A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

The Problem of Evil

by 3 Comments

 The problem of Evil is a classic theological and philosophical problem. Put briefly, the problems arises because of the difficulty of reconciling God’s qualities with the existence of evil in the world.  Despite numerous new books on the subject, the problem of evil is rather old. In fact, the fundamental philosophical problem dates back to Plato.

 The simplest and most concise form of the problem of evil can be nicely presented as a deductively valid argument:

 Premise 1: If God exists then there would be no evil.
Premises 2: There is evil.
Conclusion: God does not exist.

A more complex version of this argument is based on the assumption that God is all good, all powerful and all knowing. If God is all good, then He would neither tolerate nor permit evil. If God is all powerful, then God can prevent all evil. If God is all knowing, then no evil can be hidden from God. So, if God is all good, all powerful and all knowing, then there would be no evil. Since there is evil in the world, it follows that either God does not exist or God lacks at least one of those attributes.

An interesting variation on this problem can be used to counter the classic argument from design. The argument from design (presented in its simplest form) works like this:

Premise 1: There can be no design without a designer.
Premise 2: Life, the universe and everything clearly show signs of design.
Premise 3: The only entity capable of designing the universe is God.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

The idea behind this reasoning is that we can infer the existence of God by observing empirical facts about the universe. However, if this method is accepted, then it leads to the variation of the problem of evil. If the apparent design of the universe leads to the conclusion that God exists, then the presence of evil and imperfection would seem to entail that God, if He exists at all, is evil, sloppy or otherwise deficient. Naturally this conclusion does not fit well with the conception of a perfect being.

Most of the plausible replies to the problem of evil involve trying to reconcile the empirical facts (evil and imperfection) with the theological assumption of God’s perfection. While none of these arguments are conclusive, they do provide a rational basis for accepting God’s existence in the face of the problem of evil.

In my own perspective, the problem of evil is perhaps the greatest barrier to belief in a perfect God-at least for those who follow reason. While one often suggested option is to abandon reason and simply go on faith, that option is rather problematic. After all, giving up reason as a means of assessing theological claims leaves one rather defenseless against all sorts of foolishness and trickery.

Another classic option is to simply state that God has a mysterious plan and everything will work out in the end. There are two obvious problems with this line. First, if God has a mysterious plan that we do not understand, then how do we know that God is actually good? If the answer is faith, then we are back to the problem raised above. If there is evidence, then it is not a mystery after all. Second, if everything will work out in the end, why not now? I expect imperfect beings to have to work things out, but God should not require time to get things right.

There are many other replies as well, but none seem to provide a full and satisfying reply.

Can homosexuality be involuntary and still a sin?

by 1 Comment

A while ago I read an article about how some religious conservatives are vehemently opposed to the idea that sexual orientation might be affected or even determined by factors other than voluntary choice. Their concern stems from two factors. First, their belief that homosexuality is a sin and hence wrong. Second is their likely acceptance of the view that only voluntary actions and choices can be considered right or wrong. This view is rather plausible and is nicely supported by our moral intuitions. If, for example, I get angry and plow my truck into a crowd of innocent people, then I have done something wrong. If I round the corner in my truck at a reasonable speed, hit a patch of oil before I can react and spin into a crowd, then it was a terrible accident but not an evil action. The difference is, of course, between choice and chance.

Given the distinction just made, if sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, then it would certainly seem that homosexuals cannot be regarded as immoral. People could, of course, regard their lifestyles as unfortunate accidents. Some social conservatives do take this stance. Consistent with this view, they often propose ways of treating homosexuals in order to make them heterosexual. Naturally, this assumes that the heterosexual way of life is a preferable lifestyle. This can, some might argue, be done without imposing a moral judgment. After all, when a doctor gives me antibiotics for a sinus infection he is not making a moral judgment but a medical judgment. Of course, the distinction between health and illness is something that does not seem to clearly apply in the case of heterosexual and homosexual orientations. But, let us lay aside this problem and move along.

Is sexual orientation a matter of choice? The evidence does generally seem to point against it. In addition to the infamous studies of gay sheep, there is also the intuition test. When I think about my own sexual orientation (very, very straight) I do not recall making a conscious choice in the matter. I simply find women attractive and men not…and this just seems to be the way I am. I suspect it is analogous to my taste in food. I rather like pie and I don’t like broccoli. I didn’t consciously make that decision-it is just the way I am. Of course, I’m not an expert in the biological and social sciences, so my opinion is not worth all that much here, at least not beyond the logic of the argument itself.

Getting back to the main matter of concern, let us assume that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Given this assumption, can homosexuality be considered immoral on religious grounds? The answer is “yes”, but this requires some rather controversial assumptions.

The first assumption is that God actually forbids homosexuality. Leviticus does list homosexuality among the many things that God allegedly considers to be abominable. The list also includes sea food, so we can also infer that God is not a big fan of Red Lobster.

The second assumption is that what God forbids is morally wrong. What he forbids could be wrong because He forbids it (this is Divine Command Theory) or He could forbid it because it is wrong. Either way, let us assume it is wrong and not take a side trip into the Euthyphro Problem.

The third assumption is that something can be immoral even when it is not a matter of choice. In other words, the moral intuition that an action has to be freely chosen in order to be good or evil must be rejected.

As argued above, our moral intuitions tend towards the view that an action is evil only when it is freely chosen. However, this intuition can be argued against on theological grounds in two ways.

First, most varieties of Christian thought accept the notion of original sin. The basic idea is that Adam and Eve disobeyed God and this action taints all humans through all time. Obviously, only Adam and Eve committed the immoral action and all other humans had no choice in the matter. Yet, all humans are tainted with evil because of this action.

Now, if original sin can taint all humans and thus make them sinners, then it follows that sin need not be a matter of choice. So, a person could have no choice in their sexual orientation and yet, if they happened to be homosexual, be sinners and hence evil. They would be tainted with homosexuality in addition to the original sin taint.

Of course, on this view all people are sinners. So, those who heed the words of Jesus would not cast literal or metaphorical stones at homosexuals. After all, none of us would be without sin. That is a nice bit of irony.

Further, if we are all sinners, then there seems to be no grounds to be especially condemning of homosexuality or any other sin. The fact that everyone is evil has the rather interesting effect of making moral judgments rather problematic, yet so very easy. Yes, homosexuals would be evil…but so would everyone else. This result seems a bit problematic, so perhaps there is another approach that will work better.

As a second attempt, consider that some varieties of Christian thought accept the notion of pre-destination. The idea is that your ultimate fate (Heaven or Hell) is determined in advance. You have no choice in the matter and your life unfolds in accord with God’s will.

Those who accept this view believe that those condemned to Hell deserve their fate because they have sinned against God. Naturally, the standard view is that everyone is a sinner because of original sin. Those who get to go to Heaven are arbitrarily spared by God. It must be arbitrary because everyone is a sinner and no one deserves Heaven. This is nicely spelled out in Jonathan Edwards classic “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

On this view, homosexuals are pre-destined to be homosexuals and have no choice in the matter. They are sinners and will be cast into Hell (or perhaps not-since God is arbitrary in whom He saves, perhaps He will save some homosexuals). So, being homosexual would not be a matter of choice, yet it would still be evil. Of course, on this view everyone is evil and deserves Hell. This leads us back to the exact same problem caused by original sin without predestination.

So, it would seem that homosexuality need not be a matter of choice to be immoral. The only problem is that getting to that conclusion seems to also lead to the conclusion that everyone is an evil sinner.

I want my white hat back.

by 1 Comment

Like most American men my age, I grew up watching westerns and war movies. For the most part, things were rather black and white. Good guys wore white hats or American uniforms. Bad guys wore black hats or Nazi uniforms. Naturally, these shows and movies helped shape my conception of good and evil.

The main lesson I learned was that while the good guys could play rough and even kill people, there were certain things that good guys just did not do. The western villains ignored the laws, trampled the weak, locked people up in nasty places, and shot people from ambush. The Nazis tortured people, mistreated prisoners and invaded weaker countries. In contrast, the western hero protected the weak, freed people, and faced the bad guy down in the open. The American soldier did not torture, treated prisoners well, liberated the oppressed and freed countries from invaders.

As I grew up, I learned that worlds of the westerns and war movies were largely worlds of make believe. I learned that Americas had done many terrible things. Despite that, I still believed that Americans mostly wanted to be the good guys and wanted to do the right thing. While that belief faded for a while into cynicism, it never wholly vanished. I still believe in good and evil. I still believe that America can be a great force for good.

Many people talk about America being good and our enemies being evil. In many cases, these people also advocate doing things that would earn them a black hat: torture, spying, suspending liberties, invasions, assassinations, and other terrible things. They justify such things, ironically enough, by claiming that we are in a moral struggle between good and evil.

I do agree that we are in a moral struggle. After all, each day is a moral struggle for each of us. Every day we are faced with choices, however small, that have moral significance. But, doing evil is not the way to win a moral struggle.  The way to win a moral struggle, as Dr. Martin Luther King Junior argued, is not by using evil means and giving in to hatred. A moral struggle is won by being moral.

The actions of America in recent years have made me feel shame for what I have, as a citizen, permitted to be perpetrated in my name. Because of this, I would not feel quite right wearing that white hat now. But, I do want my white hat back. Perhaps someday both America and I will earn that right.

Descats’ Meditations on Furry Philosophy

by 1 Comment

Excerpt from Meditations on Furry Philosophy,by R. Descats (translated by Michael C. LaBossiere from the original Feline)

 Here I sit in my litter box, thinking of the things that I held to be certain in my kitten hood: the tastiness of mice, the evil of dogs, the existence of warm sunny places in which to rest, and so on. I went through life, as most tomcats do, certain of my excellent senses. However, one day while attempting to secure a tasty bit of fish in my servant’s (1) fish tank, I happened to note that to my eyes my leg appeared bent when I thrust it beneath the water. So shocked was I that I pulled my paw forth and forgot all about my dinner. Being a philosophic being, as most cats are, I sought a warm spot atop a pile of freshly washed linens and contemplated my experience. After several naps, I thought about the fact that though my leg had appeared bent, I could feel no change (other than it becoming wet) when I inserted it in the water. It was clear to my remarkable intellect (2) that my senses, which I had previously put so much stock in, had deceived me! This revelation so startled me that I missed my next four naps contemplating its implications. After securing a tasty morsel from my servant’s plate whilst he was pouring himself a beverage, I retired to my litter box for some deep thinking. I spent numerous days in my litter box contemplating all that I held true and it is only now that I have begun scratching my findings into the nearby furniture for the benefit of posterity. (3)

 Sitting here in my litter box, I am attempting to doubt all that I can until I reach that which I cannot doubt. I will begin with the easy doubting. I can easily doubt that dogs, materialists, republicans, and other such beings do not exist, for they have no importance to me. With a little more effort I can doubt the existence of fleas, furniture, my next door neighbor’s garden (which is an excellent substitute for my litter box), the bricks my next door neighbor hurls at me when she spies me using her garden as a substitute litter box, and dirt. I can even doubt that my servant exists and even my litter box. I can even imagine that only I and I alone exist. (4) But, can I go further? Can I imagine that my body does not exist? Yes. I can imagine not having my beautiful tail, my elegant whiskers, my shiny coat, and my wondrous eyes. I can even imagine not having my teeth and claws, which I use to bite and slash mice, materialists, deconstructionists and other vermin. But, can I imagine it being the case that I do not exist? No. For when I think, I know I exist. I think, therefore I am comes to me clearly and distinctly by the light of feline reason, so it cannot be false. Besides, how could it be that I not exist?(5)

 But what am I? Since I can imagine myself existing without my tail, whiskers, eyes, in short, without any of my bodily parts, it follows, clearly and distinctly, by the light of feline reason, that I am not my body, which is but extended substance with various modes. What them am I? I clearly and distinctly perceive, by the light of feline reason, that I am a thinking substance, without extension…

 
Endnotes

1. Descats, like most felines, considers himself the master and his “owner” the servant. Those who are owned by cats will understand what he means.

 2. Cats, like most French philosophers, are shameless egotists.

 3.  Most of the vulgar believe cats scratch things for the merry hell of it. While sometimes this is the case, often the cats are “writing” in this manner. After all, they cannot hold pens and they have a hard time working with computers.

 4. This is actually easy for a cat to believe, since it is usually one of their most cherished pre-philosophic beliefs. The hard part is getting cats to acknowledge other entities.

 5.  See footnote #2, above.

$21

by 1 Comment

The typical food stamp recipient receives $21 a week in federal aid. Recently, some law makers decided to see for themselves what that would buy. They decided to go for a week eating only what $21 would purchase. Given that the budget per meal would be $1, it was hardly a shock when they found that they could buy very little food and almost nothing that would be considered high quality, healthy food.

Given the scant support available, it is good that a bill has been proposed to significantly increase the aid provided, especially to families. Although this proposal certainly seems pro-life, pro-family and pro-American values, there are some who disagree with this.

The classic objection is that the poor are lazy and simply milking the system. While there are no doubt some people who do exploit the system, the evidence seems to show that most of the adults on food stamps work. I make special mention of adults because many of the Americans on food stamps are children. Saying that these kids are lazy and exploiting America is a rather cold and cruel thing to say. Even if you believe that adults should take care of themselves, it is morally unacceptable to let children go hungry simply to hold true to an abstract political ideal about rugged individualism.

Of course, some people have said that the poor are putting their children in this situation by being irresponsible and by having children in the first place. This does raise a point of great concern. On one hand, I believe that people should not have children unless they are responsible enough to care for those children. In my own case, I would not even have a pet if I could not provide for it. It is, to say the least, morally irresponsible to have children without the means to provide them with adequate food, care and shelter. On the other hand, the view that only those who are adequately wealthy have the right to have children certainly strikes me as morally questionable. As Aristotle claimed, a family is one of the great goods in life and to claim that poor people should not have families is to say that they should be denied yet another good.

Laying aside the philosophical points, the fact is that there are kids now who live in poverty and are hungry. To say that the poor should not have kids does nothing to help these kids.

It might be said that the kids are not our responsibility. It would be nice to help them, but we have no obligation to do so.

Perhaps this is true-perhaps we owe nothing to other people, not even children. Perhaps we are not our brother’s keeper. Perhaps our hearts are cold and empty. I would like to think that we are better than that, that we will not let children suffer because of ideology.

One final point-food stamps are a medicine that eases the symptoms but does not cure the disease. Providing more aid and support is a good thing, but what is truly needed is a way to ensure that people can earn a living wage and put healthy, adequate food on the table for themselves and their kids.

If, as the Bush administration claims, we have a culture of life and should follow Christian ethics, then we should feed the hungry and see to it that the children suffer not.

Philosophy Professor/Profession

by 40 Comments

I was recently asked about the work environment, salary and job prospects in the philosophy profession and thought I’d post my answers:

In general, the work environment in philosophy tends to be good. Schools can vary greatly, but working in academics is generally a very positive experience (professor is the # 2 rated job in America).

Typically, a professor has an office that might be shared or private and teaches in various classrooms. Schools vary greatly in assigned responsibilities. A community college might require 4-6 classes a semester, but have no other expectations. A major research university might require 1-2 classes a semester, but expect committee work, professional service, research and such. For the most part, the work load is not unreasonable relative to the salary. Starting salary in a tenure line ranges from $30,000-60,000 depending on many factors. Interestingly, prestigious schools do not always pay more than community colleges. For example, a friend of mine is a professor at Cal State and makes $63,000 a year with a PhD. One person who has an MA makes about $65,000 at a nearby community college and has the same number of years, etc. Unions tend to be a major factor as well. Public schools in strong union states tend to pay well.

The job outlook is quite variable. When I was looking for a job in 1993 the market was horrible. The standard job listing in philosophy is published by the American Philosophical Association and is called Jobs for Philosophers. When I was looking, my classmates and I called it the Job for Philosophers because it was so thin due to the small number of jobs available. Now that many of the old white guys are retiring or dying and the economy is generally good, there are many more openings. So, the JFP is has been fairly fat in the past few years. But, things could change quickly. University budgets could drop, there could be a bumper crop of PhD s to saturate the job market and so on.

Overall, being a philosophy professor is a good job that pays reasonably well. The opportunities have been quite good in recent years-relative to when I graduated.

%d bloggers like this: