‘Balancing out’ infant torture and death
A reply to Chignell
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20311841 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nathan Nobis (0000-0001-9004-0062, University of Rochester, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2001 |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 103-108 |
| Publication date | 2001-03-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Religious Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0034-4125 • E-ISSN: 1469-901X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0034412500005412 |
| OpenAlex | W2115008567 |
| Language | EN |
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
Epistemology · Human rights · Metaphysics · Political science · Theism · Torture · Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health · Law · Philosophy · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Highly cited | No |
|---|