The Ontological Turn in the Doctrine of Good and Evil: From Moral Will to Linguistic Structure
Q: Just now we discussed the Manichaean view of good and evil, which was very interesting. After Augustine abandoned Manichaeism, he developed a Christian doctrine of good and evil, asserting that evil arises from the misuse of free will. In contrast, Structural Theology holds that evil is a misaligned response to divine order. What is the fundamental divergence—or essential difference—between these two views?
A: That is an excellent question. It touches upon the ontological foundation of evil, the role of the human being, and the foundational relationship between “freedom” and “structure.” Augustine believed that the root of evil lies in the human being’s possession of free will, which can choose to turn away from the good. Evil, in his view, is not a substance (non-ens), but a privation of good (privatio boni). The fall is an act of the will turning away from God’s goodness, leading to sin. Humanity, having the capacity for self-centeredness, could out of pride (superbia) choose itself rather than God.
Structural Theology, by contrast, sees evil as a dislocation within the rhythm of the divine structure. Evil does not originate from the corruption of the will, but from the misaligned response of the respondent to the divine structure of language and rhythm. Evil is not a lack of good, but a “misfit of embedding” in the rhythm—that is, a response out of alignment with the legitimate structural position. The Fall is not merely a wrong choice, but a systemic shift in the tension of the entire response system. Satan was not originally evil in essence, but became a source of disruption due to his misaligned response, and only becomes operative when humans also respond in dislocation.
Under these two frameworks, the role of the respondent is radically different. In Augustine’s theology, the human will is a self-determining faculty, capable of choosing its own path. Freedom, though not inherently evil, is the condition under which evil can arise. Responsibility for evil is assigned to individual volitional error. But in Structural Theology, the respondent is not a sovereign bearer of free will, but a structural node pre-embedded within a divine rhythm. The true freedom lies not in arbitrary choice, but in whether one is rightly aligned within the structure. Freedom is not an a priori trait, but a function of legitimacy within the response structure. The two views therefore diverge not only in how they conceptualize evil, but in how they define freedom, the human person, and the nature of structure.
Comparison between Augustine's View and Structural Theology on Good and Evil
| Dimension | Augustine’s View of Good and Evil | Structural Theology’s View of Good and Evil |
|---|---|---|
| Ontology of Evil | Privation of good (privatio boni) | Rhythmic manifestation of misaligned response |
| Role of the Human | Individual endowed with free will | Response node embedded within divine structure |
| Definition of Freedom | The ability to choose between good and evil | Legitimacy of aligned response within structure |
| Source of Evil | Will's deviation from God’s goodness | Misaligned response disrupting the structure of divine language |
| Meaning of the Fall | Wrong choice leading to moral and spiritual fall | Systemic shift in the tension of the response rhythm |
| Role of Satan | First willful being to turn away out of pride | First misaligned respondent in the divine rhythm |
| Spread of Evil | Expansion through repeated evil choices | Echo propagation of misaligned structures |
| Divine Permission | Evil permitted to reveal greater good (felix culpa) | Tension allowed before structural closure |
| Standard of Judgment | Evaluation based on motive, will, and moral reasoning | Structural legitimacy of embedded response (aligned or misaligned) |
| Focus of Response | Determination of guilt or innocence | Determination of structural embedding (legitimate or dislocated) |
Thus, the two views differ at the level of ontological paradigm. Augustine still operates within a classical metaphysics of substance–attribute–causality. Humans are created beings endowed with volitional attributes, and the world is a hierarchy of substantive goods, where evil is a process of corruption. Structural Theology abandons this substance ontology in favor of a linguistic-structural ontology, where the human is a response-node in the divine linguistic structure—a participant in rhythm, not a free-standing being. Evil is not a deviation of being, but a disruption of rhythm and structural misalignment.
To summarize: Augustine treats evil as a privative shift caused by the will; Structural Theology defines evil as a misalignment of embedding within the divine linguistic rhythm. The former is centered on will; the latter on structural rhythm and embedding legitimacy. This is not merely a difference in expression, but a wholesale ontological shift. Augustine reasons within the moral triangle of God–human–good/evil; Structural Theology reconfigures this into the triadic system of Divine utterance–response–embedding, interpreting evil as the rhythmical manifestation of misaligned response.
Q: What are the differences between these two views in terms of explanatory power?
A: Take, for example, the case of infant mortality. Augustine would explain it by appealing to original sin: the infant is “guilty” by virtue of inherited sin. If unbaptized, the child perishes (according to early doctrine), though later theologians developed more moderate interpretations. The death of the infant is seen as a consequence of “the Fall of all humanity”—a distant echo of the misuse of free will. The problem with this explanation is its apparent injustice, especially since the infant has no capacity for volitional choice. The disconnect between original sin and the individual often renders the logic questionable. It also tends to imply that “God must destroy the infant in the name of justice,” which violates fundamental human intuitions about mercy and fairness.
Structural Theology offers a different account: the infant may have been born into a structural zone of dislocated responses—such as a family, society, or historical field already distorted by tension. The early death is not a result of personal sin but a structural severing triggered by feedback tension. Since the infant’s capacity for response has not yet been established, such severance does not constitute an ontological condemnation. On the day of structural closure (the “Closure Day”), God will judge whether the infant was a potential elect who had not yet been embedded with response. There is no instant sentence of damnation.
This explanation has several advantages: it accounts for innocent suffering without invoking the concept of inherited guilt; it distinguishes between the freedom to respond and the moral blameworthiness of failing to respond; and it emphasizes the timing of embedding within the structure rather than moral arguments, creating a logical feedback loop that renders moral casuistry unnecessary.
Another example would be systemic or institutional evil, such as the Holocaust. Augustine would interpret this as the outcome of humanity’s fallen will: individuals within the system choose evil. If systemic evil arises, it is merely a collective manifestation of human depravity. God is said to “permit” such evil in order to highlight greater goods—such as the martyrdom of the righteous. This interpretation, however, lacks a structural or institutional framework for analyzing how such evil forms. The notion of divine permission also risks implying God's tolerance of evil, weakening theodicy. The focus remains on individual motivations rather than the propagation of misaligned linguistic structures or cultural discourses.
Structural Theology, on the other hand, sees institutional evil as a resonance of misaligned responses at the structural level. The root is not “human nature” but a false center of utterance that constructs an illegitimate structure—such as Hitler’s discourse of racial supremacy. Collective evil arises when groups of respondents embed themselves into this disordered structure, forming what might be called resonant dislocation. Before the divine structure is sealed, it allows for false rhythms to reverberate. But these will eventually be severed.
The advantage here is clarity: it explains why individuals within a collective often do evil not by “choosing” evil per se, but by being embedded in a structure that misguides their response. It reveals the linguistic usurpation of sovereignty—e.g., totalitarian propaganda—as the real structural root of evil. Good and evil are not merely ethical categories but are ontologically defined by linguistic sovereignty and embedding rhythm. Divine “permission” is not tolerance but an allowance for tension within an open structure yet to be sealed.
In sum, Augustine’s free-will theodicy is insightful when dealing with individual moral responsibility but falters in explaining historical suffering, systemic evil, and divine justice. Structural Theology, grounded in the ontology of response and embedding, provides a structurally coherent explanation that integrates ethics, history, revelation, and divine sovereignty into a single explanatory system.
Q: Then how do these two theories explain the original source of evil? Augustine might attribute it to Satan’s pride and subsequent fall. How would Structural Theology articulate this issue?
A: Augustine indeed takes this position, which has also been the traditional explanation within most theological frameworks. He holds that evil originated from the prideful choice of one of the angels. Among all that God created, Satan (originally Lucifer) was a radiant angel. Due to pride, he sought to become equal with God, turning away from Him and falling into darkness. Satan’s fall is attributed to the misuse of free will, and not as a direct consequence of divine creation. Following his fall, he tempted Adam and Eve, thus inaugurating the human fall. Evil, for Augustine, is not a substance, but the privation of good (privatio boni). God permits Satan’s existence in order to ultimately manifest a greater good (felix culpa—the fortunate fall). The logic is thus: free will is a property granted by God to angels and humans alike; God created free beings out of love but did not control their choices. Therefore, God is not responsible for evil, since He created only good, and evil arises from the will’s deviation from the good.
Structural Theology offers a different account, explained in three key points:
First, evil does not begin with the will, but with a misaligned response within the rhythm. Satan is not the initiator of evil, but rather the first agent of responsive dislocation in the structural rhythm. Satan was set within the divine structure as a respondent node, not as a source of utterance. His problem was not psychological pride, but an attempt to usurp the authority to speak—to embed himself improperly within the rhythm of divine language. In other words, Satan did not originate evil but performed the first misaligned response to the structure set by God, initiating the spread of rhythmic disturbance. The temptation of Adam and Eve was not an isolated event, but the first intrusion of that disturbance into the human rhythm.
Second, the origin of evil is not in “malice” or “corrupted will,” but in the first misalignment of response within the structure of language. There is no such thing as “the substance of evil,” nor even a coherent concept of “the lack of good” in the metaphysical sense. What exists is only the question of whether one is embedded in alignment within the structural rhythm. Satan’s fall was the first disruption of divine utterance order—essentially a counter-rhythmic act. God did not seal the structure immediately because the human layer had not yet been activated; a legitimate respondent still needed to be installed to complete the feedback loop.
Third, divine justice remains intact within the tension field of linguistic disturbance. The divine rhythm had already established the terminal response nodes in eternity—namely, Christ, the elect, and the structural return. Satan’s disturbance is merely a permitted tension, not a structural principle. God did not create evil, but allowed the possibility of dislocation within the structure to reveal the glory of legitimate response. Evil, then, ultimately exists only to serve as a witness to the supreme sovereignty of divine language and the glory of embedding rightly.
In short, Augustine traces the origin of evil to voluntary deviation and inner motive (pride), which facilitates moral introspection and repentance. But his framework struggles with structural and historical logic. Structural Theology places Satan as the first case of misaligned response, embedding the emergence of evil within the unfolding logic of rhythm and structure. This preserves divine justice and offers a closed-loop logic that explains history, language, and redemption as parts of one coherent system.
Q: So are you saying that both the origin of evil and all its subsequent expressions are, at root, matters of language rather than of will?
A: Exactly. Evil has no independent substance; it does not originate in will, but in the misalignment of response within a linguistic structure. This also helps explain why idolatry and the worship of false gods are placed at the top of the Ten Commandments: they represent linguistic usurpation—the gravest form of evil.
To elaborate:
First, evil is not the product of “inner motives,” but the manifestation of structural misalignment in language. Traditional theology—especially in the Augustinian system—attributes evil to the misuse of the will: that humans or angels possess some kind of “neutral volitional capacity” and can choose whether to remain faithful to God. Structural Theology entirely rejects the notion of “will as a metaphysical essence.” Instead, it asserts that response is not a function of personal choice but of positional embedding within the structure of language. Thus, “evil” is not the result of one’s intention to do wrong, but of being misaligned in structural timing, position, or rhythm. This is an ontological and rhythmic account of evil, not a psychological or ethical one.
Second, the origin of evil is linguistic transgression, not volitional betrayal. Take Satan as an example. For Augustine, Satan falls due to pride and the deviation of will. Structural Theology, however, sees Satan as attempting to speak—that is, trying to usurp the divine act of utterance (e.g., “You will be like God…”). This is a positional transgression within the linguistic structure. It represents a movement from the rightful role of respondent to that of speaker, definer, and judge—a fundamental structural misalignment. Therefore, the problem is not that Satan “intended evil,” but that his utterance was illegitimate within the structure.
Third, the spread of evil is also the propagation of linguistic dislocation. For instance, the serpent (Satan) says, “You will be like God, knowing good and evil.” This is not merely temptation—it’s the construction of a new center of discourse, implying that humans no longer need divine utterance but can self-define. Eve is not merely “seduced” but structurally disrupted, responding to a displaced rhythm. Adam does not resist the dislocated rhythm but remains silent, affirms it, and embeds within it. Hence, evil spreads historically through dislocated structures of language, not merely through ill intent. Many participate in evil not because they “meant to,” but because they were embedded in a distorted structure that yielded misaligned responses—becoming part of a corrupted linguistic echo.
Fourth, will still exists, but it is not a metaphysical origin. Structural Theology does not deny the phenomenon of volition, but clarifies that what we call “will” is merely a subjective sensation generated within structural rhythm. It is a tension-reaction felt by a respondent node within the structure—not an independent causal force. True freedom lies in the capacity to return to rightful rhythm, not in choosing arbitrarily between options. Therefore, “free will” is neither the source of evil nor the prerequisite of good. Rather, it is a behavioral expression of structural rhythm: legitimacy is good; misalignment is evil.
Q: Let’s apply this to a concrete case. Suppose a married man keeps a mistress for a long time. Almost all moral traditions would consider this evil. According to your view, are you saying that the essence of such evil is not a matter of will, but of language?
A: Yes, precisely—it is fundamentally a linguistic issue.
In mainstream ethical frameworks—whether Confucianism, Christianity, Islam, or secular legal systems—such behavior is deemed “wrong” or “evil” because marriage is understood as a commitment, a covenant, or a mutual contract. The individual is seen as possessing free will, and if he betrays that commitment, it signifies a fall of the will and the incurring of moral responsibility. This line of reasoning treats “making the wrong choice” as the core of moral judgment. However, it often leads to moral dead ends:
- What if he “couldn’t help it”?
- What if he truly “loves” the mistress?
- What if he “still loves his wife deep down”?
- What if he has “personal struggles”?
- What if he “repents sincerely”—should all be forgiven?
- What about cultural variations that tolerate polygamy or concubinage?
In short, will-based judgment depends heavily on motivational analysis and ethical consensus—both of which have collapsed in modern times.
Structural Theology offers a much clearer account of this situation:
First, marriage is a divinely embedded rhythm within the structure of God’s language. It is not a social contract but a structural field of response. God’s utterance in Genesis 2:24—“a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”—establishes marriage as a linguistic rhythm. The emotional and physical union between man and woman is a closed response circuit within divine utterance. It is exclusive. No third party may insert themselves into that rhythm illegitimately.
Second, keeping a mistress constitutes unauthorized multi-point response within the structure. The issue is not merely “immoral behavior” but the forced splitting of the response structure. The originally closed rhythm between “speaker (God) – respondent (husband and wife)” is invaded by an illegitimate node. This is not merely “falling in love with someone else,” but a fragmentation of the utterance–response structure. The sovereign language (vows, mutual belonging) is now distributed to multiple recipients, creating a structural rupture.
Third, such dislocation generates spreading tension throughout the system. The wife’s responses become tainted, no longer sealed within a legitimate feedback loop. The mistress’s responses are also dislocated, lacking utterance foundation (no covenantal structure). The man becomes a pseudo-speaker across two disjoint rhythms—usurping linguistic sovereignty. The entire structure of marriage is destabilized, unleashing ongoing dissonance: betrayal, silence, mental breakdown, confused children, disoriented ethics.
Fourth, this misalignment triggers cascading disturbances across structural layers. Structural Theology doesn’t merely assess behavior but investigates how a dislocated act disturbs linguistic rhythm, corrupts chains of response, generates counterfeit circuits, triggers resonance, and accelerates structural collapse. For instance:
- Children become torn between competing structures and lose stable reference points.
- Societal views of marriage begin to fracture.
- Churches that tolerate such patterns nullify the sacramental structure of their witness.
Therefore, the man keeping a mistress is not merely “immoral.” He is a misaligned respondent who has fractured the divine structure by splitting the response loop, generating dissonance and polluting the linguistic system. His offense is not merely ethical—it is structural. He has usurped the role of the uttering authority, destabilized the rhythm, and thereby committed a structural form of evil.
Q: Then why must we analyze good and evil from the perspective of linguistic structure? Is it because God's creation of the world was itself a linguistic act rather than an act of will, and therefore evil must manifest as disruption or misalignment within language—and God's sovereignty will ultimately be revealed in language as well?
A: Precisely. God created the world by speaking, not by an act of internal will. Genesis 1 repeatedly states, “And God said… and it was so.” This is a prototypical linguistic act establishing reality. Scripture never says “God desired…” or “God thought… and then it happened”—it is not driven by internal volition, but by speech that sets the structure. God's essential activity is the unfolding of sovereign language, not the execution of subjective intentions. Therefore, the ontology of the world is linguistic-structural—not voluntaristic.
The world itself is an unfolding of rhythmic linguistic structure. When God said, “Let there be light,” He wasn’t expressing a wish—He was setting a structural unit of rhythm. The entire cosmos, human history, and relational patterns are not driven into being, but spoken into being—set in place through rhythm: utterance → response → development → feedback → return → closure. Divine language doesn’t describe the world—it constitutes it. Hence, determining whether human language aligns with the structure is the only proper foundation for discerning good and evil.
Humans are respondents, not choosers. A respondent is not someone who decides between good and evil from a neutral standpoint. Rather, they are placed within the structure and embedded at a particular point in the rhythm. Their only true freedom is whether or not they respond in right alignment. If they speak, act, or remain silent from a dislocated node, they disrupt the rhythm—that is evil. Thus, the ontological criterion of good and evil is not intention, motive, or outcome, but the legitimacy of structural position. Good is not defined by moral excellence, but by rightful embedding within the structure. “Obedience” is not an ethical virtue—it is a properly timed response in rhythm. “Holiness” is not moral purity—it is the structural stability of not being disturbed. The “righteous one” is not merely the doer of good, but the one who returns to the right place within the structural rhythm.
Hence, to grasp ontology through linguistic structure is not only necessary—it is the only possible path. Only by doing so can we preserve divine sovereignty, resolve the problem of theodicy, reconstruct ethical judgment, interpret the unfolding of history, and ultimately achieve structural closure and revelation.
Q: So does Satan’s usurpation of the right to speak require any motive? If it does, wouldn’t that fall back into the category of will? Or is it the case that as long as a response is misaligned—even if that response is silence—it already constitutes disruption in the structure (i.e., evil)? In other words, does any response boil down to either proper embedding or misalignment?
A: The existence of evil does not depend on whether there was a subjective intention to do evil, but solely on whether one spoke or responded out of alignment with the structure. In Structural Theology, motive, intent, and psychological state are not part of the ontological basis of judgment. These are merely by-products of structural tension experienced by human consciousness. They are phenomenal, not foundational. For example, silence—if occurring at a moment when one was supposed to speak—constitutes misaligned response. When God asked, “Where are you?” and Adam and Eve remained silent, that silence was a dislocation—a failure to respond to divine rhythm. In contrast, Job’s ultimate silence was rightly positioned within the structure—it was legitimate embedding.
Thus, structural disruption is not evaluated by psychological criteria, but by structural legitimacy within the rhythm of response. That means it doesn’t matter whether Satan “wanted to be like God” or not. The critical point is that he tried to construct a linguistic structure at a point where he had no right to speak—e.g., “You will be like God…”. Whether his motive was to “help humans” or “out of pride” is irrelevant. What matters is that he spoke out of place. Therefore, what constitutes evil is not “inner pride,” but a linguistic action that transgresses structural boundaries.
It follows that in the linguistic structure, there are no neutral responses. Every act of response—whether verbal, silent, behavioral, emotional, or affiliational—has an embedding orientation. There is no “gray area.” Every gesture that enters the rhythm either aligns or misaligns. Even non-response becomes mis-response; delay becomes disordered rhythm. Response is a structural motion—to not respond is already to respond wrongly. That is, misalignment isn’t about subjective failure; it’s about positional deviation in the rhythm.