Here's a thought, something I've been thinking about as I am considering theodicy in the context of the Holocaust. I put it out there for reflection, contemplation, and feedback.
The premise that free will is a moral good is a well-known feature in Western thinking about theodicy (the justification of God's action/inaction in the world). This is an important understanding in mainline Christianity, yet many Christians still baptize infants against their will claiming something to the effect that infants haven't yet the ability to decide for themselves.
If infants only have a kind of "potential" free will that hasn't yet manifest, so that forced baptism is not considered a violation of their actual free will, how is this qualitatively distinct from situations in which Christians do not support abortion because the fetus is a potential human? On the one hand, free will is denied when it is potential, but a fetus is not denied because its humanity is potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment