Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The former kind of method of analysis is called "descriptive", because it attempts to describe what people actually view as good or evil; while the latter is called "normative", because it tries to actively prohibit evils and cherish goods. These descriptive and normative approaches can be complementary.
[118] In other words, even those who desire evil desire it "only under the aspect of good," i.e., of what is desirable. [119] The difference between desiring good and desiring evil is that in the former, will and reason are in harmony, whereas in the latter, they are in discord.
According to another formulation of the concept of sin in the Summa, at the heart of sin is "the turning away from the immutable good", i.e. God, and "inordinate turning to mutable good", i.e. creatures. (STh I–IIae q.87 a.4) This cannot be understood as if in the concrete sinful deed the sinner commits two separate and independent acts.
Phrases similar to forbidding evil and commanding good can be found examining texts of ancient Greek philosophers-- Stoic Chrysippus (d.207 BC) and Aristotle (d.322) -- and the founder the Buddha. [27] A particularly similar formulation is found in the book of Psalms: "Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it". (Psalm 34:14)
Faced with the assertion that humans would have been better off without free will, he argued that the possibility of sin is necessary for a perfect world, and so individuals are responsible for their sin. [7] Good is the cause of evil, but only owing to fault on the part of the agent. In his theodicy, to say something is evil is to say that it ...
Judaism affirms that people are born with both a yetzer ha-tov (יצר הטוב), an inclination or impulse to do good, and with a yetzer hara (יצר הרע), an inclination or impulse to do evil. These phrases reflect the concept that "within each person, there are opposing natures continually in conflict" and are referenced many times in the ...
The absence of good (Latin: privatio boni), also known as the privation theory of evil, [1] is a theological and philosophical doctrine that evil, unlike good, is insubstantial, so that thinking of it as an entity is misleading. Instead, evil is rather the absence, or lack ("privation"), of good.
The early version of "deny evil" is called the "privation theory of evil", so named because it described evil as a form of "lack, loss or privation". One of the earliest proponents of this theory was the 2nd-century Clement of Alexandria who, according to Joseph Kelly, [ 65 ] stated that "since God is completely good, he could not have created ...