CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The problem of evil is a key topic in religion and philosophy. It deals with the

question of how a powerful, all-knowing, and good God can allow evil to exist. This idea is

hard to understand because it seems strange that a good and powerful God would let bad

things happen. The ancient philosopher Epicurus summed it up well: if God wants to stop

evil but can't, then he isn't all-powerful. If he can stop evil but doesn't want to, then he isn't

all-good. And if he can and wants to stop evil, then why does evil exist? (Epicurus, cited in

Hume, 1779). Over time, many answers have been given to this problem. Some, called

theodicies, try to explain why God allows evil. They say that evil might help achieve a

greater good, like helping people grow morally or giving them free will (Hick, 1966). Others,

called defenses, argue that the existence of evil doesn't contradict the existence of God, even

if we don't know why each instance of evil happens (Plantinga, 1974). Despite these

explanations, the problem of evil continues to be a big issue in discussions about religion,

leading to many debates and discussions among thinkers.

According to Calder, evil can be defined as a bad state of affairs, wrongful action or

character flaw (Calder 2018). A bad state of affairs can be understood as natural and

unnatural occurrences that inflict harm or that cause suffering and sorrow, such as the death

of a loved one as a result of an earthquake. Calder categorises the concept of evil into broad

and narrow senses. The broad concept of evil includes natural evil and moral evil. Whereas

natural evil do not arise from the volitions of human beings who are moral agents, moral evil

do (Calder 2018). Discourses on the problem of evil generally adopt the broad concept of

evil. Generally, the focus has been on trying to explain the origin of both types of evil in a

world supposedly created by a Supreme Being believed to be omnipotent, omniscient and

1
omnibenevolent. The problem of evil has been extensively discussed in philosophy without

any generally accepted view about what constitutes a solution.

The seventeenth Century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza held several views that

his contemporaries found heretical, his beliefs about the nature of good and evil among them.

According to Spinoza cited in (Marshal, 2023:8), nothing at all is either good or evil, from

the perspective of God or the natural world. Instead, he argues that, good and evil are merely

words that humans employ to label things we find pleasant or unpleasant, desirable or

undesirable. We only ascribe intrinsic goodness or evil to things because we falsely believe

the world to have been created for our benefit.

Spinoza's notion of evil, as outlined in his seminal work "Ethics" (Spinoza, 1996),

departs from traditional views by rejecting evil as a real, substantial force. Instead, he

considers evil to be a product of human perception and inadequate knowledge. In his

monistic framework, where everything is a part of the single substance he identifies as God

or Nature, what we perceive as evil results from our limited understanding and subjective

interpretations. For Spinoza, good and evil are relative concepts based on how things affect

an individual's well-being, and true understanding comes from rational knowledge of the

universe's necessary order. Evil, according to Spinoza, arises from the limitations and

imperfections within the human mind, which leads to a misunderstanding of the true nature of

reality (Spinoza, 1996).

Central to Spinoza's conception of evil is the idea of inadequate ideas. He posits that

human suffering and moral wrongs emerge from a lack of understanding or a

misinterpretation of the causal relations governing the universe. Inadequate ideas, which are

characterised by confusion, partiality, or distortion, lead individuals to perceive certain events

or actions as harmful or malicious when, in reality, they are simply part of the natural order

(Madler, 2006). Moreover, Spinoza identifies human passions, such as fear, hatred, and envy,

as sources of evil. These passions arise from individuals' inadequate ideas about their own

2
desires and the external world. When people are governed by these passions, they become

slaves to their emotions, which cloud their judgment and lead them to act in ways that are

harmful to themselves and others.

In contrast, Spinoza argues that the path to liberation from evil lies in the cultivation

of adequate ideas and the attainment of intellectual love of God or Nature (Madler, 2006).

Through the exercise of reason and the development of a comprehensive understanding of the

universe, individuals can overcome their passions and align themselves with the natural

order, thereby transcending the limitations of their finite existence. Spinoza's notion of evil

has been influential in shaping subsequent philosophical thought, particularly in the areas of

ethics and metaphysics (Garrett, 1996). His emphasis on the power of reason and the unity of

existence offers a compelling framework for understanding the origins of human suffering

and the possibility of overcoming it through intellectual and spiritual growth.

One notable gap in Spinoza's notion of evil is his somewhat limited exploration of the

social and political dimensions of evil. While Spinoza provides a comprehensive analysis of

evil within the individual psyche and its relationship to reason and the natural order, he offers

relatively little direct commentary on the manifestations of evil within society and the

structures of power. This gap presents an opportunity for researchers to delve deeper into

how Spinoza's philosophical framework can be applied to understanding and addressing

systemic forms of oppression, injustice, and exploitation.

To bridge this gap, the researcher wants to draw on Spinoza's insights into the role of

inadequate ideas and passions in shaping human behaviour to analyse the dynamics of power

and domination within social and political contexts. By examining how individuals and

institutions are influenced by inadequate ideas and passions such as greed, fear, and

prejudice, the researcher intends to elucidate the ways in which systemic forms of evil

perpetuate themselves and maintain social hierarchies. The researcher intends to explore how

Spinoza's emphasis on the cultivation of reason and the pursuit of intellectual freedom can

3
inform strategies for resisting and transforming oppressive structures. By promoting

education, critical thinking, and collective action, individuals and communities can work

towards overcoming the inadequate ideas and passions that underpin social injustice and

fostering a more just and equitable society. To this end, researchers intend to investigate the

implications of Spinoza's ethical theory for contemporary debates on moral responsibility and

accountability. Spinoza's rejection of free will and his deterministic view of human action

raises important questions about the extent to which individuals can be held responsible for

their participation in systems of evil. By examining Spinoza's account of causality and

agency, the researcher can contribute to ongoing discussions about the nature of moral

agency and the conditions under which individuals can be held accountable for their actions.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Philosophers have been captivated by the concept of evil for centuries, leading to a

diverse range of interpretations that reflect the complexity of this moral and existential

dilemma. From ancient times to the present, thinkers have grappled with the nature of evil,

proposing various definitions and frameworks that often contradict one another. This

extensive and sometimes contentious debate underscores the difficulty in pinpointing a

singular essence of evil, as it encompasses a myriad of misconceptions and differing

perspectives. The myriad philosophical approaches, whether rooted in ethical, metaphysical,

or existential considerations, reveal the profound challenge in articulating a universal

understanding of what constitutes evil, highlighting the ongoing struggle to reconcile these

divergent viewpoints.

Among these perspectives, Spinoza stands out with his unique take on evil. Unlike

traditional views that treat evil as an external force or a dualistic element opposing good,

Spinoza offers a different view. He incorporates evil into his rationalist and deterministic

philosophy, suggesting that it is a natural part of reality rather than something separate from

it. This approach redefines evil as something deeply connected to the structure of existence

4
itself. Despite centuries of debate, the problem of evil continues to be a significant issue in

philosophy and ethics. Spinoza’s ideas offer a fresh perspective and potential solutions to this

age-old problem. By exploring Spinoza’s thoughts on evil, we can gain new insights into his

ethical and metaphysical principles and their relevance to contemporary issues. This research

aims to deepen our understanding of Spinoza’s philosophy and find practical ways to address

the challenges posed by evil in today’s world.

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to closely examine Spinoza's ideas about evil, explaining

its details and understanding its impact within moral philosophy. By carefully analyzing

Spinoza's writings and considering the various interpretations and criticisms of his work, this

study aims to reveal the basic principles that guide his moral beliefs and his view of evil.

Additionally, this research will highlight the unique aspects of Spinoza's view of evil,

comparing it with the common beliefs of the thinkers before and during his time.

Through a comparative analysis, the researcher aims to delineate the contours of

Spinoza's moral philosophy, emphasizing its departure from conventional notions of evil and

its implications for ethical theory and practice. By elucidating the nuances of Spinoza's

thought, the researcher aspires to enrich his understanding of the perennial enigma of evil

while also shedding light on the enduring relevance of Spinoza's insights in navigating the

moral complexities of the contemporary world. Thus, this work serves not only to expose and

appraise Spinoza's conception of evil but also to contribute to the ongoing dialogue within the

field of moral philosophy, offering fresh perspectives and insights that may illuminate the

path toward a more profound and comprehensive understanding of the human condition.

5
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following questions shall be answered in the course of the study:

1. How does Spinoza's conception of evil differ from traditional dualistic frameworks,

and what are the implications of this departure for his broader moral philosophy?

2. To what extent does Spinoza's metaphysical determinism influence his understanding

of evil, and how does this understanding reconcile with notions of free will and moral

responsibility?

3. In what ways does Spinoza's treatment of evil as an inherent aspect of existence

challenge prevailing ethical frameworks, and what implications does this have for

contemporary discussions on moral agency and virtue ethics?

1.5 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The main aim of the study is to explore Spinoza's moral philosophy in the context of

his notions of evil. However, the specific objectives the study seeks to achieve are to:

1. Find out how Spinoza's conception of evil differs from traditional dualistic

frameworks, and the implications of this departure for his broader moral philosophy.

2. To know the extent Spinoza's metaphysical determinism, influence his understanding

of evil, and to know how this understanding reconcile with notions of free will and

moral responsibility?

3. To investigate what ways Spinoza's treatment of evil as an inherent aspect of

existence challenge prevailing ethical frameworks, and to know the implications this

have for contemporary discussions on moral agency and virtue ethics.

6
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Exploring Spinoza's ideas about evil is important for understanding ethics, human nature, and

existence. By examining his view of evil as a natural part of reality, this study will provide

new insights into questions about morality and the human condition. Thus, the following are

significance of the study:

1. This research will highlight Spinoza's contributions to moral philosophy, by offering an

alternative to traditional ethical frameworks. By examining his views on rationality,

determinism, and interconnectedness, the study will enhance our understanding of ethical

decision-making and the role of reason.

2. The study will challenge the traditional good versus evil dichotomy, viewing evil as a

natural result of human and environmental interactions. Spinoza's understanding of

human behaviour can inform more compassionate and effective approaches to social

issues like crime and injustice.

3. By examining Spinoza's moral philosophy, the research will uncover the connections

between ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Spinoza's worldview encourages

interdisciplinary inquiry, deepening our understanding of modern morality and

humanity's essence.

1.7 METHODOLOGY

The method of research, which the researcher intends to apply in the study is both expository

and appraisal. It is expository in the sense that it shows in detail the works of Spinoza on evil.

It is also appraisal in the sense that his own conception of evil creates much room to desire

good and to avert evil which when done, human race will turn from its evil ways of life to

good ways of life. This study will employ a combination of expository and appraisal methods

to achieve a deep understanding of Spinoza's ideas and their implications.

7
1.8 SCOPE OF WORK

This research will focus on exploring Spinoza's views on evil, aiming to understand his

perspective on what evil truly is. By examining Spinoza's teachings, the study seeks to clarify

misconceptions about evil and address the longstanding philosophical debates surrounding

this concept.

1.9 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

For easy understanding and grasping of this research, the researcher divided this research into

five chapters. Chapter one will deal with the general introduction: which will be background

to the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, objectives of the study, research

questions and scope of the study. Chapter two is the literature review of philosophers on evil.

Chapter three will treat in detail the Spinoza’s conception of evil. Chapter four will be all

about peculiar things in Spinoza’s concept of evil. Finally, Chapter five will be the evaluation

and conclusion that ends this research.

1.10 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Below are some of the limitations of this study:

Financial Constraint- Insufficient fund tends to impede the efficiency of the researcher in

sourcing for the relevant materials, and literature.

Time Constraint- The researcher simultaneously engaged in this study with other academic

work. This consequently cut down on the time devoted for the research work.

8
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 THE CONCEPTUAL OF EVIL

When we talk about evil, we may mean one of at least three things. First, we may be

referring to anything that produces bad outcomes. In this very broad sense of the word, evil

can be moral – wrongful human actions – or it can be natural, as when we talk of natural evils

such as earthquakes, floods, and disease. Second, we may be referring to a narrower

phenomenon, namely all of human wrong doing, as when we say, “The evil that men do lives

after them.” In this narrower sense, evils can be great, such as murder, or small, such as

malicious gossip. But there is also a third sense of the word “evil,” one that is narrower still,

where we are referring to a special, and specially horrifying, subset of the range of human

wrongdoing. This is the usage involved when people say of an action, “That wasn’t just

wrong, it was evil.” Here we are contrasting evil with more ordinary wrong doing. It is this

third kind of usage, and what it refers to, that will be the subject of this paper. There is a

long-standing notion of evil in this third sense that arises from, and is constituted by, certain

religious and metaphysical worldviews.

Recently, philosophers have explored the possibility of a secular account of this

concept, raising the question of whether the term “evil” is an important, even indispensable,

part of our moral vocabulary, or whether it can be abandoned without serious loss.

A secular account of evil would make no appeal to religious worldviews, nor to

supernatural entities such as the devil. Rather, it would seek to explore a distinct

understanding of the term “evil” as part of a secular moral vocabulary that adequately

captures, and is needed to capture, the worst actions and persons we encounter in our lives.

9
 The secular account of evil concerns itself with evil actions, persons (and their

characters), institutions, and ideologies, seeing evil acts and those who commit them as

having certain kinds of motives, or causing certain terrible harms, or both.

The analysis of each of these aspects seeks, among other things, to rebut one or other

of two claims: first, the claim that the notion of evil is redundant—it has no explanatory

power beyond asserting that an action amounts to a very serious wrongdoing; and second, the

claim that the attribution of evil is pernicious, since it illegitimately demonizes the persons

and actions it purports to describe.

Against these claims stands, among other things, the fact of the widespread secular

use of the term in common discourse. This fact suggests that we need to clarify what it is that

a secular concept of evil entails. With the historical and religious accounts of evil that

preceded it. Indeed, many critics complain that even a secular use of the concept of evil

inevitably comes with too much unwelcome metaphysical and religious baggage. Secular

theorists offer an understanding of the concept of evil as being a part of our moral vocabulary

with no necessary connection to religious beliefs; their task is to make good on that offer by

providing a plausible account of secular evil.

2.2 PHILOSOPHERS ON THE CONCEPTION OF EVIL

According to St. Augustine who rejected the ideas of the existence of evil, he says

"evil exist itself, instead regarding it to be corruption of goodness, caused by humanity above

of the free will. AUGUSTINE believe in the existence of physical evil as a punishment for

sin but he urged those choose the concept of salvation Jesus will go to heaven. He asserted

that God and perfectly good, he created the world out nothing, and evil is the result of

humanity original and evil enter into the world as the result of original sin from Adam,

human's misuse of free will and conscience. The contemporary philosophers criticized

Augustine view on the evil ,he is a Manichean who contended that God must still be

10
somehow implicated in evil. Francesco Antonion Zacharia criticized Augustine concept of

evil for not dealing with individual human suffering.

Augustine proposed that evil could not exist within God, nor be created by God, and

is instead a by -product of God's creativity and reject the view existence of evil itself, he

proposing evil is a privation or falling away from good, and corruption of nature. Augustine

treatment of evil have classical tradition and Christian theological controversy. Augustine

hold the notion that human finitude our absence of infinite knowledge and our ability to sway

that lead to the arrival of evil in the world.

Augustine believes that evil is product of incorrect thinking, improper reasoning,

depreciation of the goodness of being and the worst evil, to him the evil is of elimination of

being (death killing).

Augustine pointed out that they are three basic nature of evil, natural evil consists of

the physical events such as natural disasters. Thomas Aquinas, evil is nothing, some being

with its essence and nature, but it is the lack of a being.

Aquinas view on the evil is nothing, something with its essence and nature but lack in

the much broader, context of God's work of creation and providential government. Evil has

good as its subject, object, and causes, and may ultimate have good as its effect. Evil cannot

exist from itself, by itself and for itself, the Aquinas relation between end and absolute good

that God, God is one who exist in the exist sense and evil exist only in relation the goose that

is God's creation.

Aquinas instance, the mode of victory of good over evil in the character of the

righteous of the innocent job who had experience a terrible evil. Aquinas pointed out clearly

that natural evils consist of injury, disfigurement, natural diseases, disability, natural

disasters, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamic, flood, fires, drought .and the moral evil includes

injustices, violences, rape, torture, murder, wars, genocide, all manners of curtly.

11
 Thomas Aquinas evil is a privation: the lack of being in something good which does

exist .to him evil opposed what is good. Aquinas gave analogy of the blindness, a lack of an

ability to see, but more specifically, it is a lack of sight of somethings to sight in something to

which it is due, that is in that in the sort of thing and objective since is privation of goodness

due. A thing according to it nature, the nature of things has to be real and objective as we, in

order for things for suffer these natural evils. Plato, according to him, he described evil as a

disorder of the soul evil may by ignorance, in his book “republic he says "evil may be a

punishment for sin in a former life or, if not that, maybe good which we cannot recognize

(p613 A2, 27 note 176A).

Socratic, described evil " all evil is a result of ignorance and is a person is help to so what is

Truly good, he will realise that the action he is doing is wrong and turn to a better come

action. Socrates believes or explain that every action is done with to do good. He stated, it is

impossible what one think is bad and men are to do evil" (meno77).no one take step

backward willingly or one who stronger wrong himself by fleet the better, and better the

good.

Socrate believed that realising the alternatives to his wrong acting a man can be

brought to justice for a bad action and change for the better. Socrates asserted "and must

examine the nature of evil in the terms of the conditions in which if come about. Socrates

concludes that the ideas that all evil actions is the result of ignorance’s, the belief that if the

know better that if we know better, we would action better, we would act better. Socrates

believed that no wrong is benefit to man, since it brings him loss of the good in term of the

harm it does and also the loss of the good in terms of being a good man.

Aristotle on the concept of evil, according him, evil is an action based on the (moral)

choice, according to Aristotle, there is not evil a person, he believes that human is made up

with good traits and evil if someone bad, it is our choice of good or evil that determine our

character, not our opinion about good or evil (character, evil, choice) Aristotle (1996).

12
According Leibniz on the concept of evil, to him evil is non-existent and without causes, in

his view cause long to thing that exist, and evil, since is it nonexistent, does not exist so that it

can have cause.

Leibniz described evil as the minimum necessary for the existence of good and far

less than the existing good, evil is the cost that paid for many benefits of [Link] this theory,

he asserted that good can only exist in the opposition of evil (standards Amanah and 2014,

47)

According to Leibniz, problem of evil is the most important, the most difficult and the

most stubborn problem that always offended human thought and alternatively has not found

decision and convincing answer (Leibniz (2005,2002). He furthered stated that, the world

system has an orderly and efficient mechanisms so, evil cannot disrupt this complex and good

system. Leibniz say evil is necessary for existence of greater goodness, God has given

consent their existence (leibniz1985,160).

According to Leibniz, God cannot create evil, but evil is never issue do him, good

and evil of each are the same and so clear to God. Murry stated" according to Leibniz, God

created the best possible world does not mean that world is absolutely perfect and there is not

defects in it

Leibniz pointed out three major types evils, metaphysical evil is a kind of evil what

one lack of absolute perfection that woven into the whole possible world, metaphysical evil is

necessary for the creation of the possibility, also is mean limitation of human ,physical evil in

other hand is seen as the kind for evil which attributes is to natural setting or world which

always happening , Leibniz is the kind of evil God used to punished ,correct and lesson

(Leibniz ,11985,1400).natural evil refer to be natural because of natural system ,the natural

evil consist of human moral evils, for motel evil is sin or evil committed as the result of sin.

13
 According to Leibniz, for one to find solution to the problem of evil, one must accept

the evil as a non-existence, this mean that evil and sin are purely negative and nonexistent,

because is arise from metaphysical. Evil is necessary to achieve here is that good and evil are

inseparable, just for instance ‘existence of fire, which no doubt is good, sometime causes a lot

of harm and evil. Elimination evil is another possible solution suggested to counter the

problem of evil in the world, this cannot the fact that there is existence of evil in the evil but

it can replace with good, although this view was heavily criticized by many thinkers

optimistic, evil is necessary for a world system, the world without evil was be not better for

this world and the existence of this world.

John hick believed that the problem of evil .according to him moral evil rooted from

the mystery of the free will, he believed the occurrence of non-moral evil in the world is

necessary condition for the ethic of the choice and the process of soul-making .in his book

titled "evil and God lover ,in it argued there must be acquire through experience -courage ,for

instance ,involves confronting real acting God want us to grow to become like him ,he placed

evil in the world that is a value of soul making " a world where he can mature in virtue.

John hick justified the problem of evil in this world by saying "the existence of evil in

this world is a problematic phenomenon for these believers. (John Hick p.77) noted that the

issue of evil has been settle then it’s time to find explanation and perhaps solutions. He says,

there are three major kind of evils in this world or responsible for evil, firstly is the ideas of

the fall of man from an original state of righteousness to something that is less than ideas and

therefore mankind is now capable of the inflicting evil into himself.

Secondly, evil and suffering are God tools of perfecting a still imperfect world (Hick

p,78). thirdly, the ideas that God is not that powerful and therefore he has not ability to deal

with the problem of evil and suffering. (Ruether, p95) who say, she does not have problem

with evil, her struggle is the way people to deal with it", to her, the tendency of many cultures

is to took is to look for someone or something to blame"(Reuther p'95).

14
 Calder, according him, there are two type of evil, A broader evil which would be any

bad state of affairs resulting from the either natural causes or moral agents and .narrow

concept of in the contrast is morally despicable sorts of acting characters, events ,which

involve moral condemnation which ascribed only to moral agents and their actions for

instance ,if evil narrower beings can perform evil action ,evil in narrower beings often meant

when the term "evil used in the contemporary moral, political ,legal contexts.

Evil skeptic according to Calder, “they believe we should abandon the concept of evil

" although they do bite generally rejects other moral concepts, such as right or wrong, good

or bad. The evil skeptic was view or summarized into three according to Calder. Evil skeptic

involves unwarranted metaphysical commitment to dark the supernatural or devil. Secondly,

the concept of evil can be harmful or dangerous when used in moral, political and legal

context Calder point out to Nietzsche as the good example or famous evil skeptic.

Evil revivalist according to Calder, claim that the concept of evil usefully focuses

attention on the worst sorts of moral wrong "to prioritize understanding of them so something

can be done about claim is may be " make dangerous to ignore evil than to try understand it.

Although both revivalists and evil skeptic address absolute morality, the absolute morality is

the obligation to deity, which give absolute morality its "absolute " characteristics.

According to Kant’s, we become radically when we subordinate the moral law to our

own self -interest (prudence, he holds that we never do wrong for the sake of doing wrong but

only for the sake of prudence or from inclination to more limited, Kant account of radical

demonstrate how evil can a genuine moral alternative while nevertheless being can be innate

condition. Kant hold firmly that "the propensity to evil is universal, his position on the

revolutionary to fail properly allow for the possibly of grace the doctrine that God is able to

act in human affairs and affect changes within a person's moral disposition.

Rousseau (Jean -Jacques) hold on the thesis, ethically, human being either wholly evil

or wholly good by virtue of what or not an agent has adopted the moral law as the governing

15
maxim for all for his or maxims (religion 6:22-23). Kant, evil is largely a moral category,

present universally in human beings as a propensity to self-conceit that influence the adoption

of maxims.

Kant claimed that all humans ,without exception ,are evil by nature, he explains

radical evil as corruption that entirely takes over ,he explained radical evil as corruption that

entirety takes over human being and lead to desire according against the universal moral

law ,the outcome of one's natural tendency ,or innate propensity ,toward evil are action

oppose "deeds " that subordinate the moral law ,these actions approve universally moral

maxims and display self-love conceit may author criticized Kant’s theory on evil, he stated

that the paradox and in consist through development moral theories.

Kant's on radical evil, he views that "one can longer act in accordance to good

because they determined) follow to maxims of willingly that discounts goods. Kant, a person

has the choice between good maxims, rules, that respect the moral law, and evil maxims, rule

that contradict or oppose moral law.

Rene Descartes on the concept of the evil, according to him, evil come as the result of

the perfect good god has created universe in which evil [Link] him, there is evil

demon ,which is also know also described as a demon, which is capable of manipulating

every things from thought process to our perception about our surrounding such that even

though ,it does not exist ,it is seem like it is, for instance, you may believe that you are blog

but according to Descartes you may not, evil demons could be deceiving you by implanting

the illusion in our reading the paragraph but does not exist in reality.

John Locksmith dread of evil is much and more forcible principle of human actions

than the prospect of good, John Lock. Good and evil are human principle. Which he believes

that people are born as good people, although such as Thomas Hobble believed that human

beings are born naturally evil.

16
 According to David Hume's, on his position on evil, he asserted ‘it is something to be

weathered in one's on life and without due concern arising from the situation of other to

David home’s, evil is potential to drive people to the notion of a particular providence with

its attend damaging [Link] him, the problem of evil to theists was how to reconcile

sufferings with a benevolence God.

Richard Swinburne, is that natural evils can be the means of learning and maturing,

natural evils in other word, can help cultivating virtues such as courage and generosity by

forcing humans to confront dangers, hardship, needs, David homes pointed out that "the

problem of suffering and evil was expressed in his book and published after homes death.

Georgy Berkeley believed that "Good and evil are related to all the overall goal of

happiness, that good exist tends to problem, happiness, and tend to subvert it. Happiness is a

legitimating goal of man existence, the best way to tackle the problem of evil according

George is " separating it into natural and human (moral)evil.

Peterson (1998, p, 9) claims the problem of evil is a kind of "moral protest".

Fredrick Nietzsche’s on his view on the problem of evil, he says "the ideas of evil is

reactive, it is come from the negation of good, to Nietzsche’s, if one can break free from

traditional conception of good and evil a people could advance to the achieve their greater

potential. To Fredrick, good and evil (motility) are culturally construct rather than inherently

traits, different culture developed moral laws in order to maintain social order (Nietzsche

188-1900)"beyond good and evil (1886.

Alvin Plantinga say" God and evil could coexist if God has or morally sufficiency

reason for evil, and he suggested that Gods morally sufficient reason might have something

to do with human's being granted morally significant free will and with greater good this

freed make possible. The major thought of Plantinga is in his famous free will defense.

17
18
 CHAPTER THREE

3.1 BIOGRAPHY OF BENEDICT DE SPINOZA

Baruch Spinoza’s, also know under his Latinized pen name Benedictus de Spinoza’s,

was a philosopher of portuguese-jewish origin. Spinoza was born in Amsterdam to the Marin

family that fled Porturgal for the more tolerant Deutch republic. He received a traditional

Jewish education, and learning. His work covered from the ethic to metaphysic and biblical

criticism, the two most important work is ethic and theologico-political treatise, remain

highly influenced in the today study of philosophy. During his life style, he took extremely

narrative political thought and critique of sectarian religion. Spinoza is an anti-realist, he

denied that anything is good or bad independently of human desire and beliefs. The main of

the Spinoza is revolved on the notion that "guarantees that we have adequate ideas of God

under the attribute of extension and thought, Spinoza also believed God as the cause of the

essence of a particular thing is just to have what Spinoza called "intuitive cognition ". The

view of Spinoza on the immortality of the soul, which strongly rejects the notion of the

transcend, providential God. Also Spinoza see God as the infinite substance: God attributes is

unlimited and that there is not attribute that God Does not possess.

3.2 SPINOZA CONCEPTION OF EVIL

The context of Spinoza's moral philosophy or discourse deal with the questions if

there is evil in the world or not? Spinoza philosophy revolved around the notion of the single

substance (God) which portrayed that as the existence single thing stand .in the sense this

Spinoza’s believe that identity and different in this sense and the world is the same and

diverse. The portray nature of the reality in Spinoza’s pantheism the most enigmatic

challenge or philosophical ideas of evil is quite different from the conventional or notion of

Judeo-Christian dogma of faith and paradigm of creation.

19
 Spinoza metaphysic begins with the assertion of existence of single substance as the

foundation of all things. Spinoza's provide definition of good and evil " in 4D1 and 4D2"as

far as good and evil are concern, themselves also indicate nothing possible in things,

considered in, nor are they anything other than mode of thinking or notion we form because

for one who is melancholy, bad for who is morning, and neither good or bad to one who is

deaf.

Spinoza who argued in this way are easily answer, for the perception things is to be

judged solely from the nature and power. things are not more or less perfect because they

please often men's sense, or because they are used to, or are in compatible with human nature.

(Spinoza's 1985: p92) evil exists only in relationship to human mind. Human being a finite

mode make value judgement and perceive something objective as good and bad .in this

reason, there will not evil as something objective but in thought. Spinoza's has constructed

his view in nature are either things or action, now good and bad are in nature are either things

or action, now good and bad are neither thing nor action, therefore evil do not exist in nature

(Spinoza's 1985: p 93).

To Spinoza's related the concept or metaphysic of evil to that Plotinus which

acceptance of infinite attribute of God by Spinoza's defend his notion" neither that there are

not such things as sin or evil or God that brings about that sin and the evil. we know how

passions are produced in the human psyche, we could never attribute them to God (Spinoza's,

1952, prop. 8 note 2, p 5). God has not passion, human actions neither make God happy nor

angry because happiness band anger are passions and not attributed to the nature of God.

Accordingly, our knowledge of evil is reliance on inadequate ideas. He argued that

our knowledge of evil is inadequate because is pain itself in so far we are conscious itself

because human being are lesser perfect and subjective state of existence ,our knowledge is on

evil is typically lay on the ideas, only reason is capable of producing adequate ideas therefore

individual have not conception of evil (Spinoza's, 19970 :prop 1857) Spinoza's identified two
20
kind of people, free and slave, the free is motivated with reason while the slave is controlled

by emotion.

The ideas or notion of evil is created by human beings and exist only in relation to

various other state of existence, some time we compare the state prevent us from to be less

perfect than others. Less state prevents us from greater good and we perceive evil. the good

things the denied us from the achieving greater good is in truth an evil. on the Spinoza's

conception of evil on the perfect and single substance do not give room to objective of evil in

the world therefore the all of the entity is multiple modification of the attributes of substance

(God). According Spinoza's philosophy "we could be either an attribute or a mode of attribute

"since substance is perfect therefore inclusion of evil in the world is impossible. Spinoza

viewed problem of evil in this world as relativity and intellectuality property.

3.3 DEFINITION AND EXPLAINATION OF GOOD AND PERFECTION

According to Wikipedia definition and explanation of the concept good, good is

generally considered to be the opposite of evil and is of either morality, philosophy, and

religion, the specific meaning and etymology of the term. the concept of good denote the

denote the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible

actions. According to Aristole, good is telos, a goal or end that entity in question seek to

achieve by performing the functions specifically appropriate to the sort or of thing it is. For

instance: human beings are capable of taking a nutrient and growing. Good human cannot lie

they prefer exercise of these functions, because plants and animals are engaged on them as

[Link] Aristotle good is every good human lie in the full development of reason.

According to Spinoza concept of the good, he points out that good development of

rationality is good. Spinoza say "not because it is the completion of our nature is always

complete but rather because it increases our conatus, the power to prove in our good. Spinoza

attempt to prove by first stating that subjective do not share attribute or essence and by then

21
demonstrating the God is " substance "with definite number of attributes, this is attribute

possessed by any other sustenance must also be possessed by. Spinoza equate reality and

perfection: something is said to have a greater degree of perfection when it is moral real.

Aristotle defined good that every entity has a completion of its natures.

3.4 GOOD AND PERFECTION

Many scholars, philosophers and religion people try to describe on the concept of

good and perfection, Spinoza as the seventeen century philosopher was not in exception in

sharing ideas of the good and perfection although he view was totally differ from the

conventional ideas or notion of the concepts of good and evil .according Spinoza on his

notion of good and perfection, Spinoza metaphysic or moral philosophy is that "our

perception can be measured by the existent of our involvement with scientia intuitivia of

God, Spinoza claims that good is what increase our essential power and what help us to

satisfy our desires, Spinoza on the ideas of good and desire, to him desires -satisfaction

theory of the good ,thought on unusual one since our good is only determined by desires into

started by Socrates which later forward by Plato. Spinoza treat perfection as whatever is

"positive or real" in a thing, a genuine property, and this concept form part of his formal

apparatus. Spinoza invokes a conception of perfection based upon a mode of human nature

that we set before ourselves, he went furthered to described perfection as human mind in

terms of its power of thinking.

Spinoza who adopted pattern of Aristotle of treatment of good say "the purpose of

moral philosophy is to help people to achieve happiness, and happiness lies on the

development of reason" Spinoza do not accept the notion of the Aristotle on the natural of

happiness and the perfection of human nature or good, to Spinoza "anything in nature, reality

as whole lacks perfection or fulfillment. Spinoza on his moral philosophy is more specifically

on the concept of good, bad, perfect or imperfect do not apply to thing as they are in

themselves, for instance "the venom of a snake is bad for me, but good for the snake bite me,
22
the house that conform to my ideas of what a house should that be a perfect house ,but it is an

imperfect one for you who have different ideas in mind.

Spinoza, since everything’s that exist has it cause in the power of God, nothing in the

universe is lacking in something is more less perfect, more less good than good than anything

else that has been. To Spinoza good, bad, perfect or imperfect are not in existence or reality

rather they are mode of thinking of assessing things. Spinoza ideas on the good and

perfection who say "being reason", they are concept that introduce in order to evaluate by

other entities and processes to the advance of our interest, Spinoza to away from the

ontological which one is superior to other such as living being, nonliving being one's man to

animals and gave radically different meaning to the notion of the highest good. Spinoza

advised that the truth human good resided in a life guided by rationality, evil is thus anything

that hindrance our living like guided by reason.

3.5 EVIL AND IMPERFECTION

For Spinoza, God whose existence is necessary and infinite must be perfect.

Imperfection is not component of its existence; imperfection is a quality of finite beings, to

Spinoza urges for existence of God through its perfection. Spinoza on the light of his notion

evil and imperfection. asserted that" in the metaphysic that existence of a single as a concrete

ground of all things, this single is pointed to be God which defined as a thing conceive

through itself, he is described to be something exists in and of itself independent and

conception of anything else for its existence. Spinoza pantheistic ideas do not accommodate

the concept of evil and perfection, to him affirmation of the real existence of evil and

imperfection would become a clear negation of God perfection and the denial of Spinoza

monistic -pantheistic. Spinoza believes good and perfection is not product by God then evil

would necessary be a really different from the and separate to God, Spinoza "God whose

existence is necessary and infinite must be perfect. Imperfection is not component of its

existence, imperfection is a quality of infinite beings.

23
 God perfection gives all thing existence as well as essence (Spinoza 2985, p 87)

Spinoza addressed the problem of evil and sin, he holds the view that evil and sinning are

nothing but intellectual properties, there is not sin or evil in the world "whatever we call it

evil is evil only for us therefore good and evil should disgrace as being of reason or real

being.

3.6 NATURE OF GOOD AND EVIL

The seventeen century Dutch philosopher Baruch held several views that his

contemporary found heretical, his beliefs about the nature of good and evil among them.

According Spinoza, that "nothing at all either good and evil, from the perspective of God or

natural setting or world. Spinoza continue is both a non-political and a non-moral sphere," the

state of nation, must be conceived as without either religion or law, and consequently without

or wrong, instead, he argues, good and evil are merely words that human employed to label

thing we find pleasure or unpleasant, desirable or undesirable. Spinoza is not highest about

good and evil rather a kind of reductionist relationist nature of good and evil. He pointed that

those things that consist benefit or hinder our advancement toward that good are rightly good

or evil for us. Human beings have a real and fixed nature determined. Spinoza though on

good and evil must best to understand as an extension of his denial of teleology in [Link]

the conclusion the natural and the denial goodness of God. Spinoza a pined that good and

evil, for instance, for one and the same thing can be good and (evil) also indifferent for music

is good for methanoyl (evil) to one who is mourning, and neither good nor (evil to one who is

deaf. Spinoza urges that people to desire and do thing in a way different from what they

desire and do already. According to Spinoza "'designation of a thing as good from a person

'conatus state, for instance Martha is averse to music and therefore she calls it evil, should the

music become good to another person perhaps it would not be because the music has changed

but because the persons conatus state is different: she desires the music. Spinoza wrote that "

each one from his own affects judge, evaluate, what is good and what is evil, so the agreed

24
man judges an abundance of the money best and poverty worst. Ambition man desires

nothing so much as esteem and deals nothing so much as shame and by evil, every kind

sadness and especially what frustrate longing. Spinoza commented that human being desire

whatever will bring joy and the averse to whatever will bring joy and are averse to whatever

will lead to sadness. Good and evil teach us nothing understanding things in term of good

actually teaches us about the world (thus, it is practicality.

According Spinoza ,good and evil is used for compare things ,but compare what to

what ,he suggested by given the analogy of the music can be good for melancholy ,bad for

the mourner, and either to the deaf person, thus simply mean our concept of good and evil

what compare something - the effects of music (Spinoza ,ethic p4).the conception of good

and evil is largely result from a mistake belief that the universe was created for us ,were we

are to realise the truth, that the universe lack purpose and ,so our good could not be it purpose

and he suggested the concept of goodness and evil should be correspond to any reality

independent of us, but only reflects desires and needs infect Spinoza thought conception of

goodness and evil is rooted from the denial of his teleology in nature.

3.7 EVIL AND ITS DEMERIT

Spinoza believe that human misery and suffering, our tensions and contention are due

to our lack of self- understanding, failure to achieve adequate ideas, according to Spinoza,

suffering and evil result from the having inadequate ideas, he maintains that "our mind act at

times and at times suffer in so far as has inadequate ideas, it necessary suffer (Connor (202).

Spinoza described evil as anything that hindrance our living like guided by reason, evil brings

irrationality in human judgement against rationality or reasons.

3.8 INADEQUATE IDEAS /KNOWLEDGE OF EVIL

The definition of an ideas that Spinoza give is" a concept of the mind which the mind

forms because it is a thinking. Adequate ideas in particular is define as an ideas which in so

25
far without relation to an object ,has all the properties is considered itself.(10 in P64 iv,

Spinoza say the knowledge of evil is adequate knowledge for instance, inadequate of the

ideas or knowledge of evil "since sorrow is passion resting on the inadequate ideas therefore

the knowledge of sorrow "(ke) is adequate, Spinoza of prove of evil is constitute adequate of

knowledge of the second kind , that the greatest evil of the mind is ignorance of God ,

Spinoza was criticized because of notion , consciousness of sorrow and sorrowful does not

depend on having inadequate of ideas. According Spinoza, if man is born free, they would

form not concept of good and evil as long as they remained free, they would only adequate

ideas hence not concept of good and evil either and therefore not knowledge of good and evil

whatever.

3.9 GOOD AND IT CAUSES

According to Spinoza, our ordinary conceptions of good and, order and disorder,

beauty and ugliness -and indeed, any conception of these things -cannot survive the

abonnement of final causes. To Spinoza on good and its causes. The effect of the good is that

everything ultimately follows God and that sadness is the person passage from the greater

degree of perfection to a lesser one. Spinoza say "God as perfect and not the cause of sadness

therefore perfect or good cannot feel the effect of sadness ,that is say is eternally active being

which is equivalent to nature ,he say understand God as being at the highest degree of

reality ,he is eternal active, immutable for God to ship into lesser degree of perfection

because he is permanently unchanging, limitless .if God were able to pass from differing

degree of reality ,it would necessarily disrupt his nature .if God were change ,if would affect

the natural order .since as nature ,God maintaining the existence of all things physical .if God

were able to slip into lesser degree of reality or feel sadness or evil ,if follow that nature

would necessary change since his change here would have to be a making effect in the natural

order since is coherent and equivalent to it.

26
3.10 EVIL AND CAUSES

To Spinoza good and evil are rooted from the emotional affection, artifacts of limited

human perspective, which is overcome in the absolute comprehension of God nature

(coniform cited Spinoza). Spinoza establishing the doctrine that human being desires

whatever will bring joy and are averse to whatever will lead to sadness, Spinoza cited by

Marshall “our true evil whatever hinders from living guided by reason. Spinoza highlighted

the effect of the evil by stated that " is the Constance to real evil are ignorance, superstition

and irrationality and Spinoza go furthered to discuss the causes of human ignorance’s and

irrationality: human being by nature is passive by effect of fears, hatred, excessive like which

involve some of ignorance which hinder one way be rational.

Spinoza explanation of the evil and the causes, he says "after men persuaded these’ve

that everything that happen, happen on their account, they had to judge that what is most

important is each thing is what is most useful to them and rate are excellence all those things

but which they were most please. Spinoza give analogy of the evil by " blindness with which

natural phenomenon occur result in events we call good and evil. he attributed the evil and its

causes as result of willful ignorance and fear of human beings.

3.11 DETERMINED GOOD AND EVIL

What determined good and evil is merely our construct words that human being

employs to label thing and find pleasure or unpleasant ,desirable or undesirable .determined

good and evil for Spinoza’s notion ,he say that knowledge that something is useful to us or

contribute to the preservation of our being ,or increases our perfection, or is a mean by which

we may come nearer to the model of human nature we sent before us-depending on the

Spinoza knowledge of evil p1) Spinoza contends that the highest good of the mind is the

knowledge of God ,yet he cannot really mean that the knowledge of God is good simply

because it us conducive to something else it is truth that verbally, he would say that is good

27
because it is conducive to an increase in one's perfection ,the real point of Spinoza here is

that "knowledge is of Goof determined good and perfect is to have understanding and

knowledge of his second and third kind nothing else to which these are only mean ,thus he is

asserting, in effect, that such understanding and knowledge are good as ends. Spinoza make

emotional words" judge or estimate what is good and evil, thus the covetous man like plenty

of money to be best thing and poverty the worst.

Spinoza what determined good and evil is by one's affects or by the affect dominance

in one ,at the time .Spinoza believes that affect like ambition or envy can determined ,but

only what we find joy and sorrow in, but also our perception as conducive to our perfection,

Spinoza pointed out that balancing joy in a thing with a kind of perception of it

conduciveness one's perception .he might well think that one's perception of this is affected

in this way especially of those of passion. To Spinoza good and evil is determined by passion,

affect, he rightly says " one Abd the same thing may at the same time be good and evil or

indifferent for instance, music is good for melancholy person, bad for a mourning, while to a

deaf man is neither good nor bad. Spinoza asserted that good and evil is relational not a

relativist. Spinoza say good is the approach nearer and nearer to the mow of human nature we

set before us " this connote good is not relative individual, though it is relative to the speakers

Spinoza objectivist about good the judgements himself makes in the ethics even though is

remained a relationist throughout in his concept of good and evil.

28
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.1 UTILITARIANISM IN SPINOZA'S GOOD AND EVIL

The utilitarianism in Spinoza good and evil can be seen clearly in our judgement of

good and evil. This can be observable on the how advantageous things are to us, it is well to

know it can sometime be advantageous to bind oneself to an exceptionalness rules of

individuals case allow to oneself to assess the merits of individuals case man by nature

desires good and naturally has given evil, he now passes judgement to both good and evil in

the accordance to hoe good and evil benefit him. Good as it were as it were serves man better,

it itself height helpful and leads man to attaining however evil on the other hand serve him

not but hinders, falters, alters and presents man from man reality the good.

This utility here lies on how man gain from thing that befit him, Spinoza say

something good because we desire it, as human being tend to remove toward the

advantageous side and reject disadvantage side

Utilitarianism is focused on the good and evil universally, and good every individual

action is measure by this, this pleasure of the individual does not weight more than that of

other, for Spinoza’s however this is not the case, it is one's own individual being which must

be preserved. Spinoza conception of utility was more metaphysical or epistemological

utilitarian, than the ethnical form of it. Social or natural perfection and these perfections when

we specifying them as value, do not depend up the perfection of our intellect.

Spinoza believe red that the best life for human being is the intellectual life and he

follows the scholastic philosophers in believing that the good for good is knowledge of God

and the mind, to him mind is the highest virtue to know God, and the one of all philosophical

literature (v)make it clear that "loveliest.

29
 Spinoza believe that " to perfect the intellect or reason as much as we can, and in

consist of man's highest happiness or blessedness in fact blessedness is nothing but the peace

of soul which come from the intuitive knowledge of God. Spinoza’s can be described to be

utilitarian and hedonist because his criteria for utility is the extent to which the question is

conducive laetrile (which is not directly evil but good, the word laetrile (joy) but Spinoza’s

interpreted it to be pleasure.

Spinoza viewed that perfection and imperfection are simply mode of thinking,

notions, in the way of good and evil. Notion of utilitarianism because he focused on good and

bad of universally. Spinoza’s also associated utility with the extent which the thing in

question is conducive to joy, he associated joy with increasing perfection or realization,

Spinoza’s association of utility with joy is not unrelated to his association of utility with

man's basic strong.

According to Spinoza on the utilitarianism, good and evil are relative and nor evil in

the universe nor is necessary, our knowledge about thing is incomplete in spite of this, we

want that everything should be according to demand of our action ,and when it happen

otherwise it look to be bad what appears to our intellect to be evil is not so according to

natural law's :struggle is good and that tending to block the struggle is good and that tending

to block the struggle is bad. According to him, an act can be good and bad the same time and

be devoid of the both as well. And Spinoza concluded that "good and evil, piety and guilt are

prejudices and cannot be recognized as fundamental truth.

4.2 SUBJECTIVENESS OF GOOD AND BAD

Spinoza, is to lie accordingly reason, and to the according to reason good, a practical

instance is seeing in man as a social and political being who lives in an or in society whereby

he interacts and socialize with each other. Spinoza on the good and evil are not on the base of

30
common use but on the basic of individual idiosyncrasies, the observe truth is that good is

what is benefitable to man and as well what is advantageous to man.

Spinoza's in his notion that good and evil are subjective not objective to point out

good and evil are not in reality.

Spinoza's naturalism identifies good and evil with subjective sources which for

instance "subjective judgment based on what a person like or does like, to him since good and

evil are ethically construct with normative power similar to the concept of human nature.

According to Spinoza’s is concern with the subjective nature of good and evil “for

one never says that something is good except that is not so good, or not useful to us as

something else, so one says that a man is bad only in the respect to one who is better or that

an apple (Spinoza’s 1985:92)

As the human being finite mode makes value judgement and preserve something as

good or bad therefore these will not be something’s objective but only in though or

subjective. Spinoza’s rightly says "all things which exist in nature either thing nor actions,

therefore good and evil are either thing nor actions, therefore good and evil do not exist in

nature" (Spinoza 1985: p. 93). This explains that good and evil is neither universal nor

objective, it is subjective and immanent or subjective to individual thinking about evil as

something in the world, outside the human mind, is rather not possible, it is subjective value,

which is conclusion is that "neither a being nor a non-being.

Spinoza's also view that the principle of good and evil is subjective and relational,

Spinoza’s tell us that " goodness" and " evil" indicate nothing positive in thing, he says

goodness and evil do not exist. Independently of human being and human judgement, to him

goodness and evil is determined by good rather by men.

31
4.3 SPINOZA 'S CONCEPT OF GOOD AND EVIL

Spinoza's stoic rationalism with acknowledgement of absolute moral standards is

incompatible with his biological naturalism which teaches the complete relativity of all good,

evil, virtue and vice, to the requirements of self-preservation".

Spinoza ethical relativism is rooted in the metaphysical of anthropologist like (wester

Mack and Herskovits). Spinoza’s tell us that after men had persuaded them that everything

that is made for them, and they judge as the most significant quality in a thing that which is

most useful to them .and they form of ideas of explaining the nature of thing, such as good or

pleasure, whatever is conducive to health and the worship of God they called good or

pleasure.

In Spinoza’s ethnical relativism "some men are melancholy, other are mourning, and

still other are deaf, what is good for one is necessary good for the other, and one thing can

simultaneously be good, bad and indifferent the point by Spinoza’s is related to be assert of

good and bad, pain and pleasure in indicated good and evil nothing positive in thing.

Consider in them. Spinoza’s on ethical relativism stated" that men needs or desires are

significantly different from one another and have different needs, what is good for one is not

necessarily good for another.

Spinoza ethical theory is basically egoistic the good for any particular person is what

useful to him and that is useful for him which is conducive to his joy and enable him to

persist in his being. Spinoza stayed that good which whoever pursuit virtue wishes for

himself is desired by him for other men.

Spinoza further say" whatever conducive to one community or society among men is

useful and whatever induces discord in the state is evil.

32
Prop 8 of part v, Spinoza’s "tell us that knowledge of good and evil as nothing other than

emotions of joy sorrow " in as much we are conscious of them. Spinoza ethical theory of

good and bad or pleasure and pain that call something good or evil when it enables us to

conserve our being or does the opposite, what increase acting.

33
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUMMARY

The controversy posed by the issues of good and has insolvably remained mysterious

despite the efforts of eminent thinkers of different histories, it is obviously that many thinkers

have in one way or they tried to reconcile the problem at stake, hitherto not effort is proved

itself writing of such reconciliations as a result, one may be tampered to pose this question

should be we continue to inquire into good and evil since it has proven main purpose of this

study is appraise Spinoza’s concept of good and evil, let us then make a conclusive appraisal

of it, as earlier stated, Spinoza defined good as that which we certainly know to be useful to

us, and evil as that which we certainly know to be useful to us and evil as that which we

certainly know to be a hindrance to us in the attainment of any good .evil in this perspective,

he conceived whatever things that is helpful as good and whatever that constitute hindrance

to a greater extent discomfort ,misery anguish, if each one were to consent to good ,bear in

mind that it useful and helpful to human race, there would not be evil in the world .instead so

far as, man continue to experience pain(evil in life, disorderness, and chaos must continue to

abide.

5.2 CONCLUSION

Some philosophers or thinkers enquire into good and evil; he maintained that

avoidance of evil paves way for better and perfect relationship in the world, he imagined the

world that is devoid of evil as the ultimate world where human beings from such Spinoza’s

conception of good and evil one can be meticulously go through the foot of morality.

Many by nature desire good and avail evil (man) does not remain at the bottom line of

life butt pushes furthered due to his insatiability. according Spinoza "man is not satisfied by

attaining the stage of truth, but look for a better and highest good, he thus asserted: the mind
34
highest good in the knowledge of good" the above question signifies the minds of highest

utility and good as God knowledge of God places before man a strong ethical and moral

guidance. From the onset, it is believed that to God tantamount to behaving well. For

Spinoza, to seek the highest good is to known God, and to know is the best way of life.

Hence, if all in the world can actively be involve in such or orientation of Spinoza

understanding of highest good, the world would have been a better place where the ideas of

God rules. nevertheless, when the human minds fail to rise and scale over the different facing

him, he remained at the bottom line and evil cannot but abide in the world.

Moreover, Samuel Enoch stated (such knowledge of God leads: one to happiness, as

far as man remain in the bondages of passions, knowledge of God account for his liberation

from bondage. he furthered said "we are enslaved by passions when our desires are attached

to perishable things and when we do not fully understand our feelings, the more

understanding our feelings, the lesser excessive will be our appetites and desires. above all

the fact that " we are always enslaved whatever we lack knowledge. However, when

knowledge surfaces, pleasure which is accomplish by the ideas of God as causes arises, there

is liberation from passive emotion to active feeling. furthered, Spinoza say" anything can

accidentally be the cause of pleasure ,pain or desire ,it depend on one's psychophysical

condition ,which at any given time causes pleasure is pain or desires ,whatever that brings

about pleasure at any given time good and whatever that brings about pain is evil .in human

beings it is human feeling that distinguished on whether one good to be good (pleasure)or

evil(pain) as such ,it is should be clear that there is no place for moral judgement. Hence, we

are free to determine freely our judgement of good and evil. the true choice of judgement of

good and evil, expose man to be stake reality of treating others, as one would like them treat

us ,for one to knows somethings as good and another as evil "implies that there are certain

things to be done if man can be able to grasp or know what good and carry it out for own

preservation ,one could be able to preserve other people life by according them equal right of

[Link] addition ,avoiding evil for oneself removes not only the hindrance to the preservation
35
of life but encourages it(life).according to Spinoza, to preserve life means attainment of good

and absence of evil.

Furthermore, the subjective of Spinoza’s concept of good and evil could be heady

encountered in as much as each person has the impetus to judge good and evil the way one

wants. note that what is good for one at a given time could be evil for another at the same

time, what pleases one at times can also displeases one at another for instance, dancing at a

given time, may be a source of pleasure to one who is excited and can likewise be a source of

pain to someone in anxiety .in other hand, certain thing when done, remain good and evil

respectively. There is no doubt that one does good when one lends a helping hand to be needy

and evil when one maliciously maltreats one neighbor. To Spinoza, if good is properly

observed, make away for people in the society when man finds himself but evil on its own

negative aspect hinders the progress of am in his social life with one another.

In the society of man today, any behavior that launches an attack on the morality of

man is seen as evil. Hence, it is not only in the Spinoza view that man in his relationship with

another way round hinders man progress in this world.

Above all, Spinoza has made a tremendous effort to resolves the problem of good and

evil. The general conception of his good please man while evil displeases him. Man, as far

history is concerned has never hankered for pain but has great aversion for evil .it is in nature

of man to yean and quest for good.

A virtuous man who knows that a tamper with his life does not please him is bound to

promote another people life. An attempt to do away with other people lives make who

follows after virtue, desires for him, he will also desire for other men and so knowledge of

God. A virtuous man seeks for the good of others in the same proportion with himself, for

him to help oneself is to help [Link] is at this juncture that give a greater applause and

appraisal to Spinoza, to do to other what one would like others to do to one is a greater

36
measure to morality, it check on evil and advocate for good or perfection, imagine how the

world would be unified or united when this styles of life is achieved or attained.

5.3 RECOMMENDATION

The deeper knowledge and adequate of the concept of good come from the ultimate creator of

the universe while the concept of the evil should totally put off from the world.

The universe or human beings to have good and perfection and avails evils and follow the

mode of natural laws (God) we must follow the mode of the nature.

37
WORKS CITED

Allan, Leslie. The Problem of Evil: Exploring the Rational Approach to Knowledge and Life

(2015). Pp. 2-22. Accessed at: [Link]

sics/problem -[Link] Calder,

Todd. 2018. “The Concept of Evil.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited

by Edward Zalta (2018). p. 2. Available at: [Link]

es/entries/Calder/>

Garrett, Don. "The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza." Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love. Palgrave Macmillan, 1966.

Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. 1779.

Marshall, Eugene. Baruch Spinoza on Evil. Available at [Link]. Assessed

on 14/December, 2023.

Nadler, Steven. "Spinoza's Ethics: An Introduction." Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Harper & Row, 1974.

Robert, Elwes, Works of Spinoza, Vol. 11, p.205. Dover Publications, New York. (1951).

Print.

Spinoza, Benedictus de. "Ethics." Translated by Edwin Curley, Penguin Classics, 1996.

Alizamani, A, Sadahashemi, F. (2014) August theory of evil and its critique from ibn Sina'n

Perspecting B-quarty Journal Hackmay Sinan, year 19, no2.

Alvin Plantinga "Suparlan paganism, orb'O Felix culpa, the Christian faith and the problem of

evil ed. Peter van in way (gans rapids, m l :(erdm)200<)l-2 1bid;7. [Link]

38
Anscombo G. E. M. (1958) Mordern moral philosophy ,33(124),1-19 https //www

.pi//.ed/M//ho mpso l reading /m [Link].

Aristotle (1996) The Nicomchean Ethic', p.58 word with edition)

Brood (D)1993) Leibnizb, Greatbbritish, oxford university, press.

Calder, Todd "the concept of evil " the Standford Encyclepodia of philosophy (fal 2018

edition)

Calder, Todd. “The Concept of Evil.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by

Edward N. Zalta. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2013.

Calder’s entry on “The Concept of Evil” (especially sections 1 and 2) in the Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) offers a quick summary introduction to the notion

of evil as a religious concept.

Cole, Phillip. The Myth of Evil: Demonizing the Enemy. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2006. DOI:

10.3366/edinburgh/9780748622009.001.0001

Edwardbard [Link] (ed.) URL Allison, Henry Kant's theory of freedom Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Formosa, Paul. “The Problems with Evil.” Contemporary Political Theory 7 (2008): 395–

(Hick philosophy. 1966) May 29,2021, on the Philosophy of John Hick.

God, evil and redeeming God, A Thomist to theodicy, Paula MacDonald jr._2023-Routledge.

p. recap.410c,31 november5. Page Tim 92c.31 note 6

Grimm, Stephen. Kant's argument to radical evils "European Journal of Philosophy

10,2(2002) evil :160-77.

39
Hossenisaanadas A, Rajab Nez ad Perspecting of Leibniz and Swinebur, theodicy of divine

Justice, Meta ethic journal 3, no4.

Hume, D., principle enquire concerning human understanding and concerning the principle of

morsel (ed) Selby-bigger L A., Rev. PH. NlddHel (Oxford: clarendon

press,1975/177)cross Rel google school abbreviated EHU in the text.

Introduction in the area of unprecedented social complex, democracy. Al- power essay

generation: writ flawlessly and instant (11) author 24.

Menderlism Micheal (12 November, 2010) (24 march 200)" satin Augustine" Act or

disputation against fortunate the Mancha, Augustine of hippo, Ch ××11

Tooly, Micheal (21 august 2009) (16 September 200)"problem of evil". Standford

encyclopedia of philosophy retrieved 8 February 2012.

Aristole (1995) categories, In J. Banes, (Ed. compile work of Aristotle (vol.1) Princeton and

new Jersey. Princeton university press.

Benedict de Spinoza, Ethic, Transs Edwin curly, Jaspher, Karmal, the great philosopher

Spinoza, edited by Hannah Arend translated by Raph Manheism York Hurke books

1996.

Boston march 2011, Spinoza on the right way line by Gar Zebel is silenced under a creative

common.

Curvely E.M (1969) Spinoza metaphysic an essay interpretation. land, Oxford: Deleuze

9(1988)

Mathew J. Kishner Spinoza, Quise of the getting to the bottom of 3p9.

Spinoza, B. (1985) Short treaties on God. God and his wellbeing (edited and translated

(collected work of Spinoza (pp.46-156). Princeton university press.

40
Spinoza: practical philosophy (translated by hurly) San Francisco .CA: city light books.

Spinoza 29,'B,ll70)-ethic(translated by Andrew Boyle .introduction by TS

Gregory).land ,new York even man library (reprinted).

Spinoza B. (2002) Compile work Translated by same shelty, educate with introduction and

note by Michavle morgan ). Indianpolis (Cambrige): Hackket publish co. (Reprinted)

B Ehm. (2014) Kant's of Spinoza New York Oxford University Press.

Curly, E. M. "Spinoza’s moral philosophy" Spinoza’s: A collection of critical essay, ed

Marjorcrene (garden city, N.Y; An Booka ,1973, p,354.

Gluchman, V. (1997) Spinoza's "God Good in: U-Nembach. H R Usterbholz and P. M.

Hobner-M (2015) Spinoza's on Human's and Human perfection in. u m). Kianer S. A. Yonpa

(eds) Essay on Spinoza's ethical theory.

Joachin, H. H. A study of the ethics Spinoza’s (Oxford Claren press 8, Hamphire, Op Cit

p195. 4 David Bideney the psychology and ethic of Spinoza’s, A study in the history

and logic of ideas " New York: Russell, 1962 (1940): p. 317. The Italic are Bidney's.

Spinoza B (2002a): Ethic in: B. Spinoza: Computers Work Ed. ML Morgan. Trans Shirly.

Indianapolis and Cambridge Hackett [Link].212-383.

Spinoza, B (1970) ethic (Translated by Andrew Boyle Wolfson, H. A (1962). The philosophy

of Spinoza's (Vols 1&2) Massachusett, Lands, Harvard university press(reprinted).

Allison, H. benedict de Spinoza, New Heaven "Yale University Press, 1987.

Austyn, W. 'The Philosophy of Spinoza, unfolding the latent process of his reasoning, New

York: Shockean publication 1969.

41
Garrert, D. The Cambridge companion to Spinoza, United state of American, 1996.

Cambridge Press.

Inah, O, A theses on the problem of evil, BIgard 'memorial Seminary, Enugu 1981.

42