Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The argument that some evil is logically necessary for a greater good that outweighs it is not immune from challenge.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • The examples typically advanced of cases where some evil is logically necessary for a greater good that outweighs the evil are not really convincing upon close examination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Alvin Plantinga's free will defense requires actual evil as a logical precondition, yet Mackie argued God could create beings who always freely choose good.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If libertarian free will requires genuine alternatives including evil choices, then a world of free creatures who never sin may be metaphysically impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.However, as J.L. Mackie noted, omnipotence plausibly includes the power to create beings with freedom who nonetheless always choose rightly, undermining the necessity claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Soul-making theodicy (Hick) holds that moral virtues like courage require genuine suffering, but virtues can be defined dispositionally without requiring their actual exercise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A being with the settled disposition toward courage in counterfactual suffering scenarios would possess the virtue without actual evil having occurred.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This shows the logical necessity claim fails: the greater good of virtue does not strictly entail the actual instantiation of the evils meant to produce it.
      ?

      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.