Why does God permit evil????

Earthquakes and other natural disasters (disease) cause an immense amount of innocent suffering in the world (and we are not even thinking of what happens to animals).

How can we assign "evil" to natural disasters? Natural disasters are not conscious of their actions, they have no intent, no understanding. They aren't acting on any purpose, any reason. Most importantly, they have no sense of morality. The catastrophic events caused by nature are not evil; they have nothing to do with "right" or "wrong". How could they?

If a male lion kills a young cub (which they do, generally, after taking over a new pride), do you think this is evil? Do you think the male lion is evil for killing the cub?

Natural disasters cause evil. That is, suffering and pain. I did not say that they were evil.

Suffering and pain is not necessarily evil. If I scrape my knee during a basketball game, this is not evil. Why would you think it is? Natural disasters do not cause evil, humans do. Natural disasters often times do cause suffering and pain, but I don't think this has anything to do with "good" or "evil". These concepts do not apply here.

Evil need not be moral evid, although all moral evil is, of course, evil.

You do agree, I suppose, that when a child dies painfully, that is a bad thing, don't you?

Oh, I didn't know where was another kind of evil. I thought moral evil was the only kind.



I would find it tragic, but depending on how the child died painfully, I may or may not call it evil. But, yes, I would most likely call it a bad thing(there's a difference to me, but apparantly not to you).

I understand. You're using "evil" as a synonym for simply something considered "bad". You just confused me. I would never use "evil" in this manner, it seems too loose to me.

Not just considered bad. Don't you think it is a very bad thing when an innocent child suffers and dies? If that isn't a bad thing, then what would be a bad thing?

The word, "evil" is rather archaic nowadays because we are so sophisticated now. So it seems only to be used in comic books. But it seems to me just the word to use for the Holocaust, or for a typhoon which wipes out whole populations.

And, on a slight derail; I think you did know that there are two kinds of evil, moral, and non-moral. I just had to remind you of it. I am not, of course, saying that you knew the words, but that you already had the concepts.

If an innocent child suffers and dies, it could be considered bad. How else would it be bad?



What does our sophistication have to do with evil being archaic? Despite all of our advances, we still have a sense of morality, do we not? How is evil archaic when we still contemplate good and evil acts today as we always have?

I did not say that evil was archaic (whatever that might mean). I said that the word "evil" is archaic. That people no longer use the word any more (except in comic books). Evil is not archaic. It is alive and well among us.

By actually being bad. People can consider things bad that are not bad, just as they can err in other things. Someone can consider (say) vaccination of their children bad, when it will save the child's life to be vaccinated. So, those people are wrong.

The word "evil" is not archaic; it is alive and well among us (as you've actually demonstrated, along with this thread).



So independent of perspective, there are things which are innately bad?

Well yes, on a philosophy thread. But how often do you hear (or see) it used in ordinary conversation? Especially among the younger sophisticates?

I am not sure what you mean by "innate". I think that not vaccinating your child may have very bad consequences for the child. Does that make is "innately" bad? (I think, by the way, that the word you might want is, "intrinsically", not, "innately"). Are actions that have evil consequences intrinsically evil? (In philosophy, "intrinsically" usually means, "without regard to the consequences"."Extrinsic" usually means, "with regard to the consequences"). So, not giving the vaccine would be considered extrinsically evil. Because of the consequences. But, evil, nonetheless. Whether it is considered evil would have nothing to do with it. A person may not care at all about the child, but what would that matter?

I hear it often. Specifically, from two categories of people who are my friends. First, those I philosophize with, and second, those who are Catholic



I think if I opened this can of worms with you, I'd be derailing the thread. I'd like confirmation from the OP in order to go further. What do you think?

I would say that evil is the intent to do harm for personal gain or gratification. An earth quake has no thoughtful intention to do harm. God if he was benevolent would or could stop the earthquake but chooses not to, he could therefor be classified as evil.

An earthquake can cause great suffering happen to people, and to animals. Not all evil is moral evil. That is not all very bad things that happen are done by people. There is non-moral evil. A child may die painfully from a terrible disease. Nothing was done intentionally. But for that to happen is, I suppose you believe, very bad, whatever you call it.

Im not doubting an earth quake causes pain but its not evil. Evil is reserved for thoughtful intent.

Did God not intend to create the best of all possible worlds?

If this world is the product of his intentions, assuming God exists, then the natural evils which occur in it must be accounted for.

Im not doubting an earth quake causes pain but its not evil. Evil is reserved for thoughtful intent.