Special Pleading and the Problem of Evil

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This doesn't seem like it fits in with the PoE. In the PoE premises, God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being: such a being would be able to prevent this karma mechanism you speak of; and they would ostensibly be culpable for its existence in the first place.

Punishing an innocent for the action of another is not very benevolent, on top of that; so this would just worsen the PoE.

I've heard apologetics like you describe in the OP as well and I think you did a good job of unpacking just how absurd they are. A couple of other problems with these arguments have occurred to me:

1. I haven't met anyone who's ever been consistent about what's good and bad. People who argue that, say, killing kids with cancer is ultimately good in some way that isn't apparent (to use one example brought up in this thread) will generally also happily support treating kids' cancer and may even support cancer research.

Now... I'd much rather that people be kind and inconsistent than consistently cruel, but this behaviour is still inconsistent.

2. I don't think that any arguments about the harm of something being outweighed by some net benefit in the end are valid for an omnipotent god.

If we assume an omnipotent god - which the PoE does - then the god can achieve whatever positive outcome it wants without inflicting short term harm. Can God "test" us without giving a kid cancer? If God can do anything, then the answer is "yes" (since "testing someone without giving a kid cancer" is included in "anything").

This means that God's immediately harmful actions can't be excused by long-term good that might result from the harmful action. An omnipotent god could achieve the long-term good without the harm, so the long-term good can't be used to justify the harm.

 

[74x12]

This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent. But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable; so we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.

When you know someone and trust them you don't need their every action explained. They might appear to be doing something wrong from your perspective but you really know this person and you really know you can trust them.

That is not special pleading. I mean if you went around accusing everyone of special pleading just for trusting someone that they know is trustworthy; then you would be causing problems. You would be breaking up marriages and separating friends.

So my point is I think people who give this explanation for God's action or apparent lack of action are coming at this from a different perspective than you are. From your perspective it looks like special pleading because you don't have faith in God. But for someone who already does have faith it makes sense. They already trust God so they talk this way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When you know someone and trust them you don't need their every action explained. They might appear to be doing something wrong from your perspective but you really know this person and you really know you can trust them.

That is not special pleading. I mean if you went around accusing everyone of special pleading just for trusting someone that they know is trustworthy; then you would be causing problems. You would be breaking up marriages and separating friends.

So my point is I think people who give this explanation for God's action or apparent lack of action are coming at this from a different perspective than you are. From your perspective it looks like special pleading because you don't have faith in God. But for someone who already does have faith it makes sense. They already trust God so they talk this way.

In your analogy, the action that needs explaining is that your friend killed your kid.

At a certain point, a reasonable interpretation of the facts suggests that one's trust was misplaced.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, if I buy a gun and kill the first kid I see, I operated in the interest of a higher good?

ciao

- viole

Yes.

Either that or you managed to thwart God's holy plan, which would be quite a feat.

 

[74x12]

In your analogy, the action that needs explaining is that your friend killed your kid.

At a certain point, a reasonable interpretation of the facts suggests that one's trust was misplaced.

Alright that's an extreme example so I can come up with an extreme reason. Let's put ourselves in a zombie apocalypse. You see someone brutally murder your kid but come to find out later that your kid was already a zombie and they were just putting them down. I think they did you a favor by putting your kid to rest.

I'm not saying that kids with leukemia are zombies by the way. I'm just giving a hypothetical reason why your friend might kill your kid. Who knows what reason God has for some of the things God might do.

 

[an anarchist]

Not just tactless.

If we conclude that Tsunami's are some result of "bad karma" (actions of human beings deemed to be punishable offenses by some authority), then we must posit that there is some cognizant force (of "justice"?) in control of these natural forces, correct? Otherwise, a completely natural event that has ZERO correlation to any poor choices made by humans (for example, a volcano that was going to erupt anyway, rather than a tsunami that one might [barely] be able to argue could be a weather result caused by human's mistreatment of the environment) could not be considered a result of bad karma. A force or being with the power to enact the volcano, that is cognizant of human transgression, and gets involved based on judgment of this must necessarily be involved.

So, if we take that to be the case in ANY amount of seemingly natural occurrence (like volcanoes), and therefore deem the damage caused to be due to "bad karma" or "divine justice" of some form, then there is a basic problem with this method of doling out punishments or "lessons."

That problem is that the "punishment" is NOT AT ALL connected to the "crime." The being/mind/whatever that is willing to conduct things in this manner is demonstrably irrational. Without being informed what it is you have done wrong, and just receiving punishment without any idea of how to repair the situation is a just plain ridiculous situation to conceive of or force other unaware beings to adhere to. I don't think anyone could argue for that type of system as an appropriate or worthwhile way of conducting things and maintain any shred of a façade of intellectual responsibility.

I believe that the intensity/magnitude of such natural disasters is an indicator of how much negative karma we actually accumulate. It may seem inconceivable, but suppose that the amount of evil we as a species perpetuates is an inconceivable amount.
to hold this view, you have to have faith in some sort of God. Yes, I know we can observe how volcanoes naturally erupt, but because of my faith, I can believe this belief simultaneously. I personally see a connection.

 

[Truthseeker]

Today I'd like to address a particular response often given to the Problem of Evil: that God has a good reason for allowing evil to occur, even if we're don't know what that reason is. This theodicy usually looks something like this:



This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent. But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable; so we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.

There are two objections to note here. One comes in the form of a parody:

Say that an extraterrestrial lands on planet earth and blasts a bunch of people seemingly at random with a ray gun. Inexplicably, the extraterrestrial agrees to stand trial for its actions. "I am immensely more powerful and more intelligent than you are," ET says to the judge and to the people of Earth. "You cannot say that my actions were malevolent. I have benevolent reasons for them that you couldn't possibly understand."

Intuitively, is it the case that we are incapable of arriving to the conclusion that what ET did is malevolent in a reasonable fashion? They may be more powerful and more intelligent than humans, but it seems to me as though we are still behaving reasonably by concluding the actions were malevolent in the complete absence of any evidence they were benevolent. Do you agree?

The second objection is the consequence of allowing special pleading. Special pleading is a fallacy for a reason.

Let's say that our theodicist from the earlier conversation dies, and finds themselves in a throne room before God. God gets off His throne, whips out a holy flanged mace, and begins to mercilessly beat the everloving snot out of the theodicist.

"It's okay," the theodicist might think. "This is God, God is smarter and more powerful than me. I may not understand it, but God has a good, benevolent reason for doing this."

A day passes of beatings. A week. A month. "God must have a good reason for this," the theodicist continues to think. A year goes by. A decade. Millennia. Eons.

Is there ever a point where the theodicist can break out of their special pleading argument? Is there ever a stopping point where they may admit, "ok, maybe God is just malevolent?" No -- they can continue their special pleading argument infinitely. Can you see why that's a problem?

From the Baha'i Writings:

Thou hast written of the severe calamity that has befallen thee — the death of thy respected husband. That honorable personage has been so much subjected to the stress and pain of this world that his highest wish became deliverance from it. Such is this mortal abode — a storehouse of afflictions and suffering. It is negligence that binds man to it for no comfort can be secured by any soul in this world, from monarch down to the least subject. If once it should offer man a sweet cup, a hundred bitter ones will follow it and such is the condition of this world. The wise man therefore does not attach himself to this mortal life and does not depend upon it; even at some moments he eagerly wishes death that he may thereby be freed from these sorrows and afflictions. Thus it is seen that some, under extreme pressure of anguish, have committed suicide.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, "Bahá’í World Faith (‘Abdu’l-Bahá section)", 82.1

This is similar to Buddhists eliminating suffering by not being attached to this world. The argument from the Baha'i Faith is that suffering can cause a person because of the suffering to reach for the spiritual world, this ultimately bears fruit in the next world where being spiritual is only source of happiness. By being detached from this world, the amount of suffering lessens in this world. There is still some suffering but it is more on the surface. Underneath that spiritually grows.

For those who don't buy into there being spiritual world after death of course this will not convince them of anything.

Of course there is also some choice here in reaching for the spiritual world, I realize that.

 

[an anarchist]

What definition of 'negative karma' are you using?

I’m using my own definition I guess, just how I’ve come to understand it. Probably the Jain definition of karma is closest to what I mean. Jainism teaches that karma is a literal, physical substance. I believe all religions have parallel teachings on karma.

How is "negative karma" a cause of anything?

From a religious POV, it is the cause of everything. This isn’t something that one can show scientifically, but that’s where faith is important. I would say Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity have extended teachings towards this end. So having faith in these religions is important in holding this view. As it’s not scientifically showable

Are you?

I believe we all are. Might be a tough pill to swallow, that you have a direct role in causing all the suffering you see around you.

Do you intend to turn yourself in to the police?

I’ll fly like Bonnie and Clyde

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Alright that's an extreme example so I can come up with an extreme reason. Let's put ourselves in a zombie apocalypse.

No, let's not.

If you're going to try to justify what God supposedly does in the here-and-now, then let's stick to a situation that has at least some bearing on the here-and-now.

... though I do think it's telling that you had to come up with this contrived and extreme a scenario to find one where your God's purported acts might possibly be justified.

You see someone brutally murder your kid but come to find out later that your kid was already a zombie and they were just putting them down. I think they did you a favor by putting your kid to rest.

I'm not saying that kids with leukemia are zombies by the way. I'm just giving a hypothetical reason why your friend might kill your kid.

So you're saying that your analogy is useless for actually making your point?

Who knows what reason God has for some of the things God might do.

You know. You claim to, anyway.

You're the one arguing that God has a good, moral reason for every action he does.

Anyone who really thought "who knows what God's reasons could be?" would also think "who can tell whether God really is an evil, murderous monster?"

 

[idea]

This life is a test. If it was perfect, it would be no test.

Valid exams are given after adequate education. Unless everyone has the same educational resources, the test is flawed. It is not the students to blame, it is the teacher.

 

[idea]

At a certain point, a reasonable interpretation of the facts suggests that one's trust was misplaced.

There is faith.... and there is mis-placed faith. How many times through history have people mis-placed their faith?

"Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith."

 

[stvdv]

This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent. But in the case is God, a special case is made appealing to the fact that God is powerful and knowledgeable; so we can't conclude that God allowing the suffering is malevolent.

Erin: Why does child leukemia exist? Why doesn't your omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being prevent it?
1) God does not have the attribute of "omnibenevolent", so this whole reasoning makes no sense and is not correct

 

[blü 2]

I’m using my own definition I guess, just how I’ve come to understand it. Probably the Jain definition of karma is closest to what I mean. Jainism teaches that karma is a literal, physical substance. I believe all religions have parallel teachings on karma.

From a religious POV, it is the cause of everything. This isn’t something that one can show scientifically, but that’s where faith is important. I would say Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity have extended teachings towards this end. So having faith in these religions is important in holding this view. As it’s not scientifically showable

I believe we all are. Might be a tough pill to swallow, that you have a direct role in causing all the suffering you see around you.

I’ll fly like Bonnie and Clyde

Thanks for the clarification.

Since I'm a materialist, and like to reason from evidence, I don't think it's true. (Though as you said, democratically elected governments can do harm as well as good, and voters have a responsibility not all of them acknowledge.)

 

[alypius]

This is a form of special pleading: normally when we see someone allowing suffering, we conclude that they're malevolent or at least criminally negligent.

What about a parent who consents to having a child undergo painful but life-saving surgery which the child does not understand?

 

[74x12]

No, let's not.

If you're going to try to justify what God supposedly does in the here-and-now, then let's stick to a situation that has at least some bearing on the here-and-now.

... though I do think it's telling that you had to come up with this contrived and extreme a scenario to find one where your God's purported acts might possibly be justified.


So you're saying that your analogy is useless for actually making your point?


You know. You claim to, anyway.

You're the one arguing that God has a good, moral reason for every action he does.

Anyone who really thought "who knows what God's reasons could be?" would also think "who can tell whether God really is an evil, murderous monster?"

Look, you're either ignoring or missing the entire point of my original post. I don't feel the need to defend this strawman. I tried to make myself clear.

 

[Meow Mix]

There is a lot to respond to I’ll have to get back with. It’s pool shark night and there are fools and money to be parted from them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Look, you're either ignoring or missing the entire point of my original post. I don't feel the need to defend this strawman. I tried to make myself clear.

You said you trust God.

After other posters brought up the example of God killing children with cancer to "test" the child's parents, you said you trust that God is doing the right thing.

... by killing children.

Then, in order to have a context where this wouldn't be automatically monstrous, you created a fantasy about zombies.

As God kills children, you trust and don't question. You're sure that killing children must be for the best somehow.

Oh, I got your point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about a parent who consents to having a child undergo painful but life-saving surgery which the child does not understand?

Would this parent make the surgery painless if they had the power?

What would you think of a parent who had the option of painless surgery for their child, but chose the painful option instead?

 

[F1fan]

If it put you in your place you'd know it. Clearly it hasn't. Children's pain to test us? No problem. We all suffer. As children or as adults.

Indeed, as does all nature. We humans don't have as much a threat of being mauled by a bear or tiger and being eaten while still alive like our ancestors. Is nature moral as a creation?

My moral compass is Islam. We don't say it's good a child is ill, but we accept it is God's will and only God can cure him and if he dies it was God's will and we say, all praise and thanks belongs to God.

Well you really have no real choice but to accept what God does, because what power do you have, and why **** off God by challenging it's decision, right? So your moral and intellectual freedom is highly limited. Let's note that believers could be mistaken in their judgment a God exists, so it's quite a complex gamble.

Because a small child is often not very aware of religious matters and a lot of people assume children go to heaven (I don't know if that's true) while the parents might not.

Catholics decided Limbo existed and this is where the souls of children went, either heaven nor hell. Well that upset a lot of parents whose kids died, so the Catholics decided Limbo no longer existed. Religion operates to soothe the anxiety of tragedy despite the promise of protection and love by God.

Again, considering you haven't accepted the sign, it absurd of you to claim it too dramatic. Why God created us other than to worship Him, I don't know, but I'm happy to be here, aren't you?

Yes, we are more happy than the children who die after months of years of painful treatment of genetic diseases that medicine can't always cure. If you were God would you do this to children?

 

[F1fan]

You said you trust God.

After other posters brought up the example of God killing children with cancer to "test" the child's parents, you said you trust that God is doing the right thing.

... by killing children.

It makes me wonder why an all powerful God can only come up with this as a test. I'm not impressed, and morally disappointed.