T
tonyrey
Guest
If so why?
- Status
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
No, not at all.
Sickness will surely take the mind
Where minds can’t usually go.
Come on the amazing journey
And learn all you should know.
-The Who
Sickness will surely take the mind
Where minds can’t usually go.
Come on the amazing journey
And learn all you should know.
-The Who
Because suffering was never part of God’s original plan, and came into the world only as a result of sin, then yes, it can be said that suffering is always an evil. That is why it’s always a praiseworthy effort to work towards the relief of suffering.
But what is also true is that with Christ’s death, suffering, because Christ himself experienced it, has been redeemed. This is what makes suffering meritorious, because if borne patiently in union with the Cross, it becomes a source of great merit for the sufferer and those for whom he offers his pain. Suffering remains a “bad” thing, but by grace, it becomes a means towards a greater reward.
A
Antegin
Guest
Ditto:thumbsup:
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Can God cause good to come from suffering? Suffering may indeed be evil in a given situation, but it may have an overall positive effect in the bigger picture, according to God’s wisdom.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Is Purgatory evil, or is it good?
D
dmftx
Guest
Absolutely not. I see it as an opportunity to grow.
A
Antegin
Guest
It’s very good because you’re not going to hell and when you’re finished you’ll stand before God all purified.
M
Mongo
Guest
No. JPII emphasized the good of suffering. Everyone has a cross to bear.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
First of all… a condition (any condition) is not “evil”. “Evil” or “wicked” are moral terms and they describe the actions of those agents who knowingly inflict or allow unnecessary suffering on others.
Question: “what is unnecessary suffering”?
Answer: “A suffering which is not balanced by some desirable good, which cannot be achieved without this suffering”.
Question: “Example, please”.
Answer: “Certainly. If a medical treatment causes temporary suffering or discomfort, but that suffering will lead to a cure and it cannot be avoided, then the suffering is necessary.”
Question: “This seems to depend on the level of technology”.
Answer: “Yes, indeed. In the middle ages there was no anesthesiology, so the patients were offered a bullet to bite upon while the “barber” used a hacksaw to amputate an arm or a leg. Today such a procedure would be barbaric and unnecessary.”
Question: “So what is your conclusion?”
Answer: “It should be obvious. One can examine the problem in the light of two starting points. One is that there is a loving and caring God, while the other one is that no such God exists”.
Question: “I see. What is your conclusion if there is no such loving and caring God?”
Answer: "Then as long as the agents act according to the best available technology, and inflict absolutely minimal pain, suffering or discomfort on others, then the suffering in necessary and as such not “gratuitous”.
Question: “What about the starting point that there is an omnipotent and benevolent God”?
Answer: “If God can do anything and everything that is not a logical impossibility, then all the sufferings could be eliminated.”
Question: “Hold it right there! How do you know that the existing sufferings are NOT necessary to achieve some greater good?”
Answer: “Obvious. No matter what kind of suffering you present, omnipotence can overcome it. After all omnipotence is able to do anything and everything, except logical impossibilities.”
Question: “That takes care of the so-called natural evils. What about the pain and suffering which is inflicted by psychopaths and sociopaths? Their actions cannot be eliminated without restricting or eliminating their freedom to inflict such sufferings.”
Answer: “Why should that be a problem? We, using our limited resources will place these wicked (or evil) people into jails and prisons and take away their freedom to inflict pain and suffering on others. There is nothing wrong with this procedure. Their freedom leads to our suffering, so we restrict or take away their freedom to protect our well-being. Is there something wrong with that?”
If you wish to criticize this line of reasoning, please go ahead.
Question: “what is unnecessary suffering”?
Answer: “A suffering which is not balanced by some desirable good, which cannot be achieved without this suffering”.
Question: “Example, please”.
Answer: “Certainly. If a medical treatment causes temporary suffering or discomfort, but that suffering will lead to a cure and it cannot be avoided, then the suffering is necessary.”
Question: “This seems to depend on the level of technology”.
Answer: “Yes, indeed. In the middle ages there was no anesthesiology, so the patients were offered a bullet to bite upon while the “barber” used a hacksaw to amputate an arm or a leg. Today such a procedure would be barbaric and unnecessary.”
Question: “So what is your conclusion?”
Answer: “It should be obvious. One can examine the problem in the light of two starting points. One is that there is a loving and caring God, while the other one is that no such God exists”.
Question: “I see. What is your conclusion if there is no such loving and caring God?”
Answer: "Then as long as the agents act according to the best available technology, and inflict absolutely minimal pain, suffering or discomfort on others, then the suffering in necessary and as such not “gratuitous”.
Question: “What about the starting point that there is an omnipotent and benevolent God”?
Answer: “If God can do anything and everything that is not a logical impossibility, then all the sufferings could be eliminated.”
Question: “Hold it right there! How do you know that the existing sufferings are NOT necessary to achieve some greater good?”
Answer: “Obvious. No matter what kind of suffering you present, omnipotence can overcome it. After all omnipotence is able to do anything and everything, except logical impossibilities.”
Question: “That takes care of the so-called natural evils. What about the pain and suffering which is inflicted by psychopaths and sociopaths? Their actions cannot be eliminated without restricting or eliminating their freedom to inflict such sufferings.”
Answer: “Why should that be a problem? We, using our limited resources will place these wicked (or evil) people into jails and prisons and take away their freedom to inflict pain and suffering on others. There is nothing wrong with this procedure. Their freedom leads to our suffering, so we restrict or take away their freedom to protect our well-being. Is there something wrong with that?”
If you wish to criticize this line of reasoning, please go ahead.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Suffering, if you prefer that term, is reality. We all experience it in one fashion or another.
John
John
T
tonyrey
Guest
Neat!
T
tonyrey
Guest
385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.
Not all suffering is due to sin.
Pain is an essential defence mechanism but you are right in your view about the potential value of suffering.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Indeed, Robert. Otherwise He wouldn’t permit it.
T
tonyrey
Guest
John Keats regarded the world as " a vale of soul-making".
T
tonyrey
Guest
In philosophy there is a distinction between moral and natural (or physical) evil.
It is necessary to be omniscient to know **everything **that is logically possible.
It is impossible to know the precise extent to which psychopaths and sociopaths are responsible for their behaviour but we are certainly justified in restricting their freedom in self-defence or the defence of others even though they may not be morally evil at all.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are right, John, but it is only the negative aspect.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Welcome to the forum!
Every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage. Nothing is free except the greatest gift of all…
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Actually you would need omniscience to proclaim that you need omniscience.
But we do not need to know “everything” that is logically possible, we just need to know ONE particular thing that is logically possible and which would lower or eliminate some particular suffering.Moreover, we are perfectly happy to know something beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no need to have absolute, Cartesian certainly.
Yes, indeed. So there are two kinds of psychopaths and sociopaths, one kind is aware of the pain and suffering he causes, the other kind is ignorant of it. This latter kind is the one who belongs to a loony bin, being totally insane. The first kind we place into prisons, the other kind we place into lunatic asylums - but in both cases we restrict (or take away) their freedom - as we should. This takes care of the so-called “free will” defense.
As long as one is aware of a gratuitous, unnecessary evil (be it moral or natural), and has the power to prevent it, and fails to do it, that person is guilty of not interfering. There can be some argument about the difference between actively performing or passively allowing some unnecessary suffering, but that is a secondary issue.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Please give an example.Actually you would need omniscience to proclaim that you need omniscience.
How do you assess reasonable doubt with regard to what is logically possible?
Why “so-called”?
I agree with the proviso that one is justified in permitting the** lesser **evil regardless of whether it is gratuitous (in the sense of “accidental”).
- Status