What you'll learn
This topic examines how different belief systems understand the concepts of good and evil, exploring both religious perspectives (primarily Christian, but with reference to other faiths) and secular approaches. You'll need to explain various theories about the nature of good and evil, evaluate competing viewpoints, and apply these concepts to ethical dilemmas. WJEC exam questions frequently ask candidates to compare religious and non-religious approaches, so understanding the distinctions and being able to analyse both is essential.
Key terms and definitions
Good — actions, intentions or qualities that are morally right, beneficial and in accordance with ethical principles; often associated with promoting wellbeing and happiness.
Evil — actions, intentions or qualities that are morally wrong, harmful and cause suffering; the opposite of good, often involving deliberate cruelty or destruction.
Absolute morality — the belief that certain actions are always right or wrong regardless of circumstances, culture or context; commonly held by religious believers who see morality as deriving from God.
Relative morality — the view that moral judgements depend on the situation, culture or personal perspective; what is considered good or evil may vary between societies or contexts.
Natural law — the theory that moral principles are inherent in human nature and can be discovered through reason; associated with Thomas Aquinas and the idea that humans naturally incline towards good.
Free will — the capacity of humans to make genuine choices, particularly between good and evil; central to many religious explanations of why evil exists despite an omnipotent God.
Privation — the absence or lack of good, rather than a force in itself; Augustine's view that evil is not a substance but a corruption of goodness.
Conscience — an inner sense of right and wrong that guides moral decision-making; viewed by some as the voice of God, by others as a learned social construct.
Core concepts
Religious understandings of good and evil
Christian perspectives:
Christianity teaches that good originates from God, who is supremely good and the source of all goodness. Evil entered the world through human disobedience (the Fall in Genesis 3), when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God's command. This introduces the concept of original sin — the flawed nature inherited by all humans that inclines them towards evil.
Key Christian beliefs include:
- God as omnibenevolent: God is all-loving and perfectly good, setting the ultimate standard for morality
- Jesus as moral exemplar: Christ's teachings (Sermon on the Mount, parables) and sacrifice demonstrate perfect goodness
- The Devil/Satan: a fallen angel who tempts humans towards evil, representing a personal force of wickedness
- Divine command theory: actions are good because God commands them; moral absolutes come from divine revelation through scripture
Augustine argued that evil is a privation — not an entity created by God, but the absence or corruption of good. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is a turning away from God's goodness. This preserved belief in God's omnipotence while explaining evil's existence.
Thomas Aquinas developed natural law theory, arguing that reason reveals moral truths built into human nature. Humans have natural inclinations towards good ends (preserving life, living in society, seeking knowledge), and actions aligned with these purposes are good. Evil consists in acting against our rational nature.
Other religious perspectives:
Islam teaches that Allah is the source of all good, and humans have a duty to submit to divine will. Evil results from following Iblis (Satan) and human weakness, but ultimately serves Allah's greater plan.
Buddhism does not personify good and evil but sees them as consequences of actions (karma). Wholesome actions (good) arise from compassion and wisdom; unwholesome actions (evil) stem from greed, hatred and ignorance. Evil is understood as suffering caused by attachment and desire.
Non-religious understandings of good and evil
Humanist perspective:
Humanists reject supernatural explanations, arguing that humans create moral values through reason and experience. Good and evil are human constructs developed to promote wellbeing and social cooperation.
Key humanist positions:
- Ethics without God: morality derives from empathy, reason and our shared humanity rather than divine command
- Consequentialism: actions are judged good or evil based on their outcomes, particularly whether they reduce suffering and increase happiness
- Human responsibility: without God, humans bear full responsibility for creating a just society and preventing evil
- Moral progress: as society evolves, ethical understanding improves through rational debate and evidence
Humanists like A.C. Grayling argue that religious morality can be inflexible and outdated, whereas secular ethics adapt to changing circumstances. Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism judges good as whatever satisfies the most preferences and reduces suffering, providing a framework without religious foundations.
Naturalism and evolutionary ethics:
Some non-religious thinkers ground morality in evolution. Behaviours we call "good" (cooperation, altruism, fairness) evolved because they enhanced survival. Richard Dawkins argues that while genes may be "selfish," humans can transcend biological programming through reason. This view sees good and evil as descriptive of behaviours that either support or harm social cohesion.
Cultural relativism:
Anthropological observations reveal that moral codes vary dramatically between cultures. Ethical relativists argue this proves morality is culturally constructed rather than absolute. What one society deems evil (e.g., certain forms of punishment), another considers good. Critics counter that this leads to moral paralysis — unable to condemn genuinely harmful practices.
Absolute vs relative approaches to morality
Absolutist positions (typically religious):
- Moral truths are universal and unchanging
- Certain actions (murder, torture, adultery) are inherently evil regardless of circumstances
- Provides clear moral guidance and certainty
- Based on divine revelation, natural law or rational intuition
- Example: the Ten Commandments provide absolute prohibitions
Relativist positions (more common in non-religious ethics):
- Moral judgements depend on context, culture or consequences
- Flexibility allows adaptation to different situations
- Recognises diversity of human experience and values
- May combine with weak forms of universalism (e.g., all cultures value some form of fairness)
- Example: Joseph Fletcher's situation ethics argues that the most loving action in each situation defines goodness
The absolutist-relativist debate appears frequently in WJEC exam questions. Strong answers acknowledge strengths and weaknesses of both positions, such as absolutism providing consistency but potentially lacking compassion in complex situations, while relativism allows nuance but risks approving clearly harmful actions.
The problem of evil
Religious believers face a particular challenge: if God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, why does evil exist? This problem of evil has generated various theodicies (justifications of God's goodness):
The free will defence:
- God gave humans genuine free will to choose between good and evil
- Without freedom to do wrong, love and goodness would be meaningless
- Moral evil (evil caused by human choices) is the price of freedom
- God cannot simultaneously create genuinely free beings and prevent them from choosing evil
The Augustinian theodicy:
- Evil entered a perfect creation through human disobedience (the Fall)
- Natural evil (earthquakes, disease) results from the corruption of creation following human sin
- Evil is a privation, not created by God
- God's justice requires punishment, but grace offers redemption through Christ
The Irenaean theodicy (developed by John Hick):
- Humans were created imperfect with potential to develop
- This world is a "vale of soul-making" where encountering evil builds moral character
- Evil provides opportunities for virtues like courage, compassion and patience
- Ultimate reconciliation will justify temporary suffering
Non-religious thinkers like J.L. Mackie argue these theodicies fail: an omnipotent God could have created free beings who always choose good, or a world where natural disasters don't kill children. For atheists, evil's existence counts as strong evidence against God.
Worked examples
Example 1: AO1 question (5 marks)
Explain Christian beliefs about the nature of evil.
Model answer:
Christians believe evil is fundamentally a turning away from God's goodness. According to Augustine, evil is a privation — the absence or corruption of good rather than a substance created by God. This explains how evil exists without making God responsible for creating it.
Christianity teaches that evil entered the world through the Fall, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. This resulted in original sin, a flawed human nature that inclines people towards selfishness and wrongdoing. Christians also believe in Satan, a fallen angel who tempts humans to commit evil acts.
However, Christians maintain that God remains sovereign and can bring good from evil. Jesus' crucifixion — the ultimate evil of murdering God's son — brought about salvation, demonstrating that evil does not have the final word. Christians believe humans have free will to choose between good and evil, and will be judged accordingly.
[This answer covers multiple aspects of Christian teaching (5 marks), uses accurate terminology, and shows depth of understanding by explaining Augustine's theory and linking evil to salvation.]
Example 2: AO2 question (15 marks)
"Without God, there can be no goodness."
Discuss this statement showing that you have considered more than one point of view. (You must refer to religion and belief in your answer.)
Model answer structure:
Arguments supporting the statement:
- Divine command theory: actions are good because God commands them; without God, there's no objective moral authority
- Religious believers argue morality needs an absolute foundation which only God provides
- Natural law (Aquinas): moral truths are built into creation by God; human reason discovers rather than creates them
- Without ultimate accountability (judgement), people lack motivation to be good when it's inconvenient
- Many people's moral behaviour is inspired by religious teachings and examples like Jesus
Arguments challenging the statement:
- Humanists like Grayling demonstrate comprehensive ethical systems without God, based on empathy and reason
- Euthyphro dilemma: is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it's good? If the latter, goodness exists independently of God
- Many non-religious people live highly moral lives, showing goodness doesn't require belief in God
- Evolutionary ethics suggests cooperation and altruism evolved naturally to promote survival
- Some religious teachings seem immoral by modern standards (slavery, subjugation), suggesting morality transcends religious texts
Evaluation:
- Depends whether you believe morality is objective (needs divine foundation) or subjective/inter-subjective (human agreement suffices)
- Religious believers can point to consistency and absolute nature of God-based morality
- Non-religious can argue their ethics are more flexible and responsive to reducing actual suffering
- Both approaches produce good behaviour; practical outcomes matter more than theoretical foundations
- Personal conclusion with justification
[A Level 5/6 answer (13-15 marks) would develop both sides thoroughly, use specific terminology and thinkers, engage with the philosophical issues, and reach a justified conclusion.]
Example 3: AO1 question (8 marks)
Explain different understandings of the nature of good.
Model answer:
Religious believers typically understand good as deriving from God or a divine source. Christians believe God is perfectly good (omnibenevolent) and sets the ultimate standard for morality. Good actions align with God's will, revealed through scripture and the teachings of Jesus. Natural law theory suggests good aligns with rational human nature and divine purpose.
Non-religious perspectives see good as a human construct developed through reason and experience. Utilitarians define good as whatever maximises happiness and minimises suffering — a consequentialist approach focusing on outcomes rather than divine commands. Good promotes human flourishing and wellbeing.
Some understand good as absolute — certain actions are always right regardless of circumstances. Others adopt a relativist position, arguing good depends on cultural context or specific situations. Joseph Fletcher's situation ethics argues the most loving action in any circumstance defines what is good.
Evolutionary psychologists suggest our sense of good evolved to promote social cooperation and species survival, explaining why humans across cultures value similar virtues like fairness and compassion without requiring supernatural sources.
Common mistakes and how to avoid them
Mistake: Confusing natural evil with moral evil, or using these terms without explaining them. Correction: Always clarify that moral evil results from human choices (murder, theft, cruelty) while natural evil refers to suffering from natural causes (earthquakes, disease, animal predation). Use these technical terms accurately in exam answers.
Mistake: Presenting all religious believers as absolutists and all non-religious people as relativists. Correction: Recognise diversity within both categories. Some Christians (like situation ethics followers) are relativists; some atheists believe in objective moral truths discoverable through reason. Avoid sweeping generalisations.
Mistake: Writing "Christians believe..." without specifying which theological tradition or thinker. Correction: Reference specific theodicies (Augustinian, Irenaean), theologians (Augustine, Aquinas) and biblical sources. This demonstrates detailed knowledge and gains higher marks.
Mistake: In AO2 evaluation questions, presenting only one perspective or failing to engage with the statement. Correction: Always argue both for and against the statement, using religious and non-religious viewpoints. Explicitly engage with the statement's wording in your conclusion, showing you've weighed the arguments.
Mistake: Describing evil only as "bad things that happen" without analysing intentions or causes. Correction: Distinguish between actions, intentions and consequences. Examine whether evil is a force, a privation, or a human label for harmful behaviours. Show philosophical depth rather than just description.
Mistake: Claiming religious morality is entirely absolute or that all situation ethics ignores rules completely. Correction: Understand nuance: Catholic natural law includes secondary precepts that can vary; situation ethics doesn't abandon principles but prioritises love as the supreme principle. Avoid caricaturing positions.
Exam technique for Issues of Good and Evil
Command word recognition:
- "Explain" (AO1): Demonstrate knowledge and understanding. Include definitions, examples and religious teachings. Aim for 2-3 developed points with supporting detail.
- "Discuss" or "Evaluate" (AO2): Present multiple perspectives, analyse strengths/weaknesses, reach a justified conclusion. Balance religious and non-religious views.
- Reference religious and non-religious views: Questions explicitly require both, so structure answers to address each clearly.
Mark allocation patterns:
- 5-mark questions: Make 5 distinct points or fewer points with development. Include accurate terminology.
- 8-mark questions: Develop 3-4 points thoroughly with examples, teachings and explanations.
- 15-mark AO2 questions: Spend time planning. Aim for 3-4 arguments supporting and 3-4 challenging the statement, then a justified personal conclusion (2-3 paragraphs each side plus conclusion).
Effective answer structure for evaluation questions:
- Introduction: Briefly outline the debate
- Section 1: Arguments supporting the statement (use religious views if they support it)
- Section 2: Arguments challenging the statement (use contrasting perspectives)
- Section 3: Evaluation and justified conclusion — which arguments are strongest and why?
Demonstrate specification coverage:
- Name specific scholars (Augustine, Aquinas, Grayling, Singer) rather than vague "some Christians think..."
- Quote or paraphrase scripture appropriately (Genesis 3, Sermon on the Mount)
- Use technical vocabulary (privation, natural law, consequentialism, theodicy) accurately
- Apply concepts to contemporary ethical issues when relevant
Quick revision summary
Good and evil represent moral opposites: beneficial vs harmful actions and intentions. Religious perspectives typically view good as originating from God (divine command, natural law), with evil entering through human disobedience (the Fall) and understood as privation (Augustine). Theodicies address why evil exists if God is omnipotent and good, emphasising free will and soul-making. Non-religious understandings see morality as human-constructed through reason, empathy and evolutionary development, with good promoting wellbeing and reducing suffering. Absolutists believe morality is universal and unchanging; relativists argue it depends on context. WJEC questions require comparing religious and non-religious perspectives, using accurate terminology and named scholars.