On Perfect Goodness

Sophia 49 (1):29-36 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

God is typically conceived as perfectly good and necessarily so, in two senses: in terms of always performing the best possible act and in terms of having maximal moral worth. Yet any being that freely performs the best act she can must be accorded greater moral worth for any such action than a being that does so necessarily. I conclude that any being that performs the best possible act of necessity cannot also have maximal moral worth, making the concept of God’s perfect goodness incoherent.

Similar books and articles

Review of William Rowe, Can God Be Free?[REVIEW]Timothy O'Connor - 2005 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2005 (4).
Divine Unsurpassability.Klaas Kraay - 2007 - Philosophia 35 (3-4):293-300.
Divine Responsibility Without Divine Freedom.Michael Bergmann & J. A. Cover - 2006 - Faith and Philosophy 23 (4):381-408.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-12-21

Downloads
481 (#39,383)

6 months
63 (#75,909)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

J. Gregory Keller
Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Nature of Necessity.Alvin Plantinga - 1974 - Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
The Nature of Necessity.Kit Fine - 1976 - Philosophical Review 85 (4):562.
Can God Be Free?William L. Rowe - 2002 - Faith and Philosophy 19 (4):405-424.
Can God Be Free?William L. Rowe - 2004 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 58 (3):201-203.
Can God Be Free?William L. Rowe - 2006 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 59 (2):129-131.

Add more references