The “problem of evil,” which asks, “How is God good when there is so much evil in the world?” has long remained one of the most contested questions in philosophy. For many the deeper issue is not that evil exists, but that God, in some way, causes evil. But is this the case?

The common response by Christians that God will bring good out of evil is unsatisfying to many. While it is a matter of faith for Christians to trust that God has a plan and brings good out of evil, it carries little sway to those who do not already identify as a Christian.

Therefore, a more satisfying approach to this objection should not rely upon some hypothetical future where good is eventually brought out of evil, but one that can look to a present situation, even one where evil exists, and determine that a “greater good” is necessarily being brought forth.

In order to demonstrate this, a distinction must be made about the “will” of God in the first place. When approaching the question of God’s will, Thomas Aquinas determined that there must necessarily be two types of wills that exist in God. The first is the antecedent will, which refers to the desire of God that comes first or prior to anything else. The second is the consequent will, which refers to the desire that follows as a consequence of God’s antecedent will.

We recognize the existence of, and sometimes struggle with, these two wills in our own lives. For example, a parent wants a child’s shoes to be put on the right feet. However, the parent also wants the child to develop a sense of independence. These two wills do not always produce the desired result because the child, in developing that independence, may make a mistake and put a shoe on the wrong foot. Because the antecedent will, (allowing independence) might require a mistake, the consequent will (shoes being put on the right feet) may be frustrated.

The reality of evil includes a similar conflict. Evil actions are committed because the person committing them is free to do so. We recognize this in the way we prosecute crimes, enforcing a lesser penalty on crimes where it is determined the person was less free when committing a crime.

Freedom, as an execution of the will, is a metaphysical good by virtue of its existence. To say something is metaphysically good, compared to morally good, is to say that it exists. This means that the existence of freedom itself is good even if one chooses to misuse that freedom to perform an evil act. Freedom is a metaphysical good because it is the basis for loving relationships to happen. Even if a person can perform a good action, that action carries no meaning if the action was coerced.

If God desires goodness by His nature, which is the standard of goodness, then it would follow that God desires the greatest good possible in everything that exists.

From a Christian point of view, the greatest good is a relationship of love, which requires freedom. However, in order to be free, it must allow for the possibility of rejecting goodness—namely, evil.

This is where the antecedent and consequent wills of God come in. The consequent will of God is that everything that exists performs good actions all of the time. However, the antecedent will of God is that all things in existence can love. This means that actions must be performed freely by those who have the capacity for free choice. If freedom is necessary for a good action to be done out of love, then it must also be possible to reject the good action. It follows that sometimes these good actions will not be performed, resulting in the evil that we see around us today.

One need not look into the future to say God will bring good out of evil. The “good” in question, whenever any evil action is performed, is the freedom that was present. The free will that exists in human beings is being upheld at every moment of existence, even the very moment a person misuses that free will to commit evil.

It is painful when freedom is abused in order to cause harm. However, most would recognize that it is still better, in general, for freedom to exist than not, because it allows for the possibility of love.

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image credit: Public Domain Pictures