Evil as the privation of the good: I don’t get it

[Dana Garrett]

Evil as the privation of the good: I don’t get it as a possible theodicy. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that on close scrutiny any theodicy as a rule succeeds in answering the problem of evil. But I, at least, get something of the initial intuitive appeal of most of them (e.g., the free will argument as an answer for the problem of moral evil).

But evil as the privation of the good I have no intuitions for at all. How is it supposed to answer the problem of evil? I see it offered by some theists and in some introduction to philosophy books as an answer to the problem of evil. But I don’t see how it answers anything.

What am I not getting? Thanks.

[DMB]

As far as I can understand it, it deals with the PoE as follows:

The PoE takes the form that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would not create evil, but evil exists and therefore the omni-god does not.
Therefore it is an illusion that evil exists as a positive thing. It is merely the absence of positive good, so we can preserve the omni-god.

[Eudaimonist]

This idea makes sense to me. For instance, if good depends on wisdom, evil may be explained by a lack of wisdom.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Dana Garrett]

As far as I can understand it, it deals with the PoE as follows:

The PoE takes the form that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would not create evil, but evil exists and therefore the omni-god does not.
Therefore it is an illusion that evil exists as a positive thing. It is merely the absence of positive good, so we can preserve the omni-god.


Are you suggesting that the argument trades on the idea that God is only responsible for what he creates. God creates us with the capacity to to perform good (as a positive ability). But God cannot be held responsible for what he doesn't create and, therefore, evil as a privation of the good is not anything God created and is responsible for? Is that the intuition behind the argument?

[Dana Garrett]

This idea makes sense to me. For instance, if good depends on wisdom, evil may be explained by a lack of wisdom.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Still, not getting it. How would God be exculpated from creating beings with a lack of wisdom?

[DMB]

Sorry, I'm not a Christian apologist. I have never seen either a convincing argument for the existence of god(s) or a convincing solution to the problem of evil.

Jobar likes this sort of thing. He may help out when he's online.

[lpetrich]

I think that this theodicy has the problem that it does not adequately explain moral neutrality. If a rock is not good, does that make it evil? Instead, it is neither good nor evil, that is, morally neutral.

So one can compare goodness to a positive number and evilness to a negative number, with moral neutrality naturally being zero.

[Eudaimonist]

How would God be exculpated from creating beings with a lack of wisdom?

IMO, God can't. I'm just saying that evil as the lack of something good is a reasonable way of explaining evil. Why an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God would choose to create a world with such a lack is mysterious to me. I think Epicurus had it right to object to such theology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Preno]

Well, perhaps a world devoid of "evil" is impossible?

[Eudaimonist]

Well, perhaps a world devoid of "evil" is impossible?

Perhaps, but then why create such a world at all?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[trendkill]

As far as I can understand it, it deals with the PoE as follows:

The PoE takes the form that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would not create evil, but evil exists and therefore the omni-god does not.
Therefore it is an illusion that evil exists as a positive thing. It is merely the absence of positive good, so we can preserve the omni-god.


Are you suggesting that the argument trades on the idea that God is only responsible for what he creates. God creates us with the capacity to to perform good (as a positive ability). But God cannot be held responsible for what he doesn't create and, therefore, evil as a privation of the good is not anything God created and is responsible for? Is that the intuition behind the argument?I think that's exactly it. If evil is not a thing, then God can't very well create it, can he? Of course it falls apart the moment you realize that by the same logic, humans are not responsible for creating the holes in the centers of donuts.

[Dana Garrett]

Thanks, all, for your responses. I think I understand it better now. :)

[Ichthus]

Tiniest nutshell: We can't say "but what about evil?" without also acknowledging the "real" good (God) of which evil is the privation. It's like saying "but what about rust?" without acknowledging the car, or whatever, in which the rust is present. Rust does not exist on its own, and neither does evil...there must be a preexistent good (God) or there is no real evil.

It doesn't resolve the problem of evil...doesn't answer the question...but my article "Free to be or not to be" on Examiner.com discusses that resolution, if you want to check it out.