Best of All Possible Worlds

1. Introduction

The Best of All Possible Worlds thesis is a central claim in early modern philosophy of religion and metaphysics, most closely associated with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. It holds, in its canonical form, that a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good would not create just any world, but one that is overall optimal among all the worlds God can coherently create. On this view, the actual world—despite containing moral and natural evils—is either strictly the best achievable or at least unsurpassed in value by any alternative.

This thesis functions as a systematic attempt to address the problem of evil: the tension between belief in a perfect God and the evident existence of suffering, injustice, and disorder. Rather than denying or minimizing evil, the best-world claim proposes that such evils play roles within a wider structure of goods, order, and harmony that make the world as a whole better than any available alternative.

Within philosophy, the thesis connects several domains:

The thesis has been both influential and controversial. It inspired detailed systems of rationalist theodicy, shaped later modal metaphysics, and provoked enduring criticism—from Enlightenment satire to contemporary analytic objections. Subsequent sections examine its origins, formulation, logical structure, and the major debates it has generated.

2. Origin and Attribution

The Best of All Possible Worlds thesis is principally attributed to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), a German rationalist philosopher, mathematician, and statesman. While earlier thinkers had expressed forms of optimism about creation, Leibniz is generally credited with offering the first explicit, systematic, and technically framed version of the claim using a possible-worlds framework.

Principal Texts

Leibniz’s mature formulation appears in:

A representative statement from the Théodicée is often summarized as: God, being most wise and good, “could not fail to choose the best” among possible orders.

Precedents and Parallel Ideas

Scholars identify partial precedents in:

Despite these antecedents, most historians maintain that Leibniz introduced the distinctively modal and comparative formulation—explicitly speaking of God choosing from among “possible worlds”—that defines the modern best-world thesis. Later uses of the phrase “best of all possible worlds,” whether sympathetic or satirical (as in Voltaire), generally presuppose Leibniz’s version as their target or point of departure.

3. Historical and Intellectual Context

Leibniz’s formulation emerged in the early Enlightenment, amid shifting intellectual currents in metaphysics, theology, and science. Several contextual factors shaped the Best of All Possible Worlds thesis.

Religious and Theological Background

Leibniz worked within Latin Christian debates about providence, grace, and evil. He engaged:

Scientific and Philosophical Developments

The rise of early modern science and rationalism also informed Leibniz’s position:

• Mechanistic physics and deterministic laws raised questions about whether nature’s order reflects divine wisdom and optimal design.
• Calculus and optimization in mathematics (to which Leibniz contributed) provided conceptual models for thinking about maximizing or optimizing quantities—analogous to seeking the “best” world.
• Rationalist metaphysics (Descartes, Spinoza) emphasized necessary truths and the intelligibility of reality in logical terms, encouraging system-building that includes God’s creative choice.

Intellectual Opponents and Targets

Leibniz’s optimism reacts to several tendencies:

Within this context, the Best of All Possible Worlds thesis can be seen as an attempt to combine rationalist systematization, emerging scientific notions of law and optimization, and traditional theistic doctrines into a unified explanation of why the world is as it is.

4. Leibniz’s Formulation of the Best World Thesis

Leibniz’s formulation centers on the claim that a perfectly wise and good God freely selects, from all the worlds God can actualize, the one that is best overall. This selection is guided by what Leibniz calls the “principle of the best.”

Key Elements of Leibniz’s Formulation

1. God’s Nature
   God is characterized as:

   • Omniscient: knowing all possible worlds and their complete histories.
   • Omnipotent: able to realize any world that is logically consistent.
   • Perfectly good and wise: always inclined toward the greatest possible order, harmony, and goodness.

2. Space of Possibilities
   Leibniz maintains that there is an infinite realm of possible worlds, each a fully determinate way that things could be. These possibilities exist as ideas in the divine intellect.

3. The Principle of the Best
   Leibniz holds that God’s wisdom entails choosing the best possible plan:

   "

   God, choosing between an infinity of possible worlds, cannot fail to choose the most perfect.

   — Paraphrasing Leibniz, Théodicée

   “Best” here is not limited to maximizing pleasure or minimizing pain; it includes variety, order, beauty, and harmony of laws, as well as moral and spiritual goods.

4. World as Orderly System
   For Leibniz, a world is valued not only by the sum of its particular goods and evils, but also by the elegance and simplicity of its laws and the richness of consequences they generate. This aligns with his broader metaphysics of pre-established harmony and monads, where each simple substance reflects the entire universe from its own perspective.

Interaction with Evil

In Leibniz’s own formulation, the presence of evil is explicitly acknowledged as part of the best world, understood in terms of:

• Metaphysical evil (creaturely finitude),
• Physical evil (suffering),
• Moral evil (sin).

These are treated not as signs that God failed to choose the best, but as features that, in certain respects, may be necessary or permitted for greater goods and for the best achievable order.

Leibniz thus presents the best-world thesis as a conclusion drawn from his broader metaphysical and theological system, rather than as an isolated claim.

5. Logical Structure of the Argument

The Best of All Possible Worlds thesis is often reconstructed as a deductive argument whose conclusion follows from its premises, assuming their truth. While interpreters differ on exact formulations, a widely discussed structure resembles the one in the reference data.

Standard Reconstruction

Analytic philosophers typically regard this form as logically valid: if the premises are true, the conclusion follows. Debate focuses on the soundness—whether the premises are themselves defensible.

Alternative Formalizations

Commentators have proposed variations:

• Some weaken P3 to claim only that the actual world is unsurpassed, allowing ties among many equally good worlds.
• Others refine P4 by distinguishing moral obligation (“must create the best”) from fittingness or appropriateness (“will in fact create the best”).

Inferential Roles

The argument plays at least two distinct dialectical roles:

1. From God to World: Given God’s attributes, it infers a conclusion about the world’s status (as best or unsurpassed).
2. From World to God (in some readings): Observed order or apparent optimality in the world is then used to support belief in God’s wisdom and goodness, though this move is more contentious and sometimes associated with design arguments.

The following sections examine the specific premises and assumptions on which this logical structure depends and how they have been challenged or revised.

6. Key Premises and Assumptions

The Best of All Possible Worlds thesis rests on several substantive premises that go beyond mere logical form. Philosophers have scrutinized these to assess the argument’s plausibility.

1. Classical Theistic Attributes

A central assumption is a classically theistic conception of God:

Debates arise about whether omnipotence should be understood as including all metaphysically possible worlds, and how perfect goodness guides action.

2. Existence and Structure of Possible Worlds

The argument presupposes that:

• There is a meaningful space of possible worlds.
• These worlds are comparably evaluable, so that one may be better, worse, or equal in value to another.

Some metaphysicians question whether:

• The notion of a total ordering of worlds by value is coherent.
• Possible worlds are entities in the divine intellect (as in Leibniz) or abstract objects in a modal realist framework.

3. Best World Existence Thesis

Premise P3 assumes there is a best (or at least unsurpassed) world in that ordering. This is contested by those who argue for unending improvement (see Section 10).

4. Rational and Moral Constraints on Divine Choice

The thesis assumes that:

• Perfect goodness implies a strong constraint: God will choose the best feasible option.
• God’s choice is still free in a meaningful sense, despite being reliably oriented toward the best.

Critics question whether moral perfection entails maximization (as opposed to choosing a merely “good enough” world), and how such a constraint relates to divine freedom.

5. Human Epistemic Access

Many discussions presuppose that humans can at least conceptually:

• Grasp what it means for one world to be better than another.
• Reason about whether certain combinations of goods and evils could form an overall best world.

Skeptical theists later challenge the extent of this epistemic access (see Section 13), but the classical argument typically assumes some degree of intelligibility in comparing worlds.

Together, these premises form the backbone of the best-world reasoning. Disputes over the thesis often trace back to disagreements over one or more of these underlying assumptions.

7. The Role of Possible Worlds and Optimality

Possible worlds and notions of optimality are central to how the Best of All Possible Worlds thesis is formulated and evaluated.

Possible Worlds as Explanatory Framework

For Leibniz, a possible world is a complete, coherent set of states of affairs—a total way things could have been. These worlds are:

• Ideas in the divine intellect, representing various coherent combinations of creatures, laws, histories, and outcomes.
• Mutually exclusive: only one such complete sequence is actualized.

Later modal metaphysicians reinterpret possible worlds as abstract entities or maximal consistent sets of propositions, but retain the basic idea that they provide a space of alternatives against which God’s creative choice is assessed.

Comparative Evaluation and Ordering

To claim there is a “best” or “unsurpassed” world, the theory requires a value ordering over possible worlds:

Proponents differ on the precise metric of value. Some emphasize:

• Sum-total welfare (total amount of happiness or flourishing).
• Harmony and simplicity of laws (Leibniz’s own emphasis).
• Diversity and richness of created beings.

Optimality and Feasibility

A further distinction arises between:

• Logically possible worlds (no contradictions).
• Feasible worlds: those that God can actualize given certain constraints (e.g., respecting libertarian free will).

Some contemporary theists modify Leibniz by noting that the best among logically possible worlds might not be feasible if creaturely freedom is genuinely open; in that case, God would instead actualize a world that is optimal among feasible options.

Questions about optimality also encompass:

• Whether there is a single best world or possibly a set of tied best worlds.
• Whether the world need be best in an absolute sense or merely unsurpassed.

These modal and axiological structures anchor both defenses and critiques of the best-world thesis, as later sections explore.

8. The Presence of Evil in the Best Possible World

A distinctive feature of the Best of All Possible Worlds thesis is that it does not deny or downplay evil. Instead, it claims that some evils are compatible with, or even required by, the overall optimality of the world.

Leibniz’s Threefold Distinction

Leibniz distinguishes:

On this view, a world with no evil at all might lack significant goods—such as free moral agency, the possibility of virtue, and certain forms of order or lawfulness.

Greater-Good and Order-Based Considerations

Proponents argue that the presence of particular evils may be:

• Instrumentally necessary for some higher-order goods (e.g., forgiveness presupposes wrongdoing).
• Part of a more elegant system of natural laws: strict regularities that, while allowing earthquakes or disease, also make scientific knowledge and stable agency possible.
• Embedded in an overall pattern where local defects contribute to global harmony, analogous to shadows enhancing the beauty of a painting.

Leibniz frequently compares the universe to a complex work of art where not every part is beautiful in isolation, but the whole exhibits the greatest possible perfection.

Obscurity of Specific Justifications

Even within optimistic frameworks, many theists concede that:

• Humans often cannot identify the precise reasons why particular horrendous evils are permitted.
• The claim is global: the total package of goods, evils, and laws is said to be optimal, without a requirement to justify each event individually.

Critics question whether such appeals to global optimality adequately address the weight of specific tragedies; later sections (especially 9, 10, and 14) explore these challenges in more detail. Nonetheless, within the best-world framework, the ongoing existence of evil is interpreted as a feature compatible with, and possibly essential to, the world’s overall bestness.

9. Classical Criticisms: Voltaire, Hume, and Kant

From the 18th century onward, several major philosophers challenged Leibnizian optimism. Voltaire, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant offered influential but distinct criticisms of the Best of All Possible Worlds thesis.

Voltaire: Satire and the Lisbon Earthquake

Voltaire’s novella Candide (1759) famously satirizes philosophical optimism through the character Pangloss, a caricature of Leibnizian disciples who insists that “all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds” in the face of brutal misfortunes.

• The 1755 Lisbon earthquake—a catastrophic natural disaster—figures prominently as evidence that such optimism seems morally insensitive and empirically implausible.
• Voltaire’s critique targets the perceived incongruity between abstract metaphysical assurances of optimality and the raw reality of suffering.

Hume: Skeptical Arguments from Evil

In the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume’s character Philo questions whether the observable world could plausibly be attributed to an infinitely perfect deity:

"

Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?

— David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (paraphrased)

Hume does not systematically reconstruct Leibniz’s best-world argument, but he challenges:

• The inference from the world’s mixed state (goods and evils) to a perfect designer.
• The assumption that current structures (e.g., pain, disease, natural laws) represent anything close to optimal; he suggests many conceivable improvements.

Hume thus undercuts confidence in reading the world as the product of a maximizing deity.

Kant: Limits of Theodicy and Rational Insight

Kant engages Leibnizian theodicy critically, particularly in:

• On the Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy (1791), where he questions the capacity of speculative reason to justify God’s permission of evil.
• The Critique of Pure Reason, where he criticizes rationalist metaphysics that presume to deduce features of the world from divine attributes.

Kant’s main concerns include:

• The moral inadequacy of explaining away suffering by appeal to unseen goods.
• The epistemic presumption of claiming insight into the total structure of reality and God’s reasons.

While not always targeting the best-world thesis by name, Kant’s broader critique of rationalist theodicies significantly weakened the standing of Leibnizian optimism in post-Kantian philosophy.

10. Modern Analytic Objections and the No-Best-World Problem

In contemporary analytic philosophy of religion, several objections have been developed that focus on the modal and axiological underpinnings of the Best of All Possible Worlds thesis.

No-Best-World Objection

A prominent challenge, associated with Robert Merrihew Adams and others, argues that there may be no maximal world:

• For any world with a certain amount of good, it seems possible to imagine a world with slightly more good (e.g., an extra happy person or one fewer instance of suffering).
• This yields an infinite ascending sequence of better and better worlds with no greatest element.

If so, the premise that a best world exists (or that there is a set of tied best worlds) is called into question.

Divine Freedom and Moral Requirement

Analytic philosophers also scrutinize whether God is morally required to create the best world (see Section 11 for details). Objections include:

• If there is no best world, then “create the best” is an unsatisfiable requirement, so divine goodness cannot be defined that way.
• If God is not required to create the best but only a very good world, the inference from God’s goodness to the best-world conclusion becomes uncertain.

Distribution and Weighing of Goods and Evils

Modern discussions also question the aggregation assumptions behind optimality:

This raises doubts about whether a single scalar “world value” is meaningful.

Modal and Metaphysical Concerns

Further analytic objections involve:

• Whether “possible world” talk should be interpreted literally (as concrete or abstract entities) or fictionally, and how this impacts theological claims.
• Whether there is a well-defined comparison across radically different worlds (e.g., different laws of nature, different kinds of creatures).

Proposed theistic responses often involve modifying the existence thesis (“best world exists”), the value ordering (using “unsurpassed” rather than “best”), or the connection between divine goodness and world choice, as addressed in later sections.

11. Divine Freedom, Moral Obligation, and Creation

A central debate concerns how the Best of All Possible Worlds thesis interacts with conceptions of divine freedom and moral obligation.

Tension Between Optimality and Freedom

Critics argue that if God must create the best possible world, God’s creative act appears necessitated:

• Once God’s nature and the space of possible worlds are fixed, there is a uniquely best world.
• A perfectly good God cannot choose anything less than the best.
• Therefore, God has no genuine alternative possibilities, calling into question traditional notions of libertarian freedom.

Defenders may reply that freedom does not require the ability to choose wrongly; it may suffice that God acts from internal reasons rather than external constraint.

Must God Create the Best?

Robert Merrihew Adams and others distinguish:

On the good-enough view, divine goodness is compatible with multiple acceptable options, restoring a measure of freedom among various good but non-maximal worlds.

Creation vs. Non-Creation

Another issue concerns whether a perfect God is obliged to create at all:

• Some argue that if the best option would be to create no world (to avoid all suffering), the best-world requirement could imply no creation, which conflicts with standard theistic assumptions.
• Others claim that self-sufficiency means God is under no moral obligation to create anything; creation is a supererogatory act of generosity.

How these questions are answered affects the interpretation of the best-world thesis: is it a strict moral requirement on God or a description of what God in fact does given divine wisdom?

Freedom Among Equally Good Worlds

If there are multiple unsurpassed worlds of equal value, some philosophers suggest God can freely choose among them without violating goodness:

• This maintains that God never chooses a worse world over a better one.
• At the same time, it allows for genuine choice where value does not dictate a unique outcome.

These debates indicate that the relation between perfect goodness, optimality, and freedom is non-trivial and remains an active area of inquiry.

12. Contemporary Theistic Responses and Revisions

In response to classical and analytic objections, contemporary theists have proposed various revisions and alternatives to the strict Best of All Possible Worlds thesis.

Weakening the Best-World Claim

Some philosophers modify Leibniz’s thesis by replacing “best” with “unsurpassed” or related terms:

On these views, divine goodness is compatible with God’s choosing from a range of excellent options rather than a single maximal world.

Refining Feasibility and Freedom

Some theists introduce a distinction between logically possible and feasible worlds:

• Given libertarian free will, not every logically possible arrangement of free choices is under divine control.
• God selects a world that is best among feasible options, which may not be overall best among all logical possibilities.

This approach is often connected with Molinism, which posits divine knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

Integrating Greater-Good and Soul-Making Themes

Later theodicies incorporate, but sometimes soften, Leibnizian themes:

• Soul-making theodicies (e.g., John Hick) emphasize a world structured for moral and spiritual growth, rather than strict maximality of overall value.
• Fine-tuning and order-based arguments focus on the apparent suitability of the universe for life and rational agency, leaving open whether it is best in an absolute sense.

Revising Divine Attributes

Other theistic traditions adjust classical assumptions:

These views often abandon the best-world framework altogether, while still addressing the problem of evil via different conceptions of God’s relation to creation.

Overall, contemporary theistic responses range from conservative modifications of Leibniz’s optimism to radical reconfigurations of divine attributes and providence, illustrating the ongoing influence but also the contested status of the original thesis.

13. Relation to Skeptical Theism and Other Theodicies

The Best of All Possible Worlds thesis occupies a specific niche among strategies for reconciling God and evil. Its relationship to skeptical theism and other theodicies is both complementary and sometimes tense.

Comparison with Skeptical Theism

Skeptical theism maintains that humans are not in a position to judge whether evils are gratuitous, because God’s reasons may be beyond our understanding. In relation to the best-world thesis:

Some theists adopt a hybrid: they affirm, on theological grounds, that God aims at the best, while insisting that we lack detailed insight into how specific evils fit into that plan.

Relation to Other Theodicies

The best-world thesis is related to, but distinguishable from, other major theodicy types:

In many cases, the best-world thesis functions as an overarching framework into which more specific theodicies (free will, soul-making, natural law) are integrated as explanations of why a best world might contain particular categories of evil.

Distinctive Features

Where other theodicies might aim only to show that God has some morally sufficient reason for permitting specific evils, the best-world thesis is more ambitious: it asserts that reality, considered as a whole, exemplifies the highest achievable order and value. This ambition has made it both attractive as a unifying picture and vulnerable to philosophical and moral critique.

14. Ethical and Existential Critiques of Optimism

Beyond logical and metaphysical objections, many critics raise ethical and existential concerns about the Best of All Possible Worlds thesis.

Moral Insensitivity and Victim-Centered Objections

Philosophers such as Marilyn McCord Adams argue that labeling a world containing horrendous evils as “best” risks trivializing victims’ suffering:

• Horrendous evils (e.g., genocide, torture, abuse) can seem to defeat the positive meaning of a person’s life.
• Claiming these are part of an optimal world may appear to treat individuals as mere means to abstract goods (e.g., overall harmony), conflicting with widely held moral intuitions about persons’ intrinsic worth.

Literary figures like Dostoevsky (in The Brothers Karamazov) dramatize this critique by having characters reject any world justified at the price of a single child’s suffering, regardless of compensating goods.

The Problem of Cosmic Indifference

Existential critics worry that optimism can foster a stance of resignation or passivity:

Proponents typically reply that best-world claims apply at a cosmic level and do not negate obligations to combat evil locally; critics question whether this distinction holds up in practice.

Authenticity and Suffering

Some existential and phenomenological thinkers argue that:

• Human experiences of absurdity, despair, and protest against evil are integral to authentic existence.
• Attempts to rationalize all suffering within a best-world scheme risk silencing genuine moral protest and flattening the depth of tragic experience.

The question arises whether an adequate religious or philosophical response to evil should leave room for lament and protest, rather than fully explaining or justifying every aspect of reality.

Responses from Optimists

Defenders of qualified optimism may respond by:

• Emphasizing that seeing the world as ultimately ordered for good can motivate moral effort and hope.
• Distinguishing between explaining evil in a metaphysical sense and endorsing it in a moral sense.
• Stressing the importance of pastoral sensitivity and the limits of theoretical discourse in contexts of acute suffering.

Nonetheless, ethical and existential critiques remain a significant factor in contemporary evaluation of the best-world thesis, even among those who find its metaphysical structure coherent.

15. Influence on Modal Metaphysics and Theology

The Best of All Possible Worlds thesis has had substantial impact on both modal metaphysics (the study of possibility and necessity) and theology, especially within analytic traditions.

Influence on Modal Metaphysics

Leibniz’s talk of God choosing among “possible worlds” helped establish the possible worlds framework later formalized in modal logic:

Some contemporary metaphysicians explicitly cite Leibniz’s theological use of possible worlds as a historical precursor to formal modal systems.

Impact on Philosophical Theology

In theology, the best-world framework has influenced discussions of:

• Divine providence: Understanding God’s governance as selecting and sustaining an optimal or unsurpassed world-plan.
• Middle knowledge and Molinism: Considering God’s knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom within a world-selection model.
• Theodicy: Framing the problem of evil in terms of world-comparisons and global value, often integrating free will or soul-making insights into a larger optimality structure.

The thesis also informs debates on divine simplicity and immutability, as theologians consider how God’s eternally willed plan relates to a chosen world among possibilities.

Cross-Traditional and Interdisciplinary Influences

Outside Christian theism, analogous ideas appear when:

• Philosophers in other religious traditions consider whether a supreme reality would necessarily optimize creation conditions.
• Discussions of anthropic reasoning and fine-tuning invoke quasi-theological language about the universe being “biophilic” or especially suited for life, sometimes likened to a near-optimal environment for rational agents.

In contemporary analytic philosophy of religion, even those rejecting strict Leibnizian optimism frequently operate within a world-selection paradigm, demonstrating the enduring conceptual influence of the original thesis on how possibilities, values, and divine action are jointly theorized.

16. Legacy and Historical Significance

The Best of All Possible Worlds thesis occupies a prominent place in the history of philosophy, both as a pioneering systematic theodicy and as a catalyst for later developments.

Enduring Philosophical Roles

Historically, the thesis:

• Represents one of the most ambitious efforts to reconcile classical theism with empirical reality by means of a highly structured rationalist metaphysics.
• Helped formalize the notion of possible worlds, shaping subsequent metaphysical and logical inquiry.
• Served as a reference point for later discussions of optimality, value aggregation, and divine perfection.

It remains a standard case study in philosophy of religion for exploring the problem of evil, the nature of divine attributes, and the implications of modal reasoning.

Shaping Critiques of Theodicy

The prominence of Leibnizian optimism also contributed to the development of critical perspectives:

In this way, the thesis not only advanced theistic argumentation but also provoked influential reassessments of the limits of reason in matters of religion and morality.

Contemporary Status

In contemporary philosophy, the strict claim that this is the best of all possible worlds is widely regarded as controversial. Nonetheless:

• Elements of the framework—possible worlds, world-comparison, and global value assessment—are routinely employed in analytic philosophy of religion.
• Modified versions (e.g., unsurpassed or sufficiently good worlds) continue to be explored by theists seeking to balance divine perfection, freedom, and the reality of evil.
• The thesis functions as a historical benchmark for evaluating newer approaches such as skeptical theism, open theism, and process theology, which define themselves partly in relation to classical optimism.

Overall, the Best of All Possible Worlds thesis has had a lasting impact not only on specific debates about evil and providence but also on broader conceptions of rational explanation, modal space, and the scope of philosophical theology.