Abstract
Proponents of the view which I call ‘moral antitheodicy’ call for the theistic discourse of theodicy to be abandoned, because, they claim, all theodicies involve some form of moral impropriety. Three arguments in support of this view are examined: the argument from insensitivity, the argument from detachment, and the argument from harmful consequences. After discussing the merits of each argument individually, I attempt to show that they all must presuppose what they are intended to establish, namely, that the set of premises advanced in any given theodicy will be untenable. I conclude by discussing what uses there might be for the moral critique of theodicy, if it cannot be used to ground a global rejection of theodical practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams M.M. (1989) Horrendous evils and the goodness of God. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 25: 297–310
Davis S.T. (2001) Free will and evil. In: Stephen T., Davis T. (eds) Encountering evil: Live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville
Davis S.T. (2004) Truth and action in theodicy: A reply to C. Robert Mesle. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 25: 270–275
Dostoyevsky, F. M. (1993). The Brothers Karamazov (trans: McDuff, David). London: Penguin Books (Originally published 1880).
Felderhof M.C. (2004) Evil: Theodicy or resistance?. Scottish Journal of Theology 57: 397–412
Griffin D.R. (2004) God, power, and evil: A process theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press, London
Hick J. (1978) Evil and the God of love, revised edition. Harper & Row, San Francisco
Hick J. (2004) Response to Mesle. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 25: 265–269
Hick J. (2007) D. Z. Phillips on God and evil. Religious Studies 43: 433–441
Kelemen D. (1999) Beliefs about purpose: On the origins of teleological thought. In: Corballis M.C., Lea S.E.G. (eds) The descent of mind: Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 278–294
Mesle C.R. (2004) Suffering, meaning and the welfare of children: What do theodicies do?. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 25: 247–264
Messer R. (1993) Does God’s existence need proof?. Clarendon Press, Oxford
O’Connor D. (1988) In defence of theoretical theodicy. Modern Theology 5: 61–74
Phillips D.Z. (2001) Critique of Stephen T. Davis. In: Davis S.T. (eds) Encountering evil: Live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville
Phillips D.Z. (2004) The problem of evil and the problem of God. SCM Press, London
Roth J.K. (2001a) Critique of Stephen T. Davis. In: Davis S.T. (eds) Encountering evil: Live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville
Roth J.K. (2001b) Critique of John Hick. In: Davis S.T. (eds) Encountering evil: Live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville
Rowe W.L. (1979) The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism. American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335–341
Rowe W.L. (1988) Evil and theodicy. Philosophical Topics 16: 119–132
Scott M. (1996) The morality of theodicies. Religious Studies 32: 1–13
Surin K. (1983) Harvard Theological Review 76: 225–247
Swinburne R. (1995) Theodicy, our well-being, and God’s rights. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 38: 75–91
Tilley T.W. (1991) The evils of theodicy. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC
Voltaire, (1947). Candide: Or optimism (trans: Butt, John). London: Penguin Books (Originally published 1759).
Wetzel J. (1989) Can theodicy be avoided? The claim of unredeemed evil. Religious Studies 25: 1–13
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simpson, R.M. Moral antitheodicy: prospects and problems. Int J Philos Relig 65, 153–169 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-008-9189-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-008-9189-2