Graduate studies at Western
Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:59-70 (2004)
|Abstract||Contemporary philosophers who are concerned with the following three philosophical issues can learn much from Scotus: (1) the defense of agent-causal accounts of the will; (2) the search for common ground between ancient and Kantian ethics: and (3) the co-existence of free will and the capacity for sin in heaven.1) Free Will and Agent Causation: According to Scotus, the will moves itself to act, but does not cause itself. Human actions are done for reasons determinedby the agent; they are not reducible to events (which are themselves necessitated by prior events).2) Reconciling Ancient and Kantian Ethics: Like Kant, Scotus thinks that creatures cannot be morally responsible for their actions if happiness is their solemotivation for choosing whatever they choose; Scotus distinguishes between motivations and ends, although less sharply than Kant does. For Scotus, thedesire for happiness includes the desire for self-perfection; thus happiness for Scotus is never reducible to hedonism, nor is happiness our sole motivation.Our freedom lies in the will’s ability to love good things according to the value they have in themselves, not according to the value that they have for us.3) Is Heaven a Problem? A familiar explanation of the problem of evil is that evil is permitted because free will is required for moral goodness; without free willthere would be no moral evil, but neither would there be any moral goodness, so the world is better than it would be if God had chosen not to create freecreatures. But if free will is such a great good, then we must retain the capacity to sin in heaven, or else heavenly existence is inferior to earthly existence.And, if we do retain the capacity to sin in heaven, then heaven is not essentially devoid of evil. Scotus would respond to this problem by stating that love, notfreedom, is the greatest good. Thus, his account of heaven is consistent with what it means to love God above all, for his own sake, and without the motivationof happiness or any other benefit|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James F. Sennett (1999). Is There Freedom In Heaven? Faith and Philosophy 16 (1):69-82.
Andrew Eshleman (1997). Alternative Possibilities and the Free Will Defence. Religious Studies 33 (3):267-286.
Steven B. Cowan (2011). Compatibilism and the Sinlessness of the Redeemed in Heaven. Faith and Philosophy 28 (4):416-431.
Fred Feldman (2010). What is This Thing Called Happiness? Oxford University Press.
Raymond J. Devettere (1993). Clinical Ethics and Happiness. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (1):71-89.
Kevin Timpe & Timothy Pawl (2009). Incompatibilism, Sin, and Free Will in Heaven. Faith and Philosophy 26 (4):398-419.
Timothy Pawl & Kevin Timpe (2009). Incompatibilism, Sin, and Free Will in Heaven. Faith and Philosophy 26 (4):398-419.
David Forman (2012). Kant on Moral Freedom and Moral Slavery. Kantian Review 17 (1):1-32.
Marilyn McCord Adams (1987). Duns Scotus on the Goodness of God. Faith and Philosophy 4 (4):486-505.
William S. Babcock (1988). Augustine on Sin and Moral Agency. Journal of Religious Ethics 16 (1):28 - 55.
Wes Morriston (2000). What is so Good About Moral Freedom? Philosophical Quarterly 50 (200):344-358.
David Basinger (1982). Anderson on Plantinga. Philosophy Research Archives 8:315-320.
Richard M. Gale (1990). Freedom and the Free Will Defense. Social Theory and Practice 16 (3):397-423.
Gary Watson (1983). Kant on Happiness in the Moral Life. Philosophy Research Archives 9:79-108.
Added to index2011-12-01
Total downloads4 ( #189,051 of 739,310 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,310 )
How can I increase my downloads?