Evil Vs Moral Evil

Throughout history, religion has been a significant topic of discussion. Often the cause arguments and wars between different ideologies, as well as between those who believe in God and those who do not. The problem of evil has shown to be one of the most significant objections to the existence of God. According to most theology, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Everyone sees and experiences evil, no matter how innocent and good-hearted, which begs the question: “How could God let this happen?” The evils talked about in the problem of evil are moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is that which occurs from moral human agents such as rape, murder, and theft. Natural evil is the suffering to humans and animals resulting
from natural causes such as genetic defects, diseases, earthquakes, and tornadoes. The existence of evil and suffering in our world, for many, has been the biggest obstacle in the belief of the existence of God. It has caused more people to abandon their faith than for any other reason, thus it follows that either God does not exist or his characteristics are not as we think they are.
The problem of evil has two distinct branches, the evidential problem of evil and the logical problem of evil. The evidential problem of evil is laid out as follows:
God is perfectly good,
God is all-knowing,
God is all-powerful,
Evil exists,
If God exists and is a being who is perfectly good, all-knowing, all-powerful, then there would be no evil in the world,
Therefore, God does not exist.
This branch of the problem of evil deals with determining whether the existence of evil provides evidence for the nonexistence of God, a being with the qualities mentioned before. Once the evidence, if any, that is in support of the existence of God is pushed aside, it is difficult to believe that the world was created and is governed by an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being. Clearly evil does exist in our world, thus, God must not exist.
The logical problem of evil attempts to display a clear inconsistency between the existence of a God that is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent and the existence of any evil. A God of those qualities should have the knowledge, ability, and inclination to prevent evil, however evil still exists, therefore, God does not. If anything this proves that while God does exist he is not all-knowing, all-powerful, or perfectly good. The problem of evil is an important factor in determining whether or not God exists. Many believe that it is unlikely that an omnibenevolent being would let all of this evil occur. However, some still fight the opposition and have come up with theodicies, or vindications of divine goodness in allowing the existence of evil, that explain how there can be evil as well as an omnibenevolent God.
There are two very important theodicies among many that theists often use to help disprove the problem of evil. Those theodicies are the Greater Good Defense and the Freewill Defense. While these hold some weight, there are many criticisms of them that prove the nonexistence of God. The Greater Good Defense is the claim that God allows some evil to exist because it is necessary to the achievement of a greater good. The Free Will Defense is the claim that God could not create creatures (such as us) who have freedom of the will but who are incapable of doing evil.
The free will defense argues that God could not create human beings who have free will without humans also having the capability of doing evil.
With true freedom comes the capacity to abuse it and to cause suffering and pain. This defense states that while God is all-powerful, that doesn’t mean that he can do the impossible and create contradictions, like providing free will to humanity and also preventing humans from committing evil actions. God could not create humans who were inherently free, while also unable to do any wrong. God chose to create humanity with free will, and with that there is no guarantee that humans will always choose to do what is right. This theodicy is the deciding factor for many to believe that there can be an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God, and evil in the same world. However, there are many criticisms and contradictions for this theodicy.
One of the main criticisms of the free will defense is that God himself has free will but not the capability to do evil according to most theology. If this is the case then why couldn’t God have created humanity this way? Theology also says that the afterlife is a place where humanity is free, but cannot commit evil acts. Again, if this is true, then why couldn’t God put these stipulations on life that exists now? It doesn’t make sense that God could create an environment with free will and no evil one place and not be capable of doing it for life that currently
exists.
Another argument from critics of the free will defense states that God could have designed a world with a little less freedom to have less moral evil.
A world with freedom inherently has evil present, but why wouldn’t you limit the amount of free will if that also meant that the amount of unnecessary evil would decrease. Ultimately the amount of freedom that humanity experiences is not worth the amount of evil it causes. If God could limit free will enough to only allow minor evils and not major pain causing evils, why wouldn’t he? Along with the excessive amount of moral evil present that this theodicy talks about, there is a significant amount of natural evil that is completely disregarded which God is still responsible for.
The last argument against the free will defense is that it assumes a libertarian view of freedom, where God does not know or predetermine the actions that humanity takes. Critics argue that if you take a compatibilist view of freedom, humanity will freely choose what they want based on their desires. God, however should have an ultimate influence over our desires and therefore has control over what goes on. This view allows for the options that God could have made humanity free while also choosing to do good on all occasions as a result of internal
forces.
According to the theodicy, the Greater Good Defense, the evil and suffering in the world serves a greater purpose. God causes pain and suffering, but it will contribute to a greater good and therefore, doesn’t count as evil. The argument goes as follows:
Some evils are necessary for achieving certain good ends.
The good that is achieved outweighs the evil.
The same or a greater amount of good could not have been attained by any other means.
One of the biggest defenders of the Greater Good Defense is John Hick. He argued that God did not create humans in a perfected state. Instead he created humans in an unfinished state that would allow humanity to become morally developed with the addition of evil. Hick also states that it is a mistake to believe that God created a perfect world to spoil humanity. The evils the God released on the world are just tools in the process of “soul-making.” Hick maintains that a world full of misery and pain is more favorable for this process than a world with an absence of evil. Many people side with Hick in believing that all of the evil we experience is was planned and is for the greater good of humanity, however many people do not. The major problem found with this theodicy is that it assumes that in order to achieve the “greater good” or “soul making,” God has to create an excessive amount of evil or no evil at all. It assumes that the only choice was between no evil at all or the present amount of evil in our world. It can be argued that we really only need a small amount of evil to attain the same “greater good” and what is left over is excessive and causes unnecessary suffering. The amount of evil that we experience now breaks down human beings instead of lifting them up and developing their soul’s as Hick thinks it does.