The problem of evil and suffering — Buddhism

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 1, 1.7 (Buddhism). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

Every other religion on this course has to answer a hard question about suffering: how can a good and all-powerful God allow it? Buddhism never has to answer that question, because it never made the claim that raises it. What it has to do instead is much less comfortable — say what suffering actually is, and then produce something that stops it.

What it means

The whole unit is the Four Noble Truths, and they are worth learning in their proper shape, because the shape is the argument. They are laid out like a medical diagnosis: there is a condition; it has a cause; the cause can be removed; here is the treatment.

The condition is dukkha — the First Noble Truth. Not simply pain: it names birth, ageing, illness, death, being separated from what you love, and not getting what you want. The better translation is unsatisfactoriness, and the difference matters. 'Life is suffering' has made Buddhism sound bleaker than it is; 'conditioned existence cannot finally satisfy' is what is actually being claimed.

The cause is tanha — craving, or thirst. The Second Noble Truth names three kinds: craving for pleasure, craving for existence, and craving for non-existence. And tanha is not desire in general. Buddhism does not condemn wanting dinner. It is the grasping quality of wanting — the demand that something changing should hold still and satisfy you.

The third is nirodha, cessation: dukkha can end, because if craving is the cause, removing the cause removes the effect. The fourth is magga, the path — the Eightfold Path, which is why Buddhism's answer to suffering is finally a practice rather than an explanation.

Why believers hold it

Notice what this structure lets Buddhism avoid, and be precise about it, because the sloppy version of this point loses marks. Buddhism does not answer the problem of evil. It dissolves it. There is no omnipotent benevolent creator whose goodness has to be reconciled with a dying child, so the question does not arise in the first place.

That is a real advantage and it comes at a real price, which the best answers state. Dissolving a question is not the same as answering it, and somebody who believes in God is not helped by being told their problem does not exist. Buddhism has swapped a hard question for a hard promise: it must explain the mechanism, and it must actually deliver the cessation it claims.

The second thing to follow carefully is where the account locates the cause, because it is not where people assume. Buddhism distinguishes the pain from the suffering added on top of it. A broken leg hurts; the raging against having a broken leg is the part craving produces. That distinction is what lets Buddhism say craving causes dukkha without saying that a dying child is craving anything — and stating the distinction is what separates a defensible answer from a callous one.

It also explains the link the specification asks for, between suffering and the meaning and purpose of life. If suffering is caused by grasping at what changes, then the purpose of a life is not to accumulate more of what changes. It is to stop grasping — which is why the same four truths that describe the problem also describe what a Buddhist life is for.

Where it comes from

• The Pali Canon — the Buddha's first sermon — The Four Noble Truths; Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 56:11) (translated)

  Dukkha; its cause is tanha; it can cease; the Eightfold Path is the way.

  The Buddha's diagnosis: existence is unsatisfactory, craving causes it, the cause can be removed, and there is a method.

  What it is doing here: This is the unit. Quote it and then say what its FORM does — a diagnosis with a treatment attached is a different kind of religious claim from an explanation of why God permits something.

• Buddhist teaching — The Noble Eightfold Path; grouped as sila, samadhi and prajna (translated)

  Right view, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration.

  The fourth Noble Truth in practice, grouped into ethics (sila), meditation (samadhi) and wisdom (prajna).

  What it is doing here: The fourth truth in practice, and the answer to anyone who says Buddhism only describes suffering — the tradition's reply to suffering is a set of things to do.

• Buddhist teaching — The three poisons (or three roots): greed, hatred and delusion (translated)

  Lobha, dosa, moha — greed, hatred and delusion.

  The three roots of unskilful action, depicted at the hub of the wheel of life as a cockerel, a snake and a pig.

  What it is doing here: Connects this unit to wrongdoing: much of the suffering people cause each other comes from greed, hatred and delusion, so the moral half of the problem has a Buddhist mechanism too.

Where it bites

Meditation practice here is specific rather than general: it observes craving arising and passing without acting on it, which is the Second and Third Truths being tested rather than believed. Buddhism also has a substantial presence in the hospice movement, and mindfulness-based therapies have taken the observational method into clinical settings.

The most telling application is what a Buddhist does NOT say to a bereaved person. There is no reason for the loss to be offered, because the tradition does not hold that anybody arranged it. What is offered is a way of being with it. Whether that is a strength or a failure is exactly the kind of thing a twelve-mark question wants you to decide.

What people get wrong

People think: The First Noble Truth says life is suffering, so Buddhism is pessimistic.

Actually: It says conditioned existence is unsatisfactory — that things which change cannot finally satisfy. And it is the first of four, three of which are about the suffering ending. Reporting only the first truth is how Buddhism gets its undeserved reputation for gloom.

People think: Buddhism says desire is bad, so Buddhists should not want anything.

Actually: Tanha is craving, not desire in general. The tradition does not condemn wanting food or wanting to help somebody — the wish that all beings be free from suffering is itself a wanting, and it is cultivated deliberately.

People think: If kamma explains what happens to you, then people who suffer must have deserved it.

Actually: The Buddha explicitly rejected the view that everything a person experiences is caused by past kamma, and compassion is required regardless of what caused the suffering. The objection describes a real and common misuse of the doctrine, so answer it rather than ignoring it.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Give all four truths in order and in the tradition's own terms — dukkha, tanha, nirodha, magga. This is one of the few places where the structure itself carries marks.
• Say explicitly that Buddhism dissolves the problem of evil rather than answering it, and do not force the material into a Christian frame. The source's own note warns against exactly that.
• Answer the specification's second half: how these relate to the meaning and purpose of life. Answers that stop at the diagnosis leave that connection unmade.
• The distinction between the pain and the suffering added to it is the strongest analytical move here, because it is what lets the account survive the dying-child objection — and you should raise that objection yourself rather than hoping it does not come up.
• For the extended question you may well conclude that dissolving the question is a weaker result than answering it. That is defensible and argued answers score; what does not score is treating Buddhism as though it had a theodicy and simply gave a poor one.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

The problem of evil does not arise in Buddhism, because there is no omnipotent benevolent creator whose goodness needs defending. The specification asks instead for the Four Noble Truths, with dukkha and tanha as the cause, and how these relate to the meaning and purpose of life. Buddhism does not explain why there is suffering in a world made good — it explains what suffering is and how it stops.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Dukkha (also duhkha)

Suffering or unsatisfactoriness; the First Noble Truth.

Tanha (also trishna)

Craving or thirst; the Second Noble Truth names it as the cause of dukkha.

Nirodha

Cessation; the Third Noble Truth, that dukkha can end.

Magga (also marga)

The path; the Fourth Noble Truth, which is the Eightfold Path.

Theodicy

An attempted justification of God in the face of evil — a project Buddhism has no need of.

What Buddhism teaches

• shared — Dukkha is a feature of conditioned existence: birth, ageing, illness, death, separation and not getting what one wants.
• shared — The cause of dukkha is tanha — craving for pleasure, for existence and for non-existence.
• shared — Dukkha can cease, and the cessation of craving is the cessation of suffering.
• shared — The Eightfold Path is the method, which is why Buddhism's answer to suffering is a practice rather than an explanation.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning is medical, and the Four Noble Truths follow a diagnostic form deliberately: there is a condition, it has a cause, the cause can be removed, and here is the treatment. That structure is why Buddhism does not need a theodicy. The other five religions on this specification must reconcile suffering with a good God; Buddhism has to explain the mechanism and supply a remedy, which is a different task and arguably a harder one to falsify.

Sources of authority

• The Pali Canon — the Buddha's first sermon — The Four Noble Truths; Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 56:11) (translated)

  Dukkha; its cause is tanha; it can cease; the Eightfold Path is the way.

  The Buddha's diagnosis: existence is unsatisfactory, craving causes it, the cause can be removed, and there is a method.

  How to use it: It is a diagnosis and a treatment rather than a set of beliefs, which is why Buddhism can answer the problem of suffering without needing a God to defend.

  What it does not settle: It explains suffering's cause without invoking evil or judgement, so it does not answer the theodicy question — it dissolves it. Say that rather than forcing it into a Christian frame.

• Buddhist teaching — The Noble Eightfold Path; grouped as sila, samadhi and prajna (translated)

  Right view, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration.

  The fourth Noble Truth in practice, grouped into ethics (sila), meditation (samadhi) and wisdom (prajna).

  How to use it: It is a path rather than a creed, so the Buddhist answer to 'what is the purpose of life?' is a practice and not a proposition.

  What it does not settle: Emphasis differs sharply between Theravada, Zen and Pure Land practice.

• Buddhist teaching — The three poisons (or three roots): greed, hatred and delusion (translated)

  Lobha, dosa, moha — greed, hatred and delusion.

  The three roots of unskilful action, depicted at the hub of the wheel of life as a cockerel, a snake and a pig.

  How to use it: Naming delusion as a root, rather than only greed and hatred, is what makes the Buddhist answer distinctive: wrongdoing is a mistake about reality before it is a moral failure.

  What it does not settle: There is no concept of sin against a deity here. Writing 'sin' without qualification misrepresents the tradition, and the specification's own wording invites exactly that error.

• Buddhist teaching — Kamma and samsara; taught throughout the Pali Canon (translated)

  Kamma — intentional action and its results; samsara — the round of rebirth.

  Intentional actions condition future experience within the cycle of rebirth, which ends with nibbana.

  How to use it: In Buddhism kamma turns on INTENTION, which is why the same outward act can have different consequences — a distinction Hindu karma does not stress in the same way.

  What it does not settle: Kamma is not fate and not divine reward. And nibbana is NOT moksha — the reports record that confusion.

Different interpretations

• The First Truth read as 'life is suffering' and read as 'conditioned existence is unsatisfactory'; the second is more accurate, and the first has made Buddhism sound bleaker than it is.
• Tanha read as desire generally and read as craving specifically; the tradition does not condemn wanting food, and the distinction matters.
• Cessation read as achievable in this life and read as the end of the cycle; both are taught, and answers should be clear which they mean.

Differences within Buddhism

The Four Noble Truths are held by every Buddhist tradition and are the closest thing Buddhism has to a universal doctrinal statement. Mahayana adds the bodhisattva's postponement of final liberation, which extends rather than disputes them.

The traditions broadly agree here. Saying so is a stronger answer than inventing a division.

Application to the issue

It shows in meditation practice aimed at observing craving arise and pass without acting on it; in the hospice movement's substantial Buddhist involvement; in the Buddhist approach to bereavement, which does not offer a reason for the loss; and in the mindfulness-based therapies that take the observational method into clinical settings.

Arguments supporting

• Buddhism's account is stronger because it does not have to defend anyone. — With no creator, there is nothing to reconcile with suffering. (buddhism)
  Answered by: Dissolving the question is not the same as answering it, and someone who believes in God is not helped by being told the problem does not arise.
• Locating the cause in craving makes suffering addressable by the sufferer. — You cannot stop earthquakes and you can change your relationship to loss. (shared)
  Answered by: It risks implying that the bereaved and the tortured are contributing to their own suffering, which is a serious pastoral objection.

Arguments challenging

• Some suffering is nothing to do with craving. — A child dying of a disease is not craving anything. (non-religious)
  Answered by: Buddhism distinguishes the pain from the suffering added to it, and claims only the second is produced by craving — which is a real distinction but does not remove the first.
• Kamma across lifetimes makes suffering look deserved. — If circumstances follow from past action, the sufferer has a moral history. (non-religious)
  Answered by: The Buddha rejected the view that everything experienced is caused by past kamma, and compassion is required regardless of cause — but the misuse is common and the objection is fair.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Non-religious people regard suffering as requiring no explanation beyond its causes and hold that the problem of evil is decisive against a good omnipotent God. Many find the Buddhist analysis attractive precisely because it makes no theological claim, and the widespread secular adoption of mindfulness is evidence of how far the method can be separated from the doctrine.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether dissolving a question counts as answering it. Buddhism removes the problem of evil rather than solving it, and that is either its greatest strength or an evasion.

Defensible conclusions

• Buddhism has the strongest position on this specification because it never incurs the debt: with no omnipotent benevolence, there is nothing to explain.
• Its account of suffering's cause is more useful than any theodicy, because it comes with a method rather than with a justification.
• It pays a price in the kamma doctrine, which reintroduces a moral history for circumstances that the four truths on their own do not need.

Not defensible

• Saying Buddhism answers the problem of evil; the problem does not arise, which is a different claim and a more interesting one.
• Confusing natural and moral evil in a Buddhist answer, or importing the categories without noticing they belong to a theistic framing.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three Buddhist beliefs about suffering, or the Four Noble Truths named. Short phrases only.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two developed. 'Buddhists teach that craving causes suffering (1) — so suffering ends when craving ends rather than when circumstances improve (1).'
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain Buddhist teaching about suffering: the Four Noble Truths, dukkha, tanha, cessation and the path.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Suffering is part of the test of life.' Buddhism denies the framing entirely, which is the sharpest available response.

Common mistakes

• Saying Buddhism answers the problem of evil rather than that the problem does not arise.
• Translating dukkha simply as suffering and concluding Buddhism is pessimistic.
• Attributing sin or divine punishment to Buddhism.

“Natural evil means things like murder and theft.” — Murder and theft are chosen by human beings, which makes them moral evil. Natural evil is suffering caused by the world itself, with no human decision behind it.

Write instead: Moral evil is suffering caused by human choices — murder, theft, war, cruelty. Natural evil is suffering that no one chose — earthquakes, disease, famine, flood. The line blurs in real cases: a famine may be natural in origin and moral in its distribution, and that observation is a top-band point rather than a muddle. (Named in the 2023 examiner report for Paper 1.)

“Buddhists believe sin is disobeying God.” — Buddhism has no creator God to disobey. Unskilful action (akusala) harms the person who does it and others through kamma; it is a mistake rooted in greed, hatred and delusion, not an offence against a deity.

Write instead: Buddhists speak of unskilful action rooted in the three poisons — greed, hatred and delusion — and of akusala kamma, which brings unwelcome results. The specification's own Buddhist wording for 1.3 names avijja, kilesa and the three poisons. The specification titles 1.3 'Selfishness, greed, ignorance and sin', which invites the error. A learner writing on Buddhism should use the tradition's own vocabulary and say why 'sin' does not fit.

Grade 9 insight

The Four Noble Truths are structured exactly like a medical diagnosis — symptom, cause, prognosis, treatment — and the Buddha is described in early texts as a physician. A Level 4 answer uses that to explain why Buddhism has no theodicy and needs none: a doctor does not justify the disease, and a patient who demanded a reason for their illness before accepting treatment would be making a mistake about what kind of help is on offer. That is the same point the arrow parable makes, and it runs through the whole tradition.

Carry on through Buddhism

• Previous unit: 1.6 · Belief, uncertainty and unbelief
• Next unit: 2.1 · Death and life after death
• The problem of evil and suffering in the other religions: Christianity · Hinduism · Islam · Judaism · Sikhism
• All of Buddhism · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification