[PHI 3000] The Natural Lottery & The Free Will Defense

In response to the problem of evil, some distinguish between moral evil and natural evil, and then offer the free will defense as a response to the problem of moral evil.

But there seems to be one kind of moral evil that is "natural," and hence beyond the reach of the free will defense. That moral evil is bad luck.

To see why, consider what Rawls says about the natural lottery:

the outcome of the natural lottery is arbitrary from a moral perspective.

the most obvious injustice of the system of natural liberty is that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by these factors [i.e., natural talents and abilities] so arbitrary from a moral point of view. 

If Rawls is right, then natural endowments are arbitrary from a moral point of view, i.e., they are undeserved, which means that the fact that one person is more innately endowed than another is unfair, and hence unjust. This, in turn, leads to the following problem:

1. If natural endowments are arbitrary from a moral point of view, then the fact that one person is more innately endowed than another is unfair, and hence unjust.
2. Natural endowments are arbitrary from a moral point of view.
3. (Therefore) The fact that one person is more innately endowed than another is unfair, and hence unjust. [from (1) & (2)]
4. If natural endowments are gifts from God, then God permits unfair distributions of these gifts.
5. Natural endowments are gifts from God. [as some theists believe]
6. (Therefore) God permits unfair distributions of natural endowments. [from (4) & (5)]
7. If God permits unfair distributions of natural endowments, then God is unjust.
8. (Therefore) God is unjust. [from (6) & (7)]

Since the unfair distribution of natural endowments is an injustice, it it a moral evil. But it is also a moral evil that is "natural" insofar as it is not the result of human actions, but rather the result of the natural lottery. That is why the free will defense will not do in this case.

The problem, then, is that (8) clashes with Western conceptions of God as a good and benevolent being. What do you make of this problem? Is this a problem that theists who advance the free will defense should worry about?