Free Will Defense Summary

Peter van Inwagen argument entitled “Free Will Defense,” is a theodicy because it attempts to show why God would allow evil in the world as opposed to a defense which would try to explain, logically, how evil could exist in the world with an all-loving an all-powerful God. Peter van Inwagen purposed that, yes, God is all-loving and all-powerful, and because he is all-loving, he allows for humans to make their own decisions even if these decisions lead to evil and pain. I find this to be an extremely satisfying response. It is very plausible that an all-powerful being could and would, in some way, relinquish control as a way to show and practice his love. Autonomy is good, granting free will results in autonomy, therefore granting free will

Questioning if God is not omnipotent, the entire idea of God creating the world can be called into question. Another issue is that if it is said that God is no longer entirely good there is the possibility to say that God has evil or bad intentions, and we should denounce him. Lastly, if one says that evil does not exist, then there is no possible way to separate those people who are considered to be deviants of society. This would mean that those who commit crimes that are evil in nature like murder and rape would be considered to be normal and acceptable.

In chapter three of Aquinas for Armchair Theologians by Timothy Renick, Aquinas’s philosophy on evil in the world and the free will of humans is heavily discussed. Renick describes a very complex topic and transforms it into something the average person can read and understand. Aquinas answers the questions of whether evil exists, did God create evil, why does evil exist, and if evil exists, who or what removes it. He also answers the questions of whether humans have the free will to make decisions or has God predetermined every decision and its outcome according to his plan. While I found this article somewhat easy to follow, I can understand how some of Aquinas’s arguments can lead to debate or confusion on the nature of God, evil, and free will. Despite this, because of reason and what God is envisioned to be, I agree with conclusions that Aquinas has made.

someone’s evil, it can’t be blamed on inborn capacities. We all have a heart of conscience, a heart of reverence and a heart of right and wrong” (Mencius 80). Deep down all humans

The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.

Through out history evil has been best depicted as the absence of goodness and goodness as the absence of evil. With goodness being comprehended as the direct opposite of evil. It is under speculation that maybe there can 't exist only one general meaning of good vs. evil. I trust this, in light of the fact that any one individual 's perception of good or evil is without a doubt directed by one 's social comprehension of certain qualities and ethics within their culture, i.e. the power of social conformity (Muncaster-Social Psychology Lecture, 2016). Yes, there can be cases of evil that is seen as malevolent all over the world but due to the ethnocentric component of the perception of cultural morals and values, one is unable to categorize another individual as evil or good based upon their own cultural understanding of this notion. As they have been socially and culturally influenced to believe contrary to the fact.

In his argument Swinburne states that “An omnipotent God could have prevented this evil, and surely a perfectly good and omnipotent God would have done so. So why is there evil?”(Swinburne, 254). In theory, he thinks that if God exists then evil should not, but it does. So he creates and argues a theodicy to show that God and evil can exist at the same time. He comes up with the “Free Will Theodicy” which states that humans are the cause of evil, not God.

“Free will” implies people are able to choose the majority of their actions. While one would expect to choose the right course of action, bad decisions are often made. This reflects the idea that humans do not have free will because if people were genuinely and consistently capable of benevolence, they would freely decide to make the ‘right’ decisions. In order for free will free will to be tangible, an individual would have to have control over his or her actions regardless of any external factors. It can be argued that the inevitability of

Stephen De Wijze piece titled “Defining Evil” explores the definition of an old saying, “dirty hands” in which people who have committed evil crimes lose moral innocence and have a permanent stain on their morality. The main idea being, what should be considered evil. Wijze recalls three conditions throughout his text to describe what is considered evil, he labels them as A,B and C. Moreover, Condition A is the “Deliberate violation of a person(s) with the intention to dehumanise.” (Wijze 218) Condition B is that “The action or project will inflict one or more of “The Great Harms” to sentient beings with the relevant moral standing.” (Wijze 218) Here, the “Great Harms” is a reference to the ideas that people consider to be evil based on their own beliefs. Consequently, condition C Is “The action or project which seeks to annihilate the “moral landscape.” (Wijze 218) The three conditions help us understand why evil

Firstly, man is born evil because society shows him to be evil. An example of this is how parents must raise their child to be good. A parent never has to raise their child to do bad things. A young child might draw on the wall and believe that it is art, however the parent will stop the child and tell them that drawing on the wall is a bad thing to do. Children are told that drawing on the wall is a bad thing to do because in the eyes of society, it is bad. Nonetheless, a child never has to be told to write on the wall for them to do

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions.  There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions.  Are we responsible for some of our actions after all?  If so, under what circumstances?  Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused.

Swinburne states that humans were made by God with a predisposition to be moral and help out the natural world (181). Even though we have free-will, God persuades us to choose good more easily, as we can see the consequences of natural evils if we choose not to lend a hand. A theodicist thinks that we are influenced in that way because it would be wrong to be ignorant in occasions when the world needs as much aid as it can get (182). We would just be contributing to the wrongdoing, and would not be growing morally. This is one way God could be creating virtuous beings, while still these allowing these beings to have

There are two main ways in which natural evil operates to give humans those choices. First of all, natural evil provides chance for humans to learn how to bring the evil. For example, I can choose to ignore my sick friends instead of showing compassion towards the sufferer. If I get sick, I can either choose to spread it to others or subdue to disease and prevent it from spreading. Humans have the free will to choose to be good or evil. The other reason in which natural evil operates to give humans their freedom is that it makes possible certain kinds of action towards it between which genets can choose (Swinburne, p.95). For instance, sicknesses provide humans chance to find the cure and help other patients in the future. If there is no sickness, this choice does not exist at all. It is a way in which we learn how to bring about good and evil. The natural evil allows us to perform at our best and interact with out fellows at the deepest level. Animals also need to endure pain, which gives them value to life. For instance, a mother rabbits cannot save her bunnies from the wolves without trying. Her heroic actions cannot be done unless danger

One might object to the Problem of Evil by giving a theodicy. A theodicy is basically a justification that explains why God allows evil things to happen even though he is all-PGK. In addition, a theodicy is on the “God is all-PGK” side because it might prove that evil is needed in this world in intention of God, and evil is, of course, under control of God. One theodicy is free will. Free will is a gift from God. All creatures in this world have an ability to do whatever it is willing to do. As an illustration, a mother uses drugs, yells at her son every day, forces him to do what he does not want to, and also violently abuses him. One day, that boy kills his mother. That is murder, and that is evil. God might see that, but he let it happen due to two possibilities. First, killing his mother is what the boy needs to do to free his life, and God sees that as a solution for that boy. That is the boy’s free will. If God ever stops the son, there is no longer free will. Second, the mother needs to be removed out of this world because she is evil, and she is wrongful in treating her son. Here we can see that God intervenes to help the boy decide to stop the

Taylor’s philosophy and view on determinism, free will and moral responsibility reflects the libertarian philosophic position. He attaches large importance to free will and free choice of a person. Taylor asserts that “certain events (namely, human choices) are not completely determined by preceding events; rather, they are caused by the agent of the choice (the person doing the choosing)” (Free Will). This view differs from that of Blatchford, Schlick and Hospers who deny free choice concluding that everything is determined in our decisions and actions. But real free will, according to Taylor, appears in case of strong evaluations which determine important actions and decisions. Taylor, as well as Campbell, supposes that a person who makes acts has free choice to act in another way. And, “according to our definition, the act was freely performed. So not only would such acts be free, but they are also acts for which someone could be held morally responsible” (Free Will). So, Taylor assumes that moral responsibility is reflected in free choice of a person. I support his point of view and think that not only the laws of heredity and nature determine our behaviour – this approach decreases the importance of rational factors. In other words, I adhere with the libertarian view which “maintains that there are acts which are not completely determined by preceding events and the laws of nature, but which are not just random” (Free