This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

TSR Philosophy Society (TSR PhilSoc)

Scroll to see replies

rahmara

'theories of life after death do not provide a solution to the problem of evil'. discuss

OK, let's start with the "problem of evil". As usally proposed, this asks why an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow evil to exist.

Of course, that's begging the question in that it assumes that we can tell what 'evil' is. If we take an eternal and omniscient approach, it may be that what seems to be evil at the time, is, in fact, neutral or good. To give an example: vaccination is a long-term good thing from the parent's perspective, but the child having a needle stuck in her arm violently disagrees at the time.

However, this issue of perspective is a valid one. We only have a limited, human conception of what good is. God's viewpoint is clearly different and/or God is not 'good' as we understand it. Life after death affords an opportunity for us to better understand God's viewpoint, but that doesn't resolve the apparent paradox of evil.

However, there is no paradox if God encompasses both good and evil which John Milbank and others would argue, otherwise it would mean that there is something 'outside' God, which is clearly absurd. Evil is still within God's sphere, otherwise it could not be reached by us, as we cannot go outside God's creation.

So the flaw is in the notional construction of God as omni-etc. In fact, the words themselves are completely meaningless. If you use omnipotent, you immediately have to qualify it, or you have stupid situations like: "Can God tie a knot which he can't untie?". So you end up with something like: "God can do anything which can be done". With that construction, it's possible that avoiding evil while allowing free will creation is something which cannot be done. Thus, the paradox evaporates.

Reply 1021

wanderer

Well, almost. If you just leave it as saying God doesn't have to fit with what we happen to think omnibenevolence involves, fine, but why bring in the free will defence at the end - its not really necessary given what you said before, and its a lot weaker as well.

Thanks guys! :smile:

wanderer

why bring in the free will defence at the end - its not really necessary given what you said before, and its a lot weaker as well.

I agree it's weaker, I was just trying to involve the essay title a bit more. :smile:

If "life after death" is to play a part in the essay then you can't only dismiss the problem of evil using the eternal perspective argument.

Reply 1024

wanderer

grumballcake

I agree it's weaker, I was just trying to involve the essay title a bit more. :smile:

If "life after death" is to play a part in the essay then you can't only dismiss the problem of evil using the eternal perspective argument.

Yeah, fair enough. I'd probably go for Iraneaus for life after death though.

Reply 1025

rahmara

I talked both about Iraneuas and Augustine :smile:

Reply 1026

rahmara

Guys and girls! I found this question in a philosophy book.

b) Using examples, describe and compare two types of occupation. Explain how each one influences a person’s belief and values. (40)

Anybody want to have a try?

I've chosen a soldier and im thinking of another one :rolleyes:

Reply 1027

grumballcake

How about a politician? A vicar seems too obvious, but doctors have a lot of ethical issues. Bank manager in a poor area?

Reply 1028

rahmara

Doctor seems good! :smile:

Reply 1029

rahmara

i dont know how to start it off kevin :frown:

Reply 1030

grumballcake

rahmara

i dont know how to start it off kevin :frown:

The question gives you the structure. Start by naming the two jobs you're going to discuss, qualifying them, as necessary. For example, not all soldiers kill people (my dad was in the Army for 28 years and never saw action as he was a Paymaster). I'd probably choose an officer in the Army because it involves sending other men to their deaths as well as any personal decisions about killing the enemy. You also have the ethical issues about following bad orders from above and issuing bad orders to your men ("lions led by donkeys" as it was observed in WWI). Other things you can bring in:

Do you massacre the enemy?
How do you treat the enemy wounded and or PoWs?
What about civilians? Is it acceptable to bomb towns?
How much do you risk?
"Just War" theories.

For the medical side, you could pick an obvious one like an abortion surgeon, but I think that geriatrics is more interesting. there you get:

Quality of life.
Rights to dignity in death.
When is it OK to kill a terminal patient?
Do the beneficiaries of the will have any rights?
What about living wills?

You can then compare the decision of a soldier to kill with that of a doctor. Is the material gain of a piece of land comparable with the beneficiaries of a person's will? That is, if it's OK to kill to gain a hill, why is it wrong to kill to get a house?

When an officer decides that casualties are acceptable, is that comparable with a doctor who withholds a treatment (like a hip replacement) from an aged patient, so that others can benefit. There's a lot of utilitarianism to discuss here.

The you have the personal aspects. Do people choose to become soldiers because their ethics allow them to kill? What happens if they convert? (Note: Jesus spoke to a roman soldier, but his advice was to do with extortion, not killing). Do doctors have an obligation to maintain life at any cost? Does making those decisions change your personal beliefs over time? What's the cause and effect of job choices?

Is that a reasonable jumping off point?

Reply 1031

jmj

Hi, I've got a philosophy essay due in in a couple of weeks, would it be possible to get your opinion on that as well? The title is:

"Is subjective idealism a form of scepticism?"

At the moment I'm thinking I talk about how there are varying degrees of scepticism, and I've got to talk about Berkeley and Locke, but I'm not sure how to write enough for it to be a proper 1,500 essay. Any comments would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Reply 1032

grumballcake

Scepticism is taking a position which says we can't tell one way or the other. Idealism takes a more extreme view and says that we do know. So idealism isn't scepticism at all, it's an actual state of belief. The problem is that we use scepticism in common speech as being a state of disbelief (such as Agent Scully in the X files, who never believes in aliens etc. despite all the cases she's seen). So that's a useful paragraph to cover.

Remember that you should have a definite conclusion in mind. Do not write waffle that allows the reader to choose - pick a viewpoint and then argue it. You can show relevant counter-arguments, but you can then counter those too.

Reply 1033

wanderer

Yep. The idea you want to look at on the other side is the fact that subjective idealism does share traits with scepticism - essentially the rejection of physical reality. That's only really a surface similarity though (with scepticism its not really rejection).

Reply 1034

jmj

Thanks for the help I really appreciate it, it's made it a bit clearer in my head. One of the other problems I had was that I wasn't sure whether subjective idealism is a form of scepticism or not- I couldn't decide. I was leaning towards the view of no, but wasn't sure, so that's clarified it for me.

Thanks very much,

Reply 1035

wanderer

I went to a philosophy lecture on Friday. It worries me that I understood it a lot better than I understand my lectures!

Reply 1036

coldfish

I've understood about a quarter of my lectures this year. Can we swap subjects please?

I've finished my supervisions on political philosophy for the year, and have moved onto metaphysics. This makes me so very very sad. I honestly don't have an interest in whether we percieve objects directly or indirectly, I really don't. lesigh.