The problem of natural evil - not a problem in Eden?

[RickD]

Paul, natural evil is a term. Maybe this will help you understand the difference between natural and moral evil:
http://rationalfaithonline.com/what-is- ... oral-evil/

Maybe evil can be described as "a lack of something". See if "natural evil" makes sense in that light.

[PaulSacramento]

Paul, natural evil is a term. Maybe this will help you understand the difference between natural and moral evil:
http://rationalfaithonline.com/what-is- ... oral-evil/

Maybe evil can be described as "a lack of something". See if "natural evil" makes sense in that light.

I understand Rick but still disagree with the term because of this:

Similarly, in order to have evil, there has to be a standard of good…which is how things are supposed to be.

That quote from your linked article states, IMO, the very issue of why natural "evil" doesn't exist:
Natural events ARE what they are SUPPOSE to be.
We may have issues with the destruction left by a hurricane, but our issues are NOT the hurricane and its existence, BUT they it caused destruction.
How can a moose running into a car that leads to someone getting killed be viewed as evil or even an act of evil?

Just because suffering happened due to that event, it automatically makes the event "evil" ?

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
I understand Rick but still disagree with the term because of this:
Similarly, in order to have evil, there has to be a standard of good…which is how things are supposed to be.


That quote from your linked article states, IMO, the very issue of why natural "evil" doesn't exist:
Natural events ARE what they are SUPPOSE to be.
We may have issues with the destruction left by a hurricane, but our issues are NOT the hurricane and its existence, BUT they it caused destruction.
How can a moose running into a car that leads to someone getting killed be viewed as evil or even an act of evil?

Actually Paul, I looked back at the article I linked, and I'm going to agree with you on this point. The author's point that natural evil being called evil because hurricanes, earthquakes, runaway moose, etc. aren't what they're supposed to be is wrong IMO too. I didn't even notice that initially.

[Jac3510]

I understand Rick but still disagree with the term because of this:

Similarly, in order to have evil, there has to be a standard of good…which is how things are supposed to be.

That quote from your linked article states, IMO, the very issue of why natural "evil" doesn't exist:
Natural events ARE what they are SUPPOSE to be.
We may have issues with the destruction left by a hurricane, but our issues are NOT the hurricane and its existence, BUT they it caused destruction.
How can a moose running into a car that leads to someone getting killed be viewed as evil or even an act of evil?

Just because suffering happened due to that event, it automatically makes the event "evil" ?

Okay, I haven't read the article you are quoting from, but the clause "standard of good...which is how things are supposed to be" can be understood in two senses, one right and one very wrong. If by "standard" you are referring to an ethical standard, and "supposed to be" refers to the way one ought to behave; or alternatively if the clause in part or whole refers to whether or not God intended some phenomena to exist at all (e.g., hurricanes and tornadoes), then you (or the article, or both) have misunderstood the term "natural evil." The way to understand that so that it is correct would be to take "standard of good" to refer to that which exists by proper nature--so think of "standard" analogous to the "standard" features of a car--and therefore things are "supposed" to be that way (e.g., the "car" "ought to have" these "features").

For instance, suppose you see a three legged dog. Maybe it is three legged because it lost a leg in a fight. Or maybe it had a birth defect. In any case, the point is that dog's are "supposed" to have four legs. This dog has been deprived of a leg. The dog isn't violating an ethical standard by only having three legs, but by their nature, all dogs have four legs. That is just part of what it means to be a dog. Therefore, if a dog does not have a fourth leg, then it has been deprived of what we might call a standard feature. It has suffered a privation. That privation is an evil, because evil, by definition, is the privation of a good.

That's why I asked you before your definition of good--a question which I notice you didn't answer. It is "good" for the dog to have four legs, and it is good because "four-leggedness" is a property of "dogness" that dogs actualize. We say, "Dogs are 'supposed to have' four legs," so if we see a three legged dog, we see that something is wrong with that dog. Put in more philosophical terms, all dogs--in virtue of their being dogs--have the ultimate capacity of having four legs. That is a capacity (or potentiality, to use still more classical language) is actualized (or perfected, to again use classical language) when the dog gets all four legs.

All things--from living to non-living--have these features. Circles are supposed to have all their points equidistant from the center. When a circle doesn't exemplify that, it is to that degree deprived of that good. Eyes have the ability to see. When they lose that ability, they have been deprived of that good. Animals have the capacity to live, so when they are killed, they have been deprived of the good of life. I have the capacity to act rationally, so when I act irrationality, I have deprived my act of that good.

If you can't see it here, goodness is directly related to what a thing is supposed to be by nature -- that is, what its intrinsic capacities are. Before I was born, I had the capacity to see. When I was born, I opened my eyes for the first time and then actualized (perfected) that ability to see. Watch this carefully: before I was born, I existed in such a way that I had the potential to see. Now that I have my eyes open, I exist in such a way that I ACTUALLY see. That capacity has been actualized or perfected, and that actualization or perfection is good. I exist "more fully" in a way now than I did before I was born. More of my ultimate capacities have been actualized. If, though, I am deprived of sight, I am robbed of a good, and that privation is called an evil. The bottom line then: blindness evil, and not just in me. Blindness in anything that is supposed to be able to see is evil. Blindness in rocks is not evil, because they do not have the natural capacity to see.

Moral evil, then, is just a subset of evil generally. That is to say what I said originally: all immorality is evil because all immorality is a deprivation of a goodness in any given moral act; but not all evil is immoral, because some deprivations are not deprivations of morality.

And all of THAT takes me to my previous point that if you deny the existence of natural evil, then the only way to understand moral evil (a term which becomes redundant) is if you appeal to the divine command theory, and if you do THAT, you get impaled by Euthyphro and effectively end up denying the God of theism.

Like I said . . . deep stuff.

[PaulSacramento]

Jac,
You seem to be stating that evil is anything outside a "standard of Good".
Honestly, I am not sure I can agree with that.
Evil seems to me to be a deliberate and conscious act that is malicious.
A person that falls down the stairs because they tripped on a toy that their 3 year old forgot to put away and breaks their leg and ends up losing their leg to an infection from that break, did NOT lose their leg to any sort of evil IMO, do you disagree?

[RickD]

Jac,
You seem to be stating that evil is anything outside a "standard of Good".
Honestly, I am not sure I can agree with that.
Evil seems to me to be a deliberate and conscious act that is malicious.
A person that falls down the stairs because they tripped on a toy that their 3 year old forgot to put away and breaks their leg and ends up losing their leg to an infection from that break, did NOT lose their leg to any sort of evil IMO, do you disagree?

Paul, "evil" isn't always that narrowly defined in the bible.

From:http://carm.org/does-god-create-evil

First of all, the Hebrew word for evil, "rah," is used in many different ways in the Bible. In the KJV Bible it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as "evil." The other 232 times it is translated as "wicked," "bad," "hurt," "harm," "ill," "sorrow," "mischief," "displeased," "adversity," "affliction," "trouble," "calamity," "grievous," "misery," and "trouble." So we can see that the word does not require that it be translated as "evil." This is why different Bibles translate this verse differently. It is translated as "calamity" by the NASB and NKJV; "disaster" by the NIV; and "woe" by the RSV.

Evil in "Natural Evil", isn't the same as evil in "Moral evil".

[jlay]

Yep, Paul you seem either confused, which is OK, OE unwilling to make the distinctions regarding 'moral' that Jac spent a good bit of time laying the groundwork on. Whether u agree or not is one thing, but using the term in a way that isn't consistent with jacs explanation, to dispute his argument is another.

[Jac3510]

Jac,
You seem to be stating that evil is anything outside a "standard of Good".

Again, it depends on how you are using the phrase "standard of good." Your term "outside" makes me think you still aren't seeing what I'm saying. What I am syaing is that evil is anything deficient of a good (where the good is intrinsic to the nature of a thing -- again, blindness is evil in humans, but not in rocks).

Honestly, I am not sure I can agree with that.

That's because you and I don't agree on what "good" means, which I said to you a long time ago. That's why I asked you the question I did that you didn't bother answering.

Evil seems to me to be a deliberate and conscious act that is malicious.

Sure, if we are only talking about moral evil, but then you're just begging the question, since the entire discussion here has been about the existence of natural evil. But worse, that's not even a good definition of moral evil. Plenty of things are morally evil that are not intended to be malicious. Homosexual intercourse, getting drunk (or high or any other such thing), denying the existence of God, etc.

A person that falls down the stairs because they tripped on a toy that their 3 year old forgot to put away and breaks their leg and ends up losing their leg to an infection from that break, did NOT lose their leg to any sort of evil IMO, do you disagree?

Depends on how technical you want to get. Suppose the leg had to be amputated due infection. Was it the infection or the amputation that caused the loss of the leg? You can say either one and be correct. It just depends on how strictly you are speaking.

To your question, then, the toy being left out was not evil, nor was the falling down the stairs. The loss of the leg is evil, because it deprives the person of the good of having both his legs, and with that, he loses a wide range of capacities he had prior to the accident. Since evil, by definition, is the privation of good, and legs are good, then the privation of the leg is an instance of an evil. It is not moral evil, but no one claims that natural evils are moral evils. What we claim is that evil exists, and natural evils are one type of evil and moral evils are another type of evil, but that all evils have this in common: they are all the deprivation of good.

So until you grasp the definition of "good," you are going to continue to misunderstand and reject the argument. You will then be left with a divine command theory to account for the reality of moral goodness and all the difficulties that entails. You will further have to say that the word "good" when describing things in the non-moral entities (e.g., when God said creation was good, or when I tell my three year old that she did a good job when she sings a song, or any number of other things) is essentially a different word that the word "good" when describing moral behaviors (e.g., being kind). That is, if good is only a matter of morality, then since there is nothing moral about circles, then there is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" circle. We may use the word "good" or "bad," but the usages, for you, are mere equivocations--matters of convention, perhaps metaphors at best, homophones at worst. But see, I don't believe that to be true. For very fundamental reasons I've already sketched out in broad outline, I think "good" applies in a very real way to objects, and that it applies in the same way to moral behavior. All that is to say, I seem to have a much more robust view of "goodness" than you do.

In short, when I say, "Evil is the deprivation of good," I am saying a lot, because "good" is a very important and very fundamental term. It corresponds with objective reality because it reflects objective reality. It provides the basis for natural law, which is the basis for ethics. Strip goodness out of the natural universe, then there is no basis for natural law, and if there is no basis for natural law, then we have no objective basis for ethics and are forced (again) to appeal to a divine command theory on one hand or a Platonic ideal of "Moral Good" on the other. But both of those views are incompatible with Christian theism and ought to be rejected.

tl;dr - what Rick said and jlay said. Them boys be much more concise than me.

[PaulSacramento]

Guys, I do UNDERSTAND how you are defining evil and in particular natural evil.
I just don't agree.
I don't think it is correct to use the term evil in that way.
You asked my how I define good and I asked you in which context and then you said ANY ( or something like that) but we can't define good the same way in ALL contexts.
What is good for one person may not be for another, what is a good activity for the masses may not be so for the individual or vice-versa.
Good is defined by some as anything that brings well being to the individual ( or society) BUT we also know that what brings "well being" may NOT be in the best interest at all in the long run.
How would evil then apply to that?
Either something is evil or it isn't BUT if evil is based on being a "deprivation of Good" then what is evil is dependent one what is good at any given time, yes?

[RickD]

Guys, I do UNDERSTAND how you are defining evil and in particular natural evil.
I just don't agree.
I don't think it is correct to use the term evil in that way.
You asked my how I define good and I asked you in which context and then you said ANY ( or something like that) but we can't define good the same way in ALL contexts.
What is good for one person may not be for another, what is a good activity for the masses may not be so for the individual or vice-versa.
Good is defined by some as anything that brings well being to the individual ( or society) BUT we also know that what brings "well being" may NOT be in the best interest at all in the long run.
How would evil then apply to that?
Either something is evil or it isn't BUT if evil is based on being a "deprivation of Good" then what is evil is dependent one what is good at any given time, yes?

[Jac3510]

Guys, I do UNDERSTAND how you are defining evil and in particular natural evil.
I just don't agree.
I don't think it is correct to use the term evil in that way.
You asked my how I define good and I asked you in which context and then you said ANY ( or something like that) but we can't define good the same way in ALL contexts.
What is good for one person may not be for another, what is a good activity for the masses may not be so for the individual or vice-versa.
Good is defined by some as anything that brings well being to the individual ( or society) BUT we also know that what brings "well being" may NOT be in the best interest at all in the long run.
How would evil then apply to that?
Either something is evil or it isn't BUT if evil is based on being a "deprivation of Good" then what is evil is dependent one what is good at any given time, yes?

Christian: Evolution isn't true. Like time and chance can just produce all this.
Atheist: I'm sorry, but you just don't understand what evolution is. I don't care if you disagree, but I wish you would get what it is before you tell me you disagree with it.
Christian: But I DO understand it. Common descent and all that -- but look, if that's true, then why are there still monkeys? HUH?
Atheist: Ok. I can't have this conversation. You are just really confused. Silly fundie . . . [walks away convinced he is right]
Christian: Hah. You're just bailing because you can't refute my objections. I TOLD you I understood. Silly atheist. [walks away convinced he is right]

-----------------------------

Atheist: God doesn't exist. If He did, there would be evidence to prove it, and there is no such evidence at all.
Christian: Of course there is. The universe is evidence. Where did it come from?
Atheist: It didn't come from anywhere. It's just here.
Christan: You have no idea what you are saying. Contingent existence can't be its own explanation.
Atheist: I understand that completely. You're saying the universe needs a cause, but that's silly, because if the universe needs a cause--which you presume to be God--then so does God! So what caused GOD to exist?
Christian: Ok. I can't have this conversation. You are really just confused. Silly atheist . . . [walks away convinced he is right]
Atheist: Hah. You're just bailing because you can't refuse my objections. I TOLD you I understood. Silly Christian. [walks away convinced he is right]

---------------------------

Paul: Natural evil doesn't exist.
Jac: Of course it does. Evil is just a priv...

Nevermind. I think you get the point.

edit: But as I said, we disagree on the definition of "good."

edit2: Here's an excellent article on the nature of "good." Excerpts:

• "Good" is one of those primary ideas which cannot be strictly defined. In order to fix its philosophical significance we may begin by observing that the word is employed firstly as an adjective and secondly as a substantive. This distinction which is clearly marked in French by the two different terms, bon and le bien, may be preserved in English by prefixing an article to the term when it is employed substantively. We call a tool or instrument good, if it serves the purpose for which it is intended. That is to say, it is good because it is an efficient means to obtain a desired result. The result, in turn, may be desired for itself, or it may be sought as a means to some ulterior end. If it is sought for itself, it is or it is estimated by us to be a good, and therefore desirable on its own account. When we take some step to obtain it, it is the end of our action. The series of means and ends either stretches out indefinitely, or it must terminate in some desired object or objects which are ends in themselves. Again we sometimes call a thing good because it possesses completely, or in a high degree, the perfections proper to its nature, as a good painting, good respiration. Sometimes, too, things are termed good because they are of a nature to produce something desirable; that is, they are good casually. Finally, we speak of good conduct, a good man, a good intention, and here the adjective has for us a sense different from any of the foregoing, unless indeed, we are utilitarian philosophers, to whom morally good is but another term for useful.
  
  Now in all these locutions the word conveys directly or indirectly the idea of desirability. The merely useful is desired for the end towards which it is employed; the end is desired on its own account. The latter is conceived as possessing some character, quality, power, which renders it an object of desire.
  .
  .
  .
  Starting from the Platonic definition, good is that which all desire, Aristotle, rejecting the Platonic doctrine of a transcendent world of ideas, holds that the good and being are identical; good is not something added to being, it is being. Everything that is, is good because it is; the quantity, if one may use the word loosely, of being or existence which a thing possesses, is at the same time the stock of goodness. A diminution or an increase of its being is a diminution or increase of its goodness. Being and the good are, then, objectively the same, every being is good, every good is being. Our concepts, being and good differ formally: the first simply denotes existence; the second, existence as a perfection, or the power of contributing to the perfection of a being. It follows from this that evil is not being at all; it is, on the contrary, the privation of being. Again, while being, viewed as the object of tendency, appetite, or will, gives rise to the concept good, so, when considered as the proper object of the intellect, it is represented under the concept true or truth, and it is the beautiful, inasmuch as the knowledge of it is attended by that particular pleasurable emotion which we call aesthetic. As god is the fullness of being, so, therefore, the supreme, infinite Being is also the Supreme Good from which all creatures derive their being and goodness.
  .
  .
  .
  St. Thomas starts from the Aristotelean principle that being and the good are objectively one. Being conceived as desirable is the good. The good differs from the true in this, that, while both are objectively nothing else than being, the good is being considered as the object of appetite, desire, and will, the true is being a the object of the intellect. God, the Supreme Being and the source of all other being is consequently the Supreme Good, and the goodness of creatures results from the diffusion of His goodness.
  .
  .
  .
  The privation of any of its powers or due perfections is an evil for it, as, for instance, blindness, the loss of the power of sight, is an evil for an animal. Hence evil is not something positive and does not exist in itself; as the axiom expresses it, malum in bono fundatur (evil has its base in good).

[PaulSacramento]

I won't take the condescending posts personally because I know you guys well enough to not do so.
It is quite alright if you guys disagree with my view on what evil is, I accept that according to your definition that natural evil exists.
If I understand you correctly, natural evil exists because there are things in nature that are simply "not good".
This is different from moral or "malicious" evil, correct?

[RickD]

I won't take the condescending posts personally because I know you guys well enough to not do so.
It is quite alright if you guys disagree with my view on what evil is, I accept that according to your definition that natural evil exists.
If I understand you correctly, natural evil exists because there are things in nature that are simply "not good".
This is different from moral or "malicious" evil, correct?

Sorry Paul, no condescension intended.

And for the record, I'm not arguing that natural evil is a lack of good.

I think the universe is functioning exactly how it was intended to function.
And yes, IMO, natural evil and moral evil are using different meanings of evil.

[PaulSacramento]

I won't take the condescending posts personally because I know you guys well enough to not do so.
It is quite alright if you guys disagree with my view on what evil is, I accept that according to your definition that natural evil exists.
If I understand you correctly, natural evil exists because there are things in nature that are simply "not good".
This is different from moral or "malicious" evil, correct?

Sorry Paul, no condescension intended.

And for the record, I'm not arguing that natural evil is a lack of good.

I think the universe is functioning exactly how it was intended to function.
And yes, IMO, natural evil and moral evil are using different meanings of evil.

Now, I have to ask, outside of how WE are discussing evil, does the "layperson" think of evil in that way?
I recall in my theology class, when we did a paper on the nature of evil ( 1st year) the class was pretty much divided between "malicious intent" and "absence of good" and the professor mentioned that most "laypeople" view evil as something malicious ( a lion killing to eat isn't evil, but a man killing for please is).

[Jac3510]

If I understand you correctly, natural evil exists because there are things in nature that are simply "not good".
This is different from moral or "malicious" evil, correct?

No condescension intended, but they aren't evil because they are "not good," but because they are deprived of a good. The only difference in that and "malicious evil" (which, again, I contend is a terrible way to look at "moral evil") is only what is deprived of the good. It's not as if natural evils are evil because they are deprived of a good but moral evils are evil because they are malicious. Moral evils are evil for the same reason natural evils are -- they are deprived of a good, deprived of being, in some sense.

edit:

As for your question about the layperson, they have no clue what "natural evil" is for the most part. They just don't have the philosophical training to make the distinctions, which is why I said that while this argument gives the best overall explanation for why God would allow evil, it is not one we should use. It's like trying to explain calculus to a third grader. You have to crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run.

As far as whether or not they regard a lion killing something as "evil," probably not, but you can't extrapolate from there that they don't believe in natural evil. I'm a hospital chaplain. Would you care to guess how the patients and their families that I take care of tend to think about their illnesses, especially those illnesses that are particularly debilitating?