Why Kant Abandoned Theodicy Analysis

757 Words2 Pages

We hear about the murders, assaults, robberies, natural disasters and all other evil or natural destructive events in the world, we have to ask the question, how could God let such bad things happen to good people or to let these disastrous events happen at all. Now think about the world and its population if evil or natural disasters did not exist; the world population would be unimaginable. Natural disasters are beyond human control, but murders, assaults, robberies and all other evil or bad deeds committed by human beings is a matter of exercising bad choice or misuse of free will.

In the article, Moral Evil, Freedom and the Goodness of God: Why Kant Abandoned Theodicy, author Sam Duncan wrote about Kant’s initial theory on theodicy …show more content…

As Sam Duncan wrote “Kant equates morality with acting freely. When we act on the moral law, we act independently of any impulse…” We all know crimes such as murder or stealing are morally wrong, but it is the decision we chose to make as we are faced with the dilemma of acting on a good or bad decision. No one else is to blame at that particular moment since it is the individual right then and there doing good or

Show More
Related

  • Conflict Between God And Evil Essay

    2051 Words  | 5 Pages

    “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” (Lewis, 1994, p. 91). Throughout history man has had to struggle with the problem of evil. It is one of the greatest problems of the world. Unquestionably, there is no greater challenge to man’s faith then the existence of evil and a suffering world. The problem can be stated simply: If God is an all-knowing and all-loving God, how can He allow evil? If God is so good, how can He allow such bad things to happen?Why does He allow bad things to happen to good people? These are fundamental questions that many Christians and non-Christians set out to answer.

    Read More

  • An Analysis of Peter van Inwagen’s The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy

    2315 Words  | 5 Pages

    In his essay, "The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy," Peter van Inwagen alleges a set of reasons that God may have for allowing evil to exist on earth. Inwagen proposes the following story – throughout which there is an implicit assumption that God is all-good (perfectly benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient) and deserving of all our love. God created humans in his own likeness and fit for His love. In order to enable humans to return this love, He had to give them the ability to freely choose. That is, Inwagen holds that the ability to love implies free will. By giving humans free will, God was taking a risk. As Inwagen argues, not even an omnipotent being can ensure that "a creature who has a free choice between x and y choose x rather than y" (197)1. (X in Inwagen’s story is ‘to turn its love to God’ and y is ‘to turn its love away from God,’ towards itself or other things.) So it happened that humans did in fact rebel and turn away from God. The first instance of this turning away is referred to as "the Fall." The ruin of the Fall was inherited by all humans to follow and is the source of evil in the world. But God did not leave humans without hope. He has a plan "whose working will one day eventuate in the Atonement (at-one-ment) of His human creatures with Himself," or at least some of His human creatures (198). This plan somehow involves humans realizing the wretchedness of a world without God and turning to God for help.

    Read More

  • Kant and Mill’s Positions on Capital Punishment

    1862 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant believes in the theory of the categorical imperative, which states that people should “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” (Kant 31) In other words, people should act only in such a way that their actions can become a law that can be applied universally (to everyone). In The Metaphysics of Morals, Kant’s definition of a crime is any act that violates the public law (Kant 105) and the right to punish is “the right a ruler has against a subject to inflict pain upon him because of his having committed a crime.” (Kant 104) According to Kant, laws exist to protect society. Without them, society cannot exist and, thus, they must be enforced in a way such that people who follow the laws are considered members of society, and people that violate the laws lose their right to be members of society and, therefore, must be punished. The level of punishment that should be advocated towards the criminal should be equivalent to the severity of the crime. Simply put, “an eye for an...

    Read More

  • Ethics in Nursing

    1924 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant believed consequences were irrelevant and an individual should do as they please at that very moment in time. An example would be a person went to their neighbor’s home while they were gone to turn on the heater so when they returned home it was warm. A consequence to turning on their heater is their house burned down, but according to Kant, since your intentions were good you cannot be at fault. Kant also believed each person has dignity and not to treat others as a means, to one’s personals ends (Rich, 2008). In other words, do not treat others as an instrument to achieve a goal. For example, a researcher that is risking the well-being of an individual participating in an experiment for the sake of finding a drug that may save many lives.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of If God Is Dead Is Everything Permitted

    1251 Words  | 3 Pages

    This is an important point, because if our understanding of God is that He is purely good, then why would so many of this heinous events occur. “Theist reply that because God is necessarily good, He would never do anything morally reprehensible Himself nor command us to preform heinous acts.” (Anderson, 2007). However, God is seen punishing not only those who are considered to be evil, but also those who are innocent, He causes floods, plagues and death to many people because of one person’s act, or if He was angry. This is completely opposite to our understanding of God loving us all and to our most important idea that God is perfectly good. Even if these acts were seen as punishing those who are considered evil, then God would have not done any act that would harm someone, nor would He permit us to do so. The bible is filled with these inaccuracies, is God loving of all, or just the few that follow Him, it states different allowances in stories (Infidels.org, 2016). It is my understanding that these stories are proof that God is not purely good, which itself is an argument for Him not to exist or that the stories themselves or false. Murder was perfectly fine for the soldiers of the First Crusade, who slaughtered every man, woman, and child, however it is written in the bible that murder is prohibited, it is a sin. Many other events like this occurred. When we look

    Read More

  • God’s Existence and the importance of the resurrection to Christianity

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    Opponents of God’s existence argue if an all-knowing and good god exists, why is there such an abundance of evil in the world.

    Read More

  • A Comparison Of Moral Responsibility And Free Will

    1431 Words  | 3 Pages

    For the Kantian philosopher, free will is key to morality, especially moral responsibility. For her, an individual cannot be considered morally responsible for an act, unless the act was performed after freely deciding upon it, and that the decision came about via the process of reasoning. That is, the individual reflected on a course of action and then decided to act, without being directed by alien causes, passions or impulses (Spark Notes Editors 2005). Furthermore, the individual must have had the...

    Read More

  • A Comparison of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant's Ethical Theories

    3195 Words  | 7 Pages

    Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.

    Read More

  • Metaphysics of Morals

    1153 Words  | 3 Pages

    Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason

    1389 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kant, Immanuel, and Friedrich Max (Indologe) Müller. "Doctrine 1/The Element of Transcendentalism." Critique of Pure Reason: In Commemoration of the Centenary of Its First Publication. London: Macmillan, 1881. 37-59. Print

    Read More

  • Summary Of Dr Thomas Oord

    812 Words  | 2 Pages

    There are various problems of evil for example if God is able to do absolutely anything ,God would be able to prevent any genuine evil occurrence for example the forever un ending war that happening today where by human are

    Read More

  • Kant and Deontological Theory

    1240 Words  | 3 Pages

    While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human beings (Freeman, 2000). A human’s brain is the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Not only do human beings work on instinct, but they have the ability to sort out situations in order to make a decision. This includes weighing the pros and cons of decisions that could be made and how they affect others either positively or negatively. This is called rational thought. Kant believed that any human being able to rationalize a decision before it was made had the ability to be a morally just person (Freeman, 2000). There were certain things that made the decision moral, and he called it the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). If someone was immoral they violated this CI and were considered irrational. The CI is said to be an automatic response which was part of Kant’s argument that all people were deserving of respect. This automatic response to rational thinking is where he is considered, now, to be “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008).

    Read More

  • Case Analysis: Case Study: If Looks Could Kill

    1269 Words  | 3 Pages

    When applying Kant’s theory one also has to take into account the two aspects in determining what exactly the right thing in any situation is. They include universality and respect for persons. Universality states that you must “act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law”(Manias). Respect for person’s states that one must “act so that you treat humanity, weather in your own person or that of another; always as an end and never as a means only” (Manias). With this being said one must apply both of these to any option they are

    Read More

  • Evil And Suffering Research Paper

    502 Words  | 2 Pages

    The existence of evil and suffering such as death, pain, or disasters are not alone the work of all-loving, omnipotent, and omniscient God. “The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love” (Psalm 145:8). However, God can allow all the suffering that we see today. If the suffering is caused by moral agents, god does not intervene to stop it because that would violate the principle of free will. For example, if an individual commits a crime and causes a lot of suffering on the victim’s family, God is not going to prevent it. If God intervenes, the criminal would not be considered as evil because the criminal’s action would be prevented each time. If God

    Read More

  • An Analysis of Solipsism in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason

    2187 Words  | 5 Pages

    Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1929.

    Read More

More about Why Kant Abandoned Theodicy Analysis

Open Document