Is Good the Absence of Evil?

[cottage]

The facts pertaining to Good and Evil is they are perception based. Both you and I have proven this point, we both have different beliefs.

All facts are perception, of course, and facts are not beliefs (other than in the philosophical sense of induction). The words you capitalise as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are just descriptive terms; and they become beliefs only if you believe in a duality, which I have shown to have no substance. But suffering exists as a fact. In sum, there is suffering and there is no suffering. The latter we describe as ‘good’ and former we describe as evil.

 

[footprints]

All facts are perception, of course, and facts are not beliefs (other than in the philosophical sense of induction). The words you capitalise as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are just descriptive terms; and they become beliefs only if you believe in a duality, which I have shown to have no substance. But suffering exists as a fact. In sum, there is suffering and there is no suffering. The latter we describe as ‘good’ and former we describe as evil.

You are entitled to your own belief.

 

[Falvlun]

Yes, I see your dilemma and I understand why you arrive at that conclusion. And I fully acknowledge that because of the way the world is some pain and suffering is absolutely necessary for our survival, even for just a mundane day-to-day existence. However, I maintain that all suffering is evil, even the necessary evil that I’ve just alluded to. If we see someone suffering we don’t say ‘Never mind, it’s for your own good’ or ‘That taught you a lesson to bear in mind for the future!’ even though such harsh sentiments may be quite true. In fact we show our abhorrence at the suffering, even where a cause requires suffering as an effect for the well being of the subject.

Very true!
The more I think about it, the more it becomes apparent that suffering is the foundation for what we consider to be evil.

For the sake of debate-- or at least until I feel that I can confidently and clearly convey the concept that all suffering is evil-- I do think I will maintain that all evil is suffering, at root; even though all suffering may not necessarily be evil.

But I’m afraid I do not agree that it is true to say that the universe exists in the only possible configuration. Our nervous and cognitive systems match the perils and hazards of our surroundings, but the greatest degree of anything can also be the smallest, or any place in between, and whatever we can conceive to be existent we can also conceive to be non-existent, whether that is a falling rock or a stomach ache.

Hm. I don't actually claim that this is the only possible configuration. I am merely pointing out that this is the only configuration that we know for sure can occur.

I have trouble accepting the idea that simply because something can be imagined, it can also be possible.

~~~
By and by, one other question. Why do you need to equate pain with suffering? It seems to me that suffering alone is enough. It goes without saying that most, if not all, pain engenders suffering, but it doesn't seem worth stressing the point when people point out that perhaps some types of pain do not cause suffering. It is suffering that is abhorrent; pain usually causes suffering, but it doesn't really hurt the theory if in some unique cases, pain does not cause suffering.

 

[Falvlun]

I would say the GOOD is the opposite of indifference. There can be no good with indifference; however, it would seem to me that one could hate indifference but that would be good...

Really think this through. I know it is common to think that good and evil are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and in the middle, neutrality/indifference reigns.

But is that really possible? If you passed a starving child on your way to work, and did nothing (ie, were "indifferent), would this not be evil since you did not relieve the suffering of the child? Can you think of any instances where indifference is actually neutral, in that it does not add to the suffering in the world, nor does it take any suffering away from it?

Suffering is emotion based. Many life forms, humans included, are capable of this emotional experience. So yes, many of them have suffering in them, but not all relate and associate to suffering being evil.

Why do you believe that simply because suffering is emotionally based (often with a physical trigger), it somehow negates its real and active role in the world we live in, and particularly in those instances we consider to be evil?

Additionally, if all of the definitions of evil you have contain suffering, don't you think that would make suffering the common denominator, and perhaps even the foundational characteristic of evil?

Our five body senses and the way the environment impacts on them.

Ok, so what exactly is your point? You say that pain is merely an aspect of our faculty of touch, and suffering is merely the emotional response to that pain. Fine. That doesn't change the fact that humans avoid pain and suffering, and tend to condemn acts that cause more pain and suffering. It also doesn't address why suffering appears to be the common denominator among things that humans generally consider to be evil.

 

[Willamena]

Very true!
The more I think about it, the more it becomes apparent that suffering is the foundation for what we consider to be evil.

Um, no! For heaven's sake.

When a psychotic person brutally murders another, has he done evil? Does he suffer?

 

[cottage]

Very true!
The more I think about it, the more it becomes apparent that suffering is the foundation for what we consider to be evil.

For the sake of debate-- or at least until I feel that I can confidently and clearly convey the concept that all suffering is evil-- I do think I will maintain that all evil is suffering, at root; even though all suffering may not necessarily be evil.


Hm. I don't actually claim that this is the only possible configuration. I am merely pointing out that this is the only configuration that we know for sure can occur.

I have trouble accepting the idea that simply because something can be imagined, it can also be possible.

I should make clear that the logical aspect of the argument, that there doesn’t have to be suffering, is what entails that all suffering is evil, this even includes the so-called necessary evils, such as causing some suffering to alleviate a greater suffering, since it is the possible existence of all suffering that is in question. And this must be the case in a theological or metaphysical sense. But in considering the world as it is, then the necessary evils are of course wholly and necessarily justified.

~~~

By and by, one other question. Why do you need to equate pain with suffering? It seems to me that suffering alone is enough. It goes without saying that most, if not all, pain engenders suffering, but it doesn't seem worth stressing the point when people point out that perhaps some types of pain do not cause suffering. It is suffering that is abhorrent; pain usually causes suffering, but it doesn't really hurt the theory if in some unique cases, pain does not cause suffering .

True enough. The term 'pain' adds nothing to the condition of suffering. I guess we say 'pain and suffering' more for effect. ‘Suffering’ is quite sufficient. But it amounts to much the same thing, in my view. If pain doesn’t cause suffering then it isn’t pain: it is simply a sensation. A masochist who likes ‘pain’ is finding pleasure in a sensation, and while it isn’t benign it cannot be called suffering. But if people are in pain, then by definition they are suffering.

 

[footprints]

Why do you believe that simply because suffering is emotionally based (often with a physical trigger), it somehow negates its real and active role in the world we live in, and particularly in those instances we consider to be evil?

All emotional states have a physical trigger.

Evil is a perceptional view. What is evil to one person, will not be evil to another.

Good and evil are perception based.

Pain is not suffering. Pain is where I hurt myself or where I feel the pain. This area doesn't suffer. Any suffering I get comes from my brain, a totally different area of the anatomy to where the pain is. If it is emotional stress, which is causing me to suffer, such as the loss of a loved one, a broken heart whatever, then there is no pain, just emotional suffering. Two seperate and different things which sometimes may coexist together.

As for relating it to evil, each to their own view. I could never relate a child falling over and skinning their knee as they learned to walk as evil, no matter how much anybody tried to convince me otherwise.

Additionally, if all of the definitions of evil you have contain suffering, don't you think that would make suffering the common denominator, and perhaps even the foundational characteristic of evil?

If I said all, then that was a mistake. I would have to check just what I said, but it should have been many, not all.

The common denominator in evil, is human intelligence. Nothing more, nothing less. Evil is perception based. This thread alone should tell you that.

Ok, so what exactly is your point? You say that pain is merely an aspect of our faculty of touch, and suffering is merely the emotional response to that pain. Fine. That doesn't change the fact that humans avoid pain and suffering, and tend to condemn acts that cause more pain and suffering. It also doesn't address why suffering appears to be the common denominator among things that humans generally consider to be evil.

Not all humans avoid things which cause them pain, some people love it and seek it.

Suffering only appears to be the common denominator because you want to see it that way. Perception. I do not see it that way. Perception. The common denominator, human intelligence, which we derive our perceptions from.

 

[footprints]

Um, no! For heaven's sake.

When a psychotic person brutally murders another, has he done evil? Does he suffer?

LOL your intelligence is gorgeous.

 

[cottage]

Um, no! For heaven's sake.

When a psychotic person brutally murders another, has he done evil? Does he suffer?

It is not evil = suffering, but evil > suffering. In other words: if there is evil there will be suffering. Or, no evil, then no suffering.

 

[cottage]

All emotional states have a physical trigger.

Evil is a perceptional view. What is evil to one person, will not be evil to another.

Good and evil are perception based.

Pain is not suffering. Pain is where I hurt myself or where I feel the pain. This area doesn't suffer. Any suffering I get comes from my brain, a totally different area of the anatomy to where the pain is. If it is emotional stress, which is causing me to suffer, such as the loss of a loved one, a broken heart whatever, then there is no pain, just emotional suffering. Two seperate and different things which sometimes may coexist together.

As for relating it to evil, each to their own view. I could never relate a child falling over and skinning their knee as they learned to walk as evil, no matter how much anybody tried to convince me otherwise.

You are not actually addressing the question that was put to you. All suffering, whether physical or emotional, is a mental state; and physical pain or emotional distress is suffering. And people do suffer!

And, as this is a religious forum, the question of suffering being evil speaks for itself. If the child doesn’t have to suffer in learning to walk, and yet does so, then the resultant pain from a skinned knee is evil, since in that case it is inflicted unnecessarily.

If I said all, then that was a mistake. I would have to check just what I said, but it should have been many, not all.

The common denominator in evil, is human intelligence. Nothing more, nothing less. Evil is perception based. This thread alone should tell you that.

The poster is saying that if evil figures in all instances of suffering, then suffering is a necessary element of evil. But you’ve wandered off, talking about perception and human intelligence!

Not all humans avoid things which cause them pain, some people love it and seek it.

The point is being made that humans avoid suffering. Those that seek out and enjoy pain aren’t by definition suffering; they are seeking a pleasurable sensation.

Suffering only appears to be the common denominator because you want to see it that way. Perception. I do not see it that way. Perception. The common denominator, human intelligence, which we derive our perceptions from.

You’re really saying nothing at all. Everything is perception. And every human, with the possible exception of the comatose, understands what the term suffering means, which is why we’re having this discussion. Suffering exists and people suffer, quite regardless of how we ‘want to see it’.

 

[footprints]

You are not actually addressing the question that was put to you. All suffering, whether physical or emotional, is a mental state; and physical pain or emotional distress is suffering. And people do suffer!

And, as this is a religious forum, the question of suffering being evil speaks for itself. If the child doesn’t have to suffer in learning to walk, and yet does so, then the resultant pain from a skinned knee is evil, since in that case it is inflicted unnecessarily.




The poster is saying that if evil figures in all instances of suffering, then suffering is a necessary element of evil. But you’ve wandered off, talking about perception and human intelligence!




The point is being made that humans avoid suffering. Those that seek out and enjoy pain aren’t by definition suffering; they are seeking a pleasurable sensation.



You’re really saying nothing at all. Everything is perception. And every human, with the possible exception of the comatose, understands what the term suffering means, which is why we’re having this discussion. Suffering exists and people suffer, quite regardless of how we ‘want to see it’.

Facts of reality do not change because this is a religous forum.

Evil doesn't exist in all suffering. Evil is perception based.

Suffering exists, full stop, period. Pain exists, full stop, period. Evil is perception based as you and I conclusively prove.

 

[cottage]

Facts of reality do not change because this is a religous forum.

They certainly do not. And it is a fact of reality is that some suffering is absolutely necessary because of the way the world is made. But it is because of its religious context that this thread has come about. The apologetic response to the problem of evil is that evil is the privation of ‘good’, that people suffer because of the lack of goodness, or insufficient goodness.

Evil doesn't exist in all suffering. Evil is perception based.

Then please give me some examples of evil that doesn’t include or result in suffering.

Suffering exists, full stop, period. Pain exists, full stop, period. Evil is perception based as you and I conclusively prove.

What’s your point? What’s your argument? Every single thread on this forum and every question that has ever been asked could be answered with the simplistic and unintelligent response ‘It’s perception based’. Of course it is! Everything is perception based.

This controversy isn’t about how or whether we perceive things, but whether one thing can logically exist without the other. In the plainest possible terms for you it is this: ‘”Can a state be called ‘good’ in the moral sense if there is no such thing as suffering?”’ What makes it ‘good’?

 

[footprints]

They certainly do not. And it is a fact of reality is that some suffering is absolutely necessary because of the way the world is made. But it is because of its religious context that this thread has come about. The apologetic response to the problem of evil is that evil is the privation of ‘good’, that people suffer because of the lack of goodness, or insufficient goodness.

Then we agree, facts do not change because we are in a religious forum.

I have already discussed this point, without evil, good doesn't exist. Without good, evil doesn't exist.

Everybody is entitled to their own belief. You have your belief, I have mine. Other people will have their own belief which may equal your belief or it may equal my belief or it could be something completely different.

Good and Evil are perception based.

Then please give me some examples of evil that doesn’t include or result in suffering.

I already have.

What’s your point? What’s your argument? Every single thread on this forum and every question that has ever been asked could be answered with the simplistic and unintelligent response ‘It’s perception based’. Of course it is! Everything is perception based.

Not everything is perception based. A tree is a tree, water is water.

A knowledge of human perception says it is the most intelligent answer possible. A lack of knowledge pertaining to human perception will tell the person it is unintelligent.

This controversy isn’t about how or whether we perceive things, but whether one thing can logically exist without the other. In the plainest possible terms for you it is this: ‘”Can a state be called ‘good’ in the moral sense if there is no such thing as suffering?”’ What makes it ‘good’?

I have already discussed this, things do not change because you ask the same questions over and over again.

What is moral? What is evil? What is good?

Suffering has nothing to do with good or evil. Suffering is an emotional state.

 

[cottage]

Then we agree, facts do not change because we are in a religious forum.

Facts may not change but circumstances most certainly do! And we are discussing facts in the context of a religious hypothesis.

I have already discussed this point, without evil, good doesn't exist. Without good, evil doesn't exist.

I have shown that evil can exist on its own account, whereas ‘good’, which is only a term to describe the absence of suffering, cannot. So I’m asking you to demonstrate otherwise?

Everybody is entitled to their own belief. You have your belief, I have mine. Other people will have their own belief which may equal your belief or it may equal my belief or it could be something completely different.

Obfuscation! A belief that a thing is the case (in this case the argument I’ve given above) is either true or false. If you believe it to be false then show why it is such? If you take a position in a debate you don’t then just dismiss everything as a ‘belief’. The object is to show why the statement (or belief) is unsound or not valid.

Good and Evil are perception based.

The world is perception based. And we perceive suffering as ‘Evil’ because we can conceive of suffering to be non-existent, without involving any logical contradiction.

I already have.

No you haven’t! I looked back at your posts and I can find no such examples.

Not everything is perception based. A tree is a tree, water is water.

A knowledge of human perception says it is the most intelligent answer possible. A lack of knowledge pertaining to human perception will tell the person it is unintelligent.[/quote

You are speaking nonsense. Trees and water are perceptions. Concept or object, everything is perception. People are objects and logical propositions are concepts. We are discussing whether the concept of goodness can exist independent of a state of suffering (as it affects objects).

I have already discussed this, things do not change because you ask the same questions over and over again..

Things are not changing because you do not give proper answers; you only ever give simplistic replies, unsupported assertions and sweeping generalities.

What is moral? What is evil? What is good?

Suffering has nothing to do with good or evil. Suffering is an emotional state.

Moral goodness is the absence or alleviation of harm and suffering, whereas something ‘good’, without the distinction indicates a level of quality. Evil refers to suffering; if nobody suffers then there can be no evil.
And of course suffering is an emotional state! Suffering is an emotional state that is present where there is evil. If I’m wrong in this, then show how I’m wrong?

 

[footprints]

Facts may not change but circumstances most certainly do! And we are discussing facts in the context of a religious hypothesis.

Human perception must be kept out of any hypothesis to hold any validy. All the facts you offer are perception based.

I have shown that evil can exist on its own account, whereas ‘good’, which is only a term to describe the absence of suffering, cannot. So I’m asking you to demonstrate otherwise?

You have shown to yourself that evil can exist on its own account. You have not shown me that at all.

I already have demonstrated it. A child falling over whilst learning to walk is not evil.

Obfuscation! A belief that a thing is the case (in this case the argument I’ve given above) is either true or false. If you believe it to be false then show why it is such? If you take a position in a debate you don’t then just dismiss everything as a ‘belief’. The object is to show why the statement (or belief) is unsound or not valid.

I am not in this forum to prove your belief unsound. I keep telling you, you are entitled to your own beliefs.

The world is perception based. And we perceive suffering as ‘Evil’ because we can conceive of suffering to be non-existent, without involving any logical contradiction.

The world is perception based and You, perceive suffering as evil, and I do not perceive it this way.

No you haven’t! I looked back at your posts and I can find no such examples.

That is not surprising, it goes against your personal beliefs and you believe you have dismissed it.

You are speaking nonsense. Trees and water are perceptions. Concept or object, everything is perception. People are objects and logical propositions are concepts. We are discussing whether the concept of goodness can exist independent of a state of suffering (as it affects objects).

Okay then so what do you think water is? an apple?

What do you believe a tree to be? a motor vehicle?

When all agree on the same perception, that perception becomes truth.

Things are not changing because you do not give proper answers; you only ever give simplistic replies, unsupported assertions and sweeping generalities.

That is all any reasonable person can do, when one wants to talk perceptional beliefs.

Moral goodness is the absence or alleviation of harm and suffering, whereas something ‘good’, without the distinction indicates a level of quality. Evil refers to suffering; if nobody suffers then there can be no evil.

And of course suffering is an emotional state! Suffering is an emotional state that is present where there is evil. If I’m wrong in this, then show how I’m wrong?

Good and Evil are perception based. I am sure you have entities which you fill your good and evil association patterns with.

It is impossible to show you, that you are wrong, your belief patterns are way to strong. Not my intention to do so either. You have your belief, and I have mine.

 

[cottage]

Human perception must be kept out of any hypothesis to hold any validy. All the facts you offer are perception based.

Er…what are you talking about? You are confusing a purely a prior proposition with factually based one. A proposition may contain facts or no facts at all! In this case it concerns a particular fact. An apologetic offered in defence of the PoE to explain the fact of suffering. People die, people suffer, and yet God is good. Two things then become evident. If it is said that the world provides this evil, then this either makes God dependent upon the contingent world in order to demonstrate his goodness, which is a contradiction, since a Necessary Being is all sufficient, or the evil directly contradicts his perfect moral goodness and/or his omnipotence.

You have shown to yourself that evil can exist on its own account. You have not shown me that at all.

Then it would seem you’ve not understood it. Here it is again for you. Example: Murder is evil, while not murder is simply the former not enacted. To say not murder is 'good' is to make a special plea for a state of 'goodness' when its very existence as not murder is conditional upon 'murder'. This is false reasoning. If evil the condition didn't exist, then neither would the term 'good'. Try expressing that the other way round: for if we say if there was only ‘good’, all we are actually saying is that there wouldn't be any evil', that is a state exists where there is no evil. Try it?

I already have demonstrated it. A child falling over whilst learning to walk is not evil.

In that case you have given an example of not-suffering, which depends upon suffering in order to have meaning!

I am not in this forum to prove your belief unsound. I keep telling you, you are entitled to your own beliefs.

Of course you do, for otherwise why do you argue against it? So let's hear your argument.

The world is perception based and You, perceive suffering as evil, and I do not perceive it this way.

This isn’t about you and it isn’t about me. It’s about the universal fact that people suffer. Nobody disputes this fact. And it is a logical truth that the term ‘evil’ has no meaning without the fact of suffering.

That is not surprising, it goes against your personal beliefs and you believe you have dismissed it.

Please answer the question that I asked you.

Okay then so what do you think water is? an apple?

What do you believe a tree to be? a motor vehicle?

When all agree on the same perception, that perception becomes truth.

What we agree is that there can be no evil where there is no suffering. And that proposition has nothing to do with perception.

That is all any reasonable person can do, when one wants to talk perceptional beliefs.

The proposition: a = x, not a = x negated, is not a matter of perception or beliefs.

Good and Evil are perception based. I am sure you have entities which you fill your good and evil association patterns with.

It is impossible to show you, that you are wrong, your belief patterns are way to strong. Not my intention to do so either. You have your belief, and I have mine.

Just answer the question. Suffering is an emotional state that is present where there is evil, and it has nothing to do with beliefs or perception. You think differently, it would seem. So explain why?

 

[Falvlun]

Um, no! For heaven's sake.

When a psychotic person brutally murders another, has he done evil? Does he suffer?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. The average person would consider a brutal murder to be an "evil" act, ie, a morally reprehensible action that illicits disgust. The murder causes suffering, in the victim and in the victim's family.

I don't recall stating that the person who commits an evil act must himself experience suffering. My claim is that suffering is the common denominator in actions and states that we consider "evil".

 

[Falvlun]

All emotional states have a physical trigger.

Evil is a perceptional view. What is evil to one person, will not be evil to another.

Good and evil are perception based.

The common denominator, in what people generally consider to be evil, is that the action causes suffering. You said yourself "When all agree on the same perception, that perception becomes truth." Well, the perception is that suffering is something to be avoided, and that things we consider evil invariably involve suffering.

Pain is not suffering. Pain is where I hurt myself or where I feel the pain. This area doesn't suffer. Any suffering I get comes from my brain, a totally different area of the anatomy to where the pain is. If it is emotional stress, which is causing me to suffer, such as the loss of a loved one, a broken heart whatever, then there is no pain, just emotional suffering. Two seperate and different things which sometimes may coexist together.

I do not argue that pain and suffering are the same thing. See the end of post 103 addressed to cottage.

As for relating it to evil, each to their own view. I could never relate a child falling over and skinning their knee as they learned to walk as evil, no matter how much anybody tried to convince me otherwise.

If there is no reputably omnibenevolent and omnipotent God, then no, all suffering is not evil. Suffering, as myself and cottage have pointed out, is necessary for survival in this world.

However, I am not even arguing that all suffering is evil. I am arguing that all evil involves suffering-- it inflicts suffering, it causes suffering, it exacerbates suffering, it allows suffering to continue unabated. Suffering is the common denominator.

If I said all, then that was a mistake. I would have to check just what I said, but it should have been many, not all.

Let's review this conversation:
Foot: "I do not define evil, yet I have many definitions of evil in my memory."
Falv: "And do any of them not result in causing suffering to some entity capable of experiencing suffering?"
Foot: "So yes, many of them have suffering in them, but not all relate and associate to suffering being evil. "

You did say many, but I am not asking for generalizations. I am trying to get you to give me a concrete example of one of your "many definitions of evil" that do not include the concept of suffering.

The common denominator in evil, is human intelligence. Nothing more, nothing less. Evil is perception based. This thread alone should tell you that.

Let's make this clear: I do not believe that evil has any form; it is not some miasma lurking behind dark doorways. It is merely a concept created by humans to classify things, actions, or states of being that are bad. In that, it is simply a perception.

May we move past that now and begin to understand the underpinnings of this perception? Sure, many people have different definitions of evil, but there seems to be a common thread running through all of them: suffering.

Not all humans avoid things which cause them pain, some people love it and seek it.

I don't believe that pain and suffering are the same thing.

Suffering only appears to be the common denominator because you want to see it that way. Perception. I do not see it that way. Perception. The common denominator, human intelligence, which we derive our perceptions from.

And how did human intelligence arise? It did not simply poof into existence. It developed through evolution, and it is molded by culture. What makes one idea more likely to be passed on than some other idea? Evolutionarily speaking, it is the idea that enhances the individual's chances at survival.

You see, there are foundations for our perceptions. There are reasons underpinning why we perceive the world as we do. There is a reason we came up with the concepts of good and evil. To survive, we needed to avoid the things that might kill us and embrace the things that help us survive. We label the bad things as "evil", and teach our children to also shun those things. Things that wantonly cause suffering are more often than not labeled as evil.

I can not think of many things that are labeled as evil that do not cause suffering (or are not believed to cause suffering.) Can you think of any?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Is Good the Absence of Evil?

It could be, makes more sense than the other way around.

 

[BruceDLimber]

t makes more sense than the other way around [evil being the absence of good].

Indeed!

I quote the Baha'i scriptures:


Chapter 74.

THE NONEXISTENCE OF EVIL


“The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.
“Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man's characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.
“Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
“In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence—that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.
“Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements—that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.
“The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
“Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent.”
— Some Answered Questions, pp. 282-284

Best!

Bruce