赎罪的价值论界限

Yishai Cohen
{"title":"赎罪的价值论界限","authors":"Yishai Cohen","doi":"10.24204/EJPR.V9I3.1954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to the Felix Culpa Theodicy ( FCT ), worlds containing atonement and incarnation are of such great value that God is justified in actualizing such a world, despite all of the moral evil that has accompanied it. Focusing upon Alvin Plantinga’s articulation of this theodicy, I argue against FCT on the basis of normative ethical considerations. On the one hand, the deontic status of at least some actions depends upon the consequences of those actions. On the other hand, the existence of atonement depends upon the deontic status of at least one action. Under certain circumstances, this two-way dependence yields a contradiction if atonement has the kind of value conferred upon it by FCT . I conclude by discussing some implications for Molinism and evidential arguments from moral evil.","PeriodicalId":428491,"journal":{"name":"European Journal for the Philosophy of Religion","volume":"443 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Atonement’s Axiological Boundaries\",\"authors\":\"Yishai Cohen\",\"doi\":\"10.24204/EJPR.V9I3.1954\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"According to the Felix Culpa Theodicy ( FCT ), worlds containing atonement and incarnation are of such great value that God is justified in actualizing such a world, despite all of the moral evil that has accompanied it. Focusing upon Alvin Plantinga’s articulation of this theodicy, I argue against FCT on the basis of normative ethical considerations. On the one hand, the deontic status of at least some actions depends upon the consequences of those actions. On the other hand, the existence of atonement depends upon the deontic status of at least one action. Under certain circumstances, this two-way dependence yields a contradiction if atonement has the kind of value conferred upon it by FCT . I conclude by discussing some implications for Molinism and evidential arguments from moral evil.\",\"PeriodicalId\":428491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal for the Philosophy of Religion\",\"volume\":\"443 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal for the Philosophy of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24204/EJPR.V9I3.1954\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal for the Philosophy of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24204/EJPR.V9I3.1954","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据Felix Culpa Theodicy (FCT),包含赎罪和化身的世界具有如此巨大的价值,以至于上帝有理由实现这样一个世界,尽管所有的道德邪恶都伴随着它。关注Alvin Plantinga对这一神正论的阐述,我在规范伦理考虑的基础上反对FCT。一方面,至少某些行为的道义地位取决于这些行为的后果。另一方面,赎罪的存在取决于至少一个行为的道义地位。在某些情况下,如果补偿具有FCT赋予的那种价值,这种双向依赖就会产生矛盾。最后,我将讨论莫林主义的一些含义以及道德恶的证据论证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Atonement’s Axiological Boundaries
According to the Felix Culpa Theodicy ( FCT ), worlds containing atonement and incarnation are of such great value that God is justified in actualizing such a world, despite all of the moral evil that has accompanied it. Focusing upon Alvin Plantinga’s articulation of this theodicy, I argue against FCT on the basis of normative ethical considerations. On the one hand, the deontic status of at least some actions depends upon the consequences of those actions. On the other hand, the existence of atonement depends upon the deontic status of at least one action. Under certain circumstances, this two-way dependence yields a contradiction if atonement has the kind of value conferred upon it by FCT . I conclude by discussing some implications for Molinism and evidential arguments from moral evil.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信