Evil
Evil describes a certain type of events, behavior or statements of fact are harmful, destructive or immoral, and sources of suffering physical or moral.
According to Leibniz , it is possible to distinguish Problems of definition What evil is, in itself, already a problem. It is even the main, if we place ourselves in a purely and truly atheist , and therefore devoid of any reference to a transcendent belief. In principle, everyone agrees about. All religions , all laws have the same fundamental prohibitions: killing , stealing , maiming (except as ritual) or to suffer , to lie (for the most demanding of them), etc.. The Decalogue is an example of a directory of rights prohibited. These prohibitions, as the religions in question, or only apply to members of the same religion, or to all mankind. In practice, however, certain situations lead to ask: should we not admit and sometimes even make a bad design in a utilitarian , to avoid a greater evil? Murder to avoid a war ? A war to prevent genocide ? A torture to prevent attacks ? Add to this the difficulty of defining morality, certain actions and behaviors involving no pain, like homosexuality and greed , yet they are often considered immoral, and thus linked to evil by some. The divergent responses show that it is not easy to define evil. To borrow an idea put forward by Louis de Bonald: sometimes it is less difficult to do his duty to know. Additional note: Apart from belief in the existence of God, we can speak of the existence of evil, justifying this by the need to make a contrast between evil and its opposite. What would be the interest of the property if evil did not exist? The man would then perhaps not be simply a "conscience" if he was not likely to commit evil Nature and Causes of evil The field of what is considered bad is broad and its scope are variables: For some philosophers (see Schopenhauer , for example), we can assume that this is the same thing in the world better shared, and that stupidity would be the only truly universal aspect of human nature. Anytime, anywhere, stupidity because, in the eyes of such pessimistic thinkers, innumerable evils because, as noted by Schopenhauer in The Art of Being Right , man tends to persist in his errors, and this Persistence is increasing even when the consequences are catastrophic (similar to the denial of reality). In this perspective, this would be a fundamental structure of human existence. Stupidity becomes a form of attachment. The founder of Zoroastrianism , the ancient Persian religion, having realized the unity of the divine person, was compelled to explain how the creation of a perfect being could be imperfect. Based on the ancient Iranian mythology of a god associated with the good order of the world, Ahura Mazda or Ohrmazd, and an evil god-related disorder in the world, Angra Manyu or Ahriman , it assumes a philosopher of existence of two primary causes inherent in man and God himself. Later, doctors Zoroastrians constitute a true religion by confusing dualistic theology and philosophy of their prophet. A writer of the first century BC, Alexander Cornelius Polyhistor reports that Pythagoras received in Babylon teaching of Zoroaster. But the two philosophers are not of the same period. Greek wisdom about evil: Evil is then a notion more or less arbitrary, because it is a taboo placed by the decision of someone (God in this case). Although the concept of forbidden can not be assimilated to bad really, because the intention of the ban is directed on the basis of the property to not go to evil (a bit like banning a child not to touch a electrical outlet, for example). In religion, the classical theodicy is that of Saint Augustine : Man turned away from God by committing sin. He is deprived of original grace and waits for the Saviour. In the first council of Braga , evil is defined as a willful deprivation of the grace of God. Evil is not a principle in itself, as argued by the Priscillian and Manichaean, but rather a lack of grace and good works. By analogy, it is common to hear that the cold is not a principle in itself, but merely the absence of heat. The problem of evil arose from the birth of philosophy: Seneca sees some evils, a spectacle worthy of the gods: Gnosticism, from the late first century AD differs radically God and the world: the world is made of matter and opposes the spirit, as opposed to evil good. In this design, it seems impossible to think a creator god of light and a dark world changing, so it's actually an enemy god who created the prince of darkness. Hello good and are not of this world. "The world is made of matter and opposes the spirit, as opposed to evil good." Questionable assertion: the world is equated with evil and the good spirit. What is mind? For Spinoza the evil in the moral sense does not exist: there is no evil or good in itself, there are only good and bad in relative to the being that lives a given situation. What we call "evil" is actually a decrease in power, that is to say, a sadness, as well as its causes, because the only good is the joy and all that entails. So murder is not evil but can be good or bad depending on circumstances (eg euthanasia, which may, when it is wise, be a source of peace and joy). The idea of evil is actually a thought that comes from the inappropriate comparison of reality with an imaginary model that is considered perfect, then that point of view because everything happens according to the absolute necessity of God, c ' is to say, nature, and can not be otherwise. Evil is a human interpretation and therefore does not exist in the world, which in itself is perfect: "By reality and perfection I mean the same thing." Before Nietzsche, Spinoza proposes an ethics totally amoral, beyond good and evil, to increase the sources of joy (reason, virtue, wisdom) and reduce sources of sadness (passions, vices, follies ...). The question of evil is the philosophical problem that has most concerned about Leibniz. Leibniz distinguishes: It explains the existence of evil by design optimistic : if evil exists is because it is necessary to perform good actions superior. We would live together in the "best of all possible worlds", a term used by Voltaire to caricature the Leibnizian thought, perfect work of a perfect God. This justification of evil beyond simple explanations of contrast, not only evil (suffering) is necessary to enable man to discover the good (happiness) but it is also necessary for the performance of the property. "The defects of the world, these patches of sun that ours is a ray, its beauty are far from the decrease." (Theodicy, 1710 - released in 1747). For Kant , evil is any action or behavior that can not be generalized to everyone without triggering chaos. For example, everyone can feed themselves without society degenerating into chaos. Eating is not evil. Conversely, everyone can not steal the property of others, because society would become chaotic. Stealing is wrong. In the system of freedom of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling , presented in 1809 in Research on human freedom, evil is presented as a consequence of human freedom, which is paradoxically possibilise, willed by God almighty himself. It is in the God-become one that played the possible deployment of a "freedom for evil" in man. At first, God is presented as a background selfish, angry and anguished, infinitely loving Himself: this is the stage of "Father." By revealing himself God takes its own look at its bottom, the look is bright, advising that this is truly the Word, the Logos. The bottom is selfish reluctance to light that excites him yet, and leaves more or less collected by the luminance. Each of these occasions is a creation: every creature of our ordered world is the result of this confrontation between the dark background and bright eyes and selfish, informing, which brings it. The man is a concentrate of the substantive as withdrawn and reticent, and therefore the most intense light seeking informed thereof. Evil itself occurs when the bottom happens to divert the Word for its own selfish purposes, thereby diverting the divine work. The animal, too entangled in the background, and therefore less informed, and is incapable of evil "human dubious privilege," as Martin Heidegger says in his lectures of 1936 devoted to the test of Schelling where he in turn shows that returning to insurgency, human freedom is dsajointe, go out of tune of the total creation, resulting from the acquisition of Self of God. For him modernity fully intends such selfishness, and diverts the power for specified purposes. The reign of the confrontation of these powers, is the nihilistic era itself. Nietzsche argues that evil comes not from the phenomena, but the ability of humans to interpret the phenomena. He wrote: "There is no moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena" (Beyond Good and Evil). There is no evil in itself, is an imaginary projection of "weak" that do not bear the tragic nature of reality and need to find a culprit to punish (Genealogy of Morals). There is no good and evil, but good and bad, regarding the prospect of life that is always looking to upgrade to more power and joy. He therefore proposed that after Spinoza to get rid of moral thought, to be located "beyond the illusion morality" on which most religions, and look deeply and freely, which allows life to grow by a "great Culture amoral and revolutionary he presents as an embodiment of the will to power "(the essence of life). For that it advocates the development of the "gay science" through science, arts and released a new philosophy of thinking of evil, a source of free thought and higher pleasures can assume that suffering is part of life. "Can do anything that increases the power. Everything that is bad decreases. And suffering can be good and even necessary. "Whatever does not kill me strengthens me." Theory of Justice John Rawls follows a similar logic: A situation can be considered fair if what belongs to each makes us indifferent to be a person or another. In application, the birthright would be an evil unless the advantage is counterbalanced partner of extra homework to restore balance. Is observed in many societies the idea of redemption privileges with homework (noblesse oblige) with the idea that under such conditions there is more privileges per se, but additional opportunities to do good with sanctions If this duty is not done in return. It is not far different from the parable of the talents described in the Gospel ! The first article of the Declaration of Human Rights of 1789 is very much in mind when it enacts such as "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based only on the utility. Unfortunately, no clear procedure is defined at this stage to achieve that goal, and its implementation is left to the goodwill of any members! The rest can be guessed ... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 , although even more filled with good intentions ("Article 23. Everyone has the right to work ...!"), is equally silent on how to implement in practice. At least it has the merit of defining them. Finally, some governments around the world want to define a position that human rights (especially those of women elsewhere!) Would not be culturally appropriate and constitute a worldview in the West than it would not be entitled to impose. Another challenge commonly objected to Rawls's theory is that the subjectivity of utilities: any man who has different tastes and preferences, the fact of asking a person or group of individuals given their opinion on an exchange place in a particular situation does not warrant that the situation is suitable for those who were not asked their opinion, or that no other situations giving the same result. The writer Norman Spinrad articulates his books on the belief that conflict is rarely an objection from good to evil, and more often "a conflict between two different and incompatible visions of the good". In this case, alas, as Pascal had noticed, not being able to find the right, it only remains to "find the fort." But this is not a solution restful nor intellectually satisfying. He is not a rational way to objectively distinguish between good and evil, or failure to arrive at a consensus that would bring together the essence of humanity apart from a minority of hardcore? The presence of the minority prevents it not the objectivity of consensus? And more specifically, in a context atheist (without transcendence): morality can be determined objectively without the use of free will, necessarily subjective? Trotsky defines evil as all the reactionary forces that hinder the development of the revolutionary proletariat. For the philosopher Michel Henry , God is the Life Unseen never ceases to engender and we give ourselves in its pathetic self-revelation. because God is Love Life loves herself a infinite love. So life is good in itself. The evil is anything that denies or interferes with life, its origin lies in death which is the negation of life. , This death is an inward and spiritual death which is separation from God, and that is simply not to love, to live selfishly as if God did not exist, as if he does was not the Father of us all and as if we were not all his beloved children, as if we were not all brothers of one another, generated by a single life. The disease culminates in violence hatred that is behind all forms of barbarism, of all crimes, all wars and of all genocides. , But the evil is also the common origin of all these blind process and all these false abstractions that lead so many men and women in poverty and exclusion. In some traditions, the solution is simple: there But in the monotheistic traditions, with one God, evil becomes a real theological question. Indeed, it is difficult to accept that God directly causes the harm (or let the devil, which is the same), and equally difficult to accept that the devil is sufficiently independent to do what he wants ( one is more truly in a monotheist). Some religions answer the mystery only God knows good and evil, and man is not qualified to think evil, its existence and its source. Finally, other traditions, especially Catholicism, specify the source of evil is not the result of creation and not located in the heart of man. Indeed, evil has no connection with the creation and the book of Genesis shows that evil is made after the creation of man who is both the culmination and purpose of God's work. But there is evil in itself and feeds on the destruction of man. The evil is therefore, to the detriment of man, as the element of perversion seeking to destroy the creative work of God. For the philosopher Rudolf Steiner , these are two spiritual entities (Lucifer and Ahriman) encourage men to evil. These entities were sacrificed according to the plan essential to be delayed in their development and lead man astray. The task for man is to balance these two tendencies in him to find true freedom and thus the Christ (you know the truth and the truth shall make you free, read about it "Lucifer and Ahriman" Rudolf Steiner). According to Steiner, the evil is a property that is not in his place. The problem of evil is the question of whether the existence of such facts as the physical suffering and mental anguish are arguments that make unreasonable belief in the existence of God. This problem is sometimes seen as a protest against the violent events of the countless natural and man (murder and child rape, torture, disease, natural disasters, etc..) Hitting for no apparent reason many innocent people, and is one of the most important arguments of atheism. To understand the answers that may resolve this problem, it is important to first determine what is meant by the word "god". Thus, following a certain design: The problem logically formalized in this way, shows the logical inconsistency of the existence of God, for the first four proposals can be supported at all times (only a few can be at the same time). What is thus shown in a fully rigorous, this is not the lack of rational basis for religious beliefs, but their character entirely irrational. In this formulation, however, the problem arises in the case of a god conceived as metaphysically perfect, first cause, ground of being, or being par excellence, whose essence is identical with existence, and whose attributes are omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, etc.. In this case, the question arises though as to why evil exists if there is such a being. You can escape this logical contradiction, in order to maintain the assertion of the existence of God, by denying a premise of reasoning and asking the question of whether this question of evil arises Also in these cases: Le problme du mal concerne donc certaines dterminations du concept de Dieu et certaines croyances que les hommes possdent son sujet. On peut le formuler de deux manires : Mais de telles formulations logiques ne rendent pas encore compte des diffrents sens que le mot mal peut prendre ; et, en effet, le mal dont on se sert dans ces raisonnements peut varier considrablement d'une conception l'autre. Il peut en effet tre question de tout mal qui se produit, ou d'une certaine quantit de mal, ou d'une certaine sorte de mal. De plus, on peut distinguer diffrents types de maux en tenant compte de leur origine : naturelle ou humaine, et l'on doit bien sr utiliser ces distinctions pour l'analyse complte du problme. Or, ce qui ne semble tre qu'une srie de distinctions inutiles pour le raisonnement pose en ralit quelques problmes. Ainsi, dans le cas o l'on entend par , tout le mal qui se produit en gnral dans le monde, on prsente un concept qui fait abstraction des diffrences qui peuvent exister entre les maux, prsupposant de ce fait qu'il est lgitime d'inclure de manire indiffrencie tous les maux dans le problme. cette conception du mal, on peut rpondre qu'il est raisonnable de vouloir que certains maux disparaissent sans pour autant vouloir la disparition du mal en gnral. Par exemple, la peine que provoque un exercice physique ou intellectuel peut tre jug au final acceptable, et justifier ainsi l'ide qu'un monde bon doit ncessairement contenir une certaine proportion de maux. De mme, en ce qui concerne les tenants d'une morale de la vertu (comme par exemple les Stociens ), certaines des vertus qu'il s'agit d'acqurir pour parvenir au bonheur (courage, prudence, etc.) n'auraient aucun sens s'il n'y avait ni adversit ni efforts fournir. De ce point de vue, l'radication totale du mal serait une mauvaise chose. On entre cependant alors dans une culture o le mrite de l'acte a plus de valeur que l'acte mme. La formulation qu'il existe une devrait donc tre nuance, car, en ces termes, et suivant la perspective examine actuellement, elle n'est pas valide : l'existence de certains maux est en effet compatible avec l'existence de Dieu, car si Dieu est bon, il ne peut vouloir radiquer tout le mal qui se produit dans le monde. Avec l'exemple d'Augustin, un autre aspect du problme du mal est mis en avant, celui de la libert / A> human, by which we would be rendered able to choose between actions good or evil actions. The question then is why God created free beings, enabling people to do evil, kill, torture, rape, etc.., As in the case of war and looting mentioned by Augustine. To this question, a response similar to the previous one is possible: lack of freedom probably eliminate the evil that may result from our actions, for example if man was created so that it is still committed to good, but this property would no longer be one; the goodness of human actions is no longer a predetermined result, eliminating any moral value and responsibility as they are understood in this perspective. The action is so good freely decided that if bad actions are possible. Again, there is a good and omnipotent God would be consistent with the existence of evil, and some sort of evil would be very logical consequence of his existence and his goodness. The general argument that invalidates the reasoning above that God does not exist because evil exists is briefly as follows: Yet these arguments are far from fully resolve the issue: In both cases, in fact, it justifies a certain class of evils by what is specifically called into question: and the existence of a god all powerful, good in question by the existence of evil is it made acceptable by the existence of that god, because without this god, evil can not be explained, it follows that God does not exist. The forces of evil does not seek to destroy human beings in a willful intent, but they can "incite to commit a sin mortal so that he could die. History of evil
Zoroaster
Pythagoras and Plato
But philosophers are Zoroaster as the inspirer of Platonic dualism. First occurrences of evil in the Judeo-Christian texts
Augustinian Theodicy
The Presocratics
Plato and Neoplatonism
Stoicism
Epicureanism
Cyrenaica
Gnosticism
Spinoza
Leibniz
Kant - Definition of evil
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling
Nietzsche
John Rawls - A Theory of Justice
Norman Spinrad
Marxism
Michel Henry
Source of evil
The problem of evil and the belief in God
The book of Job gives no response other than this: we must not seek to explain and continue to trust God. The Christianity proclaims that Jesus Christ is God, son of God, he came among us, he took flesh, as St. John says, and he suffered deeply ( Passion of Christ ). For Christians, it is Christ who gives meaning to human suffering. Different conceptions of God
Diffrentes conceptions du mal
Mais un tel argument est encore trop gnral et peut susciter des objections, mme lorsque l'on ne parle que de certains maux acceptables et compatibles avec l'existence de Dieu. Il faut pouvoir dterminer le domaine de ces maux. Or, ce domaine est assez variable. Certains auteurs, tel qu' Augustin dans La Cit de Dieu , soutiennent par exemple que certains actes violents, comme le viol ou la torture, doivent tre supports en tant qu'preuves et en tant que chtiments qui corrigent ceux qui les subissent. Ces exemples montrent le caractre particulirement variable de ce que l'on juge justifiable et compatible avec la volont divine. Ils montrent galement que la caractrisation des maux suppose une hirarchie qui s'inscrit dans une rflexion d'ensemble sur le concept de Dieu. Difficulties of these arguments
Bibliography
Quotes
References
See also
The wise monkeys of Nikko Toshogu Shrine, Japan.
Loading ...