It is suggested in the Bible that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-good). If these concepts are valid, it would be logical to assume that there is no unnecessary/undeserved suffering in the world. However, according to the argument from evil, this is not the case. To exaggerate this point, we can reference occurrences such as the Holocaust, starving children in third-world countries, as well as natural disasters that leave many innocent people and animals in distress. Therefore, it is disputed that there is not a perfect omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. If a God with all three properties existed, than he/she would acknowledge if there was any suffering in the world, and would exhibit both a moral obligation and ability to stop it from happening. In turn, we are left to question whether God is at fault or if all the suffering in the world is deserved. A popular reply to this argument as well as the divine evil argument (God sends those who don’t believe in him to Hell, and is therefore an evil monster) is known as the mysterian reply. This response states that it is unclear why God allows unnecessary/ undeserved suffering or why he bans people to hell, but God is both mysterious and unpredictable. We can be comforted that whatever he does is morally good, even if we are unable to comprehend it. If one upholds the idea that the goodness of God is inconceivable, then one cannot be sure about any aspect of afterlife. If God’s goodness is incomprehensible to us, then it may be consistent with God’s goodness to send his followers to Hell, and those who disobey, to Heaven. If God’s goodness is worthy of sending people who don’t believe in him, to Hell, then God’s goodness goes against his promise. Furthermore, if God goes against one promise, how can believers trust that he won’t go against another? Physicalism: the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes say, that everything impinges on or is necessitated by the physical. Contrary to this thesis, Philosopher Frank Jackson presents an argument against physicalism. Through the noted story of “What Mary didn’t know,” Jackson demonstrates that not everything is acquired through physical facts. The story of Mary describes a scientist who was put in an exclusively black and white room, with all possible resources in which she would need to learn every physical fact in the world. Though all of these resources are in black and white, Mary still learns all there is to know about the physical world. “If physicalism is true, she knows all there is to know. For to suppose otherwise is to suppose that there is more to know than every physical fact, and that is just what physicalism denies.” (Frank Jackson) Jackson argues that even though Mary may have learned physical facts, she can still learn more through her senses. Once Mary steps out of the black and white room and sees the color red, she learns something new. Previously, she may have known everything about the color red, but she never truly perceived it. This proves that not everything is physical, since Mary must utilize her senses to fully comprehend this concept of nature. Some may argue that when Mary sees the color red she learns a new ability, rather than a new fact. Prior to perceiving a red object, Mary knew everything there is to know about the color red; she even knew what it should appear as. Yet, by witnessing the color in person, she learns a new way of grasping it. Hence, it is questionable whether Mary learned another fact, or if she just found a new way to emphasize what she has previously knew. Another example of this would be observing a Popsicle before eating it. You know the color, shape, size, texture, temperature, and flavor of a Popsicle before tasting it, and you take a bite of it. Yet, would acquiring a new taste be considered a new fact, or just a new ability which can be used to distinguish the popsicle from other taste?
Should we be morally responsible for our actions, if we are only given one choice? According to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP), a person is morally accountable for doing something only if she could have done otherwise than do it. This argument correlates with free will because it implies that if one has free will at a certain time; they are morally responsible for the actions that they choose to perform during that period. The concept of free will surfaces another question: does free will exist? A theory of determinism has been established to undermine free will by suggesting everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen was determined by both the laws of nature and the state of the world at the time of its creation. According to the Responsibility Incompatibilism thesis (RI) if determinism is true, then no one is morally responsible for anything. Fortunately, according to contemporary physicist, determinism is false. Consequently, free will does exist, which in turn corroborates moral responsibility: being either morally blameworthy, or morally praiseworthy, for doing something.
An example of a scenario that acts as a counter example to PAP would be as followed. An employee, Ryan, is working a busy shift at a local restaurant. He walks back to the kitchen to grab table # 23’s food. As he grabs the steak dinner, the steak falls and lands on the floor. Meanwhile, the cook is unknowingly watching, waiting to see Ryan’s response to the situation. Though Ryan could potentially decide to throw away the steak and order a new one, the cook is standing by ready to interfere. Since the cook is really busy, he wants to make sure that Ryan will just serve the steak as is instead of re ordering it. However, if he does choose to re-order it, the cook will go out of his way to refuse a new order. Luckily for him, Ryan chooses to serve the steak as is, and the cook goes about his job. Therefore, Ryan is morally responsible for serving a dirty steak, even though that was unknowingly his only option. This scenario proves PAP to be false. It is not the case that a person is morally accountable for doing something only if she could have done otherwise than do it. In this situation, Ryan made a decision without any influence from the cook. As a result, his moral responsibility for doing it is not affected by the fact that the cook was waiting in the background with menacing intent, since his intent never comes into play.