Summary Of Phil Washburn's Argument Against Capitalism

William Rowe addresses the problem of evil through an examination of the relationship between the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient creator. His argument stems from the notion that because human and animal suffering is so intense, an atheist is rational in their belief and that the co-existence of evil and God is unlikely.

The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist. At the beginning of the article, Mackie states that the initial issue with God’s existence is that, “God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists” (Mackie, Paragraph 3). If god is such a pure and good being, then he should be able to combat all evil.

In “Evil and Omnipotence”, J.L Mackie argues that solutions provided for the problem of evil are implausible. Mackie claims that the problem of evil is God’s inability to be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent yet have evil exist. This contradiction cannot be physically disproven; and therefore, must be logically disproven. Mackie uses a novel method of providing solutions to this problem and elaborating on their lack of logic. In this paper, I will further explain the problem of evil, expand on the solution “Good cannot exist without evil,” and argue for Mackie’s view against this solution.

“Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned” (Ayn Rand).

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

In this paper, I will begin by stating the Problem of Evil. Following this I will include two objections to the argument and why I find the argument to not be convincing. The Problem of Evil is an argument concerning the existence of God and why God cannot exist because of the presence of evil in the world. The argument begins by saying that God is both all-powerful and wholly good, and that evil exists in the world. However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true. The next statement is that there are no limits that can be placed on an all-powerful thing. Also, a wholly good being will eliminate evil as much as possible. If these two statements are true then an all-powerful, wholly good being is able to eliminate all evil in the world.

In this reading reflection I will be discussing Richard Swinburne’s argument on “Why God Allows Evil” which starts on page 254 in “Exploring Philosophy: An Anthology” by Steven M. Cahn. This was also discussed in class on 9/15/16.

Some historians, such as Charles Sellers and Nancy Cott, label the period following the war of 1812 as a Market Revolution. Whether the historian labels the period as such or not, all agree on the economic, social, and innovative changes and developments that occurred during this era. However, historians disagree on the positive or negative effects that took place because of these changes.

The discourse between Socrates and Euthyphro clearly depicts a dilemma when it comes to the question on holiness, moral goodness and the will of God. While Euthyphro is of the opinion that what is dear to the gods is holy, and what is not dear to them is unholy, (Indiana University 6) Socrates seems to be of a different opinion. This discourse occurs at a time when there is a belief in many gods in Greece, each god having different duties. The gods are also known to disagree on a number of issues. Socrates, in trying to counter Euthyphro’s idea he opines that since the gods disagree, they must have different concepts of what is ethical and what is not. Socrates clearly states, in support of this opinion that that according to Euthyphro’s account,

So far, we have examined only arguments for the existence of God. But for each argument, we have also discussed some objections. Some theists may accept all these objections and yet maintain a belief in the existence of God.

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.

My goal in this paper is to show that Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. I begin with a formulation of Swinburne’s thoughts about the similarity and difference between moral evil and natural evil. I then formulate the connection between evil and free will. Next, I consider the potentiality objection to this argument, and Swinburne’s response to this objection. Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive.

“The Problem of Evil” is simply the question, why does God allow evil to happen? God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, and rational, therefore why does evil exist? There is either no God or he is not what we think he is, since evil could be prevented by him with no risk. Atheists and anti-theodicist see a problem with the idea that God could prevent evil. They believe that because God is so powerful and perfect, that he would not allow such immoral actions to be done. On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it.

The individual by pursuing his economic self-interest simultaneously profits the all others’ economic self-interest of that society. Since each individual acts unhampered by government rules in capitalism, it causes the creation of wealth in a very efficient manner which then ultimately causes the rise of the living standard, the increase of the economic opportunities, and the rise of the supply of products. Therefore, when an economy functions with a free-market system everyone has the chance to create wealth for himself and in the same time he simultaneously creates opportunities for everyone else interests. This means that while the rich becomes richer the even poor one becomes richer. Such like, the Capitalism serves everyone for achieving their economic self-interest, including non-capitalists. This results in prosperity, accelerated economic growth, and in progress of science and technology. Even though Capitalism naturally has certain divisions and may be of different kinds it is still less authoritative than centralized government as it is under Socialism. While the people are not commanded on how to use their wealth or power means that they will have more access to these two

From the cooperation among civilians by a division of labor, to the limitations of government in an effort to achieve a free and competitive market, to the prioritization of the individual profit motive and accumulation of personal wealth, Smith argues that society can succeed in such an environment. Even though Smith’s economic platform revolved around a pre-Industrial Revolution era, his solutions to economic prosperity via the free economy allowed for an adaptable and flexible system. Nowadays, the idea of pursuing one’s own self interest is viewed as narcissistic, and oftentimes overlooked due to the accumulation of personal wealth. Government regulations force wealthy individuals to give a higher portion of their wealth for the betterment of the society, which some may view as unproportionable to their benefits from living in society. Simpler, fairer ways of devising a tax regulation have been proven to promote economic growth, however the current economic platform is seen to be arbitrary and obscure. Regardless, it is evident that the basic principles of Smith’s economic society are prevalent among certain aspects of today’s