Research project slideshow based on Susan Neiman's "Evil in Modern Thought" with a focus on her interpretation of Rousseau and Kant.

1. Research Project based on: Evil in
Modern Thought
authored by Susan Neiman
with a focus on Kant and Rousseau
Project by Tom Bury

2. • The inevitable question, Why would God (all
powerful, eternal, and omniscient) create a
world with evil in it and allow the innocent to
suffer?

3. The concept of a cycle of punishment for sin
through the infliction of suffering, by God,
becomes a traditional belief
Original Sin?

4. Doctrine of Optimism
• All evils in this world will eventually lead to
the greater good, even if we cannot
understand the connection.
• This view has an inherent flaw, it can be
interpreted as: trying to stop evil means you
are stopping it from doing the greater good, or
preventing its “true” purpose.
• Potentially breads inaction and complacency

5. Natural disasters as punishment?
• Rousseau did not think so. He
divides “evil” occurrences into two
categories
• Natural evil vs Moral evil
• Natural evils have no meaning, they
are a part of the natural order
• Moral evils are solely human failings

6. Rousseau
• Evil developed slowly through out human
history
• Shift from natural state of man to “civilized
society” creates the opportunity for evil to
come into being.
• Society is not inherently evil

7. Rousseau
• God ordered world so perfectly he gave
humans the means to combat evil
• Requires education and return to a more
natural state
• General Providence: World rewards/punishes
virtuous acts or sins naturally through its
supreme order. Does not require Gods direct
intervention (miracles).

8. Immanuel Kant
• “Kant’s most central discovery was the
discovery that we are, necessarily, ignorant.
Questions about God and His purposes, the
nature and sense of Creation, thus the
materials for thinking about the problem of
evil, are all out of bounds” (Neiman 62).
• God is unintelligible, but human nature strives
to make God intelligible despite this.

9. Kant and Morality
• Kant claims the unintelligibility of God is
necessary to preserve moral action.
• If we had Gods knowledge (knew the causal
link between virtue and happiness and
action/reward) then humans could do nothing
without thought toward reward or
punishment
• “we would do nothing but move for carrots
and sticks” (Neiman 68).

10. Rousseau and Kant on faith
Both maintain that faith is necessary in order
to keep humans striving.
Kant: “The knowledge that we often fail, and
that the world fails to work with us, may
lead to despair only faith can heal” (Neiman
66).
Rousseau: “there must be a reward and
punishment in another world, or the
miseries of this one would be too much to
bear” (Neiman 41).

11. Rousseau and Kant
• Rousseau: Evil is a human construct that
developed over time (rejects original sin),
humans have the means to eliminate it.
• Kant: God is unintelligible, while this may
cause us consternation because the human
condition is to try to apply reason to
everything, it is necessary that we are
ignorant in order to preserve morality and
good intentions.

12. At odds with their own beliefs?
• Both Rousseau and Kant suffered from the same
uncertainty that plagues all people. Kant identified the
innate desire within us to make sense of God through the
application of reason and the futility of such an attempt.
• Kant accepted this as a truth but still attempted to console
others and himself that our ignorance was necessary to
preserve free will and morality. Advocates for good
intentions and right actions despite our ignorance.
• Rousseau argues for a natural order of providence, claims
evil is an unintended consequence of human society. Evil
comes from us, so we can combat it if we have the proper
knowledge. Wants to spur human action.