Did Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) provide a waterproof answer to problem of evil? No, he didn’t. He got it right in part, but failed to answer the complete question.
In his essay “Two fundamental problems in ethics” (1843), Schopenhauer rated evil and suffering as natural, that is, as the predictable outcome of the unimpeded will (“life force”). Only when humans beings take action, they can avert the negative influence of the will and counteract evil.
Schopenhauer based his analysis of evil on his theory of the will. He built his logic on the assumption that the will (a wild, irrational, cosmic force) can take control of humans, and drive them to engage in exploitation, victimization, and abuses.
However, there is a problem with Schopenhauer’s reasoning on the problem of evil. His logical chain is flawed because it is jumping from the will (a cosmic force) to humans; he blames a force of nature for evil, as though humans were puppets.
The root of Schopenhauer’s error on the problem of evil
Aristotle (384-322 BC) knew much better than that. He had grasped perfectly that morality applies only to humans because only humans are capable of reason.
Natural events (for example, storms and floods) operate in a fully automatic manner. They cause damage and suffering, but it is pointless to call nature “evil” or “malevolent.”
Thousands of years ago, humans used to attribute storms or floods to divine forces, but we know better today. Science can accurately explain how storms and floods occur. Nature works according to physical and biological laws, which must be taken as they are. They are neither “good” nor “evil” in themselves.
In his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle attributed evil to the human capability to make choices, that is, incorrect choices or correct choices. Ethics revolves around “right” versus “wrong” and the human ability to distinguish between them.
Schopenhauer overlooked the crucial prerequisite identified by Aristotle. Reason is the prerequisite of ethics; in the absence of reason, it’s pointless to speak about “good” and “bad.”
Schopenhauer’s views on the problem of evil compared to Aristotle’s
Only humans can choose between right and wrong because reason is a uniquely human characteristic. No other creature is capable of reason. Schopenhauer missed this prerequisite when he was linking the will (a cosmic force) with humans (rational beings).
Despite the above-mentioned error, Schopenhauer arrived at conclusions similar to Aristotle’s.
Schopenhauer viewed humans as flawed due to the negative influence of the will, but advised determined action to avert the will and pursue happiness.
Aristotle considered that humans are born neither good nor bad, but also advised determined action to actualize the best of one’s potential.
Even when it comes to defining the purpose of life, the error in logic did not stop Schopenhauer from reaching conclusions similar to Aristotle’s.
Schopenhauer sees human life as filled with suffering due to the influence of the will, but encouraged his readers (especially in “Parerga and Paralipomena” in the edition of 1841) to adopt countermeasures, improve their lives, and pursue happiness. It is up to each person to counteract evil and build a better life.
Consequences of Schopenhauer’s error on the problem of evil
For Aristotle, happiness (“eudaimonia”) is the main purpose of human life. He described happiness as flourishing, thriving, and self-actualization.
In the “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle acknowledged that a person can only attain happiness through sustained effort. This entails learning to think logically and making good choices. It’s a path that each individual needs to choose voluntarily. Evil is the outcome of making bad choices, often out of ignorance.
The error in Schopenhauer’s logic leads to distortions in the identification of virtues. Schopenhauer endorses self-reliance, prudence and foresight for counteracting the influence of the will. Those virtues reinforce each other, but at the same time, Schopenhauer is calling for compassion and empathy.
Aristotle would have been puzzled to see compassion and empathy included in Schopenhauer’s ethical recommendations. He would have pointed out that compassion and empathy aren’t consistent with self-reliance, prudence and foresight. He would have rated compassion and empathy as too weak to fight evil.
Self-awareness and Schopenhauer’s views on the problem of evil
Both Schopenhauer and Aristotle favoured self-awareness. I must point out however that their reasoning was different.
For Schopenhauer, self-awareness enables human beings to perceive the negative influence of the will and realize that they need to take action. Self-awareness is the first step in ethical awakening.
For Aristotle, self-awareness means presence of mind; that’s the characteristic that sets humans apart from other creatures. I define self-awareness as the willingness to use reason, instead of getting carried out by emotions.
In the “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle linked evil not only to ignorance, but also to lack of self-awareness. He is referring to the lack of willingness to use reason. When humans omit to use their reasoning ability, they aren’t behaving fully human.
Balance and Schopenhauer’s views on the problem of evil
In contrast to Aristotle, Schopenhauer never linked morality to balance, and evil to imbalance. Aristotle placed the virtue of generosity between the vices of recklessness and avarice. He is defining virtue as a good balance between evil extremes.
Schopenhauer didn’t call for balance because he took chaos and imbalance for granted. The will (“life force”) is irrational, wild and eternal, he argued. Evil is the foreseeable outcome of the will, when left to operate freely.
According to Schopenhauer, there is no balance to be reset. His regarded evil and suffering as the default situation, against which each individual remains free to take action.
The outcome of Schopenhauer’s recommendations might be similar to the outcome of Aristotelian ethics, but their starting points are far away.
Schopenhauer’s text “The world as will and representation” (1818) blames evil ultimately on a cosmic force. Aristotle does the opposite in “Nicomachean Ethics,” which views evil as the result of human actions and omissions, not of forces of nature.
Nonetheless, when it comes to countering evil, Aristotle and Schopenhauer agreed of the key importance of habits. Positive results require steady, consistent action. Haphazard, occasional beneficial actions are insufficient to counter sustained passivity or timidity. Those are choices that each person needs to make.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to addressing today’s problems, I recommend you my book “Sequentiality: The amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps.”
Related articles
Lessons from Schopenhauer’s views on genius
Schopenhauer and the problem of evil
Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of evil
Schopenhauer’s views on intellectual pursuits