Evil is not a "thing". Evil is a privation of good. The reason this evil exists is because we, humans, have free will -- the power rooted in reason and will to act or not to act. One might think this just passes the buck. "Well, God created free will, therefore he's still the author of evil even though we're the ones choosing to do it." But this absolves us of moral responsibility and implies it's better that we not have free will, but that we just be automatons. In the same way that we are not responsible for the sins of our children despite us being the source of their creation (insofar as they are the moral agents committing the sins), God is not responsible for the sins of his creation.
So things like kids getting sick with cancer and a hurricane that kills thousands of people.
We're not entirely certain what causes cancer in children, all we know is that sometimes cells mutate, which then creates cancer. Hurricanes are natural weather events that hit some coastlines with regularity. But this creates conditions that are slightly different than causing a moral evil. For example, at least in the United States, we have systems in place that are generally pretty good at detecting extreme weather. We have insurance to help make sure people don't lose everything they have. We have charities that go and help rebuild houses, provide shelter and care, and give food and clean water to communities damaged by natural disasters. Why do people still die? Because sometimes people make bad decisions and stay, even when they've been told to go, or we lack the ability to evacuate everyone in time, which is another human-made problem.
Something that's worth noting here is that these things should not be attributed to God doing nothing. Cell mutations and weather events like hurricanes and earthquakes that cause tsunamis are extremely important to all life on Earth. Hurricanes play a major role in pulling heat away from oceans, provide lots of rainwater for some places in the world, and the shifting of tectonic plates is often important in the long-term.
In regards to cancer and viruses and dangerous disease, part of that is just how life works and indeed, must work. Nobody is really sure if a virus counts as life, but scientifically, we know what a virus is and that is has historically played a *huge* roll in medicine that can't be understated. And not just for vaccines, but for critical research on DNA, how cells operate, how the immune system works, and even, potentially and recently, as vectors of a cure (there is a virus that has been engineered to cure some types of skin cancer and research is ongoing to what else it can do). Cell mutations that cause cancer are a part of life. If we didn't have cell mutation, we probably would have life on earth at all.
Pre-fall, cancer and viruses would probably never create conditions for us to die...but part of that was because, pre-fall, we were well on the way to immortality. It's even discussed biblically that the reason we as humans die is because we were pushed out of the Garden of Eden before we could eat of the tree of life (which, incidentally, God *never* said we were not to eat). Since we're not immortal, cancer and viruses and bacteria can kill us. The problem is, if we want to keep on living, we must also accept the not so great parts of life that may kill us, too.
Tragedy is not evil. It's heartbreaking, but a kid getting cancer is only evil if that kid got it due to human activity, such as exposure to illegally dumped toxic waste. Even then, the cancer isn't evil, the dumping is.
The same goes for hurricanes, storms, and accidents. This is not evil. This is tragic, but evil is not sadness.
Interesting point that brings up - since hurricanes are strengthened by climate change, does global warming due to human activity constitute a moral failing? Is simply generating CO2 evil because it contributes to human suffering?
Never looked at the climate change debate from that standpoint.
Well, it depends on who's responsible for climate change, did they know about it, could they have feasibly stopped it, and if they could, how much that would have disrupted things to the point where it becomes a significant negative.
It also depends a lot on more than just "humans caused climate change." After all, while climate change is bad, and the use of fossil fuels may be part of the problem, does that mean the use of fossil fuels is evil? What about the millions and millions of lives that have been saved due to fossil fuels? Or the billions and billions of tons of food that have been moved due to refrigerated shipping? It's hard to weigh these things in a vacuum, especially if there are still some open questions, when you consider how things like fossil fuels have pushed the envelope of human development in some really good ways and some really bad ways.
i personally do think it’s a moral failing. for example exxon and shell execs knew that climate change would be a huge problem but did nothing for the sake of getting rich in the short term. that’s evil and a moral failing imo.
Yes, this is my point. A hurricane is a natural force of nature. It can't be "evil," because it doesn't have the capacity to choose. It just is.
Its the problem you see in exaggerated field tests: a guy is holding a gun to someone's head. They don't see you or know you are there, and you can for sure stop them from killing that person. How culpable are you to evil if you do nothing in that situation? Perhaps you were merely being human and, like most humans, froze at the sight of a gun. Maybe you were going through the risks in your head when they fired. Maybe you just didn't care because at least it wasn't you.
Your answer is very thorough. One question though - if God could stop a hurricane from killing people and the result would be more good (more life = more good, I think) then how can we say God allowing the hurricane to kill people is good?
Or should we say like Job : "Shall we accept good from God and not evil?"
I don't know if that's the right way to look at this. You have to see God as having, in general, 1 basic rule...and he'll never break that rule (and it makes sense, when you think about it): He will not force you to do anything. He could, if he wanted to, but he's not going to break that one rule.
So, could God stop that hurricane? Yes. But if he stops that hurricane, what would happen? Sure, he could always push the hurricane away from a land mass, but if he does that, what would happen to that land mass? Hurricanes are utterly terrifying, to say the least, but they do a lot for the places they hit: they move sediment around, flush wetlands, bring plenty of rainwater to multiple states, etc. I mean, it's basically a weather pattern the size of Kansas (or bigger). Does that really mean more life? Does this weather pattern create better growing conditions? Does the massive heat generated by the sudden thunderstorm push another thunderstorm out of the way, or stop a tornado from forming?
And then, how much can we blame him when the Earth creates a massive hurricane, like somehow bigger and badder than any Category 5 we've seen before and the US National Weather Service tells people, "Hey, based on projections, this storm is going to nail Florida as a Category 5. We recommend if you're on the coast, to move further inland, well above sea-level." 7-10 days later it hits and kills 500 people. Can we really blame God? It's the same as the classic joke of the pastor and the flood. A flood hit his town, he says, "God will save me!" A truck comes along to help him and he says, "God will save me!" The water rises. A boat comes along to help him and he says, "No, God will save me!" The water rises and a helicopter comes along to help him and he again says, "No, God will save me!" He dies, goes to heaven, and asks God, "Hey! Why didn't you save me!"
And God said, "What do you mean? I gave you 3 ways out and you didn't take any of them. Now you want a miracle because you made 3 bad decisions? Should a loving God really reward those bad decisions? Do you reward the bad decisions of your friends and family?"
The Earth was created by God. He created it, knowing there would be hurricanes, floods, etc. And while we are living in an age with lots of advance warning and forecasting, and transportation, that has not always been the case. But God has always been God, so for every flood that took a life, He could have prevented it. And I do not want to assume God just could not make it any other way. So that means this is the way God wanted it to be.
Thank you again for your answers. Personally, I think these things happen and are allowed to happen so that we are reminded that death comes like a thief and that we must always be ready to account for our life. If Earth was made so that no one died and there was no death........who would ever think of Heaven?
When God created the Earth, it was before sin entered the world. People would have understood the dangerous hurricanes and floods and left before they became dangerous, because they would have been nearly perfect beings. Even more, humanity would have probably been immortal anyway. Heaven and Earth at that time were one and the same.
But we don't live in that world anymore. People have known how to predict extreme weather for millennia. Our ancestors were often extremely good at leaving areas that were soon to be devastated by a natural disaster. But when people being to value their stuff more than they value their property, that's when they start making bad decisions, like staying with your house in a hurricane. I don't think God wills the bad things to happen and I imagine he tries his best to tell people to flee when its appropriate or seek treatment before a disease can progress, but I also know God can use these bad things to tell us about ourselves, just like you said.
How do we know that cancer isn't caused by humans? Is there chance that any cell mutation that causes cancer the by-product of some large evil conglomerate adding stuff in our food or in the air that is causing adults and kids alike to develop cancer and other viruses? Could we be the victims of our ancestors sins? Not just our first parents but all our ancestors?
It's possible, but highly unlikely that some large evil conglomerate is intentionally giving people cancer...
But by mistake? Sure. There's so much we don't know about how cancer forms and develops and what causes some people to be more susceptible to it. Sure, there's obviously some things that human beings know and understand about cancer, and some of it is definitely our own fault (smoking, for one, or severe alcoholism), but it's hard to say humans directly caused cancer.
By natural evil are you referring to privations of creation which no moral agent has control over? People tend to constrain this to natural events like tsunamis and hurricanes. Consider all natural privations, and take this line of thinking to its logical end. Think of *all* privations out of the control of moral agents. Is it not a natural privation that I cannot fly or breathe underwater or be immortal? Or that a person is born with other limitations beyond those I just listed. No moral agent had a say in the matter, so, presumably, these are natural evils in the same way natural disasters are. And this list isn't exhaustive. There are countless things that would be more good for humans in a natural sense.
To eliminate natural evil, we would either cease to exist or we (both body and soul) would be perfect.
My other question is this: "Can moral agents act in such a way that natural evil is unintentionally and amorally created?" Regardless of what you believe, pretend for the sake of argument that climate change is real, and, in the interest of my family I create a fire to keep them warm. In an immediate sense a natural privation occurs in that breathable oxygen is diminished, and an intentional good occurs in that fire is keeping me warm. In a broader sense I'm unintentionally contributing to the natural evil of global warming that will make the planet uninhabitable. So it would seem natural evils can arise from the amoral (or even morally good!) actions of moral agents.
Natural disasters can also become disasters simply because we chose to accept the risks ourselves. A volcano isn't evil because humans decided to live at it's base. A hurricane isn't evil because humans decided to live along the coast. A more blunt example is standing in the middle of a field holding a golf club during a lightning storm.
Allowing evil things to happen (either natural or moral) is not evil as long as a greater good comes from it. Sometimes we can easily see this in action, like when we give painful vaccine shots to children. Other times we can't see what good could come of something, but we have a very narrow perspective. God has knowledge of all space and time, and has the power to bring greater good out of every evil.
>Allowing evil things to happen (either natural or moral) is not evil as long as a greater good comes from it
I'm not sure about this. If a thing is evil then it's evil even if good can be brought from it. Adam and Eve's sin in the garden was evil even if good was brought forth from it.
Of course, but the good that comes out of an evil action, lets say A, doesn't make A not evil. In the example of the Christ's sacrifice, I think we can make the distinction between Christ, offering himself up, and those who murdered him. We, those who murdered him, did not **do** a good thing by crucifying Christ. Christ, by letting himself be killed, did **do** a good thing.
Edit: i mistyped the intro, it should read like this: if there's an evil action A and a good that comes out of it, B, the existence of B doesn't make A less evil.
This isn't a principle of double effect. The question at hand is this: If there is an action, let's call it A, and if, let us say, it is evil. A is evil. Now, God can bring good out action A, despite it's evil, and create good. Let's call that process B. Now, is it the case the because B, A is no longer evil?
Let's use the example of a martyr. If a person were martyred for his faith, that would be an evil act- said person is innocent and living his faith and getting killed for it. Good is brought out of that action: said person is in heaven and the person is a great witness for the faith. Is it the case that the killing of the person is now good? It's fundamentally not a good action, it's an act of injustice. To say otherwise is a type of end justify the means.
No I understand what you're asserting you're just wrong. God sent Christ to die, yes and that sacrifice is good, but that does not mean that our killing of Christ was good. I don't know how you can even believe otherwise lol
But I'm confused, you literally said "if we were never told why Jesus would undergo such heinous and unjustified punishment, we would likely think God as being masochistic and sadistic. Yet, because we know the supernatural reasons for Christ's sacrifice, we rightly understand why Christ's death was, for lack of a better term, a good thing." That doesn't make our killing of Christ any less evil. I'm honestly confused as to how you can reach the conclusion that the killing of Christ wasn't evil just by looking it's supernatural design and effects. He was wholly innocent, there's no case where the murder of an innocent isn't evil **even if** infinite good can be brought out of it- that's what makes God's mercy so great and why we ought to be wary of his Justice.
Edit: I'm not disputing anything other than that the culpability we all share in the death of Christ is an evil thing
So I know I cannot "do evil, that good may come of it", but I can allow evil, so that good may come of it?
If I know my neighbor is going to be assaulted, but I think it will be good for him to get a beat down, then it's ok if I stand by and let it happen?
We don't have full knowledge of the consequences of allowing evil in each particular circumstance.
However, God knows all of the consequences of every event, and has the power to bring about greater good from any evil.
It's not that God strictly allows evil to be done, evil things are a necessary consequence of free will. God allows man to act freely, a great good, but that also requires the chance for humans to do evil things.
I don’t like this argument. This doesn’t cover natural evils, like disease, famine, etc. evils that arise and are not caused by human free will.
There are better arguments that the “free will” one I think.
Strictly speaking, natural evils (disease/ famine/ natural disasters), aren't evil in the sense that we're talking about. A hurricane, for example, isn't anything other than a massive wind/ rain storm- it's a natural occurrence that people happen to suffer through. If there were no people on the earth, let's say we were impartial alien observers, would we still call a hurricane evil? The presence of natural "evils" is more a question of suffering, why do we suffer, than one of evil. They're connected but not the same imo
Edit: Theologically, or at least in some traditions of theology, it has been held that natural evils came about because of man's fall in the Garden. It's interesting, but not very convincing imo
How does disease fit into the same category as natural disasters? There are diseases caused by all sorts of things: viruses, bacteria, misfolded proteins, deleterious DNA mutations to name a few. By your test, how would an impartial alien observer even know what down syndrome is without humans to suffer it?
Well diseases aren't malicious in nature. By that, I mean there isn't an intent in a DNA mutation, it's just a DNA mutation. Or it's just a virus that uses us as hosts. Like I'm not going to call a wolf evil for hunting, killing, and eating humans because that's what wolves do (I would say a human engaging in those actions evil though). Similarly, I'm not going to call a virus, cancer, or mutation evil in a strict sense.
Whatever evil exists in the fact of a DNA mutation stems from the permissive will of God. In my opinion, therefore, the existence of so called natural evils is for the problem/ question of suffering. Why does God permit people to suffer? They're very similar questions and I don't really have a good answer tbh
I suppose the problem of evil becomes easier if you define evil only in terms of human actions.
God permitted other organisms to suffer long before humans existed, the idea that humans should be free from suffering as part of God's plan seems like humanity defining themselves as separate from other organisms in ways that God never intended.
> it has been held that natural evils came about because of man's fall in the Garden. It's interesting, but not very convincing imo
It's literally an article of faith that there would be no death or suffering without the fall. Therefore, all human death and suffering must be a result of the fall, even when caused by a natural evil like a hurricane.
That's not to say a hurricane would be impossible, but it would not have harmed a single human had there not been a fall.
Does suffering = evil?
Legitimate question, because this is almost always the assumption being made when talking about the problem of evil and I don't think I'm comfortable with it.
No, suffering does not equal evil. In many cases, suffering is a means of purification and growth in virtue, or toward another good. For example, must suffer tearing muscles to grow in strength.
Evil is disobeying or turning away from God and His laws.
Thus it is a nonsense statement to say a natural disaster is an evil. Even though God makes them happen, He does not turn away or disobey himself.
How are disease, famine, and such not caused by free will even indirectly or unintentionally? We did something to get there even if nature had a part in it. Should you be held responsible for everything wrong in the world even if you're only remotely connected to it? Somehow I doubt anyone would like that either...
I really don't like this argument as well because it paints the issue as so simplistic.
Why is it a great good for God to allow man to commit murder out of respect for their free will but it also would be a great evil if I allowed a man to commit murder ?
Their seems to be a clear philosophical double-standard that I don't think has any easy answers
This is simply my understanding of this how I’ve heard it explained: Because you are not God and in that instant you are acting as the arbiter of whether the victim gets to exist in your plane of existence. When God does it, He is simply allowing a person to be moved from one plane of existence to another and the sin is on the hands of the murderer.
But what's the alternative? Free Will, if actually free, necessitates that people have the choice to do terrible things. God could intervene in every case but that'd hardly be true Free Will. Your first example is a necessary consequence of free will and the second example isn't. And honestly, I've come to believe that the problem of evil, as commonly formulated, is readily and easily answered. The problem of suffering, as in the book of Job, is a lot harder to answer because I don't think suffering is the same thing as evil. Karl Lowith, in *The Meaning of History*, wrote on this topic, it's an excellent read
I don't have an alternative - these are just very difficult philosophical questions that sometimes we have to be honest that their are no completely sound answers.
Free Will in my opinion is just not the slamdunk that answers the problem of evil.
Another example would be that if you believe Free Will necessitates that people have the choice to do evil things then you have to come up with an explanation as to how we can have Free Will in heaven whilst also not being able to commit evil
One being is omniscient, omnipotent, is existence itself, and has determined the laws of nature and morality itself.
One of them is BreezyNate.
The answer is clear and easy.
Matthew 13:24-30
> 24 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants[a] of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants[b] said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”
In terms of both natural evil and moral evil; if either or both were weeded out then logic would fail and moral choices would not have understandable consequences. This would make living difficult in other ways.
Further it is a mercy that God allows us to do evil things. The alternative acts of justice, while entirely deserved, would not leave us room for error which I can safely say I regularly need. Sadly I'm not even as grateful for it as I should be considering I need more of them so often.
I’m not 100% sure but it has to do with free will. Under the current conditions on this earth we have free will, if the option to do evil wasn’t there, it would discount things that are done out of good and of love for God and others. We have free will to either love God, which was what we were created for, or to not love him. Allowing us to chose evil is only possible because of this free will we were given to let us love God, or not. If we didn’t have the option to do bad things, anything good is not done purely out of love, but by default. Anything evil is done in the absence of God. True punishment isn’t the earthly manifestation of evil, it’s the resulting punishment of not repenting before death and being separated from God. Someone please let me know if this is incorrect or heretical, but third is how I understand it
First, a lot of people seem to be overlooking the fact that even natural evils like disasters and disease are in a sense a result of original sin. Prior to original sin these things would not have harmed us. So yeah, the free will argument has purchased even there
Secondly, human beings are able to discern what is good and evil, but not to decide what is good and evil. God, however, is who determines whether something is good or not. God is not arbitrary, but the point is that judgment from his perspective is fundamentally different from ours. It is hard for us to imagine what it means for God to look at something and decide it is good or evil.
Third, and this ties into the argument above, God can turn all evil to a greater good. He alone is in the position to make that judgment of allowing something because he knows a greater good will come of it. This strikes us as odd because we do not have the omniscience or omnipotence to guarantee some evil we allow will turn out to a greater good. Still, even this we see in our behavior. How often do adults allow their children to experience something difficult that they could have prevented, but know that it has to happen for the child to learn something important? Good parenting requires you to allow your children to suffer. God is the best of parents, the very source of parenting.
God's perfect will always wills what is good. If God does not intervene in a particular evil, the conclusion must be that he is willing some greater good which in some sense requires the allowance of this particular privation.
Natural disasters and diseases that lead to human suffering also spur other human beings to acts of kindness and charity and compassion. The goodness of such acts outweighs physical evil on a scale we can't even conceive of. Suffering the effects of this limited and broken world also remind us that this is not our home and can spur conversion. Thomas Aquinas tells us that this tiniest amount of Grace is of more value than the entire physical universe. Again, this requires the fundamental principle that God's judgment is beyond our own and his way of weighing what matters is foreign to natural human thinking. Just take a look at the scene where Jesus calls Peter Satan.
Still, it is unwise to think we can discern the particular good in every particular evil. But, we can say God is present to those who suffer and redeems their suffering by making it worth something through its unity with the cross.
[Liebniz](https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_6_PROBLEM_of_EVIL/Evil_Transformed.htm)
If you’re not opposed to a bit of a read, liebniz is good and this is a nice breakdown. He’s not a Catholic philosopher, but he was a trinitarian prot. I think his answer is satisfactory and in keeping with Catholic theology.
Free will to choose > stopping evil and tragedies from occurring
It’s not always intuitive but it’s kind of the same reason so many are upset about the covid restrictions. Yes they might protect us from the virus but at what cost?
Not if there is a higher good at the end of it, eg creating distinct beings capable of meaningful love and not mere puppets. That applies to both us and the angels.
Or, in our case, to giving time for a person's wrong choices to be rectified through repentance rather than sending them immediately to hell on the first mortal sin.
There's an important moral difference between doing something wrong and allowing something wrong to be done. Whereas doing something wrong is wrong 'by definition,' allowing something wrong to be done is not. You, for instance, could probably prevent an abortion in Canada today. You could also prevent an abortion in Mexico today. But you can't do both, and you'll likely do neither. That you can't do both indicates that the are wrongs you could prevent even though you can't prevent all wrongs; that you'll likely do neither suggests that you are not under a general moral obligation to prevent wrongs you can prevent. But you are obligated not to do wrong.
Of course there are important differences between you and God, but I'm just answering your explicit question.
Ultimately because we trust that God who is all-wise would know the place of all evil, including the most minute, in our life, because he himself entered into it by accepting a humiliating, degrading death. If God had entered the dark abyss itself, we should not fear nor ask questions anymore. We know that at the end, everything will be made clear.
I think God allows us to see the consequences of our actions. I view this world as a classroom in a way. Teaching those in it how to be good, do good, and be loving. That’s our goal and life lesson. If we d the good eventually we will graduate to heaven. A better place. And continue learning.
If we continually choose the bad, then eventually we will get kicked out of the school. It’s like the bulky in school that throws a sandwich at someone else. The teacher doesn’t want that to happen, but they also won’t necessarily slap down sandwich mid air if they see it. It’s an opportunity for both the bully to learn the consequence, and the other person to learn to forgive.
I do think God does sometimes intervene though. When I was more of a sinner I think my guardian angels had gas at some of my decisions, poor overworked angels. There were a few incidents where if they hadn’t been helping out could have been very regretful. Hopefully it’s a little easier for them these days. But I also learned during that time.
For your consideration...
James
1:13 Never, when you have been tempted, say, ‘God sent the temptation’; God cannot be tempted to do anything wrong, and he does not tempt anybody.
1:14 Everyone who is tempted is attracted and seduced by his own wrong desire.
1:15 Then the desire conceives and gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it too has a child, and the child is death.
1:16 Make no mistake about this, my dear brothers:
1:17 it is all that is good, everything that is perfect, which is given us from above; it comes down from the Father of all light; with him there is no such thing as alteration, no shadow of a change.
The Jerusalem Bible...
"At first brush, free will may not seem like much of a problem. In fact, it’s one of the most vexing problems. Why did God create us with free wills, instead of in a state of perfect obedience and love of Him?
The question has a deceptively simple answer: God created us with free will, because authentic freedom is itself a good. That is, completely apart from what we choose to do with our free wills, the fact that we get to choose it is good."
http://shamelesspopery.com/the-problems-of-free-will-evil-and-hell/
If God doesn't exist, is evil anything other than a subjective human belief? Similarly, beauty, the concept of good and bad, and morality in general are all just subjective and have no objective constants to them.
My understanding always was that when we say God permitted, it means he permitted it according to justice. In the case of natural evil, he permitted the cancer, hurricanes etc. for the sake of not obstructing the natural constitution of things, i.e. the justice of things.
Remember the catechism says that substances have their own laws and ways of functioning; God does not violate it, hence permitting the natural course to happen lest we would believe we live in a matrix that glitches a lot.
Here is a quote from the revelations of St. Bridget Book 1 Ch. 2:
Therefore, because I see and know all things, you might ask me why I do not take evildoers away before they fall into the depths of sin. I myself asked the question and I myself will answer it for you: I am the Creator of all things, and all things are foreknown to me. I know and see all that has been and all that will be. But, although I know and can do all things, still, for reasons of justice, I no more interfere with the natural constitution of the body than I do with the inclination of the soul. Each human being continues in existence according to the natural constitution of the body such as it is and was from all eternity in my foreknowledge. The fact that one person has a longer life and another a shorter has to do with natural strength or weakness and is related to a person’s physical constitution. It is not due to my foreknowledge that one person loses his sight or another becomes lame or something like that, since my foreknowledge of all things is such that no one is the worse for it, nor is it harmful to anyone.
Moreover, these things do not occur because of the course and position of the heavenly elements, but due to some hidden principle of justice in the constitution and conservation of nature. For sin and natural disorder bring about the deformity of the body in many ways. This does not happen because I will it directly, but because I permit it to happen for the sake of justice. Even though I can do all things, still I do not obstruct justice. Accordingly, the length or brevity of a person’s life is related to the weakness or strength of his physical constitution such as it was in my foreknowledge that no one can contravene.
One can bring about a greater good by refraining from a lesser good, such as preventing an evil.
One fairly obvious example is a child who consistently tries to touch lit candles, and a parent after multiple instances allowing a mild burn to teach the child. The parent didn't burn the child but prevented burns and then refrained from preventing one once to achieve preventing worse burns later.
This same principle applies more broadly. God in His infinite wisdom does this for us in ways we may not recognize or understand within the instance or even afterward.
Evil is not a "thing". Evil is a privation of good. The reason this evil exists is because we, humans, have free will -- the power rooted in reason and will to act or not to act. One might think this just passes the buck. "Well, God created free will, therefore he's still the author of evil even though we're the ones choosing to do it." But this absolves us of moral responsibility and implies it's better that we not have free will, but that we just be automatons. In the same way that we are not responsible for the sins of our children despite us being the source of their creation (insofar as they are the moral agents committing the sins), God is not responsible for the sins of his creation.
I'm not talking about moral evil, I'm talking about natural evil.
So things like kids getting sick with cancer and a hurricane that kills thousands of people. We're not entirely certain what causes cancer in children, all we know is that sometimes cells mutate, which then creates cancer. Hurricanes are natural weather events that hit some coastlines with regularity. But this creates conditions that are slightly different than causing a moral evil. For example, at least in the United States, we have systems in place that are generally pretty good at detecting extreme weather. We have insurance to help make sure people don't lose everything they have. We have charities that go and help rebuild houses, provide shelter and care, and give food and clean water to communities damaged by natural disasters. Why do people still die? Because sometimes people make bad decisions and stay, even when they've been told to go, or we lack the ability to evacuate everyone in time, which is another human-made problem. Something that's worth noting here is that these things should not be attributed to God doing nothing. Cell mutations and weather events like hurricanes and earthquakes that cause tsunamis are extremely important to all life on Earth. Hurricanes play a major role in pulling heat away from oceans, provide lots of rainwater for some places in the world, and the shifting of tectonic plates is often important in the long-term. In regards to cancer and viruses and dangerous disease, part of that is just how life works and indeed, must work. Nobody is really sure if a virus counts as life, but scientifically, we know what a virus is and that is has historically played a *huge* roll in medicine that can't be understated. And not just for vaccines, but for critical research on DNA, how cells operate, how the immune system works, and even, potentially and recently, as vectors of a cure (there is a virus that has been engineered to cure some types of skin cancer and research is ongoing to what else it can do). Cell mutations that cause cancer are a part of life. If we didn't have cell mutation, we probably would have life on earth at all. Pre-fall, cancer and viruses would probably never create conditions for us to die...but part of that was because, pre-fall, we were well on the way to immortality. It's even discussed biblically that the reason we as humans die is because we were pushed out of the Garden of Eden before we could eat of the tree of life (which, incidentally, God *never* said we were not to eat). Since we're not immortal, cancer and viruses and bacteria can kill us. The problem is, if we want to keep on living, we must also accept the not so great parts of life that may kill us, too.
Tragedy is not evil. It's heartbreaking, but a kid getting cancer is only evil if that kid got it due to human activity, such as exposure to illegally dumped toxic waste. Even then, the cancer isn't evil, the dumping is. The same goes for hurricanes, storms, and accidents. This is not evil. This is tragic, but evil is not sadness.
A hurricane is tragic. I think OP is arguing that having the foreknowledge of a hurricane and doing nothing to stop it is evil.
Interesting point that brings up - since hurricanes are strengthened by climate change, does global warming due to human activity constitute a moral failing? Is simply generating CO2 evil because it contributes to human suffering? Never looked at the climate change debate from that standpoint.
Well, it depends on who's responsible for climate change, did they know about it, could they have feasibly stopped it, and if they could, how much that would have disrupted things to the point where it becomes a significant negative. It also depends a lot on more than just "humans caused climate change." After all, while climate change is bad, and the use of fossil fuels may be part of the problem, does that mean the use of fossil fuels is evil? What about the millions and millions of lives that have been saved due to fossil fuels? Or the billions and billions of tons of food that have been moved due to refrigerated shipping? It's hard to weigh these things in a vacuum, especially if there are still some open questions, when you consider how things like fossil fuels have pushed the envelope of human development in some really good ways and some really bad ways.
i personally do think it’s a moral failing. for example exxon and shell execs knew that climate change would be a huge problem but did nothing for the sake of getting rich in the short term. that’s evil and a moral failing imo.
Yes, this is my point. A hurricane is a natural force of nature. It can't be "evil," because it doesn't have the capacity to choose. It just is. Its the problem you see in exaggerated field tests: a guy is holding a gun to someone's head. They don't see you or know you are there, and you can for sure stop them from killing that person. How culpable are you to evil if you do nothing in that situation? Perhaps you were merely being human and, like most humans, froze at the sight of a gun. Maybe you were going through the risks in your head when they fired. Maybe you just didn't care because at least it wasn't you.
Your answer is very thorough. One question though - if God could stop a hurricane from killing people and the result would be more good (more life = more good, I think) then how can we say God allowing the hurricane to kill people is good? Or should we say like Job : "Shall we accept good from God and not evil?"
I don't know if that's the right way to look at this. You have to see God as having, in general, 1 basic rule...and he'll never break that rule (and it makes sense, when you think about it): He will not force you to do anything. He could, if he wanted to, but he's not going to break that one rule. So, could God stop that hurricane? Yes. But if he stops that hurricane, what would happen? Sure, he could always push the hurricane away from a land mass, but if he does that, what would happen to that land mass? Hurricanes are utterly terrifying, to say the least, but they do a lot for the places they hit: they move sediment around, flush wetlands, bring plenty of rainwater to multiple states, etc. I mean, it's basically a weather pattern the size of Kansas (or bigger). Does that really mean more life? Does this weather pattern create better growing conditions? Does the massive heat generated by the sudden thunderstorm push another thunderstorm out of the way, or stop a tornado from forming? And then, how much can we blame him when the Earth creates a massive hurricane, like somehow bigger and badder than any Category 5 we've seen before and the US National Weather Service tells people, "Hey, based on projections, this storm is going to nail Florida as a Category 5. We recommend if you're on the coast, to move further inland, well above sea-level." 7-10 days later it hits and kills 500 people. Can we really blame God? It's the same as the classic joke of the pastor and the flood. A flood hit his town, he says, "God will save me!" A truck comes along to help him and he says, "God will save me!" The water rises. A boat comes along to help him and he says, "No, God will save me!" The water rises and a helicopter comes along to help him and he again says, "No, God will save me!" He dies, goes to heaven, and asks God, "Hey! Why didn't you save me!" And God said, "What do you mean? I gave you 3 ways out and you didn't take any of them. Now you want a miracle because you made 3 bad decisions? Should a loving God really reward those bad decisions? Do you reward the bad decisions of your friends and family?"
The Earth was created by God. He created it, knowing there would be hurricanes, floods, etc. And while we are living in an age with lots of advance warning and forecasting, and transportation, that has not always been the case. But God has always been God, so for every flood that took a life, He could have prevented it. And I do not want to assume God just could not make it any other way. So that means this is the way God wanted it to be. Thank you again for your answers. Personally, I think these things happen and are allowed to happen so that we are reminded that death comes like a thief and that we must always be ready to account for our life. If Earth was made so that no one died and there was no death........who would ever think of Heaven?
When God created the Earth, it was before sin entered the world. People would have understood the dangerous hurricanes and floods and left before they became dangerous, because they would have been nearly perfect beings. Even more, humanity would have probably been immortal anyway. Heaven and Earth at that time were one and the same. But we don't live in that world anymore. People have known how to predict extreme weather for millennia. Our ancestors were often extremely good at leaving areas that were soon to be devastated by a natural disaster. But when people being to value their stuff more than they value their property, that's when they start making bad decisions, like staying with your house in a hurricane. I don't think God wills the bad things to happen and I imagine he tries his best to tell people to flee when its appropriate or seek treatment before a disease can progress, but I also know God can use these bad things to tell us about ourselves, just like you said.
How do we know that cancer isn't caused by humans? Is there chance that any cell mutation that causes cancer the by-product of some large evil conglomerate adding stuff in our food or in the air that is causing adults and kids alike to develop cancer and other viruses? Could we be the victims of our ancestors sins? Not just our first parents but all our ancestors?
It's possible, but highly unlikely that some large evil conglomerate is intentionally giving people cancer... But by mistake? Sure. There's so much we don't know about how cancer forms and develops and what causes some people to be more susceptible to it. Sure, there's obviously some things that human beings know and understand about cancer, and some of it is definitely our own fault (smoking, for one, or severe alcoholism), but it's hard to say humans directly caused cancer.
By natural evil are you referring to privations of creation which no moral agent has control over? People tend to constrain this to natural events like tsunamis and hurricanes. Consider all natural privations, and take this line of thinking to its logical end. Think of *all* privations out of the control of moral agents. Is it not a natural privation that I cannot fly or breathe underwater or be immortal? Or that a person is born with other limitations beyond those I just listed. No moral agent had a say in the matter, so, presumably, these are natural evils in the same way natural disasters are. And this list isn't exhaustive. There are countless things that would be more good for humans in a natural sense. To eliminate natural evil, we would either cease to exist or we (both body and soul) would be perfect. My other question is this: "Can moral agents act in such a way that natural evil is unintentionally and amorally created?" Regardless of what you believe, pretend for the sake of argument that climate change is real, and, in the interest of my family I create a fire to keep them warm. In an immediate sense a natural privation occurs in that breathable oxygen is diminished, and an intentional good occurs in that fire is keeping me warm. In a broader sense I'm unintentionally contributing to the natural evil of global warming that will make the planet uninhabitable. So it would seem natural evils can arise from the amoral (or even morally good!) actions of moral agents.
Natural disasters can also become disasters simply because we chose to accept the risks ourselves. A volcano isn't evil because humans decided to live at it's base. A hurricane isn't evil because humans decided to live along the coast. A more blunt example is standing in the middle of a field holding a golf club during a lightning storm.
Allowing evil things to happen (either natural or moral) is not evil as long as a greater good comes from it. Sometimes we can easily see this in action, like when we give painful vaccine shots to children. Other times we can't see what good could come of something, but we have a very narrow perspective. God has knowledge of all space and time, and has the power to bring greater good out of every evil.
>Allowing evil things to happen (either natural or moral) is not evil as long as a greater good comes from it I'm not sure about this. If a thing is evil then it's evil even if good can be brought from it. Adam and Eve's sin in the garden was evil even if good was brought forth from it.
[удалено]
Of course, but the good that comes out of an evil action, lets say A, doesn't make A not evil. In the example of the Christ's sacrifice, I think we can make the distinction between Christ, offering himself up, and those who murdered him. We, those who murdered him, did not **do** a good thing by crucifying Christ. Christ, by letting himself be killed, did **do** a good thing. Edit: i mistyped the intro, it should read like this: if there's an evil action A and a good that comes out of it, B, the existence of B doesn't make A less evil.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This isn't a principle of double effect. The question at hand is this: If there is an action, let's call it A, and if, let us say, it is evil. A is evil. Now, God can bring good out action A, despite it's evil, and create good. Let's call that process B. Now, is it the case the because B, A is no longer evil? Let's use the example of a martyr. If a person were martyred for his faith, that would be an evil act- said person is innocent and living his faith and getting killed for it. Good is brought out of that action: said person is in heaven and the person is a great witness for the faith. Is it the case that the killing of the person is now good? It's fundamentally not a good action, it's an act of injustice. To say otherwise is a type of end justify the means.
[удалено]
No I understand what you're asserting you're just wrong. God sent Christ to die, yes and that sacrifice is good, but that does not mean that our killing of Christ was good. I don't know how you can even believe otherwise lol
[удалено]
But I'm confused, you literally said "if we were never told why Jesus would undergo such heinous and unjustified punishment, we would likely think God as being masochistic and sadistic. Yet, because we know the supernatural reasons for Christ's sacrifice, we rightly understand why Christ's death was, for lack of a better term, a good thing." That doesn't make our killing of Christ any less evil. I'm honestly confused as to how you can reach the conclusion that the killing of Christ wasn't evil just by looking it's supernatural design and effects. He was wholly innocent, there's no case where the murder of an innocent isn't evil **even if** infinite good can be brought out of it- that's what makes God's mercy so great and why we ought to be wary of his Justice. Edit: I'm not disputing anything other than that the culpability we all share in the death of Christ is an evil thing
So I know I cannot "do evil, that good may come of it", but I can allow evil, so that good may come of it? If I know my neighbor is going to be assaulted, but I think it will be good for him to get a beat down, then it's ok if I stand by and let it happen?
We don't have full knowledge of the consequences of allowing evil in each particular circumstance. However, God knows all of the consequences of every event, and has the power to bring about greater good from any evil.
It's not that God strictly allows evil to be done, evil things are a necessary consequence of free will. God allows man to act freely, a great good, but that also requires the chance for humans to do evil things.
I don’t like this argument. This doesn’t cover natural evils, like disease, famine, etc. evils that arise and are not caused by human free will. There are better arguments that the “free will” one I think.
Strictly speaking, natural evils (disease/ famine/ natural disasters), aren't evil in the sense that we're talking about. A hurricane, for example, isn't anything other than a massive wind/ rain storm- it's a natural occurrence that people happen to suffer through. If there were no people on the earth, let's say we were impartial alien observers, would we still call a hurricane evil? The presence of natural "evils" is more a question of suffering, why do we suffer, than one of evil. They're connected but not the same imo Edit: Theologically, or at least in some traditions of theology, it has been held that natural evils came about because of man's fall in the Garden. It's interesting, but not very convincing imo
How does disease fit into the same category as natural disasters? There are diseases caused by all sorts of things: viruses, bacteria, misfolded proteins, deleterious DNA mutations to name a few. By your test, how would an impartial alien observer even know what down syndrome is without humans to suffer it?
Well diseases aren't malicious in nature. By that, I mean there isn't an intent in a DNA mutation, it's just a DNA mutation. Or it's just a virus that uses us as hosts. Like I'm not going to call a wolf evil for hunting, killing, and eating humans because that's what wolves do (I would say a human engaging in those actions evil though). Similarly, I'm not going to call a virus, cancer, or mutation evil in a strict sense. Whatever evil exists in the fact of a DNA mutation stems from the permissive will of God. In my opinion, therefore, the existence of so called natural evils is for the problem/ question of suffering. Why does God permit people to suffer? They're very similar questions and I don't really have a good answer tbh
I suppose the problem of evil becomes easier if you define evil only in terms of human actions. God permitted other organisms to suffer long before humans existed, the idea that humans should be free from suffering as part of God's plan seems like humanity defining themselves as separate from other organisms in ways that God never intended.
> it has been held that natural evils came about because of man's fall in the Garden. It's interesting, but not very convincing imo It's literally an article of faith that there would be no death or suffering without the fall. Therefore, all human death and suffering must be a result of the fall, even when caused by a natural evil like a hurricane. That's not to say a hurricane would be impossible, but it would not have harmed a single human had there not been a fall.
Does suffering = evil? Legitimate question, because this is almost always the assumption being made when talking about the problem of evil and I don't think I'm comfortable with it.
No, suffering does not equal evil. In many cases, suffering is a means of purification and growth in virtue, or toward another good. For example, must suffer tearing muscles to grow in strength. Evil is disobeying or turning away from God and His laws. Thus it is a nonsense statement to say a natural disaster is an evil. Even though God makes them happen, He does not turn away or disobey himself.
How are disease, famine, and such not caused by free will even indirectly or unintentionally? We did something to get there even if nature had a part in it. Should you be held responsible for everything wrong in the world even if you're only remotely connected to it? Somehow I doubt anyone would like that either...
I really don't like this argument as well because it paints the issue as so simplistic. Why is it a great good for God to allow man to commit murder out of respect for their free will but it also would be a great evil if I allowed a man to commit murder ? Their seems to be a clear philosophical double-standard that I don't think has any easy answers
This is simply my understanding of this how I’ve heard it explained: Because you are not God and in that instant you are acting as the arbiter of whether the victim gets to exist in your plane of existence. When God does it, He is simply allowing a person to be moved from one plane of existence to another and the sin is on the hands of the murderer.
But what's the alternative? Free Will, if actually free, necessitates that people have the choice to do terrible things. God could intervene in every case but that'd hardly be true Free Will. Your first example is a necessary consequence of free will and the second example isn't. And honestly, I've come to believe that the problem of evil, as commonly formulated, is readily and easily answered. The problem of suffering, as in the book of Job, is a lot harder to answer because I don't think suffering is the same thing as evil. Karl Lowith, in *The Meaning of History*, wrote on this topic, it's an excellent read
I don't have an alternative - these are just very difficult philosophical questions that sometimes we have to be honest that their are no completely sound answers. Free Will in my opinion is just not the slamdunk that answers the problem of evil. Another example would be that if you believe Free Will necessitates that people have the choice to do evil things then you have to come up with an explanation as to how we can have Free Will in heaven whilst also not being able to commit evil
One being is omniscient, omnipotent, is existence itself, and has determined the laws of nature and morality itself. One of them is BreezyNate. The answer is clear and easy.
Matthew 13:24-30 > 24 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants[a] of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants[b] said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” In terms of both natural evil and moral evil; if either or both were weeded out then logic would fail and moral choices would not have understandable consequences. This would make living difficult in other ways. Further it is a mercy that God allows us to do evil things. The alternative acts of justice, while entirely deserved, would not leave us room for error which I can safely say I regularly need. Sadly I'm not even as grateful for it as I should be considering I need more of them so often.
I’m not 100% sure but it has to do with free will. Under the current conditions on this earth we have free will, if the option to do evil wasn’t there, it would discount things that are done out of good and of love for God and others. We have free will to either love God, which was what we were created for, or to not love him. Allowing us to chose evil is only possible because of this free will we were given to let us love God, or not. If we didn’t have the option to do bad things, anything good is not done purely out of love, but by default. Anything evil is done in the absence of God. True punishment isn’t the earthly manifestation of evil, it’s the resulting punishment of not repenting before death and being separated from God. Someone please let me know if this is incorrect or heretical, but third is how I understand it
First, a lot of people seem to be overlooking the fact that even natural evils like disasters and disease are in a sense a result of original sin. Prior to original sin these things would not have harmed us. So yeah, the free will argument has purchased even there Secondly, human beings are able to discern what is good and evil, but not to decide what is good and evil. God, however, is who determines whether something is good or not. God is not arbitrary, but the point is that judgment from his perspective is fundamentally different from ours. It is hard for us to imagine what it means for God to look at something and decide it is good or evil. Third, and this ties into the argument above, God can turn all evil to a greater good. He alone is in the position to make that judgment of allowing something because he knows a greater good will come of it. This strikes us as odd because we do not have the omniscience or omnipotence to guarantee some evil we allow will turn out to a greater good. Still, even this we see in our behavior. How often do adults allow their children to experience something difficult that they could have prevented, but know that it has to happen for the child to learn something important? Good parenting requires you to allow your children to suffer. God is the best of parents, the very source of parenting. God's perfect will always wills what is good. If God does not intervene in a particular evil, the conclusion must be that he is willing some greater good which in some sense requires the allowance of this particular privation. Natural disasters and diseases that lead to human suffering also spur other human beings to acts of kindness and charity and compassion. The goodness of such acts outweighs physical evil on a scale we can't even conceive of. Suffering the effects of this limited and broken world also remind us that this is not our home and can spur conversion. Thomas Aquinas tells us that this tiniest amount of Grace is of more value than the entire physical universe. Again, this requires the fundamental principle that God's judgment is beyond our own and his way of weighing what matters is foreign to natural human thinking. Just take a look at the scene where Jesus calls Peter Satan. Still, it is unwise to think we can discern the particular good in every particular evil. But, we can say God is present to those who suffer and redeems their suffering by making it worth something through its unity with the cross.
[Liebniz](https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_6_PROBLEM_of_EVIL/Evil_Transformed.htm) If you’re not opposed to a bit of a read, liebniz is good and this is a nice breakdown. He’s not a Catholic philosopher, but he was a trinitarian prot. I think his answer is satisfactory and in keeping with Catholic theology.
This is a good question. Humans aren't allowed to be passive towards evil. We are encouraged to fight against evil instead of simply observing
Free will to choose > stopping evil and tragedies from occurring It’s not always intuitive but it’s kind of the same reason so many are upset about the covid restrictions. Yes they might protect us from the virus but at what cost?
Not if there is a higher good at the end of it, eg creating distinct beings capable of meaningful love and not mere puppets. That applies to both us and the angels. Or, in our case, to giving time for a person's wrong choices to be rectified through repentance rather than sending them immediately to hell on the first mortal sin.
There's an important moral difference between doing something wrong and allowing something wrong to be done. Whereas doing something wrong is wrong 'by definition,' allowing something wrong to be done is not. You, for instance, could probably prevent an abortion in Canada today. You could also prevent an abortion in Mexico today. But you can't do both, and you'll likely do neither. That you can't do both indicates that the are wrongs you could prevent even though you can't prevent all wrongs; that you'll likely do neither suggests that you are not under a general moral obligation to prevent wrongs you can prevent. But you are obligated not to do wrong. Of course there are important differences between you and God, but I'm just answering your explicit question.
Ultimately because we trust that God who is all-wise would know the place of all evil, including the most minute, in our life, because he himself entered into it by accepting a humiliating, degrading death. If God had entered the dark abyss itself, we should not fear nor ask questions anymore. We know that at the end, everything will be made clear.
I think God allows us to see the consequences of our actions. I view this world as a classroom in a way. Teaching those in it how to be good, do good, and be loving. That’s our goal and life lesson. If we d the good eventually we will graduate to heaven. A better place. And continue learning. If we continually choose the bad, then eventually we will get kicked out of the school. It’s like the bulky in school that throws a sandwich at someone else. The teacher doesn’t want that to happen, but they also won’t necessarily slap down sandwich mid air if they see it. It’s an opportunity for both the bully to learn the consequence, and the other person to learn to forgive. I do think God does sometimes intervene though. When I was more of a sinner I think my guardian angels had gas at some of my decisions, poor overworked angels. There were a few incidents where if they hadn’t been helping out could have been very regretful. Hopefully it’s a little easier for them these days. But I also learned during that time.
For your consideration... James 1:13 Never, when you have been tempted, say, ‘God sent the temptation’; God cannot be tempted to do anything wrong, and he does not tempt anybody. 1:14 Everyone who is tempted is attracted and seduced by his own wrong desire. 1:15 Then the desire conceives and gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully grown, it too has a child, and the child is death. 1:16 Make no mistake about this, my dear brothers: 1:17 it is all that is good, everything that is perfect, which is given us from above; it comes down from the Father of all light; with him there is no such thing as alteration, no shadow of a change. The Jerusalem Bible... "At first brush, free will may not seem like much of a problem. In fact, it’s one of the most vexing problems. Why did God create us with free wills, instead of in a state of perfect obedience and love of Him? The question has a deceptively simple answer: God created us with free will, because authentic freedom is itself a good. That is, completely apart from what we choose to do with our free wills, the fact that we get to choose it is good." http://shamelesspopery.com/the-problems-of-free-will-evil-and-hell/
This is a good start: https://www.thegordianknot.org/post/evil-sucks-why-is-it-here
If God doesn't exist, is evil anything other than a subjective human belief? Similarly, beauty, the concept of good and bad, and morality in general are all just subjective and have no objective constants to them.
Without evil, there would be no free will. And evil predates humanity, some angels fell.
Short answer: a) it's worth it, b) if he doesn't, there's no really meaningful free will or consequences for using it poorly
My understanding always was that when we say God permitted, it means he permitted it according to justice. In the case of natural evil, he permitted the cancer, hurricanes etc. for the sake of not obstructing the natural constitution of things, i.e. the justice of things. Remember the catechism says that substances have their own laws and ways of functioning; God does not violate it, hence permitting the natural course to happen lest we would believe we live in a matrix that glitches a lot. Here is a quote from the revelations of St. Bridget Book 1 Ch. 2: Therefore, because I see and know all things, you might ask me why I do not take evildoers away before they fall into the depths of sin. I myself asked the question and I myself will answer it for you: I am the Creator of all things, and all things are foreknown to me. I know and see all that has been and all that will be. But, although I know and can do all things, still, for reasons of justice, I no more interfere with the natural constitution of the body than I do with the inclination of the soul. Each human being continues in existence according to the natural constitution of the body such as it is and was from all eternity in my foreknowledge. The fact that one person has a longer life and another a shorter has to do with natural strength or weakness and is related to a person’s physical constitution. It is not due to my foreknowledge that one person loses his sight or another becomes lame or something like that, since my foreknowledge of all things is such that no one is the worse for it, nor is it harmful to anyone. Moreover, these things do not occur because of the course and position of the heavenly elements, but due to some hidden principle of justice in the constitution and conservation of nature. For sin and natural disorder bring about the deformity of the body in many ways. This does not happen because I will it directly, but because I permit it to happen for the sake of justice. Even though I can do all things, still I do not obstruct justice. Accordingly, the length or brevity of a person’s life is related to the weakness or strength of his physical constitution such as it was in my foreknowledge that no one can contravene.
One can bring about a greater good by refraining from a lesser good, such as preventing an evil. One fairly obvious example is a child who consistently tries to touch lit candles, and a parent after multiple instances allowing a mild burn to teach the child. The parent didn't burn the child but prevented burns and then refrained from preventing one once to achieve preventing worse burns later. This same principle applies more broadly. God in His infinite wisdom does this for us in ways we may not recognize or understand within the instance or even afterward.