Origin and Nature of EvilOrigin and Nature of Evil

I.I. KantKant

II.II. HegelHegel

III.III. KierkegaardKierkegaard

IV.IV. NiebuhrNiebuhr

Kant -- Hegel -- KierkegaardKant -- Hegel -- Kierkegaard

Kant tries to secularize the Kant tries to secularize the Augustinian/Lutheran conception of original sin.Augustinian/Lutheran conception of original sin.

Hegel sees sin & guilt (“the unhappy Hegel sees sin & guilt (“the unhappy conscience”) as a conflict-ridden stage through conscience”) as a conflict-ridden stage through which we must pass as we move toward which we must pass as we move toward philosophical enlightenment.philosophical enlightenment.

Kierkegaard rejects Hegel’s relativizing of Kierkegaard rejects Hegel’s relativizing of Christian faith to a mere stage.Christian faith to a mere stage.

KantKant No historical fall. Adam/Eve a myth.No historical fall. Adam/Eve a myth. Human nature is good. The law of morality Human nature is good. The law of morality

remains valid, not abrogated or denied.remains valid, not abrogated or denied. Universal, innate tendency toward evil.Universal, innate tendency toward evil. Evil is very subtle (insidious, involving self-Evil is very subtle (insidious, involving self-

deception). Morality involves the inner deception). Morality involves the inner motivation (the priority of moral principle motivation (the priority of moral principle over inclination), not just external over inclination), not just external conformity to moral rules.conformity to moral rules.

Origin of evil is an insoluble mysteryOrigin of evil is an insoluble mystery

1. Evil cannot be subsequent or parallel to the will, 1. Evil cannot be subsequent or parallel to the will, since then there would be no explanation of the since then there would be no explanation of the universality of sin.universality of sin.

2. But, evil cannot precede the will either, since it 2. But, evil cannot precede the will either, since it must either be part of our nature or outside our must either be part of our nature or outside our nature.nature. (a) If evil is part of our nature, then the moral law no (a) If evil is part of our nature, then the moral law no

longer applies to us, and evil could not still be evil.longer applies to us, and evil could not still be evil. (b) If evil is not part of our nature, then the evil we do (b) If evil is not part of our nature, then the evil we do

is the result of this alien intrusion, and we are not is the result of this alien intrusion, and we are not really responsible.really responsible.

The Noumenal vs. the PhenomenalThe Noumenal vs. the Phenomenal Kant resolves this paradox by distinguishing Kant resolves this paradox by distinguishing

between our real self (pure intellect, existing between our real self (pure intellect, existing beyond the bounds of time and space) and our beyond the bounds of time and space) and our apparent or “phenomenal” self (whose character apparent or “phenomenal” self (whose character apparently unfolds progressively through time).apparently unfolds progressively through time).

The noumenal self exercises true, uncaused free The noumenal self exercises true, uncaused free will, that expresses itself in the naturally caused will, that expresses itself in the naturally caused behavior of the phenomenal self. The origin of behavior of the phenomenal self. The origin of evil is pushed beyond the bounds of sense & time.evil is pushed beyond the bounds of sense & time.

Kant’s solution to the problem of evilKant’s solution to the problem of evil Moral self-reform through a rational faith. Moral self-reform through a rational faith. We can "atone" for our sins through the We can "atone" for our sins through the

acceptance of suffering.acceptance of suffering. Seems inconsistent with Kant’s affirmation of the Seems inconsistent with Kant’s affirmation of the

“insidious” and “inextirpable” character of sin.“insidious” and “inextirpable” character of sin. Answer: some of Kant’s echoing of traditional Answer: some of Kant’s echoing of traditional

Christian language is not to be taken literally. Christian language is not to be taken literally. Perhaps he didn’t really believe that sin was both Perhaps he didn’t really believe that sin was both radical and universal.radical and universal.

G. W. F. Hegel (early 19th century)G. W. F. Hegel (early 19th century) Developmental theory of sin. Developmental theory of sin. Sin results from a necessary conflict Sin results from a necessary conflict

between individuality (self-assertion, between individuality (self-assertion, willfulness) and universality (laws, willfulness) and universality (laws, principles). principles).

Hegel’s SolutionHegel’s Solution

Philosophical understanding reconciles this Philosophical understanding reconciles this opposition through a kind of pantheism. opposition through a kind of pantheism.

We realize that the universal claims of We realize that the universal claims of morality are not something coming from morality are not something coming from outside ourselves: we are God, and God is outside ourselves: we are God, and God is us.us.

Kierkegaard: Agreement with KantKierkegaard: Agreement with Kant1. Original sin is not merely an inherited 1. Original sin is not merely an inherited

condition, resulting from a historical fall.condition, resulting from a historical fall.

2. All sin is the result of the exercise of human 2. All sin is the result of the exercise of human freedom.freedom.

3. Human nature is not nullified through sin. 3. Human nature is not nullified through sin.

4. Sin is a universal phenomenon.4. Sin is a universal phenomenon.

5. Origin of sin is a mystery: "sin presupposes 5. Origin of sin is a mystery: "sin presupposes itself".itself".

Disagreement with KantDisagreement with Kant

1.1. There is no “noumenal” self: human There is no “noumenal” self: human beings essentially “exist” (in time).beings essentially “exist” (in time).

2.2. Mere self-reform is not an adequate Mere self-reform is not an adequate solution.solution.

3.3. The solution involves going beyond The solution involves going beyond human reason (beyond a human reason (beyond a Religion within Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alonethe Bounds of Reason Alone))

Agreement with HegelAgreement with Hegel

1. Sin is a kind of developmental phase -- 1. Sin is a kind of developmental phase -- necessary if we are to reach the higher level.necessary if we are to reach the higher level.

2. Sin does represent a conflict between 2. Sin does represent a conflict between individuality and universality, and both are individuality and universality, and both are necessary.necessary.

Disagreement with HegelDisagreement with Hegel

1. We are not parts or aspects of God (the 1. We are not parts or aspects of God (the Absolute). The contrast between our Absolute). The contrast between our sinfulness and God's holiness is real, not sinfulness and God's holiness is real, not merely apparent.merely apparent.

2. Philosophical thought of a pantheistic sort 2. Philosophical thought of a pantheistic sort offers no viable solution, since it denies our offers no viable solution, since it denies our real existence as individuals in space and real existence as individuals in space and time.time.

3. There is no permanent solution to sin: the 3. There is no permanent solution to sin: the transition from sin to faith must be transition from sin to faith must be continually repeated in our experience. We continually repeated in our experience. We never simply leave sin and guilt behind.never simply leave sin and guilt behind.

Kierkegaard's Philosophical FragmentsKierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments A thought-experiment, beginning with a A thought-experiment, beginning with a

single hypothesis, What if?single hypothesis, What if? What if: we begin life without the truth (the What if: we begin life without the truth (the

essential truth about who we are), and essential truth about who we are), and without even the condition of discovering without even the condition of discovering the truth on our own?the truth on our own?

What would follow from this hypothesis?What would follow from this hypothesis?

Upshot of the ExperimentUpshot of the Experiment

Kierkegaard reconstructs most of traditional Kierkegaard reconstructs most of traditional Christian theology in the process of Christian theology in the process of answering this question.answering this question.

This is why his “critic” at the end of the This is why his “critic” at the end of the section accuses the author of being a section accuses the author of being a charlatan (pretending that he has just charlatan (pretending that he has just invented what is in fact Christian theology).invented what is in fact Christian theology).

Kierkegaard's existentialismKierkegaard's existentialism

1. Human existence is a matter of living 1. Human existence is a matter of living through time, which involves having a through time, which involves having a narrative or history to one's life.narrative or history to one's life.

2. Therefore, the central challenge of human 2. Therefore, the central challenge of human life is that of "becoming a self" by life is that of "becoming a self" by constructing and maintaining the continuity constructing and maintaining the continuity of the narrative of one's life through time, of the narrative of one's life through time, despite changes.despite changes.

3. This unity or continuity of one's life-history 3. This unity or continuity of one's life-history is either a unity with God or against God. If is either a unity with God or against God. If it does not include God, it necessarily it does not include God, it necessarily excludes Him.excludes Him.

4. Therefore, human life begins either in a 4. Therefore, human life begins either in a state of unity with God or of opposition to state of unity with God or of opposition to God.God.

In the first case, knowing the truth (about In the first case, knowing the truth (about oneself and God) is a matter of recollection oneself and God) is a matter of recollection (making explicit what you already know, (making explicit what you already know, deep down).deep down).

In the second case, knowing the truth In the second case, knowing the truth involves learning it through an event (the involves learning it through an event (the moment) - an encounter with God in time (= moment) - an encounter with God in time (= faith).faith).

5. But, human life cannot begin in 5. But, human life cannot begin in harmony with God, for two reasons: harmony with God, for two reasons: (a) This original harmony would destroy our (a) This original harmony would destroy our

unique individuality. Each of us would be unique individuality. Each of us would be swallowed up in God's being. swallowed up in God's being.

(b) This original harmony would make it (b) This original harmony would make it impossible for us to encounter God as an impossible for us to encounter God as an Other. We would be unable to have an Other. We would be unable to have an interpersonal relationship with God.interpersonal relationship with God.

6. So, recollection is not the road to 6. So, recollection is not the road to truth -- faith is. truth -- faith is.

7. For faith to be possible, God (the 7. For faith to be possible, God (the eternal) must confront us in time, eternal) must confront us in time, through some sort of incarnation. through some sort of incarnation.

8. Such an incarnation of the eternal in 8. Such an incarnation of the eternal in time is paradoxical -- rationally time is paradoxical -- rationally incomprehensible.incomprehensible.

9. When we encounter God's self-revelation in 9. When we encounter God's self-revelation in time (the incarnation), we first become time (the incarnation), we first become aware of our own opposition to God. Guilt aware of our own opposition to God. Guilt and the consciousness of sin is the first and the consciousness of sin is the first result of the encounter with God.result of the encounter with God.

10. The solution to sin is faith, the acceptance 10. The solution to sin is faith, the acceptance of the paradox.of the paradox.

Reinhold NiebuhrReinhold Niebuhr

A leading American theologian of the 20th A leading American theologian of the 20th century.century.

Began as a Christian socialist and pacificist.Began as a Christian socialist and pacificist. Supported WW II against Nazis, founded Supported WW II against Nazis, founded

the Americans for Democratic Action.the Americans for Democratic Action. Moved toward “Christian realism”, a Moved toward “Christian realism”, a

modern version of Augustinianism.modern version of Augustinianism.

The Easy Conscience of Modern ManThe Easy Conscience of Modern Man Modern man denies the reality of evilModern man denies the reality of evil Three forms:Three forms:

Romantic naturalists (Helvetius, Rousseau)Romantic naturalists (Helvetius, Rousseau) Scientific progressivists (F. Bacon, Hobbes, Scientific progressivists (F. Bacon, Hobbes,

Locke, Skinner, Wilson)Locke, Skinner, Wilson) Rationalists (Spinoza, Hegel, Whitehead)Rationalists (Spinoza, Hegel, Whitehead)

Romantic OptimistsRomantic Optimists

Human nature is wholly good, as fashioned Human nature is wholly good, as fashioned biologically.biologically.

Evil is the product of specific, historic Evil is the product of specific, historic circumstances.circumstances. Helvetius (Renaissance), Machiavelli: Helvetius (Renaissance), Machiavelli:

organized religion, political tyrants, chaosorganized religion, political tyrants, chaos Rousseau: society, language, propertyRousseau: society, language, property Marx: private ownership of capitalMarx: private ownership of capital

ProgressivistsProgressivists

Evil is the result of defects in nature, Evil is the result of defects in nature, correctable through human agency, correctable through human agency, ingenuity.ingenuity. F. Bacon: scientific knowledgeF. Bacon: scientific knowledge Hobbes, Locke: social contractHobbes, Locke: social contract Bentham, Mill: reform society through better Bentham, Mill: reform society through better

policy, educationpolicy, education Dewey, Skinner: cultural lag of social sciences Dewey, Skinner: cultural lag of social sciences

behind natural sciencesbehind natural sciences

RationalistsRationalists

Human beings transcend nature through Human beings transcend nature through reason, spirituality.reason, spirituality.

Evil results when we are overcome by sub-Evil results when we are overcome by sub-rational nature, passions, self-centeredness.rational nature, passions, self-centeredness.

Spinoza (no progress, no real evil)Spinoza (no progress, no real evil) Evil will disappear as mankind evolves Evil will disappear as mankind evolves

toward greater rationality & spirituality: toward greater rationality & spirituality: Hegel, WhiteheadHegel, Whitehead

Niebuhr’s Critique of RomanticsNiebuhr’s Critique of Romantics

Romantic optimism is self-contradictory: if Romantic optimism is self-contradictory: if human nature is wholly good, where did the human nature is wholly good, where did the evil social institutions come from that evil social institutions come from that distort that nature?distort that nature?

These were produced by supposedly good These were produced by supposedly good human beings in past. Yet, the creation of human beings in past. Yet, the creation of tyranny and oppression are themselves tyranny and oppression are themselves clearly evil.clearly evil.

Niebuhr’s Critique of ProgressivistsNiebuhr’s Critique of Progressivists Their position is similarly self-Their position is similarly self-

contradictory: if human beings are by nature contradictory: if human beings are by nature ignorant, irrational, and self-centered, how ignorant, irrational, and self-centered, how can science and political reform be can science and political reform be possible?possible?

The scientific reformer (Skinner, Wilson) The scientific reformer (Skinner, Wilson) always inconsistently exempts himself from always inconsistently exempts himself from the scope of “nature”.the scope of “nature”.

Niebuhr’s Critique of RationalistsNiebuhr’s Critique of Rationalists These come the closest to the truth, since These come the closest to the truth, since

they do acknowledge the reality of evil.they do acknowledge the reality of evil. However, they wrongly imagine that However, they wrongly imagine that

freedom and reason are always innocent. In freedom and reason are always innocent. In fact, the greatest evils are the product not of fact, the greatest evils are the product not of animal passions but perverted spirituality.animal passions but perverted spirituality.

Nothing inevitable about an evolution Nothing inevitable about an evolution toward goodness.toward goodness.

Freud - the Consistent PessimistFreud - the Consistent Pessimist

Freud believed that what’s wrong with humanity is Freud believed that what’s wrong with humanity is incurable: the mismatch between the demands of incurable: the mismatch between the demands of civilized life and our anti-social animal natures.civilized life and our anti-social animal natures.

Unlike Rousseau, he had no romantic illusions Unlike Rousseau, he had no romantic illusions about the primitive life. Unlike progressivists and about the primitive life. Unlike progressivists and rationalists, he had not illusions about the future.rationalists, he had not illusions about the future.

However, Freud also denied the reality of moral However, Freud also denied the reality of moral evil, since he undermined the authority of evil, since he undermined the authority of conscience.conscience.