Features of Fichte’s ethical theory point to a radical moral individualism, on the one hand, and a form of social ethics, on the other. I argue that Fichte’s theory of moral evil contains both elements, but that locating the source of moral evil in social factors would amount to a form of social determination that is incompatible with Fichte’s understanding of moral autonomy. Fichte’s explanation of moral evil in terms of a natural force of inertia, when viewed in conjunction with the clear consciousness of duty required by conscience, generates a paradox concerning how an individual could ever be considered responsible for the state of moral evil which he or she is in. In response to this paradox, I argue that Kierkegaard’s account of the concept of anxiety provides some resources for overcoming this difficulty faced by Fichte’s theory of moral evil, though only if an element of social influence is introduced. Even then, however, this theory will be shown to generate certain problems.

Chapter 5 engages proposals that deny the importance of a historical Fall. I begin with Kant’s account of radical evil. An influential reading is this. Every human being who reaches the age of reason freely subordinates the moral law to self-interest. Next is Karl Barth’s “christologized” version of radical evil: the Fall is the universal act of unbelief in Christ. I argue that the reduction of original sin to the universality of actual sin is insufficiently inclusive. Neither infants nor the severely mentally disabled choose wrongdoing. Schleiermacher separated original sin from the Fall in a different way. Original sin is the corporate act of humanity. The “force” of sin is present in infants, albeit in germinal form, and when they mature they lack God-consciousness and tend to sinful self-love. Schleiermacher’s view leads to a problematic conclusion. Either sin is numerically one, or sin is merely environmental, external to the will. Schoonenberg defends a similar view but stresses human freedom. McFarland intriguingly proposes a synthesis of Maximus’s and Augustine’s accounts of the fallen will, while arguing that we can avoid etiological explanations of sin altogether. I argue, however, that we have to choose: we need either to explain why original justice is theologically unnecessary or to defend it in some form.