Free Will Defence

The free will defence is a rebuttal on Mackie's claim that the problem of evil is a logical problem. Plantinga sets out to do just that: to show how set A is logically consistent. Plantinga demonstrates that set A is neither formally nor explicitly contradictory. Furthermore, that the set must be implicitly contradictory. However, all that Plantinga must do is show that the following is merely possible:

(28)

God is omnipotent and it was not within his power to create a world continuing moral good but no moral evil

If he can say that it is possible for (28) to be true, then it's also possible that:

(22)

God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for doing so.

In an effort to demonstrate that among the worlds that God cannot create is one where there can exist all moral good and no moral evil he introduces the concept of ``transworld depravity.'' By stating the difference between creation of the world and the possible state of affairs, Plantinga says that God did not create states of affairs. Many states of affairs may exist but only one obtains. Further, that since God may only exist in the worlds that he did create, he is contingent. Here is where transworld depravity steps into the picture:

(33)

A person P suffers from transworld depravity if and only if the following holds: for every world W such that P is significantly free [free to chose moral right from moral wrong] in W and P does only what is right in W, there is an action A and a maximal world segment S' such that

1. S' includes A's being morally significant for P.
2. S' includes P's being free with respect to A.
3. S' is included in W and includes neither P's performing A nor P's refraining from performing A.

   And

4. if S' were actual, P would go wrong with respect to A.

Consider a world W' where a person P always did an action A what was morally right. And there were sets of pre-existing conditions S' upto the point of the action taken, not including his decision to fulfil that action. In the real world W we have the person P always making a moral wrong with respect to A. Then God cannot create a world W' where S' is actualised and person P was free. For if S' were actualised it would lead towards a particular action A that would then actualise the real world W. If God influenced person P then person P would not be be a free person to make a moral right, or wrong.