Augustine, Plato, and the Philosophy of Evil's Origin

Origin of Evil

The origin of evil has been a controversial issue not only in contemporary Christian circles but also among ancient Greek thinkers. The central point of contention is why a good God would have created evil. 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. However, Saint Augustine sought to clarify this erroneous notion about the existence of God. He believed that any discussion on the origin of evil — and whether a good God had a role in its creation — must first begin with a proper understanding of both evil and God. He explained that if evil was not necessarily a thing in itself, then it may not have been created, which negates the notion that God created evil. Secondly, he took the approach of determining whether there are convincing reasons that affirm both the existence of God and his goodness.

Saint Augustine deduced that a good God would not have necessarily created evil. He argued that all things God created are good. However, evil by its very nature is not good; therefore, God could not have created it. His philosophy advances the idea that evil arose through the existence of free will — the capacity that allows people to choose a lesser good, thereby resulting in evil.

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 a lack of knowledge about the impact of people's actions on themselves and others. People propagate evil due to ignorance of its effects on those around them. When people are educated and equipped with knowledge about the devastating effects of their evil actions, they begin to change and act in more rational ways. One of the greatest philosophers of ancient times, Plato, offered a comparable explanation. Plato believed that evil came into existence due to the ignorance of people. He advocated for the avoidance of evil because doing good would make people happy, and he advised people to rid themselves of ignorance in order to avoid evil. Therefore, the lack of knowledge is a central cause of evil's existence within society.

This philosophical approach to the origin of evil resembles Saint Augustine's model in several ways. For instance, both acknowledge that people choose evil acts depending on what they know or do not know. The ability to choose — whether based on knowledge or ignorance — constitutes the concept of free will. Free will is therefore central to the explanation of evil in both frameworks, and it represents the key similarity between them.

However, a fundamental difference exists between the two approaches. Saint Augustine's explanation begins with free will as the major factor that led to the existence of evil, but he does not go further to establish the root cause of free will itself. For instance, he does not address the factors that inform the specific choices people make when exercising their free will.

In contrast, the philosophical perspective I have outlined acknowledges that other factors inform the choices people make within their free will. Free will is not entirely free, since it is influenced by a combination of other factors. The most fundamental of these relates to knowledge: people make choices depending on what they know or do not know. Knowledge is therefore the driving force behind the choice of good or evil within free will.

The philosophical views I have highlighted support Saint Augustine's position on the origin of evil in several ways. First, both agree that people have a choice to make between evil and good, and that the existence of each is closely connected to the choices people make. Second, both views agree that choices regarding evil or good largely depend on the free will of individuals — people who choose evil are not coerced but do so out of their own will and conscience. Third, the philosophical explanation I have outlined complements Augustine's views by explaining how knowledge and ignorance influence the choices that people make in exercising free will. Ignorance, in particular, is the main factor that influences the choice of evil acts.

Evil is often exhibited in two forms. The first is natural evil, which encompasses all forms of evil caused by natural calamities such as flooding, earthquakes, diseases, and famine. The second form consists of evil caused by human actions — all acts by individuals that cause pain and suffering to others.

Nature and Existence of Evil

The nature of evil can be explained through the nature of the mind. The human mind is often preoccupied with a lustful appetite to do evil; thus, evil is in part a state of mind. When an individual is consumed by selfish ambitions and is determined to achieve them regardless of the harm caused to another person, those selfish ambitions become evil. The evilness of an action is therefore characterized by the intentions behind it and by a disregard for the pain and injury it is likely to cause.

Plato attempted to explain the nature of evil from a similar vantage point. He believed that the mind of an individual is divided into three parts: the will (encompassing emotions, spirit, and passion), the appetite (the physical urges of a person), and reason (the knowledge and rationality that inform choices). From Plato's perspective, evil occurs when an individual's mind is preoccupied with a lustful appetite that drives their actions. When the mind is alienated from reason and logic, a person is prone to act according to that lustful appetite and hence commit evil. Conversely, when reason and logic govern the mind, the individual is moved to act in ways that propagate goodness. Plato's central explanation of the nature of evil is therefore that it depends on which part of the mind dominates a person's conduct.

Saint Augustine's view of evil, by contrast, is centered on the concept of being. In his philosophy, everything that exists as being can only be good, because God is the origin of all being and created everything in a state of goodness. Since God is good in himself, it follows that all things he created are equally good. Therefore, Augustine argues that evil cannot be a being in itself but is rather an absence of good. In the absence of goodness, evil automatically takes its place. He further suggested that evil always results in injury: when a person commits evil, they injure another person either physically or emotionally, and these injuries deprive the victim of good. There can be no injury to any person without that person being deprived of some good.

Given that all things were created with an inherent good, the nature of evil can only be characterized by the deprivation of good. 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 good is itself an existence, its elimination leaves behind a hole — a moral vacuum. According to Augustine, this moral vacuum that exists when any form of good is eliminated is the very nature of evil.

My own understanding of the nature of evil differs from Saint Augustine's in several ways. First, I characterize the nature of evil primarily by the state of an individual's mind and by a disregard for the effects of one's actions on others. In contrast, Augustine characterized the nature of evil as the void created by the absence of good — a moral vacuum, not a state of mind. Second, the two perspectives differ on the mutual exclusivity of good and evil. Augustine held that evil occurs only in the absence of good, making the two mutually exclusive. In the framework I have outlined, good and evil are not interdependent in this way. The occurrence of evil does not curtail the flourishing of goodness, and the absence of good does not in itself constitute evil. Evil arises only when an individual acts with disregard for the injurious effects of their actions on others.

Finally, both my perspective and Plato's take into consideration the force behind the occurrence of evil — the very force that shapes evil in contemporary society. Plato identifies an inclination toward selfish appetite as the main force shaping the nature of evil, while Augustine is concerned with evil in itself as the negation of good. An analysis of Augustine's explanation reveals that the existence of evil is not motivated by any internal psychological force but rather by the mere absence of good. This understanding of the nature of evil therefore differs substantially from Plato's account.

In summary, my perception of the nature of evil is that it is largely formed by the individual's state of mind and characterized primarily by a disregard for the effects of one's actions on others — an understanding informed by Plato's account. Saint Augustine, however, explains the nature of evil as the void created when good is absent.

Saint Augustine makes a significant contribution to the understanding of evil as flawed perfection. He seeks to explain how evil comes into being even when a good God created everything to be perfect. His contribution is anchored in the argument that a perfect thing does not necessarily lack the potential to become imperfect. A perfectly created thing could therefore potentially become imperfect over time due to various factors that influence its condition. This argument forms the center of Augustine's contribution to the philosophical debate on whether a perfect God could create imperfect beings.

Conclusion

In summary, the metaphysical question addressed in this paper is the origin and existence of evil. While Plato's explanation of the existence of evil is based on ignorance, Saint Augustine accounts for evil through the concept of free will. The epistemological issue discussed is the nature of evil: Augustine explained that evil is characterized by the absence of good — where good is missing, evil exists. Lastly, the value theory addressed is the understanding of evil as flawed perfection. Augustine contributes to this discussion by explaining that God did not create any form of imperfection; rather, the potential for imperfection is an inherent feature of creatures who possess genuine freedom, and apparent evils may serve a greater good within the totality of God's creation.