Why does evil exist?

            This is a huge question, especially since evil has yet to be defined, but it is still a question that must be asked since evil is such a grand theme for humanity. In the Gods’ Must Be Crazy they begin to touch on the development of evil with the use of the Coca-Cola bottle. It is useful, and it is therefore desired. This desire leads some to act immorally and eventually the bottle is tossed away only to appear again. The bottle causes much anxiety and worry, but it is of course obvious that the bottle is not inherently evil it is only interpreted as such. Only through human interpretation does something or someone fall onto the side of evil in the moral dichotomy between light (good) and dark (evil). But when something is interpreted as evil, what part of it makes it evil. Often it seems that something is evil when it brings harm to a person. A gun may be considered evil because it can bring death, but maybe people only see the person who pulled the trigger as the person who brought that death. Perhaps it is something that causes sadness, such as a person dying from cancer. Or maybe it is that which is unfair, a person loses a leg and the event that caused it becomes evil in one’s mind. Or maybe evil does not exist at all and we make it up so that we have a push to be good or even better than good. Therefore evil exists so that goodness may grow.

            A million children may be starving in Africa due to a politically corrupt government and unstable economy. Then what happens? Well people want to be good so they save these children and that goodness is appreciated beyond boundaries. A virus kills millions of people each year and it must be stopped, so scientists and researchers work harder than ever to discover a cure. They find it and no longer are there millions of deaths. Death takes us all, so we search for a way to defeat it yet it keeps winning. All we can do is hope to postpone the eventual eternal defeat. But what if death no longer bothered any of us and no one was afraid of it? Maybe we aren’t ready for that, oh wait we definitely aren’t ready for that because it has not happened yet, so let’s continue.

            Before humanity, there were animals and dinosaurs that killed each other and viruses that attacked their immune systems and which also killed these animals and dinosaurs.

Questioner: So were those viruses and carnivores evil?

Answerer: No.

Questioner: Why?

Answerer: Well because they weren’t really thinking about it and it was just natural.

Questioner: So it is not natural for some humans to harm and kill each other?

Answerer: Well we should be smarter than that.

Questioner: Smarter than what?

Answerer: Smarter than um nature…

Questioner: But we developed from nature so it would be unnatural for us to not follow the laws of nature.

Answerer: But we are human and we have souls and free will!

Questioner: Then why is there any evil?

Answerer: Because that’s the way it is.

Questioner: Oh? We should do something about that.

Answerer: Well we are trying; awareness is just not that natural.

Me again: Since we have thoughts and ideas and we develop together it is only natural for opposing ideas to clash and for people to harm one another. We are not perfect, we are evolving We create rules and laws that nature does not present to us, because we are wild animals and the only thing that can tame us is ourselves. We label things evil because we recognize our ability to defeat what is natural and create something that may be better. We do not always enjoy destruction, but it sometimes leads to creation. One dies, another is born. Where is the fine line between evil and creative destruction? That’s something that has yet to be answered, but the line is becoming finer and we seem to be getting smarter. Perhaps one day nothing labeled as evil will exist and development beyond our imagination will follow. But as for now, evil acts as the action that propels people to question and react in order to discover that which is good.

           

            In response to Travis’s earlier discussion of evil as it being the lack of God, there was a jump taken that did not make since to me, he said:

“Going back to the rat example, over millions of years, the rats that were empathetic and helped out their fellow mice would eventually die off.  This would leave only apathetic rats. For this reason, empathy coming from evolution seems unlikely. Since evolution is the unlikely starter of empathy, intelligent design is the next explanation for empathy.”

He seems to say that empathy would lead to the extinction of empathetic rats. If this is so, then why are they still empathetic? Perhaps they reflect the traits of an empathetic and loving God, but this does not fit well as it would suggest that some of God’s creations like alligators would not reflect the same level of empathy and could be considered evil and therefore lacking God, which would seem unfair if they did not have free will. I believe it would be much more likely that an apathetic species would die off, rather than an empathetic one. I would also argue that animals exhibit some level of free will, since they are able to think and do not react in a given situation the same every time meaning that they must make decisions that are based off more than just chance. With this in mind the next point that was not clear with me was when he said:

“In addition, since empathy is not a trait that will increase our likelihood to survive, it is not a result of evolution, but instead is a source of intelligent design.”

This statement seems to be contradictory, by saying that empathy does not increase the likelihood to survive, but also saying it is a result of intelligent design. If God is the source of empathy and is guiding evolution, would it not be counterintuitive for that God grant a trait like empathy that actually reduced the likelihood to survive. It is with this idea in mind that I would like to say that empathy actually increases the likelihood of survival perhaps more than any other trait known to man. You gave the example of Ladder 49 in which the fireman shows empathy in risking his life to save those in need. Travis says that it is better to not go in as it forces humans to learn to be more careful. I would say that by risking his life he is testing the limits of his ability to survive and that by doing this he is performing a real-life situational experiment that will perhaps help to advance the development of human creation. For instance, we had to risk our lives to fly, but once we were able to soar through the heavens and into space we also were advancing our technology and thus helping to increase the longevity of human lifespan. This seems a little off-the-wall, but I do have a good amount of credence in what I have presented. However, depending on the situation if empathy is not first reviewed and checked so that it is not shrouded in stupidity, mistakes can be made and lives can be lost without benefit. How many times has empathy saved one’s life? Is empathy only meant to save quantity rather than quality of life (thinking of means and ends)?

I do like the idea of God guiding creation, but would probably not say God is a guide, but rather a cause and I would probably not use the word God, though for lack of a better word I may concede.