A Conversation with Mostafa Malekian on the Problem of Evil

Nafeh Monthly: Mostafa Malekian, born in 1956 in Shahreza, is an Iranian intellectual. His research is mainly in the fields of ethics, religion, philosophy of religion, the meaning of life, psychology, the humanities, research methodology, and intellectualism. The theory of rationality and spirituality is one of his most important theories. Mostafa Malekian began studying mechanical engineering at the University of Tabriz in 1973, but philosophical and theological concerns led him to abandon this field and turn to philosophy. He pursued studies at both the seminary and the university simultaneously. Malekian obtained a bachelor's degree in philosophy in 1986, and although he was only one step away from defending his master's thesis in Islamic philosophy at the University of Tehran, he withdrew from further study. He then went to Qom and spent years studying at the Islamic seminary. It has not been long since I came to know him. This acquaintance dates back to the last anniversary ceremony of Dr. Ali Shariati's death, which began with an enlightening debate. In the interim, I have learned much from him, especially in this session dedicated to analyzing the "problem of evil." It should be noted that this conversation was conducted in two parts. In this issue, we have confined ourselves to publishing the first part, before the discussion turns to the relativity or absoluteness of ethics and its relation to evil. Mostafa Malekian is a calm, astute speaker and, at the same time, a sensitive listener, perhaps like all those who are concerned with reducing the suffering of others.

1- Evil is usually given a mythological or theological explanation. To understand your view on the problem of evil, I prefer to ask: what is "evil"?

Answer – I would rather first outline the four types of evil that have been enumerated so far, and then, through their common denominator, state what the definition of evil is from my perspective. Throughout the history of philosophy, theology, and even mysticism, four types of evil have been distinguished. One evil is metaphysical evil. That is, if in the universe there is an infinite or boundless or limitless being, it is God – if God exists – so, apart from God, every other being in the universe, whether a natural being or an immaterial one, is ultimately a finite being. It is then said that every being other than God is limited, and limitation always indicates imperfection. A being has imperfection to the extent of its limitations, and the reason God is not imperfect is that God is unlimited. So imperfection is always evil. Therefore, every being other than God is subject to an evil called metaphysical evil, which arises from its imperfection. Only God is exempt from evil because God is boundless. I suspect that if philosophers, theologians, and mystics had not reminded human beings of this evil, no one would feel they were afflicted with such an evil. They made us aware that our very finitude is an evil. The second evil I want to explain is natural evil. It is the evil we usually abstract from natural events and natural disasters, such as floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc., which are not related to human existence; that is, even if humans did not live on Earth, these evils would exist. There is a third type of evil, referred to as moral evil, meaning the wrong actions we commit. Whenever an action that is morally wrong takes place, an evil has occurred. But the fourth type of evil is affective evil or emotional evil. Affective evil is what is referred to in psychology as pain and suffering. Pain, in the sense that when an individual feels an undesirable state within themselves, and their body is the medium for this pain. Like getting one's hand caught in a door and feeling pain – if a human had no hand, they would not feel pain through this medium. Because the body, the flesh, the physical form, and the limbs exist, pain also exists. But sometimes an undesirable state is felt where the body or flesh is not the medium. For instance, suppose an action was performed in the past, but upon recalling that action, shame overcomes the person. In this type of undesirable state, the body is not the medium, but suffering exists. So, if a human experiences an undesirable state through the medium of the body, it is called pain, and if it arises without the body as a medium, we call it suffering. Affective evil means pain and suffering.

Now my view is that evils of the first, second, and third types are only evil insofar as they lead to emotional evil. For instance, if in metaphysical evil man were not aware of his limitation, then this limitation would not be considered a defect and would entail no pain. Just as in ordinary life, some people welcome certain limitations. For example, you tell me that although I am ignorant of the future, I am happy; although ignorance is a defect, it is sometimes welcomed. In life, it is abundant that man has a defect or limitation—in his knowledge or abilities—and, as it happens, takes pleasure in it. In metaphysical evil, it is because we are aware of the defect and limitation we have that pain and suffering accrue to us. Natural evils are the same. Phenomena like natural disasters lead to our pain and suffering through one or more intermediaries; otherwise, earthquakes billions of times greater than what occurs on Earth constantly happen in galaxies, but since we do not abstract pain and suffering from them, we do not call them evil. But the third evil is moral evil. An immoral act inflicts pain or suffering on another; for this reason, we call it evil. My view is that, contrary to what has been said throughout the history of theology, philosophy, and mysticism, evil is in reality of only one kind, and that is emotional evil; that is, pain and suffering, that is, those matters which, through one intermediary or N intermediaries, lead to pain and suffering—we interpret these as evil. For this reason, I wanted first to recount the types of evil in order to say that any pain and suffering that accrues to man, without the conception that it is an unavoidable prelude to a pleasure greater than itself, is evil.

2- Does evil not find meaning only with the existence of man? Answer – Precisely. If other beings exist in the universe that possess our structure, that is, possessing knowledge, power, and will, evil holds true for them as well. At present, only man possesses these three characteristics, and no other being with these features is known. Of course, if you also believe in jinn, and supposing it is proven that jinn possess these three characteristics, then in their world too there will be evil, that is, there will be emotional evil, that is, there will be pain and suffering.

3- In the discussion of evil, a subject arises with which you yourself have been engaged many times, and that is the existence of evil and the negation of the God of the Abrahamic religions. Given your emphasis on emotional evil, do you consider this aspect of the problem of evil to have a necessity for today's society? Answer – Let me first say that three domains can be enumerated in this regard. This discussion can be pursued in three epistemic domains. The first is the philosophical domain, which has nothing at all to do with the existence or non-existence of God in any way. This domain examines what exists in the physical, mental, and psychological structure and function of human beings that makes them susceptible to affliction with emotional evil. That is, it examines the reasons for the probability of affliction with evil in man.

4 – Why is only man's affliction with pain and suffering discussed, and the subject of the reasons for man becoming evil is neglected? One aspect is the examination of the consequences of evil; another aspect is the examination of how man himself—in the discussion of emotional evil—becomes the agent of evil?

Answer – Yes, I must say, under this very question of what structure and function our mind, body, and psyche have that causes us to be afflicted with pain and suffering, one of the philosophical answers is that we humans are free. This freedom, besides provoking pain and suffering within ourselves, can also cause pain and suffering for others. In the realm of the empirical human sciences, by which I specifically mean psychology and sociology, the question arises: when I suffer pain and suffering, that is, when I endure pain and suffering, or when I inflict pain and suffering, that is, when I impose pain and suffering, what is the cause of enduring and imposing pain and suffering in our social life? This is where the empirical human sciences investigate and identify the factors of enduring or imposing pain and suffering. This discussion, in my opinion, is very important. But another discussion is also raised, which is the theological discussion. Does the existence of emotional evil leave any room for the God of the Abrahamic religions or not? This discussion does not concern itself with whether we, as humans, suffer pain and suffering or not; what is raised here is that, in any case, pain and suffering exist. With the existence of this pain and suffering, can one believe in the God of the Abrahamic religions or not? Therefore, the subject can be discussed in three realms, of which I believe the second realm is more beneficial than the other two. Inquiry into the psyche and the social scene to understand why you and I, or we ourselves, suffer pain and suffering or cause pain and suffering for others. The examination of enduring and imposing pain and suffering. Then the theological problem is primary, and in third rank, the philosophical dimension. Why do I consider this categorization correct? From the perspective of human beings' attention to these three realms. In the subject under discussion, humans, more than anything else, seek its human factors. Then they seek whether, with the existence of these factors, any room remains for the existence of God or not? And then they seek that, philosophically speaking, if we had what characteristics, there would be no pain and suffering at all ...

5 – Since you placed the theological discussion in the second rank, I will confine myself to just this question in this realm so we can enter the subject of the empirical sciences. Is it correct that you have previously said that, in any case, one cannot reach a conclusion about to what extent one can believe in the God of the Abrahamic religions given the existence of evil? Question – Precisely for the reason that different conceptions of God exist. If what we mean by God is the conception that the masses of people in the Abrahamic religions hold, that is, the masses of believers and the devout in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, I am certain that pain and suffering definitively refutes the existence of the God believed in by the masses of the devout. With the existence of pain and suffering, one cannot believe in the God of the Abrahamic religions – which God? The God that the masses of the devout believe in – which God? A God who is personal. But there is another conception of God held by the mystics of the Abrahamic religions and denominations – which in Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism, and other Eastern religions is a common conception, but only our mystics hold this belief – and that is that God is impersonal. One can believe in the existence of an impersonal God even with the existence of pain and suffering. Hence, I have said that it is indeterminate, meaning it depends on the conception the audience has of God. A God who is personal, with the existence of evil – pain and suffering – His existence is one hundred percent and definitively negated. But in the view that our predecessors sometimes called the view of the Unity of Existence, and which today we call the view believing in an impersonal God, this God – absolutely no dust sits upon the skirt of His grandeur – can exist with all the pain and suffering we endure. The very question of whether God exists or not is, in my opinion, a mystery. That is, reason has neither the power to prove the existence of God nor the power to negate it. But now that the scales of proving the existence or non-existence of God are equal, if someone believes in the existence of God – I have said before – in that case, with the existence of two philosophical arguments, it can be proven that such a person must believe in the existence of an impersonal God.

6 – It is precisely at this philosophical point that J. L. Mackie, the Australian researcher and philosopher – who is also nicknamed for his defense of the argument from atheistic skepticism – believes that the "theologian" must be able to explain the existence of evil in relation to divine omnipotence; otherwise, a blind spot remains.

Answer – Yes, exactly. And there is a very clear argument that the existence of a personal, anthropomorphic God is negated by the existence of evil. I can begin with a simple example. Suppose I tell you that someone in your neighborhood has died of hunger. In that case, one of three situations applies to you: 1 – Either you did not know that someone in your neighborhood was suffering from hunger. 2 – You knew, but you did not have the power to help them. 3 – If you both knew and had the power to do so, then you were not benevolent toward them. Now, if we consider God as personal and anthropomorphic, then I say: if someone dies of hunger, either God did not know, or did not have the power, or was not benevolent. If we grant any one of these three, the existence of God is negated. Divine omniscience, divine omnipotence, and divine absolute benevolence are thereby ruled out. The argument is that clear. This argument was first stated in the history of philosophy by Epicurus, later Hume stated exactly the same thing, and there is absolutely no flaw in this argument. All the efforts made to this day have been inadequate – including that well-known argument I also heard from our dear friend Dr. Arash Naraghi – that God's knowledge, power, and benevolence are absolute – He knows of your hunger, His power to help you is absolute, and His benevolence is also absolute – yet He does not help you. Why? Because a greater good has been considered for you, a good that cannot be attained except through your death. This is an answer that has been given since ancient times – it is surprising that Dr. Naraghi recently repeated this same argument – and they have said that this answer is convincing and that pain and suffering can exist in the world without harming the attributes enumerated for God.

7- Within this theological apparatus of arguments and conflicts, there is a proof. Outside this apparatus, for the correlatives of good and evil, right and wrong, etc. – with a dualistic reading – we posit an absolute separation. I should tell you that from the perspective of the human world outside this theological apparatus, the relations that operate among human beings – in the contemporary world, at this very moment we are in now – distance us from this view. From the absolute separation of good from evil. Meanwhile, right now as we are engaged in conversation here, we acknowledge that near us some people are dying of hunger. We are not very bad people; after all, we also claim to be altruists. But within the cycle of economic and political relations in which we find ourselves, we can do nothing to help. Answer – That is, we lack the power.

8- We can also acquire this power, not that we lack it absolutely. I mean to say that, in fact, once we step outside the theological apparatus, the definition of evil and human action and reaction toward it becomes something else. Answer – No, look, again, in human relations too, if someone is dying of hunger, those same three cases can be examined...

9- I am telling you right now that in other alleys in this very city people are dying; what can you do? Power here must be defined differently. You can help to the extent of your own ability, but here our approach to helping humankind takes on different instances. Answer – Power fundamentally does not mean that I have a piece of bread. It means that I have bread and can deliver it to the one who needs it; all of these are requirements of power – power has a precise philosophical meaning, of course – so conditions must be in place.

10 – Can it be said that your power to help another, in your capacity as a philosophy professor, is defined differently? That is, is a greater good defined here within the bounds of your human duties? Answer – Precisely, but this greater good is not defined for God.

11- We were supposed to step entirely outside the theological apparatus. You and I are now situated in relations defined by the humanities. Here, let us glance at Hannah Arendt's views: when conscience goes blind and the ancient problem of evil transforms in contemporary society, evil is no longer that identifiable monster, and evil may even manifest within good itself. In your view, isn't it reductionist for us to try to explain good and evil, and to clarify our stance toward them, with that same ancient perspective?

Answer – I agree, but there are three types of explanation that I want us to be aware of as we continue this discussion. It is true that we know right now that at this very moment—somewhere near us, not necessarily in Africa—someone or some people are suffering or dying of hunger. We also consider ourselves benevolent human beings, yet we do not seem very agitated or concerned about evil. Why? First, we think we are benevolent, but our moral conscience has fallen asleep; lullabies have been sung to it, putting it to sleep, and we do not possess benevolence in the deep sense of the word at all—we merely think we do. As you yourself put it, perhaps there is a demon or a monster within us that has put our conscience to sleep. Second, it is possible that I could help a needy person right now, but if I do so, I will be kept from another task that is more important than saving a starving human being from death. Third, in moral philosophy, it is argued that the greater the number of witnesses to a wrongdoing, the lesser the duty of each individual witness. If someone is the sole witness aware of an evil, your conscience acts more strongly; moral intuition says that even if the sole witness to a wrongdoing suffers financial loss, they still have a duty not to be indifferent to the pain and suffering inflicted upon a human being. When there is one witness, the entire responsibility rests on their shoulders, but when six billion people are witnesses to the suffering of their fellow human beings, this very fact diminishes the pangs of conscience. Here, I must tell you that I do not accept any of these three solutions, and in the human realm—as you said, leaving aside theological matters and the theological apparatus—if suffering exists and I am indifferent to it, it cannot be justified by the first, the second, or the third approach. The conclusion is that everyone has a duty to the extent of their power.—Of course, one must also be careful; for instance, I might pour money into a fund with the intention of helping, only to later discover it has been turned into a palace in the north of Tehran. Very often, governments strip us of this power and prevent us from preventing evil or alleviating it even to the extent that we are able.

11- To be honest, I expected the approach that is your own solution to be a little less individualistic than this, but it fell short of my expectation of you. Here, I return to Hannah Arendt, where she says we must strengthen the engagement of human action with conscience in the face of the powers that exist. Very often, good and evil have drawn us into personal spheres and charitable behaviors motivated by the hope of divine reward—giving what is agreeable to one's nature—which have, incidentally, had limited effects. Considering what Arendt says about engaging human action with conscience, we cannot, in fact, ignore social systems. We are compelled to define and clarify our relationship with the power that is the agent of evil. We need to take steps within a current that moves toward moderating and alleviating evil; otherwise, your sack of rice might not even keep this very neighbor alive until the end of the week! Answer – I accept what you say, but does this conflict with not withholding my personal help?

12- No, there is no conflict, but if it is offered as a proposal for reducing the affliction and suffering of fellow human beings, it amounts to merely displaying charitable reactions to social pains, which has not been very effective. The evil that exists in today's world is not lessened or limited by this proposal. The failure of this approach is predetermined in the face of powers that are sometimes themselves the agents of evil. Answer – Yes, if we do not seek to change the planning and the executive officials, and merely content ourselves with charitable acts, it will not eliminate evil...

13 – This approach—the charitable approach—means being played by evil....

Answer – I have no objection to this, but very often, alongside this very proposal you emphasize, one can at the same time also give a sack of rice to a needy person. I am opposed to those intellectual affectations that consider themselves absolved from charitable aid on the grounds that they are doing a greater work. In fact, I take your proposal to mean that we must consider the mother of evil and not forget a macro-level perspective in this regard. But in my view, even if we are the greatest thinker and intellectual, we must still not neglect what we can do on an individual level. I refrain from such an attitude that considers itself absolved from helping the needy with the claim that we are doing greater things. If I, as a doctor, never go to see patients who are in need on any afternoon, you should doubt what I claim in the realm of my own thought and expertise, because in that case it is inferred that if I fight against a power that is evil, it may well be because I myself want to take its place. To prove that a person has a troubled conscience and that their concern is not attaining power, and that they fight against the pillars of evil-inciting power, they must sometimes also take an old person by the hand and help them cross the street, and sometimes go to Chah Bahar and spend time visiting the deprived...