Good old problem of theodicy... Personally I always emphasize two aspects: - of the free will – roughly speaking: if we have a free will, we must be allowed to do wrong; God certainly cannot repair everything we do immediately after it’s done; - of the limited knowledge and perception plus unclear definition of “good” and “bad” – we are not able to say what are all results of a particular deed and most certainly we are not able to judge if they are better or worse than all results of a deed which could prevent the other one from happening; to establish what is good or bad – or rather: happening of what is good or bad - one needs to possess infinite knowledge and infinite ability of information processing. In particular, one have to able to perceive time just as one of the dimensions. Such an independent observer – which, for his superhuman abilities, may be called God – would also need to have some criteria to establish what is worse and what is better – and these criteria could be different from ours (they surely are, as we – people – differ in that matter even between ourselves). Example for a second aspect: Pevensie siblings as monarchs were clear result of Jadis’ rule. Have their reign brought more good then Jadis’ - evil? Discuss. Why do I write so much about that (instead of commenting a new chapter like a good girl)? I have a feeling that second aspect I submitted could be close to your Edmund’s point of view. As a person which has an access to not-so-widely-available knowledge it should be especially conspicuous for him how lack of or possessing certain information influences our judgment about sb’s behaviour or facts. Krystyna
no subject
Personally I always emphasize two aspects:
- of the free will – roughly speaking: if we have a free will, we must be allowed to do wrong; God certainly cannot repair everything we do immediately after it’s done;
- of the limited knowledge and perception plus unclear definition of “good” and “bad” – we are not able to say what are all results of a particular deed and most certainly we are not able to judge if they are better or worse than all results of a deed which could prevent the other one from happening; to establish what is good or bad – or rather: happening of what is good or bad - one needs to possess infinite knowledge and infinite ability of information processing. In particular, one have to able to perceive time just as one of the dimensions. Such an independent observer – which, for his superhuman abilities, may be called God – would also need to have some criteria to establish what is worse and what is better – and these criteria could be different from ours (they surely are, as we – people – differ in that matter even between ourselves).
Example for a second aspect: Pevensie siblings as monarchs were clear result of Jadis’ rule. Have their reign brought more good then Jadis’ - evil? Discuss.
Why do I write so much about that (instead of commenting a new chapter like a good girl)? I have a feeling that second aspect I submitted could be close to your Edmund’s point of view. As a person which has an access to not-so-widely-available knowledge it should be especially conspicuous for him how lack of or possessing certain information influences our judgment about sb’s behaviour or facts.
Krystyna