Galebeaufort’s Weblog

Discussing the problem of evil and freedom the first thing we need to do is to define both ideas as there mere existence is arguable. What is freedom and what is it to be free? What is evil and where does it come from? To answer these questions we will rely upon various definitions provided by some very influencial philosophers and thinkers, such as Sartre, Dostoyevsky, Rousseau and Kant. Jointly we will have to determine whether human beings are subject to determinism or whether they are capable of free will in order to establish if they can truly be free and if evil is something they succumb to or something they chose. Only then we will be able to comprehend the intrinsic relation between evil and freedom.

What is freedom and what is it to be free? The dictionary would simplistically define freedom as follows: “n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints; 2: immunity from an obligation or duty [syn: exemption]” [1], however when we move to the philosophical notion of freedom, the issue becomes more complex as its mere existence in questioned. According to determinism, there shall be no freedom as such because everything is predetermined. As a matter of fact determinism supports the theory of “essence” preceding “existence”, which practically means that nothing depends on us and any choice we think we are taking is actually a predetermined choice and hence could have not been different than what it is.
An extreme supporter of this theory is the French writer Diderot, who not only through his philosophical novels but also in his lifestyle, admitting the existence of determinism, does not search for self improvement and conducts a life of scenes and leisure surrendering to the dominant “will” which is not his, but perhaps God’s [2]. Determinism is also defined as follows: “in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes that preclude free will and the possibility that humans could have acted otherwise” [3]. Goethe puts it very simply in the following terms: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”[4].

On the other hand existentialists such as Sartre[5] prefer to believe that “existence” precedes “essence”, by this we mean the opposite of determinism. This theory believes that we create our own nature and therefore we are not predetermined in any way nor controlled by any superior nature or essence. Hence any choice we make strictly depends on us: On our common sense and our free will. This implies that freedom does exist. However it also implies that if freedom exists the price we pay for it is responsibility. As a consequence Sartre points out that the main characteristics of existentialism boil down to: facticity, anxiety and despair. Facticity, because we find ourselves in a world we can’t control and that is not controlled by any other entity. Anguish or anxiety is the sheer awareness of our own freedom, hence the responsibility of choosing our own nature and values. Despair because we can’t control the freedom of others. Nonetheless another interesting definition is given by Rousseau who suggests that human beings are free by nature: “Man is born free but everywhere is in chains”[6]. By this the writer means that while we are born free society takes freedom away from us. Civilisation has robbed us from our natural freedom: “While semi-civilized humanity looked to itself for its values and happiness, civilized human beings live outside themselves in the opinions and authority of others. The price of civilization is human freedom and human individuality”[7]. We can conclude by saying that if freedom does not exist the problem of evil does not exist either, as it would be something beyond our control. However if freedom does exist, as Sartre and Rousseau want to make us believe, then the problem of evil arises and curiosity in defining it is legitimate and necessary.

What is evil and where does it come from? Once again the dictionary would define evil as follows: “adj 1: morally bad or wrong; “evil purposes”; “an evil influence”; “evil deeds” [syn: wicked] [ant: good] 2: having the nature of vice [syn: depraved, vicious] 3: tending to cause great harm [syn: harmful, injurious] 4: having or exerting a malignant influence; “malevolent stars”; “a malefic force” [syn: malefic, malevolent, malign] n 1: morally objectionable behavior [syn: immorality, wickedness, iniquity] 2: that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune: “the evil that men do lives after them; the good is often interred with their bones”- Shakespeare 3: the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice: “attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world” [syn: evilness] [ant: good, good]”.

However philosophy would go beyond this definition and would try and analyse the origin of evil. To know what it truly is, we need to know what its origin is. If we believe in God, evil can’t be explained, for God is omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good. Nevertheless Theodicy [8] explains evil by stipulating that it is a consequence of God giving human being “free will” and that it is then up to humans to chose between right and wrong, good and evil. If God did not allow for free will to exist, thus not allow for evil to exist either, humanity would be reduced to being meagre puppets. Joseph Conrad puts it this way: “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary, men alone are quite capable of every wickedness”[9]. Some atheists conversely believe that the existence of evil through “reductio ad absurdum” is enough to deny the existence of God. This means that however we look at it, evil depends on free will except for some determinists that would support the theory that an evil person would be determined to be evil thus could not be blamed nor changed. Yet the latter seems to me, an easy way out of the problem.
So, considering the previous, evil is only determined by free will, we could then say that the source of evil itself is human beings’ freedom: “The world is full of wickedness and misery precisely because it is based on freedom — yet that freedom constitutes the whole dignity of man and his world”[10].

The next question that automatically arises is why do human beings chose evil? According to Aristotle on freedom: “Men regard it as their right to return evil for evil — and if they can’t, they feel they have lost their liberty”[11]. Does this mean that men feel free only when choosing evil? Many philosophers have worried about this inclination of mankind towards evil. Dostoyevsky in “Notes from Underground”[12] worries that if human beings are free they will eventually destroy themselves. However not everyone agrees with this pessimistic view of mankind being so attracted from “evil”. As a matter of fact Rousseau sustains that human beings are born naturally good and it is society that corrupts them [13]. Progress, urbanization, technology, capitalism, competition, consumerism ect… have led human beings to be more individualistic hence selfish thus morally corrupt. According to him freedom should only exist within the law, so that everybody has equal rights to freedom, but those who impede this right by choosing “evil” shall be condemned.

[1] WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom
[2] Denis Diderot (1713-1784), Jacques le Fataliste, 1773
[3] Encyclopædia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=30594
[4] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, (1749-1832)
[5] Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980), Existentialism and Human Emotions, 1957
[6] Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), The Social Contract, 1762
[7] Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Discourse on Inequality, 1754
[8] Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, (1646 – 1716)
[9] Joseph Conrad, (1857-1924).
[10] Nikolai Berdyaev (1874 – 1948)
[11] Aristotle, (384 BC – 322 BC), Nicomachean Ethics, 340 B.C.
[12] Dostoyevsky, “Notes from Underground”, 1864
[13] Jean Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Moral Effects of the Arts and Sciences,1750