Horrendous Evil and the Loving God: Reply to Joshua Thurow
Marilyn McCord Adams has defended theodicy by appeal to the idea of post-mortem compensation for the victims of horrendous evil. I have argued that this overlooks the dissociation of theodicy from moral reality that she concedes in her response to criticism of theodicy by D Z Phillips. Joshua Thurow...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Publié: |
2022
|
| Dans: |
Sophia
Année: 2022, Volume: 61, Numéro: 2, Pages: 419-428 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Adams
B Compensation B Theodicy B Greater goods B Horrendous evils B Thurow |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | Marilyn McCord Adams has defended theodicy by appeal to the idea of post-mortem compensation for the victims of horrendous evil. I have argued that this overlooks the dissociation of theodicy from moral reality that she concedes in her response to criticism of theodicy by D Z Phillips. Joshua Thurow has recently defended Adams against my argument. Here I defend and strengthen that argument against Thurow. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1873-930X |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Sophia
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11841-021-00883-z |
