SimWorld without suffering

[Meow Mix]

I'm gonna have to respond to this when I'm sober and when I don't have company. I can normally get away with browsing but not here. I'll respond tomorrow.

 

[Gloone]

I'm gonna have to respond to this when I'm sober and when I don't have company. I can normally get away with browsing but not here. I'll respond tomorrow.

Yes you can! You know you can! Just do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Blackdog22]

And I said this where?

Just a few posts back. I brought up the point of the holocaust, babies dying and people spontaneously combusting. Your response was, "This is just another form of whining." I had never seen so little sympathy given and I have never seen someone describe suffering as a fun roller coaster ride. Most people would agree, it was a bit harsh of you.

Making unfounded accusations is a pretty serious offense. Which comment did I "blatantly forge" into your post that isn't there at all?

Definitely not lying here. You posted that I said, "The staff doesn't like me." This was never posted originally. Just go look at my post and then at yours. If it was an accident cool, but it looked like an attempt to sell everyone on the idea that I am a trouble maker with the staff.

I never said I liked suffering, I just implied that I'm disgusted by whining.

When you respond to an article on suffering with the idea that suffering isn't bad. You strongly indicate you think suffering is good by your past posts. I will post them all in succession if necessary.

How about responding to something I actually said? LOL! Who's the "forger" here?

So you didn't say that people who were in deep suffering were a bunch of whiners? Babies whine, its simply another way of saying whining.

You really have no idea what this thread is about or what anyone else is trying to say, do you?

Considering everything has been on topic on my part until I heard someone equate suffering with a necessary roller coaster ride. I see suffering everyday, for someone to say they are a bunch of whiners is insulting to say the least. However, if that's not what you meant then were good. I wanted to find out why someone could see suffering as necessary and good. Your responses indicate you almost enjoy the suffering in the world. If not then no big deal, but the way your expressed yourself definitely came across that way.

Ah, so all that was supposed to be comedy.

I haven't been a good comic since I was 6. Forgive my attempt.

 

[Quagmire]

Just a few posts back. I brought up the point of the holocaust, babies dying and people spontaneously combusting. Your response was, "This is just another form of whining." I had never seen so little sympathy given and I have never seen someone describe suffering as a fun roller coaster ride. Most people would agree, it was a bit harsh of you.

Yes, I was implying that you were whining, not the people you were using as an example.

Thats why I said "this" as in your post.

Definitely not lying here. You posted that I said, "The staff doesn't like me." This was never posted originally. Just go look at my post and then at yours. If it was an accident cool, but it looked like an attempt to sell everyone on the idea that I am a trouble maker with the staff.

This has already been explained in private but I'll go over it again:

You posted [emphasis mine]:

Well of course it is. Those people who died in the holocaust are nothing, but a bunch of cry babies. That is my point exactly. You are completely right. My life filled rollercoaster would never of been complete without the holocaust and Hitler. He is a stand up guy, that between you and me, is just fantastic!

I actually go to rooms full of cancer patients and call them all out for the big babies they are. For some reason the staff doesn't like me, but I explain I enjoy roller coasters! I don't get why they just don't share my happiness for how miserable and necessary the suffering by these cancerous babies are.

Oh, and real quick, I saw this movie the other night called Braveheart. This guy named William Wallace loses his wife and cries. Wow, I started laughing and laughing, what a cry baby. He then gets his head cut off and my mom cried and I slapped her. All a bunch of babies.

Have you seen the Westboro baptist church? They are some of the most stand up individuals ever. I think you would really like them.

Like I told you in private, I misread your post and took the "For some reason the staff doesn't like me" to mean that you were saying the staff of the forums didn't like you (it's a popular whine in here).

I misread it, I didn't add it.

 

[Blackdog22]

Yes, I was implying that you were whining, not the people you were using as an example.

Thats why I said "this" as in your post.



This has already been explained in private but I'll go over it again:

You posted [emphasis mine]:



Like I told you in private, I misread your post and took the "For some reason the staff doesn't like me" to mean that you were saying the staff of the forums didn't like you (it's a popular whine in here).

I misread it, I didn't add it.

Ah, my apologies man. That was a huge misunderstanding. Yeah I was talking from the perspective of the hospital staff in my made up scenereo. Okay, yeah its cool, just a simple mistake for both of us. I am just gonna drop this and wait for meow to get back. I obviously misunderstood you pretty severely and I apologize for that. Sometimes reading can easily be taken out of context without the spoken words and the emotion to go behind it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ok fine you asked for it, this is my drunk response but not my real response.

I would like to give you a quick rundown on religion and god, but I don’t see how it is possible.

Also remember Epicurus came before Jesus and it was when the Romans and Greeks were trying to set up a democracy. You probably wouldn’t even acknowledge mythology as being relevant either, even though certain people like Spartans actually communicated with oracles and realized they had certain choices to take to uphold it.

This has nothing to do with the weight of Epicurus's argument.

Do you know what Jealousy is? Most people acknowledge god as being jealous aside from being great. Others see Satan as being ruler of this world. While Jesus was someone that came to fulfill prophecies and eradicate people from harm the best he could because natural sin was left from creation. I could actually toss out a lot of blame if I wanted to, but what purpose does that really serve. Satan might be flattered by it and a higher god may never get the message.

What does this have to do with the PoE though? Is a jealous god really a benevolent god? How can a being with all-power and all-knowledge be jealous of anything?

You already know how bad pain and suffering is. You realize how awful that pain can be. Do realize how great Gods love or have any understanding of what it may be. What if God wants to do something about it, but the only way God can do anything is by sending some type of messenger. I could venture into this further, but if you really care to know about people being locked up in hell then read revelations and come to know who Alpa – Omega, Jesus and his Angels are.

But are you saying God isn't omnipotent then? Because that is ONE way to solve the problem of evil.

I don’t – provide a good example why Jesus and theism should be practiced over paganism then we might be able to take this question further.

I don't see the difference or how this matters for PoE.

Yeah I can't do this, I'll really respond tomorrow. My friends and I are killing nazi zombies in call of duty world at war and it's a little tough to concentrate.

 

[Reptillian]

There have been a lot of posts since I last posted so I’ll try to address the ones aimed at me in this post. Post, post, post, post…sorry I used the word post a lot in the previous sentence and it made me feel like typing more.

First of all, I’m an agnostic. When asked if I believe in god I usually say something to the effect of, “If by god you mean something like absolute truth or universal purpose or the order and beauty of the cosmos, then yes. If by god you mean a supreme being who answers prayers like a magic genie and who cares about whether I masturbate or gather firewood on Sunday, then probably not.” But, sometimes I like to try and view the world from a theistic perspective. It makes for a fun intellectual exercise.

Let’s consider this matter by going to Pascal’s assertion that this is the best of all possible worlds. I’ve always liked Pascal’s view of the problem of evil. Assuming that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being designed and created our world, then presumably it must be the best possible world. To purposely create a less than best possible world with sentient inhabitants would be in conflict with the deity’s assumed nature. “But how can this world be the best possible?”, we ask. “Surely a world where Tommy down the street wasn’t hit by a car, or where Hitler never existed would be better?”

There are several ways to address these questions:

1. Denying the assumed deity exists (Occam’s Razor seems to favor this solution, but I like to press on as a thought experiment…back when I was a theist I found this alternative unacceptable)

2. Suggesting this world is an imperfect but necessary stage in the creation of the true best world (a favorite solution amongst most Christians and many Christian philosophers since evil is viewed as a curse due to the fall of man and the current world state is just a step on the way to paradise…Pascal seemed to have liked this one)

3. Tacking on one or more assumptions, specifically other deities with different properties and different objectives (again Occam’s Razor would be in favor of avoiding this approach but some Christians take this route by proposing the Devil and demons…polytheistic religions generally steer clear of the problem of evil all together with this route, but they can have their own version of it, as the matter was discussed by ancient philosophers… Epicurus has been mentioned…Epicurus proposed ‘tongue in cheek’ that the gods were bodied beings concerned only with their own pleasure and objectives…he probably didn’t really believe in them but was just paying lip service by proposing this as a possible solution)

4. Denying one or more of the properties (omnipotence was always my favorite to drop and this was addressed in an earlier post)

Some posters have suggested dropping omnibenevolence, but who would want to worship a deity with even a slight mean streak? Even a little sewage mixed into some soup makes it unpalatable. To quote Socrates, “It is better to suffer injustice than to cause it.” I think omniscience can’t be dropped without affecting omnibenevolence. A god who is omnipotent has no excuse but laziness for not being omniscient. Again I think omnipotence is the way to go for theists. Personally I’ve always liked the idea of a god restrained by truth. Certainly if a god exists, its nature must be governed by truths. Even the gods must bow before the truth. Even without god, one could consider the possibility that this world is the only one logically possible. Like Einstein I wonder if a truth constrained god really could have any choice in the creation of our universe…in either its origin or its nature or in the happenings within it. In earlier posts I was considering whether truth fundamentally prevents the existence of sentient beings in a world without suffering. I think its likely that you do need suffering for sentient beings to exist. Its sort of a moral version of the anthropic principle. Sorry if I was getting a little off topic.

 

[Quagmire]

When you respond to an article on suffering with the idea that suffering isn't bad.

If I remember correctly (and I'm too tired to go back over all my posts in here but I've been having this argument for a long time and I know what my routine is) I never said suffering was good. All I was doing was pointing out that the whole PoE is predicated on the proposition that suffering is bad, ie., that it shouldn't be.

I'm human. I don't like suffering anymore than anyone else does, but I realize that that's a preference, not a moral absolute, and I also realize that just because I don't like something doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

And all I'm asking is that someone explain, in objective terms, why suffering is bad.

You strongly indicate you think suffering is good by your past posts. I will post them all in succession if necessary.

I would actually appreciate that.

So you didn't say that people who were in deep suffering were a bunch of whiners?

Nope. I said whiners were whiners.

Babies whine

Babies are supposed to. They don't have any other coping skills. Hopefully, the rest of us do.

, its simply another way of saying whining.



Considering everything has been on topic on my part until I heard someone equate suffering with a necessary roller coaster ride.

Pretty sure I never said necessary either.

I see suffering everyday, for someone to say they are a bunch of whiners is insulting to say the least. However, if that's not what you meant then were good. I wanted to find out why someone could see suffering as necessary and good.

IMO, (and this is the first time I've offered it): suffering can be good or bad, although I think it's more beneficial to look at it in terms of either meaningful or pointless rather than good/bad (but even that is mostly predicated on preference and doesn't qualify as an objective description).

In most cases, the way we respond to suffering---what we do with it and what we do about it--- determines to a large extent whether the event or circumstances that caused the suffering turn out to have been a blessing or a curse.

We never like suffering, but sometimes we need it to motivate us in the right directions (or to get us up off our ***).

Your responses indicate you almost enjoy the suffering in the world.

No. Most of the suffering in the world that I see is self-inflicted, unnecessary, and poorly dealt with (mind you, I don't work in a hospital). I don't like watching any of that.

I enjoy the hell out of some of the benefits I've received from my own suffering. It would be a long list but at the top of it would be: "The realization that, one way or another, I can cope with just about anything that life wants to through at me".

There's an incredible sense of peace and security in that that goes way beyond any peace or security that you could find by trying to design a life free of suffering for yourself.

If not then no big deal, but the way your expressed yourself definitely came across that way.

I think, more likely, "Why is suffering bad" is just a question that catches people unprepared.

 

[Quagmire]

Ah, my apologies man. That was a huge misunderstanding. Yeah I was talking from the perspective of the hospital staff in my made up scenereo. Okay, yeah its cool, just a simple mistake for both of us. I am just gonna drop this and wait for meow to get back. I obviously misunderstood you pretty severely and I apologize for that. Sometimes reading can easily be taken out of context without the spoken words and the emotion to go behind it.

Cool, and me too.

foot

 

[Gloone]

Ok fine you asked for it, this is my drunk response but not my real response.

ZoMG! you didn't really have to give it. Thought you would know.... I was joking. lol

 

[PolyHedral]

Yeah, that's the one. Very interesting argument. I'm a bit tipsy right now and have company so I can't devote a lot of time, but I'd like to talk about the implications of GIT on this.

I don't think GIT applies anywhere. Turing machines can't compute everything, only everything that can be calculated at all. For instance, the Halting problem cannot be solved by a Turing machine. (and, by extension, can't be solved by any other machine.)

The suffering is nothing more than the indicator.Without it we would not know there was damage to the body so this pain is a good thing, no?

No. It is a good thing in that it indicates that you're being damaged, but the fact that you can be damaged at all is not good.

(See all of Meow's comments about not stepping back far enough)

If we re-apply your formula In terms of survival of the species, the weeding out of the weak and vulnerable---via the same devices that cause damage to the body of the individual--- obviously suffering becomes a "good" thing.

You're right. If God values the species above the individual for whatever reason, the PoE disappears. However, most conceptions of God value the individual, so God should logically be helping the individuals survive -> preventing suffering.

No. Most of the suffering in the world that I see is self-inflicted, unnecessary, and poorly dealt with (mind you, I don't work in a hospital). I don't like watching any of that.

Maybe you should talk to Pakistan, where they're currently having a chlorea outbreak?

I enjoy the hell out of some of the benefits I've received from my own suffering. It would be a long list but at the top of it would be: "The realization that, one way or another, I can cope with just about anything that life wants to through at me".

But without suffering, there isn't anything to cope with.

 

[Willamena]

No Meows points do suffer because she is trying to create a fictitious imaginary world that doesn't exist.

It's called hypothetical.

There's nothing wrong with hypothetical, as long as it makes a your case --but since "God" is (amongst all things) every possibility, it doesn't make much sense to hypothesize "God". (Which is to say that, although there is the One God, there is not only one valid image of "God".)

 

[Willamena]

And all I'm asking is that someone explain, in objective terms, why suffering is bad.

Thing is, regardless that suffering is "objectively" or otherwise bad, if it is accepted by an individual as "bad," it makes for a sound argument.

 

[Quagmire]

Thing is, regardless that suffering is "objectively" or otherwise bad, if it is accepted by an individual as "bad," it makes for a sound argument.

No, it depends on what grounds it's being accepted on. "I don't like it" or any version thereof is an emotional response and shouldn't have any bearing on a logical argument.

 

[Quagmire]

You're right. If God values the species above the individual for whatever reason, the PoE disappears. However, most conceptions of God value the individual, so God should logically be helping the individuals survive -> preventing suffering.

Pain actually does help the individual survive: it teaches it to avoid potentially harmful situations. Again though, I don't think it's entirely accurate to talk about pain and suffering as if they were the same thing: suffering is more a reaction to pain.

Maybe you should talk to Pakistan, where they're currently having a chlorea outbreak?

I didn't say "all".

But without suffering, there isn't anything to cope with.

Exactly.

 

[Meow Mix]

No, it depends on what grounds it's being accepted on. "I don't like it" or any version thereof is an emotional response and shouldn't have any bearing on a logical argument.

Since suffering is a qualia though, all it really does take is for the experience to be regarded as negative.

Qualia are raw experiences; we don't have to justify their existence (though we can only be justified of them ourselves: for instance, there's no way for me to tell if my perception of "red" is the same as your perception of "red") but I can indeed build a logical argument around suffering being negative, since anyone who already holds that conception has no business rejecting the premise.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't regard the experience -- the direct qualia -- of suffering as positive, perhaps with some rare exceptions of sadomasochistic people or maybe CIPA patients (who experience pain differently, or not at all).

All that it takes for the PoE to work is for at least one person to experience the qualia of suffering negatively, because anything that willingly allows that (when it could be stopped) or created the capacity for it knowingly (negligently) would be malevolent.

A person might thoroughly love the experience of pain... say, a CIPA patient just loves the feeling of pain; they feel great pleasure instead of pain if they set their hand on a burner. (Let's forget the fact for now that CIPA patients do declare that they suffer for different reasons: the hardship of their condition). Such a CIPA patient can still make the PoE if someone, somewhere experiences suffering negatively.

 

[Quagmire]

Since suffering is a qualia though, all it really does take is for the experience to be regarded as negative.

Qualia are raw experiences; we don't have to justify their existence (though we can only be justified of them ourselves: for instance, there's no way for me to tell if my perception of "red" is the same as your perception of "red") but I can indeed build a logical argument around suffering being negative, since anyone who already holds that conception has no business rejecting the premise.

Thing is: the only thing that makes suffering negative is the fact that the person experiencing it doesn't like it.

Since the PoE concerns itself with the nature of God, trying to make any determination about His Nature, or trying to put forth any proposition about the way that reality should operate, or even proposing any alternative schematic for the experience of being human, based solely on our personal likes and dislikes is unreasonable.

We don't understand God
We don't understand the purpose of life (so assuming that comfort or happiness, ie., a suffering-free existence is the ideal and best fulfills this purpose is unreasonable and again based solely on our personal preferences)
We don't even come anywhere near fully understanding our own nature.

Considering all that and considering that we would have to understand all that in order to come up with a viable argument for classifying anything as ultimately good or bad (outside of our personal preferences and pragmatic social considerations) what is this part of the PoE---the implication that suffering is inherently "bad"--- based on?

Again: if we take "Because I don't like it" out of the mix, the person pointing to the PoE is still left with the burden of showing why suffering in and of itself is a "bad" thing, and therefore evidence of either a limited God or a malevolent (or at least an indifferent) one.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't regard the experience -- the direct qualia -- of suffering as positive, perhaps with some rare exceptions of sadomasochistic people or maybe CIPA patients (who experience pain differently, or not at all).

It wouldn't matter if there were unanimous agreement that suffering is a negative experience if that determination is based solely on "Because I don't like it".

The idea that life is supposed to operate in accordance with our likes and dislikes, and that anything that runs counter to these preferences is "bad", "shouldn't be", or evidence of some glitch in the system doesn't have any foundation, and yet in the PoE (and probably in most people's minds) it's taken as a given.

I'm saying: why should we take it as a given?

All that it takes for the PoE to work is for at least one person to experience the qualia of suffering negatively, because anything that willingly allows that (when it could be stopped) or created the capacity for it knowingly (negligently) would be malevolent.

I'm asking: from God's perspective (not ours) why should it be stopped?

A person might thoroughly love the experience of pain... say, a CIPA patient just loves the feeling of pain; they feel great pleasure instead of pain if they set their hand on a burner. (Let's forget the fact for now that CIPA patients do declare that they suffer for different reasons: the hardship of their condition). Such a CIPA patient can still make the PoE if someone, somewhere experiences suffering negatively.

Moot point: if they weren't experiencing suffering negatively it wouldn't be suffering.

So we're still left with, basically, "suffering is bad because it's suffering".

We would need to come up with something a little less circular in order to make the PoE work.

 

[Meow Mix]

We would need to come up with something a little less circular in order to make the PoE work.

No, the PoE works if suffering is perceived by anyone as negative. "Because it hurts" is totally legitimate for the PoE.

Why?

Because the trait of "benevolence" is understood as not causing the qualia of being "hurt" (suffering) in someone.

It's still true, even if suffering is subjective qualia, that if anyone perceives it negatively that the thing which allowed that to occur is not benevolent.

This is because of what benevolence is.

I get what you're saying -- I do -- about the subjective nature of experiencing qualia like suffering. But it still entails a logical contradiction to say that God is benevolent if He causes or allows suffering that is perceived negatively by even one person, because that is by definition NOT what benevolence is. See?

------------

Edit: Think of it like this. Let's say there's a leprechaun that has a supposed trait of "causes all things to appear green in all people."

If even one person subjectively experiences a color other than green, then we have a contradiction with the supposed trait "causes all things to appear green in ALL people," even though we're talking about a subjective qualia. It's still a logical argument.

 

[Quagmire]

No, the PoE works if suffering is perceived by anyone as negative. "Because it hurts" is totally legitimate for the PoE.

Why?

Because the trait of "benevolence" is understood as not causing the qualia of being "hurt" (suffering) in someone.

Understood by whom?

Considered such by most people, yes. That's not the same thing as "understood to be". "Understood to be" implies a consensus based on an objective consideration of facts, not emotions (preference).

It's still true, even if suffering is subjective qualia, that if anyone perceives it negatively that the thing which allowed that to occur is not benevolent.

In this case all negative implies is unpleasant.

You would need to explain why one person's experience of something as unpleasant would establish or determine intent and therefore character on behalf of the person/Being responsible for either causing or allowing the experience.

And bear in mind we're not talking about whatever situation causes the suffering, but the experience of suffering itself.

This is because of what benevolence is.

Explain to me exactly what you consider benevolence to be, because to me it sounds a lot more like you're talking about indulgence.

In many situations benevolence and indulgence present themselves as polar opposites.

I get what you're saying -- I do -- about the subjective nature of experiencing qualia like suffering. But it still entails a logical contradiction to say that God is benevolent if He causes or allows suffering that is perceived negatively by even one person, because that is by definition NOT what benevolence is. See?

Who's definition are we using?

I checked 3 different dictionaries + Wiki. All gave some version of this:

Benevolence–noun

1. desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures.

2. an act of kindness; a charitable gift.


------------
Aside from the fact that there's nothing in there about preventing anything...

"The desire to do good". Not the policy of only allowing persons under your charge to experience situations that feel good.

"An act of kindness; a charitable gift". In order to disqualify suffering as either of these you would have to be able to demonstrate that the ultimate outcome of suffering is always completely negative. That the experience itself is unpleasant is a given, but again, equating "unpleasant" to "wrong" or "bad" doesn't work.

And even if all we're going to take into consideration is the nature of the immediate experience itself, ie., the way it's perceived by the person experiencing it, you would still have to explain why experiencing something negative is fundamentally "bad", rather than just unpleasant.

The only way your explanation would work would be if we agreed to accept "unpleasant" as synonymous with "wrong".

In this case, all "negative experience" is saying is "it hurts", ie., that the person experiencing it is suffering.

Whether you realize it or not this is just another way of saying "suffering is bad because it's suffering".

Still circular.

In order for the PoE to work you would still need to explain why suffering, ie., experiencing something negatively, ie., unpleasantness, is inherently bad.

Edit: Think of it like this. Let's say there's a leprechaun that has a supposed trait of "causes all things to appear green in all people."

If even one person subjectively experiences a color other than green, then we have a contradiction with the supposed trait "causes all things to appear green in ALL people," even though we're talking about a subjective qualia. It's still a logical argument.

In order to apply your analogy to the PoE we would have to agree to consider benevolence to mean "causes all experiences to seem pleasant to the recipient". I don't see any logical reason to do that.

 

[Meow Mix]

Understood by whom?

Considered such by most people, yes. That's not the same thing as "understood to be". "Understood to be" implies a consensus based on an objective consideration of facts, not emotions (preference).

Then you are simply raising a semantical objection. If you don't believe that a benevolent being would prevent or stop suffering if possible then the PoE doesn't apply to you.

Benevolence, or omnibenevolence, or perfect goodness: the term has a different meaning than just acting benevolently part of the time. For instance Sauron behaved somewhat "benevolently" to the Black Numenoreans by offering them prestige and power, but Sauron is clearly a malevolent being because he causes suffering intentionally.

In the PoE, benevolence means something else: it's omnibenevolence, "all-goodness," meaning that an omnibenevolent being always acts morally perfectly: which ostensibly includes not causing suffering if it isn't required to do so, and preventing suffering from becoming possible. A carpenter that doesn't do a good job with a floor that could cave in is negligent but perhaps not malevolent since he might not have known what would happen: but an omniscient/omnipotent God knows every ramification of every action; so negligence on a God's behalf is malevolent if suffering follows.

Omnibenevolence is essentially the trait of being never-malevolent. If you disagree that God possesses this trait, then the PoE doesn't apply. I'm not sure why anyone would worship a malevolent deity though.

In this case all negative implies is unpleasant.

You would need to explain why one person's experience of something as unpleasant would establish or determine intent and therefore character on behalf of the person/Being responsible for either causing or allowing the experience.

By definition, an omnipotent/omniscient being would understand the full ramifications down to the most minute detail before ever even taking an action or even creating the universe. Such a being would know that doing things in a certain way would lead to suffering. If He had no other choice, then He is not malevolent -- but that's special pleading without justification, which no one has offered so far. If He did have a choice but chose to allow suffering anyway, or decided "not to worry about the details" or anything like that -- then He is negligent, and negligent omnipotent/omniscient beings are malevolent (refer to the carpenter analogy again).

And bear in mind we're not talking about whatever situation causes the suffering, but the experience of suffering itself.

Indeed, but as I said the experience being negative or undesirable or painful is all that it takes for the action to be malevolent if it's knowingly done and has no justification for having some other purpose.

Explain to me exactly what you consider benevolence to be,

Snipped the semantical bit since I addressed it above. In short, I should have been more clear that "benevolence" in the PoE is short for "omnibenevolence."

And even if all we're going to take into consideration is the nature of the immediate experience itself, ie., the way it's perceived by the person experiencing it, you would still have to explain why experiencing something negative is fundamentally "bad", rather than just unpleasant.

No I don't. Malevolence is pretty much defined as causing unpleasantness, pain, suffering, etc. in someone. It's a word that refers to the act of evoking subjective qualia of discomfort in someone. Therefore it doesn't matter if the experience of suffering is subjective, it's still a logical contradiction for an omnibenevolent being to be malevolent -- all it takes is ONE instance of someone experiencing suffering subjectively unpleasantly for whatever caused it to be a malevolent act (if there's no justification for it having a higher purpose).