A humanist discussion of… EVIL AND SUFFERING
The word "evil"
Some non-religious people and humanists avoid using the word "evil"
because they associate it with religious texts and rules and punishments,
or assume that it derives from the word "devil". The word certainly crops
up a lot in the Bible, but in fact it predates the first English translations of
the Bible. "Evil" comes from the Old English "yfel" and has no etymological
connection with the religious word "devil", which started life as the Old
English word "deoful" (Concise Oxford Dictionary).
Others see "evil" as a word that we need to express outrage and horror at
certain kinds of act, alongside words like "wicked", "terrible", "disgusting",
"shameful", and so on. ''Wrong" or "very very very bad" are not strong
enough to describe, for example, the Holocaust or the terrorist attack on
the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 - but "evil" is.
The concept of evil
Although "evil" can be a useful word to describe actions or events -
sometimes natural events - that cause great suffering, humanists still
have reservations about some of the ideas lurking behind the word. No
humanist could accept the concept of evil as a supernatural force, or as
something caused by demons or devils, or that people are born with.
People sometimes describe others as "evil" to avoid having to understand
them or think about the causes and cures for evil. Humanists, people who
seek to live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs, think that
we should try to understand what makes people to do evil deeds and
cause suffering to others. There are reasons, ranging from lack of
empathy with others and ignorance to the idea that "the end justifies the
means". Exploring these ideas is a useful thing to do.
"The problem of evil"
The existence of evil in the world is a particular problem if you believe in a
loving, all-powerful, all-knowing god. For many, evil and suffering - for
example, wars, terrorism, illness, natural disasters - are powerful
arguments against the existence of such a god. As the Greek philosopher
Epicurus put it about 2300 years ago: "If the gods have the will to remove
evil and cannot, then they are not all-powerful. If they are neither able
nor willing, they are neither all-powerful nor benevolent. If they are both
able and willing to annihilate evil, why does it exist?"
Sometimes personal experience of great and pointless suffering - the
death of a child, perhaps, or living through a war which achieves nothing -
causes religious people to lose their faith.
How do religions explain evil and suffering?
There are standard religious explanations for evil and suffering. Some
people believe that this life is a "vale of tears" as a test or preparation for
another, better, life after death. Some say "God moves in mysterious
ways", or that evil and suffering are part of a divine plan, which we must
accept. Some believe that God gives us free will and it's our fault if we
misuse it. Some believe that evil is a punishment for the "original sin" of
Adam and Eve, which caused us all to be born "sinful". But these ideas will
convince only the religious.
How do humanists explain evil and suffering?
Humanists don't believe that suffering is punishment or test, because they
don't think there is a god to punish or test us. Nor do they believe in an
afterlife where evil will be punished and goodness rewarded. Humanists
don't believe that there is a controlling deity who moves in mysterious, or
any other, ways. Nor can they accept evil and suffering as part of a divine
plan which they have to accept rather than fight.
Instead, they think that human beings have a degree of choice and
control over their lives and must take some responsibility for the way they
turn out. Some evils, for example, war, famine and poverty, are caused or
made worse by human greed and folly. Others, like illness, floods, or
earthquakes, may have natural causes or happen by chance, just because
the world is the way it is, but they too may be caused or made worse by
human actions. Often, though, those who suffer the most are not to
blame.
Surely a loving god, if one existed, could have made a world in which
natural disasters didn't happen, in which viruses and cancers didn't exist,
and in which human beings had limited free will (just as we have limited
physical and mental capacities)? This "limited free will" would mean that
we were incapable of doing evil. Most people, after all, already have this
kind of limited free will and don't find it a problem - they couldn't
deliberately kill one person, let alone commit mass murder. Would the
world be a worse place if no one could?
Humanists also object to Christian ideas about "original sin". Punishing
humans for the sins of their ancestors would be by human standards
extraordinarily cruel and unjust. The idea that we are born "sinful" seems
to be based on an unjustifiably negative and pessimistic view of human
nature, and particularly of babies. Although humanists recognise than
human beings can be aggressive and selfish, they do not believe that all
human beings are innately flawed and "sinful" and that suffering and evil
are inevitable.
Humanists believe that it is up to human beings to fight evil and suffering
and solve the world's problems if we can. They are, as a result,
sometimes accused of unrealistic optimism about human nature and
human capacities. Their reply to that is that they not entirely optimistic,
though they do believe that human beings are humanity's only hope and
that there has been some progress over the centuries in extending the
range of our compassion and care and respect for others. The writer Philip
Pullman (a humanist) put it well on Radio 4 recently when he said that
that he was 51% optimistic about human nature. Most humanists have a
fairly balanced attitude based on the observation that on the whole
humans behave quite well, sometimes even with great kindness and
compassion, and that really evil actions are unusual. The fact that we call
terrible acts "inhuman" shows something about our normal expectations
of human beings. The philosopher A J Ayer wrote, in The Humanist
Outlook, in 1968: "If the capacity for evil is part of human nature, so is
the capacity for good."
How do humanists deal with evil and suffering?
Humanists don't necessarily believe in "turning the other cheek" or just
accepting evils and injustices passively - this would just increase suffering
by encouraging evil actions. But most rational people acknowledge the
benefits of eventually forgiving and forgetting even the most terrible of
wrongs. The desire for punishment or revenge can dominate the mind of
the victim to an unhealthy extent, and revenge can simply perpetuate and
multiply wrongs. There will always be some suffering in the world that we
cannot do much about - and we have to learn ways of coping.
Humanists do not believe that a deity will help us to end evil and
suffering, but that we humans must all do what we can to alleviate and
prevent them, because happiness is the ultimate good. The nineteenth
century American humanist Robert Green Ingersoll summed up this
philosophy in The Gods in 1876: "…happiness is the only good; …the time
to be happy is now, and the way to be happy is to make others so."
So humanist believe that we should live, vote, choose jobs, relate to other
people, spend and invest our money, in ways that respect other people's
rights, minimise suffering, and increase happiness.
Questions to think about and discuss
• Is all suffering caused by some kind of evil?
• Can "evil" exist detached from people or actions?
• Are there evil people, or just evil actions?
• Would there be any disadvantages to limited free will?
• Why do people commit evil actions? Consider some examples.
• Do all the world religions think about evil in similar ways? How is
the humanist view on this issue similar to that of other worldviews
you have come across? How is it different? Can you explain the
similarities and differences?
How are you deciding your answers to these questions? What principles
and arguments influence your answers?
Further reading:
Simon Blackburn Being Good (Oxford, 2001)
Jonathan Glover Humanity (Jonathan Cape, 1999)
Mary Midgely Wickedness (Routledge, 1984)
Nigel Warburton Philosophy:the Basics (Routledge, 2nd edition 1995,
especially Chapter 2 on God)
