让我们打高尔夫球吧!

Q2 Arts and Humanities TheoLogica Pub Date : 2021-12-09 DOI:10.14428/thl.v5i2.20343
Steven B. Cowan
{"title":"让我们打高尔夫球吧!","authors":"Steven B. Cowan","doi":"10.14428/thl.v5i2.20343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A central feature of the “free will defense” as developed by Alvin Plantinga is his response to the claim that God can create a world containing creatures with libertarian freedom that contains no moral evil. Plantinga’s response appeals to the notion of “morally significant freedom” according to which free creatures, in order to do moral good, must be capable of moral evil. In this paper, I argue, first, that morally significant freedom is not required for free creatures to do moral good and, second, that other recent attempts to necessitate a creaturely capability for evil likewise fail. The upshot of my paper is that the free will defense simply won’t work because it is possible and feasible for God to create a world containing libertarianly free creatures capable of moral good and yet containing no moral evil.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":"100 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Let's Play GOLF!\",\"authors\":\"Steven B. Cowan\",\"doi\":\"10.14428/thl.v5i2.20343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A central feature of the “free will defense” as developed by Alvin Plantinga is his response to the claim that God can create a world containing creatures with libertarian freedom that contains no moral evil. Plantinga’s response appeals to the notion of “morally significant freedom” according to which free creatures, in order to do moral good, must be capable of moral evil. In this paper, I argue, first, that morally significant freedom is not required for free creatures to do moral good and, second, that other recent attempts to necessitate a creaturely capability for evil likewise fail. The upshot of my paper is that the free will defense simply won’t work because it is possible and feasible for God to create a world containing libertarianly free creatures capable of moral good and yet containing no moral evil.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TheoLogica\",\"volume\":\"100 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TheoLogica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v5i2.20343\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TheoLogica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v5i2.20343","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Alvin Plantinga提出的“自由意志辩护”的一个核心特征是他对这样一种说法的回应,即上帝可以创造一个包含具有自由意志主义自由的生物的世界,其中没有道德上的邪恶。Plantinga的回答诉诸于"道德上重要的自由"的概念根据这个概念,自由的生物,为了做道德上的善,必须有能力做道德上的恶。在这篇论文中,我认为,首先,道德意义上的自由并不需要自由的生物去做道德上的善,其次,其他最近的尝试也同样失败了。我论文的结论是,自由意志的辩护根本站不住脚,因为对于上帝来说,创造一个世界是可能的,也是可行的,这个世界包含了自由意志主义自由的生物,他们有能力行善,却没有道德上的邪恶。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Let's Play GOLF!
A central feature of the “free will defense” as developed by Alvin Plantinga is his response to the claim that God can create a world containing creatures with libertarian freedom that contains no moral evil. Plantinga’s response appeals to the notion of “morally significant freedom” according to which free creatures, in order to do moral good, must be capable of moral evil. In this paper, I argue, first, that morally significant freedom is not required for free creatures to do moral good and, second, that other recent attempts to necessitate a creaturely capability for evil likewise fail. The upshot of my paper is that the free will defense simply won’t work because it is possible and feasible for God to create a world containing libertarianly free creatures capable of moral good and yet containing no moral evil.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
TheoLogica
TheoLogica Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Scholastic Hylomorphism and Dean Zimmerman O felix culpa! Presentism, Timelessness, and Evil A Divine Alternative to Zimmerman’s Emergent Dualism What the Experience of Transience Tells Us About the Afterlife
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1