Moral Evil and Leibniz’s Form/Matter Defense of Divine Omnipotence

Sophia 49 (1):1-13 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that Leibniz’s form/matter defense of omnipotence is paradoxical, but not irretrievably so. Leibniz maintains that God necessarily must concur only in the possibility for evil’s existence in the world (the form of evil), but there are individual instances of moral evil that are not necessary (the matter of evil) with which God need not concur. For Leibniz, that there is moral evil in the world is contingent on God’s will (a dimension of divine omnipotence), with the result that even though it is necessary that God exerts his will, there are particular products of his will that are contingent and unnecessary—including human moral evil. If there are instances of evil which are contingent on God’s will and yet unnecessary, then the problematic conclusion for Leibniz’s view must be that human evil depends upon divine concurrence, not just for its possibility in the world (which is necessary) but for its instance (which is contingent). If the form/matter defense of omnipotence contains a true paradox, then God concurs in the form as well as the matter of evil. To assuage this difficulty for Leibniz, I will argue that he could either give up an Augustinian notion of evil, or rely upon a distinction between *potenta absoluta* and *potenta ordinate*, which was popular among important thinkers in the medieval period.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,069

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Duns Scotus on the Goodness of God.Marilyn McCord Adams - 1987 - Faith and Philosophy 4 (4):486-505.
Reproaching heaven: The problem of evil in Mengzi. [REVIEW]Franklin Perkins - 2006 - Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 5 (2):293-312.
Logical problem of evil.James R. Beebe - 2003 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
God, the Best, and Evil.Bruce Langtry - 2008 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Divine Freedom and the Problem of Evil.Theodore Guleserian - 2000 - Faith and Philosophy 17 (3):348-366.
Natural evil.Richard Swinburne - 1978 - American Philosophical Quarterly 15 (4):295 - 301.


Added to PP

144 (#122,200)

6 months
5 (#284,395)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jill Hernandez
Texas Tech University

Citations of this work

Du Châtelet on Freedom, Self-Motion, and Moral Necessity.Julia Jorati - 2019 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 57 (2):255-280.
The anxious believer: Macaulay’s prescient theodicy.Jill Graper Hernandez - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73 (3):175-187.
Leibniz’s and Herder’s philosophy of optimism.Vasil Gluchman - 2021 - Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe) 11 (1-2):37-47.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Spontaneity and Freedom in Leibniz.Michael J. Murray - 2005 - In Donald Rutherford & J. A. Cover (eds.), Leibniz: Nature and Freedom. Oxford University Press. pp. 194--216.
Leibniz.R. C. Sleigh - 1999 - In Ted Honderich (ed.), The Philosophers: Introducing Great Western Thinkers. Oxford University Press.

Add more references