The Argument from Relativity (often more perspicaciously referred to as “the

Argument from Disagreement”) begins with an empirical observation: that there

is an enormous amount of variation in moral views, and that moral disagreements
are often characterized by an unusual degree of intractability. Mackie argues that
moral decisions "reflect adherence to and involvement in various forms of life"
are the best explanation of these phenomena (1977: 36). At least this is a better
explanation than the theory that there is a field of objective moral truth to which
certain societies have less access than others to epistemic truth. The example
Mackie uses is the divergent moral views of two societies surrounding
monogamy. (the practice or state of being married to one person at a time). Is it really
plausible, he asks, that one culture enjoys access to the moral facts regarding
marital arrangements whereas the other lacks that access? Isn't it much more
likely that monogamy happened to develop in one culture but not in the other
(for whatever cultural or anthropological reasons), and that the respective moral
views emerged as a result?

 Mackie reply: To say good can’t exist w/o evil limits God’s power
i.        Sets limits to what God can do: He cannot create good w/o creating evil
ii.       So either God is not omnipotent or there are some limits to what an
omnipotent thing can do
2.2 ‘Fallacious solutions’
Fallacious solutions are solutions which, even though they may seem plausible at
first, in fact do not amount to the rejection of any principle which gave rise to the
contradiction. For this reason, Mackie does not think that they are of any help to
the theologian trying to respond to the problem of evil. His discussion of each is
intended to make clear the reasons for which they fail to address the real
problem.

Ang mga malulungkot na solusyon ay mga solusyon kung saan, kahit na mukhang
makatwiran ang una, sa katunayan ay hindi tumanggi sa pagtanggi ng anumang
prinsipyo na nagbunga ng kontradiksyon. Para sa kadahilanang ito, hindi iniisip ni
Mackie na sila ay anumang tulong sa teologo na sumusubok na tumugon sa
problema ng kasamaan. Ang kanyang talakayan sa bawat isa ay inilaan upang
linawin ang mga kadahilanan kung saan nabigo silang tugunan ang totoong
problema.
2.2.1 Good cannot exist without evil, since evil is necessary as a counterpart to
good
The basic idea here is that God could not have made a world which had any good
without allowing some evil, since it is impossible for goodness to exist without
evil.
The view that this is a limitation on God’s omnipotence; the reply that
omnipotence does not extend to doing logically impossible things.
The sense in which (relative) greatness requires (relative) smallness; why this is
not a good way to understand the relationship between good and evil. The
incoherence of trying to maximize relative greatness or relative smallness.
The view that every quality requires for its existence that something lack the
quality. The example of redness. Two objections: (i) the principle does not seem
generally true; there is no reason to think that it could not be the case that
everything had a given property; (ii) even if the principle were true, it would
explain much less evil than we actually observe.

Ang pangunahing ideya dito ay ang Diyos ay hindi maaaring gumawa ng isang
mundo na mayroong anumang kabutihan nang hindi pinapayagan ang ilang
kasamaan, dahil imposibleng magkaroon ng kabutihan nang walang kasamaan.
Ang pananaw na ito ay isang limitasyon sa kapangyarihan ng Diyos; ang tugon na
ang kapangyarihan ng lahat ay hindi umabot sa paggawa ng mga bagay na
imposibleng lohikal.
Ang kahulugan kung saan (kamag-anak) kadakilaan ay nangangailangan ng
(kamag-anak) liit; bakit hindi ito mabuting paraan upang maunawaan ang ugnayan
ng mabuti at masama. Ang hindi pagkakasundo ng pagsubok na i-maximize ang
kamag-anak na kadakilaan o kamag-anak na maliit.
Ang pananaw na ang bawat kalidad ay nangangailangan ng pagkakaroon nito na
may isang bagay na kulang sa kalidad. Ang halimbawa ng pamumula. Dalawang
pagtutol: (i) ang prinsipyo ay tila hindi totoo sa pangkalahatan; walang dahilan
upang isipin na maaaring hindi ito ang kaso na ang lahat ay may ibinigay na pag-
aari; (ii) kahit na ang prinsipyo ay totoo, magpapaliwanag ito ng mas kaunting
kasamaan kaysa sa talagang nakikita natin.

1. Sa pagkakaintindi ko, ibig sabihin lang, significant kasi ang evil as

means/daluyan ng good. Kaya di pwedeng walang evil sa
mundo.
2. Ang pagkakaintindi ko naman don, dahil nga means ang evil ng
good, kelangan daw ngayon ni Lord magsubmit sa causal law na
 yon, which might cause na mabawasan yung certain degree ng
pagiging omnipotent nya.

3. God didn’t create causal laws, He just knows the presence of evil. And being
the omnipotent and omniscient God, He just do everything according His
plans, and that means He doesn't ask us about our opinions to what He do,
and when He'll do it. He is just God being God. Doesn’t He have the rights
to decide for Himself and do what He desires? He is not our slave whom we
can order. He is God. Our King. The One who rules His creation. Isn’t
respect and trust the best response for His actions? For now, we only see
so little, and we cannot fathom His ways, but the revelation of His goodness
will always follow in His own time. That's why we shouldn’t judge the
situation easily, because you'll never experience the good if evil hardened
your heart, for a hardened heart blinds you from the good when it presents
itself.