Absolute and relative evil.

        At close examination, we can see that physical evil does not constitute an autonomous substance but only is perceived as such in certain situations. Indeed, childbirth is painful for a mother, but at the same time it develops her love for her baby. Labor under the wrong conditions can wear and harm health, while in proper conditions it strengthens man, saves him from idleness and serves the development of his abilities. Suffering can embitter and cast down, but it can also enhance man, sharpen courage and patience, and teach compassion. Poverty can make man steal and swindle, or it can promote humility and reinforce our confidence in God. From the viewpoint of moral development, a lot of things that we consider physical evil can serve a good purpose, and thus lead to eternal bliss. That is why physical evil is not a substance but represents a relative notion.

        This is not the case with moral evil. Often, evil things are done for the sake of temporary material benefits; however, together with its seeming advantages, the evildoing cripples the moral self of the transgressor and harms others. We can imagine a case when someone indirectly promotes moral good by doing moral evil. For example, by making a Christian suffer, the torturer lets him manifest his faith and patience. In this situation, though, good does not directly result from the action of moral evil (torturer’s brutality). It occurs due to the dual effect of physical evil: the martyr’s suffering causes the manifestation of his faith and patience. However, moral evil as such always results in evil. That is why moral evil, as well as moral good, is an absolute concept.