Blake Clinton Y.

Dy
PHILORL A51- Prof. Luwalhati Bautista
The Evidential Problem of Evil
he !"i#ential Pro$le% of !"il is a &hallen'e to theists to re&on&ile their
(hiloso(hi&al assertions that )o# $ein' a (erfe&tly 'oo# $ein' with the fa&t that
e"il e*ists in the +orl#. his refor%ulate# assault on theis% asserts that theis%
in not only in&onsistent $ut also it is i%(lausi$le 'i"en the fa&tual e*isten&e of e"il
in the worl#.
he first "ersion of the (ro$le% &alle# the Pro$a$ilisti& (ro$le% of e"il
uses a#"an&e# statisti&al for%ulae to state that 'i"en the hi'h #e'ree of al%ost
%e&hani&al or#er in the uni"erse su&h a state ha# to ha"e an "astly (owerful an#
intelli'ent for&e $ehin# its &onstru&tion. Howe"er the (resen&e of 'ratuitous e"il
works a'ainst the Philoso(hi&al #eity as he is taken to $e (erfe&tly 'oo# an#
hen&e shoul# not allow 'ratuitous e"il $ut there is still e"il. Howe"er this theory,s
flaw is that &ertain (hiloso(hers su&h as -an&y Cartwri'ht an# Al"in Plantin'a
assert that it is i%(ossi$le for the hu%an %in# to &onstru&t a theory of (ro$a$ility
that &oul# &on&ei"a$ly o$.e&ti"ely en&o%(ass all fa&tors in"ol"e# 'i"en the flaws
of %o#ern (ro$a$ility stu#ies.
A se&on# "ersion of the (ro$le% is the e"i#ential (ro$le% of e"il whi&h
states that while e"il %ay so%eti%es $e .ustifie# $y theis% there are so%e &ases
of e"il where its o&&urren&e is not at all warrante# $ut e"en #own ri'ht e*&essi"e.
It takes theis%/ as a hy(othesis in whi&h the theisti& #eity will work to (re"ent
%eanin'less an# (ointless e"il as su&h its e*isten&e is lo'i&ally
in&o%(rehensi$le to a theist. By #efinition 'ratuitous e"il &an $e taken as an e"il
whi&h/ has not a &onse0uent 'reater 'oo# in tow su&h as the e*a%(le of the
fawn tra((e# in the woo#s who is su&&essi"ely $rutali1e# $y "arious natural
(heno%ena until it finally e*(ires. Howe"er the intrinsi& flaw in this assertion is
on&e a'ain %an,s fallia$ility in his .u#'e%ent of whether an e"il if 'ratuitous or
not. 2urther%ore (hiloso(hers like +ykstra in"oke the 3)o# +orks in 4ysterious
+ays5 #efense in that it is at his (leasure that we know of the e"il,s 'oo# nature
a &ase of 3reasona$le e(iste%i& a&&ess5. But the flaw in this is that it re0uires the
a#o(tion of assu%(tions foun# in e*(an#e# theis% to $e "ali# hen&e it &annot $e
a((li&a$le in &ases where su&h a #eity hol#s his &ounsel &lose to hi%self or if the
#e$ate was $ase# on restri&te# theis%.
An ar'u%ent that %o"e# to re&on&ile the e*isten&e of 'ratuitous e"il an#
)o#,s nature was Plantin'a,s 2ree +ill Defense whi&h attri$ute# the e*isten&e of
'ratuitous e"il to his 'rantin' of e*&essi"e e"il to %an. !ssentially the worl# is
(o(ulate# $y %orally free &reatures/ whi&h %ay &hoose $etween 'oo# an# e"il
hen&e the e*isten&e of either in &o(ious a%ounts. Howe"er so%e &riti&s $elie"e
that if )o# were (erfe&tly 'oo# he woul# (ro#u&e &reatures that are only &a(a$le
of 'oo# a&ts howe"er this &o%(letely %isses the (oint of the e*er&ise of
2ree#o% as to ha"e 'oo# one %ust also allow for e"il/ &urtailin' the one will also
li%it the other.

his ar'u%ent howe"er while answerin' the 0uestion of e"il (er(etuate#
$y %an #oes not answer for the e*isten&e of e"il $rou'ht a$out $y &ala%itous
(heno%ena su&h as natural #isasters as they #i# not o&&ur $y anyone,s a&&or#
or ha"e any .ustifia$le 'reater 'oo# as a result. hus )o# shoul# ha"e
inter"ene# to (re"ent the% fro% the outset. he re$uttal to this &o%es fro% the
-atural Law heo#i&y/ whi&h states that the -atural +orl# $ein' &reate# $y a
Perfe&tly )oo# $ein' is hen&e 'oo# o"erall an# for hi% to re(eate#ly a#.ust it will
#enote so%e for% of i%(erfe&tion in the syste% an# hen&e hi%.
Another set of ar'u%ents that try to .ustify the e*isten&e of e"il are those
&olle&ti"ely known as the 6lti%ate Har%ony solutions whi&h rests on )o#,s
#eta&h%ent fro% us an# our ina$ility to &o%(rehen# his works. Hen&e fro% his
(oint of "iew e"erythin' will either en# well or will en# a&&or#in' to his own
%orals. Howe"er this #eta&h%ent also (ro"es to $e 0uite horrifyin' as it (aints a
(i&ture of a )o# so alien that we woul# ha"e no sure $asis for ri'ht or wron'.
he (unish%ent heo#i&y $elie"es that all e"ils affli&tin' %an are a
&onse0uen&e of so%e wron'#oin' howe"er this #oes not e*(lain the a%ount of
e"il (resent/ what we #i# wron' nor #oes it .ustify any natural e"ils that o&&ur.
Another heo#i&y $elie"es e"il is a ne&essary &ontrast to 'oo# an# to know it we
%ust know e"il howe"er like the (unish%ent heo#i&y it fails to &o%(rehensi"ely
e*(lain e"il or to .ustify the see%in'ly 'ratuitous a%ounts we e*(erien&e.
2inally there is the $est of all (ossi$le worl#s heo#i&y whi&h states that
#es(ite the 'i"en a%ount of e"il this was the $est that )o# &oul# &reate. his of
&ourse is flatly in&oherent as it i%(lies an u((er li%it to )o#,s (ower as well as
an ina$ility on our (art to i%(ro"e u(on us. Like the &on&e(t of a hi'hest (ossi$le
inte'er su&h a $elief is illo'i&al/ as there is no su&h thin' as an ulti%ate.
)i"en these a$o"e I $elie"e that the &o%$ination of Plantin'a,s 2ree +ill
#efense an# the -atural Law heo#i&y are %ore than &a(a$le of .ustifyin' the
e*isten&e of e"il e"en 'ratuitous e"il in the worl# to#ay for they $oth (la&e $la%e
on 4an hi%self an# the 7yste% he inha$its for e"il. his &o%(letely re%o"es his
&o%(li&ity in any instan&es of e"il an# kee(s with his #i"ine attri$ute of $ein'
(erfe&tly 'oo# as neither are a &onse0uen&e of his a&tion or ina&tion rather they
are the results of 4an,s intera&tions with hi%self an# the syste%. -atural !"il or
what we $elie"e is natural e"il is si%(ly a result of %an,s ina$ility to a#a(t to the
syste% an# &ons&ious e"il is %an,s (ersonal &hoi&e thus in all thin's )o# is
$la%eless at least within the restri&te# theis%s.