Program / Course 15: The Problem of Evil and Suffering / Lesson 2.1
What you will learn
- Define moral evil and distinguish it from natural evil.
- Explain why Christians place responsibility for moral evil on human choices.
- Describe how Scripture speaks of sin, guilt and the effects of wrongdoing on the innocent.
- State the main difficulty that remains once human responsibility has been granted.
The big idea
Moral evil is the harm that comes from the choices of free agents: cruelty, murder, theft, neglect and war. Christians hold that human beings, and not God, are responsible for these acts. This is a serious claim with real consequences, since it treats people as moral agents who can be blamed and who can repent. But it raises a hard question that the rest of the module explores: why would a good and all-powerful God make creatures able to do such things, and allow their victims to bear the cost?
Key terms
- Moral evil
- Evil that results from the wrongful choices of free beings, such as murder, cruelty and injustice.
- Natural evil
- Suffering that results from natural processes and not from human choice, such as disease, earthquake and famine caused by drought.
- Sin
- In Christian teaching, a turning away from God and from the good, in thought, word, deed or omission.
- Culpability
- Blameworthiness. A person is culpable when they freely did wrong and could have done otherwise.
- Structural evil
- Harm that is built into systems and habits, such as slavery or exploitation, and that no single person alone fully causes.
- Innocent suffering
- Suffering borne by people who did nothing to deserve it, especially as the result of other people’s wrongs.
- Repentance
- A change of heart and life away from wrongdoing and toward God.
Background
Think of the worst things human beings do to one another: war crimes, abuse of children, slavery, genocide. These are the most familiar forms of suffering in the news and in history. They are also the cases where a Christian can say with the most confidence that the cause is human choice. A soldier fired the weapon; a guard locked the door. Nobody thinks an earthquake did it.
The Bible is direct about this. It tells the story of Cain killing Abel (Genesis 4), of the violence that filled the earth before the flood (Genesis 6:11), and of the prophets who condemn kings who crush the poor. It presents human beings as accountable. It also describes God as grieved by human wrongdoing, not as its author.
Two points need care. First, the claim that people are responsible does not say that every victim deserved their fate, and Scripture rejects that idea. Second, putting responsibility on humans does not end the problem, since a critic may ask why God permits such choices at all. This lesson prepares the ground for that question.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: What counts as moral evil
Moral evil is evil that someone did, or failed to do, freely and wrongly. It includes active cruelty and also neglect, such as a person who sees someone in need and walks by. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) shows that failing to help can be a moral failure.
Moral evil can be personal, like a lie or a betrayal, or it can be shared, like a war or an unjust law. In shared cases responsibility is spread among many people, and each may be partly guilty. Christian writers speak of the sins of omission, of complicity and of cooperation with others’ wrongs.
Step 2: What Scripture teaches about responsibility
The Bible repeatedly holds people to account. God says to Cain, “sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (Genesis 4:7), which implies that Cain could have mastered it. James writes, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13). The prophets call rulers to justice and condemn them when they fail.
Yet Scripture also records the dark fact that the consequences of wrong fall on others. The prophets speak of the innocent poor oppressed by the powerful. The Gospel according to Matthew tells of Herod’s slaughter of the infants (Matthew 2:16-18). These are not explained by the sufferers’ sins. Jesus himself rejects the idea that victims of a disaster were worse sinners than others (Luke 13:1-5).
Step 3: Why responsibility matters to the argument
If people freely choose evil, then a great share of the world’s suffering is the result of what creatures do, not of what God does. The critic of God must then say that God should have prevented those choices, or made creatures who would not make them. That is a different charge from saying God directly causes evil, and the free-will defense, studied in lesson 2.3, tries to meet it.
Responsibility also matters in itself. To say that someone is a moral agent is to respect them. Treating wrongdoers as mere machines would remove the possibility of forgiveness and repentance, and would deny that they can change. Many Christians hold that the dignity of persons is bound up with their ability to do wrong.
Step 4: What remains hard
Several difficulties remain. First, some wrongs seem to have been made easy by circumstances. A child born into war or abuse does not choose that environment, and may be shaped into a wrongdoer by it. How much responsibility such a person bears is a question the tradition treats with care, since Scripture says that to whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48).
Second, the victims are not responsible for what is done to them. If God lets the freedom of the wrongdoer stand, then the cost falls on the innocent. A critic argues that this is unjust. A defender replies that God does not leave victims without hope, but the reply must be tested. Third, there is the question of how the first human wrongdoing came to be, which Augustine takes up in the next lesson.
- What is the difference between moral evil and natural evil? Give one case that seems to mix them.
- Why does the Bible hold people responsible and also say that victims do not deserve their suffering?
- Is neglect a form of moral evil? Why or why not?
- If people are responsible for their wrongs, what follows about forgiveness?
- How should responsibility be assigned when evil is done by groups or systems?
- Why does putting blame on human beings not by itself answer the problem of evil?
Examples
Cain and Abel
Cain kills his brother after God accepts Abel’s offering. God warns him beforehand that sin is at the door and that he can master it. The text treats the murder as Cain’s act and holds him to account, and it also records that Abel, the victim, was blameless in the matter.
Neglect
In Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats, those condemned are not charged with attacking anyone but with failing to feed the hungry and visit the sick (Matthew 25:41-46). Moral evil includes harm done by what is left undone.
A constructed case of shared guilt
A factory owner knowingly ignores safety rules, a regulator looks away, and a worker dies. Each decision was small, and together they caused the death. Christian ethics holds all of them answerable in different degrees. (A constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic
The Catechism teaches that God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. It holds that creatures are free and responsible for their sin, and it distinguishes mortal and venial sins by their gravity, knowledge and consent. It also teaches that guilt is lessened by ignorance, fear or compulsion.
Orthodox
The Orthodox emphasize that human beings are free and can turn from God, and that sin is a sickness as well as a crime. They stress the shared nature of sin and that all are caught in a fallen world. They do not teach inherited guilt in the same way as Augustine, but hold that humans inherit mortality and a tendency to sin.
Protestant
Protestants teach that all are sinners and that sin is a real offense for which people are accountable. Reformed traditions teach that God ordains all things and yet is not the author of sin, and that human choices are real and responsible. Arminian traditions put more weight on human freedom as a cause of evil.
Secular and philosophical views
Many philosophers agree that moral evil is caused by human choice, and argue that a world with freedom is morally richer. Some determinists hold that people are not ultimately responsible for their acts, which, if true, would undermine both blame and the free-will defense. Others point to social and psychological factors that limit freedom.
Why it matters
Seeing moral evil as the result of choices lets a student respect the victims and hold the wrongdoers to account, while keeping the harder question about God open. It also guards against the idea that all suffering is a punishment for the sufferer, an idea that Scripture itself rejects.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: If people choose evil freely, God has no responsibility for it.
Correction: That is exactly the question in dispute. Christians hold that God is not the author of evil, but a critic can still ask why he made and sustains creatures who do such things. The next lessons examine the reply.
Misunderstanding: Those who suffer from evil must have deserved it in some way.
Correction: Scripture rejects this. Jesus denies that the victims of Pilate’s cruelty or of a collapsed tower were worse sinners (Luke 13:1-5), and the book of Job is written against the idea.
Misunderstanding: Blaming humans is a way of letting God off.
Correction: It is an observation about who acted, and it is the first step in an argument. By itself it is incomplete, and serious Christian writers say so.
Knowledge check
What is moral evil?
Moral evil is harm that results from the wrongful choices of free agents, whether by action or by neglect. Murder, abuse, theft, lying and unjust wars are examples. It is distinguished from natural evil, which has causes outside human choice, such as disease or earthquake.
How does Scripture treat the relation between a wrongdoer and a victim?
It holds the wrongdoer responsible, as God does with Cain, and it does not blame the victim. Jesus explicitly refuses to say that those who died in disasters or under cruel rulers were greater sinners (Luke 13:1-5). Scripture also records the cries of the oppressed and promises justice.
Why is shared or structural evil harder to analyze?
Many people each contribute a little, and no one person may have intended the whole harm. Christian ethics holds that complicity and omission count, so each person has a share of responsibility in proportion to knowledge and power. It is harder to assign exact blame, which makes the evil easy to ignore.
Why does putting responsibility on human beings leave a problem for the believer?
Because a critic can ask why a good and all-powerful God made creatures able to do terrible things, and lets innocent victims pay for their choices. Responsibility explains who acted, not why God permits it. The free-will defense, studied next, is the main reply.
Think it through
- Think of a harm you have seen caused by a person’s choice. How much of it do you attribute to the person, and how much to circumstances?
- Does it comfort or trouble you that Scripture treats human beings as truly responsible?
- What does it mean to take both the wrongdoer and the victim seriously at once?
Independent assignment
Sorting moral and natural evil
In your own notebook, write about 350 words. List ten kinds of suffering you can think of from the news or history. Mark each as mostly moral, mostly natural, or mixed, and give one sentence of reason. Choose two mixed cases and explain why they are hard to classify. Do not write about anyone you know personally if it is painful. Keep it private.
Further study
- Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church Look up the sections on sin and on providence and evil.
- C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain Read the chapter on human wickedness.
- Genesis 4:7 God tells Cain that he can master sin.
- Luke 13:1 Jesus rejects the idea that victims of disaster were worse sinners.
- James 1:13 God tempts no one to evil.