Criticisms awarded to Leibniz's optimism

The concept of evil refers to situations in which people suffer pain, harm and negative events. Evil can be classified in three types: moral evil (man's own evil actions), natural evil (events caused by nature, such as natural disasters) and metaphysical evil (the creation of deficiencies by God). Approaches to the problem of evil fall into three groups: the existential problem of evil (God's silence on evil), the logical problem of evil (if God is omnipotent, why does not he prevent evil), and the evidential problem of evil (the amount of evil in the universe). Theistic beliefs try to explain the existence of evil through theodicy. It is not possible for human beings to fully understand God. According to Leibniz, people interpret events with their limited experience and what people perceive as evil is actually relative. There are reasons for evil and they are evaluated depending on how people interpret events. People interpret justice according to their own experience and understanding, but this is not always objective and sufficient. Certainly, people's limited knowledge is one reason why they do not fully understand God's knowledge. Among the reasons for the evil are that people continue to be grateful for their blessings and their own situation, that they encounter difficulties in order to improve themselves, and that it plays an important role in the self-evolution process. The aim of this study is to try to evaluate Leibniz's optimism on the axis of Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Schopenhauer and Hick's thoughts. Everything in the universe exists in its opposite such as the night and the day, cold and heat, the good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly. The choice of these is a matter of human's will and preference. In this study, in line with the views of the above-mentioned philosophers, we will try to discuss both their view of the problem of evil and their criticisms on Leibniz.