Evil

María Pía Lara notes, in “Narrating Evil: A Postmetaphysical Theory,” that “There are thousands of books on evil, yet not one of them presents a satisfying theory of it.” Her statement from the last essay of this book sums up this anthology as well. Perhaps it is the nature of the topic or the current state of discussion in this field of study. In any case, Rethinking Evil must ultimately be added to those thousands of others books. This certainly does (...) not mean that the book is not worth reading. It is important to point out that the book does accomplish the editor’s stated goal “to open up a new space for the discussion of the problem of evil.” As a whole, the anthology adds to the body of literature in this field of study and strongly encourages scholars to focus on the topic of evil. Those readers looking for the satisfactory theory that is omitted in other books will not find that here. (shrink)

The problem of evil is an obstacle to justified belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God . According to Saint Augustine’s free will theodicy , moral evil attends free will. Might something like AFWT also be used to account for natural evil? After all, it is possible that calamities such as famines, earthquakes, and floods are the effects of the sinful willing of certain persons, viz., ‘fallen angels.’ Working to destroy our faith, Satan and his cohorts could be responsible (...) for the natural disasters that bring us to grief. Here, I develop this account alongside AFWT. (shrink)

This first volume of "The History of Evil" covers Graeco-Roman, Indian, Near Eastern and Eastern philosophy and religion from 2000 BCE to 450 CE. The volume charts the foundations of the history of evil among the major philosophical traditions and world religions, beginning with the oldest recorded traditions: the Vedas and Upanishads, Confucianism and Daoism, and Buddhism. This cutting-edge treatment of the history of evil at its crucial and determinative inception will appeal to those with particular interests in the ancient (...) period as well as those seeking an understanding of how later philosophical and religious developments were conditioned and shaped. (shrink)

Are human beings essentially good or evil? Immanuel Kant responds, “[H]e [man] is as much the one as the other, partly good, partly bad.” Given this, I’d like to explore the following: What does Kant mean by human nature and how is it possible to be both good and evil? What is “original sin” and does it place limits on free will? In what respect might Kant ’s views be significant for non-believers? More specifically, is Kant saying that human beings (...) need God in order to be good or is morality possible without faith? (shrink)

Contemporary Kant-scholarship has a tendency to allign Kant’s understanding of depravity closer to Erasmus than Luther in their famous debate on the freedom of the will (1520–1527). While, at face value, some paragraphs do warrant such a claim, I will argue that Kant’s understanding of the radical evil will draws closer to Luther than Erasmus in a number of elements. These elements are (1) the intervention of the Wille for progress towards the good, (2) a positive choice for evil, (3) (...) the inscrutability of moral progress, (4) the rejection of prudence as a means for salvation and (5) the rejection of moral sentimentalism. I believe that Kant-scholarship mistakenly pegs Kant’s rational Enlightenment optimism for an existential optimism while Kant’s view of fallen nature draws closer to Lutheran than Erasmusian depravity. A tacit Lutheran influence pervades Kant’s moral philosophy which could explain the influence Kant’s has had on some more pessimistic 19th century philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche. (shrink)

This paper investigates the link between (radical) evil and the existence of God. Arguing with contemporary atheist thinkers, such as Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger, I hold that one can take the existence of evil as a sign of the existence of God rather than its opposite. The work of Immanuel Kant, especially his thought on evil, is a fertile source to enliven this intuition. Kant implicitly seems to argue that because man is unable to overcome evil by himself, there (...) is a need for God to bridge the gap. Si Deus est, unde malum? Si malum est, Deus est! (shrink)

The crux of the problem of evil in the West consists in positing an inconsistency between the existence of the God of theism and evil. This understanding of the problem is exemplified in the works of Hume, Mill, Hartshorne, and Marx. For them, the presence of evil, understood as an obstacle, necessarily limits either the divine attribute of omnipotence or benevolent or both. ;In contrast to this understanding is that of the Gurunse's of Ghana. They contend that the co-existence of (...) the God of theism and evil is not only compatible but necessary. To them, evil, understood as transgression of their traditions and departure from the protective arms of God, does not detract from the goodness nor the omnipotence of God but rather enhances the necessity of such a God. ;They contend that physical evil is a manifestation of spiritual evil which is the crisis in the relationship between God and mankind; humanity turning away from God. Through physical evil, however, God brings erring humanity back to Himself. To them then, physical evil is a sign, a warning, and a symbol of the crisis in the relationship between the believer and God. In this understanding, evil is not merely brute punishment, but a call to a change of heart. ;The four Western philosophers' understanding of the relationship between God and evil leads to a diminution of what one understands by God. While Marx claims God is a figment of the mind, Hume, Mill, and Hartshorne present us with a god, not God; a god who is not worthy of worship. Their understanding of evil leads to atheism. ;On the other hand, the Gurunse's understanding of the relationship between evil and God opens one to God. Further, their idea of God is not distorted or diminished by the presence of evil. On the contrary, God's omnipotence and benevolence is experienced in the very process of overcoming evil, and felt through healing. (shrink)

Robert Pargetter has recently argued that, even if the theist cannot produce plausible explanations for the evil we experience, the atheologian has no justifiable basis for claiming that evil can in any sense count as strong evidence against God's existence. His strategy is to challenge as question-begging the atheologian's assumption that a prima facie conflict between God and evil exists and the atheologian's claim that God's nonexistence is a more plausible explanation for unresolved evil than a number of theistic options. (...) I argue that Pargetter is unsuccessful, mainly because he fails to understand clearly the conditions under which a prima facie moral conflict exists and fails to distinguish clearly between 'plausibility' and 'possibility' as these terms are applicable to explanatory hypotheses. (shrink)

In this article, I outline the major themes of ‘anti-theodicy’. Anti-theodicy is characterised as a reaction, as rejection, against traditional solutions to the problem of evil and against the traditional formulations of the problem of evil to which those solutions respond. I detail numerous ‘moral’ anti-theodical objections to theodicy, illustrating the central claim of anti-theodicy: Theodicy is morally objectionable. I also detail some ‘non-moral’ anti-theodical objections, illustrating the second major claim of anti-theodicy: Traditional formulations of the problem of evil are (...) conceptually misguided. My focus remains on the analytic philosophical tradition throughout, but I briefly allude to the rich theological tradition of anti-theodicy. Although we should recognise the significant degree of diversity amongst anti-theodical arguments and the philosophical views of their proponents, this article should serve to illustrate the general theme: ‘Theodicies mediate a praxis that sanctions evil.’. (shrink)

I argue that the problem of evil can be a moral objection to theistic belief. The thesis has three broad sections, each establishing an element in this argument. Section one establishes the logically binding nature of the problem of evil: The problem of evil must be solved, if you are to believe in God. And yet, I borrow from J. L. Mackie’s criticisms of the moral argument for the existence of God, and argue that the fundamentally evaluative nature of the (...) premises within the problem of evil entails that it cannot be used to argue for the non-existence of God. Section two establishes the moral objectionability of many responses to the problem of evil . I discuss the work of the moral ‘anti-theodicists’, and support some of the key premises within their arguments via appeal to the moral philosophy of Raimond Gaita. I combine the claims of section one and section two, and conclude that theism inherits the moral objectionability of theodicy. In section three, I establish the plausibility of a morally motivated non-cognitive atheism, offering an example , before finally distilling the central claims of this thesis into the form of a slogan: God lacks humanity. (shrink)

Evil is not only an abstract concept to be analyzed intellectually, but a concrete reality that we all experience and wrestle with on an ongoing basis. To truly understand evil we must always approach it from both angles: the intellective and the phenomenological. This same assertion resounds through each of the papers in this volume, in which an interdisciplinary and international group presented papers on cannibalism, the Holocaust, terrorism, physical and emotional abuse, virtual and actual violence, and depravity in a (...) variety of media, from film to literature to animé to the Internet. Conference participants discussed villains and victims, dictators and anti-heroes, from 921 AD to the present, and considered the future of evil from a number of theoretical perspectives. Personal encounters with evil were described and analyzed, from interviews with political leaders to the problems of locating and destroying land mines in previous war zones. The theme of responsibility and thinking for the future is very much at the heart of these papers: how to approach evil as a question to be explored, critiqued, interrogated, reflected upon, owned. The authors urge an attitude of openness to new interpretations, new perspectives, new understanding. This may not be a comfortable process; it may in fact be quite disturbing. But ultimately, it may be the only way forward towards a truly ethical response. The papers in this collection provide a wealth of food for thought on this most important question. (shrink)

Minding Evil: Explorations of Human Iniquity brings together fifteen essays, versions of which were presented at the Fifth International Conference on Evil and Wickedness, held in Prague in 2004. The volume examines evil and wickedness from a variety of disciplines, including criminology, cultural studies, gender studies, law, literature, peace studies, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. In so doing Minding Evil keeps in play the doubled meaning of its title: on the one hand, to tend to evil, that is, to oversee, cultivate, (...) and deploy it; on the other hand, to be bothered by evil and so, in learning to identify or recognise it, to try to understand its workings and thus contain or control it and, perhaps, repair or undo it. While the essays taken together work to show the difficulty and at times the travesty of not being able to distinguish between the two meanings, it is this second meaning that remains key. What are the individual and collective responsibilities entailed in minding - being troubled by - evil? This is the central question of this volume. (shrink)

Truth, Reconciliation, and Evil analyses evil in a variety of forms—as an unspeakable crime, a discursive or narrative force, a political byproduct, and an inevitable feature of warfare. The collection considers the forms of loss that the workings of evil exact, from the large-scale horror of genocide to the individual grief of a self-destructive homelessness. Finally, taken together, the fourteen essays that comprise this volume affirm that the undoing of evil—the moving beyond it through forgiveness and reconciliation—needs to occur within (...) the context of community broadly defined, wherein individuals and groups can see beyond themselves and recognise in others a shared humanity and common cause.Truth, Reconciliation, and Evil consists of expanded versions of papers presented at the Fourth International Conference on Evil and Wickedness, held in Prague in March 2003. The essays represent a variety of disciplinary approaches, including those of anthropology, linguistics, literature, philosophy, and psychoanalysis. (shrink)

Written across the disciplines of law, literature, philosophy, and theology, Understanding Evil: An Interdisciplinary Approach represents wide-ranging approaches to and understandings of “evil” and “wickedness.”Consisting of three sections – “Grappling with Evil,” “Justice, Responsibility, and War” and “Blame, Murder, and Retributivism,” - all the essays are inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary in focus. Common themes emerge around the dominant narrative movements of grieving, loss, powerlessness, and retribution that have shaped so many political and cultural issues around the world since the fall of (...) 2001. At the same time, the interdisciplinary nature of this collection, together with the divergent views of its chapters, reminds one that, in the end, an inquiry into “evil” and “wickedness” is at its best when it promotes intelligence and compassion, creativity and cooperation.The thirteen essays are originally presented at and then developed in light of dialogues held at the Third Global Conference on Perspectives on Evil and Human Wickedness, held in March 2002 in Prague. (shrink)