Vikipediya

Yovuzlik muammosi

Yovuzlik muammosi - yovuzlik va azob-uqubatlarning mavjudligini qudratli, hamma narsani biluvchi va hamma narsaga qodir Hudo bilan qanday uyg'unlashtirish kerakligi haqidagi falsafiy savol.[1][2][3] Hozirda bu tushunchalarni turli ta'riflari bor. Muammoning eng taniqli taqdimoti yunon faylasufi Epikurga tegishli. Bu Devid Yum tomonidan ommalashgan.

Din falsafasidan tashqari, yovuzlik muammosi ilohiyot va axloq sohalari uchun ham muhimdir. Shuningdek, dunyoviy etika[4][5][6] va evolyutsion etika[7][8] kabi boshqa falsafiy sohalarda yovuzlik va ular bilan bog'liq muammolar haqida ko'plab munozaralar mavjud. Lekin baribir, odatda, yovuzlik muammosi diniy nuqtai nazardan tushiniladi.

Yovuzlik muammosiga javoblar an'anaviy ravishda uch xil bo'lgan: rad etish, himoya va teodika (Hudoni oqlash).

Yovuzlik muammosi odatda ikki xil shakllantiriladi: yovuzlikning mantiqiy muammosi va yovuzlikning daliliy muammosi. Argumentning mantiqiy shakli Xudo va yovuzlikning birgalikda yashashida[9][10] mantiqiy imkonsizlikni ko'rsatishga harakat qiladi, daliliy shakl esa dunyoda shuncha yovuzlik bor ekan u xolda qudratli, hamma narsaga qodir va mutlaq yaxshi Hudo borligini so'roq ostiga oladi.[11] Daliliy muammo haqida, ko'plab teodika taklif etilgan. Qabul qilingan teodikadan biri kompensatsiya teodisiyasidir. Ushbu nuqtai nazarga ko'ra, yovuzliklarning asosiy foydasi, ularning keyingi hayotdagi kompensatsiyasidan tashqari, yovuzlikning daliliy muammosini rad etishi mumkin.[12] Yovuzlik muammosi inson bo'lmagan jonzod turlarining tabiiy yovuzliklardan, tabiat hodisalaridan azoblanishi va ularga nisbatan insonlarning shafqatsizligi singari inonga nisbatan bo'lmagan hayot shakllarigacha tarqaladi.[13]


Olimlarning fikriga ko'ra, ko'pchilik faylasuflar yovuzlikning mantiqiy muammosini turli xil himoya vositalari bilan to'liq rad etilgan deb bilishadi.[14][15][16]

Izoh

tahrir

Yovuzlik

tahrir

Yovuzlikning keng tushunchasi uni har qanday og'riq va azob-uqubat deb belgilaydi,[17] ammo bu ta'rif tezda muammoli bo'lib qoladi. Markus Singerning ta'kidlashicha, yovuzlikning foydali ta'rifi quyidagi tushunchaga asoslanishi kerak: "Agar biror narsa haqiqatan ham yomon bo'lsa, u kerak bo'lishi mumkin emas va agar u haqiqatan ham kerak bo'lsa, u yovuzl bo'lishi mumkin emas".[18]:186 Jon Kempning so'zlariga ko'ra, yovuzlikni "oddiy hedonik shkalada, zavq plyus, og'riq esa minus sifatida namoyon bo'ladi" deya tushunish to'g'ri bo'lmaydi.[19][20] Milliy Tibbiyot Institutining ta'kidlashicha, og'riq omon qolish uchun juda muhim: "Og'riqsiz dunyo yuqori darajada xavfli joy bo'lgan bo'lar edi".[21][22]

Hamma narsaga qodir Hudoga qarshi ko'plab dalillar yovuzlikning eng keng tushunchasiga asoslangan bo'lsa-da, "yovuzlik tabiati bilan qiziqqan ko'pchilik zamonaviy faylasuflar, birinchi navbatda, tor ma'noda yovuzlik bilan shug'ullanishadi".[23] Yovuzlikning tor tushunchasi axloqiy hukmni o'z ichiga oladi va faqat mustaqil qarorlar qabul qilishga qodir axloqiy instrumentlarga va ularning harakatlariga taalluqlidir; u ba'zi bir og'riq va azob-uqubatlarni yovuzlik deb hisoblamagan holda mavjud bo'lishiga imkon beradi.[24]:322  Xristianlik "azobning najotkorlik qiymati" ga asoslanadi.[25]

Faylasuf Eve Garrardning ta'kidlashicha, yovuzlik atamasi oddiy noto'g'ri xatti-harakatni tasvirlash uchun ishlatilmasligi kerak, chunki "yomon harakatlar va boshqa noto'g'ri harakatlar o'rtasida nafaqat sifat, balki miqdoriy farq bor; yomon harakatlar nafaqat juda yomon yoki noto'g'ri harakatlardir, balki ba'zi bir o'ta dahshatli sifatga ega bo'lish hamdir".[26]:321 Kalder yovuzlikni hech qanday ma'naviy asoslarsiz jabrlanuvchiga jiddiy zarar yetkazishga urinish yoki jiddiy zarar yetkazish istagiga ega bo'lishni o'z ichiga olishi kerakligini ta'kidlaydi.[27]

Turli e’tiqod tizimlari nuqtai nazaridan qaralsa, yovuzlik turli ma’nolarga ega bo‘ladi va yovuzlikka diniy nuqtai nazardan qarash mumkin bo‘lsa-da, uni tabiiy yoki dunyoviy ma’noda ham, masalan, ijtimoiy illat, egoizm, kriminallik va sosiopatologiya kabi tushunish mumkin.[28] Jon Kekes yozadiki, agar “(1) u (2) begunoh qurbonlarga og‘ir zarar yetkazsa va u (3) qasddan qilingan, (4) g‘arazli niyatli va (5) axloqiy jihatdan oqlab bo‘lmaydigan bo‘lsa”.[29]

Omni-fazilatlar - Har tomonlama fazilatlar

tahrir

Omniscience (Hamma narsani bilish) - “maksimal bilim”dir.[30] Massachusets universitetining olimi, falsafa va din fanlari doktori Edvard Virenganing fikricha, maksimal cheksiz emas, balki “Hudo bilish mumkin bo'lganni biladi” bilan chegaralangan.[31] :25 Bu hamma narsani bilish haqidagi 21-asr olimlari orasida eng keng tarqalgan qarashdi hamda Uilyam Xasker buni freewill-theism (erkin iroda-teizm) deb ataydi. Bu nuqtai nazarga ko'ra, iroda erkinligiga ega bo'lgan shaxslarning tanloviga bog'liq bo'lgan kelajakdagi voqealar ular sodir bo'lgunga qadar noma'lumdir.[32]:104; 137[33]:18–20

Omnipotence (Hamma narsaga qodirlik) - bu imkoniyatlar doirasidagi hodisalarni yuzaga keltirish uchun maksimal kuch, lekin yana maksimal kuch cheksiz emas.[34] Faylasuflar Xoffman va Rozenkrantzning fikricha: “Imkonsiz holatni yuzaga keltirish uchun hamma narsaga qodir vositachi talab qilinmaydi... maksimal kuchning mantiqiy va temporal cheklovlari bor, jumladan, hamma narsaga qodir bo‘lgan shaxs sabab, boshqa vositachining erkin qarori singari cheklovlarni keltirib chiqara olmasligi kerak".[35]

Omnibevolence (Hamma narsaga intiluvchanlik) - Hudoni hamma narsani sevuvchi deb biladi. Agar Hudo hamma narsani sevuvchi bo'lsa, u eng yaxshisiga ko'ra harakat qiladi, lekin agar eng yaxshisi mavjud bo'lmasa, Hudo iloji bo'lsa, jismoniy voqelik chegaralari doirasida yaratilishi mumkin bo'lgan va maqbul bo'lgan holatlarni yuzaga keltirishga harakat qiladi.[36]

Himoya va teodikalar

tahrir

Yovuzlik muammosiga javoblar ba'zan himoya yoki teodika deb tasniflangan, ammo mualliflar aniq ta'riflar bo'yicha kelishgan emaslar.[37][38][39] Umuman olganda, himoya yovuzlikning mantiqiy argumentini ko'rib chiqishga qaratilgan bo'lib, unda "Xudoning mavjudligi nafaqat ehtimoliy, balki mantiqan mumkin emas".[40] Himoya yovuzlikni to'liq tushuntirishni talab qilmaydi va u haqiqat yoki hatto ehtimol bo'lishi shart emas; Bu faqat ehtimol bo'lishi kerak, chunki ehtimol imkonsizlik mantiqini bekor qiladi.[41][42]

Boshqa tomondan, teodika ko'proq anglatishga harakat qiladi, chunki u yovuzlikning mavjudligini ishonchli asoslash - axloqiy yoki falsafiy jihatdan yetarli sababni berishga harakat qiladi. Bu Xudoning mavjudligi ehtimoldan yiroq ekanligini isbotlash uchun yovuzlik haqiqatidan foydalanadigan daliliy argumentlarni zaiflashtirish uchun mo'ljallangan.[43][44]

Sekulyarizm

tahrir

Faylasuf Forrest E. Bairdning fikriga ko'ra, odamlar yovuzlik nima uchun borligini va uning dunyo bilan aloqasini tushuntirishga harakat qilganda dunyoviy yovuzlik muammosiga murojaat qilishi mumkin.[45] Uning qo'shimcha qilishicha, "bizning dunyomizning tartibi va tuzilishiga bo'lgan asosiy ishonchimizni shubha ostiga qo'yadigan" har qanday tajriba yovuzlik sifatida ko'rilishi mumkin,[46] shuning uchun Piter L. Bergerga ko'ra, odamlar "tartibsiz kuchlarga qarshi turishda ijtimoiy tuzilmalar uchun" yozuvlik borasidagi tushunchaga muhtoj.[47]

Manbalar

tahrir
  1. ↑ „Part 1: Is God the Creator and Source of All Being – Including Evil?“, Thinking about God: Jewish Views, JPS Essential Judaism Series. Lincoln and Philadelphia: University of Nebraska Press/Jewish Publication Society, 2020 — 3–64-bet. DOI:10.2307/j.ctv13796z1.5. ISBN 978-0-8276-1848-0. 
  2. ↑ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Problem of Evil", Michael Tooley
  3. ↑ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
  4. ↑ Nicholas J. Rengger, Moral Evil and International Relations, in SAIS Review 25:1, Winter/Spring 2005, pp. 3–16
  5. ↑ Peter Kivy, Melville's Billy and the Secular Problem of Evil: the Worm in the Bud, in The Monist (1980), 63
  6. ↑ Kekes, John. Facing Evil. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1990. ISBN 978-0-691-07370-5. 
  7. ↑ Timothy Anders, The Evolution of Evil (2000)
  8. ↑ Becker, Lawrence C.; Becker, Charlotte B.. Encyclopedia of Ethics. Routledge, 2013 — 147–149-bet. ISBN 978-1-135-35096-3. 
  9. ↑ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Problem of Evil", Michael Tooley
  10. ↑ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Logical Problem of Evil", James R. Beebe
  11. ↑ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
  12. ↑ Mousavirad, Seyyed Jaaber (2022-07-02). "Theory of Compensation and Problem of Evil; a New Defense". European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 14 (2). doi:10.24204/ejpr.2022.3357. ISSN 1689-8311. https://www.philosophy-of-religion.eu/index.php/ejpr/article/view/3357. 
  13. ↑ Peter van Inwagen. The Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press, 2008 — 120, 123–126, context: 120–133-bet. ISBN 978-0-19-954397-7. 
  14. ↑ Meister, Chad. Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Taylor & Francis, 2009 — 134-bet. ISBN 9781134141791. 
  15. ↑ Howard-Snyder, Daniel; O'Leary-Hawthorne, John (1998). "Transworld Sanctity and Plantinga's Free Will Defense". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 44 (1): 1–21. Template loop detected: Andoza:Doi
    This citation will be automatically completed in the next few minutes. You can jump the queue or expand by handYovuzlik muammosi]]. ISSN 1572-8684Skript xatosi: „check isxn“ moduli yoʻq..
  16. ↑ Alston, William P. (1991). "The Inductive Argument from Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition". Philosophical Perspectives. 5: 29–67. Template loop detected: Andoza:Doi
    This citation will be automatically completed in the next few minutes. You can jump the queue or expand by handYovuzlik muammosi]]. ISSN 1758-2245Skript xatosi: „check isxn“ moduli yoʻq.. JSTOR 2214090. Andoza:S2CID.
  17. ↑ Calder, Todd „The Concept of Evil“. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University (2013-yil 26-noyabr). Qaraldi: 2021-yil 17-yanvar.
  18. ↑ Marcus G. Singer, Marcus G. Singer (April 2004). "The Concept of Evil". Philosophy (Cambridge University Press) 79 (308): 185–214. doi:10.1017/S0031819104000233. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751971. 
  19. ↑ Kemp, John (25 February 2009). "Pain and Evil". Philosophy 29 (108): 13. doi:10.1017/S0031819100022105. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/abs/pain-and-evil/F3FF667D770E68BE6A9A56A345FBB7D6. Qaraldi: 8 January 2021. Yovuzlik muammosi]]
  20. ↑ Calder, Todd „The Concept of Evil“. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University (2013-yil 26-noyabr). Qaraldi: 2021-yil 17-yanvar.
  21. ↑ Committee on Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education, Institute of Medicine (US) „Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research.“. NCBI Bookshelf. National Academies Press (US). Qaraldi: 2021-yil 21-fevral.
  22. ↑ "Reviews". The Humane Review (E. Bell) 2 (5–8): 374. 1901. https://books.google.com/books?id=aCUKAAAAIAAJ. 
  23. ↑ Calder, Todd C. (2007). "Is the Privation Theory of Evil Dead?". American Philosophical Quarterly 44 (4): 371–381. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20464387. 
  24. ↑ Garrard, Eve (April 2002). "Evil as an Explanatory Concept" (PDF). The Monist (Oxford University Press) 85 (2): 320–336. doi:10.5840/monist200285219. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27903775. 
  25. ↑ Taliaferro, Charles „Philosophy of Religion“. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Sanford University. Qaraldi: 2020-yil 7-dekabr.
  26. ↑ Garrard, Eve (April 2002). "Evil as an Explanatory Concept" (PDF). The Monist (Oxford University Press) 85 (2): 320–336. doi:10.5840/monist200285219. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27903775. 
  27. ↑ Calder, Todd „The Concept of Evil“. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University (2013-yil 26-noyabr). Qaraldi: 2021-yil 17-yanvar.
  28. ↑ Rorty, Amélie Oksenberg. Introduction. The Many Faces of Evil: Historical Perspectives. Ed. Amélie Oksenberg Rorty. London: Routledge, 2001. xi–xviii.Andoza:ISBN?
  29. ↑ Kekes, John „29, The Secular Problem of Evil“, . Encouraging Openness: Essays for Joseph Agassi on the Occasion of His 90th Birthday. Springer, 2017 — 351-bet. ISBN 9783319576695. 
  30. ↑ Wierenga, Edward „Omniscience“. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2020). Qaraldi: 2021-yil 22-fevral.
  31. ↑ Wierenga, Edward R.. The Nature of God: An Inquiry Into Divine Attributes. Cornell University Press, 1989 — 202–205-bet. ISBN 9780801488504. 
  32. ↑ Hasker, William. Providence, Evil and the Openness of God. Routledge, 2004. ISBN 9780415329491. 
  33. ↑ Wierenga, Edward „Omniscience“. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2020). Qaraldi: 2021-yil 22-fevral.
  34. ↑ Hoffman, Joshua; Rosenkrantz, Gary „Omnipotence“. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Qaraldi: 2021-yil 22-fevral.
  35. ↑ Hoffman, Joshua; Rosenkrantz, Gary „Omnipotence“. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Qaraldi: 2021-yil 22-fevral.
  36. ↑ Haji, Ishtiyaque (2009). "A Conundrum Concerning Creation". Sophia 48 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11841-008-0062-7. ProQuest 203892905. https://www.proquest.com/docview/203892905. 
  37. ↑ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Problem of Evil", Michael Tooley
  38. ↑ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
  39. ↑ Andoza:Cite encyclopaedia
  40. ↑ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
  41. ↑ For more explanation regarding contradictory propositions and possible worlds, see Plantinga's "God, Freedom and Evil" (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 1974), 24–29.
  42. ↑ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Logical Problem of Evil", James R. Beebe
  43. ↑ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
  44. ↑ Harvey, Peter. An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices. Cambridge University Press, 2013 — 37, 141-bet. ISBN 978-0-521-85942-4. 
  45. ↑ Mitchell „Theodicy: An Overview“. dbu.edu/mitchell. Dallas Baptist University. Qaraldi: 2021-yil 14-aprel.
  46. ↑ Mitchell „Theodicy: An Overview“. dbu.edu/mitchell. Dallas Baptist University. Qaraldi: 2021-yil 14-aprel.
  47. ↑ Berger, Peter L.. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, Illustrated, Anchor, 1990 — 53-bet. ISBN 978-0385073059.  
"https://uz.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yovuzlik_muammosi&oldid=5253431" dan olindi