Reflection and Research Essay on Augustine: Saint Augustine on Evil

The origin of evil has been a controversial issue not only in the contemporary Christian circles but also among the ancient Greek Christians. The point of contention in the discussion about the origin of evil is why a good God would have created evil. The Judeo-Christians struggled to understand how a good, powerful, and all-knowing God could allow evil to exist. The logical conclusions were that either God did not exist or God was not good[footnoteRef:1]. However, Augustine sought to clarify this erroneous notion about the existence of God. Saint Augustine believed that the discussion on the origin of evil and whether a good God has a role in its creation and existence must first begin with the understanding of evil and God. He explained that if evil was not necessarily a thing, then it may not have been created although it negates the notion that God created evil[footnoteRef:2]. Secondly, he took the approach of finding out whether there are convincing reasons that indicate both the existence of God and his goodness. [1: Eggen, Wiel. "Probing the Depths of Evil and Good. Multireligious Views and Case Studies Wrestling with God and with Evil. Philosophical Reflections." Exchange 37, no. 2 (2008): 228-31.] [2: Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.]

Saint Augustine deduced that a good God would not have necessarily created evil. He argued that all things that good created be good. However, evil by its very nature is not good. Therefore, God could not have created evil. His philosophy fronts the idea that evil was created by the existence of free will. This free will allows people to choose the lesser good and hence result in evil[footnoteRef:3]. [3: Nash-Marshall, Siobhan. "Free Will, Evil, and Saint Augustine." Quaestiones Disputatae 6, no. 1 (2015): 43-57.]

As a student of philosophy, I have equally considered the question of the origin of evil. In my evaluation, evil could have largely originated from lack of knowledge about the impact of people’s action on themselves and others. People propagate evil due to lack of knowledge about its effects on the people around them. Therefore, people are educated and equipped with the knowledge to understand the devastating effect of their evil actions; they begin to change and act in a way that is rational. One of the greatest philosophers of his time, Plato equally explained the origin of evil. Plato believed that evil came into existence due to ignorance of people. He advocated for the avoidance of evil because it would make people happy. He advised people to rid themselves of ignorance and hence avoid evil[footnoteRef:4]. Therefore, the lack of knowledge is a central cause of the existence of evil within the society. [4: Seibt, Christopher R. "Evil And The Human Will: An Examination Of Plato And Aristotle On Whether Human Beings Knowingly Will Evil." Journal of Philosophy of Evil, fourth ser., 2 (2012): 114-27.]

This philosophical approach in answering the question of the origin of evil is similar to Saint Augustine’s model in several ways. For instance, it acknowledges the fact that people choose evil acts depending on what they know or what they do not know. The ability to choose whether based on knowledge or ignorance constitutes the concept of free will. Therefore, free will is a concept that is central to the explanation of the existence of evil from both philosophical approaches described above and hence constitutes the similarity between the two approaches[footnoteRef:5]. However, the fundamental difference between the two philosophical approaches in explaining the origin of evil and good is that Saint Augustine’s explanation only begins at free will as a major factor that led to the existence of evil. However, he does not go further to establish the very root cause of free will. For instance, he does not address the factors that inform the choices that people make concerning their free will. [5: Hoppe, Andreas. "Twist to Evil-An Introduction to Different Views on Catastrophes." Catastrophes, 2015, 1-14.]

In contrast, the philosophical theory on the origin of evil I have outlined acknowledges that other factors inform the choices of people in their free will[footnoteRef:6]. Free will is not entirely free since it is influenced by a combination of other factors. The most fundamental factor that affects choices in free will relates to knowledge. People make choices depending on what they know or what they do not know[footnoteRef:7]. Therefore, knowledge is a factor that drives the choice of good or evil in free will. [6: Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.] [7: Svendsen, Lars Fredrik Ha?ndle. A philosophy of evil. Champaign, Ill: Dalkey Archive Press, 2010.]

The philosophical views that I have highlighted support Saint Augustine on the origin of evil in different ways. First, it agrees with the fact that people have a choice to make about evil and good. Saint Augustine acknowledges that people make choices concerning good or evil. Similarly, I acknowledge that the existence of evil and good is closely connected to the choices that people make. Secondly, the two philosophical views agree on the fact that the choices on whether or not to do evil largely depend on the free will of the people. People who choose evil are not coerced to choose such evil under any circumstance. However, they do so out of their own will and conscience. Thirdly, the philosophical explanation for the existence of evil largely compliments Saint Augustine’s views on the origin of evil[footnoteRef:8]. In essence, explains how knowledge and ignorance influence the choices that people make in free will. Therefore, choices in the free will of individuals are equally informed by several other factors. However, ignorance is the main factor that influences the choice of evil acts. [8: Howard-Snyder, Daniel. "The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie and Plantinga." The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil, 2014, 19-33.]

Evil is often exhibited in two forms. The first form of evil is natural. The natural forms of evil constitute all forms of evils that are caused by natural calamities such as flooding, earthquakes, diseases, and famine among others[footnoteRef:9]. The second form of evil is one that is caused by human actions. These constitute all actions of individuals that may cause pain and suffering to other people. [9: Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.]

The nature of evil can be explained by the nature of the mind. People’s mind is often preoccupied with a lustful appetite to do evil. Therefore, evil is a state of the mind of people. When an individual is preoccupied with thoughts of his selfish ambitions and is hence determined to achieve such ambitions through any action regardless of its impact to injure another person, then such selfish ambitions become evil[footnoteRef:10]. Therefore, the evilness of an action is characterized by the intentions of such actions as well as the disregard of the potential pain and injury that such an action is likely to cause. [10: Nash-Marshall, Siobhan. "Free Will, Evil, and Saint Augustine." Quaestiones Disputatae 6, no. 1 (2015): 43-57.]

Plato equally tried to explain the nature of evil from a similar point. He believed that the mind of an individual is divided into three parts. These include the will, the reason, and the appetite[footnoteRef:11]. The will constitutes the emotions, spirit, and passion. The appetite is the physical argue people. The reason includes the knowledge and rational that informs choices. From Plato’s perspective, evil only happens when an individual’s mind is preoccupied with a lustful appetite that drives their actions. Plato argued that, when an individual’s mind is alienated from reason and logic, that individual is prone to act according to his lustful appetite of mind and hence execute what is evil. On the contrary, when an individual’s mind is preoccupied with reason and logic, the individual is largely moved to act in a way that propagates goodness[footnoteRef:12]. Therefore, Plato’s main explanation of the nature of evil is that it depends on the person’s mind and their implementation of their ideas. [11: Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.] [12: Seibt, Christopher R. "Evil And The Human Will: An Examination Of Plato And Aristotle On Whether Human Beings Knowingly Will Evil." Journal of Philosophy of Evil, fourth ser., 2 (2012): 114-27.]

Conversely, Saint Augustine’s view of evil is centered on being. In his philosophy, everything that is considered as being can only be good because God is the origin of being and state courtesy of his creation. Since God is good in himself and his state of being, it follows that all things are equally good. Therefore, Saint Augustine argues that evil cannot be a being in itself but rather an absence of good. In the absence of goodness, evil automatically takes its place. Saint Augustine further suggested that evil always results in injury. When a person commits evil, the result of their action is that they injure another person either physically or emotionally[footnoteRef:13]. These injuries deprive one of good. There can never be an injury to any person if that person is not deprived of good. [13: Eggen, Wiel. "Probing the Depths of Evil and Good. Multireligious Views and Case Studies Wrestling with God and with Evil. Philosophical Reflections." Exchange 37, no. 2 (2008): 228-31.]

Given that all things were created with an inherent good, the nature of evil can only be characterized by the deprivation of Good. Saint Augustine explained that evil was not originally in existence since everything that came into being was good. However, the elimination of good constituted what came to be known as evil. Since evil is in itself an existence, its elimination leaves behind a hole or a moral vacuum[footnoteRef:14]. According to St. Augustine, the moral vacuum that exists when any form of good is eliminated is the nature of evil. [14: Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.]

However, I have outlined nature of evil that differs with Saint Augustine’s concepts in several ways. First, this nature of evil is mainly characterized by the position of an individual’s mind that influences his action. I believe that the selfishness in the mind of individual’s mind and the action with total disregard of their effects on individuals is the main characteristics of the nature of evil[footnoteRef:15]. On the contrary, Saint Augustine explained that absence of good mainly characterizes the nature of evil. Saint Augustine held that goodness is an existence while evil is not. A moral vacuum is created when any form of good is eliminated; it constitutes evil. Therefore, evil is mainly characterized by the absence of good and makes the major difference in the theory I have outlined and St. Augustine’s theory of evil. [15: Nash-Marshall, Siobhan. "Free Will, Evil, and Saint Augustine." Quaestiones Disputatae 6, no. 1 (2015): 43-57.]

Another difference between the nature of evil I outlined and Saint Augustine’s explanation of evil is based on exclusivity of evil and good. He believed that evil only occurs in the absence of good. Therefore, there can never be evil and good occurring at the same time. In such a case, Good and evil are mutually exclusive occurrences. In the theory that I have outlined, good and evil are not interdependent. The occurrence of evil does not curtail the flourishing of goodness. In this explanation, the absence of good in itself does not constitute evil. The evil only comes into play when the individual acts in a way that disregards the injurious effects of his or her actions on other people. Therefore, this nature of evil does not expressly require the elimination of good for it to exist. From this perspective, good and evil are not mutually exclusive events.

Lastly, the theory outlined as well as Plato’s perception of evil is such that it takes into consideration the force behind the occurrence of evil and the very force that shapes Evil in the contemporary society. In particular, Plato’s explanation takes into account the specific part of the human mind that drives evils acts among people. Plato identifies an inclination to selfish appetite as the main force that shapes the nature of evil, but Saint Augustine is concerned with evil in itself. An analysis of St. Augustine’s explanation reveals that the existence of evil is not motivated by any factor rather than the absence of good[footnoteRef:16]. Therefore, this understanding of the nature of evil largely differs from Plato’s explanation of the existence and nature of evil. [16: Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.]

In summary, my perception of the nature of evil is that it is largely formed by the individual’s state of mind and mainly characterized by a disregard on the effect of an action on people. This understanding is fuelled by Plato’s explanation on the origin and nature of evil[footnoteRef:17]. However, Saint Augustine explains the nature of evil as the void created when the good is absent. [17: Seibt, Christopher R. "Evil And The Human Will: An Examination Of Plato And Aristotle On Whether Human Beings Knowingly Will Evil." Journal of Philosophy of Evil, fourth ser., 2 (2012): 114-27.]

Saint Augustine makes a significant contribution to the understanding of evil as flawed perfection. He seeks to explain how evil comes to being even when a good God created everything to be perfect. His contribution is anchored mainly on the argument that a perfect thing does not necessarily mean that it lacks the potential to be imperfect. Therefore, a perfectly created thing could potentially be imperfect in future due to different factors that influence the perfections and imperfections[footnoteRef:18]. The argument forms the center of the contribution and the value that Saint Augustine adds to the entire philosophical debate on the possibility of perfect God creating imperfect beings. [18: Nash-Marshall, Siobhan. "Free Will, Evil, and Saint Augustine." Quaestiones Disputatae 6, no. 1 (2015): 43-57.]

My interaction with the topic of evil has always been marked with questions of why God decided to give his creatures the freedom of choice. I have always sought to understand why God did not deny human beings the ability to make wrong choices that could ultimately lead to evil. The perfect God would have chosen to create perfection in human beings and hence deny them the power to engage in evil acts[footnoteRef:19]. Other philosophers have equally raised similar concerns in ancient times. Friedrich Schleiermacher explained his concern that a good God could give his creation the ability to choose evil[footnoteRef:20]. In his argument, Friedrich Schleiermacher stated that if the creation of God were perfect, then they could not be able to choose any evil even when they had the option to do so. Therefore, evil would only exist as a ridiculous option that the good creation of God can never consider. [19: Eggen, Wiel. "Probing the Depths of Evil and Good. Multireligious Views and Case Studies Wrestling with God and with Evil. Philosophical Reflections." Exchange 37, no. 2 (2008): 228-31.] [20: Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.]

Other philosophers such as J.L. Mackie and Antony Flew raise similar concerns. They argue that God had the choice to create man with the nature of immutability when it comes to the inherent goodness that is characteristic of God. Moreover, God could have chosen to give people the ability to choose in other areas and not in the area of Good and evil. In their opinion, people will be immutably good in heaven but will equally have the ability to choose now. Therefore, their major concern is in the fact that good should have allowed such immutable goodness to start right on earth[footnoteRef:21]. [21: Hector, Kevin W. "Friedrich Schleiermacher." Oxford Handbooks of Philosophy, 2017, 223-35.]

Saint Augustine’s contribution agrees with Mackie and Flew on one significant factor. They agree on the fact that freedom from a broad sense is different from freedom of choices viewed in a narrow sense. In the context of this argument, freedom of choices in a broad sense refers to all choices that an individual has to make every day. Freedom from a narrow sense refers to all the choices that an individual faces and relates to their morality. Therefore, it is rational to imagine the possibility of God having to create such a world.

However, the perceptions and ideologies advanced by the philosophers discussed misses’ significant points from the contribution that Saint Augustine makes. First, St. Augustine argues that God had two main objectives in creating individuals with free will. The first objective sought to create free creatures that had the option to choose[footnoteRef:22]. The second objective was to foster plenitude as the ability of individuals to choose the higher good or, the more superior good when faced with faced with the choice between the two options of good. Therefore, by denying people the ability to choose in matters that touch on morality while allowing them freedom of choice in other areas, God would have managed to achieve only the first objective[footnoteRef:23]. He would have created free people. However, these people would not have been able to achieve the second objective in which God intended for plenitude. They would not have been able to choose a greater good when faced with the options of two good. [22: Howard-Snyder, Daniel. "The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie and Plantinga." The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil, 2014, 19-33.] [23: Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.]

Saint Augustine views on the creation of good and evil differ from those explained by Friedrich Schleiermacher. In fact, Saint Augustine clarifies the concerns raised by Friedrich Schleiermacher[footnoteRef:24]. For instance, Schleiermacher wonders why a perfect God would create people comfortable in choosing evil. In his explanation, Saint Augustine notes that the imperfection and the evil in choices of men do not make the creation of God to be imperfect. He argues that the fact that something may be perfect at creation, it may not be immune to evil as time progresses. Therefore, God creates people who were morally perfect and good. However, this did not create immunity for them to be imperfect in future. Several other factors determine whether the creatures of God would remain in the perfect state or not. [24: Howard-Snyder, Daniel. "The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie and Plantinga." The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil, 2014, 19-33.]

Furthermore, the contribution made Saint Augustine clarifies the confusion in the argument of the possibility of God to create evil creatures. He further urges that all the things that God created were perfect just like he is perfect[footnoteRef:25]. Therefore, even the things that may seem imperfect before the human eye may equally be perfect when viewed from the context of the totality of their occurrence. [25: Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.]

The imperfections that seem obvious before a human eye may be contributing to the overall greater good that we cannot perceive. From this perspective, the judgment of good and evil then shift from a short-term and momentary outlook to a long-term and overall outlook. Therefore, it becomes imperative to view evil from the larger context of its occurrence as well as its long-term consequences[footnoteRef:26]. These considerations reveal that most of the things that we considered evil are not necessary and may be contributing to a greater good as God intended it to be[footnoteRef:27]. From this perspective, Saint Augustine differs with most critics of the fact that God created evil when he is a perfect God. [26: Howard-Snyder, Daniel. "The Logical Problem of Evil: Mackie and Plantinga." The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil, 2014, 19-33.] [27: Hector, Kevin W. "Friedrich Schleiermacher." Oxford Handbooks of Philosophy, 2017, 223-35.]

Saint Augustine justifies the existence of perceived evil by explaining its role in bringing out certain characters. He argues that this perceived evil plays a significant role in shaping important characters such as courage, forgiveness, mercy, compassion, self-control, and perseverance among other important traits. Without the existence of the perceived evil, these positive traits of individuals would never be identified or expressed. These virtues are elements of character possessed by moral souls. Therefore, the existence of what is perceived as evil helps in the creation of these strong moral virtues[footnoteRef:28]. Consequently, it is logical to draw the conclusion that in some instances, the evil contributes to a greater good by shaping significant moral characters that make up an individual. Therefore, evil may cease to be evil when viewed from a larger context of its occurrence and effect. [28: Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.]