Problem of Evil [4]: The Greater Good(s)

[Roguish]

If evil is an independent power of being, then how does it exist in the first place? There is an ontological problem, because there cannot be multiple infinite existents.

I didn’t say Evil was an “independent power of being”. In fact I didn’t use a single one of those four words with which you paraphrase me. I said Evil is an other-wordly agent with a specific agenda. We can have a discussion, but only if you read precisely what I write and address that.

My point remains that you seem to lack experience of (and with) Evil, and of the depth of its horror. So you attempt to address the PoE starting from your definition of Evil as an “absence of good”, but that grossly underestimates what Evil is.

As for your point that you take a Neo-Platonic view of the matter, yes I can see that in a way you do. But Neo-Platonism is, by and large, disinterested in questions concerning Evil. NP is hardly even interested in ethics or morality. If your starting “mindset” (or theory, or viewpoint, whatever term you prefer) doesn’t properly acknowledge the matter under investigation, it’s unlikely (ie. impossible) that you’ll arrive at the true answer.

 

[Neithan]

I didn’t say Evil was an “independent power of being”. In fact I didn’t use a single one of those four words with which you paraphrase me.

That’s not a paraphrase of your post. It’s comparing the two possibilities: either evil is a source of being itself or it is not. Feel free to elaborate what you mean by “other-worldly agent with a specific agenda” if it’s relevant to the topic. Is this a kind of being? Is it independent or dependent on a greater being? How does it exist? You seem to be implying that you have some kind of special knowledge of evil.

A neoplatonic influence doesn’t paint a comprehensive picture; it’s a search for an ontological ground. Ethics either has a reference in something real, or it doesn’t. That’s relevant to whether there are actual morals or not, as in what is good to our nature, or whether our laws are capricious.

 

[Neithan]

And I sincerely hope that you’d have reasons. I just might not happen to agree with them.

I don’t think you’re addressing the point of contention: good is either a real thing, and our opinion corresponds more or less to truth; or it’s imaginary, and our opinion is merely a matter of taste.

What is the reference for your reasons? The Hindu and I agree that it is a higher power. Whether he wants to call it Shiva or Vishnu or Brahma, or some creative principle common to all three (Brahman), we can agree there is a supreme and original good that conditions the actual and potential good of derivative things.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And I sincerely hope that you’d have reasons. I just might not happen to agree with them.

I don’t think you’re addressing the point of contention: good is either a real thing, and our opinion corresponds more or less to truth; or it’s imaginary, and our opinion is merely a matter of taste.

Good is not a ‘thing’.

 

[Neithan]

In that case, the problem of evil is not a problem at all.

 

[Freddy]

In that case, the problem of evil is not a problem at all.

Not for me, no.

 

[Fufulog]

Well if god is perfectly good. Then evil can have only two faces: Human evil or supernatural evil. Also since P does not always imply Q not all cases of “less good” are evil.

1. Human evil is related to the relative measure that we have as humans. Since the human condition is subject to physical and spiritual suffering, but is limited by conditions of death. All human physical evils are in relation to suffering and death. And all human spiritual evils are in relation to the truth. Yes this presupposes the spirit but, if you believe in god, this is necessary to justify our existence. Else a non-interactive god is effectively non-existent, and it is less good for a creature with free will to not know a perfect good. Therefore the base absence of a spirit would constitute an imperfection in the love of god. Which, because he is free, would constitute an imperfection in his omnipotence (a perfect being is incapable of doing anything useless).
2. Supernatural Evil: Since human evils are all relative to the human condition. Supernatural evils are relative to the absolute condition. As god is absolutely good, a supernatural evil is one which rejects, insults or otherwise inverts the proper order of god as the creator in the full spirit of rebellion. There is no difference between a proper rebellion against God and the instantiation of a perfect evil, because anything opposing perfect goodness must be evil.

Supernatural evil can exist alongside human evil. If we say it is a human evil for a prostitute to lure young men. It is a supernatural AND human evil for her to do so outside a church. Both are evil, but one is far more horrifying than the other since the motive for offending god cannot be explained by human reasoning. It needs a transcendent malevolence or a kind of hatred of good, which is quite a different motivation to a moral failure.

Also, a quibble.
3)The loss of good in purgatory isn’t evil but it is because of evil.

A perfect god cannot have evil ‘unveiled’ within its center because this would be no different to a corruption of perfection. So we have this ‘veil’ of faith which protects us from absolute judgement whilst also creating the greater good of the choice of faith in god as a persistent choice.

Since we are finite and imperfect and can choose evil. IF we do (which adam did) and we fall from the grace of union with perfection. We must face the just consequences of this, because it is better to punish evil than it is to permit it unpunished. Since, creation has the property of unpunished continuity, to give an evil act this feature would be to deny the goodness of creation, which as said earlier is an absolute necessity for any value at all.

For a finite creature to be purified of evil, it needs to be purified by justice, this requires an exchange-- say of the suffering of not experiencing the full love of god despite knowing him more or less as the perfect good. This is an immense spiritual suffering, far worse than all mortal sufferings. Since it is suffering for love of god, quite literally, it is a direct compensation for the evil done by the will.

 

[Neithan]

I agree that evil is relative to the good, but cannot exist without it. Free-will cannot interact without some spiritual principle in a creature, and that moral evils are a result of opposing God. Everything ultimately depends on God as a necessary first principle, though, so in some way all evil is caused by God, if not willed by him. So there is some distinction between the causal will of God and the moral will.

 

[Vico]

…
@Vico I’m not sure exactly what points you’re addressing.

• “he should be born blind” … “that the works of God should be made manifest in him”.

The so called metaphysical evil (… and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things) and the evil due to mankind and angels free will, are necessary, to permit the partaking of the divine nature.

 

[Neithan]

How would you respond to the objection to the Contrast Defense?

 

[Vico]

How would you respond to the objection to the Contrast Defense?

In your description for Contrast Defense is God permits evil:

• For the greater glory of his creation
• For mercy, justice, love relative to opposites

Evil has no being, but is a deprivation. God has no opposite.

Latin gloria means “fame, renown, great praise or honor.” The Holy Trinity possesses all Being and Perfection needing nothing, and no complementary increment or excellence can be had from without. Being the Creator is sufficient to show glory, Apocalypse 4:11 “Thou art worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory, and honour, and power: because thou hast created all things”

 

[Fufulog]

Yes, I agree there is a difference. I think the distinction theologically is the permissive will versus the active will.

That is, God’s active will was not involved in creating evil, but his permissive will allowed its possibility, and, once actualized, its continuity within creation. Since everything is dependent on god, even the existence of evil, then god maintains evil through his permissive will. This must be justified.

To me though, it proves how good God actually is.

The good is so good that he, a perfect being, would permit evil in a finite world to accomplish it, and no other way would work to obtain it. That is, the sum of this goodness is greater than god simply multiplying himself endlessly without us.

let us understand the Divine Will. God is perfect, his will by extension is perfect. Any number of perfect beings will all have an identical will. So the important feature of God is his will. So any judgments made must be in his frame of reference, and not our own.

Any alternatives to a human will that God created free would make us machines to him since evil can only exist from imperfection and choice. And if we are machines then any good we do cannot be owned by us. Just God’s will, which, while perfectly good, would make sin and evil impossible and would fundamentally deny the Human Will.

Since evil clearly does exist, we cannot be deterministic in such a manner as to erase free will. IF we believe God is perfect, then our will must actually be free. To God, our choice to deny or accept and deeply love the Divine Will must be wholly owned by us and it must be the central point of belief. (To love gods will in a manner akin to gods own love as best as can be done)

You either believe in God’s perfection, or you simply cannot believe in God at all. Though, this presents serious problems. For example, there is no absolute frame for good and evil in the absence of god which woefully undermines the supposed good intentions of the PoE argument in the humanist sense. Making it more or less an exercise in intellectual snobbery.

What is interesting to me is that God gives us this much dignity. That we are the arbiters of such a good but only if we embrace the Divine Will. This is a good that god cannot do without creating us the way we are.

So to me the choice really is. Do I believe in God, and in this essentially incredible divine purpose and goodness for us creatures? Or do I disbelieve in God or rather, believe in man and by consequent undermine the very basis for any dichotomy of value?

To me, it is the choice between diamonds and feces.

 

[Neithan]

The question put to Jesus indicates the human understanding of deprivation as an evil, as suffering, relative to the good. The blind man would not suffer if human beings could not see; he suffers because he is relatively deprived of a good of human nature.

Jesus’s answer seems to say that glory is manifest by removing the deprivation and the suffering. The objection is that it’s evil to allow that deprivation and suffering, only to show the goodness in removing it. We could compare with a doctor who is in excellent health with expert skill, and allows a patient infected with some illness to be deprived of health to such an extent that they suffer greatly, and then administer the cure to show the glory of health and healing. It seems better to prevent the suffering, than to remove it later.

[For a further [revealed] example, it was better for Jesus to prevent Mary’s deprivation of grace in the first place, than to remove it later as he does for the rest of us. Mary’s Immaculate Conception does not in any way detract from the glory of God manifest in her, actually it increases it. So likewise, to permit the deprivation of grace in the rest of humanity only to restore it in glory later seems less glorious.]

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: "Jesus’s answer seems to say that glory is manifest by removing the deprivation and the suffering. "
Response: Works not glory. John 9:3 Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. Catechism of the Catholic Church

739 Because the Holy Spirit is the anointing of Christ, it is Christ who, as the head of the Body, pours out the Spirit among his members to nourish, heal, and organize them in their mutual functions, to give them life, send them to bear witness, and associate them to his self-offering to the Father and to his intercession for the whole world. Through the Church’s sacraments, Christ communicates his Holy and sanctifying Spirit to the members of his Body.

740 These “mighty works of God,” offered to believers in the sacraments of the Church, bear their fruit in the new life in Christ, according to the Spirit.

You wrote: “it was better for Jesus to prevent Mary’s deprivation of grace in the first place, than to remove it later”
Response: The stain of original sin was not removed later since it was not fitting to do so. In Ineffibilis Deus, 1854, Pope Pius IX states:

For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

 

[Neithan]

Works not glory. John 9:3 Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

I think the objection to the Contrast Defense could still apply: it is not good to allow evil only to show some good work (again the example of the firefighter and doctor). It would be better to prevent the evil.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Works not glory. John 9:3 Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

I think the objection to the Contrast Defense could still apply: it is not good to allow evil only to show some good work (again the example of the firefighter and doctor). It would be better to prevent the evil.

When the work is giving grace, it is the same reason as for all so called metaphysical evil: that man may become partakers of the divine nature.