Platinga on God, Freedom and Evil

8/14/2019 Platinga on God, Freedom and Evil

1/22

P L A N T I N G A O N G O D F R E E D O M A N D E VIL

F R E D E R IC K W K R O O N

University o f ucklan d

IntroductionHume once stated the Problem of Evil as follows:I s G o d ) w i l li n g t o p r e v e n t e v il , b u t n o t a b l e ? t h e n i s h e i m p o t e n t . I s h e a b l e, b u t n o t w i l l in g ?t h e n h e i s m a l e v o l e n t . I s h e b o t h a b l e a n d w i l l in g ? w h e n c e t h e n i s e v i l? ( D i a lo g u e s C o n c e r n i n gN a t u r a l R e l i g i o n , P t . X )

Hume s intention, evidently, was not to charge the theist with maintainingbelief in a God whose ways are fundamentally mysterious, but to drivehome the charge that God s existence appears l o g i c l l y incompatible withthe manifest existence of evil; that the s tatements:

(1) There is an all powerful, all knowing, wholly perfect being, Godand

(2) Evil existsappear to be i n c o n s i s t e n t with each other. The so-called Argument fromEvil, of which Hume s series of questions is one version, is an argumentthat purports to show that (1) and (2) are true logical contraries, and that,since (2) clearly is true (and is acknowledged by theists to be true), (1) there-fore c n n o t be true.

An at tempt to defend the theist against the Argument from Evil can takeone of two forms. It may simply rebut particular versions of the argumentby showing that it has not been demonstrated that there is an inconsistency.Or it may, more courageously, show that it c n n o t be shown that there isan inconsistency since (1) and (2) are demonstrably consistent.

Not a few philosophers adopt the first approach. Alvin Piantinga is onephilosopher who over the years has attempted to formulate a definitiveversion of the second approach. His most comprehensible formulation ofI n t J P h i l R e l 1 2 : 7 5 - 9 6 (1 9 81 ) 0 0 2 0 - 7 0 4 7 / 8 1 / 0 1 2 2 - 0 0 7 . 0 3.3 0 .~ )1 98 1 M a r t i n u s N i j h o f f P u b li s h e rs , T h e H a g u e . P r i n t e d in t h e N e t h e r la n d s .


2/22

76t h i s a p p r o a c h i s f o u n d i n h i s r e c e n t G o d F r e e d o m a n d E v i l I ( h e r e a f t e rc a ll ed G F E ) , b u t th e r e a re o t h e r f o r m u l a t i o n s i n G o d a n d O t h e r M i n d s 2a n d i n T h e N a t u r e o f N e c e s s it y. 3 T h e s e f o r m u l a t i o n s a r e n o t i d e n t i c a l , b u tn e i t h e r a r e t h e y e s s e n t i a ll y d i f f e r e n t in u n d e r l y i n g s t r a t e g y . I n b o t h G F Ea n d T h e N a t u r e o f N e c e ss it y t h e r e i s a m u c h m o r e e x p l i ci t e m p h a s i s o n t h er o l e o f c o u n t e r f a c t u a l s a n d g r e a t e r s tr e ss i s p l a c e d o n t h e f a c t ( i f i t is a f a c t )t h a t t h e l o g ic o f c o u n t e r f a c t u a l s r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e r e a r e p o s s ib l e w o r l d s t h a tG o d c a n n o t a c t u a l i z e , th u s i n d i c a t i n g a c l e a r c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n a p o s i t i o nl ik e P l a n t i n g a s a n d a L e i b n i z ia n t h e o d ic y . B u t w h i l e P l a n t i n g a s a r g u m e n td o e s n o t s e e m t o h a v e u n d e r g o n e e s s e n t ia l c h a n g e s s in c e it f i rs t a p p e a r e d , Id o n o t t h i n k t h a t G F E p r e se n t s t h e m o s t s u b t le v e r si o n o f th e a r g u m e n t . I nf a c t , t h e a r g u m e n t i n G F E r ai se s a n u m b e r o f s e ri o us q u e s t io n s , s o m e o fw h i c h a r e p e cu l ia r t o t h e G F E f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e a r g u m e n t . T h i s , a t l e a st ,i s wh a t I c l a im in t h e p re s en t p ap e r .

T h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h is p a p e r is a s f o ll o w s . S e c t i o n 1 i s d e v o t e d t o as u m m a r y o f P l a n t i n g a s c o n si st e nc y p r o o f in G o d F r e e d o m a n d E v il . Ins e c t i o n 2 , I p o i n t t o a r a t h e r c o u n t e r i n t u i t i v e ( b u t , f o r P l a n t i n g a , e x t r e m e l yc r u ci al ) m o d a l a s s u m p t i o n t h a t P l a n t i n g a m a k e s - a n a s s u m p t i o n a cc o r d -i n g t o w h i c h i t is l o g i c a l ly p o s s ib l e f o r P to ~ h a s a d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n gf r o m t h e r e is a l o g i c a ll y p o s s ib l e w o r l d in w h i c h P ~ s - a n d I d e f e n d a na c c o u n t o f t h e a s c r i p t i o n s o f p o w e r s a n d a b i l i t i e s t h a t m a k e s s e n s e o f t h i sa s s u m p t i o n . H a v i n g s h o w n t h a t P l a n t i n g a s c o n s i s t e n cy p r o o f c l e a rs t hi si m p o r t a n t h u r d l e , I a r g u e i n s e c ti o n 3 t h a t P l a n t i n g a s p r o o f i n G o dF r e e d o m a n d E v i l n o n e t h e l e s s f a il s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t p e r h a p s i t w a s n o tp o s s i b l e f o r G o d t o a c t u a l i z e w o r l d s w i t h o u t e v i l , a l t h o u g h ( a s I a r g u e i ns e c t i o n 4) a s u p e r f i c i a ll y s im i l a r c o n s i s t e n c y p r o o f i n T h e N a t u r e o f N e c es -s i t y i s m o re s u cces s fu l . Sec t i o n 5 a rg u es t h e m o re g en e ra l t h e s i s t h a t , ev enso , all o f P l a n t i n g a s a t t e m p t s t o s h o w G o d s e x is te n c e c o m p a t i b le w i tht h a t o f e v i l, in c l u d i n g t h e a c c o u n t i n T h e N a t u r e o f N e c e ss it y s u f f e r f r o ma ce r t a in l a ck o f g en e ra l i t y . I t i s a rg u ed i n t h i s s ec t i o n t h a t t h e re a re an u m b e r o f p o w e r f u l r e a s o n s f o r b e i n g d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h c o n s i s t e n c y p r o o f st h a t ( li k e P l a n t i n g a s ) c a t e g o r i c a l l y ru l e o u t t h e p o s s i b i l it y t h a t G o d c o u l dh a v e b r o u g h t a b o u t a n y p o s s i b l e s t a t e o f a f f a i r s h e w i s h e d . I n t h e c o n -c l u d i n g s e c t i o n ( 6) , I b r i e f l y c o n s i d e r t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e f e a s i b il i ty o fa l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e p r o b l e m o f e v i l t h a t d o n o t r u l e o u t t h i sp o s s ib i l i t y .

1 . Plant ing a s Free W i l l in D efen se in God F r eed om a n d E v i lI n i t s b r o a d e s t o u t l i n e s , a t l e a s t , t h e s t r a t e g y t h a t P l a n t i n g a a d o p t s i nd e a l i n g w i t h t h e P r o b l e m o f E v i l i s c l e a r e n o u g h . H e p o i n t s o u t t h a t i no r d e r t o r e b u t t h e c h a r g e t h a t G o d s e x i st e n c e is in c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e


3/22

77ex i s t en ce o f ev i l t h e t h e i s t i s r eq u i r ed o n l y t o p ro v e (1 ) an d (2 ) ab o v e co nsis tent; h e i s r e q u i r e d o n l y t o p r o v i d e a co n s i s t en cy p r o o f . A f u l l t h e o d i c y ,o n e t h a t p o s i t s r e a s o n s a S u p r e m e B e i n g m i g h t h a v e f o r p e r m i t t i n g e v i l t oe x is t, d o e s m u c h m o r e , a n d , i n p a r t i c u la r , d o e s m u c h m o r e t h a n is n e e d e dt o s o l v e th e P r o b l e m o f E v i l. P l a n t i n g a s c o n s i s te n c y p r o o f , w h i c h h e c a ll st h e F r e e W i ll D e f e n s e , a p p l i e s m o s t d i r e c t l y t o t h e c a s e o f m o r a l e v i l. H eb e li e ve s t h a t h i s s t r a t e g y f o r d e a l i n g w i t h t h e p r o b l e m o f m o r a l ev il c an b em o d i f i e d to a p p l y t o o t h e r a r g u m e n t s f r o m e vi l ( f o r e x a m p l e , o n e s w h i chr e c o r d t h e e x i s te n c e o f n a t u r a l e v i l, o r t h e e x i s te n c e o f a l l th e e v i l t h e w o r l dactua l l y c o n t a i n s ) . S i n c e h e s p e n d s m o s t o f h i s t i m e o n t h e p r o b l e m o fm o r a l e v i l , h o w e v e r , w e s h a l l d o t h e s a m e .

H e r e , t h e n , is P l a n t i n g a s s o l u t i o n t o t h e l o g ic a l p r o b l e m o f e v i l.L e i b n i z, s o P l a n t i n g a t h i n k s , w a s g u i l ty o f a n i m p o r t a n t m i s t a k e w h e n h em a d e t h e c l a i m t h a t G o d c o u l d h a v e a c t u a l i z e d a n y p o s s i b l e wo r l d a t a l l .O n c e L e i b n i z m a d e t h i s m i s t a k e , h e w a s n a t u r a l l y l e d t o a s s e r t t h a t o u r sm u s t b e t h e b e s t o f a ll p o ss i b le w o r l d s . S i n c e t h e c l a i m t h a t G o d c o u l d h a v ea c t u a l i z e d a n y p o s s i b l e w o r l d a t a l l is fa l s e - P l a n t i n g a c a l ls it L e i b n i z sL a p s e - w e a r e fr e e t o r e je c t t h e h i g h l y e m b a r r a s s i n g c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h i sh i g h l y i m p e r f e c t w o r l d is n e v e r th e l e s s th e b e s t o f a l l p o s si b l e w o r l d s . W e a r ea l s o f r e e t o e n t e r t a i n t h e p o s s i b i l it y t h a t p e r h a p s G o d c o u l d n o t h a v ea c t u a l i z e d w o r l d s c o n t a i n i n g o n l y m o r a l g o o d a n d n o e v i l a n d i m p e r f e c -t i o n .

T h i s , i n f a c t , i s t h e c e n t r a l l e m m a o n w h i c h P l a n t i n g a b a s e s h is c o ns is -t en c y p ro o f . H e c l a i m s , t h a t i s , t h a t i t i s a t l e a s t p o s s i b l y t h e ca s e t h a t

(3 ) G o d c o u l d n o t h a v e a c tu a l i z e d a w o r l d c o n t a i n i n g m o r a l g o o d a n dn o m o ra l ev i l .

P i a n t i n g a f o r m u l a t e s t h e a r g u m e n t a s f o l l o w s i n G F E . F i rs t , le t a m a x i m a lw o r l d - s e g m e n t S b e a p o s s i b l e s t a te o f a f f a i r s s u c h t h a t , i f S * is a n yp o s s i b l e s t a t e o f a f f a i r s m o re i n c l u s i v e t h an S , t h en S* i s a ( fu l l ) p o s s i b l ew o r l d . ( T h i n k o f a m a x i m a l w o r l d - s e g m e n t a s a p o s s ib l e w o r l d w i t h as in g le h o l e i n i t. ) N o w c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o p e r t y o f p e r s o n s : D ef i n it ion 1. P is t r a n s w o r l d d e p r a v e d i f f , f o r e v e r y p o ss i b le w o r l d W i n w h i c h h ei s f ree wi th respec t to a t l eas t s o m e m o r a l l y si g n i f ic a n t a c t i o n s a n d i nw h i c h h e n e v e r t h e le s s a l w a y s d o e s w h a t i s m o r a l l y r e q u i r e d o f h i m , t h e r e isa n a c t i o n A w h i c h i s m o r a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r h i m i n W a n d w h i c h r e s p e ct t ow h i c h h e i s f r e e i n W , a n d t h e r e i s a m a x i m a l w o r l d s e g m e n t S w h i c h i si n c l u d e d i n W b u t w h i c h i t s e lf c o n t a i n s n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e o u t c o m e o f P sf r ee ch o i ce w i t h r e s p ec t t o A ( a l t h o u g h i t co n t a i n s ev e ry t h i n g e l se , in -c l u d i n g t h e f ac t t h a t P i s f r ee w i t h r e s p ec t t o A) , s u ch t h a t t h e fo l l o wi n gc o u n t e r f a c t u a l h o ld s :


4/22

78(c) I f S were the case , P w o u l d g o w ro n g w i t h r e s p ec t t o A . (O r , u s i n g

L ew i s s s y mb o l i s m: S D - - - P g o es w ro n g w i t h r e s p ec t t o A . )T h i s p ro p e r t y i s n o t an essenti l p r o p e r t y o f p e r so n s , P l a n ti n g a a d m i t s ,an d i t is p e rh ap s n o t ev en a p ro p e r t y t h a t a c t u a l l y h o l d s o f an y o n e . B u t it i sa p ro p e r t y t h a t a t l ea s t p o ss ib l y hold s o f a ll persons , an d hence i t is a t l eas tp o s s i b l y th e ca s e t h a t

(4 ) A l l p e r s o n s s u f f e r f ro m t r an s w o r l d d ep rav i t y .Ca l l ( 4) t h e p r in c i p le o f T ran s w o r l d D ep rav i t y . N o w (4 ) is a p o s s i b l y t ru es t a t emen t t h a t , o n ce amen d ed t o r ead t h a t a l l p o ss ib l e p e r s o n s s u f f e r fr o mt ran s w o r l d d ep rav i t y ( i n c lu d i n g p e r s o n s t h a t G o d m i g h t h av e c r ea t ed ) ,en t a il s (3 ), w h i ch t h e re fo re is a l s o p o s s i b l y t ru e . T h e a rg u m en t g o es asfo l l o w s . F ree c r ea t u re s a r e n eces s a ry t o mo ra l v a l u e . N o w s u p p o s e t h a t a l lposs ib le c rea tu res a re t ransw or ld dep rave d . [Th i s i s a t l east poss ib le , by(4 )] . L e t W b e a w o r l d in w h i ch a l l t h e c r ea t u re s i n W a l w a y s f ree l y d o w h a ti s mora l ly r igh t , and l e t P be any such c rea tu re . S ince P i s t ranswor id de-p rav ed , t h e re i s an ac t i o n A w i th r e s p ec t to w h i ch P i s f r ee i n W an d w h i chi s mora l ly s ign i f i can t fo r P in W, and there i s a maximal wor ld segment Si n c lu d e d in W , b u t c o n ta i n in g n o t h i n g a b o u t t h e o u t c o m e o f P ' s f r e ech o i ce r eg a rd i n g A , s u ch t h a t t h e fo l l o w i n g co u n t e r f ac t u a l i s t r u e :

(c) S [ ]- - P goes w ron g wi th respec t to A.N o w G o d can ac t u a l i ze W o n l y b y act u a li z in g S an d l eav in g P f r ee w i t hre s p ec t to A . Bu t i n th t case [as cou n ter f ac tu a l (c) te l ls us] P wi ll go wro ngw i t h r e s p ec t t o A , a n d h en ce t h e r e s u l t an t s t a t e o f a f f a i r s w i ll n o t b e Wa f t e r a l l . H e n c e G o d c n n o t ac t u a l i ze s u ch mo ra l l y p e r f ec t w o r l d s W .

I f P l an t i n g a i s r i g h t , t h en t h e fo l l o w i n g t h ree s t a t emen t s a r e mu t u a l l ycons i s t en t :

(1) G od ex i s ts ,(3 ) I t w as n o t i n G o d ' s p o w er t o c r ea t e a w o r l d co n t a i n i n g mo ra l g o o d

an d n o mo ra l ev i l ,a n d

(5 ) G o d h as c r ea t ed a w o r l d co n t a i n i n g mo ra l g o o d .But (3) and (5) entai l

(6) there is moral evi l .Th us (1) and (6) [which is a vers ion o f the u na do rne d (2 ) : there i s ev il] a re


5/22

79m u t u a l l y c o n s i s t e n t , a n d t h e r e i s n o l o g i c a l d i f f i c u l t y i n s u p p o s i n g t h a tm o r a l e v i l e x i s t s a n d t h a t t h e r e i s a n a l l - p o w e r f u l , a l l - k n o w i n g , a l l - l o v i n gG o d .Th i s i s t h e F ree W i l l De fen s e i n a n u t - s h e l l , a t l e a s t a s i t ap p l i e s t o s i n o rm o r a l e v il . P l a n t i n g a i s a b l e t o m o d i f y t h e s t r a t e g y to d e a l w i t h e v il o fo t h e r k i n d s a s w e l l, h o w e v e r . T h e c a s e o f n a t u r a l e vi l - e a r t h - q u a k e s , a n ds o o n - p e r h a p s l o o k s m o s t r e s i s t a n t t o th i s k i n d o f t r e a t m e n t , f o r a n a t u r a lr e s p o n s e i n t h e c a s e o f n a t u r a l e v i l i s t o s a y t h a t a n a l l - p o w e r f u l B e i n gc o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y h a v e a c t u a l i z e d a p o s s i b l e w o r l d w i t h o u t n a t u r a ld i s a s t e r s . T h e p r e v e n t i o n o f n a t u r a l e v i l d o e s n o t i n v o l v e t h e m u z z l i n g o ff r e e a g e n t s , u n l i k e , i t s e e m s , th e p r e v e n t i o n a n d e l i m i n a t i o n o f m o r a l e v i l.P l a n t i n g a s r e s p o n s e t o t h i s is a s fo l l o ws . I t i s a t l e a s t p o s s i b l e , P l an t i n g ac l a i m s , t h a t n a t u r a l e v i l t o o is d u e t o f r e e a g e n t s - i f n o t t h e f r e e a g e n c y o fh u m a n s , t h e n t o t h e f r ee a g e n c y o f S a t a n a n d h is g a n g . A n d i f t h is is atl e a s t p o s s i b l e , P l a n t i n g a w i l l b e a b l e t o u s e a n a r g u m e n t m u c h l i k e t h ep r e v i o u s o n e t o d e a l w i t h t h e c a s e o f n a t u r a l e v il a s w e l l.

2 . P o w e r A s c r i p t i o n s a n d t h e A c t u a l W o r l d

H a s P l a n t i n g a p r o v e d h i s c a s e i n G F E ? W e l l , c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n gr e s p o n s e . O n t h e s t a n d a r d v i e w ,

(7) I t i s log ica l ly poss ib le fo r P to do Am e a n s

(8 ) Th e re i s a p o s s i b l e wo r l d i n wh i ch P ex i s t s an d d o es A ,a n d

(7 ) I t is l o g i ca l l y i m p o s s i b l e fo r P t o d o Am e a n s

( 8 ) T h e r e is n o p o s s i b l e w o r l d i n w h i c h P e x is t s, a n d d o e s A .B u t n o w w e h a v e a n o b j e c t i o n t o P l a n t i n g a . A s P l a n t i n g a a d m i t s , t h e r e is ap o s si b le w o r l d W c o n t a i n i n g G o d w h o s e f r ee i n h a b i t a n t s n e v e r d o w h a t i sm o r a l l y w r o n g . A n d i t is s u r e ly c l ea r t h a t i n W G o d oes a c t u a l i z e W . S o i ts e e m s a s i f G o d c o u l d h a v e a c t u a l i z e d p o s s i b l e w o r l d s l i k e W a f t e r a l l ,g i v e n th e a n a l y s i s o f ( 7) a n d ( 7 ) i n t e r m s o f ( 8) a n d ( 8 ) .

T h i s p o i n t s t o a c e r t a i n w e a k n e s s i n P l a n t i n g a s c o n s i s t e n c y p r o o f a s it is


6/22

80f o u n d i n G F E . N o r e a s o n i s g i v e n i n G F E f o r d o u b t i n g t h e ( o b v i o u s )a n a l y s i s o f (7 ) a n d ( 7 ' ) i n t e r m s o f (8 ) a n d ( 8 ' ) , a n d i f o n e r e t a i n s t h e a n a -l y si s c e r t a i n o f P l a n t i n g a ' s m o v e s a r e s e e n to b e i n v a l i d o n e s . I n p a r t i c u l a r ,c o u n t e r f a c t u a l c o n d i t i o n a l s s u c h a s t h o s e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e p r in c i pl e o ft r a n s w o r l d d e p r a v i t y h a v e a c o n t i n g e n t , n o t a n e c e s s a ry s ta t u s. W h ys h o u l d t h e t r u t h o f s o m e s u c h s e t o f c o u n t e r f a c t u a l c o n d i t i o n a l s i n t h eactua l w o r l d , c a l l it ( ~ ) , d e t e r m i n e w h i c h p o s s ib l e w o r l d G o d is ab l e t oa c t u a li z e ? T h e m o s t t h a t w e c a n d e t e r m i n e f r o m t h e t r u t h i n ( ~ ) o f aco u n t e r f ac t u a l (c ) S E] -- - P ( f r ee l y ) g o es wr o n g wi t h r e s p ec t t o A (wh e re S isa m a x i m a l w o r l d - s e g m e n t ) is t h a t

(9 ) I f G o d a c t u a l iz e s a w o r l d W i n w h i c h S is t h e c a s e a n d P f r e e l y g o e sright w i t h r e s p ec t t o A , t h e n ( c) is n o t t r u e i n t h a t w o r l d , a n d h e n c eW i s n o t (~ ) .

B u t f ro m (9 ) i t ca n n o t b e i n f e r r e d t h a t i t w a s n o t i n G o d ' s p o w e r t oac t u a l i ze s u ch a wo r l d , b u t a t m o s t ( i f a t a ll s ee s ec t i o n 3 b e l o w) t h a t i t wasn o t i n G o d ' s p o w e r t o a c t u a l i z e a w o r l d i n w h i c h S is th e c a s e, i n w h i c h Pf r ee l y g o es r i g h t w i t h r e s p ec t t o A , an d i n w h i ch ( c) i s t ru e .

A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , h o w e v e r , t h e r e i s a d e f e n s e a v a i l a b l e t o P l a n t i n g a ,o n e wh i ch r eq u i r e s h i m t o r e j ec t t h e an a l y s i s o f (7 ) i n t e rm s o f (8 ) . I s h a l la t t e m p t h e r e t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h i s d e f e n s e , h o p e f u l l y i n a m o r e p e r s p i c u o u sw a y t h a n h a s b e e n d o n e b y P l a n t i n g a h i m s e l f . C o n s i d e r l o c u t i o n s l ik e 'i t isp o s s ib l e f o r m e t o p l a y t e n n i s t o m o r r o w ' , ' i t is i n m y p o w e r t o g e t y o u ag o o d t e a c h in g p o s i t io n ' , ' I a m a b l e t o j o i n y o u f o r l u n c h t o m o r r o w , s h o u l dy o u w a n t m e t o j o i n y o u ' . F o r w a n t o f a b e t t er t e r m , c a l l t h es e personal-m od al ascr ip t ions , o r ' p - m o d a l a s c r i p t i o n s '. P - m o d a l a s c r i p ti o n s f o r m a ni n t e r e s ti n g c la s s o f m o d a l a s c r i p t i o n s , n o t l e a st b e c a u s e t h e y s e e m t o r e s i ste a s y t r a n s l a t i o n i n t o t h e u s u a l p o s s i b l e w o r l d p a r l a n c e . T o s a y t h a t

( 10 ) I t is p o s s ib l e f o r m e t o p l a y t e n n i s t o m o r r o w ,i s n o t t o s ay t h a t t h e re a r e l o g i ca l l y p o s s i b l e wo r l d s i n wh i ch I p l ay t en n i st o m o r r o w , o r t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y p o s s ib l e w o r l d s in w h i c h I p l a y t e n n i s to -m o r r o w . I t i s, i n s te a d , t o s a y t h a t t h e e x er c is e t o m o r r o w o f m y a b i li t y a tt e n n i s i s c o m p o s s i b l e w i t h a l l t h e c o n s t r a i n t s t h e w o r l d actually i m p o s e s o nt h e e x e r c is e o f t h i s a b i li t y t o m o r r o w , c o n s t r a i n t s s u c h a s p h y s ic a l la w s ,l i m i t a ti o n s o f t im e a n d s p a ce , p r e v i o us a r r a n g e m e n t s , a n d s o o n . A c e r ta i na m o u n t o f f l e x ib i l it y i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e s e a c t u a l c o n s t r a i n t s i si n e v i ta b l e a n d o f s o m e s i g n if i c a n c e . O n e i s o f t e n a b l e t o c h a l l e n g e t h e t r u t ho f a s t a t e m e n t s u c h a s

(11) I t i s n o t p o s si b le f o r m e t o p l a y t e n n is t o m o r r o w


7/22

81b y a r g u in g t h a t c e r t a in o f t h e c o n s t r a i n t s p r e s u p p o s e d b y t h e s p e a k e r a r ea c t u a l l y s e lf - i m p o s e d c o n s t r a i n t s , w i t h i n t h e d i re c t c o n t r o l o f t h e s p e a k e ra n d h e n c e n o t r e a l l y c o n s t r a i n t s a t a ll ( c f . Y o u d o n t re l l y h a v e t o g o t ot h e l i b r a ry t o m o r r o w ) . T h e s p e a k e r m a y t h e n , in t u r n , p o i n t o u t t h a t t he s ec h a l l e n g e d c o n s t r a i n t s a r e t r u l y c o n s t r a i n t s , g iv e n t h e o v e r a l l s y s t e m o fd e s ir e s o f t h e s p e a k e r ( I f I d o n t g o t o t h e l i b r a r y t o m o r r o w , I s h a l l fa i l m ye x a m s ) . T h i s f l e x ib i li ty is o f s o m e i m p o r t a n c e t o o f o r o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n go f t h e d i f f e re n c e s i n s e m a n t ic b e h a v i o u r a m o n g p - m o d a l o p e r a t o r s s u c h asi s ab l e t o . . . , i t i s p o s s i b l e fo r P t o . . . an d i t i s i n P s p o we r to . . . . A

c o m p l e t e a n a l y s i s i s n o t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s p a p e r , b u t i t s e e m s r e a s o n a b l et o c l a im t h a t t h e o p e r a t o r s P is a b l e t o . . . , i t is p o s s ib l e f o r P t o . . . , a n di t is i n P s p o w e r t o . . . c a n b e g r a d e d a c c o r d i n g t o th e d e g r e e o f c o n s t r a i n t

p r e s u p p o s e d . P - m o d a l a s c r ip t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h e o p e r a t o r P i s a b l e t o . . .g e n e r a l l y s e e m t o p r e s u p p o s e m o r e o f t h e c o n s t r a i n t s t h e w o r l d i m p o s e su p o n P s a c t i o n s t h a n d o p - m o d a l a s c r i p ti o n s i n v ol v in g t h e o p e r a t o r i t isp o s s ib l e f o r P t o . . . o r i t is i n P s p o w e r t o . . . P r e v i o u s p l a n s , f o re x a m p l e , a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e c l a s s o f c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t f o r m t h e b a c k d r o pag a i n s t wh i ch P i s b l e t o d o c e r t a i n t h i n g s ( I a m n o t a b l e t o j o i n y o u f o rl u n c h t o m o r r o w b e c a u s e I h a v e m a d e o t h e r a r r a n g e m e n t s ) , b u t s u c hc o n s t r a i n t s d o n o t f e a t u r e a t a l l i n p - m o d a l a s c r i p t io n s i n v o l v i n g t h eo p e r a t o r i t is p o s s ib l e f o r P t o . . . . ( W h i l e I m a y n o t b e b l e t o jo i n y o u f o rl u n c h t o m o r r o w , i t is c e r t a i n l y i n m y p o w e r t o j o i n y o u f o r l u n c h t o m o r r o wi f t h e o n l y c o n d i t i o n s t h a t c o n s t r a i n m e a r e c e r t a in a r r a n g e m e n t s t h a t c a nbe se t as ide . )

C a l l t h is v i ew th e a c t u a l c o n s t r a i n t s a n a l y s i s o f p - m o d a l a s c r i p t io n s . I tis e a s y t o s e e h o w o n e m i g h t a c c e p t t h i s a n a l y s i s , a t l e a s t in b r o a d o u t l i n e ,a n d y e t r e f u s e t o a p p l y i t t o G o d . G o d , a f t e r a l l , i s n o t c o n s t r a i n e d b ya s p e c t s o f h i s c r e a t i o n , u n l i k e h is c r e a t u r e s . B u t s a y i n g t h a t G o d s p o w e r i sn o t l i m i te d b y t h in g s o f t h e k i n d t h a t l i m i t o u r p o w e r ( p h y s i c a l l a w s , a n d s oo n ) s ee m s q u i t e c o n s i st e n t w i t h a p p l y i n g t h e a c t u a l c o n s t r a i n t s a n a l y s i s o fi t is (was ) in P s p o w er t o d o A t o a b e i n g li k e G o d . T o s ee t h i s , le t u s

g en e ra l i ze t h e acco u n t a l i t t l e . Th e ac t u a l wo r l d b e i n g t h e way i t i s , c e r t a i nt h i n g s a r e w i t h i n m y d i re c t c o n t r o l w h i l e o t h e r s a r e n o t . T h e f o r m e r , Is u p p o s e , i n c l u d e n o t j u s t i n t e n d i n g s a n d o t h e r a c t s o f w i l l , b u t a l s oa c t i o n s s u c h a s t h e l i f t i n g u p o f m y l e f t a r m , a n d m y r u n n i n g a 5 - m i n u t em i l e. I n a w a y , h o w e v e r , i t d o e s n t m a t t e r t o o m u c h h o w n a r r o w l y w ec o n s t r u e o u r d i r e c t p o w e r s . A n y s e r i o u s a c c o u n t o f w h a t a g e n t s h a v e i t i nt h e i r p o w e r t o d o w i ll h a v e t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e p l a c e o f i n d ir e c t p o w e r s . Ic a n t d i r e c t l y b r i n g a b o u t y o u r v o t i n g in a c e r ta i n w a y in t h e n e x t G e n e r a lE l e c t i o n s - y o u a r e , a f t e r a ll , a f r e e a g e n t , n o t a z o m b i e - b u t , i f y o u a r ee a s i ly p e r s u a d e d , t h e r e a r e t h i n g s I c a n d o o r s a y w h i c h , i f d o n e o r s a i d ,w o u l d r e s u lt i n y o u r v o t i n g t h a t w a y i n th e n e x t e l e c ti o n s . I f y o u a r e e a s i l yp e r s u a d e d , t h e n I c a n g e t y o u t o v o t e a c e r t a i n w a y i n t h e n e x t e l ec t i o n s, s o


8/22

82that if you are easily persuaded it is in my power after all to get you to votein a certain way: in my i n d i r e c t power, not my direct power.

This suggests a two-level account of what is in P's power, with both stepsinvolving an appeal to 'actual constraints'. We have already seen how aperson's direct powers are generally a function of constraints imposed bythe actual world. The second level, which requires the application of acertain kind o f counterfactual ('if P were to do A, then B would result'),similarly regards the actual world as a system which determines what can,or cannot, result contingently from the performance of certain actionswhich are within a person's direct control. The existence of this secondlevel makes disputes about what agents can d i r e c t l y undertake (intendings,basic actions, etc.) seem less important, for it seems intuitively likely thatthere will be basic agreement at least about what agents have it in theirpower, direct o r indirect, to bring about.

An 'actual constraints' analysis can now be applied to God in much thesame way as we have applied it to humans. According to Plantinga, thereare certain states of affairs even God cannot directly bring about, so thathis power to bring these about, if he indeed has that power, can only be anindirect power, one whose scope is determined to a certain extent by theway the world actually is. Just as I have no direct control over whether theuniverse will end with a bang or a whimper, unlike God, so God has nodirect control over whether or not I freely keep a certain promise, unlikeme. And if there is nothing God can do that would result in my freelykeeping a promise I should keep, then he doesn 't even have i n d i r e c t controlover whether or not I freely keep this promise. In that case, it is simply notin God's power to actualize a world in which I freely keep all my promises.The only relevant difference between God and his creatures is that, beingall powerful, God is constrained by few of the contingencies that constrainhis creatures.According to the 'actual constraints' analysis, then we have somethinglike this:

(AC) It is in P's power (direct or indirect) to bring about state of affairsA i ff there is a state of affairs T which it is in P's d i r e c t power tobring about (given the various constraints the actual world inesca-pably imposes on P) such that: P brings about T I-q--- A (i.e., suchthat, given the actual world as backdrop, P's bringing about Twould lead to A's being the case).

I still have some qualms about this formulation. In particular, the counter-factual 'P does T Fq--- A' was chosen to symbolize 'were P to do T, Awould result', but the latter locution looks a c u s l locution, unlike thebare 'P does T [~-- A'. (The difference can be vividly brought out by


9/22

83n o t i n g t h a t , o n t h e s t a n d a r d s e m a n t i c a n a l y s is , P d o e s T [ ] ~ A is t r u ew h e n e v e r P d o e s T a n d A i s t h e c a s e. ) M a y b e , t h e r e f o r e , a c c o u n t ( A C )s h o u l d b e a m e n d e d t o y i e l d a t i g h t e r c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n p o s s ib l e a c ti o n so n P s p a r t a n d t h o s e p o ss i bl e s ta t e s o f a f f a i r s w h o s e a c t u a l i z a t io n resul t sf r o m P s a c t io n s . ~ I n a n y c a se , t h e o n l y i f p a r t o f ( A C ) w i ll b e p a r t o f a n yt r u l y c o m p r e h e n s i v e a c t u a l c o n s t r a i n t s t h es is a b o u t w h a t a ge n t s c a n b ri n ga b o u t ; a n d , a s w e s h a ll se e l a t e r , i t i s t h e o n l y p a r t o f ( A C ) t h a t c a n b ec o n s i d e r e d t o p l a y a n e c e s s a r y r o le i n P l a n t i n g a s c o n s i s t e n c y p r o o f .

W h a t a b o u t t h e l o c u t i o n i t is logic lly p o s s ib l e fo r P t o d o X ? I t i su s u a l l y t h o u g h t t h a t i f i t is logic lly p o s s ib l e f o r G o d t o d o X t h e n i t is a l s oi n G o d s p o w e r t o d o X ; w h i ch p e r h a p s c a s ts d o u b t o n a c c o u n t ( A C ) a sa p p l i e d to G o d . B u t w e c a n gi v e a s im i l a r a c t u a l c o n s t r a i n t s a n a l y s i s o f i tis l o g ic a l l y p o s s i b le f o r P t o d o X . S e n t e n c e s o f t h i s l a tt e r f o r m c a n , i nf a c t , b e u n d e r s t o o d i n a t l ea s t t w o d i f f e r e n t w a y s , o n l y o n e o f w h i c h m a k e si t a p - m o d a l a s c r i p t i o n . O n t h e s t a n d a r d r e a d i n g , t h e f o l l o w i n g is t r u e :

(S ) i t i s l o g i ca l l y p o s s ib l e f o r P t o d o A i f th e re i s s o m e l o g i ca l l y p o s s ib l ew o r l d i n w h i c h P d o e s A

T h i s s t a n d a r d r e a d i n g i s c e r t a i n l y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r l o c u t i o n s li k e: i t isl o g i c a ll y p o s s i b le f o r p e o p l e t o g r o w t o a h e i g h t o f 7 f e e t , f o r t h e l a t t e r i sn o t a t r u e p - m o d a l a s c r i p t i o n , n o t a t r u e a s c r i p t i o n o f a k i n d o f p o w e r . ( I tis m o r e l ik e t h e c l e a r ly n o n - p - m o d a l a s c r i p t i o n i t is l o g i c a ll y p o s s ib l e f o rc i ti e s t o r e a c h a p o p u l a t i o n o f o v e r 2 0 m i l l io n i n h a b i t a n t s . ) I n s o m e c a se s ,h o w ev e r , i t is l o g i ca l l y p o s s ib l e fo r P t o d o A i s p l au s ib ly r ead a s ap - m o d a l a s c r i p t io n , in w h i c h c a s e t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e e r a n a l y s i s , a n a c t u a lc o n s t r a i n t s a n a l y s i s , c a p t u r e s i ts l a t te r m e a n i n g :

(Q) i t i s l o g i ca l l y p o s s ib l e fo r P t o b r i n g ab o u t A i f f t h e re i s s o m e ac t i o nX w h i c h i s i n P s d i r e c t c o n t r o l , a s s u m i n g n o n o n - l o g i c a l l i m i t a t i o n so n w h a t is i n P s d i r e c t c o n t r o l , s u c h t h a t P d o e s X [ ~ A is t h ecase .

T h e t w o a n a l y s e s d i f f e r . S u p p o s e t h a t G o d e x is ts in th e a c t u a l w o r l d , a n ds u p p o s e t h a t i n th e a c t u a l w o r l d t h e r e i s n o t h i n g G o d s c r e a t u r e s c a np o s s i b l y d o t h a t w i l l l e t t h e i r b r e a k i n g h i s m o r a l l a w s r e m a i n u n p u n i s h e d .( I a m a s s u m i n g th a t G o d s c r e a t u r e s a re necess r i l y u n d e r G o d s c o n t r o l .)T h en ( i) it is n o t l o g i ca l l y p o s s ib l e ( in t h e ac tu a l wo r ld ) fo r a p e r s o n P t ob r e a k G o d s m o r a l c o d e w i t h i m p u n i t y , e v e n t h o u g h (ii) t h e r e a r e p o s s ib l ew o r l d s in w h i c h P b r e a k s G o d s m o r a l c o d e w i t h i m p u n i t y ( w o r l d s i n w h i c hG o d i s m o r e m e r c i f u l , f o r e x a m p l e ) . I n t h i s e x a m p l e , ( i ) i s b a s e d o n t h ea c t u a l c o n s t r a i n t s a n a l y s i s ( Q ) , w h i l e (ii) is b a s e d o n t h e s t a n d a r d a n a l y s i s

( L ) . T h e e x a m p l e q u i t e c l e a r ly b r i n g s o u t t h e c u r i o u s l y indexic l n a t u r e o f


10/22

84a c c o u n t ( Q ) . O n t h e a c t u a l c o n s t r a i n t s a n a l y s i s o f i t i s l o g i c al l y p o s s ib l ef o r P t o b r i n g a b o u t A , i t m a y b e l o g i c a ll y p o s s i b le in w o r l d W f o r P t ob r i n g a b o u t A e v e n w h e n i t i s n o t l o g ic a l ly p o s s i b le i n w o r l d W f o r P tob r i n g a b o u t A ( s in c e t h e c o n s t r a i n t s o n P in W a n d W a r e d i f f e r e n t ) .

U s i n g a n a l y s i s ( Q ) r a t h e r t h a n ( L ) , w e a r e n o w i n a p o s i ti o n t o a g r e e t h a ti f it is lo g i c a l ly p o s s ib l e f o r G o d t o b r i n g a b o u t A t h e n i t is a l s o i n G o d sp o w e r t o b r i n g a b o u t A . W e c a n a g r e e w i t h th i s o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t w h a t -e v e r i s p o s s i b l y in G o d s c o n t r o l i s actually i n h i s c o n t r o l , a p r i n c i p le t h a tc a n b e p r e s u m e d t o h o l d f o r G o d , b u t n o t f o r h i s c r e a t u r e s .

3 . S o m e P r o b l e m s f o r P l a n t in g a s F r e e W i ll D e f e n s e i n God Freedoma n d E v i lT h i s c o m p l e te s m y d e f e n s e o f P l a n t i n g a s p o s i ti o n . I h a v e tr i e d t o s h o wt h a t t h e r e is a n a t u r a l w a y o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g l o c u t i o n s li k e i t w a s in P sp o w e r t o d o A t h a t l ea d s t o a n a c t u a l c o n s t ra i n t s a n a ly s i s o f lo c u t i o n sl ik e i t w a s i n G o d s p o w e r to a c t u al iz e s t a te o f a f f a i r s S o r G o d c o u l dh a v e a c t u a l i z e d S . S u c h a n a c t u a l c o n t r a i n t s a n a l y s i s is n e e d e d i fP l a n t i n g a s F r e e W i l l D e f e n s e is t o s u c c e e d , f o r o n t h e s t a n d a r d a n a l y s i s o fa l o c u t io n l ik e G o d c o u l d h a v e a c t u a li z e d S P l a n t i n g a s F r ee W i ll D e f e n s es e e m s t o f a i l . T h i s i s a p o i n t w e m a d e e a r l i e r , b u t w e a r e n o w i n a b e t t e rp o s i t i o n t o s e e w h y t h i s is so . O n t h e s ta n d a rd a n a l y s i s , t h e s t a t e m e n t :

( 1 2 ) G o d c o u l d h a v e a c t u a l i z e d Sg e t s t r an s l a t ed a s :

(1 3 ) T h e re i s a p o s s ib l e wo r ld W in wh ich Go d ac tu a l i ze s S .T h e s t a t e m e n t

(14 ) G o d ac tu a l i ze s S i n Wis , i n t u rn , b e s t t r an s l a t ed a s :

(1 5) T h e r e i s a s t a t e - o f - a f f a i r s T w h i c h G o d d i r e c t ly b r i n g s a b o u t i n W ,a n d i n W S re s u lt s f r o m G o d s d o i n g T .

T h a t i s , G o d a c t u a l iz e s S i n W i f r e l a ti v e t o t h e c o n s t r a i n t s o n G o d s p o w e ri n W , G o d i s n o t o n l y c o m p e t e n t t o a c t u a l i z e S b u t , i n f a c t , d o es a c t u a l i z eS . ( A c t u a l i z e h e r e m e a n s w e a k l y a c t u a l i z e o r ind irec t ly b r i n g a b o u t . )O n t h i s a n a l y s i s, h o w e v e r , P l a n t i n g a s F r e e W i l l D e f e n s e f a il s , b e c a u s e i t is


11/22

85necessarily true that, relative to the constraints on God' s power in morallyperfect worlds, God is entirely competent to actualize such sinless worlds.

Although GFE is silent on these points, some of Plantinga's otherpublications show that he explicitly accepts an 'actual constraints' analysis.T h e N a t u r e o f N e c e s si ty for example, has the same analysis, merely substi-tuting the phrase 'God strongly (alt: weakly) actualizes W for 'Goddirectly (alt: indirectly) brings about W in (AC). So it is not unfai r to askhow well this analysis supports Plantinga's claim that it is at least p o ss ib l ytrue that God could not have actualized possible worlds containing moralgood but no moral evil. Unfortunately, Plantinga's Principle ofTransworld Depravity as it is stated in GFE doesn't help us very muchhere. Consider the claim that a person P is transworld-depraved in thesense specified in GFE. This means, recall, that for any world W in whichP is significantly free and always does what is right there is an action Awith respect to which P is significantly free in W, and there is a maximalworld-segment S included in W but not itself including the result of P'schoice with respect to A, such that (c) S is the case [3-* P goes wrong withrespect to A. If S is truly a maximal world segment, however, then Scontains states of affairs such as P's always doing the morally right thing,apart, possibly, from A; P's being sincerely disposed to do the morallyright thing, intending never to deviate from this disposition; and so on. Butthis being the case it is difficult to see how a counterfactual like (c) could betrue in any world W except for the world W* in which S is actual and inwhich P nevertheless goes wrong with respect to A. The reason for thisshould be obvious. A counterfactual such as (Plantinga's example): 'HadCurley been offered a bribe of $ 20,000 he would have freely accepted theoffer ' is true in a world V if, of those worlds which are identical to V up to,and including, the moment of Curley's being offered the bribe, some worldV' ' in which Curley freely accepts the bribe is more like V, given Curley'shistory in V and especial ly given Curley's character in V, than any worldV' in which Curley refuses the bribe. Since the dispositional and historicalfacts built into maximal world-segments of worlds in which P always doeswhat is right contain no facts that reflect any weakness in P's character, itis difficult to make sense of the claim that a counterfactual like (c) is true inany world V in which S is n o t actual. Now it is true that, since it is possiblethat both S is actual and P goes wrong with respect to A, it is also possiblethat (c) is true; and this, it may be claimed, is enough for Plantinga. But itisn't, of course. Plantinga's point is that it is at least p o ss ib l y the case thateach counterfactual of type (c) is true [not just that each counterfactual oftype (c) is p o ss ib l y the case], with 'S' ranging over suitable maximal world-segments of worlds in which P always does what is right; and this is n o tpossible if a counterfactual of type (c) is only true in worlds in which thesegment S is actual (since distinct S's are incompatible).


12/22

86B u t w o r s e is to c o m e . B e c a u s e P l a n t i n g a ' s c o u n t e r f a c t u a l s m e n t i o n

max i ma l w o r l d - s eg men t s , h i s a rg u m en t i n G FE s eems t o b e g u il ty o f t h eco u n t e r f ac t u a l f a l l a cy o f tr an s it iv i ty . P l an t i n g a t h i n k s t h a t i t f o ll o w s f ro mt h e t r u t h o f

( c) S m ~ P g o es w ro n g w i t h r e s p ec t t o At h a t

(d ) G o d b r i n g s it ab o u t t h a t S U ] - - , P g o es w ro n g w i t h r e s p ec t t o A .Bu t (d ) d o es n o t fo l l o w f ro m (c ) . S , b e i n g a max i ma l w o r l d s eg men t , mayc o n t a i n s t a t e s o f a f f a i r s t h a t G o d c a n n o t d i r e t l y b r i n g ab o u t ( s t a t e s o fa f f a i r s s u ch a s C u r l ey ' s f r ee ly r e f r a i n in g f ro m accep t i n g a ce r ta i n b r i b e ) ,an d h en ce , i f G o d i s ab l e t o ac t u a l ize S a t a ll u n d e r t h e s e c ir cu ms t an ces , h ecan on ly do i t ind i rec t ly . By the ' a c tua l con s t ra in t s ' ana lys i s (AC ) , i t is inG o d ' s p o w er t o b r i n g ab o u t S i n d ir ec t ly i f t h e re i s s o m e s t a te o f a f f a i r s Tw h i c h G o d c a n d i r e t l y b r i n g ab o u t s u ch t h a t

( e) G o d d o es T ~ S .T o d e r i v e d ) f r o m ( c) a n d e ) i s imp oss ib le , h ow e v e r , w i t h o u t c o m m i t t in gthe fa l l acy o f t rans i t iv i ty , ' t he fa l l acy o f us ing the inva l id in feren t i a ls ch eme :

p [3--} q,q [~--} r,therefore p []--} r .

A t t h i s p o i n t , P l an t i n g a m ay r e s p o n d t h a t w e h av e l o st s ig h t o f t h e n a t u reo f t h e S ' s th a t f ea t u re i n t h e r e lev an t co u n t e r f ac t u a l s ( c ) an d ( e) . T h ey a r es u p p o s ed t o b e max i m a l w o r l d - s eg men t s , p o s s i b l e w o r l d s w i t h s in g le h o le si n th em , an d h en ce a max i ma l w o r l d - s eg m en t S t h a t l e av es t h e r e su l t o f o n eo f Cu r l ey ' s f r ee ch o i ce s u n d e t e rmi n ed co n t a i n s e i t h e r ( i ) G o d ' s d o i n g T o r( i i ) the complement o f th i s s t a t e o f a f fa i r s . In e i ther case , (c ) and (e )log ica l ly en ta i l (d ) . The non- t r iv ia l case i s tha t where S con ta ins God ' sdo ing T , and in th i s case the in ference i s essen t i a l ly o f the fo rm

p [ ~ q ,[ ] (q D P) ,q I ~ - ~ r.'. p E ]- r,


13/22

87which is a valid scheme in the logic of counterfactuals.

This response is, of course, based on a completely unLeibnizian view ofpossible worlds, since for Leibniz God is not strictly an inhabitant of , andtoiler in, any possible world. What God does transcends each possibleworld and is included in none. Is Plantinga on safe grounds, then, if hebases his argument on his own unLeibnizian understanding of possibleworlds? I doubt it. The problem now is that the concept of a maximalworld-segment does not seem well-defined. Let W be a world in which Palways does what is right, and suppose that, in W, God directly bringsabout T. Then the counterfactual

(f) God does T [3--- P freely goes right with respect to Ais true in world W. It is clear that no maximal world-segment of W in whichP s decision regarding A is left undetermined can include both God s doingT and (f) s being the case, but it is far from clear where this leaves us. Whycan t we have a maximal world-segment S of W that leaves P s decisionregarding A undetermined, includes (f) s being the case, and omits God sdoing T? If this is a maximal world-segment, however, then Plantinga isstill in trouble, for the argument from (e) and (c) to (d) is again guilty of thefallacy of transitivity under these circumstances.

4 . A R e f o r m u l a t i o n o f P l a n t in g a s F r e e W i ll D e f e n s eThese troubles arose because Plantinga worked with counterfactuals whoseantecedents mention maximal world-segments and hence, in some cases,the existence of moral biases. Once we accept an actual constraints ana-lysis of what is in God s power we have a much more direct way of doingwhat Plantinga wants. Instead of using counterfactuals whose antecedentsmention maximal world-segments, we should use counterfactuals whoseantecedents make n o mention of biases towards the good or the results ofother free choices, but only of things which are within God s direct control ,counterfactuals like:

(c ) Even if God had brought it about that P was reared in a socially andmaterially enriched environment, P would s t l l have told lies,broken promises, and so on.

On the surface, such counterfactuals are credible, unlike the correspondingcounterfactuals in GFE, because they might be true in virtue of P s sinfuldispositions or the depravity of his character, factors over which God hasno direct control. And it seems likely that, by making such counterfactuals


14/22

88su i t ab ly genera l , we migh t f ina l ly succeed in showing tha t i t i s a t l eas tp o s s i b ly th e c a s e t h a t G o d c o u l d n o t h a v e a c t u a li z e d m o r a l l y p e r f e c tw o r l d s .Th i s i s , in fac t , p rec i se ly wh at P lan t ing a doe s in o t h e r s t a t emen t s o f h i sF r e e W i l l D e f e n s e . In h is W h i c h W o r l d s C o u l d G o d N o t H a v e C r e a t e d ? 8w h o s e p u b l i c a t i o n a c t u a l l y p r e d a t e s t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f G F E , P l a n t i n g ao f f e r s t h i s acco u n t o f t r an s w o r l d d ep rav i t y ( a s ap p l i ed t o p e r s o n s , n o tessences): D e f i n i t i o n : A p e r s o n P s u f f e r s f r o m t r a n s w o r i d d e p r a v i ty i f f o revery wor ld W in which P is s ign i f i can t ly f ree and a lway s doe s what i sr igh t, there i s a s t a t e o f a f fa i r s T and a n ac t ion A such tha t (1) G od s t ron g lyactual izes ( i .e . , d i r e c t l y b r i n g s ab o u t ) T i n W , an d T i n c lu d es ev e ry s t a te o faf fa i r s God s t rong ly ac tua l i ses in W; (2 ) A i s mora l ly s ign i f i can t fo r P inW ; a n d ( c * ) I f G o d h a d s t r o n g l y a c t u a l i z e d T , P w o u l d h a v e g o n e w r o n gw i t h r e s p ec t t o A .

So P s u f f e r s f ro m t r an s w o r l d d ep rav i t y i f n o d i re c t a c t io n o n G o d s p a r t( s u ch a s c rea t i n g P i n a s o c ia l ly an d ma t e r i a l l y en r ich ed en v i ro n me n t , an dso on) w ou ld have resu l t ed in P s l ead ing a f ree , bu t b lameless , ex i s t ence .T h e c ru c ia l med i a t in g p r i n c ip l e P l an t i n g a t h en em p l o y s is , o n ce ag a i n , t h ep r i n c ip l e t h a t a ll p o s s i b le p e r s o n s s u f f e r f ro m t r an s w o r l d d ep rav i t y ( a s t h u su n d e r s t o o d ) . T h e N a t u r e o f N e c e s s i t y con ta ins the same pr inc ip le . Th i spr inc ip le i s then used , as i s the cor responding p r inc ip le in GFE, to p rovet h a t i t is a t l e a st p o s s i b l e t h a t G o d co u l d n o t h av e ac t u a l ized a w o r l d co n -t a i n i n g mo ra l g o o d b u t n o mo ra l ev i l . N o t e , h o w ev e r , t h a t t h i s s o l u t i o n t ot h e p ro b l em o f ev il si d e -s t ep s t h e p ro b l em ab o u t co u n t e r f ac t u a l s g en e ra t edb y G F E , an d d o es it i n t h e w ay w e su g g es t ed . T h e co u n t e r f ac t u a l s ap p ea l edto in the n e w p r i n c ip l e o f t r an s w o r l d d ep rav i t y a r e r ed u ced v e r s i o n s o f th eco u n t e r f ac t u a l s ap p ea l ed t o i n t h e o l d v e r s io n , i n s o f a r a s t h e ir an t eced en t sd o n o t m en t i o n fu ll max i ma l w o r l d - s eg me n t s o f w o r l d s W i n w h i ch ap e r s o n P n e v e r d o e s w r o n g , b u t o n l y t h a t p a r t o f a n y s u c h w o r l d W w h ic hco n s i s ts o f G o d s s t ro n g l y ac t u a l iz i n g , o r d i r e c t l y b r i n g in g a b o u t , t h e s t a t eo f a f f a i r s h e s t ro n g l y ac t u a l i ze s i n W . T h es e co u n t e r f ac t u a l s t h e re fo re d on o t h av e an t eced en t s t h a t i n c l u d e t h e men t i o n o f mo ra l b i a s e s , b u t a r es i mp l y g en e ra l v e r s io n s o f a c r ed i b l e co u n t e r f a c t u a l s u ch a s ( c ) ab o v e .A n d i t is n o t h a rd t o s ee t h a t , a s a r e su l t, P l an t i n g a s r e fo rm u l a t ed p r o o ft h a t p o s s i b l y G o d c o u l d n o t h av e ac t u a l ized a m o ra l l y p e r f ec t w o r l d d o esn o t co m m i t t h e co u n t e r f ac t u a l f a l la cy o f t r an s it i v it y (u n l i k e P l an t i n g a sG F E p r o o f ) 3

5 S o m e R e s id u a l P r o b l e m s

Sh o u l d w e ag ree , t h en , t h a t P l an t i n g a h as e f f ec ti v e l y an s w ered t h o s e w h o ,l ike H um e, see the ex i s t ence o f ev il as a log ica l p rob lem for the the i s t ? I do


15/22

89not think so. My own comments, it should be noted, amount only to adefense of the 'actual constraints' account of powers and abilities thatPlantinga needs to use in his consistency proof, and to the observation thatPlantinga's new argument in The Na ture o f Necessi ty is formally superiorto the old G od , F r e e dom , andE v i i argument. But I have had nothing to sayabout Plantinga's incompatibilism on which the very crucial claim that allpossible persons are at least poss ib l y transworld depraved rests, and it ishere, perhaps, that Plantinga's argument is most susceptible to attack.Rather than argue for, or against, compatibilism directly, I shall producetwo indirect reasons for being less than impressed by the presupposition o fincompatibilism in Plantinga's various versions of his Free Will Defense.These two arguments constitute what we might call the s t rong challenge toPlantinga's crucial lemma that possibly God could not have actualized anormally perfect world; or a world containing less evil than the actualworld; and so on. In the sequel, we also produce a w e ak challenge toPlant inga's lemma. We argue that even if Plantinga is right to embrace in-compatibilism there are versions of the problem of evil that , not unreason-ably, build into their premise about evil the claim that God c ou l d haveactualized worlds with a better balance of good over evil, and such versionsof the problem appear to resist Plantinga's incompatibilist methodology.My first argument is as follows: Plantinga's 'best' formulation of theprinciple of transworld depravity claims that transworld depravity is apossible property of all instant iations of creaturely essences, of all possiblepersons, and not just of all actual persons. But is it really so certain thatthere can be contingent dispositional truths about the free, uncaused,behaviour of any possible person? Does it really make logical sense tosuppose that God, in actualizing the world, is confronted by actual disposi-tions to (some) evil on the part of each as-yet-uncreated, and perhapsnever-to-be-created, possible person? '~ Isn't it really better logicallybetter) to replace Plantinga's reformulated counterfactuals by slightlyweaker counterfactuals that do not make this large modal assumption:mean counterfactuais like:

(c**) God does T ~ -- P goes wrong with respect to A (or: had Goddone T, P m i gh t have gone wrong with respect to A).

It can be shown that adopting (c**) instead of (c*) makes no formaldifference: it will still be possible to deduce that (possibly) God could nothave actualized a morally perfect world, even though (c**) is weaker than(c*).

I suspect that Plantinga's reason for preferring strong counterfactualslike (c*) to weak counterfactuals like (c**) is that an account of freedomaccording to which possibly both:


16/22

90(i) God does T ~ ~ P freely goes right with

respect to Aand

(ii) God does T ~ -- P freely goes wrong withrespect to A,

is inconsistent with yet another feature of God's nature which is tradi-tionally stressed by theists, viz. his foreknowledge. Plantinga, construingomniscience as universal prescience, seems to suppose that God is able toplan his universe in determinate fashion because God necessarily knows,given a state of affairs T, what any possible free agent woul do were Godto bring about T. The problem with this justification is familiar enough,omniscience thus construed is problematic because it is difficult toreconcile with the theory of knowledge. If foreknowledge is truly know-ledge, then God must a t least have good reasons for the beliefs - beliefslike (c*) - on the basis of which he decides which world to actualize. Hisreasons must be sufficient to jus tify the claim to knowledge. It is difficultto see, however, what reasons God could possibly have for such beliefs.Once we accept incompatibilism, we cannot answer that God 's reasons arebased on the fact that whatever comes to pass is predetermined by God tocome to pass. This reply is available to Leibniz, but not to an incompati-bilist like Plantinga.

Plantinga is still in a quandary, therefore. The only argument for thepossible truth o f counterfactuals like (c*) that I am able to think o f rests ona philosophically dubious account of divine omniscience. But once weadopt weaker counterfactuals like (c**), we are spiked on the other horn ofthe dilemma: omniscience conceived as foreknowledge is commonly re-garded as one of God's essential attributes, and a consistency proof thatrefuses to respect this essential attribute consequently does less than wemight reasonably have expected.

There is a second indirect argument against a consistency proof that pre-supposes incompatibilism. Consider, again, the structure of my earlier vin-dication of Plantinga's account of powers. The structure of my argumentwas as follows. After arguing that an 'actual constraints' analysis worksfor locutions like 'it is in my power to do A' and 'I could have done A', Ifollowed Plantinga in extending this analysis straightforwardly to the caseof God. Since God cannot directly bring about a person's freely under-taking an action A (on Plantinga's incompatibilist understanding offreedom), there are, even in God' s case, certain limitations on what God iscapable of achieving directly. What God can indirectly bring about is, inturn, a funct ion of crucial dispositional facts about persons that thus form


17/22

91the a c t u a l constraints limiting God s indirect power. The resultant accountdoes admit that there is an important difference between the case of Godand the case of humans: God s direct powers are so much greater thanours, after all. But the account does not admit any in principle differencebetween the case of God and the case of humans. God, like his creatures,acts against the background of the actual world. More o f the actual worldis directly attributable to him than to us, of course, but nonetheless the dif-ference looks, in an important sense, quantitative only. This startinglyanthropomorphic conclusion is the price we pay for idealizing the actualconstraints analysis for ordinary p-modal ascriptions to yield an actualconstraints analysis of statements about God s power.

We can see how suspicious we should be of Plantinga s claim that he hasconclusively refuted Leibniz s Lapse. Leibniz certainly would not havebeen able to make sense of God s actualizing the actual world against thebackground of the actual world itself; or of God s power being to somedegree a function of the way the world a c tu a l l y is. Leibniz like Plantinga,agrees that God is in no way responsible for what humans do, but forLeibniz this means something entirely different from what it means forPlantinga. It means that before God ever actualized anything humans andother substances subsisted s u b r a t i o n e p o s s i b i l it a t i s i.e., as conceptualizedpossibilities whose existence a s p o s s ib i l i a God could not have prevented.This clearly does not mean that certain contingent counterfactuals abouthumans perhaps constitute the actual constraints against which Godactualizes a possible world. For Leibniz, there just cannot be states ofaffairs that constitute actual constraints against which God actualizes apossible world, for the possibility of a n y state of affairs can only be theresult of God s free decision to actualize some substance that, until actual-ized, only subsists s u b r a t i o n e p o s s ib i li t a t is . 2

Why, then, does Plantinga continue to think that he has conclusively re-futed Leibniz s Lapse? It is, no doubt , because he thinks that it is at leastlogically possible that humans are free in a very strong, incompatibilistsense that rules out causal pre-determination, so that Leibniz too has toface the fact that there are certain possible states of affairs God cannotstrongly actualize, cannot d i r ec t l y bring about. But Leibniz would certainlynot grant Plantinga the starting premise that humans are at least possiblyfree in the strong sense Plantinga favours. To leave a person free in thatsense would be, for Leibniz, to bring about the existence of a being whoseindividual concept is radically incomplete, and this is impossible onLeibniz s understanding of possible substances and possible worlds.Persons are, for Leibniz, rather like characters from a novel. They arecertainly free, but not in a transcendent sense of freedom that excludes allcausal pre-determination of their actions. Characters from novels certainlydo n o t lead lives that are, in such a transcendent sense, independent of their


18/22

92c rea t o r s p u rp o s e s , y e t t he i r a c t i o n s a r e n o n e t h e l e s s u n p ro b l em a t i ca l l yfree.

I t i s n o d o u b t t emp t i n g t o r e s p o n s e t o t h i s co u n t e r ch an g e b y d ec ry i n gL e i b n i z s me t ap h y s i c s o f p o s s i b il it y . I t h i n k , h o w ev e r , t h a t s u ch a r e s p o n s ew o u l d b e s h o r t - s i g h t ed . T h e re may w e l l b e a l t e rn a t i v e me t ap h y s i ca lg r o u n d s , r o o t e d , p e r h a p s , i n o n e s c o n c e p t o f G o d , f o r t h e c la im t h a tG o d s r e l a t io n t o h is co s m o s is ap p ro p r i a t e l y a s y m m et r i c , t h a t w e a r e in n os en s e p a r t n e r s w i t h G o d i n th e ac t u a li z in g o f th e ac t u a l w o r l d . Ph i l o s o p h i -ca l Calv in i s t s , o f cou rse , m ain ta in tha t G od s re l a t ion to h i s c rea t ion is as t ro n g l y a s y m me t r i c re l a t io n o f j u s t th i s ty p e , an d A n t h o n y F l ew a rg u es i nhis G o d a n d P h i l o s o p h y 13 t h a t a n y t h e o lo g i c a ll y c o h e r e n t a c c o u n t o f G o d sre la t ion to h i s c rea t ion shou ld en ta i l t h i s k ind o f s t rong asymmet ry . I t i st emp t i n g , i n t h i s co n t ex t , t o ad ap t s o me t h i n g w h i ch K an t s a i d ab o u t t h et e l eo l o g i ca l a rg u men t : j u s t a s t h e k i n d o f b e i n g fo r w h o s e ex i s t en ce t h et e l eo l o g i ca l a rg u men t g av e g o o d r ea s o n s w as f a r r emo v ed f ro m t h e e n sr e a l i s s i m u m w h o s e ex i s t en ce s h o u l d h av e b een , b u t ( fo r K an t ) co u l d n ev e rb e , t h e s u b j ec t o f t h e r a t i o n a l p ro o f s fo r G o d s ex i s ten ce , s o fo r m an yp h i l o s o p h i ca l t h eo l o g i an s , an d ce r t a in l y fo r L e i b n i z, t h e k i n d o f b e i n gw h o s e ex is t en ce P l an t i n g a p ro v es co m p a t i b l e w i th t h e ex is t en ce o f evi l isf a r r e m o v e d f r o m t h e m a x i m a l ly g r e a t b e in g w h o s h o u l d h a v e f o r m e d t h et o p ic o f P l a n t in g a s c o n s is t e n cy p r o o f .

S o f a r w e h a v e a r g u e d t h a t o n e i m p o r t a n t w e a k n e s s o f P l a n t i n g a sap p ro ach l i e s i n i t s u n co mp ro mi s i n g i n co mp a t i b i l i s m. T h e f ea t u r e o fP l a n t i n g a s a p p r o a c h a m o u n t s t o a l o g i c a l w e a k n e s s in t h e a p p r o a c h . I fo u r f i r s t a rg u men t i s v a l i d , w e h av e r ea s o n t o s u p p o s e t h a t s o me o f t h es t ep s i n P l an t i n g a s p r o o f r eq u i r e t h e t r u t h o f co m p a t i b i l is m, an d t h isr eq u i r eme n t o b v i o u s l y i n v a li d a te s t h e p ro o f . I f o u r s eco n d a rg u men t i sv a l id , f u r t h e rm o re , P l an t i n g a h as n t y e t ru l ed o u t t h e p o s s i b il i ty o f aL e i b n i z ian G o d , an d h en ce (i) h e h as n t s u cceed ed i n p ro d u c i n g a p ro o ft h a t i s g en e ra l en o u g h t o d e fu s e e a c h p ro b l e m o f ev il t h a t n eed s d e fu s in g ,an d (ii) h e a l s o h as n t s u cceed ed i n d emo n s t r a t i n g t h a t a b e i n g w h o i sma x i ma l l y g r ea t b u t w h o n o n e t h e l e s s co u l d n t h av e ac tu a l ized s o m e w o r l d sis even p o s s i b l e ( I t is c lear , I t h ink , tha t the p oss ib i l i ty o f Le ibn iz s G oden ta i l s the imposs ib i l i ty o f th i s k ind o f be ing , and hence the imposs ib i l i tyo f P l a n t i n g a s G o d . )

T h es e a rg u men t s s u g g es t t h e w i s d o m o f a t t emp t s t o d ev i s e co n s i s t en cyp ro o f s t h a t d o n o t r e s t o n i n co mp a t i b i l i s m. Bu t t h e r e i s an o t h e r , q u i t ed i f f e r en t , r ea s o n fo r s ea r ch in g fo r s u ch a l te rn a t iv e co n s i s t en cy p ro o f s .Su p p o s e t h a t , i n t h e f ace o f t h e a rg u me n t s ab o v e , w e g ran t P l an t i n g a h i sincom pat ib i l i sm. In tha t case we are st ill ab le to m ou nt a w e a k cha l l enge toP l an t i n g a s ap p ro ach . P l an t i n g a s p r ac t ice o f u s in g m ed i a t in g p r in c i p le( s u ch a s t h e p r i n c ip l e o f t r an s w o r l d d ep rav i t y ) w h o s e p o s s i b l e t r u t h r e s ts o ni n co mp a t i b i l i s m can n o t , o n t h e f ace o f i t , b e ex t en d ed t o d ea l w i t h al l


19/22

93v e r s i o n s o f t h e l o g i c a l p r o b l e m o f e v i l w h o s e p r e m i s e a b o u t e v i l is a r e a s o n -a b l e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e n a t u r e a n d s c o p e o f t h e e v il in t h e w o r l d ; a n d P l a n t i n -g a ' s a p p r o a c h i s, t o t h a t e x t e n t , l i m i t e d in a p p l i c a t i o n . P l a n t i n g a a r g u e s ( inG F E a n d e l s ew h e r e ) t h a t h i s s tr a t e g y c a n b e a d a p t e d t o d e a l w i t h v e r si o n so f t h e l o g i c al p r o b l e m o f e v il t h a t s p e c i f y i n s o m e d e t a i l w h a t k i n d o f e v ilt h e r e is ( e . g . , n a t u r a l e v il a s w e l l a s h u m a n s in ) , a n d h o w m u c h t h e r e is . B u tc o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t a b o u t e v il :

( 2 ) T h e r e is n a t u r a l a n d m o r a l e vil w h i c h a n al l p o w e r f u l b ei n g c o u l dh a v e p r e v e n t e d , a n d w h o s e p r e v e n t i o n w o u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d i n ab e t t e r w o r l d .

T h i s s t a t e m e n t s e e m s as r e a s o n a b l e a n d u n c o n t r o v e r s i a l as a n y o f t h e o t h e rc l ai m s a b o u t e vil P l a n t in g a b r a v e l y a t te m p t s t o p r o v e c o m p a t i b l e w i thG o d ' s e x i s t e n c e , y e t P l a n t i n g a ' s F r e e W i l l D e f e n s e cl e a r ly c a n n o t b ea d a p t e d t o c o p e w i t h it . A c o m p a r i s o n w i t h a r e c e n t c r i ti c is m o fP l a n t i n g a ' s a p p r o a c h o n t h e p a r t o f M c C l o s k y m a y b e h e l p f u l h e r e.M c C l o s k y w r i t e s i n G o d a n d v i l t h a tIt is no t necessary for the critic to explore whether evil spirits, mischievous fairies, clumsyHom eric gods, or the like, can be show n possibly o be the cause of certain kinds of evil. Thisis to rest the theist's case on a purely sceptical, unreal doubt. I'I f t h i s c l a i m i s i n t e n d e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e i n v a l i d i t y o f P l a n t i n g a ' so r i g i n a l c o n s i s t e n c y p r o o f , i t c l e a r l y m i s s e s t h e m a r k . B u t i f , i n s t e a d , i t isi n t e n d e d t o m a k e t h e p o i n t th a t a n y s e r io u s a t te m p t t o p r o v e G o d ' se x i s te n c e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f e v il s h o u l d b e a b l e t o c o p e w i t hp r e m i s e s a b o u t e v il t h a t a r e paradigmat ical ly r e a s o n a b l e - p r e m i s e s su c h a s' t h e r e is e v il w h i c h h a s o n l y natural c a u s e s ' a n d ' t h e r e is m u c h prevent iblee v i l' [ c f ( 2 ) 1 - i t s e e m s s o u n d e n o u g h . O n t h e f a c e o f it , ( 2 ) is p a r a d i g -m a t i c a l l y r e a s o n a b l e i n j u s t t h i s se n s e . I t i s s u r e l y n o l es s r e a s o n a b l e t h a n ap r e m i s e t h a t d e s c r i b e s t h e v a r i e t y o f e v il i n t h e a c t u a l w o r l d , a n d a na p p r o a c h t o t h e p ro b l e m o f ev il w h o s e c o m p e t e n c y d o e s n o t e x te n d to ( 2 )c a n t o t h a t e x t e n t b e a c c u s e d o f r e s t i n g o n a n u n r e a s o n a b l e r e s t r i c t i o n o fG o d ' s p o w e r s .

6 C o n c l u s i o n

I n th i s p a p e r , I h a v e t r i e d t o d e f e n d a n ' a c t u a l c o n s t r a i n t s ' a c c o u n t o fp o w e r s , a n d I h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e w e a k n e s s o f P l a n t i n g a ' s F r e e W i llD e f e n s e li es n o t i n it s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f p o w e r s b u t i n t h e w a y it c i r c u m -s c r i b e s t h e s e p o w e r s . I h a v e d e f e n d e d b o t h a s t r o n g a n d a w e a k v e r s i o n o f


20/22

94the claim that the circumscription of God's powers in Plantinga's approachis unjust ifiably severe. Let us now briefly consider the following question:Are there ways of dealing with the problem of evil that avoid thesecriticisms? That is, are there ways of dealing with the problem of evil whichdo not presuppose the falsity of compatibilitism and which cope success-fully with a premise about evil like (2' ')?

The following approach seems to offer some slight hope. Consider theinference:

(Pi) God is wholly good. (P2) It is necessarily true that if God c o u l d have actualized a world

better than the actual world, he w o u l d have.This inference is, I think, fallacious. Rather than rest a consistency proofon the denial of the antecedent in (P2) (Leibniz and Plant inga both do this),we would do well to consider the possibility of consistency proofs thatsimply deny (P2) itself. One way of breaking the logical link between (PI)and (P2) was assayed by Robert Merrihew Adams in his Must God Createthe Bes t? is In his article, Adams argues that on the Christian conceptionof the moral ideal there is no reason for believing that a wholly good Godwould have actualized the best possible world (supposing that there is abest world). An alternative way of breaking the link is to accept a principlelike:

(P3) For each world W, there is a world W I better than W,(a principle that should be acceptable to those who espouse classical utilita-rianism, 16 for example), for once (P3) is accepted it seems entirely unrea-sonable to blame an all-powerful being for actualizing some world Wsimply on the grounds that there are worlds better than W which the beingc o u l d have actualized.

Unfortunately, however, neither of these methods seems to lead directlyto a dissolution of the problem of evil. Many philosophers, perhaps in-cluding Plantinga 17 himself, would instead claim that while it is arguablethat an all-powerful being does not deserve moral blame for not actualizingthe best possible world such a being certainly d o e s deserve moral blame foractualizing a world containing preventible ev i l I doubt that this intuitioncan be exploited by philosophies that accept a principle like (P3) and thatalso regard good and evil as c o m m e n s u r a b l e principles (in the sense,roughly, that a quanti ty of evil can always be off-set by a sufficient quanti-ty of good.) To this extent, I do not believe that there can be a problem ofevil for one who holds (P3) in conjunction with a privative view of evil, forexample; or that there can be a problem of evil for the classical utilitarian


21/22

9

w h o s i m i l a r l y h o l d s t h a t t h e n e g a t i v e u t i l i t y o f s u f f e r i n g i s o f f - s e t b y t h ep o s i t i v e u t i l i t y o f a s u f f i c i e n t a m o u n t o f g o o d ) . B u t p h i l o s o p h i e s l i k ec las s ica l u t i l i t ar ian ism as ide , the in tu i t ion seems a powerfu l one , andp r e s e n t s a c o n t i n u i n g o b s t a c l e t o t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n o f h o p e d - f o r a l t e r n a t i v ea p p r o a c h e s t o t h e p r o b l e m o f e v i l .

N O T E S

1 . G o d , F r e e d o m , a n d E v i l ( G e o r g e A l l e n a n d U n w i n , 1 97 4).2 . G o d a n d O t h e r M i n d s ( C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 67 ).3 . T h e N a t u r e o f N e c e s s i t y ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 1 97 4).4 . S o m e d e f i n i t io n s :

(i) P i s f r e e w i t h r e spe c t t o an ac t i on A i f f h e i s f r e e to p e r f o r m A a n d f r e e to r e f r a i nf r o m p e r f o r m i n g A .

( i i) A i s m o r a l l y s i g n i f ic a n t f o r P i f f i t w o u l d b e m o r a l l y w r o n g f o r P t o p e r f o r m A b u tm o r a l l y r i g h t t o r e f r a i n , o r v i c e v e r s a .

(iii) P i s s ig n i f i c a n t l y f r e e ( o n o c c a s i o n t ) i f f (a t t ) h e is f r e e w i t h r e s p e c t t o s o m e a c t i o nw h i c h i s m o r a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r h i m .

5 . D a v i d L e w i s , C o u n t e r f a c t u a l s ( H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 7 3).6 . T h i s o b j e c t i o n a g a i n s t ( A C ) a p p l i e s w i t h le s s f o r c e a g a i n s t ( A C ) i f t h e l a t t e r i s r e s t r i c t e d

t o t h e c a s e o f G o d . I t s e e m s s a f e to a s s u m e t h a t , i f G o d e x i st s , t h e n a n y s t a t e o f a f f a i r s Ai s a c t u a l p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e G o d k n e w t h a t A w o u M b e t h e c a s e i f h e w e re t o u n d e r t a k e ac e r t a i n c o u r s e o f a c t i o n T ( i .e . , G o d k n e w t h a t : G o d d o e s T ~ ~ A ) , a n d , i n th e l i g h t o fh i s p r e fe r e n c e s , t h e r e f o r e d e c i d e d t o d o T . I s u s p e c t th a t t h i s m a k e s t h e c o n n e c t i o nb e t w e e n T a n d A s t r o n g e n o u g h t o w a r r a n t s a y i n g th a t A s b e i n g a c t u a l is a g e n u i n e c o n -s e q u e n c e o f G o d s d o i n g T .

7 . See L ew i s , C o u n t e r f a c t u a l s , 32f f .8 . J o u r n a l o f P h i l o s o p h y 7 0 ( 1 9 7 3 ) : 5 3 9 - 5 2 .9 . F o r P l a n t i n g a s o w n r e f o r m u l a t e d p r o o f , s e e, e . g . , T he .N a ture o f N e c e s s i t y , 181ff . I

h a v e a l s o b e n e f i i e d f r o m s e e i ng a s i m p l e r ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) p r o o f b y D a v i d L e w i s . L e w i s ,h o w e v e r , d i s a g r e e s w i t h P l a n t i n g a s a c t u a l c o n s t r a i n t s a n a l y si s o f w h a t G o d c o u l d , o rc o u l d n o t , h a v e d o n e ( w r i t t e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) , a n d r e je c t s P l a n t i n g a s c o n c l u s i o n s o nt h a t b a s i s .

1 0. I d o n o t d o u b t t h a t t h e r e c a n b e t r u e c o u n t e r f a c t u a l s a b o u t w h a t w o u l d h a p p e n i f a lle s s e n c e s o f a c e r t a i n k i n d w e r e i n s t a n t i a t e d . W e c a n , f o r e x a m p l e , a t t r i b u t e t r u t h t o ac o u n t e r f a c t u a l a s s e r t i o n s u c h a s a n y p o s s i b l e s o l i d s p h e r e o f s t e e l l a r g e r t h a n 1 c c i nv o l u m e w o u l d s i n k i f p l a c e d i n w a t e r . T h i s i s b e c a u s e a s u b s t a n c e l i ke s te e l h a s c e r t a i ne s s e n t i a l p r o p e r t i e s P / t l a K r i p k e o r P u t n a m , s u c h t h a t i t i s n o m i c a l l y n e c e s s a r y t h a t as o li d s p h e r e l a r g e r t h a n 1 c c i n v o l u m e a n d c o m p o s e d o f a s u b s t a n c e t h a t h a s p r o p e r t i e sP w i ll s i n k in w a t e r . T h i s k i n d o f a c c o u n t , o f c o u r s e , i s n o t o p e n t o P l a n t i n g a .

I 1. O n L e w i s , b u t n o t S t a l n a k e r s , s e m a n t i c s f o r c o u n t e r f a c t u a l s . S e e L e w i s , C o u n t e r -f a c t u a l s , p . 80 .1 2. See , e . g . , R e s ch e r , T h e P h i l o s o p h y o f L e i b n i z ( P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1 9 67 ), p p . 1 3 - 1 6 .

13. G o d a n d P h i l o s o p h y ( L o n d o n : H u t c h i n s o n , 1 9 66 ), p p . 4 5 f f .14. G o d a n d E v i l T h e H a g u e : M a r t i n u s N i j h o f f , 1 97 4), p . 1 1 2.15. P h i l o s o p h i c a l R e v i e w 8 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) : 3 1 7 - 3 2 .16 . By c lass ical u t i li t a ri a n i s m I m e a n t h e t h e o r y t h a t a d v o c a t e s m a x i m i z i n g t h e t o t a l h a p p i -

n e s s ( a s o p p o s e d t o t h e av e rage h a p p i n e s s ) o f s e n t i e n t b e i n g s . T h i s t h e o r y h a s b e e na d v o c a t e d b y J . J . C . S m a r t in S m a r t a n d W i l l i a m s , U t i l i t a r i a n i s m : F o r a n d A g a i n s t( C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 97 3), s e c t . 4 .


22/22

9

17. P l a n t i n g a , i n G F E a n d e l se w h e r e , c ri ti c iz e s a n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t p r in c i p l e s a b o u t o m n i -b e n e v o l e n c e . O n e h e d o e s n o t c r it ic i z e i s t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t a w h o l l y g o o d , a l l -k n o w i n g ,a n d a l l - p o w e r f u l b e i n g e l i m i n a te s a ll e v il i t c a n p r o p e r l y e l i m i n a t e i . e. , c a n e l i m i n a t ew i t h o u t c a u s i n g m o r e e v i l o r g e t t i n g ri d o f a n o u t w e i g h i n g g o o d ) . T h r o u g h h i s F r e e W i l lD e f e n s e , P l a n t i n g a i n s t e a d a t t e m p t s t o s h o w t h a t i t is p o s s ib l e t h a t t h e r e is m u c h e v ilt h a t G o d c a n n o t p r o p e r l y e l i m i n a t e .

Platinga on God, Freedom and Evil

Documents

Transcript of Platinga on God, Freedom and Evil