Some of the more esoteric franchises of theism try to get round this by creating a distinction between 'moral evil' and 'natural evil'. For example, willful sinning (theft, adultery, murder, perjury, and so forth) are moral evils, because humans have the option to not engage in this behaviour. When, on the other hand, your village of fisherfolk is buried in a mudslide, this is a natural evil, which means it was going to happen irrespective of human choice.
This has always struck me as pretty ad hoc. If natural evils don't violate free will, then why do preachers of all stripes consign earthquakes, mudslides, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and the like to 'God's will' or 'God's plan'? If God plans for me to get struck by lightning, and God is the causative agent of moral law, then - not only is my free will violated - but the so called 'natural evil' immediately becomes 'moral evil'. There is no effective difference between the two.
Boru
This has always struck me as pretty ad hoc. If natural evils don't violate free will, then why do preachers of all stripes consign earthquakes, mudslides, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and the like to 'God's will' or 'God's plan'? If God plans for me to get struck by lightning, and God is the causative agent of moral law, then - not only is my free will violated - but the so called 'natural evil' immediately becomes 'moral evil'. There is no effective difference between the two.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
