Final answer:
In malum prohibitum, the prohibited act is not inherently evil, as it is illegal due to legislation and not because of its nature. Moral philosophy and theodicy sometimes explore whether legislated acts serve a higher purpose. Additionally, debates arise about the nature of good and evil relative to divine command or independent morality.
Step-by-step explanation:
In malum prohibitum, the act prohibited is not necessarily inherently evil but is deemed wrong because it is prohibited by law. Unlike malum in se, which refers to acts that are inherently evil such as murder or theft, malum prohibitum offenses are not evil in their nature but are made illegal through legislation. These could include acts such as jaywalking or parking violations, which are prohibited to promote order and safety rather than because they are inherently wrong.
Moral philosophy sometimes intersects with legal discussions around malum prohibitum, especially when contemplating the rationale behind why certain acts are legislated against. In the context of morality and theodicy, the discussion may involve questioning whether the existence of evil or suffering serves a higher purpose or is part of a greater good, as some philosophical and theological arguments suggest.
The notion that evil may contribute to a greater good or be necessary for the exercise of free will is reflected in theological discourse. Furthermore, it is discussed whether morality is dictated by divine command or if it can be understood independently of a deity. This raises intricate debates about the nature of good and evil in the context of divine will or the absence thereof.