T
Truthstalker
Guest
If evil is the absence of good, how can it be the cause or object of anything? If something is an absence, then it cannot do anything, can it?
- Status
C
cpayne
Guest
Every single thing is ontologically good insofar as it exists. As it begins to lack existence, it begins to lack goodness. The lack of this goodness is called evil.
However, you are correct: If we stop right there, we don’t have enough of an account of evil. We have to add in the concept of human freedom.
In other words, even things that are ontologically good can be functionally misused. Any functional misuse of a thing can lead to evil; in other words, anything can be functionally evil, except for that which lacks the potential for decline. (God.
) Your body is good insofar as it exists, but you can use it for functionally evil purposes. A knife is good insofar as it exists as a knife; you can use the knife for functionally evil purposes. This “misuse” of things is tied to the human freedom to turn away from good. (According to Augustine, this is the point of the story of the Garden of Eden. Evil is introduced when human freedom turns away from good.)The human freedom is the cause, therefore, and is itself (as created by God) good. What it is used to cause, and the object of its intentions, can very readily be evil.
This is about the best I can do, but I have the feeling I’m leaving out something important. Anyone else want to jump in?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
OK. I’ll jump. Maybe yall can help me because I don’t have a full blown theory on this.
Let’s start with Cain killing his brother. Nobody at that time knew what death was. Everyone before Noah’s rainbow were vegetarians. Therefore Abel sacrificing the first and best of his flock (a cherished pet most likely) must have been quite a shock to him. God recognized the depth of Abel’s sacrifice and preferred it to Cain’s gift of grain.
Look at the difference in thinking which takes place in Cain’s mind. At first Cain emulates Abel by sacrificing Abel himself. When God questions him, he answers “Am I my brother’s keeper?” This is a rhetorical question meaning that he sacrificed Abel in the same way as Abel sacrificed the herd animal and likely expected the same praise from God. Likely he did not expect the jolt to his conscience.
After that Cain persuades himself that he is beyond redemption while God, you will note, is actually quite kind to him. There is a disconnect between how God sees Cain and how Cain sees himself.
So the evil involved in the Many Falls, I suspect has to do with not seeing clearly. 1 Corinthians 13 repeats this theme of not being able to see clearly in a fallen world.
Our choices cause us to see the world more or less clearly. Certainly seeing the world clearly is at least a survival mechanism if not a road to God.
I’m not sure what TS means by object; but those who choose cloudly vision over clear vision deliberately – I dunno, that seems like a subject for apologists. I wouldn’t know where to begin.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
This is from Aquinas…newadvent.org/summa/2029.htm#1
I don’t have a handy dandy scholastic definition of object available; I think it is used here in the sense of “what something acts on”, sort of the reverse of cause. Fire burns wood: here the cause of the burning is fire and the object of fire is wood.
Once again I demonstrated to those who know what I am talking about that I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m consistent. Most of the time, anyway.
And if someone has refuted the OP, it was beyond me.
I don’t have a handy dandy scholastic definition of object available; I think it is used here in the sense of “what something acts on”, sort of the reverse of cause. Fire burns wood: here the cause of the burning is fire and the object of fire is wood.
Once again I demonstrated to those who know what I am talking about that I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m consistent. Most of the time, anyway.
And if someone has refuted the OP, it was beyond me.
C
cpayne
Guest
“What something acts on”–or similarly, “What something is directed toward.”
The objection to Aquinas’s position here is kind of similar to the OP. The objection is that, since evil is a lack or privation, how can it be a suitable “object” of hatred? Why direct hatred toward a lack? Aquinas’s answer (and his response to one of the objections) focuses on love–in other words, we LOVE the good which could have been, and hence hate the lack of that good which could have been, by way of comparison. So Aquinas says hate cannot exist without prior love, just like a lack cannot occur without a prior existing thing, just like evil cannot occur without the prior goodness of being.
Somebody said something like this once regarding Christian tragedy in literature: the tragedy is not that evil happens, but that the good which could have happened didn’t.
The objection to Aquinas’s position here is kind of similar to the OP. The objection is that, since evil is a lack or privation, how can it be a suitable “object” of hatred? Why direct hatred toward a lack? Aquinas’s answer (and his response to one of the objections) focuses on love–in other words, we LOVE the good which could have been, and hence hate the lack of that good which could have been, by way of comparison. So Aquinas says hate cannot exist without prior love, just like a lack cannot occur without a prior existing thing, just like evil cannot occur without the prior goodness of being.
Somebody said something like this once regarding Christian tragedy in literature: the tragedy is not that evil happens, but that the good which could have happened didn’t.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Thanks for this TS.
Makes sense. I think I had brain-freeze yesterday. Sorry to be dense.
I am not sure I refuted the OP. But the following is shorthand for what I was proposing:
Evil as cause would be not seeing clearly, the result of living in a fallen world.
Evil as object would be prefering cloudy vision over clear vision.
Next question: what are some reasons for folks preferring cloudy vision over clear vision?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I have brain freeze again today. I can’t think of an event when good could have happened but didn’t. Suggestions?
T
Truthstalker
Guest
One good thing that could have happened but didn’t would have been if Adam and Eve had not hung around a certain tree but instead spent their time in other parts of the garden and didn’t eat the forbidden fruit.
Another is if Abel had been allowed to live out his life instead of being killed by his brother.
The list goes on.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Thank you. This was the context of my question:
That seems to suggest that there might be a good which is not merely the opposite of evil. Is this possible?
C
cpayne
Guest
I think so. For example, let’s say a promising artist gets hit by a vehicle and dies. The evil of the premature death is not just the opposite of a longer life; the premature death also ends all the artistic work the artist would have done had he/she lived. However, ordinarily we would not think of “great, meaningful artwork” as merely the opposite of “premature death,” or vice versa.
The Christian tragedy I was thinking of was Marlowe’s “Dr. Faustus.” The tragedy is the person Dr. Faustus actually could have been, given his character in the play, a person cut short by the wrongful choices he makes in the play.
Maybe this is not the best comparison, but compare “Dr. Faustus” to “Death of a Salesman,” which definitely does not present any Christian alternatives. What else could Willy Loman be other than what he was in the play? By the end of that play, I’m practically rooting for death.
Can’t believe I wrote that. Can’t believe I’m leaving it in.- Status