Selfless First Movers and Self‐Interested Followers: Order of Entry Signals Purity of Motive in Pursuit of the Greater Good

In the April 2014 edition of The Journal of Inklings Studies, Mark S. M. Scott compared the theodicies of C. S. Lewis and John Hick, concluding that there are ‘significant structural and substantive affinities’ between the two. In my essay, I too analyze these theodicies but arrive at a different conclusion. I argue two points: First, I argue that Lewis’ and Hick’s theodicies bear merely superficial similarities. Second, and more importantly, I argue that they stand in significant opposition to one another at fundamental points. The purpose of this essay is to set Lewis’ views on suffering apart from Hick’s and to suggest that, in the end, perhaps Lewis’ theodicy should not be included in the broad category of ‘greater-good’ theodicies, and would therefore be immune to attacks leveled against Hick’s theodicy as well as the various attacks leveled against the greater-good approach in general. For those who reject the greater-good approach and who hold that gratuitous evil does not count against God’s moral perfection, Lewis’ theodicy could serve as a helpful starting point from which one could develop more thoroughly a non-greater-good theodicy.

Download Full-text

In the name of the greater good?

Emerging Health Threats Journal ◽

10.3402/ehtj.v2i0.7092 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 2 (1) ◽

pp. 7092 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

K Kirkwood

Keyword(s):

Greater Good

Download Full-text

Goals and the Use of Deception: Lying for the Greater Good

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.1612542 ◽

2010 ◽

Author(s):

Lukas Koning ◽

Wolfgang Steinel ◽

Ilja van Beest ◽

Eric van Dijk

Keyword(s):

Greater Good

Download Full-text

Ancient Epidemics

10.1093/oso/9780198819660.003.0003 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Samuel K. Cohn, Jr.

Keyword(s):

Fifth Century ◽

Animal Sacrifice ◽

Greater Good ◽

Public Holidays

This chapter begins with human and animal sacrifices to appease the gods during pestilence, but shows that such acts were extremely rare and, when they occurred, quickly disappeared or changed form often to animal sacrifice. It investigates the scapegoat in ancient epidemics, showing the concept as far removed from present-day notions. The ancient one was often a volunteer, exemplary of self-sacrifice for the greater good of the community. Instead of being outcasts, foreigners, or despised minorities (for whom we reserve the term today), in antiquity, almost without exception, they were the elites. More emphatically, from literary and historical descriptions of the fifth century BCE to the sixth CE Justinianic Plague, the chapter charts societal reactions to epidemics, finding that they spawned acts of altruism, public holidays, and self-sacrifice. Instead of blaming or inflicting violence on ‘others’, epidemics were forces for unity, healing rifts between classes, factions, and regions at war.

Download Full-text

Working for the greater good? [corporate social responsibility]

Engineering Management ◽

10.1049/em:20070600 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 17 (6) ◽

pp. 12-15

Keyword(s):

Corporate Social Responsibility ◽

Social Responsibility ◽

Greater Good ◽

Corporate Social

Download Full-text

Getting off the Omnibus: Rejecting Free Will and Soul-Making Responses to the Problem of Evil

Open Theology ◽

10.1515/opth-2020-0005 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 35-42

Author(s):

Brian C. Macallan

Keyword(s):

Free Will ◽

Problem Of Evil ◽

Christian Tradition ◽

John Hick ◽

Religious Traditions ◽

The Problem Of Evil ◽

Key Issues ◽

Greater Good ◽

The Dead ◽

Powerful Process

AbstractThe nature of suffering and the problem of evil have been perennial issues for many of the world’s religious traditions. Each in their own way has sought to address this problem, whether driven by the all too present reality of suffering or from philosophical and religious curiosities. The Christian tradition has offered numerous and diverse responses to the problem of evil. The free-will response to the problem of evil, with its roots in Augustine, has dominated the landscape in its attempt to justify evil and suffering as a result of the greater good of having free will. John Hick offers a ‘soul-making’ response to the problem of evil as an alternative to the free will response. Neither is effective in dealing with two key issues that underpin both responses – omnipotence and omniscience. In what follows I will contrast a process theological response to the problem of evil and suffering, and how it is better placed in dealing with both omnipotence and omniscience. By refashioning God as neither all-knowing nor all-powerful, process theodicy moves beyond the dead ends of both the free will and soul-making theodicy. Indeed, a process theodicy enables us to dismount the omnibus in search of a more holistic, and realistic, alternative to dealing with the problem of evil and suffering.

Download Full-text