The Examination and Criticism of John Hospers’ Arguments Regarding the “Best System” Theory

The question of evil is one of the most difficult and controversial theological-philosophical discussions. Many thinkers have given in the “Nizām Aḥsan” (the best system) theory to respond to this question. The “best system” means the best and most complete system created by God. John Hospers has opposed this theory. In this article, his theory is examined and criticized in the two fields of “human” and “global” at three levels of “inability of God,” “ignorance of God,” and “non-benevolence of God.” Moreover, the responses made to his views are discussed in “posteriori” and “a priori” layers. The main purpose and premise of the article is criticizing Hospers’ arguments at three levels with regard to the “Best System” theory. The necessity of such an article came from the lack of attention to Hospers’ arguments against the “Best System” theory by previous researchers. The data was collected through the library research using the existing sources about the works of John Hospers, which was then analyzed through intellectual analysis, critical analysis, and content analysis. The most important result of the first level of analysis was “the appropriate, wise endowment of freedom to human” and “the difference between the essences of the material world and the otherworld.” Moreover, “the informed, wise, and non-cruel will” is among the findings of the second level. Finally, “the excellence of spirit” and “evils as sources of goodness” are the results of the third level.