What is the difference between moral evil and natural evil evaluate the greater goods defense and the free will defense in terms of how adequately each defense handles the problem of natural evil?

ANSWER

There is no difference in moral evil and natural evil they are one in the same. Evil is the negative actions taken to harm others and goes against all natural law and is immoral. It is unfortunate that morality has been dismissed as religious dogma, as it is the moral fiber that we develop that gives us the strength and wisdom to govern ourselves, whether we are religious or not. The unfortunate debate of why God "allows" evil to exist found amongst theologians and some philosophers first presupposes that God can not be subject to the same universal laws that everything else in the universe is subject to. Why can't God be all-benevolent, all knowing, and all powerful and yet still subject to universal laws? Certainly as quantum mechanics develops it is entirely possible for God to be all benevolent, all knowing, and all powerful while subject to universal law. Why is it God's fault that evil exists? Who said it was his fault? To argue the question of why God allows evil to exist is to diminish God's benevolence, to question his knowledge, and to imply God is not all powerful. Why take up the question at all? God exists and Evil exists, and like magnets when polarized like gravity and centrifugal force they repel from each other and when reversed they attract. Good attracts evil, as darkness can not stand the light and will do what it can to surround it and ultimately consume it. But good does not aim in the same direction as evil, and any greater good defense should not be made in the justification of evil but made in praise of the glory of God.

All things but evil aim towards the greater good, and let the greater good be defined as the greatest good to the greatest amount as God in all his benevolence has shown through the laws he has shown us, through the laws we have discovered, that evil is that which harms the greater good. To argue that natural disasters are natural evils is another fixation of blame so that God is at fault not only for evil but for all Earth changes and other changes that by the laws which govern them happen through-out the universe. Why is it evil if the Earth quakes or the ocean roars or comets come crashing down upon us. This is the universe that God and all he created lives in. If in the beginning there was nothing, but God spoke and said "let there be light". There was obviously more than just nothing as there was first of all God, and in the absence of light, there was darkness. There was good and evil, and then God spoke and said "Let there be light."

Though surrounded by darkness, and threatened by evil at every turn the all powerful, all knowing, all benevolent God willed his light to shine and cast out the darkness in favor of a better way than nothingness, instead now there is everything and all things are possible as long as they conform to the natural laws of the universe. There is no greater good in allowing evil to exist and yet it does. However, to suggest that evil is something other than the willful harm done to others, is to suggest there are evils of which we can not control. What God can cast out, so can we. But if evil existed alongside of God, then casing the darkness out is all that can be done. It is strange to think that people would devise defense arguments for the existence of evil. Evil like God requires no defense, nor do the mechanics of the universe. There is no reason to defend the existence of Earthquakes as there is no remedy to be had if convicted and as such no reason to place earthquakes on trial. Why do earthquakes exist is a geological question not theological and the reason they exist surely adhere to the laws of physics. While good and evil may float somewhere adjacent to the law of physics in the world of quantum mechanics, they are still subject to laws of the universe and as such there is no reason to put good and evil on trial. Good, evil, and natural disasters all operate within the conflict of natural laws. For humanity, it is prudent and pro survival to be good and not do evil to others and prudent to know that evil does exist and there are others who would do evil to you, and if they do, there are natural laws by which to find remedy. The natural laws of natural disaster and any remedy is in survival and it would be prudent to learn how to avoid living in earthquake prone areas and learning how to better prepare for any that might happen and prepare for oceans to roar and to do ones best to find a way to either escape the planet before a comet comes crashing down upon us or learn how to survive the aftermath. To act in this way is good and moral and of ones own free will. Let any natural evil be immoral and let natural disasters be what they are, the reality of a changing universe.

First answer by ID2529669980. Last edit by James Joseph. Contributor trust: 116 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 32 [recommend question]