When a God who is supposed to be both powerful and good is involved, we have the problem of theodicy. This problem received its canonical formulation in David Hume's Dialogues on Natural Religion: "Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"
Besides human nature and ends, another thing banished from contemporary economic discussion is evil.
This combination of the centrality of a deformed concept of scarcity and the neglect of evil means contemporary economics has a very different view of suffering to that of Robert Malthus or Adam Smith. Suffering is both trivialized by the neglect of evil and made an insoluble problem by the deformed view of scarcity.
economics as a technical discipline can contribute to the formulation of adequate theodicies
For philosophers and theologians who favour "free will" theodicies, an account of such connections is an essential ingredient of a contemporary economic theodicy. For those who favour "best of possible worlds" theodicies, it is crucial to identify what if any economic phenomena are separable from the larger system.
we all need a richer understanding of economic suffering and evil, and a renewal of the discussion of economic theodicy
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/01/03/3920284.htm.
No comments:
Post a Comment