Three great philosophical dilemmas

The great philosophical dilemmas are arguments that some thinkers have made and that lead to interesting paradoxes.. What they do is weigh two arguments. One of them implies contradictions for the other. This means that one of the two statements must necessarily be true. Therefore, the other will be false.

The interesting thing about these great philosophical dilemmas is that they have called into question some ideas or positions that are an absolute truth. for many. At least from the point of view of logic, these dilemmas prove that these “truths” are not as true as many want to believe.

Although these philosophical dilemmas have often acquired an anecdotal character, the truth is that They have also given rise to great controversies and heated debates . Several have been opened throughout history, but this time we are going to address only three of the most famous.

1. The riddle of Epicurus

The riddle of Epicurus, also known as “the problem of evil,” It is one of those great philosophical dilemmas in history.

Epicurus was an important Greek philosopher who lived before Christ. For this reason, it draws a lot of attention that his riddle is directed at several arguments that are pillars of Christianity, although in reality they point to all monotheistic religions.

This riddle is based on a premise of many religions which says: God is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being. That is to say that God can do everything, knows everything and does good in all circumstances. Faced with this approach, Epicurus asks: then why does evil exist?

Finally, he proposes his paradox or dilemma in these terms:

Evil exists because God wants to prevent it, but cannot do so. So he is not omnipotent.Evil exists because God wants it to exist. So it’s not omnibenevolent..If God can eliminate evil and wants to do it. So, Why do not you do it?If God cannot eliminate evil and does not want to do so. So, why call him God?

2. Pascal’s wager, one of the great philosophical dilemmas

Blaise Pascal was a great philosopher and mathematician, author of one of the most famous philosophical dilemmas: Pascal’s Wager. He also has to do with the existence of God. What Pascal is basically saying is that believing in God is a good bet, in terms of probabilities.

Specifically, he points it out this way: “The reason is that even When the probability of God’s existence was extremely small, such smallness would be compensated for the great gain that would be obtained, that is, eternal glory”.

In other words, If we believe in God and he does not exist, this would only lead us to try to live a more righteous existence, with which we do not lose anything. On the other hand, if we do not believe in God and he exists, we would lose eternal glory. The best bet would be, according to this logic, faith.

This philosophical dilemma has been strongly criticized, as it is based on convenience. Voltaire described it as a dilemma “indecent and childish”. Also It has been classified as a false dilemma, since it only part of the possibility of the existence of the Judeo-Christian god.which is the one who promises eternal life for those who believe.

3. Sartre’s bad faith

The philosophical dilemma posed by Sartre is known as “Bad Faith.” Sartre points out that human beings are absolutely free and, therefore, responsible for their behavior.. Despite this, when it comes to assuming responsibility for that freedom, people choose to objectify themselves, that is, to act as if they were the object of others’ will.

An example of this is war criminals. Throughout history, many of them have gone to trial and justified their actions under the premise that “they were following orders.”. In other words, they were not acting of their own free will, but rather under a state of coercion. Therefore, they would not be responsible for the crimes committed.

The paradox is that there is a point at which the person chooses to act evilly, so they would be free to do this and not something else.. At the same time, he denies his freedom of choice, pointing out that he does what he does because he is coerced. That’s where bad faith lies.

For Sartre, in all circumstances the human being is free to act. What he does not always do is assume the consequences of that act.

You might be interested…