Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:53:07.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Balancing out’ infant torture and death: a reply to Chignell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2001

NATHAN NOBIS
NATHAN NOBIS
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department, University of Rochester, Lattimore 532, River Campus, Box 270078, Rochester NY 14627
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a recent article published in this journal, Andrew Chignell proposes some candidates for greater or ‘balancing out’ goods that could explain why God allows some infants to be tortured to death. I argue that each of Chignell's proposals is either incoherent, metaphysically dubious, and/or morally objectionable. Thus, his proposals do not explain what might justify God in allowing infants to be tortured, and the existence of infant suffering remains a serious problem for traditional theism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 103 - 108
Copyright
© 2001 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)