The question of good and Evil is among problems discussed by scholars and researchers from ancient times. Existence of Evil affairs such as death, disease, disaster, poverty, impotence, pain, suffering, difference in creation and society, war, and Satan has caused some to believe in the lack of justice in the cosmic order. The approach of contemporary religious critiques to the question, however, has remarkably changed.Presenting answers of Islamic sages to the questions, the present essay offers the approach of some contemporary thinkers in this regard and precisely analyzes the problem from a philosophical perspective through expounding some well known opinions.

The reason behind the creation of a painting and the method applied, hold many hidden secrets within it and can be influenced by ever-changing internal and external conditions. One of the most important of these factors is an inner existing aspect called the Evil force which with the help of the artist’s creative mind and his ideology and beliefs, and in accordance to the prevalent social, cultural and religious condition, not only creates works of art with similar content and different appearances, but also displays them through different styles such as abstract, figurative, expressive and etc; although these figurative works of art could exhibit the concept of Evil and even multiply its existence to the observer. Therefore the Evil force can be considered as one of the many forces that have been placed within human beings and while it is considered as a destructive nature, humans are able to employ its infinite energy as a stimulant towards artistic creation and show their beliefs and inner beings in the form of displaying the Evil force (as Satan), or through passing this corporeality.

Gratuitous Evil is an instance of Evil that an omniscient and omnipotent being could prevent it without thereby losing some greater good or creating some equal or greater Evil. William Rowe believes that the existence of gratuitous Evil is a serious threat to theism. Peterson argued that the two are compatible by use of free will. According to Hesker, Patterson's strategy on gratuitous Evil is not effective. Hasker's answer falls into the category of compatibilist answers, but his view indicates an important difference, i.e. theism and the existence of gratuitous Evil are not only compatible, but also the existence of gratuitous Evil is necessary to believe in God with all the main divine attributes. Hasker uses the concept of "significant morality". In his opinion, in order for human choices to be morally significant, morality must not be undermined. According to Hasker, this answer_ unlike the libertarianism respond_ is useful when one encounters gratuitous natural Evil, because there are many moral virtues that can be realized in the face of natural suffering and Goods such as awareness, foresight, courage, caution, cooperation, etc. In this article, we examine Hasker's argument and some of the criticism that follows it.

There are numerous ideas regarding the nature of Evils and the cause of its emergence and the division of Evils as well as the dependence on natural Evils on moral Evils. Considering the idea of FazelQooshchi that there is no proof regarding the negativity of Evil and only a number of inductive evidences have been provided instead, the author has sought to demonstrate the negative nature of Evils via critically discussing the major ideas and analyses of Evilnot as an existential negation versus the existential positivity a la MullaSadrarather as an example of philosophical secondary intelligbilia. This is to say that although Evil does not have an objective extension it does certainly have a source of abstraction in the outside world. Moreover, the current essay offers a multidimensional analysis of the problem of Evil based on philosophy, theology and religion in order not to submerge in the methodological exclusivism. Thus the author attempts to depict a geometry of Evils and offers an explication of the causes of their emergence as a non-existential and negative phenomenon and finally proves the divine stature of the Necessary Being based on the theory of punishment, atonement and the means of nearness.

This paper attempts to present the Taoist understanding of Evil. In the Taoist tradition, especially in Tao Te Ching, Evil is divided into two categories: causal Evil and consequential Evil. Causal Evils are those Evils that are said to be the causes of other Evils; consequential Evils are those that are said to be the consequences of the causal Evils. Causal Evils originate from human will, and cause suffering. This means that Evil is not equal to suffering. Lao Tzu does not clearly talk about natural suffering. He regards all Evil and suffering as resulting from human actions that are not in accordance with Tao, which is the source of all life. Therefore, the way to overcome Evil is to follow Tao, to actualize wu-wei in life.

The Evil has always been a hindrance to justifying the belief in the absolute Omniscient, absolute Almighty, and absolute Benevolent God. Hence, philosophers and theologians have sought to answer this question in various ways. Allameh Tabataba'i and Augustine are among philosophers who have addressed this issue differently. In the ideas propounded by each one of them, Evil is considered as a punishment for sin and the result of man‘ s free will. According to these two views, a connection can be established between moral Evil and natural Evil; thus, moral Evil is the result of man‘ s free will, and natural Evil is the result of moral Evil. In other words, natural Evil is the punishment for sins and the misuse of free will. Consequently, the belief in a benevolent God can be justified. A significant point in Allameh Tabataba'i and Augustine‘ s views is that their theories about the existence of moral and natural Evil are justice-oriented. Given that a large part of Evil is the punishment for sins; therefore, according to the divine justice, its existence is necessary, and the other part of the Evil which is to develop virtues is the result of God‘ s beneficence and grace. In this article, considering this point, the relationship between moral Evil and natural Evil is examined from the perspective of these two thinkers and a comparison is made between them.

The problem of Evil is one the most important challenges presented to the belief in the existence of an Omnipotent, Omniscient and All-Benevolent God. The toughest side of this problem is that there seems to be an inconsistency between these attributes and the existence of Evil. The aforementioned inconsistency is not straightforward, but rather it requires to be supplemented by additional premises so as to connote "what an Omnipotent being would be able to do and what an All-Good being would be motivated to do". The latter statement implicitly indicates the logical side of the problem but there are alternative articulations of the problem which challenge the believers and ask them to give intelligible answers.

In addressing this fundamental question of whether punishment is morally good/just, proponents of retributivism - emphasizing principles such as desert, blameworthiness and proportionality - have primarily sought to limit sever and indeterminate punishments, developing elaborating a theory of punishment based on the offender's just deserts, maintaining its moral justification. T his note, employing a descriptive-analytical method, argues that retributivism can only be morally justified if it demonstrates that: the moral worth of acts derives solely from their intrinsic nature (deontic grounding), and duty-compliance carries inherent significance for the individual—or ought to. Beyond this, quite apart from the inherent difficulty in defining good and Evil and creating demarcation criteria, it remains unclear how retributivists determine appropriate punishment types as being truly commensurate with crimes committed, and how punishment could guarantee the realization of moral good. he backward-looking approach of retributive justice presupposes the individual as the architect of his own life plan and the author of personal aspirations, construing criminal conduct as the offender’s conscious and free choice—thus deeming them deserving of punishment. This premise faces critique from perspectives emphasizing the deterministic role of coercive social structures in shaping human agency.