The Problem of Evil, Second Part, Evaluating the Problem of Gratuitous Evil with Narration (1)
The Problem of Gratuitous Evil
Formulation of the Problem:
If God existed, then there would not be any cases of gratuitous evil.
There is good inductive evidence for believing that there are cases of gratuitous evil.
Conclusion: There is good inductive evidence for believing that God does not exist.
Justifying Premise 2 of the Problem of Gratuitous Evil
Inscrutable Evil:
Example cases: Buck and Sue.
Our inability to justify such evils indicates that there are likely no justifications.
Conclusion: We have strong inductive evidence to assert that there are cases of gratuitous evil.
Alston’s Critique
Inductive Inference:
Alston critiques the nature of inductive reasoning leading to negative existential conclusions.
The argument presents that lack of justification for cases like Buck and Sue claims a lack of justifying reasons.
Result: Suggests a position on the existence of those reasons.
Evaluating Inductive Inferences to Negative Existential Conclusions
Alston's Position:
Inductive inferences seeking negative existential conclusions can be justified in some contexts and not in others.
The Junk Pile Scenario
Description of the Scenario:
Observing various objects but failing to see a dinner plate.
Conclusion drawn: No dinner plate exists.
Analysis:
This inference is not justified as it is based solely on limited visibility.
Condition for Justified Inductive Inferences
Moderately Thorough Search Condition:
Justification for a negative existential conclusion requires a moderately thorough search.
Mixed Nuts Scenarios
Scenario One:
Looking at a bowl of nuts from above, concluding no cashews are present.
Inference is unjustified; lacks a thorough search.
Scenario Two:
Digging through the nuts thoroughly for a couple of hours and finding none; conclusion that no cashews exist is justified.
Inscrutable Evil to Gratuitous Evil
Inference Analysis:
Lack of justifying reasons for inscrutable evil supports claims of gratuitous evil.
Justification Question:
Alston argues this inference is not justified.
Moral Modesty
Understanding Moral Limitations:
Given our limitations, our moral judgments are based on a narrow scope of understanding of values.
Alston’s Conclusion
Unknown Justifications:
Emphasizes that evils we cannot justify may nonetheless be justified by goods beyond our understanding.
Caution Against Conclusion:
We are not justified in labeling inscrutable evil as gratuitous evil due to these potential justifications.
Evaluating Alston’s Response
Theist's Presupposition:
Belief in values beyond human comprehension is foundational to defending God's existence.
Values Beyond Our Awareness
Example of Knowledge:
God’s knowledge regarding matters like the properties of numbers outstrips human understanding.
Comparison of Value Understanding:
Doubts about God's knowledge of certain phenomena (like nuts) should not extend to moral values.
Argument for Existence of Unknown Values
Moral Development:
Human moral wisdom evolves despite constraints like death or infirmity.
Implication:
Continuous human moral growth suggests there are undiscovered values.
Michael Tooley's Challenge to Moral Modesty
Tooley's Critique:
Asserts human moral theory has not advanced like scientific knowledge, suggesting a static understanding of values.
Alternatives for Lack of Moral Progress
Cognitive vs. Character Growth:
Understanding value also demands character development beyond mere knowledge; dependency on long-term commitment to moral actions.
Importance of Character Development:
This complicates moral knowledge transmission compared to scientific knowledge.
Argument Linking Moral Modesty to Skepticism
Skeptical Outcomes of Moral Modesty:
Moral modesty implies injustifiable atrocities.
If actions can be justified beyond our ken, minimal direction exists for moral actions.
Lack of rational justification in preventing atrocities nullifies moral knowledge.
Therefore, moral modesty leads to a lack of moral knowledge.
A Modest Theist Response
Compatibility of Propositions:
Theist can maintain that God has reasons for evils that surpass human understanding while adhering to a moral code that advocates preventing atrocities.