Sophia 59 (3):563-576 (2020)

James Franklin
University of New South Wales
Antitheodicy objects to all attempts to solve the problem of evil. Its objections are almost all on moral grounds—it argues that the whole project of theodicy is morally offensive. Trying to excuse God’s permission of evil is said to deny the reality of evil, to exhibit gross insensitivity to suffering, and to insult the victims of grave evils. Since antitheodicists urge the avoidance of theodicies for moral reasons, it is desirable to evaluate the moral reasons against theodicies in abstraction from the intellectual reasons for and against them. It is argued that the best known theodicies such as those based on soul-making and free will are guilty of moral faults as alleged. But Leibniz’s best of all possible worlds theory, often thought to be the most morally offensive ‘Panglossian’ theodicy, is morally blameless because it excuses God by the absolute impossibility of his choosing any world better than the present one. Theodicy should not be conceived of as a search for greater goods which may excuse God’s permitting evils. From the divine point of view, creation is an upfront choice between scenarios—in modern parlance, a Trolley problem rather than a Transplant problem. In cases of forced choice among scenarios, it is morally improper to criticize one who chooses the best.
Keywords Theodicy  Antitheodicy  Best of all possible worlds  Leibiniz  Free will defense
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11841-020-00765-w
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Appearance and Reality: A Metaphysical Essay.Francis Herbert Bradley - 1893 - London, England: Oxford University Press.

View all 32 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Moral Antitheodicy: Prospects and Problems.Robert Mark Simpson - 2009 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 65 (3):153-169.
Moral Critique and Defence of Theodicy.Samuel Shearn - 2013 - Religious Studies 49 (4):439-458.
Introducing the Problem of Evil.Peter Hutcheson - 1999 - Teaching Philosophy 22 (2):185-194.
”Anti-Theodicy” and Antitheodicies.Lauri Snellman - 2019 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 11 (1):201-211.
The Morality of Theodicies.Michael Scott - 1996 - Religious Studies 32 (1):1 - 13.
Good, Evil, and God in the Evolution of A. N. Whitehead's Theodicy.Ted Krasnicki - 1995 - Dissertation, Universite de Montreal (Canada)
The Anxious Believer: Macaulay’s Prescient Theodicy.Jill Graper Hernandez - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73 (3):175-187.
Judaism, Reincarnation, and Theodicy.Tyron Goldschmidt & Beth Seacord - 2013 - Faith and Philosophy 30 (4):393-417.


Added to PP index

Total views
200 ( #58,043 of 2,506,374 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
35 ( #25,779 of 2,506,374 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes