Moral & Natural Evil EXPLAINED: Can Philosophers Answer Both? | The Problem of Evil

What is the difference between moral evil and natural evil? In responding to the problem of evil a theodicy must account for both types. Moral evil is pain and suffering caused bu human beings on other human beings (or animals), such as theft, murder, and rape. This includes acts of omission — suffering resulting from inaction. For example, not helping someone in need because you don't want to be late to your job interview. Natural evil is pain and suffering in which there is a natural, non-human cause such as natural disasters. For example, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, and pandemics. It is difficult for a theodicy to answer the problem of evil and defend God's existence without treating moral and natural evil separately. Traditionally, moral evil has been easier to address. Moral evil, after all, is caused by humans and so it is seemingly our fault. The Free Will Defence suggests that moral evil is a result of human beings misusing their free will. God created us with free will so that there would be meaning behind our good (and bad) actions. Philosophers who deploy this response typically argue that having free will is more valuable than not having it and it is worth the resulting moral evil that results from its misuse. How do theodicies account for natural evil? God created the world so natural disasters are surely His fault? Some philosophers, like Augustine, implied that Adam's disobedience in the Garden of Eden brought disorder to the natural world. The doctrine known as Original Sin stipulates that all humanity was present within the first human, Adam, and so all our guilty of Adam's sin. We consequentially deserve the suffering that results. Others have not been persuaded by this argument. John Hick's soul-making theodicy is inspired by Ireneaus rather than Augustine. For Hick and Irenaeus, evil presents us with opportunities to do good, build our character and virtue, and, ultimately, become worthy of heaven. Natural evil provide us with such opportunities. For example, we can assist with aid efforts and give to charity. Moreover, Hick argues that many natural evils are in fact reducible to natural evil. For example, one does not necessarily have to live in the shadow of a volcano or on a floodplain. It could be objected, however, that this is over simplistic — not everybody has the means to relocate, especially if they depend on the fertility of the soil (a positive effect of both volcanoes and floods) for their livelihoods. This video is perfect for University Courses & A-Level Philosophy / Religious Studies (OCR, AQA, Edexcel, Eduqas, or equivalent). 🌐 https://untanglephilosophy.com 📷   / untanglephilosophy   🎵   / untanglephilosophy   📖 Chapters 00:00 Moral and Natural Evil: Is it God's Fault? 00:10 What is Moral Evil? 00:54 Moral Evil vs. Augustine's Theodicy (Original Sin) 01:25 Criticisms of Augustine's Response to Moral Evil 02:27 Moral Evil vs. the Free Will Defence 02:57 Criticisms of the Free Will Defence 03:52 What is Natural Evil? 04:56 Natural Evil vs. Augustine (Original Sin) 05:28 God & Jesus' Response to Natural Evil 06:03 Natural Evil vs Hick's Soul-Making Theodicy 06:40 Hick: Natural Evils are Reducible to Moral Evil? 👍 Please like and share so this video can help others! 🔬 Sources Brown, D. & Greggs, A. (2018) Philosophy of Religion for OCR. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Cardinal, D., Jones, G. & Hayward, J. (2018) AQA A-level Philosophy For A-level Year 2. London, UK: Hodder Education. Music Copywrite Code: 0YDWVQZ6QAXZUSOM #problemofevil #naturalevil #moralevil