[PHI 3000] Good and Evil

One of the traditional responses to the problem of evil is that evil is a privation. That is, evil is not a real entity but rather the lack or absence of goodness. Just as blindness is a privation of sight, the response goes, evil is a privation of goodness.

This response to the problem of evil assumes a dualistic picture of "opposites": blindness and sight, cold and heat, good and evil, etc. But there seems to be a confusion here. Take, for example, cold and heat. 'Heat' is a noun that denotes a physical phenomenon (i.e., the energy associated with molecular motion). 'Cold', on the other hand, is not a noun. It is an adjective, used to describe the temperature of things. So heat and cold are not "opposites," as evidenced by the fact that the proper adjective to contrast with 'cold' is 'hot'.

Similarly, as far as the problem of evil is concerned, 'evil' is a noun that denotes a variety of phenomena, such as war, genocide, famine, epidemics, etc. 'Good', on the other hand, is not a noun. It is an adjective, used to describe something agreeable, favorable, etc. So evil and good are not "opposites," as evidenced by the fact that the proper adjective to contrast with 'good' is 'bad'.

If this is correct, does that mean that the privation response fails as a response to the problem of evil?