EVIL AND OMNIPOTENCE J.L.MACKIE

INTRO AND ADEQUATE SOLUTIONS Explain why Mackie believes that God being omnipotent, omnibenevolent and evil existing cannot work together. An omnibenevolent God would want to stop evil and an omnipotent God would have the power to do so, yet evil still exists. What two additional premises to the argument does Mackie add in paragraph 4? That good should seek to eliminate evil. That an omnipotent good thing should completely eliminate evil. Whose theodicy mentioned the idea that evil was merely the ‘privation of good’? Augustine Why would many people disagree with the idea that evil is only an illusion – it may help to give an example to help explain this one. Events like the Holocaust seem difficult to reconcile with the idea that evil is just a matter of perception. From Mackie’s arguments, what can you tell about what his position on belief in God is? (is he a theist, an atheist or an agnostic?) He is an atheist. How is the essay itself structured? Mackie presents solutions and then offers his criticisms of them.

1 – EVIL IS A NECESSARY COUNTERPART TO GOOD How do theists argue that evil is a necessary counterpart to good? We need it to be able to recognise what good is. How does Mackie believe that this solution limits God’s omnipotence? If God could only create good by creating evil at the same time then there is something that he cannot do, ie create good without also creating evil. What did Descartes think about God’s omnipotence? (see notes on Paradox of the Stone) It meant that God could do the logically impossible, eg make 2+2=5 What did Aquinas think about God’s omnipotence? It meant that God could only do what was logically possible. What is the problem with restricting God with logical (think about who created logic)? If God created the universe out of nothing then he must have also created logic. It therefore makes no sense that God would then be bound by something that he himself created. What does ex-nihilio mean and where would you refer to it in your essays? Out of nothing – refer to it when talking about God being bound by logic – see above.

1 – EVIL IS A NECESSARY COUNTERPART TO GOOD Mackie argues that if evil and good are necessary counterparts, they only exist relative to each other. What is the problem with saying that God’s goodness is only relative to something evil? This reduces God’s goodness from being perfect to just ‘better than evil’. What example/s could you use to explain the idea that some things appear to have necessary counterparts but they can also exist absolutely? Someone can be a giant in relation to something significantly smaller than them (relative) and someone can also be a giant if they are over 6ft 7” (absolute). How does Mackie argue that ‘great and small’ do not work in the same way as evil and good (hint, think back to the premises he added in paragraph 4) They do not work to eliminate each other. Mackie says that even if we need evil to highlight what good is, we would only need a small amount – how does this fit with the amount of evil that we actually have? This does not match with the large amount of evil that currently exists in the world today.

2 – EVIL IS NECESSARY AS A MEANS TO GOOD Give an example of how you could explain that good can only be caused by evil. You can only show forgiveness (good) if someone has wronged you (evil). How does saying good can only be caused through evil limit God’s omnipotence? Because if good can only come about through evil then there is something that God cannot do, ie bring about good without evil. What is the problem with restricting God by causal laws? If God created the universe out of nothing then he must have also created all causal laws. It therefore makes no sense that God would then be bound by something that he himself created.

3 – THE UNIVERSE IS BETTER FOR HAVING EVIL IN IT Which theodicy spoke of evil making us better people? Ireneaus’. Which do theists consider to be more important, first or second order goods? Second order. Give an example of a second order good Compassion, courage, sympathy. Give an example of a second order evil Cruelty, malice.

3 – THE UNIVERSE IS BETTER FOR HAVING EVIL IN IT How do theists argue that first order evil is necessary for second order good? It is only through experience of misery that we can learn how to be compassionate and sympathetic. What is Mackie’s criticism of the idea of second order goods being more important than first order ones and what other part of the course can we link this to? (this is a topic that you have studied in ethics) This links John Stuart Mill’s assessment of higher and lower pleasures in Utilitarianism. Mill argued that higher pleasures such as reading were better than lower pleasures such as drinking. He was criticised for this not being universally accepted in the same way Mackie criticises the idea that not everyone agrees that second order goods such as sympathy are more important than first order goods such as pleasure. What is Mackie’s second criticism of changing our understanding of God? That God is not all loving as he intentionally allows us to suffer in pursuit of becoming better people. What does Mackie consider to be the fatal criticism of this solution? That second order goods lead to second order evils. Even if second order evils then lead to third order goods such as free will, it also leads to the creation of third order evils such as torture. This potentially could be an infinite regress of good and evils.

4 – EVIL IS DUE TO HUMAN FREE WILL What do theists believe that God’s two choices were in designing humans? Robots who only ever did good or free willed creatures who were sometimes evil. What does Mackie believe was God’s third choice in designing humans? To make free willed creatures that would only choose to be good. What is it called when we are presented with only two options to choose between when in fact there is a third? The Fallacy of the False Dilemma. Why does Mackie believe that God is ultimately responsible for evil, even though moral evil is the exercise of human’s free will? (hint – think about character) He argues that are actions are the result of our character. As our characters supposedly come from God, he is then responsible for evil as he choose to give some people an ‘evil character’,

4 – EVIL IS DUE TO HUMAN FREE WILL What is the Paradox of Omnipotence? The debate about whether God can create a free willed creature that he can subsequently control. What does Mackie compare to God’s omnipotence to try and explain his point? The Sovereignty of Parliament How do theists attempt to solve the Paradox of Omnipotence? Theists say that the Paradox of Omnipotence because it is all about time (God doing something now, ie making the creature and then God acting in the future, ie God not being able to control the creature). Theists argue that God is outside of time and space and so the Paradox itself is incoherent. Why does Mackie think that the theist’s response to the Paradox of Omnipotence is flawed? Mackie’s response to the theists criticism is that a God who ‘acts’ eg creates the world is somehow connected to time and space and so the theists attack on the Paradox of Omnipotence is unsuccessful. Additionally, making God ‘timeless’ does nothing to address the issue of free will or the problem of an omnipotent God binding himself to the causal and logical laws he himself created.