I found Hick’s argument that justifies the presence of evil in our world and uses that justification to point to God’s existence to actually be more coherent than Rowe’s opposite stance. However, I found what I thought to be a flaw in Hick’s explanation. Hick argues that evil is essentially a byproduct of good, that is exists because good exists, which I completely agree with. Good and evil can only exist because of the relativity they provide. I do have a problem with Hick’s assertion of a definitive good and evil, which he explains on pages 44-45. Hick presents a world in which all is “good” in order to prove a point about the necessity of evil. However, using his previous argument that good and evil are relative, we cannot assume that what is good in our world would be good in this utopia that he has fathomed. When I wake up in the morning, I think it would be awful, an injustice, if I missed a meal that day, and that it would be good if I had a nice juicy steak for dinner. A starving person wakes up in the morning and thinks that it would be awful if they didn’t eat for the third straight day and good if they got their hands on anything to eat. Good and evil are relative, and they rely on our perception of the world. If our world was altered, so would our perception of good and evil, and thus there will always be good and evil whether or not a God does or does’t exist. So in the world that Hick proposes, perhaps something that we view now as “semi-good” would become evil, in light of the much “better” things that are occurring.
I really liked your explanation of relative good and evil. I agree that it is impossible to eliminate evil without also eliminating good. Some things will always be better than other things, and we will see the better things as good and the worse things as evil.
I like how you mentioned Hick’s definition of good/evil and how it could be subjunctive. I also agree with Hick having a better argument than Rowe did. I feel like your reasoning using the examples in Hick’s text also show how, though his argument is more valid than Rowe’s, it still had some factors that could easily be argued against.
I think you explained the concept of the relativity of good and evil really well, especially in the end of your argument. The fact that you said good and evil will always exist with or without the presence of God, but that our view of good and evil may change based on circumstances, really clarified your argument and made a great point regarding the articles.