Doing, Allowing, and Occasionalism
نویسندگان
چکیده
Abstract In ‘God, evil, and occasionalism’ Matthew Shea C.P. Ragland appeal to the Doctrine of Doing Allowing argue against Alvin Plantinga that occasionalism is morally worse than conservationism. this article I critically examine their argument conclude it fails because contains an equivocation or unwarranted. also offer a case position by, first, arguing on none three prominent accounts doing allowing God merely allows suffering. Second, develop ‘Epistemological-Equivalence Argument’ in order show even if we grant such distinction for God's acts, they would be par.
منابع مشابه
Doing/Allowing Harm Distinction:A Description, Analysis and Critique of Accounts of Donagan, Foot, Quinn and Bennet
The subject of "harm" and its binary distinction is one of the most recent topics in moral philosophy which has been dealt with by some moral philosophers in the last three decades. In recent years, there have also been some Iranian publications under this topic. The do/allow distinction is one of the distinctions. Moderate and minimalist philosophers who are advocates of this distinction offer...
متن کاملMoral appraisals affect doing/allowing judgments.
An extensive body of research suggests that the distinction between doing and allowing plays a critical role in shaping moral appraisals. Here, we report evidence from a pair of experiments suggesting that the converse is also true: moral appraisals affect doing/allowing judgments. Specifically, morally bad behavior is more likely to be construed as actively 'doing' than as passively 'allowing'...
متن کاملMoore on Doing versus Allowing Harm
Michael Moore's Causation and Responsibility^ is a comprehensive and fascinating study of the relationship between the law, moralify, and metaphysics. One of the most interesting (and, at the same time, controversial) theses Moore defends in this book is the claim that some central legal concepts are grounded in metaphysical concepts. In particular, Moore emphasizes the key role played in the l...
متن کاملDoing, Allowing, and Enabling Harm: An Empirical Investigation
Traditionally, moral philosophers have distinguished between doing and allowing harm, and have normally proceeded as if this bipartite distinction can exhaustively characterize all cases of human conduct involving harm. By contrast, cognitive scientists and psychologists studying causal judgment have investigated the concept ‘enable’ as distinct from the concept ‘cause’ and other causal terms. ...
متن کاملA Defence of the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing
I defend the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing: the claim that doing harm is harder to justify than merely allowing harm. A thing does not genuinely belong to a person unless he has special authority over it. The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing protects us against harmful imposition – against the actions or needs of another intruding on what is ours. This protection is necessary for something to ge...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Religious Studies
سال: 2021
ISSN: ['1469-901X', '0034-4125']
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034412521000056