I think that the contrast between Voltaire’s and Butler’s conceptions of how right it is to criticize the necessity of evil in the world and the contrast between their belief in this universe being the best possible is very interesting. Voltaire does not believe this is the best of all possible worlds and that optimism concerning its laws is foolish, while Butler believes that what happens is ultimately necessary and its general laws are good and moral. It should be noted though that whether this world is actually the best of all possible is irrelevant to Butler and in his opinion unknowable. Voltaire does not see the point of much of the suffering in the world, while Butler is sure that it serves a good and moral purpose. Some of Butler’s positions can seem similar to other philosopher’s stances against Voltaire’s challenges to our universe, but his are unique for their basis in his Natural Religion and his practical approach to these issues. It is not based in Leibnizian metaphysics or other complicated and theoretical ways of imaging the world but instead shown through analogy with the world with which we interact.
When the earthquake that struck Lisbon in 1755 did take place, it shocked Europe and Voltaire. In his poem on it he expresses confusion and unhappiness about the situation. Specifically, he challenges the teleological purpose that this horror serves and claims that it is cruel to comfort those who suffer from it by simply saying it’s necessary and this is the best world. Butler was not alive to react to this event.
Butler establishes in his Natural religion that God is a ruler over a government which is both moral and rules the universe, and that the laws that govern this universe are general. He points out that these laws are what we depend upon for our happiness because all happiness is dependent on our actions delivering certain predictable results. Butler says that we understand this reality because our governments act upon general laws to which we respond accordingly.
He also asserts that, “And though, for ought we know to the contrary, every single case may be, at length found to have been provided for even by these(general laws): yet to prevent all irregularities, or remedy them as they arise, by the wisest and best general laws may be impossible in the nature of things; as we see it is absolutely impossible in civil government”(Butler, Analogy of Religion 154). There are therefore irregularities in these general laws which may seem cruel and unnecessary.
Another important point of Butler’s is the fact that everything is unimaginably interconnected. Because of the causal nature of actions in our world, the future is dependent on the actions of the past in a way we cannot comprehend. Every tiny change does in fact impact the future, and we cannot comprehend how tiny acts of the past have influenced other historical events, nor can we understand the results that would come about from any change in this system of events.
That leaves the question of why an all-powerful God would choose not to interfere with these laws in situations where he may prevent these irregularities as Butler calls them.These irregularities can include non predictable seemingly non causal events like the Lisbon earthquake. Like Voltaire points out these events seem cruel, and in our limited perspective they seem unnecessary. For as Voltaire says, “Would you forbid him from exercising mercy? Doesn’t the eternal craftsman have infinite means available for his handiwork?”(Voltaire 2). Butler’s response to this is to say that it is necessary and God’s intervention would result in a worse reality. He said that if God were to interpolate on the occasions of events that were irregular they would cause immediate and bad effects. If God is willing to go around the laws of nature for one irregularity, then he should interpolate in every event of one in order to fully right that which the general laws cannot prevent. Now this would be a disaster as it would cast doubt and uncertainty on the general rules on which we rely, and as God’s government is a moral one, the undermining of its general rules through interpolation in cases of irregularity would cause negligence and idleness. Some of the effects would take longer to come into fruition, but because of the incomprehensible connection which governs our universe, God’s actions would change things and certainly prevent future good by disrupting their causes. Thus, evil would come to be and good prevented. The irregularities are ultimately needed and what seems wrong in the world can ultimately be needed for its own good. Butler uses the example of fever or inflammation being necessary to save someone’s life, even though it is horrible in the moment. To those who do not understand its effects it would seem only a cruel and unnecessary punishment.
Voltaire questions why God should be limited by necessity and be chained to seemingly horrible acts. If God is the boundless and infinite God they believe him to be, why must people die for some cruel unknown purpose? Butler kind of just dismisses this. Through his Natural Religion he has built a conception of the world in which God has a good and moral government which we can generally understand so that we may find some happiness and do what is right. The fact that irregularities exist does not destroy that, and even if this was not the best possible world, it is still one based in goodness and morality. Furthermore, Butler’s foundation for God’s government allows him to believe that the necessary events must ultimately lead to good outcomes and the irregularities are only bumps on that ultimate goal.
I think the difference between Voltaire and Butler is the size of their perspective on events like Lisbon. Voltaire cannot see the purpose for this event and in looking at it with an increased focus, he is closer to human suffering. For that reason explanations like Butler’s seem inconsiderate and cruel, yet, although he was a very charitable man, I don’t think that Butler’s explanation is meant to be a condolence. He sees that the interplay between the past, future, and present and that the events are too complex to fully account for, which when combined with the truths we can understand, force us to trust in God’s good government.