Shame brought to his family for bankrupting so many friends. Suicide by his son. If Madoff was just maximizing his income, then why did so many cheer when he did the "perp walk"?
On this view we can more accurately, and less perniciously, understand and describe morally despicable actions, characters, and events using more pedestrian moral concepts such as badness and wrongdoing. By contrast, evil-revivalists believe that the concept of evil has a place in our moral and political thinking and discourse.
On this view, the concept of evil should be revived, not abandoned see Russell and Someone who believes that we should do away with moral discourse altogether could be called a moral-skeptic or a moral nihilist.
Evil-skepticism is not as broad. Evil-skeptics believe the Why humans are responsible for evil of evil is particularly problematic and should be abandoned while other moral concepts, such as right, wrong, good, and bad, are worth keeping.
Evil-skeptics give three main reasons to abandon the concept of evil: The monsters of fictions, such as vampires, witches, and werewolves, are thought to be paradigms of evil. These creatures possess powers and abilities that defy scientific explanation, and perhaps human understanding.
Many popular horror films also depict evil as the result of dark forces or Satanic possession. Some evil-skeptics believe that the concept of evil necessarily makes reference to supernatural spirits, dark forces, or creatures. Evil-revivalists respond that the concept of evil need not make reference to supernatural spirits, dark forces, or monsters.
The concept of evil would have explanatory power, or be explanatorily useful, if it were able to explain why certain actions were performed or why these actions were performed by certain agents rather than by others.
Evil-skeptics such as Inga Clendinnen and Philip Cole argue that the concept of evil cannot provide explanations of this sort and thus should be abandoned. According to Clendinnen the concept of evil cannot explain the performance of actions because it is an essentially dismissive classification.
To say that a person, or an action, is evil is just to say that that person, or action, defies explanation or is incomprehensible see Clendinnen81; see also, Pocock Joel Feinberg also believes that evil actions are essentially incomprehensible.
But he does not think that we should abandon the concept of evil for this reason. Similarly, Cole believes that the concept of evil is often employed when we lack a complete explanation for why an action was performed.
For instance, we might wonder why two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venerables, tortured and murdered two-year-old James Bulger while other ten-year-old boys with similar genetic characteristics and upbringings cause little harm?
Cole believes that the concept of evil is employed in these cases to provide the missing explanation. However, Cole argues that the concept of evil does not provide a genuine explanation in these cases because to say that an action is evil is just to say either that the action resulted from supernatural forces or that the action is a mystery.
To say that an event resulted from supernatural forces is not to give a genuine explanation of the event because these forces do not exist.
To say that an event is a mystery is not to give a genuine explanation of an event, but rather, it is to suggest that the event cannot be explained at least with the information currently available6—9.
Evil-revivalists have offered several responses to the objection that the concept of evil should be abandoned because it is explanatorily useless. Another common response is to argue that evil is no less explanatorily useful than other moral concepts such as good, bad, right, and wrong Garrard—; Russell— Thus, if we should abandon the concept of evil we should abandon these other moral concepts as well.
Eve Garrard and Luke Russell also point out that even if the concept of evil cannot provide a complete explanation for the performance of an action, it can provide a partial explanation. For instance, Garrard argues that evil actions result from a particular kind of motivation.
Call this an E motivation. Thus, to say that an action is evil is to say that it has resulted from an E motivation. This provides a partial explanation for why the action was performed.
Bush made it more likely that suspected terrorists would be mistreated and less likely that there would be peaceful relations between the peoples and governments of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea and the peoples and government of the United States.
But should we abandon the concept of evil because it leads to harm when it is misapplied or abused? So why do they believe that we should abandon the concept of evil? An evil-skeptic might reply that we should abandon only the concept of evil, and not other normative concepts, because the concept of evil is particularly dangerous or susceptible to abuse.If God is sovereign, is He responsible for evil?
No. Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it 'very good' (Genesis ). Many Scriptures affirm that. Ultimately you are really asking why humans are, well, human. We all have a variety of reasons for the actions we take or do not take.
Some decisions are made with the best of intentions and yet others would view, and judge, those same actions as stupid or . Who is responsible for evil? How do you respond to a culture that says that evil is outside of us, rather than inside of us?
Isn’t it just a case of social conditioning, in the sense that our environment has produced the conditions that have caused people to do evil?
1. Evil-Skepticism Versus Evil-Revivalism. Evil-skeptics believe we should abandon the concept of evil. On this view we can more accurately, and less perniciously, understand and describe morally despicable actions, characters, and events using more pedestrian moral concepts such as badness and wrongdoing.
If God is sovereign, is He responsible for evil? No. Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it 'very good' (Genesis ).
Why is there Evil and Suffering? Related Media. A. The Problem But it might appear to some as senseless evil. 4. It is too complicated for humans to understand. The word “creates” and “responsible” in those two verses is a generic word for do, make, act, create, fashion or shape.
I think it means that God uses the evil in this.