If everything is somehow mysteriously linked to Fate and if personal responsibility is an illusion, then why would the problem of evil even matter? Why would you even care if someone hurt you if it's all about Fate? Is it really more wise to check our brains at the door and blame someone or something else for the unhealthy or mean things we've said or done? 

What about things that have been done to us? ... or is it just another way of escaping or hiding from reality? Is it really healthy for us, any of us, to deny that the pain we have and the hardships we go through in this life are real? Is it really in favor of justice to pin it all on some unknowable, outside Force or is it maybe a sneaky way of avoiding personal responsibility? 

What's so intellectually attractive about pretending that it doesn't matter or that we've "forgiven and forgotten" and it's all in the past now and has nothing to do with where we're currently at (our past choices have a lot to do with where we're currently at whether we like it or not or whether we're willing to acknowledge it now or not)? 

I've heard it all. It's either "the Devil made me do it" or "It's all Planned out ahead of time" or "It's all in my genes" or "It's written in the stars" or "It's simply a matter of fate". These are all examples (in this order) of how religion, pseudoscience, paint-by-numbers and a serious denial of personal responsibility try to explain away things which are uncomfortable for people to really deal with at face value. Are any of these really a good, healthy or valid explanation for the so-called problem of evil or the choices people make though? 

Was it really Fate that killed 6 million Jews in the 20th Century Nazi Holocaust or was it the Nazis, humans with real choices and real personal responsibility? Are they responsible or is Fate? It can't be both. If it's all about Fate, then it really wasn't all that bad that it happened and I should just shut my mouth, put on a happy face and have a nice day. However, if it was the result of the freely chosen path of certain people intent on gaining power through blaming and then ridding the planet of an entire group of people, it's a whole different situation. 

If the world we actually live in is real, then all of my choices matter. I'd rather acknowledge my responsibility in the area of unhealthy or mean things I have done and be honest about the choices I've made along the way. 

I do not let the choices I've made in the past define who I am today though. I am not a "human doing", but a human "being". The choices I make are not me, they are my choices. Yes, I do express my self through my choices, but they are not actually me. Nor do I give them the power to define who I am. Acknowledging this helps me be able to be open, honest and real about my past unhealthiness and avoid the darkness of blaming God or Fate or the Devil or someone or something else for the choices I really have made. 

Because I choose to be honest about my behavior and because I also choose to unconditionally value my self as a person, I can acknowledge what is real (I have made unhealthy and mean choices in my life which have genuinely hurt my self and other people in situations in which I really could have freely chosen differently.) without avoiding that truth, but also without beating my self up for it either. 

So, the "problem of evil".... Well, the way I see it, "evil" is a relative term we use to pin on things that we do not approve of, or that are, to one degree or another, hurtful or uncomfortable to either our selves or others. In order to qualify though, the thing must have been caused by the choice of another person. 

Most people agree that a tree falling on someone in the woods and killing them is bad and it is something that none of us would approve of having happen to us personally. However, we don't think of it as an evil thing. It's just an unwanted, hurtful thing that happened. If however it were found out that someone had cut it and purposely caused it to fall on the person, that would be grounds upon which we might decide to consider it an evil act. 

Of course even then the context would matter though. If it were Hitler that someone had caused that tree to fall on and kill, it would not make sense to most of us to see it as an evil act. We would most likely all agree that, for us and the rest of society, it was a good act. 

Therefore, I think the whole idea of the problem of evil, is too near-sighted to begin with. First of all, it suggests that there actually is some absolute truth we can look to for our definition of what is good or evil in every situation. Furthermore, it says that the one making the statement knows which absolute standard is the correct one, not only for them self, but also for everyone else. Now if that kind of attitude is not considered "evil", I think the very word is completely irrelevant. 

I'd prefer to just speak in terms of personal preference and group consensus, especially since it seems to me like that's usually what's really at stake when people use the phrase "the problem of evil" anyway. 

When it all comes down to it, from an objective, natural point of view, it seems as though the 'problem of evil' is simply a matter of varying degrees of violation of the conception (whether held by an individual or a group they are part of) of right and wrong.

One way people in societies try to avoid such violations is by appreciating the relationship of personal preferences to personal responsibility in the context of the personal boundaries of others around us.

Because we don't all share the same preferences and we can't possibly keep track of the boundaries of each and every individual person, in larger societies, it becomes necessary to have some kind of objective structure to help maintain that balance.

Unfortunately, most societies (including ours) still use shame (in one form or another) to 'keep people in line'.

Though I have rarely seen them in real life, in my experience, those which I would consider more enlightened communities (if you find one, let me know) codify their most important common opinions (rules and laws) and engage in conversation and occasionally (when appropriate) healthy debate about the rest.

They have discovered and acknowledged the reality and horror of shame and are in the process of finding more enjoyable and healthy ways of thinking and dealing with self and interacting with others.

Back in the real world...
I know we have a long way to go to get to what I think of as the ideal society, but I think we've come a long way already. We do have rules and laws to establish the boundaries so necessary for a healthy society.

Now that we're on the right track...
The trick is to never give in to using them (rules and laws) as a means to escape from personal responsibility, nor to harness them (rules and laws) for ulterior motives in an attempt to manipulate and control people to get what we want.

This next statement may just be another product of my naiveté, but in the USA, ideally, I think our intent (though we have often, and in many nasty ways fallen far short of this mark) as a nation has always been to exercise the give-and-take between
 a) our willing obedience to elected/appointed authority figures and the rules and laws they establish for us and
 b) our demand for their accountability to us.

I think (in principle) we desire to demonstrate tolerance of and appreciation for that which is and those whom are different. We want to celebrate our commonalities and show generosity toward all who lack.

It seems we've learned over the millennia that all of these things are necessary for healthy coexistence within the framework of the system of ethics at play in the larger arena that has been established through group consensus. 

It is when we forget that our individual concept of 'good & evil' is not an absolutely, objective fact of nature that we think evil has been done to us individually. It is when we forget that all of the rules, regulations, laws and taboos of our society came about through group consensus that we think there has been some great evil done to us collectively.

Take 911 (For those who've been living under a rock... the terrorist attacks on the USA on September, 11th, 2001) for instance. Most people in this country would probably say "Yes" if they were asked, "Were those attacks 'evil'?".
Now, I'm not going to argue with anyone, because I do not have an opinion about whether something is 'evil' or not (or if I do, I keep it to my self).

Rather, I prefer to talk about it in terms of my personal preferences. I think it was harmful. I think it was hurtful. It was extremely unacceptable to me personally and I would like to see every person responsible either hung, shot or at least dropped into a hole for the rest of their lives, but I'm not about to say whether or not it was 'evil'.

You see, I'm not saying it wasn't evil. Neither am I even arguing about the existence/non-existence of 'evil'. I'm just saying that I'm not sure of the existence/non-existence of 'evil'.

In fact (and this is the whole point of this page), I'm even going so far as to say, "Who cares?". If we all agree that it was harmful and hurtful, and if it was as extremely unacceptable to everyone else as it was to me, and if we'd all like to see them hung, shot or dropped into a hole for the rest of their lives, then why bring something 'mysterious' and unknowable into the mix?