The nature of Evil

The last post was a simple argument as to why I see Creation as perfect, and that is because Evil only manifests as an attribute of an act, not of a thing, and no amount of act can transfer the metaphysical privation of goodness within a being to creation itself, because the act has no direct influence on the ontological state of other beings, only the influence the being allows the act to have.

In other words, Satan cannot make Creation flawed, because first, Creation is perfect by its nature of coming from the perfect Creator, second, Satan’s acts cannot alter the will of other beings. The other being, must partake in the temptation willingly in order to commit an evil.

            This is best summarized by Socrates when he stated “A good man cannot be harmed either in life or death”. If one stays virtuous, no amount of suffering or temptation can alter the good man. That being said, can an evil be done to a person?

            An evil act may be done to a person, but is only evil insofar as it is an immoral act, it is not evil as a result of the unpleasantries it creates. The murder is evil because it is anti-teleological and against Natural Law, it is not evil because it hurts another, because one being causing pain to another is not intrinsically negative.

            Someone could cut my leg off in an unprovoked violent attack, making me bedridden, and as a result I devout my time more to prayer and coming closer to God. Overall, this would be a Good thing. So does that make the violent attack a good? It depends. It does not change the act itself as intrinsically evil. The materialization of the act does not affect the nature of the act itself. The nature of the act is intrinsically bad, despite the consequences being good. That is the point though, that Act and Consequence can and always do manifest separately.

            Now, the next question is, is a negative consequence an evil? I would say no, once again a look at the Book of Job or even a look at the entire story of Christ’s crucifixion, one can see that suffering, pain, and struggle are not intrinsically evil. But can what seem to be ‘negative consequences of acts’ be evil at all?

            No, for no amount of unpleasantries can actually alter the nature and will of the being. This is what Socrates was alluding to. In a Christian context, all unpleasantries, all ‘negative consequences of acts’, are simply tests of character and all pleasantries simply rewards.

            The metaphysical result of this is that evil exists only in act, not as a result of an act.  Evil cannot actually be done to a person, for the materialization of the act is determined by consequence and the chosen affect it has on other beings and not by the will of the being doing the acting. Only unpleasantries can be done to a person, it is their choice whether they allow it weaken them and push them towards evil acts.