Advertisement

Personal responsibility and middle knowledge: a challenge for the Molinist

  • Joseph Shieber
Article

Abstract

In this paper, I develop and discuss an argument intended to demonstrate that the Molinist notion of middle knowledge, and in particular the concept of counterfactuals of freedom, is incompatible with the notion of personal responsibility (for created creatures). In Sect. 1, I discuss the Molinist concepts of middle knowledge and counterfactuals of freedom. In Sect. 2, I develop an argument (henceforth, the Transfer of Negative Responsibility Argument, or TNRA) to the effect that, due to their construal of the concepts of middle knowledge and counterfactuals of freedom, Molinists are not entitled to the notion that individuals are personally responsible—even for those actions that they freely perform. I then discuss the only two promising strategies for rejecting the argument in Sects. 3 and 4. Finally, in Sect. 5, I contend that, although TNRA may be unsuccessful as an internal argument against the Molinist, either of the possible strategies for rejecting TNRA poses a difficulty for the Molinist. Both response strategies force the Molinist into adopting a popular compatibilist strategy for rejecting a common negative argument against compatibilism. Thus, if Molinism represents a libertarian—i.e., incompatibilist—account of human freedom (as, e.g., Flint claims in his recent Divine Providence: The Molinist Account, noting that libertarianism is one of the “twin bases of Molinism”), then the discussion of TNRA poses, if not a dilemma, at the very least a serious challenge for the Molinist.

Keywords

Molinism Free will Responsibility Foreknowledge Problem of evil Compatibilism Molina Plantinga 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Basinger D. (1984) Divine omniscience and human freedom: A middle knowledge perspective. Faith and Philosophy 1: 291–302Google Scholar
  2. Craig W.L. (1991) Divine foreknowledge and human freedom. Leiden, E. J. Brill, pp 237–278Google Scholar
  3. Fischer J.M., Ravizza M. (1998) Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Flint T. (1999) Divine providence: The Molinist account. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  5. Freddoso, A. (Ed.) (1988). Luis de Molina: On divine foreknowledge (Part IV of the Concordia). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hasker W. (1998) God, time, and knowledge. Cornell University Press, CornellGoogle Scholar
  7. Kenny A. (1973) The God of the philosophers. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Plantinga A. (1974) The nature of necessity. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Van Inwagen P. (1990) When is the will free?. In: Tomberlin J.E. (eds) Action theory and philosophy of mind. Ridgeview Publishing, Atascadero, CA, pp 399–422Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLafayette CollegeEastonUSA

Personalised recommendations