J.L. Mackie

J. L Mackie Introduction Mackies argument The proposed rootage to be discussed and Mackies response to it is the claim that evil is due to cosmos free go a itinerary and as much(prenominal) it cannot be attributed to God. Evil should preferably be attributed to the free actions of individuals, the power of which has been endowed upon them by God. While it is acknowledge that at that place exists evil in the globe, as a result of or so human free will, it is claimed that granting immunity of will is a more semiprecious best than any resultant evil. Through God allowing such freedom, He has satisfied His wholly good requirement.Creating men who always get good Mackies first criticism of this closure is that if God was powerful and he created men so that they would favour choosing good over evil, why did he not create them such that they would always drive good? The perspicuous response to this claim is that to constrain mans actions in such a way is to critically unde rmine freedom of the will to expect that man always choose one way whether it be in the promotion of good or evil is still to control his will and deprive him of his freedom and autonomy. Paradox of Omnipotence Adequate etymonFor Mackie, an adequate solution is one that if adopted the initial problem does not arise for you, moreover the solution may have raised other problems. The only discussed solution that does not hold God responsible for evil in the world is the compatibilist approach to free will. Upon formulating this solution the two major issues ar on the interpretation of omnipotence and freedom. Omnipotence has been revealed to be an almost meaningless term by way of the paradoxes that it gives rise to, such as the ability or inability of an omnipotent God to make rules or animals that restrict its own powers.The interpretation discussed and eventually the proposal that gave rise to a compatibilist approach was that proposed by Mackie and so there is little that he c ould criticise about this part of the argument. Conclusion Mackies argument that God could have made men always choose good undermines the most valuable good which is freedom of the will. His claim that this implies that it essential then be a logical necessity for man to choose wrong instead of good is not accurate, for it is sufficient to be a logical possibility for man to choose wrong.On this interpretation freedom is maintained, however the strongest objection arises with the omnipotence paradox. A resolution for this paradox can be reached using Mackies dichotomy of omnipotence. The resulting solution maintains Gods omnipotence and mans free will and while there exist more or less issues as to the credibility of this interpretation of freedom, as described from a compatibilist perspective, these are other problems and as such the solution can be class as an adequate one.