Introduction
Arguing about evil: Mackies Argument. Mackie argued that the existence of evil and the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God are logically incompatible. And since we know evil exists, therefore God must not exist. But can evil and God really be proven to be logically incompatible? His argument is lacking objectivity and he is overwhelmingly subjective with the definition of “evil”. He also does not talk about what would be defined as “good” which would be the reverse of evil. After knowing how he would characterize good, then the reader can better understand his definition of evil. His argument is not creative enough to debate the existence of “God”. Again, he does not define evil and that leaves this vague idea as to how we can follow this argument.
In my opinion, the real question with the problem of evil, is not to debate the existence of ‘God”, but defining evil itself. I think, “God” and defining evil are not in the same category.
From a theist stand point, the creator must have made evil since it created everything else; or that eating from the tree of knowledge lead man to let evil into their lives. God gave humans the free will to choose the path they walk on; with strict guidelines in certain beliefs – – we can choose to go down any path, but certain paths are forbidden and you will be judged for walking down them. So, how can something so powerful, all knowing do that since it would know the kind of destructive paths some humans would go down? With that said, it’s under the assumption that only humans can perform evil acts in the entire Universe. With that logic, evil is a by-product of human behavior since we were destined to eat from that tree, letting evil into our hearts. The debate would then be, why was the tree put there in the first place, if God would know the outcome? Why even put that test there? Was that even a test? So then, the argument of evil existing and God existing would become, how can something so pure as God exist with something so dark as evil existing as well? Why did God even create evil? Is God really as omnipotent as we think “it” is, since evil exists? Would evil just be a consequence of free will?
All of those questions will never be answered in the physical reality. Again, subscribing to theist beliefs, once an individual dies, their soul/spirit will travel to either heaven or hell. Assumingly all those questions will be answered in either place.
Evil existing does not demonstrate the non-existence of God. Humans still have a vague definition of both God and Evil. We look at evil as the opposite of God or more on the terms of evil being opposite of good. Yet, we still can’t better describe God than just the creator of life, and better describe evil as just human actions that cause emotional or physical harm to other creatures on Earth. If evil is the opposite of good, what would be defined as good?
The real problem
Defining the vague word of “evil” is no easy task. Are humans the only creatures, in this Universe, able to perform evil acts? Are only self-aware creatures that have what we would consider consciousness, able to do evil acts? Is evil just intent? Creatures having consciousness and intent would be a more descriptive definition of evil. Being self-aware and knowing the consequence of your actions, and in terms of evil, those consequences would cause physical and or emotional harm, and still performing those actions might be a definition of evil. What about how a human’s brain develops definitely than others? Humans who have murdered other humans because their brains work in an aspect that they cannot understand their actions; is that still an evil act? Is that justified in terms that, it is not acceptable, but it’s not looked at as the same if done by another human who knows the consequences of their actions? Death is death is death, that person is still dead, and that other human still performed the act of murder. And now we are justifying murder or an evil act because the fact that some human’s brains are made differently. Bending certain ideals and beliefs.
Still subscribing to the idea of only creatures that are self-aware and have consciousness and know intent, then other creatures in this universe can perform evil acts and perhaps they don’t have the same history as humans. Not having the tree of knowledge in the beginning and leading them to let evil into their hearts is an example. Then again, would that matter if God gave them free will as well? In that sense, the argument would go back to being how could God give creatures free will knowing the choices some of those creatures would do? For a theist to be consistent with their definition of evil would be hard under those ideals. Evil would be limited to only what humans can do. Evil would not be viruses, diseases, natural disasters, (which have been more destructive than anything any human has ever done); and evil can only be on Earth since human beings are only to be have been created on Earth. If dinosaurs were here before humans, and only self-aware creatures knowing intent can do evil; humans, who only became intelligent enough to know the difference between what we consider wrong and right, can only do evil. So, we created evil with the advancement of our own intelligence?
Back to the drawing board
Is evil derived from acting on emotions? In that principal, are human beings the only creatures to experience emotions? How can we characterize emotions? Emotion is a subjective conscious experience that affects the mental state. So, negative emotions breed negative thought patterns that may cause that creature to act on impulses that may lead to physical or psychological harm to other creatures. On that premise, is an evil act just an action describing what creatures with emotions do to each other? Looked at objectively, those “evil” acts are just that. Actions to describe what creatures do to other creatures. Every action that a human does derives from some sort of an emotion. Now we apply that reasoning to the Universe and say; every creature that has consciousness, has emotions and knows intent can do evil acts.
If you take emotions out of the equation, then the argument becomes something very different. In the case of evil just being actions acting on emotions, then can evil be a learned trait since emotions can be manipulated and can change depending on the situation? Now, are we labeling evil as just an act, that only a creature that is self-aware, has consciousness, knows its intent and can feel emotions? Are we now limiting what can and cannot perform “evil” acts? Essentially subjectifying the word evil. How can someone use evil as a rebuttal to intelligent design when humans just labialize certain events as “evil” not knowing a specific definition?
Defining evil
Martin Luther King JR once said “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps participate in it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it” Do we really know what “it” is? Edmond Burke – “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for men to do nothing”. But if we don’t know what evil is, how can we stand against it? Generalizing words can only lead to confusion and assumptions. Nietzsche “what is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil”. Wouldn’t love be put on the same level as good? If not, then what would love be defined as? Love would be the opposite of hate, but hate is just a word to describe your emotions. So wouldn’t good and evil just be that that? Words to describe your emotions?
Evil could be defined as; situations that bring certain emotions and we labialize those events to give us better clarity to what happened. Which would bring the debate to what emotions are and could evil become a learned trait since emotions can vary and be manipulated?
How can we better define evil, then just the opposite of good? If not just the opposite of evil, how can we better define good? In science, you must have a positive and a negative; you cannot have one without the other. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. How could we better understand our own emotions if we didn’t have the opposite emotions to help us make sense of our own thought patterns? Is a comet that blasts a planet and destroys almost all of the life on that planet, an evil act? If death and how death occurs could be looked at as an evil act, well nothing could be more destructive and reasonless then that said act.
Is evil, just human actions that society condemns? Objectively speaking, if humans are put in the same category as other animals on this planet, rape and murder are no more than just humans acting on their emotions and impulses. Humans make those acts into what they are because of the gravity of emotions that are tied to those acts. Humans are just one type of life on this planet. So, to say we are capable of evil is to also say, animals are capable of evil. And if this logic is applied, then the Universe is also capable of evil. So, define evil on a macro level, if humans are on the micro level. Then, when thinking about that, would you even say evil exists at all? Or would it simply be a vague word to describe how we feel and how view certain situations.
Conclusion
Emotions within themselves are a huge factor when talking about good and evil. Without emotions, the acts we would consider evil, are just events we witness. When you take God out of the equation, what is evil perceived to be? Interesting either way. Trying to understand your own reality is the best way to further your own intelligence. So, how would you define evil? Are you capable of evil? Have you ever done evil acts? Love, good, hate, evil, and God are all subjectively vague words. Categorize them as you will, but to understand what you feel and why you feel the ways you do, are the greatest examples of making sense of your own reality. Don’t put limits to how you feel.
The problem of Evil is the definition of evil. Not to debate intelligent design.
Are good acts just simply something that ties in emotions? We know that someone will experience positive emotions in our actions, making us feel positive about doing that act in the first place. So, in that sense, are good or positive actions a form of selfishness? We do those acts knowing how they will bring positive consequences, so we continue to do those same actions because they in turn bring us to feel a positive emotion out of that act. Is that not a form of selfishness? Question Everything! – Z
objectivereasoningblog.com 