See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312021873

Evil as a Moral Problem

Chapter · December 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 148

1 author:

Nurhayat Çalışkan Akçetin

Mugla Üniversitesi
17 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Felsefe Eğitiminin 5N 1K’sı View project

Felsefenin 5N 1Ksı View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nurhayat Çalışkan Akçetin on 01 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Current Topics in Social Sciences

Editors
Hülya YALDIR
Recep EFE
Elżbieta ZUZAŃSKA-ŻYŚKO
Mehmet ARSLAN

ISBN 978-954-07-4135-2

ST. KLIMENT OHRIDSKI UNIVERSITY PRESS

SOFIA  2016
Editors
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hülya YALDIR
Pamukkale University
Faculty of Science and Arts
Department of Philosophy
Denizli, Turkey
Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Elżbieta ZUZAŃSKA-ŻYŚKO
University of Silesia
Faculty of Earth Sciences
Department of Economic
Geography Katowice, Poland
Prof. Dr. Recep EFE
Balikesir University
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Department of Geography
Balikesir, Turkey
Asst. Prof. Dr. Mehmet ARSLAN
Al-Farabi Kazakh National
University, Department of
Geography, Land Management and
Cadastre
Almaty, Kazakhstan

St. Kliment Ohridski University Press

ISBN 978-954-07-4135-2

The contents of chapters/papers are the sole responsibility of the authors,

and publication shall not imply the concurrence of the Editors or Publisher.

© 2016 Recep EFE

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without prior permission of the editors and authors
Cover design: İsa CÜREBAL

ii
 CONTENTS
Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................ 1 
Periodical Transformation of Narratives of Legitimization of Knowledge
according to Jean-François Lyotard 
Özgül EKİNCİ, Hülya YALDIR 
Chapter 2 ...................................................................................................................... 19 
A Critical View of Modernism 
Nurhayat ÇALIŞKAN AKÇETİN 
Chapter 3 ...................................................................................................................... 31 
Which Courses Should Form Part of the Syllabus for Philosophy Departments?
A Comparison of Turkish Universities with Anglo-Saxon Universities 
Nurhayat ÇALIŞKAN AKÇETİN, Sebahattin ÇEVİKBAŞ, Eyüp AKÇETİN,
Ufuk ÇELİK 
Chapter 4 ...................................................................................................................... 49 
Value and Duty Theories of Ethics: Deontology, Axiology and Teleology 
Hasan YÖNDEN, Keziban DER 
Chapter 5 ...................................................................................................................... 58 
The Philosophical Background of Situations of Surplus and Deficient
Communication in Language 
Fikri GÜL, Ulviye TOPÇU 
Chapter 6 ...................................................................................................................... 70 
A Philosophical Critique of the Origin, the Content and the Function of the
Ancient Greek Philosophy and Its Myth as to History of Reason Portery of Homo
Sceptikus 
Hacı Mustafa AÇIKÖZ 
Chapter 7 ...................................................................................................................... 97 
Philosophy of Interaction 
Çağrı Barış KASAP 
Chapter 8 .................................................................................................................... 116 
Logical Fallacies 
Eylem YENİSOY ŞAHİN 
Chapter 9 .................................................................................................................... 128 
Creative Act in Berdyaev’s Philosophy 
Nesrin ATASOY ERTÜRK 
Chapter 10 .................................................................................................................. 138 
The Meaning of Life According to Schopenhauer 
Nurten KİRİŞ YILMAZ, Emine Candan İRİ 
Chapter 11 .................................................................................................................. 147 
Evil as a Moral Problem 
Nurhayat ÇALIŞKAN AKÇETİN 

iii
Chapter 12 .................................................................................................................. 158 
Falsifiability as a Demarcation Scale of K. R. Popper 
Mustafa KAYA 
Chapter 13 .................................................................................................................. 172 
Why Still Philosophy?: Why Still Plato?  
Ayşe Gül ÇIVGIN 
Chapter 14 .................................................................................................................. 181 
Body in the Philosophy of Spinoza 
Naciye ATIŞ 
Chapter 15 .................................................................................................................. 194 
Kant’s Enlightenment: Egalitarian or Not?  
Keziban DER, Hülya YALDIR 
Chapter 16 .................................................................................................................. 203 
Radical Evil Problem in Hannah Arendt 
Mustafa KAYA 
Chapter 17 .................................................................................................................. 219 
Human Philosophy: Philosophical Anthropology of Max Scheler 
Nurten KİRİŞ YILMAZ 
Chapter 18 .................................................................................................................. 230 
Wasting Value in The Name of Values as a Result of Not Being Able to See
“The New”  
Ogün ÜREK 
Chapter 19 .................................................................................................................. 234 
Heidegger’s Interpretation of Kant 
Zehragül AŞKIN 
Chapter 20 .................................................................................................................. 258 
Kant’s Copernican Revolution 
Ayşe Gül ÇIVGIN 
Chapter 21 .................................................................................................................. 267 
Hobbes and Rousseau on Human Nature 
Hülya YALDIR, Keziban DER 
Chapter 22 .................................................................................................................. 278 
Reduction of Incomplete Syllogisms 
Tanzer YAKAR 
Chapter 23 .................................................................................................................. 290 
Alasdair MacIntyre’s Critics on Modern Morality 
Barış MUTLU 
Chapter 24 .................................................................................................................. 303 
Madness and Otherness: The Mad Who Become Other in Society 
Kadriye BOZKURT 

iv
Chapter 25 .................................................................................................................. 310 
Mindfulness in Psychological Counseling 
Gökçe AĞAOĞLU, Jale ELDELEKLİOĞLU 
Chapter 26 .................................................................................................................. 323 
The Narrative and the Other in D.H. Lawrence's Women in Love 
Gamze YALÇIN 
Chapter 27 .................................................................................................................. 333 
Thought of Serif Mardin in Turkish Sociology 
Vefa ADIGÜZEL 
Chapter 28 .................................................................................................................. 347 
Orientalist Studies and the Cultural Stage of Nationalism in the Late Ottoman
Society 
Alaattin OĞUZ 
Chapter 29 .................................................................................................................. 355 
Evaluation of Urban Transformation Applications Based on Urban Poverty: The
Case of Denizli 
Mehmet MEDER, Zuhal ÇİÇEK 
Chapter 30 .................................................................................................................. 365 
Reading the Rural Area Again with the Perspective of Women: Example of Rural
of Denizli 
Gül AKTAŞ 
Chapter 31 .................................................................................................................. 378 
An Analysis of Sexual Abuse from a Sociological Perspective within a Physical
and Psychological Violence Spiral 
Fatma Zehra FİDAN 
Chapter 32 .................................................................................................................. 388 
The Notion of State as a Basic Classifier in Bourdieu’s Sociology: Who
Constructed the Constructers?  
Mustafa GÜLTEKİN 
Chapter 33 .................................................................................................................. 394 
Uninvited Guests Inducing Crisis in a Sustainable Environment: Environmental
Refugees 
Neslihan SAM, Rıza SAM 
Chapter 34 .................................................................................................................. 404 
A New Field in Sociology: Sociology of Emotions 
Sibel EZGİN AĞILLI 
Chapter 35 .................................................................................................................. 415 
Political Discourses and Structuring of Gender in the Process of Ottoman
Modernization 
Türkan ERDOĞAN 

v
Chapter 36 .................................................................................................................. 427 
Analysis of Increasing Divorce Rates Based on Changing Gender Roles: The
Case of Denizli 
Mehmet MEDER, Zuhal ÇİÇEK 
Chapter 37 .................................................................................................................. 440 
Methodology of Social Sciences According to Constructivist Structuralism and
Theory of Structuration 
Ebru AÇIK TURĞUTER 
Chapter 38 .................................................................................................................. 448 
Claim on Space: Re-evaluating the Right to the City Through Capitalism 
Gönül İÇLİ 
Chapter 39 .................................................................................................................. 456 
A Literary Perspective to Political Violence Repertoire: Ömer Seyfettin's The
White Tulip 
Güney ÇEĞİN, Gamze YALÇIN 
Chapter 40 .................................................................................................................. 463 
Narration Technique in Pirî Reis’s Kitâb-ı Bahriyye Work 
Yıldız YENEN AVCI 
Chapter 41 .................................................................................................................. 474 
Confidence of the University Youth in Armed Forces and Information Sources 
Gülsün KILIÇ AKIN 
Chapter 42 .................................................................................................................. 484 
Dualities as a Turnout in Sociology and Samples from Contemporary Sociology 
Mirace KARACA EVREN 
Chapter 43 .................................................................................................................. 503 
The Phenomenon of Brotherhood in the Context of Social Gender 
Gül AKTAŞ 
Chapter 44 .................................................................................................................. 521 
Representing the Nation: An Analysis of Strategic Performativity and Human
Agency in the Everyday Newswork of Journalists 
Ozan AŞIK 
Chapter 45 .................................................................................................................. 531 
Precarious Work: Proletarianization or Precarization 
Gönül İÇLİ 
Chapter 46 .................................................................................................................. 540 
The Differences and Similarities between Durkheim and Simmel Regarding
Their Conceptualization of Society and the Individual 
Güney ÇEĞİN, Ozan EREN 

vi
Chapter 47 .................................................................................................................. 552 
Sociological Analysis of American Image in Cartoons Published on Humor
Magazines During 1947-1960 
Yüksel MARIM, Rıza SAM 
Chapter 48 .................................................................................................................. 567 
Complex Manifestations of Motherhood in Social Life: Motherhood and Career 
Fatma Zehra FİDAN 
Chapter 49 .................................................................................................................. 577 
Abdals in Cultural Geography of Anatolia 
Nilüfer KÖŞKER 
Chapter 50 .................................................................................................................. 589 
The Poetry of Anger, Distress and Frustration: A Selection of Angry English
Poems 
Hamdi Ali SERDAR 
Chapter 51 .................................................................................................................. 604 
Tree Concept in Bedri Rahmi Eyuboğlu’s Poems 
Yıldız YENEN AVCI 
Chapter 52 .................................................................................................................. 615 
Gerunds in Tezkire-i Sheikh Safi 
Feyza TOKAT 
Chapter 53 .................................................................................................................. 624 
A Promenade to Japanese Modernologio: Description of Japan, Japanese
Language and Its People through the Signs 
Cahit KAHRAMAN 
Chapter 54 .................................................................................................................. 633 
Demographic Development of Tbilisi (Past, Present, Future)  
Giorgi MELADZE, Nodar ELIZBARASHVILI 
Chapter 55 .................................................................................................................. 645 
Puns and Neologism in “L'Écume Des Jours” by Boris Vian 
Nurten SARICA 
Chapter 56 .................................................................................................................. 652 
A Short Note about the Daily Lives of Anatolian Women in Prehistoric Periods 
İlhami DURMUŞ, Fitnat ŞİMŞEK, Aslı KAHRAMAN ÇINAR 
Chapter 57 .................................................................................................................. 662 
Women Officials of the Assyrian Imperial Palace: The Case of the “Šakintu”  
H. Hande DUYMUŞ FLORIOTI 
Chapter 58 .................................................................................................................. 673 
Problems Faced By Refugee Children and Social Work Practices 
Nurdan DUMAN &Yaser SNOUBAR 

vii
Chapter 59 .................................................................................................................. 679 
Classification and Functions of Sports Structures 
Funda KURAK AÇICI 
Chapter 60 .................................................................................................................. 692 
Ethnic Groups in Russia: Language, Culture and People 
Gaye ERTİN 
Chapter 61 .................................................................................................................. 704 
Changes in the Demographics of Turkey and Demographic Opportunities 
Çiğdem ÜNAL 
Chapter 62 .................................................................................................................. 715 
China’s Population: The Course of Development and Changing Politics 
Ayşe Nur TİMOR 
Chapter 63 .................................................................................................................. 721 
How the (Criminal) Women Were Punished in the Ancient Mesopotamia and
Anatolia?  
H.Hande DUYMUŞ FLORIOTI 

viii
Chapter 11

Evil as a Moral Problem

Nurhayat ÇALIŞKAN AKÇETİN

INTRODUCTION
The problem of evil, which has been one of the most debated problems both in
Islamic and Western world since the ancient times, has been handled in this study in
respect to ethics. This problem, in general, is related to ‘the problem of evil existing in
our world and regarded as having created by God, and doing harm or overshadowing
the existence or at least primary features of God (Cevizci I, 1999, p. 525). In other
words, the problem has resulted from the difficulty of associating evils in the world and
the existence of God, who is absolutely good, omnipotent and omniscient. Even though
it has a religious aspect, it is ultimately related to the moral aspect of the human beings
because they have wisdom and free will (willpower), which means they are responsible
for their deeds.
It was Epicurus who made the first defiant comments in contradiction to the
intrinsic belief of religion and God, and this problem was fundamentally formed around
Epicurus’ questions. However, the debates still continue today because these questions
still do not have an exact answer. The most important reason is because this problem
exceeds our limits of comprehension, is ultimately based on human beings and their
deeds, and it is thus relative. Human beings possess wisdom and free will (willpower).
The problem of evil basically results from this characteristic of humans. In other words,
wisdom and free will can direct a person not only towards good but also evil. The deed
is human’s own responsibility.
The questions posing the problem of evil are as follows: If God did not know evils
in the world, He could not be an omniscient being, which means there is no use in
praying and demanding something. If God knows these evils but cannot prevent them, it
means He is a weak being, contrary to what is generally believed. If God knows these
evils and is powerful enough to prevent them but does not want to prevent, then He
does not possess absolute goodness and justice because He just looks on innocent
people suffering (Cevizci, 2015, p. 413).
Matter has been regarded as the source of any evil since Plato, and it belongs to
this world (the Kingdom of Shadows). This idea has influenced pessimistic opinions as
well. However, there is more evil than good in this world. Unlike Leibniz,
Schopenhauer insisted on the universality of suffering, and presents various arguments
to defend this thesis. He believed that our world is the worst of all possible worlds
(Kiriş, 2012: 103-104; Kiriş. 2008: 92). The redundancy of conditions such as sickness,
misery, violence, injustice, disasters etc. have led him to assume that this world is the
worst world ever to be designed. While the main aim of humanity is happiness, it is
more likely that the problem of evil will appear at any moment.


Assist. Prof. Dr., Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Seydikemer Applied Sciences High
School, Muğla, Turkey
 On the other hand, optimistic opinions are handled in the context of theodicy, and
solutions are searched by defending God. This problem, for instance, was analysed by
Ibn Sina as follows: God is the absolute being and the first cause of the existence of the
universe. “In his doctrine of cosmogony, Ibn Sina locates the Necessary Being at the
summit of the universe as one, incorporeal, and the First Cause of all contingent beings.
The potential existence of the whole cosmic system is already present in the knowledge
of the Necessary Being. Everything in the universe comes into existence through the
very act of intellection of the Necessary Being, who is pure and actual Intellect”
(Yaldir, 2009b: 10-11). For Ibn Sina, God possesses goodness and evil because
everything stems from God. However, it is not a blind obligation. God is eternal
goodness; therefore, no harm may come from him. Evil comes from things (Ülken,
1983, p. 103). The existence of evil is not a deficiency of God because evil has also a
place within the integrity of the universe. If there were no goodness and evil, the order
of the universe would not be complete nor would it be the same universe if only one of
them existed (Taylan I, 1998, p. 157). In the world of Islam, some philosophers regard
evil as something in relation to the inability to find a thing. For example, poverty is evil
compared to wealth. In other words, evil is deficiency, in that there is no evil but
deficiency. ‘This world is the best among possible worlds’. Leibniz from the Western
philosophy could be given as an example for this optimism. According to Leibniz, this
world is the best among possible worlds. The absence of evil is not possible; the reason
why it looks absent is the deficiency.
Some philosophers in the Islamic world have always attributed goodness to God,
and evil to humans due to their deeds. However, for some philosophers in the Western
world, the universe is a place where Gods are not well-intentioned, and any kind of evil
may exist. Yet, for some others, evil is the absence of good, or the coexistence of good
and evil in the universe constitutes an order.
Finally, it could be said that evil is attributed to the free and ethic humans. At this
point, it is the human’s responsibility to choose between good and evil.
IN THE WESTERN WORLD
The starting point of the problem of evil is the problem of setting an association
between God, who is almighty, absolute good and just, and evil in the world. It was a
matter of debate both in the ancient history and Christianity, and in the modern era, and
it has continued until today as no exact solution have been found.
In the ancient history, God organized everything in the most perfect way for
Stoics. This notion obliged them to explain the existing evil in the world. As a solution,
they have opinions, one of which is positive and the other is negative. According to the
former opinion, evil is only relatively bad. Moreover, the things that are called evil are
in fact contribute to the welfare and competence of the world. The second opinion
asserts that no good may exist without evil. In other words, everything is known with its
opposite. When one of the oppositions disappear so does the other. Evil, therefore, is a
means of knowing the good (Cevizci, 2015, p. 111).
Epicurus, who first stated the most crucial questions about the problem in the
ancient period, asked ‘Does God want to prevent evil although is He unable to prevent
it? Then, He is weak. Or, is He capable but doesn’t want to prevent it? Then God is bad.
If He is both capable, and wants to prevent evil, then where does evil come from?
(Hume, 1995, p. 209). To reply the questions that are very hard to answer, Epicurus

148
asserted that a human had to be cleared off from his fears in order to reach a virtuous
and calm life. He also stated that a human being is also capable of determining his fate
and there is no belief in after-life; thus, he asserted that one must get rid of the fear of
God and death, because Gods do not interfere with the universe, and are even
disinterested.
There is a materialist ontology behind the notion that constitutes the basis of the
pessimistic opinions. As a result, the universe is a place where Gods are not well-
intentioned and evil is always around (Taylan I, 1998, p. 147). Pessimistic approaches
do not associate God and evil in the world, and there have even been some philosophers
reaching the conclusion that God does not exist as long as evil exists in the world.
However, the fact that human beings are regarded as sinners in Christianity
constitutes the basis of evil. Human beings fell to this world because of their sin, and
came face to face with evil. Dostoyevsky stated that human beings “learned what is
good and what is evil by tasting the apple. They became a “God”… They are not
thinking of giving up eating the apple”. However, he thought that children are not guilty
because they still do not know anything (Dostoyevski, 2009, p. 985). According to
Dostoyevsky, eating the apple, in a way, represents continuing to commit a crime
because adults keep on eating the apple, but children are innocent in that they do not
have an inborn guilt nor do they have to suffer somebody else’s sins. Thus, the
perception of the first sin in Christianity does not influence all humanity because it is
not fair that an innocent person suffers another person’s sin. However, a human being
always keeps his desire to commit a sin as strong as the time he first did it, and the
reason for the sin keeps recurring. God in Christianity is presented as a creator to whose
willpower (volition) and potency everything including evil belongs, who is good and
wise, and has unlimited and endless mercy, and always wishes for goodness for the
things that He created. Does this mean that God knows evil naturally, and wants or
creates it? (Taylan, 1998, p. 144).
According to Augustinus, assuming that there is a valid reason in the creation of
evil, good is the actual self of existence, whereas evil has no reality by itself in that evil
is rather the absence of good. A being is both real and good. In reality, the only Being is
God. Therefore, God is necessarily good. Thereby, evil is not related to the being.
Everything in the universe is part of the harmony. In his opinion, the coexistence of
good and evil creates an order in the universe (Taylan, 1998, p. 148). In other words,
evil is a complementary part of the order in the universe.
The issue of the existence of evil in the universe was also a concern for David
Hume, a philosopher from the Period of Enlightenment. According to Hume, God is not
willing to prevent evil, so He is not omnibenevolent or omnipotent, but weak. If both
conditions are positive, why does so much evil exist? Then could it be concluded that if
God exists, evil cannot exist, or if evil exists, God cannot exist? (Taylan, 1998, p. 146).
Showing pessimistic attitudes in this respect, Hume thought it was impossible to relate
the existence of evil with order because he assumed that there is no order in the
universe, which is actually claimed to be existing. Even if there is, it is impossible to
reach God through this order. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that evil is a
complementary part of this order.
Though he refused the idea of God, I. Kant also assumed that divine wisdom and
evil cannot be associated. However, such questions are beyond humans’ wisdom
because wisdom is limited. According to Kant, religion is the demonstration of ethic

149
tasks as a holy ordinance. One of the most important problems of religion in terms of
ethics is the source of evil in humans’ nature. In his youth, Kant regarded evil as a
deficiency in humans; however, he asserted in his old ages that human beings always
have a tendency towards evil, and it is impossible to make away with it completely. He
further stated that human nature is not good. Humans exist so that they perform what is
good. On the other hand, no matter how hard humans try, tendency towards evil is not
something that can be erased only on their own efforts. Besides these efforts, one must
believe that wisdom will gain a victory over evil, and God will help (Heimsoeth, 2007,
pp. 177-179).
The philosophers who approach this problem in an optimistic way put forward
some solutions to the existence of evil. They stated that ‘evil is complementary to the
good’ or God ‘has created human beings with free will and has not interfered with their
deeds’. Having a free will attributes a meaning to evil as the things to be struggled with
in order to attain moral perfection (Taylan, 1998, p. 173). In other words, evil in this
world is necessary in order to be moral. Even though good and evil are attributed to
God, there is a consensus that evil is not a real being. Evil is a means so that good could
appear, and it is relative.
However, there are criticisms against this viewpoint. First of all, these critics assert
that the belief stating that evil must exist in order to recognize good is not an
ontological principle. In other words, God should have been able to create the good
without evil interfering. Therefore, God and causality principles are not interconnected
because the necessary existence of evil as a cause with the purposes of acquiring good
means the restriction of God. Also, evil may lead to good as well as evil (Taylan, 1998,
p. 174).
At this stage, demonstrating a pessimistic attitude, Schopenhauer regarded in his
philosophy that the concept of absolute good is only a nonsense that cannot be
annihilated because the absolute good is only the complete satisfaction of desires or free
will (willpower). However, Schopenhauer asserted that free will (willpower) is so
limitless and endless that it cannot be satisfied. Thus, he believed in art and morals as a
way to avoid the vicious cycle of desiring and being engaged in a hopeless struggle,
hence sorrow and misery (Cevizci, 2015, p. 688). As Schopenhauer felt revulsion in this
world, it forced him to imagine how delightful it could be to regard events and objects
as if we were not there. However, it is far beyond reach (Eagleton, 2010, p. 221).
Moreover, Schopenhauer missed that a human life or a world, where free will
(willpower) is ignored, and there is no desire or effort, will be full of difficulties.
According to Leibniz, who claimed that this world is the best among the possible
existing kingdoms, the reason why God allows evil is to enable human beings to reach
higher level good because evil is the indicator for greater goodness to come. The
universe is the best possible kingdom among the others due to the prevailing order and
harmony. Evil in the universe is on the surface. He asserted that the bond between God
and human beings must be love, and human beings must consent to what God have
created. On the other hand, evil stems from the limited bodies of the creatures because
‘Eternal truth of the divine knowledge cannot be known by beings’ (Taylan, 1998, pp.
167-168).
Voltaire wrote ‘Candide’ to refer to Leibniz’s optimism. The book talks about the
earthquake in Lisbon and draws attention to the pain people felt. Voltaire said: “Martin,
in particular, concluded that man was born to live either in the convulsions of misery or

150
in the lethargy of boredom”. In other words, according to Martin, human beings are
never at rest. What is to be done is to be coldblooded (Voltaire, 2002, p. 230). In
contrast to Leibniz claiming ‘this world is the best world among what is possible’,
Voltaire stated that this explanation is not a remedy to the existing pains in the world. In
his book, he claimed that this world is not the best among the possible worlds, but the
worst due to sorrows, diseases and problems.
However, Leibniz thought that God did not fail to create the best. This hypothesis
pursues the idea that there is evil in the world that we have been experiencing, but it
cannot be comprehensibly excluded from the universe since its creation. He asserted
that some moral disorders or evil are interconnected with the best plan of the universe.
He further stated that even if we assume that doomed people outnumber the chosen
ones in the universe, immorality and poverty do not outweigh virtues and happiness
because God’s City must be the most perfect of all the possible states. Leibniz observed
the love of virtue and hatred of evil, which have an unidentified tendency through
preventing the existence of evil and bringing the virtue into the existence, and the
premise of the deed of desire is to bring happiness to all human beings and protect them
from misery (Leibniz, 2001, pp. 4-6).
According to Leibniz, three types of evil exist, which are physical, moral and
metaphysical. Metaphysical evil comprises deficiencies, which generally involve the
deficiency in the finite being. He stated that a created being is necessarily finite, which
shows that it is deficient. It is this deficiency which is the source of evil. Physical evil,
stems from pain, and moral evil stems from sin. Even though this world is the best
among the possible worlds, the created beings are necessarily deficient (Copleston,
1996, pp. 67-68).
Physical and moral evil is a result of metaphysical deficiency. However, this
deficiency means that capability and perfection is gradually deficient because it has to
be like this because of the divine wisdom. Inability to be absolutely competent exists in
the concept of the world. This describes us the metaphysical evil (Taylan, 1998, p. 165).
Another philosopher bringing a solution to this problem is Malebranche, explained
why God let evil and pain. He claimed that God always acts according to the general
laws. For example, murders occur as a result of humans’ desires. In other words, as far
as certain physical deeds are concerned, we experience certain sorrows. Thus, it is more
appropriate for God’s competency to act in conformity with the general laws instead of
changing the system just to satisfy people (Cevizci, 2001, p. 191).
However, for Hume, this world is against humans’ expectation from God, who is
omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and absolute good because humans are
limited beings. If there are impairments in the shape of a building or a structure, the first
person to blame is the architect of this building. “Isn’t it possible for the Godly being to
annihilate evil wherever they exist, and create all goodness without making the
preparation for the reasons and their effects?” (Hume, 1995, pp. 216-217). If all living
creatures did not feel any pain or the world could be dominated by certain desires, then
there would not be such a thing as evil in the world. According to Hume, there is no
evidence for a Godly goodness, but people come to goodness by assessing the
phenomena. However, there are so many pains and evil in the world that the solution
seems impossible (Hume, 1995, p. 222). After all, religion stems from humans’ fear or
hope.
Hume mentions four conditions that lead to evil in the world. The first condition is

151
that creatures are provoked to act by pains and pleasures. The second condition is that
the world is governed by general laws. The third condition is that every creature is
given limited power and competence. The fourth condition is the careless labour in
nature (Hume, 1995, pp. 216-221). What Hume meant by natural evil is the deficiency
inherent everything in nature. What he intended to say by moral evil is those resulting
from humans’ deeds. Assuming that this issue has no solutions, Hume expressed that
the only thing to do is to analyse nature. However, it is necessary to state that if pain did
not exist, what would pleasure or happiness mean? If immorality did not exist, would it
make a difference to be moral? Could the creation of a universe, which is good but
deprived of freedom, be preferred to the universe, where both good and evil, exist.
Humans are limited beings as Kant said. It is necessary to see the whole picture in order
to understand better.
Reviewing this issue, a contemporary philosopher J. L. Mackie examined the
arguments of theism. Of all these arguments, first one is that good cannot exist without
evil or evil required good in return. The second is that evil requires good as a means.
The third is that the universe is a better place with some evil compared to having no evil
at all. The fourth and perhaps the most important one is that evil depends on humans’
free will. Evil can never be attributed to God as evil resulted from humans’ independent
deeds. Even though the first degree evil (i.e. pain) can justify the second degree evil
(i.e. sympathy and heroism), which is logically necessary, it cannot justify the second
degree evil (i.e. cruelty) (Mackie, 2009, pp. 203-208). Mackie claimed that it is a
contradiction to assume God as omniscient and omnipotent besides the existence of
evil. However, assuming that evil exists as God is not omniscient or omnipotent is not
contradictory. Reconciliatory solutions are considered unreasonable such as the idea
that the existence of good necessitates the existence of evil.
The problem of evil expresses that ideas about the attributions to God cannot be
equally defended. Those who defend it are also in contradiction. Moreover, Mackie
thought that God could not create a being that always chooses what is good freely, and
regarded it contradictory to God’s being almighty (Yıldız, 2011, p. 81).
IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD
The problem of evil (the issue of malignity) was also argued in the Islamic history
of thought in line with the concept of theodicy. Theodicy refers to “why God lets the
existence of evil in the world, …’in other words, it is the common name given to the
solution attempts by affirming God to solve the problem of evil, and the doctrines as a
whole committed to advocate God’s justice, mercy and sovereignty against the doubts
which evil and pains create in the world” (Sarp erk Ulaş, 2002, p. 1414). “The lexical
meaning of the word Theodicy is to advocate and justify God”. In other words, trying to
justify this world, which is full of evil, means advocating God (Eagleton, 2011, p. 117).
It is also called God’s Justice. It is also a way of attempting to reconcile between God’s
endless and unlimited mercy and justice with the existence of evil in the world.
In the Islamic world, this problem has been handled within the framework of the
concepts of ‘divine justice’ and ‘malignity’. “Malignity is a term to refer to evil and
harmful things that do not comply with God’s commandments and perfect creation of
humans”. In Qur’an, as ‘benevolence (good) and ‘malignity (evil) cannot completely be
recognized by human beings, it is stated that anything that is not embraced by a human
could be benevolence, whereas anything that is embraced by a human could be

152
malignity’. Moreover, it is also expressed that when somebody who is not capable of
doing benevolence try to avoid doing evil, it is considered as benefaction (Özdemir,
2010, p. 539).
As there are situations called evil that cause pain and sorrow when experiencing or
witnessing it, then how is it possible to associate the belief of merciful, affectionate,
good, omniscient and omnipotent God with these situations. If God had created them
intentionally, being aware of evil, wouldn’t it cause distrust in His justice? If evil exists
though he does not desire it, then is His potency limited? Such questions were put
forward by those who had pessimistic approaches towards malignity, and constitute one
of the most important bases for atheism, scepticism and agnosticism. On the other hand,
the philosophers having optimistic approaches asserted that one can realize that the
situations which seem evil at first will turn out to involve good inside when focusing
not on the single events but on the whole. They also claimed that good is principal
while evil is incidental (temporary). Some other philosophers have the opinions that
objects are known with their opposites, thus good cannot be noticed without the
existence of evil (Çağrıcı, 2010, p. 542).
Most theologians belonging to Mutezile and Maturidiyye, and some scholars, who
are the members of Selefiyye claimed that evil could be known through wisdom. On the
contrary, most of the Seleffiye sect and Eş’ariyye claimed that malignity can be well
understood not through wisdom but religion. They further stated that there is nothing in
the universe like only benevolence itself, nor only evil itself (Yavuz, 2010, p. 540). The
deeds that God wants to be fulfilled are regarded as benevolence, whereas the deeds that
He prohibits are regarded as malignity. However, most Islamic philosophers think that
absolute malignity does not exist in the world.
Just like the idea in which evil is attributed to God in the Western world, malignity
is also ascribed to God in the Islamic world. Taking into consideration under two
headings: “1. God created all beings and phenomena under His will, thus He wishes for
and creates evil. 2. God is just and omniscient, and is exempted from doing evil”
(Yavuz, 2010, p. 540). However, there are two concepts for calamity and disaster in
Islamic philosophy. They could be a punishment given in this world against the
outbreaks that humans do, they could also aim to test humans, or signify humans’
expectation for receiving a reward in afterlife. Thus, there is benevolence, not
malignity, in fate and predestination determined by God; malignity is only present in
the beings He has created (Yavuz, 2010, p. 541). In short, the features of all created
beings enable malignity in an indispensable way. Humans possess wisdom and free will
(willpower), thereby encumbering them with responsibilities. They are responsible for
the good and evil they do. Additionally, these responsibilities involve the factors such
as social environment that they live in, economical status, education, and family. Thus,
malignity is relative.
As one of the most prominent philosophers in this area, İbn Sina stated that human
is a being composed of soul and body. However, despite this, some commentators argue
that “in Ibn Sina ’s philosophy, the status of the human being appears to be changing
according to the fields of natural science and metaphysics. In his scientific or medical
writings, he emphasizes the importance of the body and its faculties for the soul, and
accordingly describes the human being as the union of the soul and body; but in his
metaphysical writings and reflections he appears to intend rather to liberate the soul
from the body, its faculties or the entire material world” (Yaldir, 2009a: 262). Anyway,

153
as the body is created by material elements, it could be a source of malignity for the
soul per se in case of feeling pain (Yavuz, 2010, p. 541). İbn Sina asserted that there are
three types of evil: Physical evil, psychological evil, and metaphysical evil. Physical
evil is called deficiency, psychological evil is called torment, and metaphysical evil is
called sin. He asserted that evil always exists in the contingent world and individuals. If
a human commits a sin and feels pain, it is because of the deficiency of this element. If
evil did not exist, we could not move towards the good (Ülken, 1983, p. 103). God
enables humans to choose either good or evil by using their free will, and helps them to
head to good as well.
Another philosopher İbn Memun claimed that evil is “evil compared to another
thing”. In other words, evil is regarded in proportion to the nonexistence. For example,
sickness is evil compared to health. As beings in the universe are transferred from
nonexistence into being, they are full of deficiencies. Thus, there are more evil in the
world than good (Ülken, 1983, p. 184). The claim that this universe is the most
competent among possible universes is related to the problem of good. Şehabeddin
Sühreverdi alleged that there is no evil, and there cannot be evil. Evil only indicates the
deficiency (Ülken, 1983, p. 200). Advocating this opinion from the Western
philosophy, Leibniz thought that this world is the best among the possible ones
according to optimist philosophy. On the other hand, evil does not and cannot exist, and
the reason why it seems to be existing is the deficiency.
İbn Memun mentioned three types of evil. The first type of evil involves those
resulting from birth and disorders such as sickness and physical disabilities. Second
type of evil is brutality and cruelty that those people do against each other. The third
type of evil is those caused by humans’ own deeds. According to the third type, human
beings are responsible for their own deeds (Ülken, 1983, p. 184). These evils present
humans with the moral problem. As responsibility generates the idea of sin, moral
problem leads to religious problems. Besides, the second type of evil mentioned by the
philosopher is the responsibility of individuals because humans do cruelty, and are also
exposed to cruelty. Human beings have both wisdom and free will (willpower). The
problem of evil stems from this characteristic of humans. In other words, wisdom and
freewill can guide a human to do good and evil as well. Thus, this problem is relative
because it ultimately depends on human beings and deeds.
İbnu'l-Arabî also assumed that evil is subjective. He stated that admitting the
existence of evil is not against God’s omniscience and omnibenevolence. On the
contrary, if evil did not exist, it would be against God’s omniscience because the
universe would not be complete or perfect. According to the philosopher, deficiency
constitutes part of the perfection in the universe (Affifi, 1975, p. 143).
Most scholars except for Cebriyye, claimed that all evil done by humans belong to
themselves; they are literally responsible for their deeds since they are the real actors
and “because performing evil deeds is nothing but opposition to predestination and fate
organized by God for the sake of good. This is reason why humans commit sins”
(Yavuz, 2010, p. 541).
On the other hand, Farabi assumed that this world was designed in the best way.
Hence, although he claimed that deficiency and injustice did not exist, he had an
optimistic approach towards the problem evil. Farabi stated that benevolence and order
are the basic aims in the universe (Taylan, 1998, pp. 153-154). The existence of evil is
mandatory because good would not exist nor would it be known without evil. Hence, it

154
has incidental advantages.
Given the views stated by Ibn Rüşt, God has created everything and has all the
knowledge about the beings He has created. The creation of evil by God does not have
the meaning as understood by humans because even though something seems evil to
humans, it may be benevolent according to God’s discipline. Therefore, the creation of
evil is an aspect of divine justice (Taylan, 1998, p. 161). As humans are created with
limited features, they are deprived of seeing the phenomena from all aspects. Believing
that only God but nobody else can be knowledgeable about His nature, Gazzali stated
that human beings are not able to comprehend the nature of God with the capacity they
own, but they are able to acquire some information about God only through comparison
(Taylan, 1994, pp. 158-159).
Gazzali claimed that God created the universe with perfection by furnishing it with
knowledge and wisdom. This universe is in concordance with justice, and a more
splendid universe is impossible to create because if it were possible to create a more
splendid universe, having not created it would be against His omniscience. Moreover,
due to God’s epithets, it is impossible to claim that He cannot afford to create a better
universe (Taylan, 1998, p. 162). However, considering the world or universe as the
‘best among the possible ones’ has brought a limitation to God’s potency, thus it has
been criticized a lot. These criticisms are based on the idea that there is always
something ‘better than possible’
Finally, though there are both optimistic and pessimistic approaches in the Western
world, there are varying opinions in the Islamic world, yet the philosophers agree on the
view that God has created nothing that does not involve benevolence for the world and
afterlife (Yavuz, 2010, p. 542).
CONCLUSION
This study aims to present the main approaches to the problem of evil, and to
reveal that real issue is in fact a moral problem that depends on humans. The reason for
its being a moral problem stems from the fact that a human is a being that possesses
wisdom and free will. Individuals are then emphasized as being responsible for their
deeds.
The problem of evil has been debated but remained unsolved since ancient times.
The most significant reason for this is that it depends on belief. The questions putting
forward the problem of evil has no answers or no universal answers. As human beings
are limited beings, they are deprived of comprehending everything completely. In the
Western world, there are optimistic approaches to this problem as well as pessimistic
approaches. There are even views that disregard God. However, this problem has been
handled within optimistic and solution-based framework, namely ‘theodicy’.
Our world is full of poverty, disorganization and pain, but human beings are to
blame. Given the aim of creation of the universe, criticisms such as ‘Why did all-
creating God create evil, and it would have been fine if He had not created’ do not seem
right because human beings possess wisdom and free will, which means the necessity to
choose. If evil did not exist, would it be possible to choose? If choice did not exist, why
would wisdom and free will be necessary? It is a contradictory situation to state that
wisdom and free will, and evil would exist at the same time. Good and evil necessitate
each other. If humans were created in such a way that they choose good all the time,
there would be no freedom, thereby no choice. Moreover, evil makes humans notice or

155
comprehend good. Instead of having an enforced world where only good exists, it is
more preferable to have a world where evil, and thus free will exist.
In short, the world must be regarded as a battle field for good and evil. Given the
holistic structure of the universe, good and evil exist for making an aim and philosophy
come true. The favourite saying ‘in every evil deed, there is good (every cloud has a
silver lining)’ in fact refers to this view. Something described as evil at the first moment
can be regarded as good in time. As humans are limited beings, they may not always be
able to see the whole picture. In addition, evil has a relative structure. Evil that seems
bad for a human or a culture may not be so for another human or a culture. Hence, it
contains relativity in itself. This might be the reason why the questions cannot be
completely answered.
Both happiness and pain are part of life. Evil must not be regarded as God’s
deficiency. Humans are wise beings so it is in humans’ hands to benefit from or abuse
this wisdom. A deed that is distant from meaning is close to evil. If Satan is not in
negative social conditions but inside the humans themselves, then evil is invincible.
However, considering terrorists as insane beings who are unable to comprehend what
they do is to regard them as morally innocent. In other words, reason and freedom are
closely related to each other, which is the prerequisite to keep them morally liable
(Eagleton, 2011, pp. 9-12). For instance, Hegel stated that evil develops along with
individual freedom (Eagleton, 2011, p. 32). If evil exists, it must be comprehended by
appealing good. “Excluding good and reality, only the cruel innocence of life is left
behind- innocence, which is below both good and evil” (Badiou, 2016, p. 66).
As a consequence, wishing that God had not created evil is to evade our own
responsibility. Human beings have the freedom of being good and evil. Both being good
and evil depend on factors such as humans, their social environments, families, and
education they have received etc. The existence of people who do not prefer evil even
under very heavy life conditions is a reality, which is performed through humans’ own
choices. God’s eternal goodness is not absolutely contradicting with the existence of
evil. Evil makes humans realize what is good. If humans were deprived of wisdom and
free will (willpower) to choose good or evil, pleasure and happiness would not be so
significant. If God created a being that chooses good all the time, then it would not be
possible to notice good in the absence of evil, and wisdom or free will (willpower)
would not be important. Without the existence of evil, actions cannot be assessed
morally. In short, the problem of evil does not stem from God but from human beings.
REFERENCES
Affifi, A. E., 1975. Muhyiddin İbnul-Arabî'nin Tasavvuf Felsefesi. Ankara: Ankara
Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Yayınları.
Badiou, A., 2016. Etik, Kötülük Kavrayışı Üzerine Bir Deneme. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
Çağrıcı, M., 2010. Felsefe ve Ahlak. %1 içindeTürkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi.
İstanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, pp. 542-544.
Cevizci, A., 1999. Felsefe Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Paradigma.
Cevizci, A., 2001. Metafiziğe Giriş. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları.
Cevizci, A., 2015. Felsefe Tarihi,Thales'ten Baudrillard'a. [Çevrimiçi] Available at:
http://www.pdfdeposu.com/ahmet-cevizci-felsefe-tarihi-thalesten-baudrillarda/ [Erişildi:
16 03 2016].
Copleston, F., 1996. Felsefe Tarihi, Çağdaş Felsefe, Bölüm c, Leibniz. İstanbul: İdea.
Dostoyevski, F. M., 2009. Karamazov Kardeşler. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları.

156
Eagleton, T., 2010. Estetiğin İdeolojisi. İstanbul: Doruk Yayıncılık.
Eagleton, T., 2011. Kötülük Üzerine Bir Deneme. İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık.
Heimsoeth, H., 2007. Kant'ın felsefesi. Ankara: Doğu Batı Yayınları.
Hume, D., 1995. Din Üstüne. Ankara: İmge Kitapevi.
Kiriş Yilmaz, Nurten. (2008). "Tarihsel Olarak Kötülük Problemi ve Çözüm Yolu Olarak
Teodise ", FLSF (Süleyman Demirel Üniveristesi Felsefe Bölümü Dergisi), sayı: 5,
Bahar, pp. 81-99.
Kiriş Yilmaz, Nurten. (2012). "Kötülük Probleminden Schopenhauer Kötümserliğine",
Tabula Rasa Felsefe & Teoloji, Yıl 9, Sayı: 25-26/Ocak-Ağustos 2009, Isparta, pp. 99-
108.
Leibniz, G. W., 2001. Theodicy. %1 içindeGod and The Problem of Evil. USA: Blackwell
Publishers, pp. 4-24.
Mackie, J. L., 2009. Evil and Omnipotence. Oxford Journals (Mind), Cilt 119, pp. 200-212.
Özdemir, M., 2010. Şer. %1 içindeTürkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, p. 539.
Sarp Erk Ulaş, A. B. G. E. U. S. U. Ü. H. Y., 2002. Felsefe Sözlüğü. Ankara: Bilim ve Sanat
Yayınları.
Taylan, N., 1994. Gazzali'nin Düşünce Sisteminin Temelleri. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi
İlahiyat Fakültesi Vakfı Yayınları.
Taylan, N., 1998. Düşünce Tarihinde Tanrı Sorunu. İstanbul: Ayışığı Kitapları.
Ülken, H. Z., 1983. İslam Felsefesi. İstanbul: Ülken Yayınları.
Voltaire, 2002. Candide ya da İyimselik. İstanbul: Adam Yayınları.
Yaldir, Hulya. (2009a) “Ibn Sînâ (Avicenna) and René Descartes on the Faculty of
Imagination”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, Volume 17 (2): 247–278,
(Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group).
Yaldir, Hulya. (2009b) “Ibn Sinâ (Avicenna) and René Descartes on The Origins and
Structure of The Universe: Cosmology and Cosmogony”, Journal of Islamic Philosophy,
Printed by Harvard University Publication Services, Volume 5: 3–57.
Yavuz, Y. Ş., 2010. Kelam. %1 içindeTürkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi. İstanbul:
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, pp. 539-542.
Yıldız, H. H., 2011. Aklı Karışıklar İçin İslam. İstanbul: Cinius Yayınları.

157

View publication stats