based on the following exerpt, answer the question, What type of problem is the ‘problem of evil’ for Mackie? What type of problem is it not? answer in 2-3 sentences.
 Mackie begins the article by saying that he thinks that all the arguments for God’s
existence have been shown by philosophers to be faulty. But he notes that this need not
convince someone that there is no reason for believing in God:
“. . . the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that
no rational proof of God’s existence is possible. And he can still retain all that
is essential to his position, by holding that God’s existence is known in some
other, non-rational way.”
Mackie’s aim is to show that philosophy is not only capable of criticizing arguments for
God’s existence, but also of showing that God does not exist, thus closing off the position
of the theologian described above:
“I think, however, that a more telling criticism can be made by way of the
traditional problem of evil. Here it can be shown, not only that religious beliefs
lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several
parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another
. . . ”
1
The first thing to do, then, is to be clear on what this ‘problem of evil’ is, and why it
shows that belief in God not only lacks rational support, but is also, in a very strong
sense, irrational.
Mackie states the problem as follows:
“God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to
be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of
them were true the third would be false. But at the same time all three are
essential parts of most theological positions: the theologian, it seems, at once
must and cannot consistently adhere to all three.”
Mackie is claiming that the following three propositions cannot all be true:
• God is omnipotent.
• God is wholly good.
• Some evil exists.
As Mackie says, though, these three are not formally contradictory. To show that they
are inconsistent, we have to add some further principles. Mackie gives us two:
• If something is wholly good, it always eliminates as much evil as it can.
• If something is omnipotent, it can do anything.
Mackie thinks that these two principles are plausible. Using these, we can deduce a
contradiction from the three principles with which we began.
2 Solutions to the problem of evil
Since it seems that the five above principles do imply a contradiction, and there are no
true contradictions, we have a reductio of this group of principles. This means that at
least one of them must be false. The important question is: which one(s)?
Mackie spends most of the article considering various responses to this question. He
distinguishes two main kinds of solutions: adequate solutions, and fallacious ones.
2.1 ‘Adequate solutions’
Mackie agrees that the problem for the theologian can be solved by giving up one of the
three principles with which we began: we can deny that God is omnipotent or all good,
or we can deny that there is any evil in the world.
Does Mackie think that this is a promising position for the theologian? Why or why not?
2
2.2 ‘Fallacious solutions’
Fallacious solutions are solutions which, even though the may seem plausible at first, in
fact do not amount to the rejection of any principle which gave rise to the contradiction.
For this reason, Mackie does not think that they are of any help to the theologian trying
to respond to the problem of evil. His discussion of each is intended to make clear the
reasons for which they fail to address the real problem.
2.2.1 Good cannot exist without evil, since evil is necessary as a counterpart to good
The basic idea here is that God could not have made a world which had any good without
allowing some evil, since it is impossible for goodness to exist without evil.
The view that this is a limitation on God’s omnipotence; the reply that omnipotence does
not extend to doing logically impossible things.
The sense in which (relative) greatness requires (relative) smallness; why this is not a good
way to understand the relationship between good and evil. The incoherence of trying to
maximize relative greatness or relative smallness.
The view that every quality requires for its existence that something lack the quality.
The example of redness. Two objections: (i) the principle does not seem generally true;
there is no reason to think that it could not be the case that everything had a given
property; (ii) even if the principle were true, it would explain much less evil than we
actually observe.
2.2.2 Evil is necessary as a means to bringing about goodness
The basic idea here is that God uses evil to bring about goodness, in much the way that
we find that we often have to do something painful, like going to the dentist, to bring
about some desirable end, like fixing a cavity.
Why does Mackie think that this, as an answer to the problem of evil, implies an objectionable restriction on God’s omniscience?
2.2.3 A universe with some evil is better than a universe with none
The basic idea here is that certain kinds of evil are necessary for certain kinds of good;
e.g. without disease and pain, it would be logically impossible to have medical advances
and feelings of sympathy.
(What is the difference between this reply to the problem of evil and the preceding one?
Recall Leibniz’s distinction between what is physically necessary and what is absolutely,
or metaphysically, necessary. One reading of the former objection is that evil is physically
necessary for some goods; the present objection is that evil is absolutely necessary for
some goods. Why should this difference matter?)
3
The distinction of first and second order goods and evils. The problem posed by second
order evil.
In general, a solution of this kind seems to require some level n such that there are nth
level goods, there are not nth level evils, and the nth level goods are important enough
to justify all of the mth level evils, for any m < n. But Mackie does not think that it is
plausible that there are any goods which satisfy this requirement.
2.2.4 Evil is necessary for free will
The basic idea here is that at least many kinds of evil are not the result of God’s actions,
but of the free actions of human beings.
How can this count as a solution to the problem of evil, given that God created the free
agents in question? The reply has to be something like this: (i) free will is a great good,
such that it would be worse to lack free will than it is to have the various evils with which
we are confronted; and (ii) it is impossible, even for God, to create a being which has free
will and to ensure that it never brings about evil. Why both (i) and (ii) are required to
solve the problem.
(Could free will be the nth level good described above?)
Mackie’s main objection is to question whether there is any coherent sense of ‘free will’
which satisfies both (i) and (ii):
“if God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer
what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such
that they always freely choose the good? If there is no logical impossibility in
a man’s freely choosing the good on one, or several occasions, there cannot be
a logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion. God
was not, then, faced with a choice between making innocent automata and
making beings who, in acting freely, would sometimes go wrong: there was
open to him the obviously better possibility of making beings who would act
freely but always go right. Clearly, his failure to avail himself of this possibility
is inconsistent with his being both omnipotent and wholly good.
If it is replied that this objection is absurd, that the making of some wrong
choices is logically necessary for freedom, it would seem that ‘freedom’ must
here mean complete randomness or indeterminacy . . . But then . . . how can it
be the most important good?”
We will return to the question of what free will might be later in the course.
A second challenge to this view: the existence of evil which is not, at least apparently,
due to human free will.