Under Construction . . .

Morality - Why is there evil?

For many people, the reality of evil & suffering alone is proof that God does not exist. It's commonly said, "How could a good God allow evil?" And this is exactly what we will discuss here: 1 why is there evil, 2 how do we know what evil is, 3 what does it say about God.

Why is there Evil?

NOTE: This argument implies objective morality, subjective morality and relative morality will be discussed in the next section. It's pointless to say "God doesn't exist because he isn't how I or culture want Him to be"

This is a common objection to Christianity, as is dubbed the "If God Why Evil?" question

here is the thought in a sentence:

"A good, loving, all-powerful God would not allow for evil, since evil exists, I reject that God is all good, or all loving, or all-powerful, or even exists"

We'll break this down

simplified

I'll start by answering it directly, and then point out the flawed reasoning

NOTE: It's worth pointing out that if there is an infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful God, it's reasonable that my idea of "good", "evil", "justice", etc. is lacking when compared to His. So after going through all the arguments on this page, if you decide that God exists, but you disagree with him, there is nothing more foolish than to think you're right and He's wrong.

Answers

This argument, simplified, says this: "there no good reason for evil so god doesn't exist" you can identify this in premise 2, this idea that "God would not allow evil", the question is though, is this premise true? And if any good reasons exist for allowing evil to exist, then this premise fails

I'll address this as following: 1 good reasons for evil existing, 2 good reasons for pain, 3 how God handles evil

Are there any good reasons for evil existing?

Free Will - Allows for real choice, which means people can choose evil or good

Love - love requires choice, otherwise it's not real, but many of us, having the freedom to love, often choose to hate

-- example: is there anyone you know where instead of loving them and being kind to them you:

         - Hated them?         
         - Complained about them?        
          - Yelled or got mad at them?        
           - Sabotaged them?        
            I can definitely say yes...     

Are there any good reasons for pain existing?

Punishment - A criminal going to jail | your child when they disobey

Growth - as the well known song says "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" (eg. working out, we grow when we go through difficulties and challenges, when we're children, we literally have "growing pains" when getting taller)

Love - We would admit that true love often requires some kind of pain or sacrifice

Generosity - Many would agree that generosity is tied to the amount you sacrifice, rather than the amount you give, (eg. giving 90% of what i have (only thousands) is greater generosity than a billionare giving 0.1% of what he has (1 million))

I'd like to note that not all pain is good, obviously, so to address the real purely tragic suffering I'd like to say this. God made everything, and He made it "very good", but as we saw in the previous section, free will practically guarantees evil, and after the first "sin" the world was radically changed. Christians do not believe that God made the world exactly as it is today.

Would God really do nothing about evil?

"Evil exists, God would not allow evil, so He must not exist"

This argument implicitly states that God somehow doesn't do anything about evil. We covered in point 1 that clearly there are good reasons to allow evil, the question is does God do anything about it?

There are 2 beliefs from a Christian worldview I'd like to offer

1 - There will be an end to evil. A final judgement, a time where God judges all wickendess and then remakes everything in perfection. He is not just going to allow evil for eternity. (Hell is a place of punishment, not a place where people live and do whatever they want with Satan as king, as sometimes it's characterized)

2 - There are current consequences for "evil" or "sin". You may not realize it, but it's apparent that doing the "wrong" things has pretty immediate consequences in this life still, and why can't that be a way God punishes evil now?(add note) (Romans 13, add more) Generally speaking, if you do the "wrong" thing one or more of these will happen to you immediately or within this life: jail, prison, fines, loss of reputation, loss of trust, loss of relationships, loss of health, etc. And these are results of stealing, lying, murder, slander, gossip, complaining, drugs & alcohol abuse, etc.

inversely I think it's evident that "good" exists as well, since "good" actions typically result in much better consequences: increased reputation, respect, trust, credibility, relationships, health, career opportunities, support, etc. These all are results the following: being honest, reliable, trustworthy, helpful, responsible, generous, taking care of your body, etc.

Answers Concluded

Hopefully I have sufficiently shown that there are good reasons for the pain, suffering, and evil we see in this world, that morality is something universal and has a transcendent source, and that it shows God's existence and character

Now lets address some of the flaws of the argument

Flaws

1 - Atheism has the same problem

This argument is used to undermine belief in God, but that doesn't really make sense since Athiesm has the same issue. Athiesm, and every world view for that matter, must give an explanation of evil. This hopefully brings out the point:

Q: "The objection appears to be that the good loving Christian God cannot be reconciled with the fact that there is evil in the world, tell me, how does Atheism account for the existence of Evil?"

Q: "So as an Atheist, what do you think about evil in the world?"

-- why does it exist, what do you do with it

- if you really think there is injustice and evil, you can complain about god all you want, but do you offer an explanation?

2 - Atheism cannot actually object to evil

Here is a quotation from one of the most notable athiests of our generation, Richard Dawkins

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease."

Surely you understand what he's getting at, there's so much pain, and suffering, this is a terrible imperfect world we live in. But he shares more:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference . . ."

Wait a second, do you the issue? At first it sounds convincing, but as you'll find Dawkins is often "Rhetoric over Reason" as I call it. Dawkins claims there is "no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference", but he also seems to imply that the suffering in the world proves there is no God, but isn't that circular? Let me break this down:

Dawkin's implicit argument goes like this:

Premise 1: Suffering exists.

Premise 2: Purpose, evil, and good are incompatible with vast amounts of suffering.

Conclusion: There is no purpose, no evil, no good, and no god.

Does this really make sense to you? Is premise 2 even true? And we've already looked at good reasons why suffering could exist in this world

Anyways, from a materialist Athiest perspective, you can argue that there is "suffering", and no good God would create a world with so much suffering, however, the explanation you're left with is this:

"no purpose, no evil and no good"

So we come to a cross roads, as an Atheist you either 1, believe that there is "no purpose, no evil and no good", in which case you cannot complain to a Christian about their belief in an "evil" deity, since you don't believe in "evil", or 2, you do believe in purpose, evil, and good, and realize Athiesm gives no satisfactory answer for why there is suffering, you only receive "pitiless indifference"

How do I know Evil? / Source of Morality?

There is a problem, I actually *know* evil exists, there is injustice in the world, you do too, how do you explain this?

Why am I able to recognize when something is good or evil?

Is it because God put it in me?

Subjective Morality, or Objective?

Subjective morality will be defined like so:

There are things that are right and wrong, but this is ultimately determined by individuals and their own beliefs and opinions, there is not a persisting morality that is universal to all people for all time

NOTE: "Relative Morality" is also an idea which says morals change depending on context (culture, time, etc.), but this is ultimately just subjective morality on a cultural scale, which I will address later.

I'm going to argue that morality is objective / universal, it's true for everyone, not only "true for me" or "true for you"

I'm also going to argue that even if you claim it's subjective, you likely don't act like it is. You probably internally believe it's objective, and I'll be going through several examples that hopefully show that.

Ultimately, I hope you see that as soon as you place "morality" in something subjective, it become arbitrary, and it does not explain how 1, a universal standard / some things are always wrong, or 2, why we punish people for "wrong" behaviour

There is a "standard" / you believe in right and wrong

Everyone believes there are things that they "should" or "shouldn't" do.

You likely believe the following:

         People should keep their promises        
          People should be unselfish         
          People should be fair   -  The first in line should be the first served (no cutting!)

Here's some proof that you agree to this standard, whenever someone has tried to tell you that you violated one of these rules, which did you do:

         Claim that the rule was nonexistent         Or give an excuse / claim this was an "exception" 

If you did the latter, then you implicitly agree with the fact that there was some standard you were being help up to

Some things are always wrong

More proof of this standard is that there exist actions that are *always* wrong

Usually Wrong - Lying, Stealing, Torture, Murder, Hate, Being Disrespectful, Cheating . . . (some would say these can be justified if saving a life or other reasons)

Always Wrong - Murder for fun, Torture for fun, Lying for fun, Stealing for Fun. . .

Whoa what happened?

I'm sure many us read the first line and went, "hmm I don't know, I feel like I know of a time that I feel like ___ is okay." But when reading the second line, none of them were. In fact you can add "for fun" to any questionable activity and suddenly it's blatantly wrong. This is the list I will use for showing objective morality, I want us to agree that some things truly are evil, objectively, always.

Evil Should Be Punished According To This "Standard"

Most of us would safely agree that criminals deserve a punishment, maybe not necessarily the one they were given, but certainly *something* should be done. People who murder cannot be left around murdering all they want. But, does that make any sense if morality is subjective?

Do murders commit acts that the government just "feels is wrong", so they punish them? Or is murder actually wrong?

This standard is "transcendent" (not from environment)

"Environment" can be several things, upbringing, culture, and I'm including evolution.

Obviously your upbringing, culture, environment, all have an influence on you, no one denies this.

The question is does this the *determine* who you are, specifically your morals?

Laws Come From Authorities

So we've discovered that some things are always wrong, let's look at this some more. When it comes to rules/laws of conduct there are multiple catgegories

• Friend "laws" - No snitchin'
• Home "laws" - No backtalk
• City laws - No fences higher than 6 feet
• State laws - No nunchucks - (as a martial artist I never liked this one)
• National laws - No murder (w/ exception)
• International laws - No torture
• Universal laws - No murder, torture, stealing, lying, etc. "for fun"

We can see here that the "laws" that exist come from their respective governing authority at each level. So here's the question, what authority places the "laws" we find in our concience?

Is it taught?

2 things, Are we talking about Existence (is morality objective / real), or Source (how do I know it)?

1 - If I'm taught morals, that doesn't mean they are a human convention (I am taught mathematics, but certainly math was true, even before we discovered it, eg. "discover" not "invent")

2 - If I'm taught morals, that also doesn't mean I don't know it internally as well. I've been told countless things that I "should have known" or already did know, they just add depth and consistency to my existing knowledge.

Culture/Evolution

example 1 - Let's say someone is in trouble, I will have 2 desires, 1 to help, and 1 to run for fear, you may claim that both of these are from evolution, but the issue is that they are contradictory, and more than that, I have an additional sense that the one to help is the "right" one. Not just I have a stronger desire for it, because I may feel a stronger feeling of fear and self-preservation, but if I were to act on it I would feel "guilt" for choosing the "wrong" choice, why is that?

example 2 - This "moral feeling" is not simply a natural desire that is always good to do, but it is something that regulates the rest of my natural desires. For instance, we all get hungry, tired, want comfort, want love, want sex, but it is not always good to act on this desire. I can be hungry but I shouldn't steal from my coworkers' lunch, I may be tired but I shouldn't ignore my wife, I may want comfort but if someone is drowning I'm surely going to jump in to save them. This "moral feeling" actually regulates all of our other natural desires, isn't that peculiar? Where does this "standard" that it uses come from?

example 3 - Morality is comparable. We are able to look at cultures like Nazi Germany, and understand that their morals are "wrong". But to favor our nation's general morality compared to that of Nazi Germany, we must be saying ours is somehow "better", or "closer to some standard". This standard we are comparing the 2 moralities to cannot be itself, one of the two moralities. It's beyond any individual culture or society.

"Best for survival" - [examples of not best for survival or always beneficial for me] 1 someone dying, 2 not cheating in school even though it's easier, 3 telling the truth even if i get in trouble, embarass, or killed etc.

"Best for survival 2" - There are actually times when moral laws have no concern for the result at all. For instance, if I'm tripped by someone on accident I may be mad momentarily, but I don't necessarily blame the person. But if someone *tries* to trip me and fails, I'm upset justly even though I didn't fall!

"Best for society" - Why *should* I care about what's best for society? Why not just live in a way that is beneficial towards me? People can say that living truthfully, kindly, and morally is best, but that doesn't explain why it's best or why I should do it. You can say that would be "wrong" and "selfish", but why is it wrong? Why is "selfishness" bad? "it harms others", why is harming others "wrong"? "it's inconsiderate", why is it inconsiderate? When talking about the origin of morality, we cannot just bring in other moral claims, we need something for a souce, "Why is it that some things are right and some things are wrong"? I cannot answer by saying, "Because right and wrong is beneficial for society", because that implicitly says, "It's right to have right and wrong because it results in a society that I think is right", this of course is begging the question

environment from mere christianity

Morality is a Product of the Environment?

People often argue that you are either "nature" (you cannot be changed) or "nuture" (you are only a result of your enviornment)

Clearly though, life is not so black and white

Part of the issue is this, obviously your culture, upbringing, and environment have an influence on you, no one denies this.

The question is does this the *determine* who you are?

If your environment is the source of your morals, then can anyone be wrong? For instance almost everyone agrees that the holocaust was *wrong*, hitler was *wrong*, slavery was *wrong*, and the list we saw earlier, murder for fun, toture for fun, etc. but, if morality is subjective why does it matter if they were wrong to *you*?

If it's purely subjective then maybe they were doing what was morally right to them!

If it's from culture, can culture ever be wrong? Was the nazi camp culture's wrong? Was American slavery's culture wrong? But why? that was there culture!

If it's from majority then can the majority be wrong? What if the majority thought it was right to kill for fun? Also what majority? majority of your surrounding group? like family? town? city? government? the world? how do you pick which one? How do you *know* that one is right? it feels a little arbitrary, and there's certainly nothing keeping the majority of people agreeing on something that's incorrect.

Morals from evolution?

But couldn't you have "evolved" differently? What makes moral values the most "fit for survival"?

I'll give two examples

1 - If moral values are derived purely from evolution, guided by "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest"

do you believe in eugenics (definition)?

do you believe people with higher risk or who have of cancer, diabetes, blindness, muteness etc. should reproduce?

what about people who are poor or have lower iq's?

even worse do you believe they should be killed?

I hope you're answer is no, but from an evolutionary standpoint, why not?

Read back through the list and think "survival of the fittest", do you really think that morality came from evolution?

NOTE: link to biology section, weakness of evolution

2 - Some moral values go contrary to survival

I'm a young man, if a child or elderly person is in a burning building, many of us agree it's morally good for me to do so, many of us would feel a moral urge to do so, but this goes directly against my own survival. You could say it's for the survival of the "species" as a whole, but I will likely have more life left than the elderly person, and, being married, I have the ability to produce more children, which the both of the people in trouble probably currently lack.

We intrinsictly know, the value of saving the child's life, or elderly person's life, is more than in their utilitarian benefit for the world, and is worth risking our own lives for

Evidence for God

"how do i know what a crooked line is, unless i have some idea of a straight line?"

somehow we have an idea of morality, but evolution and environment do not seem like strong "best explanations" for these

These point to a lawgiver, who made each one of us and put His law into our hearts

Objection of Evil - people care about injustice, but why is there good & evil?

Where does this idea of good and evil come from?

What is the standard?

Law examples, local, government, international

lawgiver --> laws

Where do these universal (objective) moral laws come from?

beyond environment / culture

     we have universal morality, which implies some lawgiver,    
       or some authority all local, cultural, national, international laws    
        but there are laws that go above all of these (not murdering for fun)  
           if household laws come from household authorities (parents),    
            local laws come from local authorities,    
              district, state, governmental, international laws from their respective authorities, 
                   what could be the source of a law that is above all these things? 

Conclusion

If morality is determined by anything else other than objective truths grounded in reality, then they become arbitrary

You can't actually hold the "god allows evil" view because then that's pretty much saying one of the following: I think god doesn't exist because ___; he isn't how I want him to be (subjective), he isn't what most people think (majority), these feel pretty weak and arbitrary, if god exists he can be however he wants, saying he doesn't because he doesn't do what *you* think he should is just a personal issue you have, not hard evidence against god's existence

another issue with the source of morality is this, in life you probably think other people are wrong. But are they "wrong", or just disagree with you? is it the same? then are you "wrong" to them? is there any right or wrong in a world of subjective morality (implying objective truth, if subjective truth is true then none of this matters)?

Now why is it that we know these things are wrong?

Reasons for where morality / knowledge of morality came from

Was it just taught to me? --> it was taught to the person before me and so on. This may explain why I know *some* morals, but certainly not how morals first originated