Graduate studies at Western
Religious Studies 37 (1):103-108 (2001)
|Abstract||In a recent article published in this journal, Andrew Chignell proposes some candidates for greater or ‘balancing out’ goods that could explain why God allows some infants to be tortured to death. I argue that each of Chignell's proposals is either incoherent, metaphysically dubious, and/or morally objectionable. Thus, his proposals do not explain what might justify God in allowing infants to be tortured, and the existence of infant suffering remains a serious problem for traditional theism.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Edward H. Hagen (2004). Is Excessive Infant Crying an Honest Signal of Vigor, One Extreme of a Continuum, or a Strategy to Manipulate Parents? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (4):463-464.
Neven Sesardic (2007). Sudden Infant Death or Murder? A Royal Confusion About Probabilities. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (2):299 - 329.
Eric M. Rovie (2009). Tortured Knowledge. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (2):315-333.
Chris Kaposy (2007). Can Infants Have Interests in Continued Life? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (4):301-330.
Georges Dicker (2011). Kant's Refutation of Idealism: A Reply to Chignell. Philosophical Quarterly 61 (242):175-183.
Helga Kuhse (1986). Death by Non-Feeding: Not in the Baby's Best Interests. [REVIEW] Journal of Medical Humanities and Bioethics 7 (2):79-90.
Andrew Chignell (1998). The Problem of Infant Suffering. Religious Studies 34 (2):205-217.
David Basinger (1999). Infant Suffering: A Response to Chignell. Religious Studies 35 (3):363-369.
Nathan Nobis (2002). The Real Problem of Infant and Animal Suffering. Philo 5 (2):216-225.
Andrew Chignell (2001). Infant Suffering Revisited. Religious Studies 37 (4):475-484.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #131,909 of 738,868 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?