Books

The Problem of Evil as an Ethical Problem

Our current philosophical understanding of the problem of evil is not healthy. In this book, I try to show this by saying something else: I argue that theism is morally wrong. After an introductory history of the problem of evil, I introduce the logical problem of morally-impossible evil, I explain moral anti-theodicy, and I discuss the role that moral modalities play in establishing the limits of our moral thinking. I conclude that the problem of evil is and ought to be an ethical problem. It is not an argument that tells us anything for or against the existence of God: it tells us only about our beliefs, our values, our morals, our ethical perspective on and in the world. Ultimately, philosophising about the problem of evil can help you to live in a way that is more consistent with yourself, your ethical beliefs, and with the world as it is. It’s easy to be flippant about these things; we’ve been trained, professionally, to not give them too much weight. But the obligation to seek the truth and live in a way that is aligned with whatever truth there is ought to weigh heavily on people who would call themselves philosophers.

Once upon a time (in a philosophical fairy tale far far away) all questions in philosophy helped to shape your moral world. Because what else was the point in doing philosophy, if not to be a better human being?

The problem of evil was an answer to an ethical question. We wanted to reconcile our beliefs about God and evil in order to orient ourselves rightly in the world. This seems to me to have been a noble aim. Can we say the same now?

The Problem: A Dialogue on the Problem of Evil

‘I am interested in understanding what it is to live well as a human being and how I am to make an attempt at doing so. I think that philosophising about the problem of evil can show me the value of suffering, and I am grateful for those lessons, but also that this has limits. At its limits, I encounter the morally impossible. In recognising something as a moral necessity like this, I say it is something that is at the limits of moral thinking, and that moral judgement in some sense defines the limits of my moral thinking. When I become clearer about the limits of my moral thinking, the picture of my moral world becomes clearer to me: I see its edges, its boundaries, its gaps and spaces where I can only say “here there be dragons”. I see the shape of my moral world. I come to understand my moral perspective, and if I can hold that clear in mind then, in the end, it will help me choose to live in ways that I would, on reflection, choose, and avoid falling into things that I would not. And so in any case, all I can really say is that for me it would be inconsistent to believe in a good and powerful God given the evil and suffering in the world, because to believe such a thing is beyond my moral limits.’

Think Well, Live Well: A Free Introduction to Philosophy

The basic premise of the book is this: Philosophical reflection helps us come to understand important truths about ourselves and the world. These important truths help us to live well; they might even be essential to living well as a human being. But this philosophical reflection needs to be suitably informed. We need to understand how to reflect philosophically before we can make proper use of philosophical reflection. And sometimes to know how to do philosophy requires that you know a thing or two about it. You need to learn how to think well in order to understand how to live well.

This book is an introduction to philosophy, first and foremost. Its purpose is to show you what philosophy is and how to do it. It does this by showing you some paradigmatic examples of what philosophy looks like when it is done well. This provides the necessary minimal requirement of knowledge and understanding to enable you to engage in your own suitably informed philosophical reflection on what it is, for you, to live well.

The Rion: An Ancient Dialogue for Our Times

A satirical piece about popular philosophy.

‘Ri: But how else can you pass on the spirit of Epictetus without passing on his words and ideas? And what better way to do this than by making them as popular and widely-known as possible?

Ex: That’s a good question, although it’s hardly a new question and not one without ready answers. But to answer it we need to remember what it is that we’re trying to achieve, which is the preservation and furtherance of philosophy. Passing on the inspirational force of philosophy is only a small part of this, but if it is done without the requisite understanding then the force of it will only weaken, like the magnetic force in a chain of iron rings that gets weaker with each link as the distance from the source increases. In this way, philosophy itself becomes weaker and weaker, until eventually its spirit will fade away entirely, or else lie dormant until a new generation jumps back to rekindle an old flame; which has happened before, but has always required great efforts from an individual or collective genius. Since we are blessed to be living in an enlightened time, with all the world’s philosophical resources at our fingertips, the onus is on us to keep this spirit alive and strong. How do we do this? Only by keeping the chain as strong as possible, which means keeping philosophy itself in good health. Which is to say: we need more good philosophers. If each link in the chain becomes not only a receiver of what came before but also a new source of philosophy, then the spirit of philosophy can be preserved undiminished, since its force is replenished and strengthened with each good contribution. But this can only happen by each link in the chain, each speaker of philosophy, being themselves a philosopher: an embodiment of the spirit of philosophy. And this is the problem if you speak without understanding: you do not embody philosophy, you do not do what a philosopher would do, and in that you weaken philosophy itself. So for philosophy’s sake, speak less, or understand more, but don’t continue as you are, because by carrying on like this you are breaking something important. Like those university managers who cut philosophy courses because they are no longer profitable, you are condemning something that you don’t understand. The only difference between those managers and you is that they are at least aware that they are condemning philosophy and don’t claim to be doing it a service.’