Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A God who designed a world with such natural evils built into its structure bears causal responsibility for those evils.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Causal responsibility requires either intention or culpable negligence; structural features enabling suffering ≠ causing specific instances.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Natural laws enabling both flourishing and suffering may be metaphysically necessary for free will, moral agency, and genuine goods.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Responsibility attributions presume the agent could have done otherwise; God's necessity may exempt it from standard responsibility conditions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Designers bear causal responsibility for foreseeable consequences of their designs, whether intended or structurally inherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Natural evils (disease, predation, earthquakes) are features of creation's structure, not accidents or external impositions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
An omniscient designer would foresee all suffering their design produces, making ignorance an unavailable excuse.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.