CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years
10.5
impact factor
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
pubmed
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
This article employs an analytical-historical method to examine the evolution of ethical criticism within the anti-theodicy school. It argues that this school has traversed a dynamic path from an initial protest against the theological justification of evil to the formulation of a concrete ethical-practical obligation. This transition is analyzed in four stages: first, the philosophical foundation laid by Phillips and the Wittgensteinians, critiquing the logical contradictions of theodicy; second, the ethical deepening of the critique through Surin's focus on radical evil and the concept of unforgivable moral blindness; third, the politicization of the critique in Tilley's thought, which presents theodicy as an ideological tool for justifying passivity; and fourth, the formulation of an alternative through Pihlström's pragmatist framework, which shifts the central question from "why?" to "what is to be done?" This research demonstrates that the anti-theodicy school not only deems the traditional theodicy project invalid but also opens new horizons for a committed, pragmatist theology that stands in solidarity with the victims of evil.