Against Ryan Byerly: In defense of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism

In ‘Ordinary Morality Does Not Imply Atheism,’ Ryan Byerly presents several criticisms against claim two of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism which asserts that if all actual instances of undeserved, unwanted suffering produce a net benefit for the sufferer, then the moral obl...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Camesa, Sean Bailey P.
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Animo Repository 2022
Subjects:
Online Access:https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etdb_philo/4
https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=etdb_philo
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: De La Salle University
Language: English
id oai:animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph:etdb_philo-1001
record_format eprints
spelling oai:animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph:etdb_philo-10012022-09-19T06:58:21Z Against Ryan Byerly: In defense of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism Camesa, Sean Bailey P. In ‘Ordinary Morality Does Not Imply Atheism,’ Ryan Byerly presents several criticisms against claim two of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism which asserts that if all actual instances of undeserved, unwanted suffering produce a net benefit for the sufferer, then the moral obligations of human persons are not as ordinary morality dictates. He argues that these criticisms are sufficient grounds for rendering the claim 'highly questionable.' This paper argues that Byerly’s criticisms are mistaken and concludes that claim two is, at the very least, not highly questionable. This paper attempts to show that (i) instances of suffering and injustices which lead to beneficial consequences will still have beneficial consequences that outweigh ‘disastrous consequences’ even when performed en masse, thus retaining its ‘morally right’ status, (ii) there will be absolutely no obligation to prevent evil if theodical individualism, i.e., claim 2, were to be true and real, and that (iii) failing to prevent evil under theodical individualism does not, and will not result in overall destruction. Furthermore, this paper suggests that the actual world formulation, having escaped Byerly’s criticisms, is still worthy of being employed as a viable resource for discourse against a morally perfect God. 2022-01-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etdb_philo/4 https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=etdb_philo Philosophy Bachelor's Theses English Animo Repository Atheism Ethics T. Ryan Byerly Philosophy
institution De La Salle University
building De La Salle University Library
continent Asia
country Philippines
Philippines
content_provider De La Salle University Library
collection DLSU Institutional Repository
language English
topic Atheism
Ethics
T. Ryan Byerly
Philosophy
spellingShingle Atheism
Ethics
T. Ryan Byerly
Philosophy
Camesa, Sean Bailey P.
Against Ryan Byerly: In defense of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism
description In ‘Ordinary Morality Does Not Imply Atheism,’ Ryan Byerly presents several criticisms against claim two of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism which asserts that if all actual instances of undeserved, unwanted suffering produce a net benefit for the sufferer, then the moral obligations of human persons are not as ordinary morality dictates. He argues that these criticisms are sufficient grounds for rendering the claim 'highly questionable.' This paper argues that Byerly’s criticisms are mistaken and concludes that claim two is, at the very least, not highly questionable. This paper attempts to show that (i) instances of suffering and injustices which lead to beneficial consequences will still have beneficial consequences that outweigh ‘disastrous consequences’ even when performed en masse, thus retaining its ‘morally right’ status, (ii) there will be absolutely no obligation to prevent evil if theodical individualism, i.e., claim 2, were to be true and real, and that (iii) failing to prevent evil under theodical individualism does not, and will not result in overall destruction. Furthermore, this paper suggests that the actual world formulation, having escaped Byerly’s criticisms, is still worthy of being employed as a viable resource for discourse against a morally perfect God.
format text
author Camesa, Sean Bailey P.
author_facet Camesa, Sean Bailey P.
author_sort Camesa, Sean Bailey P.
title Against Ryan Byerly: In defense of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism
title_short Against Ryan Byerly: In defense of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism
title_full Against Ryan Byerly: In defense of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism
title_fullStr Against Ryan Byerly: In defense of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism
title_full_unstemmed Against Ryan Byerly: In defense of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism
title_sort against ryan byerly: in defense of the actual world formulation of the argument for atheism
publisher Animo Repository
publishDate 2022
url https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etdb_philo/4
https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=etdb_philo
_version_ 1745578349687734272