MIDTERM ESSAYS E
#1
In Book V of Dostoevsky?s The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan reveals to Alyosha that his major dilemma in accepting a Christian view of God is the disharmony and injustice present in the world. He argues that even if God exists, He cannot possibly be all-good or all-loving because He allows innocent children to suffer. Ivan asserts that it would be just for sinful men to suffer in this world so as to attain eternal harmony, but it is irrational for innocent humans to suffer as well. Moreover, God allows disproportional amounts of suffering to afflict equally guilty men. Ivan struggles with the seeming reality that God limits His justice and goodness to the afterlife, and it is this disharmony that is Ivan?s central problem with Christianity.
An interesting characteristic of Ivan?s argument is that it contradicts his belief that man?s ?Euclidean brain? and limited faculties of reasoning are incapable of fully comprehending God and His ways. Ivan explicitly expresses this belief to Alyosha in the beginning of their dinner discussion when he explains, ?...I?m not properly equipped to deal with matters that are not of this world...all such problems are quite unsuitable for a mind created to conceive only three dimensions? (312). Therefore, he claims to accept God because he is unable to determine whether or not He exists, but he does not accept the ?God-created world,? which he suggests is within his realm of understanding. However, God?s presence and how He works in the world are still concepts that are ?not of this world.? It is problematic for Ivan to judge God?s ways- whether in the world or beyond the world- based on his limited human reason. Ivan completely disregards the possibility that, although man cannot fully understand it, God can both allow suffering in the world and be omnibenevolent. Ultimately, Ivan?s failure to reconcile with ?the problem of evil? stems from his problematic approach to religion in general; he seeks faith based on understanding rather than seeking understand based on faith. [excellent argument!]
Aside from the above critique of Ivan?s argument, one can explore the problem of evil from a non-faith-based perspective through Epictetus? stoicism in The Art of Living. First, Epictetus divides human reality into two spheres: the controllable and the uncontrollable. He argues that every man, regardless of his lot in life, can achieve happiness by training the mind to respond appropriately to the uncontrollable factors and by aligning the controllable factors with the harmony of nature. Therefore, while Ivan views men as having unequal levels of happiness and suffering, Epictetus views men as having equal abilities to achieve harmony in this world. If a man experiences poverty, oppression, or slander from an evil person, Epictetus believes they are only causes of suffering if man perceives them as such. He argues that if a person develops new attitudes and reactions to the uncontrollable elements of life and disregards social standards, he can focus on living virtuously and aligning his life with the harmony of nature. From this perspective, Ivan could view God as just and good because He created every man with the ability to be happy, and human suffering is only their choice.
#2
The ultimate problem that confronts Ivan, and that he cannot reconcile with the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient, loving God, is the problem of evil in the world. His argument has several parts. The first element of his argument is that there either cannot be a God, or if there is a God he must be cruel because in the world, innocent children are allowed to suffer. Ivan asks: how can the idea of justice be compatible with suffering by those who have committed no crime? In Ivan?s story, ?The Grand Inquisitor,? he elaborates considerably on his argument. Basically, Ivan rejects the idea that people are better off with free will because the burden that having such freedom puts upon the individual is too much for anyone to bear; he accuses God of making the human condition something of a sick joke where people are doomed to collapse under the weight of responsibility that they cannot bear. Ivan argues that it would be far better to have security, and not freedom, in this world than the opposite. An extension of this idea of Ivan?s is that if there is no God, than there is no moral obligation. Since there is obviously moral freedom, the limiting factor on the freedom is that it comes with responsibility. But, if there is no God, than that supposed responsibility is simply imagined. Thus, with no God, there is unlimited moral freedom and no responsibility at all, and man?s actions have no moral limits. This is ultimately the argument of his which brings about Ivan?s suffering.
There are several significant problems with Ivan?s approach. The first major problem is with his idea that if children are suffering in the world, then there must either be an unjust God, or there must be no God. Zosima?s worldview creates a very compelling objection to this idea, and in the book we see Alyosha has to deal with a situation involving the suffering of children. Basically, Zosima?s objection asks why should God micromanage the details of human life? God gave man freedom so that he could choose to live his worldly life however he wanted (but would CHOOSE to follow God); freedom to think and act in different ways is a defining characteristic of humanity. This freedom, however, necessitates the ability for people to do things that are contrary to God?s will. For this reason, there can be a just God and simultaneously unjust things that happen in the world; those unjust things are done by people who have the freedom to do them, a freedom given them because it is ultimately a better ?good? than the evil committed by that freedom.
From this objection to Ivan?s argument comes another of Ivan?s objections: moral freedom is too great a burden to bear. This objection is one that comes right out of Ivan?s own personal despair, but logically makes very little sense. What would a human be without the ability to make choices? A person forced to live in a world with security but no physical choices as Ivan suggests the church is trying to accomplish still even has choices. That person retains the ultimate choice of whether or not to accept God in his/her own heart. It seems that what Ivan is asking for is that God had given people no moral choices at all. If that had been the case, however, there would be only two possibilities. The first is that people would continue doing both good and evil things unknowingly, like animals do. The second case is that people would simply not make choices and would be like inanimate objects. If God wanted to make human kind in ?His own image? He clearly would not have done either of those things. People simply are not people if they do not have freedom of choice. [good!]
With the third claim of Ivan?s, though, I think there is very little room for objection; he claims that without God, there is no limit to human moral freedom and all things are permitted. Now, this point makes a great deal of sense from the perspective Ivan was looking at it from, but not necessarily from a Christian standpoint. His claim does not suggest there would be no attempts to regulate behavior: Of course, governments and the like are likely to enforce some sort of law and order for the sake of maintaining the peace, but there is no compelling reason to break these rules if one can and has reason to if there is no God. From the Christian standpoint, ultimately, people have consciences which reign in on their behavior, but these consciences are from God. Also, from a Christian perspective, or really any religious perspective at all, if there is no God, there are no humans, so the question is somewhat unimportant. However, if the situation existed that there were people, but no God, and people had no consciences then there really would be no limit to human moral freedom. Why, then, do atheists have limits on their behavior today? Of course, many atheists still have a conception of virtue. However, from the Christian perspective, even though a person rejects God, that does not mean that person is not still endowed with human nature which includes knowledge of right from wrong, so it could be argued that atheists have a conception of virtue from God even if they explicitly reject God. Ivan?s point is legitimate, though, given the aforementioned qualifications.
It is worth discussing how Antony addressed the very same problem of evil in the world, since the numerous instances of Antony?s encounters with demons invite comparison to Ivan?s experience with them. Antony?s approach to this dilemma was to make the assumption that the root of evil in the world was from within the individual; sin is the reason why people are not perfect and explains the existence of evil in the world. Original sin means that people are born with a propensity for harming one another and that our separation from God (not His putting too high of expectations on them) is what makes us miserable. His response was to take to the desert and systematically purge himself of his sins by cutting his ties to all those things which distracted him from the eternal. In addition to Antony attempting to slowly purge himself of sin by training himself to not be tempted by worldly things, he also combated the problem of evil through prayer. Antony reasoned that it is only with God?s help that anyone could be successful in dealing with their moral responsibility. I think that Antony would agree with Ivan on that particular point: the moral responsibility on mankind is more than a person can bear without help. Antony?s approach differs from Ivan?s there in that Ivan simply sinks in to despair while Antony went to God in supplication asking for help in carrying his moral burden. Overall, then, it seems that Antony?s approach to the problem of evil in the world is productive and practical while Ivan?s approach simply leads to despair and disaster.
#3
No character in The Brothers Karamazov is more afflicted with inner conflict
than Ivan. Ivan has a logical mind and demands a rational explanation for
everything that happens in the universe. As a result of his inability to
reconcile the idea of unjust suffering with the idea of a loving God, Ivan is
plagued by religious doubt. His forceful arguments about God`s cruelty toward
mankind are compelling, but in the end, the novel`s optimistic ending proves
that humankind is more creditable than Ivan thinks. Ivan finds a problem in the
idea of free will because he thinks that people are not strong enough to make
the sacrifices to be faithful to the hardships of religion. The Grand
Inquisitor story in Book V explores Christ`s biblical rejection of the
temptations offered to him by Satan and concludes that Christ was wrong to have
rejected them, since his rejection won free will for humanity, but took away
security. Ivan concludes that the root of the world`s disharmony is the burden
of free will on mankind and the responsibility of moral choices. Ivan thinks
that most people are damned to a life of unhappiness and suffering because
humankind is not strong enough to make the right choice between good and evil.
Aside from being a very pessimistic outlook, Ivan`s argument does not explain
altruistic behavior and a life of goodness. Not everything in our world is
horrible. Saint Francis for example chose to find beauty in everything on
earth. Even in the ugliness of lepers, Saint Francis, similar to Zosima found
God`s love and chose to embrace it. If Ivan were to sit down and have a conversation with Epictetus to resolve this inner conflict, Epictetus would have given Ivan a very different outlook that was not even taken into account in the novel. Epictetus would have advised Ivan to look at the conflicts in the world as something that he has no control over. To live a life of happiness, Epictetus would have told Ivan to separate the things that Ivan could directly control and the things that he cannot control. It is necessary according to Epictetus to only take responsibility for the things
that you have direct control over. Epictetus believes that you alone have the
power to make yourself happy by choosing how you react to outside forces. In
this case, Ivan would have to look at the injustice of the world and decide how
to react to it in order to make himself happy.
