Abstract

According to the privation theory of evil, evil is nothing. In De casu diaboli Anselm’s student-interlocutor raises three arguments meant to show that evil is in fact something: the argument from fear (if evil is nothing, there can be no reason to fear it), the argument from signification (if evil is nothing, “evil” has no signification; if “evil” has a signification, evil is not nothing), and the argument from causal efficacy (if evil is nothing, how can it enslave the soul to passion and cause it so much trouble?). I expound the account of language that Anselm uses to answer the argument from signification and the distinctions between justice and advantage and between positive and privative evils that he uses to answer the arguments from fear and from causal efficacy. I conclude that, by the time Anselm gets done with it, there is not much left of the privation theory.