Free Will Argument Against Moral Evil
Intro: In this article, I first presented the Free Will argument. Then I showed how it fails by questioning the necessity of natural evils. After that, I defended my response against a likely rebuttal.
1. The Free Will Argument Against the Argument from Evil:
Among the objections to the argument from evil, I took the free will argument as the strongest. Let’s first exam the argument from evil, and see how the free will argument irrationalize it.
The argument from evil says:
A1. If an all mighty and all good being such as god exists, there will be no evil.
A2. There is evil.
A3. So, there is no all mighty and all good being such as god.
The free-will argument states that A1 is a false promise. The argument introduces the concept of free …show more content…
There exist two types of evils: moral evils and natural evils. Moral evils are terrible events within human’s control. The terrorists’ slaughter in Paris, for example, is a moral evil. The terrorists could have chosen not to shoot innocent people. Natural evils, on the other hand, are terrible events happen outside human beings’ control. Earthquake for example, is a natural evil. There’s no way we can let it happen or not.
B3’s problem is: it only explains why moral evils can exist. Because moral evils act as the outcome of an agent’s action. The argument says nothing about the natural evils though. It remains uncertain whether natural evils are necessities of free-will. And in my opinion, they are not. There are millions of natural evils that can’t be explained by the free-will argument. Killed in a tsunami, lost all family members in a earthquake, born disabled, etc… These natural evils do not act as the consequence of people’s action. They are in no way helping people to get free-will.
To summarize:
C1. Evils that don’t act as consequences of people’s action are unnecessary (for people to have free-will).
C2. Natural evils don’t act as consequences of people’s action.
C3. So, natural evils are unnecessary (for people to have free-will).
It is clear that an all mighty being would not let unnecessary evils …show more content…
If event α is the sum of several event β, event α and event β should have the same properties.
F2. A natural evil is always the sum of moral evils, which are necessary for people to have free-will.
F3. So, all natural evils are necessary for people to have free-will.
I admit that some natural evils can be the sums of moral evils. However, it remains uncertain whether all natural evils are the sums of moral evils. Questioning E2 requires us to find out at least one natural evil that has nothing to do with human actions. This is more difficult than it looks. Even a natural evil such as hit by an asteroids could be attributed to lack of preparation, insufficient technology, etc… So, I’ll lay this question aside and focus on F1.
F1 claims that “sums” and “parts” should have the same properties. This is incorrect. For example: In quantum physic, it is impossible to determine a particle’s momentum and position at the same time; whereas in classical physics, it is possible to determine an object’s momentum and position at the same time. Particles sums up to objects, but they don’t have the same properties. Quantitative change leads to qualitative change.
To
1. The Free Will Argument Against the Argument from Evil:
Among the objections to the argument from evil, I took the free will argument as the strongest. Let’s first exam the argument from evil, and see how the free will argument irrationalize it.
The argument from evil says:
A1. If an all mighty and all good being such as god exists, there will be no evil.
A2. There is evil.
A3. So, there is no all mighty and all good being such as god.
The free-will argument states that A1 is a false promise. The argument introduces the concept of free …show more content…
There exist two types of evils: moral evils and natural evils. Moral evils are terrible events within human’s control. The terrorists’ slaughter in Paris, for example, is a moral evil. The terrorists could have chosen not to shoot innocent people. Natural evils, on the other hand, are terrible events happen outside human beings’ control. Earthquake for example, is a natural evil. There’s no way we can let it happen or not.
B3’s problem is: it only explains why moral evils can exist. Because moral evils act as the outcome of an agent’s action. The argument says nothing about the natural evils though. It remains uncertain whether natural evils are necessities of free-will. And in my opinion, they are not. There are millions of natural evils that can’t be explained by the free-will argument. Killed in a tsunami, lost all family members in a earthquake, born disabled, etc… These natural evils do not act as the consequence of people’s action. They are in no way helping people to get free-will.
To summarize:
C1. Evils that don’t act as consequences of people’s action are unnecessary (for people to have free-will).
C2. Natural evils don’t act as consequences of people’s action.
C3. So, natural evils are unnecessary (for people to have free-will).
It is clear that an all mighty being would not let unnecessary evils …show more content…
If event α is the sum of several event β, event α and event β should have the same properties.
F2. A natural evil is always the sum of moral evils, which are necessary for people to have free-will.
F3. So, all natural evils are necessary for people to have free-will.
I admit that some natural evils can be the sums of moral evils. However, it remains uncertain whether all natural evils are the sums of moral evils. Questioning E2 requires us to find out at least one natural evil that has nothing to do with human actions. This is more difficult than it looks. Even a natural evil such as hit by an asteroids could be attributed to lack of preparation, insufficient technology, etc… So, I’ll lay this question aside and focus on F1.
F1 claims that “sums” and “parts” should have the same properties. This is incorrect. For example: In quantum physic, it is impossible to determine a particle’s momentum and position at the same time; whereas in classical physics, it is possible to determine an object’s momentum and position at the same time. Particles sums up to objects, but they don’t have the same properties. Quantitative change leads to qualitative change.
To