Is God Morally Obligated to Prevent Evil? A Response to James Sterba

James Sterba’s book, Is a Good God Logically Possible?, argues that given the amount of significant and horrendous evil in the world, it is not possible for a (morally) good God to exist. This article draws on the work of Brian Davies’ interpretation of Thomistic metaphysics and theology proper and argues that God is not a moral being, and thus has no obligations to prevent such evil. If such is the case, then the problem of evil as presented by Sterba is not a problem for God’s existence.

The Thomistic Dissolution of the Logical Problem of Evil

In his book ‘Is a Good God Logically Possible?’, James Sterba argues that the existence of much of the evil to be found in the world is logically incompatible with the existence of God. I defend the Thomistic view that when one properly understands the nature of God and of his relationship to the world, this so-called logical problem of evil does not arise. While Sterba has responded to the version of the Thomistic position presented by Brian Davies, I argue that his response fails.

¿Puede existir un deber de sacrificar la propia vida para salvar la de terceros?

En un brevísimo artículo, James Sterba sostiene que existe un deber moral de sacrificar la propia vida para salvar la de terceros. Sterba fundamenta ese deber trazando una analogía con una serie de casos en los que comúnmente se aceptaría algún grado de sacrificio en beneficio de terceros. En el presente trabajo, sostengo que el argumento formulado por Sterba llega a la conclusión correcta, pero es invalido. Asimismo, señalo dos argumentos diferentes que podrían utilizarse para fundamentar la existencia de un deber de sacrificar la propia vida para salvar la de terceros.

Sterba on Liberty and Welfarism

James Sterba advances several arguments designed to show that libertarianism, contrary to what this author and other libertarians think, actually implies support for welfarism and even egalitarianism. This discussion shows why his arguments do not work. There is preliminary discussion of our parameters: how much is Sterba claiming we have a minimum right to in the way of welfare? It is argued that if this is set very low, a libertarian society would easily eliminate the poverty he is concerned about, and if it is set very high, then the standard could be unmeetable and certainly could not have been met until very recently at the least. More abstractly, it is argue that Sterba is in error about the normative assumptions required for libertarianism’s strong distinction between nonharm and outright help. Once these are cleared up, it is seen that his case depends on equivocation. The duty not to harm simply does not imply a duty to help. In the closing pages, a contractarian framework is advanced to explain the libertarian’s disaffection for the kind of ‘strong’ rights Sterba wants to uphold.