Alessandro Fiorello

In this essay I am going to attempt to resuscitate the logical problem of evil. Since the problem is well known I will be brief in motivating it. It is widely held within the field of philosophy of religion that the problem of evil in its logical form is a dead end. That is, it is accepted that there is no logical incoherence in supposing that a perfectly loving and all-powerful god exists alongside the existence of evil. One of the accepted arguments for the dissolvement of this issue is Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defence. I believe that Plantinga’s defence is not the successful argument that scholars in the field have taken it to be. I attempt a demonstration of an inner conflict in Plantinga’s argument that thoroughly undermines the strength of his argument. I show that Plantinga’s argument attempts to smuggle in the possibility of middle knowledge through his concept of transworld depravity. The conclusion of my argument is that Plantinga’s status as solving the logical problem is not warranted and it should be given serious attention.

This doctoral dissertation articulates a libertarian theory of free will and moral responsibility alongside a narrative view of personal identity. In this dissertation, I build upon and expand Robert Kane’s libertarian theory to create a mitigation strategy for dealing with a perennial problem for libertarian theories of freedom and moral responsibility: the problem of luck. I argue that Kane’s basic idea of self-forming actions or SFAs can be built upon to show how the luck objection can be undercut. I argue that SFAs take place within a larger narrative structure and that when we make SFAs we are also engaged in what Kane calls value experiments. I construct a theory of narrative personal identity and put it to work to show how the problem of luck is mitigated and that SFAs are not just a matter of luck.

Robert Kane’s libertarian theory of freedom is frequently attacked in the free will literature by the “luck objection”. Alfred Mele’s articulation of the objection is a very influential formulation as it captures the spirit of Kane’s critics and their complaint with Kane’s view. Mele argues that without a contrastive explanation that highlights aspects of the agent their free choices are reducible to luck. I argue that the lack of a contrastive explanation does not establish that there is no explanation for self-forming actions. Building on the explanation that Kane offers in his rebuttal, I claim that there are neglected dimensions to Kane’s view that, when put together, mitigate the force of the objection. These elements are value experiments, teleological intelligibility and liberum arbitrium voluntatis. I claim that through adopting a narrative view of the self, we can place value experiments in a broader teleological framework that allows us to see self-forming choices are not just a matter of luck.