Suffering

[QuestioningMind]

You'd never make the grade as a Mafia Don. In the movie the Godfather (Brando) got people to do his bidding by making them "an offer they can't refuse." Essentially, both a wonderful reward and a harsh punishment were on the table. Take your pick.

Interesting that you'd use that example, because I've always thought that the god depicted in the bible to be basically a mob boss thug. And god's 'give me your love and devotion or suffer the consequences' is his offer you can't refuse.

God says, "You need to give me your love for protection." You ask, "Protection from what?" God replies, "Me, if you fail to give me your love."

Love me or else isn't anything like genuine love at all. Give me your love and complete devotion and I'll make all your dreams come true. But fail to love me and give me your complete devotion and I'll make your life a living hell. That's not love, that's an abusive relationship.

Any god that provides nothing more than an an ancient book filled with hearsay accounts as evidence for his existence and then punishes people for all eternity if they fail to believe in him is nothing more than a sadistic thug and certainly isn't worthy of my love or devotion.

 

[Tiberius]

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

p2 We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

p4 We humans have indeed been making moral progress. We have learned to treat each other far better today than at any time in the distant past.

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process. Suffering was needed as a challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

We are born with the basic structure of conscience. Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist quote:
Paul Bloom Quotes

We humans have been making moral progress
Chart: The Historical Trend of Moral Progress

If this life was created to provide us with a certain understanding, why couldn't God just program that understanding in and do away with the whole need to have Humans suffer?

 

[joe1776]

If this life was created to provide us with a certain understanding, why couldn't God just program that understanding in and do away with the whole need to have Humans suffer?

The only answer that makes sense is that the point is for us to learn to become better human beings.

What would be the point of creating Heaven? (rhetorical)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Okay, acts like those might fall into the categories of dumb or negligent but not immoral intentional acts that cause harm to others.

I'm not sure I see how it was dumb or negligent. It was well intentioned, is my point. But did not lead to 'good'.

 

[Tiberius]

The only answer that makes sense is that the point is for us to learn to become better human beings.

What would be the point of creating Heaven? (rhetorical)

The sad thing is that there are plenty of people who literally believe this is a valid counter argument.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'd prefer not to suffer. A good God wouldn't allow it or demand it.

Moral progress? Torture at Guantanamo? A million Iraqis dead? Ignoring homeless? Demanding gun rights? Opposing universal health care? Lying us into wars?

Progress is relative, not absolute. To have shown progress, things need only be a degree better than they were. They can still be crappy. Also, the universal healthcare thing is a US domestic issue, but God isn't American. At least, not commonly understood to be.

Mafia murdered and extorted, yet enjoyed the good life. No proof of punishment or reward in the afterlife.

They might have purchased indulgences...ahem...

(Sorry...I'm an atheist, so I'm really only speaking hypothetically, but I do think society has progressed in some ways, and generally push back on pessimistic narratives about the decline of morality, etc)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some people offer something positive
Some people offer something negative

And sone OP's are simply nonsense.

 

[MikeF]

In my view,

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

Ok. Got it.

p2 We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong.

Is this a conditional premise also? Otherwise, P1 does not necessitate P2 (i.e. If P1, then P2). Or is P2 an assertion of fact on your part, that we exhibit free will and have a conscience that enables us to discern right from wrong?

If P2 is an assertion of fact, then I would argue that the assertion is not valid. There are a lot of factors that influence and even restrict our volition, from each of our unique neural patterns of our CNS, to socialization and indoctrination, etc. In addition, some are born with an inability to discern right from wrong and others can loose this ability due to injury or illness that affects certain regions of the CNS. This leads me to conclude that discerning right from wrong is hardware dependent and not universal nor immutable.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

P3 is factually not true. There is a greater correlation between suffering and wealth than there is between suffering and behavior. The greater ones economic resources, the greater ones ability to either avoid suffering or mitigate their suffering.

There are people who are born into miserable circumstances that suffer regardless of how they behave. There are those who behave immorally or unethically and suffer very little.

p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

Concepts of good/bad or right/wrong are man-made constructs that regulate and arbitrate between conflicting needs and wants of individuals who live and interact in cooperative groups.

If you were the only human on earth, concepts of right and wrong would have nothing to do with whatever suffering you might be experiencing. If you are able to maintain adequate nutrition and shelter, you would presumable not be suffering, except perhaps from loneliness. Any other suffering is likely to be the result of injury, illness, or severe environmental conditions, none of which is the result of bad behavior.

p4 We humans have indeed been making moral progress. We have learned to treat each other far better today than at any time in the distant past.

I would agree with this. Yes, our social systems are evolving over time. I do not see that P4 requires P1, the conditional premise.

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process. Suffering was needed as a challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

Effective enforcement of societal rules is required to incentivize good behavior over bad, good and bad being relative to a particular group or society.

Suffering simply motivates one to end the suffering by any available means. If no means are available, then we simply suffer for no other reason than we cannot stop it.

 

[PearlSeeker]

We humans have been making moral progress
Chart: The Historical Trend of Moral Progress

I see some problems with this chart and its interpretation.

Yes, the system has improved. What about the people? Would they do the same ugly things if they had power, opportunity and no sanctions? Your ordinary peaceful neighbor could be a brutal torturer, murderer... See for example
Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia

Furthermore, the chart shows only progress in some parts of the world (democratic countries).

 

[joe1776]

Is this a conditional premise also? Otherwise, P1 does not necessitate P2 (i.e. If P1, then P2). Or is P2 an assertion of fact on your part, that we exhibit free will and have a conscience that enables us to discern right from wrong?

If we don't have free will, we have the illusion of free will which will be just as effective as a teaching-learning tool.

If P2 is an assertion of fact, then I would argue that the assertion is not valid. There are a lot of factors that influence and even restrict our volition, from each of our unique neural patterns of our CNS, to socialization and indoctrination, etc. In addition, some are born with an inability to discern right from wrong and others can loose this ability due to injury or illness that affects certain regions of the CNS. This leads me to conclude that discerning right from wrong is hardware dependent and not universal nor immutable.

So, are you arguing that the exceptions you offer disprove the general rule?

P3 is factually not true. There is a greater correlation between suffering and wealth than there is between suffering and behavior. The greater ones economic resources, the greater ones ability to either avoid suffering or mitigate their suffering.

p3 doesn't claim anything about quantity. You're making irrelevant claims about quantity that you can't possibly support.

A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad. Concepts of good/bad or right/wrong are man-made constructs that regulate and arbitrate between conflicting needs and wants of individuals who live and interact in cooperative groups.

Science disagrees. See the Paul Bloom quote linked in the OP.

If you were the only human on earth, concepts of right and wrong would have nothing to do with whatever suffering you might be experiencing. If you are able to maintain adequate nutrition and shelter, you would presumable not be suffering, except perhaps from loneliness. Any other suffering is likely to be the result of injury, illness, or severe environmental conditions, none of which is the result of bad behavior.

Since I'm not the only human on Earth, your point is not relevant.

I would agree with this. Yes, our social systems are evolving over time. I do not see that P4 requires P1, the conditional premise.

The conditional premise is needed since this argument is a response to the often-asked question: Why would a well-meaning god allow us to suffer? I should have made that clear in the OP.

 

[joe1776]

I see some problems with this chart and its interpretation.

Yes, the system has improved. What about the people? Would they do the same ugly things if they had power, opportunity and no sanctions? Your ordinary peaceful neighbor could be a brutal torturer, murderer... See for example
Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia

Furthermore, the chart shows only progress in some parts of the world (democratic countries).

Legal slavery abolished, women and homosexuals afforded equality, public education for children of the poor, equality for the handicapped and insane, less friction between the religions...

 

[ppp]

This was my premise: p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it. I'm referring to the cause-and-effect relationships of behavior to suffering in a world with suffering like the one we inhabit.




Earlier you said that you accepted the free will premise. Not to worry. It probably doesn't matter to my argument if people act on the illusion of free will because the instruction they get from conscience will be the same and their reaction to their instruction won't change. In any case, I'm not going to debate free will with you.

I don't know how you got the idea from what I wrote that I'm arguing that a Creator exists and I know its intentions. My argument answers the often-asked question: Why would a well-meaning Creator allow suffering? It offers an answer in the form of an argument. Nothing more..

Let's reset a bit. We agreed that good behavior is behavior that reduces suffering. What is the value of good behavior beyond the reduction of suffering?

 

[Koldo]

Okay, where do you want to take that?

If the intention is present a just reason for the existence of suffering then all of suffering must be justified. Not just some of it.

Thus:

1) The purpose of all suffering that exists, what justifies it's existence, is to motivate good behavior.
2) It is possible to motivate good behavior by allowing suffering to exist and for it to be overcome through good behavior.
3) Not all suffering that could exist can be overcome through good behavior.
4) Suffering that can not be overcome through good behavior is not justified since it's existence specifically is unnecessary to motivate good behavior.
5) There is suffering in the world that can not be overcome through good behavior.
6) Not all suffering in the world is justified.

 

[joe1776]

I'm not sure I see how it was dumb or negligent. It was well intentioned, is my point. But did not lead to 'good'.

Maybe I should have written my premise more carefully. Would this solve our problem?

As a general rule, 'good behaviour eases suffering

 

[joe1776]

...If the intention is present a just reason for the existence of suffering then all of suffering must be justified. Not just some of it.

Some students won't understand calculus no matter how hard they try. Therefore, calculus shouldn't be taught since its not 100% effective?

5) There is suffering in the world that can not be overcome through good behavior.

I can't think of an example where suffering can't be eased -- not necessarily overcome completely. Can you?

 

[joe1776]

Let's reset a bit. We agreed that good behavior is behavior that reduces suffering. What is the value of good behavior beyond the reduction of suffering?

Emotional well-being for self while contributing to the well-being of others.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

If we don't have free will, we have the illusion of free will which will be just as effective as a teaching-learning tool.

So, are you arguing that the exceptions you offer disprove the general rule?

p3 doesn't claim anything about quantity. You're making irrelevant claims about quantity that you can't possibly support.

Science disagrees. See the Paul Bloom quote linked in the OP.

Since I'm not the only human on Earth, your point is not relevant.

The conditional premise is needed since this argument is a response to the often-asked question: Why would a well-meaning god allow us to suffer? I should have made that clear in the OP.

If you consider science a valid tool for evaluation, then what I have shown is that suffering can occur independent of how one behaves, and as such, is not, in and of itself, a moral teaching tool. One can be rewarded by "bad" behavior and disadvantaged by "good" behavior.

"Good" and "Bad, "Right" and "Wrong" are relative to a given group or society and are not universal.

Groups can use our vulnerability to suffering as a means of enforcing compliance with societal rules, rules which are often not equitable. How many good people suffered throughout history simply by being classified as having less rights than others within the group; to be relegated to harsher, more vulnerable living conditions simply by virtue of the class one is born into? How many good people historically have suffered gulags and concentration camps or in bondage? What is the take-away lesson from such suffering?

Scientifically, suffering is simply chronic strong discomfort of some sort, either mental and/or physical. It is not eliminated by being virtuous, only by changing, if possible, the conditions causing the suffering.

 

[ppp]

Emotional well-being for self while contributing to the well-being of others.

Cool. Agreed.
So my question is, why would a benevolent creator create suffering? Increasing my emotional well being from mildly positive to content or joyful is in and of itself a motivator. And I certainly learn which good behaviors work better than others. I do not need suffering to learn those things.

 

[joe1776]

If you consider science a valid tool for evaluation...

What science? You haven't offered anything but unsupported claims.

... then what I have shown is that suffering can occur independent of how one behaves, and as such, is not, in and of itself, a moral teaching tool. One can be rewarded by "bad" behavior and disadvantaged by "good" behavior.

Who cares? You seem to think that if you can offer exceptions that you have shown that my general statements are wrong. If I had foolishly said, without exception, good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it, your objections would be valid.

"Good" and "Bad, "Right" and "Wrong" are relative to a given group or society and are not universal.

You are mistaken. If the Bloom quote wasn't enough evidence for you, I suggest a search for Harvard's Moral Sense Test, Jon Haidt, Josh Greene, and Fiery Cushman.

Scientifically, suffering is simply chronic strong discomfort of some sort, either mental and/or physical. It is not eliminated by being virtuous, only by changing, if possible, the conditions causing the suffering.

Scientifically, that's nonsense.

 

[stvdv]

And sone OP's are simply nonsense.