Why would God need our suffering to do good?

[ateista]

The “little boy playing with a ball by heavy traffic” is a child of God. He loves every hair on his little head. If he goes into traffic and dies, he is born into the loving arms of our Father. This is not evil. Those who mourn his loss will either fall into despair or pray for God’s healing, comforting grace. They will either see no future (focused on this life) or hope even more strongly for reunion with the child in heaven (focused on heaven).

Unfortunately that is just an assumption. There is no evidence (let alone proof) that it will happen. The question still is: “is there gratituous suffering?”. We cannot know anything about a possible afterlife. If a suffering here and now cannot be justified by some “greater good” in this existence, then the suffering cannot be justified here and now.

The animals perishing in a wildfire do suffer - of that can be no doubt. They will not be rewarded with anything either here of in the assumed afterlife. Their suffering is really pointless, therefore to allow it to happen is evil.

Not all will accept this. Faith is a gift.

That gift was denied to me. Did I deserve to be denied this gift?

 

[john_doran]

Unfortunately that is just an assumption. There is no evidence (let alone proof) that it will happen. The question still is: “is there gratituous suffering?”. We cannot know anything about a possible afterlife. If a suffering here and now cannot be justified by some “greater good” in this existence, then the suffering cannot be justified here and now.

A) who says we can’t know anything about an afterlife?

B) that god is bound to act according to a utilitarian moral principle of maximizing good is an assumption you’re making, and one that need not be accepted.

ateista:

The animals perishing in a wildfire do suffer - of that can be no doubt. They will not be rewarded with anything either here of in the assumed afterlife. Their suffering is really pointless, therefore to allow it to happen is evil.

even if you’re right (and i don’t think you are), you assume that the “point” of the suffering needs to be obvious to us. but why should anyone believe that?

ateista:

That gift was denied to me. Did I deserve to be denied this gift?

how can you be sure it wasn’t offered to, but rejected by you?

 

[VociMike]

I think that this is the key. God doesn’t need our suffering. We do.

What do you call a child who grows up with no adversity whatever, and gets whatever he wants? Spoiled.

On the other hand, love does entail suffering, and brings us out of ourselves.

I always try to get people who don’t understand the concept of sanctifying suffering to describe a world in which there is no suffering or possibility of suffering. That includes not just physical suffering but also mental and emotional suffering. Essentially, we can’t be hurt and we can’t hurt anybody else. How would we then behave? Would we be good? Self-giving? Why bother, since nobody needs anything, physically, mentally, emotionally? Or would we be the worst kind of selfish pigs?

It’s a wonderful mental exercise to undertake. The OP should challenge her friend to think this “alternative world without any kind of suffering” through.

 

[ribozyme]

I always try to get people who don’t understand the concept of sanctifying suffering to describe a world in which there is no suffering or possibility of suffering. That includes not just physical suffering but also mental and emotional suffering. Essentially, we can’t be hurt and we can’t hurt anybody else. How would we then behave? Would we be good? Self-giving? Why bother, since nobody needs anything, physically, mentally, emotionally? Or would we be the worst kind of selfish pigs?

I am a utilitarian, thus I can freely abjure virtue ethics if it is inimical to the consequentialist perspective of eliminating suffering. But I do not think utilitarian ethics promotes an egotistical ethic, instead the original formulations of utilitarianism by Mill is rather akin to an altruistic hedonism.

For instance, I can assail charity by asking what good is charity if it does not relieve suffering. Of course, it doesn’t have value then. However, charity does reduce suffering though. But other actions that do not involve charity can reduce suffering too and can have greater contribution in the battle against suffering. One example is a curious researcher for a drug company who developes a drug to an ailment.

However, I do think charity is need in a utilitarian perspective though. What good is, oh let’s say, lopinavir/ritonavir (combination that inhibits HIV protease usually used as a second line HIV treatment) for those afflicted with HIV in Africa, if they do not have access to it. Of course, this was based on a real situation, just replace “Africa” with “Thailand.”

 

[VociMike]

I am a utilitarian, thus I can freely abjure virtue ethics if it is inimical to the consequentialist perspective of eliminating suffering. But I do not think utilitarian ethics promotes an egotistical ethic, instead the original formulations of utilitarianism by Mill is rather akin to an altruistic hedonism.

For instance, I can assail charity by asking what good is charity if it does not relieve suffering. Of course, it doesn’t have value then. However, charity does reduce suffering though. But other actions that do not involve charity can reduce suffering too and can have greater contribution in the battle against suffering. One example is a curious researcher for a drug company who developes a drug to an ailment.

However, I do think charity is need in a utilitarian perspective though. What good is, oh let’s say, lopinavir/ritonavir (combination that inhibits HIV protease usually used as a second line HIV treatment) for those afflicted with HIV in Africa, if they do not have access to it. Of course, this was based on a real situation, just replace “Africa” with “Thailand.”

I don’t think your reply addresses my post. You talk about reducing suffering, but I am asking for a description of a world in which suffering is impossible. I am asking how people (you and I) would behave, what we would become, if absolutely nothing we did could cause suffering to any person, and if we could not experience suffering under any circumstances.

 

[ribozyme]

I don’t think your reply addresses my post. You talk about reducing suffering, but I am asking for a description of a world in which suffering is impossible. I am asking how people (you and I) would behave, what we would become, if absolutely nothing we did could cause suffering to any person, and if we could not experience suffering under any circumstances.

I thought it did… apparently your ethical system seems to emphasize conduct, while mine (an amalgam of rule/negative/Millsian utilitarian) emphasizes consequences.

I thought I answered it directly: if suffering was eliminated, I supposed charity would not be needed. Charity is not intrinsically good; it is only good if it can contribute to overall utility.

For instance, I can assail charity by asking what good is charity if it does not relieve suffering. Of course, it doesn’t have value then.

I really do not know how we would act. Would it matter since our actions cannot cause suffering? I do not think it would matter.

 

[VociMike]

I really do not know how we would act. Would it matter since our actions cannot cause suffering? I do not think it would matter.

So would you agree that the way we live our lives would be without moral consequence?

 

[john_doran]

I am a utilitarian, thus I can freely abjure virtue ethics if it is inimical to the consequentialist perspective of eliminating suffering.

as a consequentialist, you cannot simply be concerned with minimizing suffering (or else you would simply be directed to kill every living thing, thereby reucing suffering to zero…), but with maximizing whatever it is you believe to be The Good; presumably pleasure.

and, of course, a world with even a great deal of suffering might be better on balance than a world without it, if the world-with-suffering also has a great deal of pleasure in it. indeed - one might argue that suffering makes pleasure more pleasurable, and is thus required for the state of affairs with the most good.

can you demonstrate that we do not, in fact, live in such a world?

ribozyme:

For instance, I can assail charity by asking what good is charity if it does not relieve suffering.

it has value by increasing pleasure.

 

[ribozyme]

as a consequentialist, you cannot simply be concerned with minimizing suffering (or else you would simply be directed to kill every living thing, thereby reucing suffering to zero…), but with maximizing whatever it is you believe to be The Good; presumably pleasure.

and, of course, a world with even a great deal of suffering might be better on balance than a world without it, if the world-with-suffering also has a great deal of pleasure in it. indeed - one might argue that suffering makes pleasure more pleasurable, and is thus required for the state of affairs with the most good.

can you demonstrate that we do not, in fact, live in such a world?

it has value by increasing pleasure.

I have emphasized suffering as I do believe no amount of pleasure can negate unconscionable suffering… yes, I am aware of that reductio ad absurdum of negative utilitarianism.

Here is a well articulated argument for negative utilitarianism. And yes, I do think David Pearce’s suggestion of redesigning the human brain to experience intense feelings of pleasure might be a good idea.

[utilitarianism.com/p(name removed by moderator)rick-argument.html](http://utilitarianism.com/p(name removed by moderator)rick-argument.html)

 

[ateista]

A) who says we can’t know anything about an afterlife?

If you have such information, I will be glad to contemplate it. But it should be independently verfiable information, not something based on authoritative disclosure. An authority is someone who can offer proof / verification for his assertions, not someone who simply says: “Because I said so!”.

B) that god is bound to act according to a utilitarian moral principle of maximizing good is an assumption you’re making, and one that need not be accepted.

I did not say anything about “maximizing” good. I just say that causing / allowing gratituous (pointless) suffering is evil.

If a suffering is balanced by some greater good, and this greater good cannot be achieved by any other means, and the sufferer would agree to this if given the information - there is no problem.

even if you’re right (and i don’t think you are), you assume that the “point” of the suffering needs to be obvious to us. but why should anyone believe that?

What you say is usually called the fallacy of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”.

how can you be sure it wasn’t offered to, but rejected by you?

I certainly did not reject it consciously. There was no time when all of a sudden I declared that faith is unacceptable. It was a very gradual process, and not a conscious undertaking.

 

[john_doran]

I have emphasized suffering as I do believe no amount of pleasure can negate unconscionable suffering…

1. what does “unconscionable” mean to a (negative) utilitarian?
2. how can it be true that no amount of pleasure (read: non-pain) can “negate” any given amount of suffering? if the negative utilitarian’s moral calculus is designed to minimize net suffering, how can the amount of pleasure in the world not count?

ribozyme:

Here is a well articulated argument for negative utilitarianism. And yes, I do think David Pearce’s suggestion of redesigning the human brain to experience intense feelings of pleasure might be a good idea.

[utilitarianism.com/p(name removed by moderator)rick-argument.html](http://utilitarianism.com/p(name removed by moderator)rick-argument.html)

i’d love to hear what you think this argument is saying, but by my reading, this is a pretty weak effort: he avoids the reductio i elaborated simply by suggesting that global genocide is impractical. and then he talks about either narcotizing the world’s populace, or engaging in a program of eugenics to minimize suffering (actually, to maximize pleasure - so much for “negative” utilitarianism), like that’s a more practical goal.

i’d love to engage you on this topic, but i need for you to outline the main thrust of the arguments that you find persuasive, and why you find them so - simply linking to other peoples’ (poorly reasoned, quite frankly) essays won’t cut it.

 

[drthomas_21]

Where is it stated that God needs our suffering to do good? When God created the universe, who had to suffer for that to occur?

Suffering is not necessary for salvation – faith in action is necessary for salvation.

 

[dessert]

Rain falls on the just as well as the unjust.

And so the sun also shines on both.

God wants to increase our Faith Hope and Charity, always growing, yes we do bleed our bodies are not infallible.
D.

 

[dessert]

I do not purchase chocolate…

dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/02/14/chocolate/index.html

Unfortunately, I cannot do anything significant to rectify this situation. As stated before, all I could not is not participate in this communion of suffering.

I’ll say this… I originally played the Yu-Gi-Oh! trading card game. Is it immoral? Not really in a utilitarian system (one cannot maximize utility in a zero-sum game), but it was rather fun to enunciate your moves in Japanese. Petition

I will ask this: will you pray for these people? YesIf you do, will it affect their lives in any way? YesMost importantly, why would the beau ideal of benevolence of alleged “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 129:13-14) the unfortunate workers in cocoa farms listen to your petition over their own despondency as they actually suffer? **Because God brings change for the good, the rain and the sun. ** How come God ignores their pain and suffering? **
Is God really ignoring their pain and suffering?
Or is he waiting for a giving heart?
Yes through money yes through prayer yes through instruction
yes through missionaries yes through people yes through supplies
yes through time yes through hope yes through love
yes through miracles yes through many wonderful works as God’s hands and feet can work through the body of Christ. **

The Catholic answer is original sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden and it is just for him to allow such events. This disobedience, unfortunately, was inherited in a Lamarckian fashion en masse for the progenitors of Adam and Eve. This might be evocative of a quizzical response, but as a philosophical naturalist, I do believe there is truth the notion of “original sin.”

I watch Japanese Yu-Gi-Oh! to retain my own childhood and it reminds me of my own futility to change the world. I have encounter some unpleasant aspects about human nature that I hope would be engineered away by through molecular interventions augments altruism and empathy. (My version of “baptism” in my own soteriology.) Unfortunately, these people do not have a childhood.

These people in Africa or other “3rd” world countries are far from
the 21st century. Our missions are trying to pull them up and help them and teach them how to survive and work on their own.

Our missions are also schooling them where we can.

Nothing wrong with altruism and empathy.

[Edited by Moderator]
D.