The Best of All Possible Worlds?

My teenage self asked questions just as my adult self. My teenage questions were not fully answered, nor were my adult questions. The young often think the world revolves around them, and some adults never shook the idea. However, it eventually becomes apparent to many that everyone has a mind of their own and conflicts occur, whether one is a teenager or adult. Why do conflicts occur and are they necessary?

Though I still do not have «the» answers, I have more resources than my younger self. I would not give advice but rather food for thought and disagreement. I would first introduce the German polymath Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) and his argument that this is the best world possible.

One of Leibniz’s interests was theodicy, that is, explaining the «problem of evil», or how there is evil in the world if God is all-powerful and all-good.

According to his work titled Theodicy,

«The best plan is not that which seeks to avoid evil, since it may happen that the evil is accompanied by a greater good.»

Thus, assuming there is a planner and such thing as good and evil, God chose the best world possible. He could have chosen other possible worlds but he did not because it would not be balanced, and balance means diversity and order, highlighting beauty.

When speaking of diversity and the problem of evil, one would be remiss not to mention free will and its contrast against an all-powerful God.

According to Leibniz’s Discourse on Metaphysics,

«[…] every truth which is founded upon this kind of decree is contingent, although certain, for the decree of God do not change the possibilities of things.»

In other words, God allows free will and evil within the confines of the laws of this possible universe, and it is the best world possible.

Voltaire satirizes Leibniz’s «best possible world». In Voltaire’s Candide, Candide cries (due to a false report),

«Dead! Miss Cunegund dead!» he said. «Ah, where is the best of worlds now? But for what illness did she die? Was it for grief upon seeing her father kick me out of his magnificent castle?»

The «best of all possible worlds» is an appeal to consequences, a fallacy in which it is true because people want it to be true. It is «Leibnizian optimism».

Despite Voltaire’s scalding of Leibniz, I actually find value in the idea that we cannot imagine any other possible world without free will and evil. To eliminate evil is to eliminate free will, and few would wish for a world without free will, even if it is in the confines of a deterministic world.

I believe my teenage self would appreciate this viewpoint, but knowing him, he would ask if this world with its evils is simply our lot, as it is and ever shall be.

I would then turn his attention to the American pragmatist philosopher William James and «meliorism«. «Meliorism» comes from the Latin «melior» meaning «better», as in «ameliorate».

In James’ Pragmaticism, he states:

Midway between the two there stands what may be called the doctrine of meliorism, tho it has hitherto figured less as a doctrine than as an attitude in human affairs. Optimism has always been the regnant DOCTRINE in European philosophy. Pessimism was only recently introduced by Schopenhauer and counts few systematic defenders as yet. Meliorism treats salvation as neither inevitable nor impossible. It treats it as a possibility, which becomes more and more of a probability the more numerous the actual conditions of salvation become. [1]

Thus, I would tell my teenage self that he need not be an optimist nor pessimist, but he could be a meliorist in this best of possible worlds.

Meliorism is the belief that one need not accept that things are simply the way they are and that it is for the best, nor must one set expectations too high. Meliorism is simply about the possibility of ameliorating. How do we define what is better or worse? Well, that is for the world to decide, and it is possible in this best of possible worlds.

Whether things are getting better or worse, my teenage self and adult self can appreciate playing a part in attempts to ameliorate and define amelioration, despite contrarians and thanks to them.

[1] Pragmaticism https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm