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 Epicurus established that divine beings, by definition perfectly self-sufficient, have no motivation to arrange the world for others' benefit.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Self-sufficiency need not exclude voluntary action; humans are self-sufficient yet freely choose to benefit others.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Acting beneficently doesn't require dependence on others; a being can act from internal character rather than external need.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The argument equivocates between 'no motivation' and 'no capacity'; self-sufficient beings might have reasons independent of need.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Self-sufficiency logically entails lack of need; beings without needs have no rational incentive to act for others' benefit.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If divine beings acted beneficently, they would depend on external goals or beings' welfare, contradicting their self-sufficiency.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Observable world suffering is consistent with indifferent divine beings but inconsistent with benevolent omnipotent ones.
?
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.