Did Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) provide a waterproof answer to the problem of evil? No, he didn’t. He got it right in part, but failed to answer the complete question. In his essay “Two fundamental problems in ethics” (1843), Schopenhauer rated evil and suffering as natural, that is, as the predictable outcome of the unimpeded will (“life force”). Only when human beings take action can they avert the negative influence of the will and counteract evil. Schopenhauer based his analysis of evil on his theory of the will. He built his logic on the assumption that the will (a wild, irrational, cosmic force) can take control of humans, and drive them to engage in exploitation, victimization, and abuse. However, there is a problem with Schopenhauer’s reasoning on the problem of evil. His logical chain is flawed because it is jumping from the will (a cosmic force) to humans; he blames a force of nature for evil, as though humans were puppets. Aristotle (384-322 BC) knew much better than that. He had grasped perfectly that morality applies only to humans because only humans are capable of reason. Natural events (for example, storms and floods) operate in a fully automatic manner. They cause damage and suffering, but it is pointless to call nature “evil” or “malevolent.” Thousands of years ago, humans used to attribute storms or floods to divine forces, but we know better today. Science can accurately explain how storms and floods occur. Nature works according to physical and biological laws, which must be taken as they are. They are neither “good” nor “evil” in themselves. In his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle attributed evil to the human capability to make choices, that is, incorrect choices or correct choices. Ethics revolves around “right” versus “wrong” and the human ability to distinguish between them. Schopenhauer overlooked the crucial prerequisite identified by Aristotle. Reason is the prerequisite of ethics; in the absence of reason, it’s pointless to speak about “good” and “bad.” Only humans can choose between right and wrong because reason is a uniquely human characteristic. No other creature is capable of reason. Schopenhauer missed this prerequisite when he was linking the will (a cosmic force) with humans (rational beings). Despite the above-mentioned error, Schopenhauer arrived at conclusions similar to Aristotle’s. Schopenhauer viewed humans as flawed due to the negative influence of the will, but advised determined action to avert the will and pursue happiness. Aristotle considered that humans are born neither good nor bad, but also advised determined action to actualise the best of one’s potential. Even when it comes to defining the purpose of life, the error in logic did not stop Schopenhauer from reaching conclusions similar to Aristotle’s. Schopenhauer sees human life as filled with suffering due to the influence of the will, but encouraged his readers (especially in “Parerga and Paralipomena” in the edition of 1851) to adopt countermeasures, improve their lives, and pursue happiness. It is up to each person to counteract evil and build a better life. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/errors-in-schopenhauers-views-on-the-problem-of-evil/