The Logical Problem of Evil and Free Will

The assignment requires students to discuss the logical problem of evil, which refers to the reconciliation of the presence of evil with the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and omniscient God. Students are also asked to provide examples of pointless evil and explain how the existence of evil does not prove the non-existence of God. Additionally, students must address bonus questions on category mistakes, a study on free will, and qualia, which pose problems for functionalism.

Metaphysics, Philosophy 1000: Introduction to Philosophy
IMPORTANT: YOU MAY NOT WORK ON THIS EXAM WITH OTHERS,
NOR MAY YOU CONSULT OUTSIDE RESOURCES.
I. For each of the following statements, fill in the blank with a ‘T’ or an ‘F’ to
indicate whether the statement is true or false (1 point each). (10 pts)
1. __F__ Functionalism is compatible with dualism.
2. __F__ Philosophical behaviorism is also known as psychological
behaviorism.
3. __F__ Hard determinism is a form of compatibilism.
4. __ T __ Omnipresence is one of God’s essential attributes.
5. __T__ Behaviorism has trouble explaining consciousness.
6. __F__ The “Mary the Neuroscientist” thought-experiment is put forth as
an objection to dualism.
7. __F__ According to Weak AI, it’s possible for us to develop a computer
program that literally realizes mental states.
8. __T__ The design argument is also sometimes known as the teleological
argument.
9. __T__ The following claim is an example of a logical contradiction:
The dessert was both sweet and salty.
10. __T__ Princess Elisabeth argued that an immaterial substance would not
be able to move a material substance.
II. For each of the following questions, mark all answers that apply by
highlighting them (two points each). If you mark an incorrect answer,
you lose all points; otherwise, partial credit is available. (14 pts)
1. Which of the following are obvious examples of things of extrinsic
value?
a) Happiness.
b) A Pencil.

c) Gold.
d) Pleasure
e) None of the above
2. Which of the following are obvious examples of things of intrinsic value?
a) Happiness.
b) A Pencil.
c) Gold.
d) Pleasure.
e) None of the above
3) Which of the following are examples of natural evils?
a) Murder.
b) War.
c) Genocide.
d) Earthquakes
e) none of the above
4) Which of the following are incompatibilist positions of free will?
a) Libertarianism.
b) Hard Determinism.
c) Soft Determinism.
d) Functionalism.
e) none of the above
5) Which of the following is the view that no divine or supernatural entities
exist?
a) Theism
b) Polytheism
c) Agnosticism
d) Soft Atheism
e) none of the above
6) For which view does consciousness pose the fewest problem?

a) Identity Theory
b) Functionalism
c) Behaviorism
d) Dualism
e) none of the above
7) What is true of the ontological argument?
a) It’s an a posteriori argument.
b) It’s an a priori argument.
c) It attempts to show that God’s existence is an analytic truth.
d) It attempts to prove God’s existence through observation.
e) None of the above
III. Short answer. (26 pts)
1. What is an analogical argument? Provide your own example of one. Why
are analogical arguments generally considered weak? (2 pts)
The analogical argument states that two different things might be
concluded to be alike in certain respects since they are alike in some other
respects (Rosen et al., 2015).
An example of the analogical argument is the stated below.
A person might argue the accepted medical fact that the disconnection of
the blood supply to the brain of a person would lead to the brain damage of
the concerned person. This is then used by the person to make an analogy
regarding the education system of the society. The person might compare
the education system of the society to the brain of the society and the
financial matters to be the bloodline of the same. Thus, the person might
conclude that reduction in the financial flow might lead to the damage in
the education system prevalent in the society.
The analogical arguments are considered to be weak due to the fact that
these arguments are based only on the analogy.
2. What is type-identity theory? Explain why philosophers have found this
view appealing. Next, state one common objection to type identity theory.
How is this objection supposed to undermine type-identity theory? (4 pts)
The type-identity theory states that there are some mental states that are
identical to some of the brain states. The type identity theory propounders
have found this view appealing since the theory states that for every mental
state there has to be existent a physical-chemical state of the brain which
corresponds to the former (Rosen et al., 2015). The most common objection

to this theory states that the mental state might reman the same for two
different individuals while there might exist a difference in the physical-
chemical brain state. The factual world depicts difference in the reactions of
various people in the same mental state. This bars the type-identity theory
from achieving the universal recognition.
3. Explain mind-body causation. What reasons does Princess Elisabeth
provide for thinking that mind-body causation is impossible on Cartesian
dualism? Do you think that Elisabeth’s objections are decisive? Why or why
not? (4 pts)
The mind-body causation states that the intentional actions are a result of
the various intentional mental states or the intentional thoughts. Princess
Elisabeth stated that the mind-body causation is impossible on Cartesian
dualism since the immaterial mind cannot move the body as the latter is a
material object. The objections put forth by Princess Elisabeth cannot be
considered to be decisive as she proposes another theory on the mind-body
causation that states that the mind is a materialistic in nature. This theory
that is proposed by Princess Elisabeth is also not considered to be
acceptable since the mind is stated to be a materialistic object in this case
(Bennett, 2009).
4. What is the Principle of Alternative Possibilities? What’s one common
reason people give for thinking it’s true? How does Frankfurt argue that it
is false? I’ll give three points extra credit if you develop your own
Frankfurt-style thought experiment that shows that the Principle of
Alternative Possibilities is false. (4 pts)
The Principle of Alternative Possibilities state that the concerned person
might be held responsible for the committed actions only under the
circumstances that the person could have acted otherwise in the given
scenario (Rosen et al., 2015). The most common reason cited by people for
considering it to be true is the fact that the principle stresses on the
freedom of choice on the part of the concerned person. Frankfurt argues
that the Principle of Alternative Possibilities do not hold good for the
situations wherein there are involved the various coercive factors. There
might be a situation wherein a person might be held at gunpoint and
demanded to give up all his belongings that he is in possession of at that
point of time. In this situation, the person is under the coercive force of
handing over all the belongings in order to remain alive. In this case, the
Principle of Alternative Possibilities is falsified since the concerned person
was under threat from the surrounding people.

5. State one version of the design argument. How would the theist defend
each premise? State one objection to the version of the design argument
that you presented. How is this objection supposed to undermine the design
argument? Do you think that this objection refutes the design argument?
Why or why not? Explain your answer. (6 pts)
One of the various versions of the design argument is the Analogical
Argument. The theist might defend the analogical argument by stating that
most of the parts of the world do resemble machines. This might hint at the
fact that there exists an intelligent designer for the universe who might
have created those parts of the world so that they might bear similarity with
the machines. Thus, the theists might argue that the universe is constructed
by an intelligent designer. There are many objections to the analogical
argument. One of them states that the justification of a posteriori claims
need the experience of the creation of the material worlds which is
unavailable thereby making it had to believe the justification of the claim of
an intelligent cause (Rosen et al., 2015). This argument however does not
completely refute the design argument theory as it does not state the
absence of the universe-maker with surety.
6. What is the logical problem of evil? Next, explain why it is thought that
the existence of pointless evil is incompatible with the existence of a OOO-
God? Remember to define ‘OOO-God’ in your explanation. Also give an
example of something that an atheist might think of as being a pointless
evil. Finally, do you agree that the existence of evil proves the non-existence
of God? Why or why not? (6 pts)
The logical problem of evil refers to the reconciliation of the presence of the
evil even with the presence of the omnibenevolent, omnipresent and
omniscient God. The argument is considered to be incompatible with the
omnibenevolent, omnipresent and the omniscient God due to the fact that
the co-existence of God and evil is considered to be very unlikely and
impossible. The omnibenevolent, omnipresent and omniscient nature is
considered to provide for the superiority of the maker of the universe, God
(Rosen et al., 2015). An atheist might consider the suffering of the virtuous
due to the actions of the vices to be a pointless evil. The existence of evil
does not prove the non-existence of God since it might be believed that the
existence of evil serves the purpose of pointing out the difference between
the good and the evil.

********** Bonus Section **************
Each of the following questions count for extra credit only. Starting this
exam, any extra credit received that would put you over the 50 point
maximum for this exam can be applied to other exams. For example, if you
receive 55 points here, 5 points will be applied to an exam that you did not
perform as well on. No partial credit will be given for extra credit
responses.
Bonus Question 1: What is a category mistake? Provide your own example
of a category mistake. (2 pts)
A category mistake is a logical fallacy wherein the speaker is found to have
confused the properties of the whole element with those of a certain part of
the element. A category mistake consists of both the fallacy of division and
composition (Rosen et al., 2015). The most commonly cited example of the
category mistake is the example of a person who visits a university with the
notion that the university is a physical identity and thus fails to recognize
the collective presence of the teachers, the students and the college
buildings as the university.
Bonus Question 2: In the BBC Horizons video “The Secret You”, a study was
discussed that bares directly on the free will debate. Explain the study.
Next, explain (as best as you can) what the Lau, Rogers and Passingham
study shows. How do these two studies pose a problem for free will? (5 pts)
“The Secret You” discusses the question “who am I?” from a scientific
viewpoint rather than from a scientific viewpoint. The documentary
concludes that the free will is an illusion that always concludes in a
controversy. The Lau, Rogers and Passingham study shows that the
perceived onset of the intention is dependent on the neural activities that
can be manipulated externally. These scientific studies depict the fact that
the existence of the free will is questionable due to the fact that the major
neural actions that are responsible for the activity might be manipulated
externally.
Bonus Question 3: What is qualia? Explain the inverted qualia argument.
How is it supposed to pose a problem for functionalism? (5 pts)
Qualia might be defined as the individual instances of the conscious
experience that might also be termed as subjective. The inverted qualia

argument states that the qualia of the two functionally identical creatures
are different from each other (Rosen et al., 2015). The inverted qualia
argument suggests that it is not necessary that two persons holding
different views against the same incident or object would hold the same
mental state, thereby posing as a refute to the functionalism.
References
Bennett, J. (2009). Correspondence between Descartes and Princess
Elisabeth.
Rosen, G., Byrne, A., Cohen, J., & Shiffrin, S. V. (Eds.). (2015). The Norton
Introduction to Philosophy. WW Norton & Company.