Author(s)

Randall S. Firestone

Department of Philosophy, El Camino College, Torrance, CA, USA.

The Argument from Evil is usually considered the strongest argument against the belief in the Judeo-Christian conception of a perfect God. It states that a perfectly good, omniscient, and omnipotent God would not allow the degree of evil which exists in the world. This paper describes why the theist’s strongest response to this argument, widely known as the Soul-Making Theodicy and which this paper calls the Character Development Defense, rests on a logical contradiction. The argument proffered here reformulates an earlier argument made by B.C. Johnson which has been largely ignored in the philosophical literature. Specifically, the Character Development Defense asks humans to develop their character and thereby to take moral actions which benefit others, including mankind as a whole, but at the same time states that we need all the suffering in the world in order to give us ample opportunities for character development. If we follow the logic of this defense to its conclusion, then we should both help others to improve the world, but also not help them because that takes away the opportunities people need to develop their characters. This paper also reviews the literature in this area so it can be seen how the current argument takes a quite different approach. Lastly, the paper addresses five possible objections, and then replies to each objection.

Soul-Making Theodicy, Soul-Making Defense, Response to the Soul-Making Defense, Logical Inconsistency of the Soul-Making Defense, Best-of-All-Possible Worlds, Problem of Evil, Character Development Defense, Argument from Evil

Firestone, R. S. (2018) The Character Development Defense to the Argument from Evil Is Logically Inconsistent. Open Journal of Philosophy, 8, 444-465. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2018.85031.