J.L. Mackie

J. L Mackie Introduction Mackies argument The proposed solution to be discussed and Mackies response to it is the claim that evil is due to hu globe resign will and as such it cannot be attributed to divinity fudge. Evil should instead be attributed to the eject actions of individuals, the power of which has been invest upon them by God. While it is acknowledged that there exists evil in the world, as a result of about human free will, it is claimed that freedom of will is a more blue-chip good than any issue evil. Through God allowing such freedom, He has satisfied His wholly good requirement.Creating men who always engage good Mackies first criticism of this solution is that if God was omnipotent and he created men so that they would favour choosing good over evil, why did he not create them such that they would always lead good? The obvious response to this claim is that to constrain mans actions in such a way is to critically undermine freedom of the will to demand that man always choose wizard 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 solutionFor Mackie, an adequate solution is one that if adopted the initial problem does not arise for you, however the solution may have raised other problems. The sole(prenominal) discussed solution that does not hold God responsible for evil in the world is the compatibilist climb up to free will. Upon formulating this solution the two major issues are on the interpretation of omnipotence and freedom. Omnipotence has been revealed to be an almost meaningless margin by way of the conundrumes 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 ultimately the proposal that gave rise to a compatibilist approach was that proposed by Mackie and so there is little that he could 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 must then be a logical necessity for man to choose wrong instead of good is not accurate, for it is sufficient to be a logical incident 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 some 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 categorize as an adequate one.