Inflicting suffering

[Soandso]

The problem of evil was one of the more troubling things I wrestled with when I was a Christian, and the conflict of conscience I felt when trying to make sense of it would eventually lead to me leaving Christianity behind. Since then my views on things have changed over time, but still, it's interesting to look back and ponder something I never got a clear answer on

So back in those days I believed in hell as an actual place where people suffered forever in the worst kind of torment anyone could imagine. God made this place, and though I didn't believe that he actively sent people there, it was a place god had created. Those who rejected him would have no choice but to go there

What I had struggled with, though, was that whether or not god sent people there doesn't matter since he created the place. Why create a torture chamber if he never intended for it to be used? He could have made the rules to be anything he wanted, but that was what he had chosen (so I believed). To me, the conflict of conscience comes from pointless suffering inflicted on others. Pointless suffering feels wrong - even when god himself inflicts it

This isn't a criticism of Christianity or hell beliefs, but it is a question that I still haven't solved. Is there ever a time where it's acceptable or good for an intelligent being to inflict needless or pointless suffering onto another being? What would that occasion look like? Why would it ever be a good thing to do to someone else? No lessons learned, nothing to be gained, just pure unadulterated suffering intentionally inflicted onto another being

Now when we add motivation to the mix, I can't think of a single motivating factor that doesn't seem malevolent. One might want to torture others pointlessly for entertainment, but for a wholesome or good reason? I can't think of one

If such a thing existed, what would that look like? Is it even possible?

 

[pearl]

To me, the conflict of conscience comes from pointless suffering inflicted on others

That's what moral evil is, the unjust infliction of suffering on another.

 

[Quintessence]

Step 1 - stop thinking from a human, using human conceptions of virtues and values.
Step 2 - stop being anthropocentric.

The moment you take those steps (or even just one of them), it opens up a dizzying array of possibilities. Personally, I find it very strange to expect the gods - who are fundamentally not human - to behave as if they hold human virtues and values.

Why would they understand suffering like humans do?
Why assume that which looks needless to us would be needless to them?
Why believe that what is unacceptable to us would be unacceptable to them?

There's just not much reason to do that, to my mind.

Many of the gods I worship can be outright adversarial to humanity. Storm Spirits don't give a crap if a human is in their way when they barrel on down. If you want to be self-centered and anthropocentric about Storm Spirit's behavior, Storm inflicts "needless" suffering and is engaging in "unacceptable" behavior. Yeah, well, Storm doesn't care about humans. It's not about us. It's not about it being "good" or "bad" to us. Storm does what Storm does. Humans can judge it all they want, but it says more about humans than the gods.

 

[Soandso]

That's what moral evil is, the unjust infliction of suffering on another.

Yah, that's the way things seem to me, too. It's why I couldn't reconcile my beliefs at the time. I guess I'm more interested where that line between just and unjust suffering lies.

I can imagine justly imposed suffering, such as a prison sentence. I can also imagine necessary suffering, such as a surgical prosedure. Those things can be taken to a degree that's taken too far, though. Concentration camps and the surgical experiments done by Josef Mangela, for instance. Both of those things are clearly malevolent, and are taken to their most negative extremes

That said, even some good things could come from something as awful as Mangela's experiments, such as progress in medical knowledge he uncovered from the gruesome things he did. I've personally benefitted myself from his experiments he did involving broken bones due to the methods doctors used to heal my broken bones

Even then, I still know that the good things certainly don't outweigh the bad things. He crossed that line and went too far, even if some good came of it

What if no good had come of it, like the concentration camps? Those were purely unjust. Let's assume that those people instead were not innocent people and were instead all hardened criminals on deathrow. Would that be ok then? Some might say yes, though to me that still seems unjust

Sorry about how dark this post has gotten, but this topic by it's nature is a hard topic to think about. I guess that's one reason why most folks don't really talk about it - understandably so

 

[pearl]

Sorry about how dark this post has gotten, but this topic by it's nature is a hard topic to think about. I guess that's one reason why most folks don't really talk about it - understandably so

There has always been a 'why' to suffering and its connection to 'evil'. There are countless sufferings from natural disasters which could be considered evil as they deprive persons of life and happiness, but they are not moral evils.

Let's assume that those people instead were not innocent people and were instead all hardened criminals on deathrow. Would that be ok then? Some might say yes, though to me that still seems unjust

I do not believe in the death penalty, but is an eye for an eye unjust?

 

[Soandso]

Step 1 - stop thinking from a human, using human conceptions of virtues and values.
Step 2 - stop being anthropocentric.

The moment you take those steps (or even just one of them), it opens up a dizzying array of possibilities. Personally, I find it very strange to expect the gods - who are fundamentally not human - to behave as if they hold human virtues and values.

Why would they understand suffering like humans do?
Why assume that which looks needless to us would be needless to them?
Why believe that what is unacceptable to us would be unacceptable to them?

There's just not much reason to do that, to my mind.

Many of the gods I worship can be outright adversarial to humanity. Storm Spirits don't give a crap if a human is in their way when they barrel on down. If you want to be self-centered and anthropocentric about Storm Spirit's behavior, Storm inflicts "needless" suffering and is engaging in "unacceptable" behavior. Yeah, well, Storm doesn't care about humans. It's not about us. It's not about it being "good" or "bad" to us. Storm does what Storm does. Humans can judge it all they want, but it says more about humans than the gods.

What you describe about nature is one reason why I did delve into nature based paths after leaving Christianity. They make more sense to me as humans seem to be just threads in the tapestry of life - we aren't the focus

Still, a force of nature isn't the same as a god of justice. A god of justice is supposed to be just. To deviate from that would be for storm to act like moon. It isn't in it's nature. It's parodoxical

Your propositions seek to dismiss the question, but they don't do much to address it, I feel. Nature does what nature does, and people do what people do. The question is human centric because it is a question for human concepts

 

[Koldo]

Step 1 - stop thinking from a human, using human conceptions of virtues and values.
Step 2 - stop being anthropocentric.

The moment you take those steps (or even just one of them), it opens up a dizzying array of possibilities. Personally, I find it very strange to expect the gods - who are fundamentally not human - to behave as if they hold human virtues and values.

Why would they understand suffering like humans do?
Why assume that which looks needless to us would be needless to them?
Why believe that what is unacceptable to us would be unacceptable to them?

There's just not much reason to do that, to my mind.

Many of the gods I worship can be outright adversarial to humanity. Storm Spirits don't give a crap if a human is in their way when they barrel on down. If you want to be self-centered and anthropocentric about Storm Spirit's behavior, Storm inflicts "needless" suffering and is engaging in "unacceptable" behavior. Yeah, well, Storm doesn't care about humans. It's not about us. It's not about it being "good" or "bad" to us. Storm does what Storm does. Humans can judge it all they want, but it says more about humans than the gods.

The one thing I find odd about this is: Why would anyone worship a god that is outright adversarial to yourself? Seeking favor?

 

[Soandso]

There has always been a 'why' to suffering and its connection to 'evil'. There are countless sufferings from natural disasters which could be considered evil as they deprive persons of life and happiness, but they are not moral evils.

Something can't be evil unless there is higher thought behind the action or inaction. Sometimes that evil is active, sometimes that evil is in not acting when one knows better. A parent neglecting their child comes to mind

I do not believe in the death penalty, but is an eye for an eye unjust?

Hmmm... Accidents aren't the same as purposeful injury, so if done as an accident, no. Would I want to take the eye of someone who took my eye out of malevolence? Still, no - then again, I'm not really concerned with vengeance. What I would prefer to see would be for him to be rehabilited and hopefully learn from the consequences of his transgression. Is that justice? Hard to say... I guess I care more about what is right rather than what is just

 

[pearl]

Something can't be evil unless there is higher thought behind the action or inaction.

Anything that deprives us of life, happiness, can be considered evil, though not moral evil. Evil is a spinoff of life, without which it would not exist.

What I would prefer to see would be for him to be rehabilited and hopefully learn from the consequences of his transgression. Is that justice? Hard to say...

That is supposed to be the purpose of prison, to rehabilitate, not vengeance.

Would I want to take the eye of someone who took my eye out of malevolence?

Yet the biblical 'eye for an eye' was an improvement over what went before.

 

[Koldo]

Something can't be evil unless there is higher thought behind the action or inaction. Sometimes that evil is active, sometimes that evil is in not acting when one knows better. A parent neglecting their child comes to mind



Hmmm... Accidents aren't the same as purposeful injury, so if done as an accident, no. Would I want to take the eye of someone who took my eye out of malevolence? Still, no - then again, I'm not really concerned with vengeance. What I would prefer to see would be for him to be rehabilited and hopefully learn from the consequences of his transgression. Is that justice? Hard to say... I guess I care more about what is right rather than what is just

How can that which is right not be that which is just?

 

[Quintessence]

The one thing I find odd about this is: Why would anyone worship a god that is outright adversarial to yourself? Seeking favor?

Depends on the person's tradition and experiences.

Generally speaking, in polytheistic religions worship is about paying respects. It doesn't matter if you like something or not, it is part of our reality and ought to be acknowledged. Simply running away from it and ignoring it is not the path to wisdom and learning. Precisely how much a given practitioner works with gods that can be adversarial is up to personal tradition. The nature of the work also varies by personal tradition.

In my experience, it's generally unwise to blanket categorize a power as benevolent, benign, or malevolent. Usually the nature of something can run the spectrum depending on point of view and circumstance. For example, Fire burns, but it also heats homes.

 

[Koldo]

Depends on the person's tradition and experiences.

Generally speaking, in polytheistic religions worship is about paying respects. It doesn't matter if you like something or not, it is part of our reality and ought to be acknowledged. Simply running away from it and ignoring it is not the path to wisdom and learning. Precisely how much a given practitioner works with gods that can be adversarial is up to personal tradition. The nature of the work also varies by personal tradition.

In my experience, it's generally unwise to blanket categorize a power as benevolent, benign, or malevolent. Usually the nature of something can run the spectrum depending on point of view and circumstance. For example, Fire burns, but it also heats homes.

Why pay respect to something that is adversarial to you though?

 

[Quintessence]

Why pay respect to something that is adversarial to you though?

Why wouldn't you pay respect? Everything is worthy of such respects. I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

 

[Koldo]

Why wouldn't you pay respect? Everything is worthy of such respects. I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

I don't understand why you think that everything is worthy of respect.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't understand why you think that everything is worthy of respect.

And I do not understand why you wouldn't. It is a fundamental difference of worldview between a polytheist who understands all things are sacred and worthy of worship... and someone who doesn't. You either think the splendor of the universe and everything in it is amazing and worthy celebrating... or you don't. You either apply intrinsic value to everything... or you don't. And I do not understand people who do not understand how everything is amazing.

 

[Soandso]

Anything that deprives us of life, happiness, can be considered evil, though not moral evil. Evil is a spinoff of life, without which it would not exist.

If you say so, but I would never call a natural disaster evil. Unfortunate, yes. Sad, definitely. For me, evil needs thought behind it

Yet the biblical 'eye for an eye' was an improvement over what went before.

Depending on where you were in the world at that time, yes. Some places were more civilized than others. The problem I suppose with justice is that it's not something that's set in stone. It differs from culture to culture, and it changes over time

I guess that's the point, though. Ancient ideas of what are just become replaced with other ideas. Eye for an eye worked in the past, but was replaced by something else later. Eternal torment in hell made sense in the past, but now no longer makes sense within the modern context of where we live. It's a different world now, it seems

Do we just have a deeper understanding and respect of suffering than we used to, or is there something else at play?

 

[Koldo]

And I do not understand why you wouldn't. It is a fundamental difference of worldview between a polytheist who understands all things are sacred and worthy of worship... and someone who doesn't. You either think the splendor of the universe and everything in it is amazing and worthy celebrating... or you don't. You either apply intrinsic value to everything... or you don't. And I do not understand people who do not understand how everything is amazing.

Have you always been this way?
I have never met anyone that sees everything as amazing.
When really bad things happen to you, or if they were to happen to you, would you also think of that as amazing?

 

[Quintessence]

Have you always been this way?

It came mostly as a consequence of studying the sciences with a dash of philosophy mixed in. Seeing how interconnected and interdependent everything was, I began to realize that I only existed because of all these other things existing. Without all of it put together - regardless of how I personally felt about any of the universe - I wouldn't be here to be asking that question. There was a deep humility and respect that came out of that. I became far less concerned with projecting judgements of "goodness" and "badness" onto the universe than accepting what is and finding peace in that.

That doesn't mean I don't whine about stuff I don't like as much as the next human does. What it means is I try to keep in mind a non-anthropocentric, non-egocentric perspective. At the very least, to recognize judgements I'm making are projections onto reality, and not the territory itself. And I get to control those stories I tell, so why not tell them in ways that are constructive to me? Seeing intrinsic value in all things encourages wide-eyed wonder and exploration and learning of everything. I like that. Others don't like that. They get to set their own values and tell their own stories.

 

[Soandso]

How can that which is right not be that which is just?

That's an interesting question. I suppose that differs from person to person. To me, that which is "just" is something done as a consequence for an action. If I break a law, I pay the consequence for breaking the law. Justice is blind, but it seeks to be fair

As for doing what is "right," that's something usually done out of hope for a better outcome and usually involves some kind of cost to self. If my sister is a single mom who is struggling to take care of her kids, I can help out by giving her money for diapers, for example

What is right definitely feel more subjective than what is just, though, and is subject to change upon other factors. If my sister is a drug addict who neglects her kids, giving her money for diapers is no longer the right thing to do

Then again, what is just seems to change with time, too. Hmm

 

[pearl]

Do we just have a deeper understanding and respect of suffering than we used to, or is there something else at play?

Its a learning experience of letting go of past ideas, but remembering, building on those past ideas.
At times I think we get 'stuck' and are not able to let go completely. Wasn't it Paul who stated, 'when I became a man, I gave up the things of a child?'.