The purpose of evil

[Qualiteee]

Can it be said that evil serves a purpose?

There are three types of evil: metaphysical evil, moral evil, physical evil

The purpose of metaphysical (or natural) evil would be, e.g., fire can not exist without the corruption of what it consumes. Or the geological forces of nature that bring so much beauty and life in this world also contribute to death e.g. tsunamis and hurricanes.
Hence, metaphysical evil is ordained by God, not as an acquisition of anything but merely as a deprivation or loss of something necessary for perfection; this is the evil spoken of in (Isaiah 45:7) “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” The interdependence of creation is thus shown.
How can Qual transfer my subjective ideal and aspiration of human intelligence with regards to a lion devouring a zebra (irrational objects) as something evil? As bloody, gruesome and detestable a sight, nevertheless, the lion must slay in order to live.

The purpose of moral evil would be to provide a sphere for the manifestation of God’s essential patience and Justice.

The purpose of physical evil would be to provide a sphere for the manifestation of the educative and corrective purpose and subsequent result of moral evil i.e. punishment for the wicked (and trial of the good).

Under these aspects, evil, seems to have the nature of good in that it pertains to the pleasure of God.

Here’s a thought; can God’s Justice exist without evil to judge? Yes; because judgement doesn’t only entail a determination of evil but also of the good.

How can we appreciate the sweetest of fruits if our palates have not comparatively discerned the bitterest of herbs?

 

[francisca]

Can it be said that evil serves a purpose?

There are three types of evil: metaphysical evil, moral evil, physical evil

The purpose of metaphysical (or natural) evil would be, e.g., fire can not exist without the corruption of what it consumes. Or the geological forces of nature that bring so much beauty and life in this world also contribute to death e.g. tsunamis and hurricanes.
Hence, metaphysical evil is ordained by God, not as an acquisition of anything but merely as a deprivation or loss of something necessary for perfection; this is the evil spoken of in (Isaiah 45:7) “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” The interdependence of creation is thus shown.
How can Qual transfer my subjective ideal and aspiration of human intelligence with regards to a lion devouring a zebra (irrational objects) as something evil? As bloody, gruesome and detestable a sight, nevertheless, the lion must slay in order to live.

The purpose of moral evil would be to provide a sphere for the manifestation of God’s essential patience and Justice.

The purpose of physical evil would be to provide a sphere for the manifestation of the educative and corrective purpose and subsequent result of moral evil i.e. punishment for the wicked (and trial of the good).

I really think that you should not learn such things you mention above. It sounds like pseudo-science, pseudo-philosophy, pseudo-religion. It could be those things the rhetorics of Socrates time used in their speeches, which Socrates oppose as being untruthful.

Under these aspects, evil, seems to have the nature of good in that it pertains to the pleasure of God.

God doesn’t need anything. God is the ultimate goodness.

Here’s a thought; can God’s Justice exist without evil to judge? Yes; because judgement doesn’t only entail a determination of evil but also of the good.

According to you therefore: God exist side by side together with evil in judgement.

Such is not Christianity. Justice and righteousness, and truthfulness are synonims. God justice doesn’t need evil. God is a just god, who is always righteous and truthful.

How can we appreciate the sweetest of fruits if our palates have not comparatively discerned the bitterest of herbs?

Should there be no evil in this world, we would be able to see and taste all the goodness and sweetness of God more clearly and easily.

 

[Qualiteee]

I didn’t say or indicate that God needs anything.

But what is the purpose of creation?

Why did God create?

Certainly not out of necessity, as the Greeks thought that their pantheon of gods had to create man because they thrived off of the prayers and worship given them; but God created why?

To the question why God should have chosen to create, when creation was in no way needful for His own perfection, St. Thomas answers that God’s object in creating is Himself; He creates in order to manifest his own goodness, power, and wisdom, and is pleased with that reflection or similitude of Himself in which the goodness of creation consists. God’s pleasure is the one supremely perfect motive for action, alike in God Himself and in His creatures; not because of any need, or inherent necessity, in the Divine nature (C. G., I, xxviii; II, xxiii), but because God is the source, centre, and object, of all existence. ~ St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[Nate13]

Evil does not need to exist. The ability for evil to exist is essential if we are to have free will though. Evil does serve a purpose but you cannot justify the necessity of evil because of the purpose it serves. In the process of working to overcome evil it can help make us stronger and thus serves a purpose, but if we were already strong evil would not occur to begin with. Thus evil is like a balancing factor. The facts that our actions have consequences is the beauty of God’s mercy.

 

[MAV0524]

The way I understand what the church believes is the evil is the absence of good.

Good does not need evil to be good.

A good analogy is light vs. darkness. Darkness (evil) is absence of light (good), but light (good) is not absence of darkness (evil).

Like light, good is it’s own source and not dependent on evil

 

[francisca]

The way I understand what the church believes is the evil is the absence of good.

Good does not need evil to be good.

A good analogy is light vs. darkness. Darkness (evil) is absence of light (good), but light (good) is not absence of darkness (evil).

Like light, good is it’s own source and not dependent on evil

 

[VonDerTann]

Qualiteee, I’m sorry, I think your assumptions are invalid.

Now, you write:

“There are three types of evil: metaphysical evil, moral evil, physical evil.”
–There are? I don’t agree. Evil is…evil. You have not convinced me that there are any real differences.
–“Physical evil?” Can you name any single item which is by nature evil? An item may be a means to an evil act, but can a thing be said to be evil? Maybe. Maybe not.

“…fire can not exist without the corruption of what it consumes. Or the geological forces of nature that bring so much beauty and life in this world also contribute to death e.g. tsunamis and hurricanes.”
–Fire is not evil. Nor is a hurricane. Fire can heat your home. A hurricane is an event, but it is not per se "evil,"any more than a bad event (stubbing your toe?) is evil. A hurricane is not evil, it merely IS.

“As bloody, gruesome and detestable a sight, nevertheless, the lion must slay in order to live.”
–This militates against such an act being evil.

I think what I find most problematic about your post is that it posits that evil (like sin) is everywhere, including places where it isn’t. There is evil in the world, but I’d start with the proposition that evil is not generally found in concrete things but in the absence of good or in the intent of an action. Some acts are merely morally neutral and, if not good, are at least not evil.

 

[Qualiteee]

Qualiteee, I’m sorry, I think your assumptions are invalid.

Now, you write:

“There are three types of evil: metaphysical evil, moral evil, physical evil.”
–There are? I don’t agree. Evil is…evil. You have not convinced me that there are any real differences.
–“Physical evil?” Can you name any single item which is by nature evil? An item may be a means to an evil act, but can a thing be said to be evil? Maybe. Maybe not.

“…fire can not exist without the corruption of what it consumes. Or the geological forces of nature that bring so much beauty and life in this world also contribute to death e.g. tsunamis and hurricanes.”
–Fire is not evil. Nor is a hurricane. Fire can heat your home. A hurricane is an event, but it is not per se "evil,"any more than a bad event (stubbing your toe?) is evil. A hurricane is not evil, it merely IS.

“As bloody, gruesome and detestable a sight, nevertheless, the lion must slay in order to live.”
–This militates against such an act being evil.

I think what I find most problematic about your post is that it posits that evil (like sin) is everywhere, including places where it isn’t. There is evil in the world, but I’d start with the proposition that evil is not generally found in concrete things but in the absence of good or in the intent of an action. Some acts are merely morally neutral and, if not good, are at least not evil.

They’re not my assumptions. The 3 “types” of evil is in complete accord with Catholic theology. I actually received alot of what I said from St.Thomas Aquinas.

And as a Catholic you should know this and acknowledge the 3 kinds of evil. That is, unless if you’re one of those, like the evangelicals that box all sin in together i.e. “sin is sin is sin”, while completely denying both the scripture and logic to say that there is most certainly a differentiation of sin based upon the level of severity and the gravity thereof.

Study “Evil”…

newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

 

[VonDerTann]

I’m sorry, Qualiteee, your last post does not edify anything – and is actually insulting, candidly.

Now, you’ve provided a link to a Catholic encyclopedia…but when I read the link, I notice 2 items:

1. Your earlier post appears to be a cut-down paraprasing of the article, but…
2. You changed enought in your original post to change the meaning of the article completely.

For example, the article does not say, “there are 3 types of evil,” as you do (as if there are only 3 kinds, and we are compelled to agree). In fact, it says that evil can be observed to be of three general kinds, and illustrations are provided.

Now, nothing else in your first post is anything remotely like the actual text of the link.

The article also never says, for example, that fire is evil, or that a hurricane is evil, or anything else your post says.

So really what you’ve done is insist that I agree not with the article – but instead with what you subjectively decide the article means.

Then, you say that “as a Catholic you should know this,” as if my questioning you somehow makes my Catholicism deficient.

You also demand that I “acknowledge the 3 kinds of evil,” once again suggesting that my reasoning is defective…when what I have done is instead question your own “reasoning” (since there is none; you’re just paraphrasing an article).

You are rather insulting when you suggest that I may be “one of those, like the evangelicals that box all sin in together i.e. “sin is sin is sin”, while completely denying both the scripture and logic to say that there is most certainly a differentiation of sin based upon the level of severity and the gravity thereof.”

You then insist that I need to “study evil.”

I have…and I would respectfully posit for you that “studying evil” should be more than paraphrasing and “dumbing down” an encycopedia entry – which is really all you have done.

Now, as for “studying evil,” most Catholics know it when they see it.

Do you? Or do you need an encyclopedia to show you what it is? (I don’t).

-VdT

 

[John21652]

They’re not my assumptions. The 3 “types” of evil is in complete accord with Catholic theology. I actually received alot of what I said from St.Thomas Aquinas.

And as a Catholic you should know this and acknowledge the 3 kinds of evil. That is, unless if you’re one of those, like the evangelicals that box all sin in together i.e. “sin is sin is sin”, while completely denying both the scripture and logic to say that there is most certainly a differentiation of sin based upon the level of severity and the gravity thereof.

Study “Evil”…

newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

The notion of evil as described in that New Advent article to which you linked is an incredibly wide one.

Take this quote -

Physical evil includes all that causes harm to man, whether by bodily injury, by thwarting his natural desires, or by preventing the full development of his powers, either in the order of nature directly, or through the various social conditions under which mankind naturally exists.

The only aspect of that paragraph which would be pertinent to a discussion of evil in a moral sense is the last sentence which refers o the “social conditions under which mankind naturally exists” and even that is open to interpretation. As for the physical eveil which harms mankind through “…the order of nature directly…” nature is ‘moral’ in the sense that it was created by God. It is ‘amoral’ in the sense that it operates according to certain physical ‘laws’ that are in fact a part of nature and also attributable to God’s creation, but its operation is not evil. I do not think it appropriate to think that nature can be describes as “evil” unless one begins to discuss the consequences of nature’s impersonal acts. A rock falling on a man’s head as he walks under a mountain is neither moral, nor evil. A man swamped by a volcanoes eruptions has had his natural desires thwarted, but not because of any intent on the part of the volcano. perhaps the actions of the man which put him under the cliff where the rock fell and near the volcano when it erupted should be examined in a moral sense to ascertain the rightness and wongness of his actions. Otherwise, we are ascribing to God’s creation the notion of “evil” and by association we are ascribing evil to God’s nature.

That part of the article which is pertinent to a discussion on evil is this -

By moral evil are understood the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation.

On that note, I would posit that evil exists only in the minds and hearts of mankind. It is the “deviation of human volition…from the moral order…” and withyout that deviation evil cannot exist.

The article then says this about metaphysical eveil -

Metaphysical evil is the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world.

I would further posit that the only component part of the natural world which can deviate from the moral order is mankind himself.

Therefore, to amswer the OP directly, the purpose of evil is to further the interests of those parts of mankind who deviate from the moral order at the expense of others.

 

[Qualiteee]

I’m sorry, Qualiteee, your last post does not edify anything – and is actually insulting, candidly.

Now, you’ve provided a link to a Catholic encyclopedia…but when I read the link, I notice 2 items:

1. Your earlier post appears to be a cut-down paraprasing of the article, but…
2. You changed enought in your original post to change the meaning of the article completely.

For example, the article does not say, “there are 3 types of evil,” as you do (as if there are only 3 kinds, and we are compelled to agree). In fact, it says that evil can be observed to be of three general kinds, and illustrations are provided.

Now, nothing else in your first post is anything remotely like the actual text of the link.

The article also never says, for example, that fire is evil, or that a hurricane is evil, or anything else your post says.

So really what you’ve done is insist that I agree not with the article – but instead with what you subjectively decide the article means.

Then, you say that “as a Catholic you should know this,” as if my questioning you somehow makes my Catholicism deficient.

You also demand that I “acknowledge the 3 kinds of evil,” once again suggesting that my reasoning is defective…when what I have done is instead question your own “reasoning” (since there is none; you’re just paraphrasing an article).

You are rather insulting when you suggest that I may be “one of those, like the evangelicals that box all sin in together i.e. “sin is sin is sin”, while completely denying both the scripture and logic to say that there is most certainly a differentiation of sin based upon the level of severity and the gravity thereof.”

You then insist that I need to “study evil.”

I have…and I would respectfully posit for you that “studying evil” should be more than paraphrasing and “dumbing down” an encycopedia entry – which is really all you have done.

Now, as for “studying evil,” most Catholics know it when they see it.

Do you? Or do you need an encyclopedia to show you what it is? (I don’t).

-VdT

“the corruption of material objects in nature is ordained by Him…” Catholic Encyclopedia

Fire could not exist without the corruption of what it consumes. That’s all I said. And according to St. Thomas Aquinas, the classification of fire would be under “metaphysical evil”

You seem to have a disdain for Qual; why, I don’t know yet.

Furthermore, why are you a bit billigerent and hostile toward “an encyclopedia”?? I proudly study from the Catechism, Catholic Encyclopedia etc…instead of, yes, merely relying on my feelings or emotions to tell me what evil is.