Is Aquinas Right in his response to the problem of evil?

[Repoter]

Hello
I came across the Aquinas response to the problem of evil.

“Evil is allowed so greater good can come out of it, no martyr glory without the persecutor, etc etc”

BUT that leads me to the conclusion that a saint (when he was on earth) would be somehow greater than Adam before the sin, because he triumphed over many evils through his life, but I thought that men BEFORE sin were “perfect” (the greater they could ever be)

So only one can be true, or triumphing over evil in this life somehow makes us greater than what God intended us to be if we would not have sinned, or it does not make us greater, if the later is true then the preposition “so a greater good can come out of it” would not make sense considering that we would be as great as we could be if we would not have sinned in the first place.

I am trying to find a way around it, but I want to hear what you guys think before posting my thoughts,

Please forgive any writing mistake as I am not a native.

greetings,

 

[Rhubarb]

Sounds like a consequentialist argument to me - having evil to bring about greater good. I don’t see how it’s any different from murdering one person so a number of others can live better.

 

[RCinMT]

Hello
I came across the Aquinas response to the problem of evil.

“Evil is allowed so greater good can come out of it, no martyr glory without the persecutor, etc etc”

BUT that leads me to the conclusion that a saint (when he was on earth) would be somehow greater than Adam before the sin, because he triumphed over many evils through his life, but I thought that men BEFORE sin were “perfect” (the greater they could ever be)

So only one can be true, or triumphing over evil in this life somehow makes us greater than what God intended us to be if we would not have sinned, or it does not make us greater, if the later is true then the preposition “so a greater good can come out of it” would not make sense considering that we would be as great as we could be if we would not have sinned in the first place.

I am trying to find a way around it, but I want to hear what you guys think before posting my thoughts,

Please forgive any writing mistake as I am not a native.

greetings,

Is it better to commit no sin than to overcome sin? I think the simple answer is clearly yes. We believe that children who die prior to obtaining the age of reason enter in to Heaven immediately. Why? Because they are incapable of sin because they cannot reason right from wrong.

We do not, however, consider that anybody else does enter or has entered immediately into Heaven except for the Virgin Mary…who was without sin.

Ergo, I would think anybody would say that on an individual level it would be preferable to be sinless. BUT this world is cynical, highly cynical, nobody would ever believe that somebody could live into adulthood without sin so the sinless person probably wouldn’t be so much good for humanity. The saints, however, have brought several people to the faith precisely because they were imperfect just like us…they just just kept trying harder not to be. However, the last statement notwithstanding, without putting ourselves in God’s seat and passing judgement, I think it would be more than fair to assume that the saints still have to answer for and atone for their sins and spend some period of time in purgatory before entering into the Kingdom.

 

[xNoOnex]

While God intended for man to be pure, if we didn’t have the choice to chose evil over good, we wouldn’t really have free will. Our “goodness” would be superficial, more like instinct or programming.

So I’d say Aquinas is right.

 

[fhansen]

Hello
I came across the Aquinas response to the problem of evil.

“Evil is allowed so greater good can come out of it, no martyr glory without the persecutor, etc etc”

BUT that leads me to the conclusion that a saint (when he was on earth) would be somehow greater than Adam before the sin, because he triumphed over many evils through his life, but I thought that men BEFORE sin were “perfect” (the greater they could ever be)

So only one can be true, or triumphing over evil in this life somehow makes us greater than what God intended us to be if we would not have sinned, or it does not make us greater, if the later is true then the preposition “so a greater good can come out of it” would not make sense considering that we would be as great as we could be if we would not have sinned in the first place.

I am trying to find a way around it, but I want to hear what you guys think before posting my thoughts,

Please forgive any writing mistake as I am not a native.

greetings,

Adam had not yet achieved perfection. He was created good, and perfect according to his nature, but was left to *himself * to attain his ultimate perfection only as he ***willed ***correctly, rightly. So yes, a saint has achieved a higher status than Adam possessed in Eden. Humanity was cast from Eden in order to learn, with the help of grace, of our absolute need for God, something Adam obviously hadn’t yet grasped at that point. From the CCC:
**
MAN’S FREEDOM

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach**.

 

[Repoter]

Thank you all for your answers.

fhansen is making a great point. thank you

Greetings

 

[fisherman_carl]

Sounds like a consequentialist argument to me - having evil to bring about greater good. I don’t see how it’s any different from murdering one person so a number of others can live better.

No, its not the same. Giving something good like free will means the ability to think, to choose, to love. But, this also means the ability to choose to do evil. You think it would be better if we had no free will so that no one could choose to do evil? But, then no one could choose to do good either. By giving us free will God is not intending for us to choose evil, but to choose good. But, this doesn’t stop some from choosing evil. Ultimately, if we are to have free will God must be hidden, revealed to only those who choose to do his will.

 

[Solmyr]

No, its not the same. Giving something good like free will means the ability to think, to choose, to love. But, this also means the ability to choose to do evil. You think it would be better if we had no free will so that no one could choose to do evil? But, then no one could choose to do good either. By giving us free will God is not intending for us to choose evil, but to choose good. But, this doesn’t stop some from choosing evil. Ultimately, if we are to have free will God must be hidden, revealed to only those who choose to do his will.

What “evil”? The problem is that you use “love” and “evil” in an undefined fashion. In your parlance to love one’s spouse while not being “open” to procreation is “evil”. On the other hand to follow God’s order to slaughter some other tribe is “virtuous”. 1 Samuel 15:3… “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” So you are not in the position to talk about “good” and “evil”.

Let’s make it clear. NOT to have the freedom to hurt others is better than being free to hurt them. While NOT to love God - in other words NOT to worship God would be quite fine. In order to have the freedom to choose to love God, or not to love God is sufficient. After all we cannot “hurt” God, no matter how hard we might try.

Rhubarb was perfectly right. To allow “evil” to make something “good” out of it is the quintessential consequentialist argument. Not that there is anything wrong with considering the consequences, but according to the Catholic reasoning it is not permissible.

 

[ffg]

Interesting.

fhansen had a great answer.

Being created in time, even before sin was thing, didn’t equate to an eternal perfection.

Thinking of the ‘why?’…

We might lean again to how love works and the freedom for the beloved to return love, or not.

Great point about creation being created good (perfect or ‘right’ in light of it’s nature), as opposed to an end state eternal perfection.

Take care,

Mike

 

[fisherman_carl]

What “evil”? The problem is that you use “love” and “evil” in an undefined fashion. In your parlance to love one’s spouse while not being “open” to procreation is “evil”. On the other hand to follow God’s order to slaughter some other tribe is “virtuous”. 1 Samuel 15:3… “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” So you are not in the position to talk about “good” and “evil”.

Let’s make it clear. NOT to have the freedom to hurt others is better than being free to hurt them. While NOT to love God - in other words NOT to worship God would be quite fine. In order to have the freedom to choose to love God, or not to love God is sufficient. After all we cannot “hurt” God, no matter how hard we might try.

Rhubarb was perfectly right. To allow “evil” to make something “good” out of it is the quintessential consequentialist argument. Not that there is anything wrong with considering the consequences, but according to the Catholic reasoning it is not permissible.

You are taking examples out of the Bible out of context and trying to apply your sense of good and evil to them. Yet, without God you have no standard for good and evil. For instance, if I took a line out of some criminal code as, ‘All shall be destroyed by either electricution or hanging.’ without any context to the statement, you would come away with a very warped view of the criminal justice system. Yet, if the context is talking about let’s say murderers then we can understand such statements. Thus, when it says in Scripture that they were to destroy a particular group we should similarly understand the context that it was made, instead of assuming these are innocent people, without merit of punishment.

The fact that they could be punished assumes a system of Justice in place. For without justice their is no punishment. And, if you have justice then you have good and evil. And these things can be recognized by the judge.

Now consider this. Would you consider it acceptable to have shot down the plane that was flying into the twin towers before it hit, even though it had innocent passengers? If so then you agree that there are situations where you can morally allow an evil, that is not intended, to occur in order that a greater good will arise. One is not intending to shoot down the passengers, only to stop the plane from hitting the building. This is not the same as intending to kill someone so that a good will result. You do not require or desire the passengers to die to stop the plane.( And you would save the passengers if you could) . It is an unintended consequence of shooting down the plane. Alternatively, abortion, for instance, is not justified because it is an intended action to kill the fetus. That is the child has to die for the desired good to be accomplished.

Similarly, by God allowing the possibility of evil does not desire it to happen. He is not wanting evil to occur to accomplish a greater good. Rather, he would prefer if no evil occurred. But, by allowing the possibility for evil to occur just means it is a possibility. But, he allows it so that a greater good is possible that would not be possible any other way.

 

[Solmyr]

You are taking examples out of the Bible out of context and trying to apply your sense of good and evil to them.

My sense of “good” and “evil” are simple. I am asking about YOUR usage of these concepts, which makes no sense to non-Christians .

Yet, without God you have no standard for good and evil.

Sure I do. And it is very simple. If something is beneficial to someone, it is “good”. If something is detrimental to someone, it is “bad”. And if the detrimental action is intended, then it is “evil”. No need to mention God.

Thus, when it says in Scripture that they were to destroy a particular group we should similarly understand the context that it was made, instead of assuming these are innocent people, without merit of punishment.

Last time I looked, people under the age of reason are supposed to be free of “evil”. So the wholesale elimination of ALL the people cannot be “justified”.

But I am not asking about an analysis of different legal systems.

Similarly, by God allowing the possibility of evil does not desire it to happen. He is not wanting evil to occur to accomplish a greater good. Rather, he would prefer if no evil occurred. But, by allowing the possibility for evil to occur just means it is a possibility. But, he allows it so that a greater good is possible that would not be possible any other way.

If only I could see just ONE real example of this. What is that alleged greater good that can only be achieved with evil means? And even if there would be a real example, despite God’s omnipotence… it would STILL be a consequentialist argument. It would be “the end justifies the means”.

I see that you stay away from the solution I presented. In your world “not loving God” is the ultimate of evil. To allow this freedom is sufficient. No need to extend the freedom to allow “evil” actions to be performed at the expense of other humans.

Somehow this solution is never contemplated, much less answered.

 

[ffg]

If love is action and ‘will’ is a part of love, then ‘will’ is action. (We’ve cleared this hurdle earlier)

If ‘will’ is action, ‘not loving God’ is action.

Thus, it would seem to be impossible to ‘not love God’ and not be acting.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Vico]

Hello
I came across the Aquinas response to the problem of evil.

“Evil is allowed so greater good can come out of it, no martyr glory without the persecutor, etc etc”

BUT that leads me to the conclusion that a saint (when he was on earth) would be somehow greater than Adam before the sin, because he triumphed over many evils through his life, but I thought that men BEFORE sin were “perfect” (the greater they could ever be)

So only one can be true, or triumphing over evil in this life somehow makes us greater than what God intended us to be if we would not have sinned, or it does not make us greater, if the later is true then the preposition “so a greater good can come out of it” would not make sense considering that we would be as great as we could be if we would not have sinned in the first place.

I am trying to find a way around it, but I want to hear what you guys think before posting my thoughts,

Please forgive any writing mistake as I am not a native.

greetings,

Catechism:
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ … Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life …

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace…

 

[fisherman_carl]

My sense of “good” and “evil” are simple. I am asking about YOUR usage of these concepts, which makes no sense to non-Christians .

Sure I do. And it is very simple. If something is beneficial to someone, it is “good”. If something is detrimental to someone, it is “bad”. And if the detrimental action is intended, then it is “evil”. No need to mention God.

Last time I looked, people under the age of reason are supposed to be free of “evil”. So the wholesale elimination of ALL the people cannot be “justified”.

But I am not asking about an analysis of different legal systems.

If only I could see just ONE real example of this. What is that alleged greater good that can only be achieved with evil means? And even if there would be a real example, despite God’s omnipotence… it would STILL be a consequentialist argument. It would be “the end justifies the means”.

I see that you stay away from the solution I presented. In your world “not loving God” is the ultimate of evil. To allow this freedom is sufficient. No need to extend the freedom to allow “evil” actions to be performed at the expense of other humans.

Somehow this solution is never contemplated, much less answered.

You are still not getting it. I am not sure how to make it any clearer. The evil is not an intended means to an end. For instance, Killing the innocent women and children on the plane is not intended or needed. It is an unfortunate result of shooting the entire plane down, for which there was no other way to save the people in the building.

How is God supposed to implement your plan of only allowing loving actions and yet still give us free will? . Either he has to supernaturally intervene every time someone is about to do something evil or he has to program us or hardwire us to not do evil Both of which is not free will. If God has to control our actions then we do not have free will. However, if we freely learn to choose the good then we have free will. It has not been imposed on us, but has been freely chosen or rejected.

 

[fisherman_carl]

My sense of “good” and “evil” are simple. I am asking about YOUR usage of these concepts, which makes no sense to non-Christians .

Sure I do. And it is very simple. If something is beneficial to someone, it is “good”. If something is detrimental to someone, it is “bad”. And if the detrimental action is intended, then it is “evil”. No need to mention God.

Last time I looked, people under the age of reason are supposed to be free of “evil”. So the wholesale elimination of ALL the people cannot be “justified”.

But I am not asking about an analysis of different legal systems.

If only I could see just ONE real example of this. What is that alleged greater good that can only be achieved with evil means? And even if there would be a real example, despite God’s omnipotence… it would STILL be a consequentialist argument. It would be “the end justifies the means”.

I see that you stay away from the solution I presented. In your world “not loving God” is the ultimate of evil. To allow this freedom is sufficient. No need to extend the freedom to allow “evil” actions to be performed at the expense of other humans.

Somehow this solution is never contemplated, much less answered.

You are still not getting it. I am not sure how to make it any clearer. The evil is not an intended means to an end. For instance, Killing the innocent women and children on the plane is not intended or needed. It is an unfortunate result of shooting the entire plane down, for which there was no other way to save the people in the building.

How is God supposed to implement your plan of only allowing loving actions and yet still give us free will? . Either he has to supernaturally intervene every time someone is about to do something evil or he has to program us or hardwire us to not do evil Both of which is not free will. If God has to control our actions then we do not have free will. However, if we freely learn to choose the good then we have free will. It has not been imposed on us, but has been freely chosen or rejected.

Your version of good is relative to each person. What benefits one person may be different and conflict . Stealing may be beneficial to the theif. But, that doesn’t make it right. Without a higher standard to appeal to than a mere human court means that all your most basic of human rights are determined by the government. Which means they can change. And, if the government is corrupt, you have no higher standard to appeal to. However, God is the ultimate standard one can appeal to that goes beyond any human court. And his standard never changes. That means innocent humans like unborn babies will always have rights because they are human, created in the image of God. Whereas, a human court can choose to ignore those rights. But, they ultimately will answer to God.

 

[Solmyr]

How is God supposed to implement your plan of only allowing loving actions and yet still give us free will? .

AHA! Now you are getting closer. The almost unlimited freedom we “enjoy” is the sign of an indifferent or malevolent creator. A benevolent creator would only allow limited freedom.

Using a simple but not simplistic example. We are on the road (pun intended) to create an autonomous car + road system. The controlling system will be distributed into the smart cars. They will have enough freedom to choose which road to travel, what speed to take. But they will NOT have the freedom to cause collisions, or veer off the road. That level of “freedom” is a BUG, not a FEATURE.

Either he has to supernaturally intervene every time someone is about to do something evil or he has to program us or hardwire us to not do evil Both of which is not free will.

Nonsense. There should be freedom, but only limited.

Your version of good is relative to each person. What benefits one person may be different and conflict . Stealing may be beneficial to the theif. But, that doesn’t make it right.

Except if the person steals a loaf of bread to prevent starving. Just like killing in self-defense (or in defense of others) is permitted. And killing is much more serious than a loaf of bread.

Without a higher standard to appeal to than a mere human court means that all your most basic of human rights are determined by the government. Which means they can change. And, if the government is corrupt, you have no higher standard to appeal to.

Not true. We still have the option to change the government at the ballot box.

However, God is the ultimate standard one can appeal to that goes beyond any human court. And his standard never changes. That means innocent humans like unborn babies will always have rights because they are human, created in the image of God. Whereas, a human court can choose to ignore those rights. But, they ultimately will answer to God.

That does not help the victims - even if you are right. But there is no evidence of that. Are you familiar with the phrase: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”? To allow malevolent behavior and then to punish it is not “justice”, it is the sign of indifference. Prevent the malevolent behavior, and to HELL with the freedom of criminals. That is what we try to achieve with our very limited means.

 

[kdbueno]

Evil is caused by selfishness and pride.

 

[fisherman_carl]

AHA! Now you are getting closer. The almost unlimited freedom we “enjoy” is the sign of an indifferent or malevolent creator. A benevolent creator would only allow limited freedom.

Using a simple but not simplistic example. We are on the road (pun intended) to create an autonomous car + road system. The controlling system will be distributed into the smart cars. They will have enough freedom to choose which road to travel, what speed to take. But they will NOT have the freedom to cause collisions, or veer off the road. That level of “freedom” is a BUG, not a FEATURE.

Nonsense. There should be freedom, but only limited.

Except if the person steals a loaf of bread to prevent starving. Just like killing in self-defense (or in defense of others) is permitted. And killing is much more serious than a loaf of bread.

Not true. We still have the option to change the government at the ballot box.

That does not help the victims - even if you are right. But there is no evidence of that. Are you familiar with the phrase: “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure”? To allow malevolent behavior and then to punish it is not “justice”, it is the sign of indifference. Prevent the malevolent behavior, and to HELL with the freedom of criminals. That is what we try to achieve with our very limited means.

Those smart cars have no freedom at all. They are programmed to respond a certain way. Its not like it has a preference to take one route over another. It picks one route based on the program it is executing and the variable (name removed by moderator)uts like traffic or fastest route. It is not a sign of freedom, but of decision tree programming.

Humans do have limitations on what they can do. And on what God allows. He didn’t for instance allow the tower of Babel to completed, or allow the Amelekites to go unpunished. He created laws for us to follow. All good things that give us guidelines to follow.

So I guess by saying we should have limited freedom you agree that we should not be allowed to do whatever we want, but should have to follow God’s laws like no artificial contraception or abortion. Or do you still advocate pro choice?

 

[fisherman_carl]

Not true. We still have the option to change the government at the ballot box.

How long do you think it will be before we can make abortion illegal again? Since they have been trying for half a century. How many more babies have to die before that happens?

 

[Solmyr]

Those smart cars have no freedom at all. They are programmed to respond a certain way. Its not like it has a preference to take one route over another. It picks one route based on the program it is executing and the variable (name removed by moderator)uts like traffic or fastest route. It is not a sign of freedom, but of decision tree programming.

The internal architecture of the units involved is not relevant - since you have NO access to that internal decision-tree algorithm.

Humans do have limitations on what they can do. And on what God allows. He didn’t for instance allow the tower of Babel to completed, or allow the Amelekites to go unpunished. He created laws for us to follow. All good things that give us guidelines to follow.

Unfortunately he neglected to declare what those “laws” or “guidelines” might be.

So I guess by saying we should have limited freedom you agree that we should not be allowed to do whatever we want, but should have to follow God’s laws like no artificial contraception or abortion. Or do you still advocate pro choice?

Whatever God does not “like”, “wish”, “want”, “will”, “desire” us to do, he should/could prevent us from doing. If we do something, anything that God REALLY does not want us to do, he has the power to prevent it… If he does not prevent it, he does NOT care ENOUGH about it.

How long do you think it will be before we can make abortion illegal again? Since they have been trying for half a century. How many more babies have to die before that happens?

I hope it will NEVER happen. An impregnated ovum is NOT a baybee. Its existence or lack of it is of no relevance. Most of the impregnated eggs leave the woman’s body without anyone knowing about it. God - obviously does not care about them… so why would you?