THE PROBLEM OF EVIL & THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
First, carefully explicate the philosophical problem of evil. Next, carefully explicate the “free will defense”. Second, carefully explicate what you think is the strongest objection to the “free will defense.” After you present this objection in your paper, determine whether you can or cannot defend the free will defense against this objection, and if so, how? If you cannot, clearly explain why. Third, do you agree with the free will defense, and why or why not? Be sure to provide a good argument to support your view. Lastly, you must raise and respond to at least one good objection to your view that the free will defense is (or is not) a good argument that attempts to solve the problem of evil.
follow suggested oragization for paper
INTRODUCTION: In your introductory paragraph state the specific topic and issue(s) you will be discussing and where you stand—<link is hidden> whether you are for or against the philosopher’s argument. You should also state that you will raise and respond to an objection against your view.
a) EXPLICATE THE PHILOSOPHER’S ARGUMENT – Carefully explicate the
philosopher’s argument. I’m not asking you to put the argument in STANDARD FORM. Instead, carefully, clearly and concisely explain the philosopher’s reasoning in your own words without leaving out any essential ideas.
b) EXPLICATE THE OBJECTION – Carefully explicate the strongest objection (in your opinion) to the philosopher’s argument, and explain whether the philosopher can or cannot adequately respond to that objection. You do not need to mention the name/title of the objection in your paper.
c) GIVE YOUR VIEW – State whether you think the argument is sound. Give your argument here. Note: I am not asking if this argument appeals to you in some way, or if you are psychologically or emotionally fond of it, or if you would LIKE for it to be sound; I’m asking if this view is philosophically defensible against any major objection(s) to your knowledge.
d) RAISE AND RESPOND TO AN OBJECTION – Raise a criticism (either your own objection or another philosopher who might not agree with you) against your argument. In other words, raise one opposing side’s viewpoint in order to show how readers might object to your argument. Then, respond to this viewpoint to the best of your rational ability: show how the argument is not reasonable, not logical (perhaps its fallacious), or not effective.
CONCLUSION – Review what issue you covered, what you said, and maybe say something about future implications of your view (or the issue). However, do not include new ideas, evidence or arguments. In general, your conclusion should emphasize why your topic is important, summarize your arguments, and re-state your position as the most sensible choice.