Final answer:
In humanistic thought, evil is generally considered a result of human error and free will, not an intrinsic part of human nature or predetermined fate. Philosophers suggest that perceived evil may be necessary for free will, and ultimately a part of the best possible world created by an all-perfect deity. Thus, evil is not an innate characteristic of human nature, but a construct arising from the exercise of free will and moral distinction.
Step-by-step explanation:
The consensus in humanistic thinking about the problem of evil is that evil is not inherent in human nature. Humanistic philosophy generally posits that ideas of both "good" and "evil" are human creations, and when considering the divine nature of deity and creation, these concepts may dissolve. According to humanistic thought, the narrative that informs the understanding of evil is often reconfigured, pointing to human error and free will as sources of evil instead of any inherent quality or predetermined fate.
Humanistic thinkers have argued that what we perceive as evil may indeed be part of a larger good, necessary for the existence of free will and, hence, the authenticity of human experience. If we were not free to choose poorly or wrongly, we would be no different from robots, lacking autonomy and genuine moral choice. Therefore, many philosophers agree that evil is a consequence of free will, which is a necessary condition for a meaningful existence.
Transforming the idea of evil, some philosophers suggest that perceived evil is actually a component of the best possible world, designed by an all-perfect deity. From this viewpoint, evil is not a standalone force but rather a necessary part of a larger, ultimately beautiful creation. This universe, as seen by the deity, is perfect in its entirety, and what humans label as evil could be deemed a crucial feature of this perfect universe, through which free will and moral growth are made possible.