Bad Samaritans, Aftertastes, and the Problem of Evil

Abstract

The paper argues first that, by not rescuing innocents in certain ways (e.g., deflecting the path of bullets), God violates a weak Bad Samaritan principle that few would deny. This ‘Bad Samaritan argument’ appears to block the traditional free will defense to the problem of evil, since respecting the principle does not violate or show lack of respect for free will. Second, the paper articulates a version of the traditional argument from evil, the ‘Aftertaste argument’, that appears to close some of the traditional loopholes in the argument from evil, such as the ‘greater good from evil’ defense.