g. murder, rape, war etc.) is simply the cost of tame evil (humour, competitiveness etc.)

Thoughts?

 

[Atomagenesis]

Article 1. Whether good can be the cause of evil?

I answer that, It must be said that every evil in some way has a cause. For evil is the absence of the good, which is natural and due to a thing. But that anything fail from its natural and due disposition can come only from some cause drawing it out of its proper disposition. For a heavy thing is not moved upwards except by some impelling force; nor does an agent fail in its action except from some impediment. But only good can be a cause; because nothing can be a cause except inasmuch as it is a being, and every being, as such, is good.

And if we consider the special kinds of causes, we see that the agent, the form, and the end, import some kind of perfection which belongs to the notion of good. Even matter, as a potentiality to good, has the nature of good. Now that good is the cause of evil by way of the material cause was shown above (48, 3). For it was shown that good is the subject of evil. But evil has no formal cause, rather is it a privation of form; likewise, neither has it a final cause, but rather is it a privation of order to the proper end; since not only the end has the nature of good, but also the useful, which is ordered to the end. Evil, however, has a cause by way of an agent, not directly, but accidentally.

In proof of this, we must know that evil is caused in the action otherwise than in the effect. In the action evil is caused by reason of the defect of some principle of action, either of the principal or the instrumental agent; thus the defect in the movement of an animal may happen by reason of the weakness of the motive power, as in the case of children, or by reason only of the ineptitude of the instrument, as in the lame. On the other hand, evil is caused in a thing, but not in the proper effect of the agent, sometimes by the power of the agent, sometimes by reason of a defect, either of the agent or of the matter. It is caused by reason of the power or perfection of the agent when there necessarily follows on the form intended by the agent the privation of another form; as, for instance, when on the form of fire there follows the privation of the form of air or of water. Therefore, as the more perfect the fire is in strength, so much the more perfectly does it impress its own form, so also the more perfectly does it corrupt the contrary. Hence that evil and corruption befall air and water comes from the perfection of the fire: but this is accidental; because fire does not aim at the privation of the form of water, but at the bringing in of its own form, though by doing this it also accidentally causes the other. But if there is a defect in the proper effect of the fire--as, for instance, that it fails to heat--this comes either by defect of the action, which implies the defect of some principle, as was said above, or by the indisposition of the matter, which does not receive the action of the fire, the agent. But this very fact that it is a deficient being is accidental to good to which of itself it belongs to act. Hence it is true that evil in no way has any but an accidental cause; and thus is good the cause of evil.

Article 2. Whether the supreme good, God, is the cause of evil?

I answer that, As appears from what was said (1), the evil which consists in the defect of action is always caused by the defect of the agent. But in God there is no defect, but the highest perfection, as was shown above (4, 1). Hence, the evil which consists in defect of action, or which is caused by defect of the agent, is not reduced to God as to its cause.

But the evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause. And this appears as regards both natural things and voluntary things. For it was said (1) that some agent inasmuch as it produces by its power a form to which follows corruption and defect, causes by its power that corruption and defect. But it is manifest that the form which God chiefly intends in things created is the good of the order of the universe. Now, the order of the universe requires, as was said above (22, 2, ad 2; 48, 2), that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail. And thus God, by causing in things the good of the order of the universe, consequently and as it were by accident, causes the corruptions of things, according to 1 Kgs. 2:6: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive." But when we read that "God hath not made death" (Wisdom 1:13), the sense is that God does not will death for its own sake. Nevertheless the order of justice belongs to the order of the universe; and this requires that penalty should be dealt out to sinners. And so God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault, by reason of what is said above.

(Summa Theologica)

 

[Taure]

I don't know where to even begin disagreeing with that.

For evil is the absence of the good, which is natural and due to a thing

Here's a good start, as it's a statement which the rest of the document depends on. I disagree that evil is the privation of good; I'd say that they're more opposites. It also assumes that the default position of anything is to be good, and then there needs to be some sort of cause to make it go evil. I disagree with this too, and since there is no justification for it, I do not need to justify my disagreement either. It's simply a matter of opinion.

As for Article 2, it runs into problems as soon as it starts making God subject to morality. A God who is subject to morality is no longer omnipotent, and therefore not in the classical definition of God.

 

[Atomagenesis]

Here's a good start, as it's a statement which the rest of the document depends on. I disagree that evil is the privation of good; I'd say that they're more opposites. It also assumes that the default position of anything is to be good, and then there needs to be some sort of cause to make it go evil. I disagree with this too, and since there is no justification for it, I do not need to justify my disagreement either. It's simply a matter of opinion.

How can evil be a substance if it neccesary to have a something in order to have evil? Evil is not nothing, it is something lacking, which should be there.

I do not see why you disagree or think you don't need to justify it. Something must be in order for an evil to happen to it, which is what he means by accidental. Evil cannot be caused without an agent because evil depends on the agent for its deprivation. If evil were an entity (which it isn't), it coudn't exist because there is no such thing as pure chaos because it needs something to be chaotic upon.

As for Article 2, it runs into problems as soon as it starts making God subject to morality. A God who is subject to morality is no longer omnipotent, and therefore not in the classical definition of God.

God is still omnipotent when subjected to morality, but it is not really He who is subjected to it since morality is order and harmony in creation. This is the classical definition of God. Omnipotence means that God can do all within his power. God cannot sin or make a sqaure circle because this would be impossible for Him, since they are contradictory to the nature of things themselves. So God is still omnipotent in this case.

 

[Taure]

Oh, I am not arguing that evil isn't nothing, I am arguing that it is more than the absense of good. The person who wrote that text's arguments work just as well if you switch the words good and evil around.

Omnipotence means that God can do all within his power.

I can do everything that is within my power as well. Does this mean I'm omnipotent?

God is still omnipotent when subjected to morality, but it is not really He who is subjected to it since morality is order and harmony in creation.

I see nothing supporting this.

 

[Atomagenesis]

Oh, I am not arguing that evil isn't nothing, I am arguing that it is more than the absense of good. The person who wrote that text's arguments work just as well if you switch the words good and evil around.

If it is more than the absence of good than what is it? Since it really is not anything other than a deprivation it cannot be more than something perceivable in the acts of things. And I really dont think you can switch the terms at all, that makes no sense. Evil is not a thing which has substance, form, or material. It is not something you walk in the park or kick on a field. It is only a deprivation in things.

I can do everything that is within my power as well. Does this mean I'm omnipotent?

According to your own nature yes, when perfected fully according to your nature (heaven), which is human, but not in the sense of God's omnipotence. God's nature is infinitely greater than ours and eternally more perfect and is unconceivable because he is the author of all things. The beginning and the end.

I see nothing supporting this.

Then I don't see what you mean by God is not subject to morality then. God is morality, he is charity, and love and perfection and harmony. He is not a muderer or a thief.

 

[Taure]

If it is more than the absence of good that what is it? Since it really is not anything other than a deprivation it cannot be more than something perceivable in the acts of things. And I really dont think you can switch the terms at all, that makes no sense. Evil is not a thing which has substance, form, or material. It is not something you walk in the park or kick on a field. It is only a deprivation in things.

Can I not just say that good is simply the absence of evil? "Good is not a thing which has substance, form, or material. It is not something you walk in the park or kick on a field. It is only a deprivation in things."

Then I don't see what you mean by God is not subject to morality then. God is morality, he is charity, and love and perfection and harmony.

If God is subject to morality, then he can be called good. However, by doing this you take away his omnipotence, because he is subject to an independant standard greater than his own power - the standard of right and wrong.

However, saying that God is above morality, and that God himself creates morality, means that God himself cannot be called good, because he is the creater of morals, not subject to them, and therefore amoral.

He is not a muderer or a thief.

...have you read the Old Testament?

 

[elman]

Wouldn't the world be dull without evil?

No one would have a sense of humour for a start. There is always someone who is the butt of a joke, but this is evil, and so can't exist in a world without evil.

Team sports would be out, as would any other competitive game. In competitive games, there is a loser, and making a person lose is mean, and being mean is evil.

Science would be gone, as it often creates disagreement, and disagreement unhappiness, and unhappiness is an evil.

In fact, pretty much everything that we enjoy in society has some unpleasant part of it, some downside.

Many people create fancy theodicies explaining away evil in the world - its there so that people can make a choice, or as a test, or that without it Good could not exist.

I postulate that God created evil to make the world more interesting.

It seems to me that the extreme evil (e.g. murder, rape, war etc.) is simply the cost of tame evil (humour, competitiveness etc.)

Thoughts?

I think God created the potential for evil so when humans make the choice to love, it is in fact love. Humans created evil, not God.

 

[dimwhitt]

Wouldn't the world be dull without evil?

you have a diminished view of evil

evil is abused children
evil is blowing up people that disagreee with you
evil is exploiting people
evil is lying, cheating, steeling for self gain
evil is corrupt govt. deny food to hungry people
evil is hurtful, hateful, and hienous
evil is prejudice and arrogence

evil is not fun
competition
science
unpleasentness
but evil is rape, murder, etc

ur statement makes u sound like a socio-path (void of the ability to empathize or sympathize with the suffering of others)

 

[quatona]

Wouldn't the world be dull without evil?

Don´t think so.

No one would have a sense of humour for a start. There is always someone who is the butt of a joke, but this is evil, and so can't exist in a world without evil.

There is not always someone who is the butt of a joke.

Team sports would be out, as would any other competitive game. In competitive games, there is a loser, and making a person lose is mean, and being mean is evil.

You seem to use "evil" in a very strange meaning. People who play competitive games have agreed to the rules and conditions of the game, to begin with.

Science would be gone, as it often creates disagreement, and disagreement unhappiness, and unhappiness is an evil.

How is disagreement unhappiness, and how is unhappiness an evil?

In fact, pretty much everything that we enjoy in society has some unpleasant part of it, some downside.

Sure, but most people don´t mean merely "unpleasant" when saying "evil".

Many people create fancy theodicies explaining away evil in the world - its there so that people can make a choice, or as a test, or that without it Good could not exist.

I postulate that God created evil to make the world more interesting.

Yes, sure, the holocaust had some interesting aspects.

It seems to me that the extreme evil (e.g. murder, rape, war etc.) is simply the cost of tame evil (humour, competitiveness etc.)

So you think god was unable or unwilling to allow for these minor unpleasant byproducts but prevent that which is usually called evil?

I´m not sure I would walk up to a rape victim and give her comfort by telling her "But, well, you know, without rape the world would not be as interesting as it is. So in the big picture it´s a great thing that there is the opportunity to rape and get raped."

 

[Atomagenesis]

Can I not just say that good is simply the absence of evil? "Good is not a thing which has substance, form, or material. It is not something you walk in the park or kick on a field. It is only a deprivation in things."

Sure you can say it, but that doesn't mean it is that way. When I say something is good I am implying many things. That something has existence and essence, that it contains perfections and is in act moving towards its end. Evil has none of these qualities; therefore, you cannot switch the terms and be coherent, that is a logical fallacy.

If God is subject to morality, then he can be called good. However, by doing this you take away his omnipotence, because he is subject to an independant standard greater than his own power - the standard of right and wrong.

However, saying that God is above morality, and that God himself creates morality, means that God himself cannot be called good, because he is the creater of morals, not subject to them, and therefore amoral.

You are presupposing good on morality to God when it is the other way. God is the author of good, not man's perception of it. Man does not give essence to things, they are that way because they have received those things from God. God does not lose omnipotence because He acts within his own framework of creation according to the rules He Himself laid down, the standard. It makes no sense to claim otherwise.

Your logic makes no sense about God being a moral. Logic does not neccesarily imply truth, even Aristotle says that. I do not know why you say God is not subject to morals. God cannot contradict Himself.

...have you read the Old Testament?

Everyday. And I suppose you are then pointing to certain acts which God commanded of the prophets in the Old Testament such as slaughtering a village or when Elijah was ordered to kill the 150 pagans who worshipped a demonic god.

If God ordered it, it was not murder because he knew it would be the most just thing to do, afterall he is omniscient. God would never order us to do something that is a sin, and He Himself cannot committ a sin, which is explained in my previous posts from St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica. God allows certain things for a reason and He is the sole judge of those things, we cannot presume to know the greater justice that comes from things that he knows perfectly in all things and every situation.

 

[Taure]

Sure you can say it, but that doesn't mean it is that way. When I say something is good I am implying many things. That something has existence and essence, that it contains perfections and is in act moving towards its end. Evil has none of these qualities; therefore, you cannot switch the terms and be coherent, that is a logical fallacy.

You have no basis for this.

"When I say something is good I am implying many things. That something has existence and essence, that it contains perfections and is in act moving towards its end."

Prove it.

"Evil has none of these qualities"

Again, prove it. It seems to me that evil (if it exists at all) has both existence and essence, that it contains imperfections, and that it is moving towards an end (as much as anything can be said to be moving towards an end).

Your logic makes no sense about God being a moral.

You have to say more that than if you want to disprove me logic. You have to point out exactly how it is wrong, rather than just say its wrong and expect me to accept it. If God, as you say, created morals, he is therefore above them and not subject to them. Thus, good and evil do not apply to him: he is wthout morals - amoral.

As for quatona's post, your objection appears to be based on the idea that minor unpleasentness isn't the result of evil, whereas major unpleasantness is. This is simply not true. In a "perfect world" - one without the presence of evil (heaven, if you want to call it that) not a single person would be unhappy. There would be no arguments, no disagreements, no competition, no self-improvement, no jokes. All of these things require a small element of unpleasentness, which would not be allowed in a perfect, evil-free world.

To allow these things to happen that involve minor unpleasentness, evil must be allowed to occur in a tame form, and this opens to door to acts of greater evil, such as rape, murder etc.

I´m not sure I would walk up to a rape victim and give her comfort by telling her "But, well, you know, without rape the world would not be as interesting as it is. So in the big picture it´s a great thing that there is the opportunity to rape and get raped."

What is comforting is not necessarily what is true.

To dimwhitt, who said this:

you have a diminished view of evil

The same argument applies. For minor unpleasentness to be allowed, evil must enter the world, and if this happens then it opens the door for major unpleasentness.

 

[quatona]

As for quatona's post, your objection appears to be based on the idea that minor unpleasentness isn't the result of evil, whereas major unpleasantness is.

No, rather it´s based on the notion that "evil" and "unpleasantness" are two completely different categories.

This is simply not true. In a "perfect world" - one without the presence of evil (heaven, if you want to call it that)

I don´t want to call it so, I am not a theist. But if you want to call it that, that´s fine with me.

not a single person would be unhappy.

Says who?
Do you think tsunamis are "evil"?
If yes, how are tsunamis necessary for there being humour and such?
If no, how would people be necessarily happy in a world without "evil"?

And - even if that would be an accurate assumption - how does it allow the reverse conclusion: that evil is necessary for happiness?

There would be no arguments, no disagreements, no competition, no self-improvement, no jokes.

Depends on your definition of "evil". It seems to be very different from the way people usually define it.

All of these things require a small element of unpleasentness, which would not be allowed in a perfect, evil-free world.

You make it sound like "unpleasantness" is the only and the necessary criterium for "evil".

To allow these things to happen that involve minor unpleasentness, evil must be allowed to occur in a tame form, and this opens to door to acts of greater evil, such as rape, murder etc.

Is "evil" a synonym for "that which has unpleasant effects", in your use of the word?
Why do you think your god was unwilling or unable to limit the unpleasant effects of our existence to those that are not a result of someone intentionally inflicting these effects on someone else?

What is comforting is not necessarily what is true.

Neither is what is discomforting.

Maybe you can help me with the following question:
How do I need to have the capacity to hit someone over the head with a baseball bat against his will in order to have the capacity to make an agreement with him that we both find pleasure in a match of chess and therefore play one?

 

[Taure]

How do I need to have the capacity to hit someone over the head with a baseball bat against his will in order to have the capacity to make an agreement with him that we both find pleasure in a match of chess and therefore play one?

In chess there will be a loser (unless it's stalemate). In a perfect world there would be no losers - everybody would win. No matter if you have "made an agreement to find pleasure in a match of chess" there will still be a loser. Since it is superior to win than to lose, and one of you has lost, then for that person the world is no longer perfect, as they can think of something better - a world in which they won that match. The cost of allowing winners and losers in a game is allowing winners and losers in life as well.

The only way to make everyone happy is to ban the game altogether - but wouldn't that be dull?

Lets take another example.

American football. It's a pretty violent game, yet we wouldn't call it evil, only mildly unpleasent. Yet to allow American Football to take place, you have to have a world that allows violence. And if you have a world that allows violence, then you open it up to the possibility that people will use this violence for acts such as murder, as well as acts like American Football. The cost of allowing stuff like American Football is extreme violence.

This is analogous for the whole idea.

 

[quatona]

In chess there will be a loser (unless it's stalemate). In a perfect world there would be no losers - everybody would win.

But the topic was not a "perfect world", but a world with or without "evil".

No matter if you have "made an agreement to find pleasure in a match of chess" there will still be a loser. Since it is superior to win than to lose, and one of you has lost, then for that person the world is no longer perfect, as they can think of something better - a world in which they won that match. The cost of allowing winners and losers in a game is allowing winners and losers in life as well.

The difference is that people have a say in which games they want to play, and they knowingly accept the potential displeasure from losing. Not so with existence itself, and not so with those "displeasures" that are commonly understood as being the results of "evil".
Another difference is that "losing" does not equal "evil".

The only way to make everyone happy is to ban the game altogether - but wouldn't that be dull?

Another way to make everyone happy is to ask for their agreement whether they want to participate under the given conditions. That´s how it is with competitive games.

You still follow some strange conflation of the concepts of "evil" and "displeasure" and "unhappiness" that I can´t seem to follow.

American football. It's a pretty violent game, yet we wouldn't call it evil, only mildly unpleasent.

Evil and unpleasant are two completely different categories.

Yet to allow American Football to take place, you have to have a world that allows violence.

I am not familiar with American Football. If it requires violence I can easily do without it. I play Badminton, a game in which violence is strictly prohibited.

And if you have a world that allows violence, then you open it up to the possibility that people will use this violence for acts such as murder, as well as acts like American Football.

Well, I don´t need a world that allows violence, neither in sports nor elsewhere.

The cost of allowing stuff like American Football is extreme violence.

Besides all the above said, this is so far just a slippery slope argument. I don´t see how your god could not, for example, enable those who like it to engage in consentual violence, but not in being violent towards those who haven´t agreed to be treated violently.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Taure. God gave us His Commandments for our own Good. Those you call tame, like humour, teasing, competition, might be fun to many people, but there are always the exceptions. Jesus gave us 2 Commandments, they contain all 10 Commandments, which God gave us. Love God with all your hearts, with all your souls, and with all your minds. This is straightforward, God deserves all Honour and Praise. The 2nd is, love your fellow-men and = women, as you love yourself, in other words, NEVER do or say anything to anybody, which you would not want anybody, to say or do to you, or those you love. If we seriously accept these Commandments of our Lord, we will have life abundantly. If we tease, or seriously compete, or do any other so-called tame Evil, God will know our innermost thoughts and wishes. It may well be pure love which makes us do somethings, but we can be absolutely sure, God will know, and He is our Judge. I say this humbly and lovingly, Taure, and send greetings. Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[PastorMikeJ]

evil is the opposite of live..

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wouldn't the world be dull without evil?

Perhaps, but I would gladly be bored if it alleviated the suffering of but one starving child.

No one would have a sense of humour for a start. There is always someone who is the butt of a joke, but this is evil, and so can't exist in a world without evil.

Humour is not inherently evil. Your analogy is flawed.

Team sports would be out, as would any other competitive game. In competitive games, there is a loser, and making a person lose is mean, and being mean is evil.

I'd gladly by uncomptetative if it alleviated the suffering of, say, a person with terminal cancer.

Science would be gone, as it often creates disagreement, and disagreement unhappiness, and unhappiness is an evil.

On the contrary, it is religion that causes the disagreement. Science is a neutral phenomenon that plods forward, ever expanding the sphere of human knowledge.

In fact, pretty much everything that we enjoy in society has some unpleasant part of it, some downside.

Like charity? Like love? Like altruism? Like friendship, compaionship? They have their downsides, but you cannot deny that the good that exists in them far outweighs it.

Many people create fancy theodicies explaining away evil in the world - its there so that people can make a choice, or as a test, or that without it Good could not exist.

I postulate that God created evil to make the world more interesting.

It seems to me that the extreme evil (e.g. murder, rape, war etc.) is simply the cost of tame evil (humour, competitiveness etc.)

Thoughts?

You create a false dichotomy between 'evil' and 'non-evil'. And even if we ignore this fallacy, you actually justify evil by saying, "Hey, it's better than being bored!".

 

[IzzyPop]

Wouldn't the world be dull without evil?

No one would have a sense of humour for a start. There is always someone who is the butt of a joke, but this is evil, and so can't exist in a world without evil.

Team sports would be out, as would any other competitive game. In competitive games, there is a loser, and making a person lose is mean, and being mean is evil.

Science would be gone, as it often creates disagreement, and disagreement unhappiness, and unhappiness is an evil.

In fact, pretty much everything that we enjoy in society has some unpleasant part of it, some downside.

Many people create fancy theodicies explaining away evil in the world - its there so that people can make a choice, or as a test, or that without it Good could not exist.

I postulate that God created evil to make the world more interesting.

It seems to me that the extreme evil (e.g. murder, rape, war etc.) is simply the cost of tame evil (humour, competitiveness etc.)

Thoughts?

Evil does not equal unpleasantness or 'bad' things. Evil requires an intent. None of your example are inherently evil. All of them have no moral value in and of themselves. How they are used, the purpose behind people's action, defines whether they are evil.

Most knock-knock jokes do not have someone to mock. Bigoted, stereotypical jokes do.

Competition is not evil. Cheating could be.

Science is the perfect example. It has no moral characteristics in any way. How that science is used does. Atomic theory can supply us with cheap power or destroy us all. The theory in and of itself has no say in this.

 

[Atomagenesis]

I have plenty of basis for what I said Taure, philosophy, theology, classical tradition. you should reread what I said instead of accusing me of having no basis for it. Read some Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas if you want to keep talking otherwise, accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about is absurd.

I dont need to "prove" the terms I used for qualifying the good, they are self-evident to the things which exist. You are still substantiating evil when I thoroughly disproved that claim, so I will not argue with someone who does not want to learn the truth.