Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Divine Morality and Evil
Divine Morality and Evil
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of
the contents of the document.]
Page 2 of 17
Introduction
Divine Morality and Nature of Act are a common problem of Theism in general and Abrahamic Religions
in particular. These two are represented beautifully by two famous Greek Paradoxes namely Epicurus
Paradox and Ethyphros Paradox.
Two of the most fallacious arguments against the Existence Of Divine Essence are based upon the evil in
the World and the Moral Standard of Divine Essence. These two arguments are connected in some
meaning.
Discussion
The two different problems are closely related to one an other such that they are indispensible from
each other.
They are often used to deny the Divine Existence (Esse/Vuju:d) and Divine Essence.Two of the Greatest
problems faced by some theologians who:=
1] Intentionally or unintentionally deny the difference between Absolute Attributes and Relative
Attributes, Essential Attributes and Active Attributes of Divine Essence.
3] Or Both.
Divine Morality
First of all it must be noted that Divine Esse is not an Attribute but the very Essence. One may sentence
the relation between these two as follow: The Self Existing Essence [Adh:Dha:t Hiya Mudu:d Bidh:
Dh:a:t]is the Esse [Vuju:d] .As the Divine Essence is the Only Essence of this type/kind, so Divine Esse is
Absolutly Identical to the Divine Essence. That is Divine Essence is the Divine Esse and Divine Esse is the
Divine Essence.
Absolute Attributes are of two types. 1] Negative Attributes 2] Positive Attributes [Also Essential
Attributes].
Relative Attributes are of two types. 1] Active Attributes. 2] Moral Attributes. 3] Semi Active Attributes.
Active Attributes are those Divine Attributes whose opposites are in Divine Power yet their Exercise is
Relatively Absurd [An Absurd in Relative] Like Justice. Injustice ,Cruelty Undeseving Punishments .
Semi Active Attributes are neither in Divine Power nor their Negations and Contradictions are in Divine
Power nor their Opposites are in Divine Power. They are as follow:=
Page 2 of 17
Page 3 of 17
1] Life of Deity [Vita]. 2] Esoteric Speech of Deity=Divine Essence [ Some Times called Speech in Thought
or Simply Thought or Idea or Dictum]. 3]Attribute of Sight of Deity i.e Divine Essence. 4] Hearing
/Listening of Divine Essence=Deity. 5] Will /Intention/Volence Of Deity=Divine Essence. 6] Omniscience
Moral Attributes are those Attributes of Divine Essence if they are applied to Created Rational or
Intellectual Supposita they generates the ideas of right or wrong , good or evil or bad or legal or illegal.
1] Mercy. 2] Justice. 3] Love. 4] Providence. 5] Truth in statements and Assertive and Negative moods of
sentences. 6] Not over burdening any one of the Creation. 7] Guidance .8] Providing ways of Salvation.
As according to the Moral standard it is often argued by Atheists that Divine Essence Satisfieth Not the
hight moral standards which are supposed to be satisfied. This maketh Divine Essence to Cease.
There are two different views of Morality. Mutazilites believe that Good and Bad are the intrinsic
nature of acts so the Morality is Absolute and Rational. Their standard cannot be changed even by the
Omnipotent Per Se Subsistent Existent [Per Se Subsistent Esse]. But this maketh Divine Essence bounded
to some laws which limit Divine Omnivalence and Divine Omnipotence. So it was suggested by some
theologians that they are Essential Attributes, yet in order to differentiate them form Essential Attributes
they began to say the very same thing with different sentences not using the word Essential.For example
they called them as Natural Attributes [As: S:ifa:t Al Fitriah]. Actually the opined that If Divine Essence is
Perfect then all the Positive Attributes must be Essential and their must not be any difference between
these types. Great Salafite Theologian also committed the same error when he denied the difference
between the two types of Attributes nounly 1] ESSENTIAL 2] ACTIVE.
Mutazilah believed that Actions are Intrinsically and Rationally Right or Wrong. Imam Ibn Taimiah was
a Moral Absolutist in the view that he declared Moral Attributes as Divine and Essential Attributes and
made several Objections on those who made some distinctions between the two types. The greatedst
problem faced by Mutazilites was that they were compelled to particularize Divine Omnipotence and
Divine Omnivolence. Ima:m Ibn Taimiah RH: attempted to solve the problem by Declaring the Attributes
from which intrinsically Right Acts Emanate as Intrinsically Right . Now Righteousness and Wrongness
became a standard from Divine Attributes them selves. For Example to be Merciless is always immoral
even if Mercilessness is required for Justice. Injustice is always immoral even if Justice is not even
Necessary. This dogma limited the Divine Right to Exercise an Act that is in Divine Omnipotence.
Page 3 of 17
Page 4 of 17
Khairabadis borrowed this concept and applied to the Truth of Assertive and Negative Sentences and
declared that to speak a false Sentence is Immoral and an Imperfection even if spoken By Divine
Essence.They do not consider that Divine Essence hath a Divine Right to Speak a false sentence even if
Divine Essence never Excerciseth His Omnipotence over it. The consequence was that they denied
Divine Omnipotence over the False Sentences.
But the worst of all problem is that the Dogma of Essentiality of Moral Attributes implieth so many
problems that it is a tool to deny the Existence of Divine Essence.
So it is necessary to restudy the problem raised by Atheists and to Analyze it as according to the systems
of Pure Asha:irah and Ma:turidiah.
It is argued that Divine Essence doeth not exhibit high moral standards and the Existence of Evils in the
world is a Proof of this claim.
So If Moral Attributes are Divine,Essential, Absolute , Natural ,and Active Attributes then this implieth
that Divine Essence Existeth Not.
Also Divine Essence cannot make the world particularly this imperfect world.
Divine Perfection
The problems of Divine Perfection is misunderstood by some scholars whether theists or atheists. The
theorised that Divine Perfection impleth that the Moral Attributes and Essential Attributes all are equal
and Moral Attributes are also either equal to Essential Attributes or are themselves Essential Attributes.
Moral Attributes are closely related by the theories about Morality. For example Moral Absolutism or
Absolute Morality etc.
There cannot be any positive solution unless and otherwise it is accepted that Divine Essence Hath
Essential Right to Do What is in Divine Absolute Power. Epicurus rejected that Divine Essence Ceaseth to
be Divine Omnibenivolent . There are many other problems which are the
extension of Epicurus .
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that an act is either intrinsically right or wrong.
Page 4 of 17
Page 5 of 17
person. For example killing Axis forces in WW2. This shews that in
some circumstances killing another person may be morally justified
and even obligatory. Some people even go beyond that . They claim
that this is intrinsic goodness or morality. Consider the following
examples:=
But one again this goes for beyond its limit. It is said that such things are bad even if it is
Commanded by the Divine Essence Itself. There cannot be any thing absolute in the meaning of
Intrinsic good or intrinsic bad but in the meaning of Regardless of circumstances. In this
meaning Moral Absolutism crosses its limit and is even applied to Divine Essence [i.e Deity]
Itself/ Himself.So the problem goes beyond its earthy domain and universal domain and reaches
to Divine Domain.
Mutazilites were/are the champions of Absolute Morality. They opine/d that it is Necessary
Upon Deity [Divine Essence] to Chose the Good and reject the Evil not only for Himself/Itself
but to Command the Good ACTS and to Prohibit from Evil/Bad Acts. If Divine Essence
exerciseth otherwise then Divine Essence Commiteth Errors.This soon merged with the problem
of Divine Power. Mutazilah were divided to into two basic groups. 1] Those who denied that
Denied Power is Omnipotence. They claim Divine Essence cannot do such acts. Niz:a:m was
leader in this particular issue. 2] Those who believed that Divine Essence doeth have the Power
but If Deity /Divine Essence Himself exercise these acts He Himself Commiteth Error.
For example on typical example is that some Mutazilite opined that Divine Essence Hath the
Power to Punish Infants for nothing but if Divine Essence Exerciseth it He Himself deseveth to
be Punished.
Two Ancient Paradoxes namely 1) Epicurus Paradox 2) Ethyphros Paradox are the two parts of
the problem.
Page 5 of 17
Page 6 of 17
Absolute Morality is related to the idea that even Moral Attributes of Divine Essence are Natural
and Essential. (The word Natural is used in the meaning related to the Nature of Divine
Essence).This Generates the problem that if Divine Essence performeth acts of Injustice and
Mercilessness , Divine Essence Himself Becometh Immoral and those Theologians who believe
that Moral Attributes are Natural, Divine, and Absolute opine that if such acts are Logically
Contingent then Divine Essence ceaseth to be Divine Essence. Similarly if Divine Essence
ordereth or commandeth any such acts to rational supposita Divine Essence cease to be Divine
Essence.
But this is not the two consequences of the problem. An other problem is that Divine Morality is
not according to the highest concepts of Morality. If Ethyphros Paradox implies a problem of
Morality in regards to Divine Commandments, Epicurus Paradox implies a Problem inrespect to
Divine Morality Itself. A generalized form of Epicurus problem may imply that Divine Essence
is not a Moral Essence at all or there are Contingencies of Moral and Immoral Acts Subsisting in
Divine Essence.
Since if Absolute Morality is applied to Divine Attributes then there are many things that are
done by Divine Essence which He either Cannot Do or Must not Do or both.
Some Discussions:
1] Moral Absolutism is not compatible with an Absolute Authoritive Divine Essence. Since it
advocates that Divine Authority is Limited.If it implies that Moral Attributes are Good and Right
in themselves and their intrinsic Goodness and Righteousness is the reason that they are chosen
by the Divine Essence=Deity to do. Their opposites are Intrinsically or Esoterically Bad or Evil
that is bad or Evil in them selves that is the reason they are not chosen by the Divine Essence.
Although Divine Essence Can Chose them yet as a Rational Existent Divine Essence choseth the
Good one or the right one of the two. For example Divine Essence Can Chose both Justice and
Injustice since the Divine Essence Hath equal Power on each one of the two yet He choseth the
one that is Good and Right.
But this implies a problem and this is that If Divine Essence orders to do a bad act or choses an
Evil Relative Attribute then did The Divine Essence do any Wrong or Evil. The questions may be
elaborated in different forms.
2] Moral Relativism is an opposite theory . It may be considered as valid for Divine Essence.
But the problem is that a large number of Critics do not accept it. Although it is incorrect to
reject a theory on the basis of elections whether the majority wins , in theological,
philosophical ,logical and rational issues, we have to see the consequences of the theory as well
as to see the construction of the inner nature of the theory. But it must be noted that in the
domain of Logic mere Majority is not a Proof of correctness or wrongness of a theory. Unless
and other wise there are some inconsistencies in the theory it can not be discarded just because it
is axiomatically rejected by Majority or is rejected with out providing any proof.
Page 6 of 17
Page 7 of 17
It is incorrect to assume that the same moral or ethical frameworks are always in application in
all historical and cultural circumstances.
This is very accurate version of this theory and is very practicable. One may extend this theory to
Divine Essence Himself. That is it is incorrect to assume that same moral frame of reference is
applicable to Divine Essence if there is one.
Meta-ethical moral relativism believes that people disagree about:=1) Moral Issues,
This proves that they do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are
relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people. This
theory may lead to the conclusion that there cannot be any higher moral standard than that
provided by the local morals of a culture, no trans-cultural judgement about the rightness or
wrongness of a culture's morals could possibly be justified.
Although there are many critics of this theory yet is it a strong theory and no rational argument
or logical argument may be proposed against it. As mensioned earlier the democratic view of
right and wrong is not applicable to philosophical theories that if a large number of critics agree
that a theory is wrong then it is wrong.
1]
Moral relativism fails as a moral system simply because it cannot arbitrate disagreements.
Page 7 of 17
Page 8 of 17
2] Some Criticize Moral Relativism it fails because it rejects basic premises of discussions on
morality.
3] Many critics have suggested that meta-ethical relativists essentially take themselves out of
any discussion of normative morality. Since they reject an assumption of such discussions: the
premise that there are right and wrong answers that can be discovered through reason.
These two (2,3) only demands a set of axioms but not beyond that.
4] Some Critics may argue that meta-ethical relativism may lead to MORAL NIHILISM , or
MORAL INCOHERANCE .
Page 8 of 17
Page 9 of 17
A thing is Intrinsically Good unless and otherwise it satisfies a Condition .If it satisfies the
Condition then it is either neither good nor Bad or It is Bad. Note that in this discussion Bad
is far more general then the term Evil, so it does include it. Similarly A thing is Bad in itself
unless and otherwise it satisfies a Condition say .If it does satisfy the condition then it is
either Neither Good nor Bad or it is Good. In this case one may see that what so ever is good is
intrinsically good if it satisfies some conditions and if it does not satisfiy atleast one of them [ if
they are more then one] then it is not intrinsically good. It may be bad or Neither Good Nor
Bad. Similarly the same can be said for bad. An Evil is nothing but a special case of Bad. So
All Evils are Bad but Not All Bads are Evil Yet they satisfy the same conditions necessarily
which are satisfied by Bads since they are their sub cases or special cases.
It is just like the case that each and every real number can divide with the necessary exception
[not possible exception] of the number Zero.
1.)
2.)
As the theory is applicable in the case of Intrinsic Theory of Absolute Morality it is also
applicable in the weaker cases of it say Regardless of Circumstances.{1}
When the Laws Of Morality are extended so far that they are
supposed to be applicable on the Divine Essence as well then it
becomes reasonable and rational to discuss the matter in the
Page 9 of 17
Page 10 of 17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Now our theory says that Moral values are Constant to a Universe.
But with the change of Universe they may change or they must
change.
Page 10 of 17
Page 11 of 17
Page 11 of 17
Page 12 of 17
Example 2
Page 12 of 17
Page 13 of 17
extreme alleged Moralist and the traveler from that planet shall
consider the humans of Earth as extreme immoral.
Example 3
2] How ever they can be used as food by the adults by cooking them
in a special way.
Killing and eating newly born babies is Certainly Immoral from the
perspective of our Universe but it is the only source of survival in
that supposed Universe or atleast on a planet of that universe. So it
must be perfectly Moral on the Planet Of That that Universe.
Example 4
Example 5
Page 13 of 17
Page 14 of 17
So the Moral Values are Constant for a Given Universe and there are
infinite many Possible Universes and Multiverses where they
Absolute Moral Theory is invalid . If it is Supposed that Other
Universes and Multiverses are Impossible even then under this
supposition if it is assumed that they are Possible then the result
shall be the same.
The Basic Objection on Divine Command Theory and Theological Voluntarism is that the Commandments
Of Divine Essence is not due to Wisdom and Rationality but arbitrary Divine Will.
To a given Universe there are a number of set of Moral Values yet one or some are the fittest to the said
Universe. But to a Different Universe there are different Moral Values and some or one of them is the
fittest. The Fittest of one Universe is different from the Fittest of the another Universe. So Divine Essence
Can change the Moral Values and but this imply a change in the Universe itself. Since Divine Essence Can
Chose both types Fittest and not the Fittest but Choseth Only The fittest this does shew that If Divine
Essence changes the Moral Values of one of the Universe this means that the Universe known to Us has
Mutated into some new Universe which is not the same as it was before. For example if Divine Essence
Commandeth Women to eat Men or Men to eat Babies then this means that the Universe hath
completely Mutated and it hath become some thing in which these Laws are the Fittest.
So to Judge the said new mutated Universe from the standard of the Old Unmutated Universe is
incorrect and Wrong.
This concept implies that two or more similar Universes have same Laws of Moralities or Similar Laws of
Moralities, and dissimilar Universes have dissimilar Moralities.
Suppose that the Universe has a different type of Moral Values and Universe has different Types of
Moral Valued then if Universe becomes Exactly like after Mutation or a Transition what so ever
then the Laws of Morality Of shall be applicable to . Now to Judge from the Morality of pre-
mutation period and laws is incorrect an fallacy.
It is hoped that these two theories may help to discuss the problem of Morality Theories in a
new perspective and these two theories may be considered as new ways to discuss the
problem.
Page 14 of 17
Page 15 of 17
Foot Notes:
Page 15 of 17
Page 16 of 17
NOTE :
See Yakrozi/Yakrozah
Page 16 of 17
Page 17 of 17
Page 17 of 17