Similarities Between Dostoevsky And Swinburne
Ben Parker once said, "With great power, comes great responsibility". Mankind has tremendous power, and this power is called free will. Free will has been defined by many philosophers as the choices made with no ulterior motif, however, philosophers Frelor Dostoevsky and Richard Swinburne can both agree it involves the malicious or benign choices of mankind impacting one another. This great power of free will, has the potential to equally harm an individual as well as help them. Both philosophers published literary works to convey their own individual perspective of evil, and how free will plays a part in the presence of evil. Despite the misconceptions of God's omnipotence, the presence of evil within the world is a product of humans using
…show more content…
their free will for their wicked intent, and is evident with thorough analysis and responses to the literary works Rebellion and Why God Allows Evil.
Philosopher Dostoevsky wrote, Rebellion, to depict his central idea of the world being full of humans who yearn to commit heinous acts of evil and God's way of allowing humans to commit evil. This central idea was expressed in the form of dialogue with two theist brothers Ivan, and Alyosha. Ivan, an intellectual who protests against God's ethical system, asks Alyosha a question as to why, since God is omnipotent, does he allow evil to happen in the world? "It's not that I don't accept God, Alyosha, I just most respectfully returns him the ticket," Ivan states (Dostoevsky, 245). His purpose is to state how all this suffering in the world is not worth the gift of eternal joy promised to God's chosen, because he lacks to see the purpose behind the suffering in the world. Although Ivan does reject God's allowance of evil, of suffering, he does not reject the existence of God.
Philosopher Swinburne wrote, Why God Allows Evil, to portray his beliefs on the responsibility of free will. Swinburne proposed that free will involves free and responsible choice. As mentioned in his most convincing explanation of moral evil, it is the ability to make decisions that can greatly help someone or greatly hurt someone. "That is," Swinburne states, "it would be self-contradictory to suppose─ that God could give us such free will and yet ensure that we always use it in the right way" (Swinburne, 218). His purpose is to argue the possibility of moral evil is the necessary condition of the great good outcome of free and responsible choice. Also, he elaborates on his, not as strong, explanation of natural evil. He leads with natural evil, such as hurricanes and diseases, being the evil humans have no control over. Like the latter, moral evil, it also involves free and responsible choice, because humans can determine if their response to such evil is malicious or benign. Humans have the option to choose to comfort or sympathize with someone in pain from a disease, or shun them and cause further pain in isolation. Furthermore, Swinburne concludes his work with the argument that there is ultimately no evil in the world, just choices; except, those choices that may cause suffering are labeled as evil, especially by someone with Ivan's perspective.
Swinburne's philosophical perspective, as well as mine, might disagree with Dostoevsky's intellectual character Ivan.
Ivan does not accept God's ethical system of "allowing" evil to occur, because he believes that God is omnipotent and has the power to stop it. On the other, Swinburne might comment by mentioning how Ivan uses the fallacy of ad populum by involving God when God has nothing to do with the choices people make; since God, like a good father delegating responsibility, gave us free will to use it for good, but humans are the cause for evil since they use free will to harm rather than help. I would rebuttal as to ask Ivan if he truly believes God allows evil in the world then he must also agree that there is no such thing as free will. With a divine being, being the cause of everything evil in the world, then us, humans, have no power or responsibility over the choices we make. Therefore, there is no purpose in rejecting God's ethical system since you are determined to obey his ethical system and you would have no control over your own actions just as everyone else. Lastly, Swinburne and I might conclude to say that Ivan has a biased argument due to his specific view on the suffering of children, as mentioned in the chapter Rebellion, and not the overall aspect of
evil. In conclusion, the presence of evil within the world is a product of humans using their free will for their wicked intent, and is evident with thorough analysis and responses to the literary works Rebellion and Why God Allows Evil. Dostoevsky's Ivan rejects God's ethical system of allowing evil in the world, because with God's omnipotence, he can end all suffering, especially those of children. Swinburne and I rebuttal this argument because it is biased and lacks the proper insight to fully combat the concept of evil. God's omnipotence is not to be questioned or rejected, the reasons behind the actions of mankind is the key in defining the presence of evil in the world.
their free will for their wicked intent, and is evident with thorough analysis and responses to the literary works Rebellion and Why God Allows Evil.
Philosopher Dostoevsky wrote, Rebellion, to depict his central idea of the world being full of humans who yearn to commit heinous acts of evil and God's way of allowing humans to commit evil. This central idea was expressed in the form of dialogue with two theist brothers Ivan, and Alyosha. Ivan, an intellectual who protests against God's ethical system, asks Alyosha a question as to why, since God is omnipotent, does he allow evil to happen in the world? "It's not that I don't accept God, Alyosha, I just most respectfully returns him the ticket," Ivan states (Dostoevsky, 245). His purpose is to state how all this suffering in the world is not worth the gift of eternal joy promised to God's chosen, because he lacks to see the purpose behind the suffering in the world. Although Ivan does reject God's allowance of evil, of suffering, he does not reject the existence of God.
Philosopher Swinburne wrote, Why God Allows Evil, to portray his beliefs on the responsibility of free will. Swinburne proposed that free will involves free and responsible choice. As mentioned in his most convincing explanation of moral evil, it is the ability to make decisions that can greatly help someone or greatly hurt someone. "That is," Swinburne states, "it would be self-contradictory to suppose─ that God could give us such free will and yet ensure that we always use it in the right way" (Swinburne, 218). His purpose is to argue the possibility of moral evil is the necessary condition of the great good outcome of free and responsible choice. Also, he elaborates on his, not as strong, explanation of natural evil. He leads with natural evil, such as hurricanes and diseases, being the evil humans have no control over. Like the latter, moral evil, it also involves free and responsible choice, because humans can determine if their response to such evil is malicious or benign. Humans have the option to choose to comfort or sympathize with someone in pain from a disease, or shun them and cause further pain in isolation. Furthermore, Swinburne concludes his work with the argument that there is ultimately no evil in the world, just choices; except, those choices that may cause suffering are labeled as evil, especially by someone with Ivan's perspective.
Swinburne's philosophical perspective, as well as mine, might disagree with Dostoevsky's intellectual character Ivan.
Ivan does not accept God's ethical system of "allowing" evil to occur, because he believes that God is omnipotent and has the power to stop it. On the other, Swinburne might comment by mentioning how Ivan uses the fallacy of ad populum by involving God when God has nothing to do with the choices people make; since God, like a good father delegating responsibility, gave us free will to use it for good, but humans are the cause for evil since they use free will to harm rather than help. I would rebuttal as to ask Ivan if he truly believes God allows evil in the world then he must also agree that there is no such thing as free will. With a divine being, being the cause of everything evil in the world, then us, humans, have no power or responsibility over the choices we make. Therefore, there is no purpose in rejecting God's ethical system since you are determined to obey his ethical system and you would have no control over your own actions just as everyone else. Lastly, Swinburne and I might conclude to say that Ivan has a biased argument due to his specific view on the suffering of children, as mentioned in the chapter Rebellion, and not the overall aspect of
evil. In conclusion, the presence of evil within the world is a product of humans using their free will for their wicked intent, and is evident with thorough analysis and responses to the literary works Rebellion and Why God Allows Evil. Dostoevsky's Ivan rejects God's ethical system of allowing evil in the world, because with God's omnipotence, he can end all suffering, especially those of children. Swinburne and I rebuttal this argument because it is biased and lacks the proper insight to fully combat the concept of evil. God's omnipotence is not to be questioned or rejected, the reasons behind the actions of mankind is the key in defining the presence of evil in the world.