The "Problem of Good"

[goout]

Oh, please. These are obviously metaphysical statememts about the nature of reality. It can only be a semantics issue if you don’t believe in objective good and evil, in which case the problem of evil isn’t real (as there is no good or evil) and is itself just a semantics game.

And that’s why I put “good” and “evil” in quotation marks for PC, to avoid being dogmatic and too specific and confrontational.

 

[Wesrock]

I do not know whether God is personal or not, but your second statement is not necessarily implied by the first.

I am grateful to God for existence, and I question some concepts of God who try to claim, inconsistently, that God is responsible for good but not evil.

I am consistent because I affirm that God is responsible for everything: both good and bad. I accept it all (mostly because I don’t have a choice LOL). What I don’t accept are insufficient explanations.

How is the explanation insufficient? God gives existence. This is good. He allows ‘partial giving’ of it and deprivations of it to occur, which is where evil comes in. Not as some malevolent force, but just as a lack of being.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

What is a triangle? A closed shape with three straight sides.
What is a closed shape with three straight sides? A triangle.

Such statements are not meaningless. They are things known about a subject through itself, not through another or any external or middle term. Ultimately, some truths are known in this way, through the thing itself and not by another.

The terms do not cancel each other out. That God is good provides insight into the essence and, furthermore, into the nature of all being.

You’re basically saying “a triangle is a triangle.” Since we both can access the essence of a triangle with our minds, no problem. We may talk past each other if you’re thinking about right triangles and I’m thinking about Isosceles triangles, but we can clarify by being more specific.

Saying “God is God” is problematic because we cannot access God’s essence with our minds the same way.

We’re always going to be talking past each other because reason cannot help us be more specific. Instead of rational discussion, it will devolve into violence, which is exactly what has happened throughout history.

 

[Wesrock]

You’re basically saying “a triangle is a triangle.” Since we both can access the essence of a triangle with our minds, no problem. We may talk past each other if you’re thinking about right triangles and I’m thinking about Isosceles triangles, but we can clarify by being more specific.

Saying “God is God” is problematic because we cannot access God’s essence with our minds the same way.

We’re always going to be talking past each other because reason cannot help us be more specific. Instead of rational discussion, it will devolve into violence, which is exactly what has happened throughout history.

I always feel like this objection approaches the argument from the wrong way, working from God to goodness. That is not how it works. It works from creation to a necessary first being, simple, whose essence is the same as its existence.

It would be better to say, “this ultimate reality is what we call God.” This ultimate reality’s existence is not distinguishable from its essence. There’s not a meaningless tautology here.

That God’s essence can’t be firmly grasped doesn’t prevent all meaningful discussion, even if it’s limited in scope.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

How is the explanation insufficient? God gives existence. This is good. He allows ‘partial giving’ of it and deprivations of it to occur, which is where evil comes in. Not as some malevolent force, but just as a lack of being.

The problem with this explanation is that the metaphysics would seem to imply our universe is infinitely evil.

Think for a moment of all that doesn’t exist but could. Our universe lacks that.

There are only 7.5 billion of us. There is a finite amount of matter/anti-matter/energy. God failed to create an infinite and absolutely perfect universe, and so his creation is endlessly evil. It lacks goodness both in infinite scope and quality. He could have created a universe so perfect and so endless it would be a mirror image of himself, causing an endless cascade of reflection stretching out into infinity, like two mirrors facing each other. Instead we have this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Wesrock]

God could not create another being like himself. Nor does God plus the universe amount to anything greater than God himself, no matter how vast it is. And evil is a deprivation in an existent being compared to its essence. Evil exists only in the deprivations. But you can only have deprivations in something that is. There can’t be a deprivation in nothing. The deprivations are finite, as all existent, contingent beings are finite.

 

[goout]

The problem with this explanation is that the metaphysics would seem to imply our universe is infinitely evil.

Think for a moment of all that doesn’t exist but could. Our universe lacks that.

There are only 7.5 billion of us. There is a finite amount of matter/anti-matter/energy. God failed to create an infinite and absolutely perfect universe, and so his creation is endlessly evil. It lacks goodness both in infinite scope and quality. He could have created a universe so perfect and so endless it would be a mirror image of himself, causing an endless cascade of reflection stretching out into infinity, like two mirrors facing each other. Instead we have this:

God could have. God is able. So he deserves to be held accountable?
It does not work.

Do you agree that God is a person, and you are a person?
So then God is not an accounting trick, he is one half of a relationship.
You are the other half, and that is true for all of us as individuals, and in communion with one another.

You hold God solely accountable for the voids and take the good for granted. In effect, you see God as a giant vending machine who is defective, rather than a being and person in relationship with us.

 

[e_c]

God causes goods which become deficient or act deficiently. To cause the one is not the same as to cause the other.

Any creature is necessarily not as good as God.

There ya go.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

God could not create another being like himself.

Could he have created a universe so perfect that it approaches his perfection into infinity, but never quite reaches it?

Nor does God plus the universe amount to anything greater than God himself, no matter how vast it is. And evil is a deprivation in an existent being compared to its essence. Evil exists only in the deprivations. But you can only have deprivations in something that is. There can’t be a deprivation in nothing. The deprivations are finite, as all existent, contingent beings are finite.

The universe exists. It is deprived of perfection and endlessness. It would therefore seem to be infinitely evil, since the deprivations are infinite (according to your metaphysics). God is directly responsible for it: none of us had anything to do with it.

 

[goout]

God causes goods which become deficient or act deficiently. To cause the one is not the same as to cause the other.

Any creature is necessarily not as good as God.

There ya go.

That’s just way too simple it can’t be true of God.

Simplicity…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

God could have. God is able. So he deserves to be held accountable?
It does not work.

We are held accountable for sins of omission correct? If we are able, if we should: then we must. God is able, should he not have created a perfect and infinite universe? Why not?

Do you agree that God is a person, and you are a person?
So then God is not an accounting trick, he is one half of a relationship.
You are the other half, and that is true for all of us as individuals, and in communion with one another.

You hold God solely accountable for the voids and take the good for granted. In effect, you see God as a giant vending machine who is defective, rather than a being and person in relationship with us.

I do not agree that God is a person. I have repeatedly acknowledged my gratitude to God for existence. You seem to have ignored this in an attempt to corral me into a rodeo with your one trick pony.

 

[e_c]

Furthermore, creating a deficient being or causing a deficient act is not the same as causing that thing’s deficiency.

 

[e_c]

newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

See questions 48 and 49.

One must make the right distinctions for this stuff, or else it will never be clear.

 

[Wesrock]

Could he have created a universe so perfect that it approaches his perfection into infinity, but never quite reaches it?

The universe exists. It is deprived of perfection and endlessness. It would therefore seem to be infinitely evil, since the deprivations are infinite (according to your metaphysics). God is directly responsible for it: none of us had anything to do with it.

Well, given that 0.999~ = 1, you can’t really have such a situation. Nor, in God’s case, could there be anything finite that could be close to infinite. God cannot create another being like himself because of the law of identity. Two beings in which their essence is existence would be indistinguishable from each other, and if there is no difference, they are in fact the same being.

The universe is not deprived of infinity. Even assuming the universe had its own essence (which may not be the case), a deprivation would only exist if the actuality failed to instantiate its essence perfectly. That is, evil is the difference between actuality and its essence, not the difference between God and its essence (or actual instantiation).

A cat with one eye has a deprivation because it should have two eyes. It doesn’t have a deprivation because it’s not God.

 

[Wesrock]

We are held accountable for sins of omission correct? If we are able, if we should: then we must. God is able, should he not have created a perfect and infinite universe? Why not?

“Sins of ommission” are choices in which we fail to live up to our essential ends as rational animals. We choose a deprivation in our instantiation of our essence.

God’s essence is existence. Are you alleging there is such a deprivation in God? That his existence is not the same as his essence? That he is not fully actual? That he is a composite of potential and actuality?

Edit: I’m going to try to focus on work for the next half of my day.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The following is a response to Wesrock and e_c:

I read through sections 48 and 49 again in an attempt to better understand my problem.

I answer that, As was said above (Article 1), evil imports the absence of good. But not every absence of good is evil. For absence of good can be taken in a privative and in a negative sense. Absence of good, taken negatively, is not evil; otherwise, it would follow that what does not exist is evil, and also that everything would be evil, through not having the good belonging to something else; for instance, a man would be evil who had not the swiftness of the roe, or the strength of a lion. But the absence of good, taken in a privative sense, is an evil; as, for instance, the privation of sight is called blindness.
Now, the subject of privation and of form is one and the same–viz. being in potentiality, whether it be being in absolute potentiality, as primary matter, which is the subject of the substantial form, and of privation of the opposite form; or whether it be being in relative potentiality, and absolute actuality, as in the case of a transparent body, which is the subject both of darkness and light. It is, however, manifest that the form which makes a thing actual is a perfection and a good; and thus every actual being is a good; and likewise every potential being, as such, is a good, as having a relation to good. For as it has being in potentiality, so has it goodness in potentiality. Therefore, the subject of evil is good.

My problem here is that I don’t see a way to distinguish what Aquinas calls “privation” from “potentiality.” How would we know, unless we knew what the universe really should be like? Why should we assume the universe is as it should be rather than utterly infinite and perfect?

Regarding the “sin of ommission,” I am alleging that there is both deprivation and “potentiality” in the universe, and I cannot distinguish them. Aquinas says:

I answer that, As appears from what was said (1), the evil which consists in the defect of action is always caused by the defect of the agent. But in God there is no defect, but the highest perfection, as was shown above (Question 4, Article 1). Hence, the evil which consists in defect of action, or which is caused by defect of the agent, is not reduced to God as to its cause.

But the evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause. And this appears as regards both natural things and voluntary things. For it was said (1) that some agent inasmuch as it produces by its power a form to which follows corruption and defect, causes by its power that corruption and defect. But it is manifest that the form which God chiefly intends in things created is the good of the order of the universe. Now, the order of the universe requires, as was said above (22, 2, ad 2; 48, 2), that there should be some things that can, and do sometimes, fail. And thus God, by causing in things the good of the order of the universe, consequently and as it were by accident, causes the corruptions of things, according to 1 Samuel 2:6: “The Lord killeth and maketh alive.” But when we read that “God hath not made death” (Wisdom 1:13), the sense is that God does not will death for its own sake. Nevertheless the order of justice belongs to the order of the universe; and this requires that penalty should be dealt out to sinners. And so God is the author of the evil which is penalty, but not of the evil which is fault, by reason of what is said above.

To me it seems like Aquinas is saying "all defects in the universe that are the result of moral evil are not God’s fault, because God cannot have faults. However, he is the author of other evils by accident because 1) they’re necessary and 2) they’re a punishment for sinners.

Reason #1 seems wrong headed because if any moral evil is necessary, then we’re not truly free and if we’re not free we can’t be morally responsible. Reason #2 has been shown to be wrong by scientific discovery: death and chaos predate human beings and cannot be the “punishment” for sin, unless it is some kind of pre-punishment.

Here’s a follow-up question: can an evil be inevitable and yet unnecessary?

Also: how can we distinguish “potential good” from “deprivation of being?”

Regardless of all this, I think I have shown sufficiently that the “problem of good” is incoherent while the “problem of evil” has been bothering people for thousands of years.

 

[John_Martin]

The following is a response to Wesrock and e_c:
I read through sections 48 and 49 again in an attempt to better understand my problem.

My problem here is that I don’t see a way to distinguish what Aquinas calls “privation” from “potentiality.” How would we know, unless we knew what the universe really should be like? Why should we assume the universe is as it should be rather than utterly infinite and perfect?
.

When things are in movement toward an end of completion, they are in potentiality to that end, meaning that they are no yet matching their “form”, which is the state of being at rest in their end (or, in satisfaction of their form in actual objective being)
The “evil” is reality does not match form (yet), and so it moves in that direction, toward the “perfect good” of equaling the form or manifesting the form.

If you are that " subject of evil (who) is good", it could be thought of in this way.

If you have an apprehension of how good it would be to be consuming ice cream, your appetite moves your passions and will, and your body heads to the store to purchase some. The apprehension of “yourself consuming it” is the “form” of a “perfection of yourself”. The evil is that you do not yet experience yourself subjectively (in real material life and being) in the state of the operation of consuming, which would be satisfaction and perfection of the form of your apprehension. So you, heading to the store, to enable actualizing the perfection, moving toward perfection, are subject at the moment to the “evil” of not consuming ice cream, not experiencing the form to which you are heading, and not yet satisfied.

And if a train wreck at the crossing prevents you from reaching the store, that is privation, yet you remain good while suffering the evil of non-satisfaction of the form.

 

[goout]

When things are in movement toward an end of completion, they are in potentiality to that end, meaning that they are no yet matching their “form”, which is the state of being at rest in their end (or, in satisfaction of their form in actual objective being)
The “evil” is reality does not match form (yet), and so it moves in that direction, toward the “perfect good” of equaling the form or manifesting the form.

If you are that " subject of evil (who) is good", it could be thought of in this way.

If you have an apprehension of how good it would be to be consuming ice cream, your appetite moves your passions and will, and your body heads to the store to purchase some. The apprehension of “yourself consuming it” is the “form” of a “perfection of yourself”. The evil is that you do not yet experience yourself subjectively (in real material life and being) in the state of the operation of consuming, which would be satisfaction and perfection of the form of your apprehension. So you, heading to the store, to enable actualizing the perfection, moving toward perfection, are subject at the moment to the “evil” of not consuming ice cream, not experiencing the form to which you are heading, and not yet satisfied.

And if a train wreck at the crossing prevents you from reaching the store, that is privation, yet you remain good while suffering the evil of non-satisfaction of the form.

And this is beautiful in that it sees life in a holistic sense.
It is not static in deprivation, it sees the good, hopes for the good, pursues it. Even when deprived it is realizing the good.

 

[Gorgias]

We are held accountable for sins of omission correct? If we are able, if we should: then we must.

You are able to believe in the faith of the Catholic Church. After all, you have the capacity to believe. If you are able, then you must.

But… I don’t really agree with your premise – it’s faulty. Not everything that I am able to do (but do not do) is a ‘sin of omission.’ I’m able to ride my bike today; I’m able to cook steak rather than chicken; I’m able to say ‘hi’ to the person next to me. Not doing so doesn’t constitute a ‘sin’.

God is able, should he not have created a perfect and infinite universe? Why not?

No. Again, ‘possibility’ doesn’t always equate to ‘necessity’ or even ‘sin of omission’. Your logical error here is two-fold: first, it misconstrues ‘sin’, and second, it presumes to have greater knowledge than God does (that is, it presumes that since you don’t have an answer/justification, then neither does God).

I do not agree that God is a person.

That depends on how you define ‘person.’

Remember… we’re not working off a man-on-the-street definition of ‘person’, we’re dealing with a Greek concept which has been brought into the arena of theology/philosophy.