Philosophy Problem Of Evil Questions Long
The evidential argument from moral evil is a philosophical argument that seeks to demonstrate the existence of moral evil as evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God. It is one of the main arguments used in the broader problem of evil, which aims to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of a benevolent deity.
The argument begins by acknowledging the existence of moral evil, which refers to the suffering and harm caused by human actions that are morally wrong, such as murder, theft, and cruelty. The presence of moral evil in the world is seen as incompatible with the notion of a perfectly good God, as it suggests that such a God would not allow or permit such actions to occur.
The evidential argument from moral evil does not claim that the existence of moral evil definitively proves the non-existence of God, but rather argues that it provides strong evidence against the existence of a perfectly good God. It suggests that the existence of moral evil is more likely if there is no such God, or if God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, or perfectly good.
One of the key premises of this argument is the assumption that a perfectly good God would desire to prevent or eliminate moral evil. If God possesses all the attributes traditionally ascribed to him, including omniscience (knowing everything), omnipotence (being all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (being perfectly good), then it follows that he would have the knowledge, power, and desire to prevent moral evil.
However, the existence of moral evil in the world suggests that either God is not all-powerful and lacks the ability to prevent it, or he is not all-knowing and is unaware of its occurrence, or he is not perfectly good and does not desire to prevent it. If any of these possibilities are true, then it undermines the traditional concept of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good.
Supporters of the evidential argument from moral evil often point to the sheer magnitude and intensity of human suffering caused by moral evil as evidence against the existence of a benevolent God. They argue that if God were truly all-powerful and all-good, he would have the ability and desire to prevent or eliminate such suffering.
Critics of this argument often propose various theodicies, which are attempts to reconcile the existence of evil with the existence of God. Theodicies may argue that moral evil is necessary for the development of moral character, or that it is a consequence of human free will, or that it is a means to a greater good that is beyond human comprehension.
In conclusion, the evidential argument from moral evil presents the existence of moral evil as evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God. It suggests that the presence of moral evil in the world is more likely if there is no such God, or if God lacks certain attributes traditionally ascribed to him. However, the argument is not conclusive and is subject to various counterarguments and theodicies proposed by critics.