philosophy question?

Question

The Free Will Defense assumes that the best possible world includes creatures with free will. Is a world with humans in it, which includes human wickedness but also the good things that humanity brings with it, better than a world without humans in it?

Answer 1

That is one of those "if a tree falls in the woods" questions. If there are no people, who will say, or care, whether the world is "better"?

Answer 2

Free Will is a profoundly meaningless concept.

If a tribe member won't play nice, you smack him till he does or till he dies; whichever comes first.

The source word for wickedness is wick, which means 'life'.

The world is a big oblivious rock. It is not better or worse for having us on it. There are certainly some animals that would be better off if we were gone. So what?

I hate mosquitoes, they're a bunch of blood-sucking parasites. So what? Think they're all going to have an existential crisis and commit collective suicide?

In the Darwinian world, you have the ability to survive or you don't, there is no sense of goodness, wickedness or worthiness beyond that. Goodness, wickedness and worthiness apply only to the matter of smacking or rewarding tribesmen.

Answer 3

your can answer this query by simple deductive LOGIC

find the equation where man is existent

the find another where man is non-existent

you will end up with a solution where the negative cancels the positive

this is called balance or scientifically called equilibrium

Answer 4

And what kind of world would that be?

Answer 5

if there weren't humans in it there'd be no one to ask or answer this question.

Answer 6

it is a good question. Good and Evil always go together.