How to Actually Write a Philosophy Essay on the Problem of Evil Without Sounding Like a Textbook
Most students approach the problem of evil wrong from the start. They treat it like a theology assignment where you need to defend God's existence. It isn't. It's a logic puzzle dressed up in existential clothing. The actual task is to assess whether certain propositions can coexist, period. I've graded enough of these to know where people consistently fail. The standard template most students follow goes something like this: define the problem, list three or four responses, pick one you like, repeat until you hit the word count. That produces something readable but utterly forgettable. Here's what actually moves the needle.
The Problem Of Evil Philosophy Essay: Structure That Doesn't Suck
Start with the logical version, not the evidential one. That's the classic formulation by Epicurus and later formalized by Mackie. You're dealing with a trilemma: God is omnipotent, God is wholly good, evil exists. Three claims that supposedly can't all be true together. Most essay responses miss this clean structure and immediately drift into theological mud. Then tackle the evidential problem. This is where Rowe and his rotten fawn example come in. It's a different argument entirely. The logical problem says evil makes God impossible. The evidential problem says evil makes God improbable. Students who conflate these two are writing two different essays without realizing it.
Free Response Template and Key Arguments
Here's a resource I use when I'm advising students who need a solid starting framework. It maps out the major positions and their internal tensions: Free Theodicy Framework - Problem of Evil Essay Template
Download: problem-of-evil-essay-template.pdf It covers the free will defense, soul-making theodicy, and the skeptical theist response. You don't have to use it as-is. Think of it as a diagnostic tool. Look at which sections already feel familiar and which ones force you to actually read something for the first time.
Get the Full Details
Responses You Need to Know Inside Out
The free will defense, originally by Augustine and refined by Plantinga, argues that moral evil is a necessary consequence of genuine freedom. You can't have love without the possibility of hatred. Plantinga's version is stronger because he frames it as a logical possibility rather than a proven fact. That distinction matters more than most students realize. Hick's soul-making theodicy is the other heavyweight. It reframes evil not as a punishment or a glitch but as raw material for moral development. A world where virtue is automatic isn't a world where virtue exists at all. That's the core move. The weakness here is obvious: natural evil doesn't fit the model. Animal suffering before humans existed isn't making anyone's soul any better. Skeptical theism, associated with Wykstra and Pryor, takes a different angle entirely. It says human cognitive limitations make it unreasonable to expect we'd recognize all the justifications God might have. This is easy to mock and hard to defeat. The joke is that if we can't trust our reasoning about evil, we can't trust our reasoning about much of anything either. But the position survives because it's framed carefully enough to avoid self-refutation.
What I See Go Wrong
The most common mistake is treating the problem of evil as already solved. It isn't. No response is universally accepted. The goal of a good essay isn't to win the argument. It's to show you understand why the argument keeps going in circles. Another failure mode is ignoring the distinction between moral and natural evil. A theodicy that handles murder well might collapse under a tsunami. I had a student once build an entire essay around free will and then spend three paragraphs awkwardly trying to fit earthquakes into that framework. It didn't work. Don't do that.
Advanced Move: The Hidden Tension in Plantinga's Defense
Here's something most introductory courses skip. Plantinga's free will defense was originally designed to defeat the logical problem, not the evidential one. It only needs to show that the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible. That's a very low bar. The moment you try to use Plantinga to answer the evidential problem, you're playing with a tool that was never designed for that job. I found this out the hard way when I was teaching an undergrad seminar. Someone cited Plantinga to argue that God probably exists despite evil. I had to explain that Plantinga himself would disagree with that inference. The class got uncomfortable. They should have. State your thesis in the first paragraph and stick to it. If your thesis is that the evidential problem is harder to answer than the logical one, prove that. Don't drift into defending Aquinas halfway through because you found a quote that sounded impressive. Engage with the strongest version of each response, not the weakest. Straw man arguments are the fastest way to get a B-minus. When you discuss theodicy, assume your reader has read Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence" and build from there. That paper is fifty years old and still the clearest statement of the logical problem you'll find.
Don't pile on citations without engagement. Three well-worked objections beat twelve name-drops. I can tell when someone has read a secondary source versus when they've read the actual philosopher.
When This Approach Falls Short
Writing a philosophy essay on the problem of evil works best when you're comfortable with formal logic and basic modal reasoning. If those aren't in your toolkit, the logical version of the argument will feel impenetrable. In that case, focus more on the evidential problem and the theological responses. It's less rigorous but more accessible, and a solid B-plus essay on accessible ground beats a confusing A-minus essay on terrain you haven't fully mapped. The problem of evil also resists resolution in a single essay no matter how you structure it. You won't settle it. You'll map the battlefield. That's the actual outcome. Anyone promising you otherwise is selling something.
Key Sources to Reference
Mackie, "Evil and Omnipotence" (1955)
Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (1974)
Hick, Evil and the God of Love (1966)
Rowe, "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism" (1979)
Wykstra, "The Heightening of God-Evidence" (1986) If you want to go further, look at recent work by Daniel Howard-Snyder and Paul Draper on the evidential problem. The debate has shifted since the seventies and your essay will look dated if it stops at Rowe.
