The Problem Of Evil Rhetorical Analysis

Protocol Paper
“The Problem of Evil”
Thesis: The conflict behind the idea of evil is why a perfect God would allow evil to exist on earth.

Summary: James Rachels addresses the conflicts of evil in his book “Problems from Philosophy” by providing various forms of logical problems. The author points out the different possible explanations to why evil would exist. The first major idea Rachels makes is that perhaps pain is essential to caution people of danger. He goes on to suggest that this would not account for why some people are born with deadly diseases. Another idea he makes is that evil helps people appreciate the good in life. One would not be able to distinguish the good in life if evil did not exist. However, this does not explain why the world needs so much evil to exist, instead of letting a few bad things happen occasionally. The third idea the author makes questions why bad things happen to good people. Rachels suggests maybe those bad things that occur in life are
punishments for wicked people who commit evil crimes. He goes on to clarify how it would not make sense to punish those who are good and have not caused harm to others. For instance, babies who are born with deadly diseases have no sinful nature and should have no reason to be punished. Another possible explanation the author makes is that evil has to exist in order for there to be free will. God created humans as unique individuals to choose who they want to be. On the other hand, this still does not explain why natural catastrophes and deadly diseases still occur. Lastly, Rachels suggests that evil is needed for the people to develop moral character. He further explains his reasoning by claiming that people develop moral character by living in a world where problems have to be resolved. Towards the end of the chapter, the author discusses the three main problems with these ideas. The first one involves the concept of free will defense which explains that God does not intervene with evil so people can have freedom. However, it would not make up for the reason horrific events like the holocaust happened. Second, he mentions how evil is over excessive for developing moral character and people only need a little bit of evil to flourish. The last problem deals with animals not having moral character and suffering evil as well. In other words, there is no purpose in animals experiencing evil if they cannot develop moral character.

Quotes: One quote that really caught my attention was where James mentioned, “The Free Will Defense shows that the best world God could have created might contain evil, because the best world might include creatures with free will.” This gave me a different perspective on the correlation between free will and evil.
Another quote that stood out was where the author stated, “Logically, without the concept of evil, there could be no conception of goodness.” This quote made me realize how much of a balance of bad and good there is in life. “Animals are not sinners, they do not have free will, they do not develop moral character, and they are not going to heaven.” This quote made question the purpose of animals experiencing evil in comparison to humans. I enjoyed the quote that James Rachels mentioned where he stated, “In giving us the power of free choice, however, God had to allow that we might sometimes choose badly.” He worded it in a way that is so clear for readers to
understand.

Questions: Is the author implying that all bad things happen to serve the purpose of developing a moral character? Would the author agree that perhaps some bad things happen to teach people a lesson in life? What would James Rachels think of the idea that there needs to be a balance of good and evil on earth? How would the author agree to the idea that perhaps God created an evil world so we could live an afterlife that is perfect and has no evil? The author states, “Animals are not sinners, they do not have free will, they do not develop moral character, and they are not going to heaven.” Even though animals do not have moral character, can the author really conclude that animals do not go to heaven? What would the author think about the idea that God creates a heaven that will exceed the human’s expectations – even if that includes animals? Perhaps God caters heaven to meet our wants and needs?

Connect: Philosophy has allowed me the think above and beyond my own natural wonders. I can relate philosopher to other courses such as history, science, and psychology, as it involves different standpoints. When reading the book, I was able to broaden my curiosities. For instance, the idea that bad things happen to those who do not deserve them has led me to several ideas. In my life, I have witnessed genuinely good-hearted people go through such tragic events and it makes me wonder how God could allow them to happen. I came to the conclusion that God created life to be imperfect so we could experience true perfection in heaven. This topic has really allowed me to challenge my own ideas, as a believer of God. In philosophy, logical explanations are ones that make provide reasonable evidence. I understand religious beliefs cannot be explained logically, however, this has allowed me to strengthen the faith of my own beliefs. The author mentions,” Logically, without the concept of evil, there could be no conception of goodness.” I could personally relate to this idea because I am experiencing sadness when my cat passed away a few days ago. Over time, I know I will learn to be happy again as with any other tragic event in life. This has brought me to the conclusion that sometimes bad things in life to allow us to be happy again.