1.Present Bayle’s case against the “orthodox” view. Why does Bayle think the Manichaean
position is better supported? Do you think Bayle ultimately accepts Manichaeism? Why or
why not?
Pierre Bayle is a renowned philosopher who lived during the Protestant era, whose works seek to
address the philosophical “problem of evil”. For Bayle, the problem of evil is reconciling God’s
omnipotence and goodness with the existence of evil. Bayle ultimately argues that the existence
of evil in our world, which is evidently very real, is incompatible with the orthodox view of an
all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing God. While he also asserts that the Manichean hypothesis
does a better job of solving the problem of evil than the orthodox view, he ultimately refutes as a
concept unable to be understood using the greatest extent of our logical reasoning.
To understand why Bayle deems the Manichean hypothesis a more plausible explanation for the
existence of evil in contrast with the Orthodox view, we must first understand the framework of
the Orthodox view. It rests on the assumption that God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-
good being and that he is the one who granted humans the gift of free will. This theory suggests
that with free will humans have the choice to act in a positive or negative manner, and should
they choose the latter, physical evil results as a consequence. Under this idea, God would not be
able to prevent evil without infringing upon free will. This idea leads to the Doctrine of Felix
Culpa, which suggests that human sinfulness is the only opportunity for God to display his
justice and his mercy. Other orthodox viewers suggest that possibly God did not foresee our
misuse of free will. Bayle has several critiques of this view, first he argues that God giving
humans the ability to commit evil, even within free will, is inconsistent with the idea of supreme
goodness. Bayle uses the example of giving someone a gift you know they will misuse in a way
that will harm them, and asserts that this does not make you benevolent giver, as someone who
truly cared about you would revoke the gift if they knew it was harming you, and argues if God
was truly “good” he would do the same with free will. He also suggests the idea of God not
being able to foresee this misuse of free will is inconsistent with his all-knowing nature.
Manichaeism on the other hand, acknowledges God as a supremely good being not as all-
powerful or all-knowing. This theory proposes the idea of two supreme beings, one good and one
evil, who are both limited in power by each other. Bayle uses a Reductio Ad Absurdum to show
why this idea of two separate entities is necessary to solving the problem of evil. He first takes
on the orthodox assumption of one infinite being in control of reality, he then assumes good and
evil to both be very real entities, neither of which are an absence of the other. As goodness and
evil are inherently contrary, both cannot exist within a single supreme being, therefore, two
entities are necessary to explain this duality in our world. Bayle argues that the Manichaen view
does a better job than the Orthodox view at solving the problem of evil because the duality of a
good being and an evil being is consistent with the real world experiences of happiness and
suffering, which cannot be explained by the orthodox view.
, Despite this acknowledgement, Bayle ultimately deems the Manichean hypothesis to be false and
absurd. His argument lies in the idea that two opposing eternal forces are inherently contrary to
the framework of order within human reasoning. He claims that logic suggests there would be
one infinite, almighty and good being, and therefore the dualism of Manichaeism makes it
fundamentally logically flawed. In his sceptical resolution, Bayle asserts that it is very clear that
God and evil both do in fact exist, and if something exists in reality, it must be logically possible.
He concludes the extent to which humans are able to reason and the limits of our logic make it
impossible to fully comprehend how this duality is possible in our world. He says this is a truth
we must accept without being able to fully logically comprehend.
2.Present the attempted ‘optimistic’ justification of the institution of slavery and
Cugoano’s
criticism of such defenses. What does Cugoano mean by ‘insensibility’ and how is it likely
exacerbated by philosophical optimism? Do you think this insensibility is voluntary or
involuntary? Why or why not?
Cugoano was once a slave and some who helped greatly in the abolition movement, and later
wrote philosophical works pertaining to the problem of evil with respect to slavery. The main
argument Cugoano was concerned with refuting was the “optimistic” justification for slavery, a
popular view at the time, which suggested that slavery was an inevitable part of the way of life,
simply intertwined with the function of society in the same way disease or poverty is. Others
claimed that slaves actually benefited from this practice by being exposed to civilization and
Christianity. Cugoano carefully dismantles these ideas through carefully calculated arguments
which prove the practice fundamentally unjust.
Cugoano asserts that these supposed benefits of slavery are simply fabrications to appease the
individuals who profit from the system. Providing examples from personal experiences he talks
about how being enslaved actually dehumanizes a person, subjecting them to brutal conditions
while being denied the freedom that is inherent to all beings on our planet. He asserted that no
rational being would ever choose this way of life over freedom, proving its lack of benefit and
brutality. Cugoano then argued slavery’s incompatibility with the bible, as one of the
commandments is to love one's neighbour as oneself. Throughout his work, he also used real life
examples to prove that the Christians pushing this ideology the most were also in fact the ones
profiting from the slavery system the most and taking part in the most exploitation, abuse and
cruelty. This ultimately proved that the “optimistic justification” for slavery was merely a facade
carefully knit together with deliberate deception as a method of sustaining the practice and
maintaining profits with a complete disregard for humanity.
A central assumption which underlies Cugoano’s argument is his notion of the “insensibility” of
those who take part in enslaving people and those who defend the practice. He defined this
position is better supported? Do you think Bayle ultimately accepts Manichaeism? Why or
why not?
Pierre Bayle is a renowned philosopher who lived during the Protestant era, whose works seek to
address the philosophical “problem of evil”. For Bayle, the problem of evil is reconciling God’s
omnipotence and goodness with the existence of evil. Bayle ultimately argues that the existence
of evil in our world, which is evidently very real, is incompatible with the orthodox view of an
all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing God. While he also asserts that the Manichean hypothesis
does a better job of solving the problem of evil than the orthodox view, he ultimately refutes as a
concept unable to be understood using the greatest extent of our logical reasoning.
To understand why Bayle deems the Manichean hypothesis a more plausible explanation for the
existence of evil in contrast with the Orthodox view, we must first understand the framework of
the Orthodox view. It rests on the assumption that God is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-
good being and that he is the one who granted humans the gift of free will. This theory suggests
that with free will humans have the choice to act in a positive or negative manner, and should
they choose the latter, physical evil results as a consequence. Under this idea, God would not be
able to prevent evil without infringing upon free will. This idea leads to the Doctrine of Felix
Culpa, which suggests that human sinfulness is the only opportunity for God to display his
justice and his mercy. Other orthodox viewers suggest that possibly God did not foresee our
misuse of free will. Bayle has several critiques of this view, first he argues that God giving
humans the ability to commit evil, even within free will, is inconsistent with the idea of supreme
goodness. Bayle uses the example of giving someone a gift you know they will misuse in a way
that will harm them, and asserts that this does not make you benevolent giver, as someone who
truly cared about you would revoke the gift if they knew it was harming you, and argues if God
was truly “good” he would do the same with free will. He also suggests the idea of God not
being able to foresee this misuse of free will is inconsistent with his all-knowing nature.
Manichaeism on the other hand, acknowledges God as a supremely good being not as all-
powerful or all-knowing. This theory proposes the idea of two supreme beings, one good and one
evil, who are both limited in power by each other. Bayle uses a Reductio Ad Absurdum to show
why this idea of two separate entities is necessary to solving the problem of evil. He first takes
on the orthodox assumption of one infinite being in control of reality, he then assumes good and
evil to both be very real entities, neither of which are an absence of the other. As goodness and
evil are inherently contrary, both cannot exist within a single supreme being, therefore, two
entities are necessary to explain this duality in our world. Bayle argues that the Manichaen view
does a better job than the Orthodox view at solving the problem of evil because the duality of a
good being and an evil being is consistent with the real world experiences of happiness and
suffering, which cannot be explained by the orthodox view.
, Despite this acknowledgement, Bayle ultimately deems the Manichean hypothesis to be false and
absurd. His argument lies in the idea that two opposing eternal forces are inherently contrary to
the framework of order within human reasoning. He claims that logic suggests there would be
one infinite, almighty and good being, and therefore the dualism of Manichaeism makes it
fundamentally logically flawed. In his sceptical resolution, Bayle asserts that it is very clear that
God and evil both do in fact exist, and if something exists in reality, it must be logically possible.
He concludes the extent to which humans are able to reason and the limits of our logic make it
impossible to fully comprehend how this duality is possible in our world. He says this is a truth
we must accept without being able to fully logically comprehend.
2.Present the attempted ‘optimistic’ justification of the institution of slavery and
Cugoano’s
criticism of such defenses. What does Cugoano mean by ‘insensibility’ and how is it likely
exacerbated by philosophical optimism? Do you think this insensibility is voluntary or
involuntary? Why or why not?
Cugoano was once a slave and some who helped greatly in the abolition movement, and later
wrote philosophical works pertaining to the problem of evil with respect to slavery. The main
argument Cugoano was concerned with refuting was the “optimistic” justification for slavery, a
popular view at the time, which suggested that slavery was an inevitable part of the way of life,
simply intertwined with the function of society in the same way disease or poverty is. Others
claimed that slaves actually benefited from this practice by being exposed to civilization and
Christianity. Cugoano carefully dismantles these ideas through carefully calculated arguments
which prove the practice fundamentally unjust.
Cugoano asserts that these supposed benefits of slavery are simply fabrications to appease the
individuals who profit from the system. Providing examples from personal experiences he talks
about how being enslaved actually dehumanizes a person, subjecting them to brutal conditions
while being denied the freedom that is inherent to all beings on our planet. He asserted that no
rational being would ever choose this way of life over freedom, proving its lack of benefit and
brutality. Cugoano then argued slavery’s incompatibility with the bible, as one of the
commandments is to love one's neighbour as oneself. Throughout his work, he also used real life
examples to prove that the Christians pushing this ideology the most were also in fact the ones
profiting from the slavery system the most and taking part in the most exploitation, abuse and
cruelty. This ultimately proved that the “optimistic justification” for slavery was merely a facade
carefully knit together with deliberate deception as a method of sustaining the practice and
maintaining profits with a complete disregard for humanity.
A central assumption which underlies Cugoano’s argument is his notion of the “insensibility” of
those who take part in enslaving people and those who defend the practice. He defined this
