Q&A: The Problem of Evil
The Problem of Evil
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I know that your answer to the problem of evil rests on two parts.
Natural evil — it stems from the laws of nature, and there is no better system of laws.
Human evil — it stems from free choice, and it is a logical contradiction to grant choice while preventing evil that comes from that choice.
But I have a difficulty with both of them: God can still intervene selectively in each individual case, that is, change the law of nature, or revoke the choice only in that specific case of evil. And still, in everything else, not intervene. And if He does not do that, while having that option, then that is evil.
I’d be happy to hear your position on this.
Nachshon.
Answer
But that is exactly what I explained. If He revokes from us the choice to do evil, then He is revoking our freedom of choice, and that itself is a bad thing. In that case, even our good would be valueless, because we would have no option to do otherwise. Since He wanted us to have choice, He has no alternative but to allow us to do bad deeds as well.
Intervening only in a situation where a person wants to do evil is a complete negation of choice. If at every crossroads there is only one option before you, then you have no choice.
Discussion on Answer
That is not choice, or at least not the kind of choice that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to give us. He wanted us to choose between good and evil.
By the way, if the alternative is to do something neutral rather than good, de facto that is a choice of evil too, and He would have had to prevent that as well.
But then at least it does not harm others, does not cause pain, suffering, and torment!
It is “only” a neutral act; it is not evil. One might define it as wasteful or something like that, but not evil.
In any case, suppose we take the Holocaust — it could have been prevented, and it was not prevented. So true, God did not cause it; the Nazis, may their name be blotted out, caused it. But still, it would have been possible to take away their choice in some way, etc.
So by not taking it away from them, don’t you see in that a kind of partnership in the evil act?
And you also didn’t answer why, at least in cases of nature, He should not suspend the laws of nature (at least there…). For example, if a sudden hurricane is about to hit America, why not prevent it, and so on?
Well, I already answered all that.
Not doing a good deed is evil. True, not a great evil, but you did not define which evil should be allowed and which should not. Maybe allow theft but not murder? Assault but not theft?
I also answered about natural evil. The Holy One, blessed be He, has a policy that the world should operate according to fixed laws (I explained why this is also beneficial for us). True, this does not provide a complete answer, since there is still room for sporadic intervention in extreme cases, but one has to remember that preventing the murder of one person is not essentially different from preventing a Holocaust. What is the difference? For the person who was murdered or suffered, it really makes no difference whether there are another six million like him. So exactly where is the Holy One, blessed be He, supposed to stop the deviation from the laws? Prevent every evil whatsoever?
But that’s not true that he has no choice. He has a choice between doing neutral acts and doing good acts. And even within the good acts he has full choice.
Even today we ourselves do not have complete choice, like the choice to fly and so on. Does that mean we have no choice at all? No.