r the 4end of solution (i) and he states that the solution would be satisfactory only if it were to say “ Evil exists, but only enough to serve as the counterpart to good.” This unreasonable solution is something that theists would not agree with. Now Mackie moves to solution (ii) which states, “Evil is necessary as a means to good.” In this solution one is using the word means versus counterpart. This solution is not sufficient because of its restriction on God’s power. It’s restriction exists because it implies that you cannot have ‘good’ without a certain mean (evil). Mackie spends little time on this solution by concluding that this solution only solves the problem of evil by denying Gods omnipotence. At this point in his work, Mackie moves to solution (iii).Solution (iii) states, “The universe is better with some evil in it than it could be if there were no evil.” Mackie explains that the solution may be developed by either an aesthetic analogy, or by the fact that the gradual overcoming of good over evil, is better than un-challenged good. Yet, he combines the two by a starting point. He explains this starting point as the assumption that, pain, gives rise to physical evil. He then develops this starting point by exposing that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as well as ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ can go hand in hand. Mackie calls pain and misery first order evil. He then calls pleasure and happiness first order good. From these he arrives at a second order good that he says emerges from first order evil. This second order good is suppose to be more important than both first order good and evil because, it outweighs first order evil. Now that Mackie has established the good and evil orders, he reveals that using these orders is the best way to approach the solution because it includes a second order good and yet admits that there...
