In his article, “The argument from evil”, (pp. 29-36 in textbook) Peter van Inwagen responds to the problem from evil. He explains the free will defense as a response to the problem and the apparent limitations of that defense. He then goes on to develop his own version of the free will defense.
Two standard objections to the free will defense are that (i) the positive value of free will is not worth the negative value of the evil in the world and (ii) much evil doesn’t come from free will at all, but rather from natural events like hurricanes and disease.
Write an essay in which you (1) explain van Inwagen’s version of the free will defense, (2) explain how it is supposed to address the two standard objections, and (3) critically evaluate whether he succeeds in offering an adequate defense. In critically evaluating his account, you are addressing the question: Is his free will defense a satisfactory reply to the objections to the standard objections? Why or why not?