The problem of evil

The Problem of Evil
Name:
Institution:
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
The problem of evil is a topic that numerous philosophers have attempted to describe in almost every aspect and that has brought controversies. Richard Swinburne, a philosopher as well as theist in one of his interviews tries to argue out on the same, explaining that the problem of evil does not amount to a good argument against the existence of God (Pojman & Rea, 2012). In this explanation, he makes a number of points in response to the problem of evil, which are comprehensive and deep. It is important to evaluate on Swinburne’s reply to this issue and Mackie’s discussion as well as personal position about the same.
Swinburne uses various terms throughout the discussion that he makes. Since a number of misfortunes and ills can be established in the streets where people live, religious believers are normally faced with hardships that are frequently termed as the problem of evil. There is a question of how evils could be well matched with the occurrence of an omniscient, omnipotent, as well as all-good God. A theodicist is referred to an individual that seeks to respond to this question although justification of God’s ways to men. Moreover, it happens by showing people the reason as to why things are the way they are, and particularly the reason why the things that appear as evil to people has been created or sent by God generally for the good of mankind. A small amount of evil may not do any harm to anyone, and furthermore when the greatest evil is put closely in examination tends to turn out as worth the price. This context is very important to bear in mind because it carries a lot of weight in the entire text. Swinburne in his attempt to respond to the problem of evil constructs a comprehensive explanation as to why God would enable evil to happen. He does this by dividing evil into two distinct kinds that includes the natural and moral evil, dealing with these two separately. He states that moral evil comprises of all the evil that is caused deliberately by the human beings where they do what they are not supposed to do. In addition, this includes the evil that is constituted by the deliberate deeds or negligent failure. Swinburne starts his journey of reasoning by constructing a theodicy that explains the existence of moral evil. On this note, he expresses his opinion by stating that he believes that the central core of any given theodicy must be the “free will of defence” that deals with moral evil. Moreover, the free will defence maintains that there is a great good in the fact of humans having definite kind of free will that he calls free and responsible option. He continues to say that if they do, there would be a natural possibility of existence of moral evil.
The analysis by Swinburne enables these concerns to become the servants of the said self. Some two phrases have been put in comparisons such as “He recognizes the importance of his job” and “His job makes him feel important.” Similarly, rather than feeling accountable for or an accountability towards the others’ afflictions, in terms of Swinburne’s discussion people would look on the afflictions as chances for feeling accountable. In addition, even though Swinburne did not vulgarize the feeling of this responsibility in the case of his discussion, it failed to follow that an accountable reply justifies the suffering or evil that is likely to occasion it. Swinburne had noticed that men bring evil to others intentionally and that a lot of evil exists in the world. In this case, Swinburne feels that there is a third moral principle that is progressed by the needs of antitheodicist answering. For instance, he says that a creator who i...