In this critical examination of Descartes's Fourth Meditation and the latter part of the Sixth Meditation, Joel Thomas Tierno has produced not only an interesting contribution to Cartesian scholarship, but also a groundbreaking work in theodicy. Each of the theodicean problems that Descartes examines is developed in detail. So are his various arguments with respect to the compatibility of these forms of error and God's infinite perfection. As a part of this process, the significance of the problem Descartes raised in (...) the Fourth Meditation to his larger epistemological project in the Meditations is carefully considered. This relation has not previously been adequately appreciated or investigated. The distinctive feature of Tierno's arguments is that his conclusions are drawn from the failure of Descartes's arguments in the Fourth Meditation. Tierno implies that these arguments are crucial to Descartes's philosophical project as a whole and, as such, deserve greater attention. (shrink)

Those who advance the traditional argument from human freedom presume that human freedom provides an adequate explanation of moral evil. I argue that this presumption is erroneous. An adequate explanation of our capacity to make choices that produce moral evil must be distinguished from an adequate explanation of the actuality of such choices. Human freedom may account for our ability to make choices that issue in moral evil. It cannot, by itself, account for our actually making such choices. Something more (...) than our potential for choices that produce moral evil is required to adequately explain the profusion of moral evil that we actually find in the world. (shrink)

In this essay, I respond to two criticisms of my essay, ‘On the Alleged Connection between Moral Evil and Human Freedom’. According to Yujin Nagasawa, I equivocate on the meaning of ‘moral evil.’ I respond by offering what I believe to be an unobjectionable stipulative under-standing of what counts as moral evil which is sufficient for my argument. According to Nick Trakakis, I seriously misunderstand the conception of freedom characteristic of free will theodicists. He suggests that my argument presupposes compatibilism. (...) I respond by showing that my argument does not presuppose the denial of the capacity to have done otherwise. (shrink)

In this essay, I answer Nick Trakakis’ second critique of my argument against the adequacy of traditional free will theodicy. I argue, first, that Trakakis errs in his implicit assertion that my argument relies upon our being strongly malevolent by nature. I argue, second, that Trakakis errs in thinking that our being weakly benevolent, morally bivalent, or weakly malevolent by nature is sufficient to refute my critique of the traditional freewill theodicy. I still maintain that the argument from freedom of (...) the will offers an explanation of moral evil that is, in the final analysis, manifestly inadequate. (shrink)

In this essay, I respond to Nick Trakakis’ “A Third (Meta-)Critique.” This critique is directed against my argument concerning the inadequacy of the traditional theistic argument from free will. I contend that the argument from free will does not adequately explain the distribution of moral evil in the world. I maintain that the third critique, like Trakakis’ earlier critiques, is unconvincing. I remain convinced that my original argument regarding the inadequacy of the traditional argument from free will is compelling. The (...) argument from freedom of the will, considered in itself, is unpersuasive. (shrink)

An anonymous reader forSophia provided much helpful comment.