Exam 3 Flashcards
Problem of evil
Why do bad things happen to good people
Natural evil
The evil suffered
Moral evil
Responsible for what is done ( evil done)
Free will defense
Attempt to solve problem of evil by attributing evil to free will of creatures
Free will ( generally )
Ability to do something for which you are morally responsible
Libertarianism
One is free and responsible, and has the choice to do otherwise
Determinism
Opposed to libertarianism and free will is an illusion. One is neither free nor responsible because everything is determined by prior condition
Compatibilism
(Free will and determinism = combatibilism ). One is free and responsible, all is determined and free will is the ability to do what you want
Argument from introspection
An argument from metaphysical libertarianism based on alleged experience of being able to select one or the other of the two options
Thought experiment
Fictional scenario used to test our intuitions through a controversial claim - an ex is Buridan’S ass
Problem of desert
Part of problem of evil, why do good things happen to bad people and why do bad things happen to good people ( why don’t people get what they deserve )
Problem of divine foreknowledge
How can god know the future without destroying human freedom
Divine eternity
God remains the same forever
Open theism
Future is open even to God
Simple necessity
Necessity that takes away free will
Conditional necessity
Necessity that does not take away free will
Divine idleness question
What was God doing all by himself for all eternity before he created the universe
Category mistake
When a sentence makes an impossible presupposition about its subject
Temporal realism
View that time exists independently of the way the human mind experiences it
Temporal antirealism
View that time is dependent of the human mind
Indexicals
Terms whose meanings are completely context dependent - ex I, you, he
Substance dualism
Body is one material substance, the mind is one immaterial substance, and the person is just the soul
Substance
Exists in and of himself/ itself
Problem of interaction
How can mind and body interact if they are separate -> argument against substance dualism
Hylomorphism
Material substances are generally matter and form
Intellectual determinast
Do not actually have choice determined to go one way over another because of our intellect
Buridan’S ass
Scenario that depicts a donkey unable to choose between two bales of hay, starves to death
Argument for introspection (libertarianism) form
l. If we weren’t free we would not be able to refrain from doing what we are about to do
2. But we do feel able “ “
3. Therefore, we are free
explain the problem of evil and explain and evaluate augustine’s free will defense. be sure to discuss how the defense is supposed to apply to natural evil
The problem of evil is why do bad things happen to good people, which bleeds into the other part of the question which is why does evil exist if God exists. Evil here means any bad at all. God is a figure who is held as the greatest conceivable being, so he possesses all of the great making characteristics. Which means that he is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. However, if god ia ll knowing, then he knows how evil will happen. If god is all powerful then he can prevent evil. And if he is all good, he would want to prevent evil.
The problem of evil is opposed by the free will defense, which goes as: if we are free our future actions can go either way, and if they can go either way god can’t know which we will choose. Therefore if we are free god cannot know. Free will itself is good, so God brought it about, so he cannot preveny evil because of free will (this is how god and evil coexist).
There also exist moral (evil done) and natural evil (evil received). Following the idea of original sin, every human is born in a state of sin (already bent) so they do evil and they have the ability to do it within them. Natural evil is like antural disasters , which is punishment for the misuse of free will (augustines persepective). Therefore, free will defense only applies to moral evil.
explain the three main positions in free will and explain and evaluate OLivi’s defense of metaphsyical libertarianism. Be sure to discuss Buridan’s ass
the three main positions on free will are: Libertarianism, determinism, and compatibilism. Libertarianism is the idea tat one is free and responsible and has the chocie to do otherwise. Determineism is opposed to libertarianism and is the idea that free will is an illusion: one is neither free nor responsible because everything is predetermined by prior condition. Compatibilism is a combination/culnination of the 2 other positions on free will. It is the position that you are free and responsible, everything is predetermined and free will is the ability to do what you want.
Peter John Olivi was a franciscan whose view was that human beings are responsible for their actions as individuals because they have free will. His ideas aligned with libertarian free will. the argument for introspection (libertarianism) is if we weren’t free we wouldn’t be able to do otherwise, but we do feel able to do otherwise, so therefore we are free.
Buridan was an intellectual determinist so he thought: we do not actually have a choice, we are determined to go one way over another because of our intellect. ultimately, free wil is enslaved to intellect. The illusion of free will is nothing other than defective reasoning. He says it seems you have free will because you can mistake in your reasoning because intellect is not perfect.
Buridan’s ass was a thought experiment proposed by metaphysical libertarians. It is the ficiotnal scenario designed to test our intutions about a controversial claim. the scenario depicted a donkey unable to choose between 2 bales of hay, ends of starving to death. The idea is that the donkey can’t choose because both bales are perfect, so intellect is not good here. Humans do not need a reason to prefer, then choose, one over another.
explain the problem of divine foreknowledge and explain and evaluate Boethius’s solution. Be sure to duscuss simple vs conditional necessity.
the problem of divine foreknowledge is the worry that God’s foreknowledge will destroy free will. God is all knowing and all powerful so by those traits, God knows what will happen with the future. But god made us humans, so we have free will, which means (by libertarianism) that we are both free and responsible but have the choice to do otherwise. However, if God knows what will happen in the future, everything must be predetermined, which means we do not actually have free will and responsibility because we do not have the choice to do otherwise. Boethius wants to argue in favor of libertarian freedom as well as God knowing the future. To do this he argues that different kinds of knowers have different kinds of knowing. God is eternal, so therefore Gods knowing eternal and God exists in the present. DRAW DIAGRAM
in simpler terms God sees all at once, so he cannot see the future before the present, he experiences it all at once.
Simple necessity and conditional necessity fall under what God knows must be so. Simple necessity is necessity that takes away free will - it is like requirements of nature like the sun will rise tomorrow. Conditional necessity is necessity that does not take away free will. Under simple necessity, if God knows then it is necessarily the case. under conditional necessity if God knows, it is the case. Simple necessity opposes free will because it is saying it will happen (necessarily). conditional necessity does not oppose free will because it is not necessarily the case. Hod knowing does not mean it is necessarily the case relates to DRAW DIAGRAM. Therefore conditional necessity is compatible with free will
explain and evaluate augustine’s treatment of divine idleness question and his defense of temporal anti realism
Pagan’s had a hard time understanding how God is eternal, but created the universe. So the question is what was God doing before time, which is the divine idleist question. However this question could be seen as a category mistake: when a sentence makes an impossible presupposition about its subject. This is a category mistake because there is no before in this sense. According to temporal anti realism, time is subjective and depends on the mind. the temporal antirealism argument is, supposing time exists outside the mind, then it must have length. But if the present has length, then an instance has length which is impossible. ABSURD! Therefore time does not exist outside the mind. this argument is similar to how an individual point can’t have length. If a point had length, it would no longer be just a point, it would be the line. Same goes for the present. If the present had length, it would no longer be just the present.
