Theodicy refers to the justification of the coexistence of God’s supreme goodness and
power with the reality of evil and suffering in the world. There are several philosophers who
have taken it upon themselves to explain how the two simultaneously exist, such as Leibniz,
Bayle and Hume. Kant on the other hand, argues that all of their theodicies and others previously
thought of have failed and must fail. As he claims that the compatibility of moral laws and
natural laws cannot be comprehended with human reason, and therefore an explanation for the
mutual existence of a supreme God and evil will always be flawed. This essay will ultimately
explore these concepts as well as the similar arguments of another philosopher, Hume, and their
possible critiques of each other.
For Kant, our lack of understanding of divine wisdom is rooted in our inability to reason
to that extent. In order to display his argument, he refers to a kind of thought experiment or
metaphor known as the “Tribunal of Theodicy”, or essentially a legal trial, in which God is the
defendant, human reason is the judge, and various theodicies serve as God’s attorney’s. In this
trial, three things must be proven, first, that what appears to be evil in this world is truly not,
second, that evil is an unavoidable consequence of existing in the natural world, and third, that
evil is created by humans and not God.
In order to prove that all three defenses fail, Kant organizes evil into three categories, all
of which contradict various aspects of the nature of a supreme being. First, moral evil, or actions
taken by individuals that violate moral laws, are a threat to God’s holiness, as a truly holy being
would not permit sin. Kant also recognizes that there is physical evil such as disease, natural
disasters and pain, but argues that the existence of such suffering goes against God’s supreme
goodness, as a truly benevolent being would not allow this. Lastly, injustice, or the reality that
the wicked prosper while the good suffer, is another form of evil in the world, and also
contradicts God’s just nature, as surely divine justice would ensure fairness.
Like Kant, David Hume also refutes the idea that any theodicy could be successful, in his
famous work, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume’s character, Philo, questions the
notion that the world’s suffering can align with the existence of a supremely good and powerful
God. Firstly, he argues that the very nature of suffering in the world is inconsistent with divine
wisdom, or in other words, it doesn’t make logical sense that evil is necessary for some other
greater good. He uses the architect analogy to present this argument, claiming that if an architect
designed a house that was defective, we would blame the architect, not assume it was intentional
for some other greater purpose. In lieu of this, Hume claims that God is not all-good and all-
, powerful but rather somehow limited in his omnibenevolence and omnipotence. While Kant and
Hume both refute the idea of a possible theodicy, they present differing reasons.
Despite the similarities between the ultimate conclusions of their arguments, Hume and
Kant’s philosophies differ in key areas. Hume is very much focused on empirical evidence, or
actual observations of evil and suffering in the world being the basis for the denial of a plausible
theodicy. Kant, on the other hand, focuses on a lack of epistemological reasoning as the basis for
his rebuttal, affirming that humans do not have the logical capacity to understand the divine
correlation between moral and natural laws, and therefore the presence of evil with the goodness
of God. In response to Hume’s assumption that our unjust reality proves God’s imperfectness or
non-existence, Kant would claim that humans do not have the intellectual capacity to
comprehend such a concept. He would assert that Hume’s arguments do not disprove God’s
moral wisdom in any sense, but simply our ability to comprehend it. David Hume would likely
counter Kant’s critique in several ways. First, Hume may advocate for atheism all together,
questioning why we would believe in the divine power and goodness of God if we cannot
comprehend it. He would assert the irrationality in blind faith in a moral order. Hume would
ultimately assert that the burden of proof in these issues lies with those who claim evil is an
aspect of divine wisdom, as our experience with the real world possesses tangible suffering.
Hume would conclude that Kant’s belief in a moral order, regardless of our ability to reasonably
understand it, is nothing more than wishful thinking or a coping mechanism to deal with
suffering.
The question of whether the human experience contains more happiness than it does misery or
vice versa and what those things actually mean, has been a question long pondered by many
philosophers. Pierre Bayle and David Hume have both proposed compelling arguments in
regards to this discussion, both suggesting that a much larger portion of our lives is spent in
misery and not happiness. This essay will present Bayle’s ideas about how pain and suffering is
far more intense and prolific than pleasure, as well as Hume’s expansion on this theory, through
his explanation of social and psychological factors which exacerbate human suffering, along
with their responses to each other.
Pierre Bayle, a renowned philosopher, in his work on Xenophanes, presented the case that
suffering exceeds happiness in human life. Firstly, Bayle contends that while pleasure may be
power with the reality of evil and suffering in the world. There are several philosophers who
have taken it upon themselves to explain how the two simultaneously exist, such as Leibniz,
Bayle and Hume. Kant on the other hand, argues that all of their theodicies and others previously
thought of have failed and must fail. As he claims that the compatibility of moral laws and
natural laws cannot be comprehended with human reason, and therefore an explanation for the
mutual existence of a supreme God and evil will always be flawed. This essay will ultimately
explore these concepts as well as the similar arguments of another philosopher, Hume, and their
possible critiques of each other.
For Kant, our lack of understanding of divine wisdom is rooted in our inability to reason
to that extent. In order to display his argument, he refers to a kind of thought experiment or
metaphor known as the “Tribunal of Theodicy”, or essentially a legal trial, in which God is the
defendant, human reason is the judge, and various theodicies serve as God’s attorney’s. In this
trial, three things must be proven, first, that what appears to be evil in this world is truly not,
second, that evil is an unavoidable consequence of existing in the natural world, and third, that
evil is created by humans and not God.
In order to prove that all three defenses fail, Kant organizes evil into three categories, all
of which contradict various aspects of the nature of a supreme being. First, moral evil, or actions
taken by individuals that violate moral laws, are a threat to God’s holiness, as a truly holy being
would not permit sin. Kant also recognizes that there is physical evil such as disease, natural
disasters and pain, but argues that the existence of such suffering goes against God’s supreme
goodness, as a truly benevolent being would not allow this. Lastly, injustice, or the reality that
the wicked prosper while the good suffer, is another form of evil in the world, and also
contradicts God’s just nature, as surely divine justice would ensure fairness.
Like Kant, David Hume also refutes the idea that any theodicy could be successful, in his
famous work, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume’s character, Philo, questions the
notion that the world’s suffering can align with the existence of a supremely good and powerful
God. Firstly, he argues that the very nature of suffering in the world is inconsistent with divine
wisdom, or in other words, it doesn’t make logical sense that evil is necessary for some other
greater good. He uses the architect analogy to present this argument, claiming that if an architect
designed a house that was defective, we would blame the architect, not assume it was intentional
for some other greater purpose. In lieu of this, Hume claims that God is not all-good and all-
, powerful but rather somehow limited in his omnibenevolence and omnipotence. While Kant and
Hume both refute the idea of a possible theodicy, they present differing reasons.
Despite the similarities between the ultimate conclusions of their arguments, Hume and
Kant’s philosophies differ in key areas. Hume is very much focused on empirical evidence, or
actual observations of evil and suffering in the world being the basis for the denial of a plausible
theodicy. Kant, on the other hand, focuses on a lack of epistemological reasoning as the basis for
his rebuttal, affirming that humans do not have the logical capacity to understand the divine
correlation between moral and natural laws, and therefore the presence of evil with the goodness
of God. In response to Hume’s assumption that our unjust reality proves God’s imperfectness or
non-existence, Kant would claim that humans do not have the intellectual capacity to
comprehend such a concept. He would assert that Hume’s arguments do not disprove God’s
moral wisdom in any sense, but simply our ability to comprehend it. David Hume would likely
counter Kant’s critique in several ways. First, Hume may advocate for atheism all together,
questioning why we would believe in the divine power and goodness of God if we cannot
comprehend it. He would assert the irrationality in blind faith in a moral order. Hume would
ultimately assert that the burden of proof in these issues lies with those who claim evil is an
aspect of divine wisdom, as our experience with the real world possesses tangible suffering.
Hume would conclude that Kant’s belief in a moral order, regardless of our ability to reasonably
understand it, is nothing more than wishful thinking or a coping mechanism to deal with
suffering.
The question of whether the human experience contains more happiness than it does misery or
vice versa and what those things actually mean, has been a question long pondered by many
philosophers. Pierre Bayle and David Hume have both proposed compelling arguments in
regards to this discussion, both suggesting that a much larger portion of our lives is spent in
misery and not happiness. This essay will present Bayle’s ideas about how pain and suffering is
far more intense and prolific than pleasure, as well as Hume’s expansion on this theory, through
his explanation of social and psychological factors which exacerbate human suffering, along
with their responses to each other.
Pierre Bayle, a renowned philosopher, in his work on Xenophanes, presented the case that
suffering exceeds happiness in human life. Firstly, Bayle contends that while pleasure may be
