Quote from: Spike... But I do not believe in Evil.  It doesn't exist. It is a failing of human thought processess to assume it does, unchallenged.  Suffering exists, certainly, but suffering is relative, even subjective...

I don't know what you mean when you state that 'suffering is relative, even subjective'.

While different things might cause suffering in different people (e.g. drinking coffee makes you wince, whereas I like it), suffering itself is quite 'objective'.  It's experiencing pain -- something that all higher animals (animals with a certain developed neurological structure) can, and frequently do, experience.

Moreover, certain things cause pain/suffering in pretty much all human beings, e.g. violent injuries, starvation, etc.  If you're not feeling pain, i.e. suffering, after not having eaten anything for five days, you've got a serious biological disorder (and are not likely to last much longer in any case).

Regarding 'evil', many people would simply define it as 'intentionally causing unnecessary suffering' (e.g. torturing small innocent children).

Quote from: SpikeMany times we ignore the bigger picture. The world exists in balance and humanity is not necessarily the ultimate benefactor of the world. We do not exist to be served by nature.

I don't know what you mean by the world existing 'in balance', but pain obviously plays an evolutionary role.  Animals developed a capacity for pain (feeling hunger, wounds, etc.); it helped them to survive.  

Of course, this doesn't mean that a lot of the pain that we suffer is in fact unnecessary.  Indeed, most isn't.  But that's just an unfortunate (indeed, tragic) side effect.

Quote from: Spike... Suffering drives us, pushes us to change, to grow to improve....

Sometimes, perhaps (although I think it is a lack of imagination to think that the world must be constituted in such a way that suffering is necessary to 'push us' on, i.e., that some other mechanism is not available).

But suffering also causes people ... agony, depression, etc.  Many people give up thanks to suffering.  Many people die.

This is especially the case where suffering is acute and widespread.  

If millions of people are suffing due to a massive famine or plague, it seems disgustingly smug to sit back and assert -- while children weep with swollen bellies -- that this is somehow going to 'drive them on' to future success.

Quote from: Spike...
Suffering is GOOD for us...

Maybe a little.  But I cannot imagine how anyone could seriously assert that a child dying painfully from cancer is 'good' for her -- or anyone else.

I already pointed out how the death of a child might be good for her and others.

Quote from: James McMurrayI already pointed out how the death of a child might be good for her and others.

Well, even if one granted that in some cases the painful death of an innocent child might be 'good' for her and others, I cannot comprehend how one could plausibly claim this about all painful deaths of innocents.

Or consider this: if an entire society is wiped out due to a painful, slow disease (or famine), what 'good' is realised?  For whom is it realised?

Dr. Pangloss is rightly mocked.

Perhaps that entire society performed some act through which their free will brought on their death. Or perhaps they were working off karma from another previous incarnation. Or maybe god needed the real estate.

How should I claim to know all the possible justifications for an infinite being I don't even believe in?

Quote from: James McMurrayPerhaps that entire society performed some act through which their free will brought on their death. Or perhaps they were working off karma from another previous incarnation. Or maybe god needed the real estate.

How should I claim to know all the possible justifications for an infinite being I don't even believe in?

I'm now confused as to what the point of this thread is.

I thought Spike was claiming that all suffering is necessary.  I noted that that claim strikes me as manifestly absurd.

Now I suppose that one could assume a Buddhist, Christian, or whatever perspective that would (if assumed!) render all suffering necessary.  

If that's the case, then I'm not sure what there is to discuss.  

You have some people who, on the basis of their religious faith, hold that all the horrible suffering and pain that has existed on the earth for countless millennia (including, of course, the suffering of animals for millions of years before the arrival of human beings) is necessary.  

And you have some people, who don't share those religious beliefs, who hold that a lot of the suffering and pain that has existed throughout the history of the world is unnecessary (even though the capacity for pain itself, and some suffering, enabled certain organisms to survive and reproduce, etc.).

What's left to debate? :confused:

Wouldn't the debate be between the ideas inherent in your second and third to last paragraphs?

Quote from: James McMurrayThis is just one of the many possibilities, but perhaps it saves her an assload of suffering later in life and shuffles her farther along the path to the rockin' grooviness that is Dougland. Meanwhile down on Earth the family finds a stronger bind between them and more internal strength as they cope both seperately and together with their loss.

Yes, sorry I didn't acknowledge this in the other thread did I?  You make a good point, one that I concede is a possible explanation but which on balance does not personally persuade me.

No problem. That's not the goal.

Suffering IS relative and subjective.  Look at it like this: The forest burns, the animals within that are burnt DO suffer, those that are displaced by the fire suffer less so.  

Yet, as the forestry service and various ecologists have become painfully more aware of, the forest fire was necessary to the overall health and livelihood of the forest itself.  the forest as a whole didn't 'SUFFER', so much as it went through a necessary cycle in its overall life. Animals return, are born and life continues, made better by the fire. Not by the suffering they expirenced, but the fire itself. This new life didn't suffer at all.

Relative and subjective based upon your scope.

But I'm feeling very inarticulate today for some reason...

Quote from: SpikeBut I'm feeling very inarticulate today for some reason...

I find it remarkable you can type with paws at all, I don't think my cats could.

Quote from: BalbinusI find it remarkable you can type with paws at all, I don't think my cats could.

Just so you know, I have it on very good authority that some primate types have decided we Pika's are actually... er... 'mouse types'.  Obviously much better than Cat types.:cool:

Evil is a label - generally - applied by others.

In reality...shit happens, the world turns, life - for most of us - goes on.

Quote from: SpikeSuffering IS relative and subjective.  Look at it like this: The forest burns, the animals within that are burnt DO suffer, those that are displaced by the fire suffer less so.  

Yet, as the forestry service and various ecologists have become painfully more aware of, the forest fire was necessary to the overall health and livelihood of the forest itself.  the forest as a whole didn't 'SUFFER', so much as it went through a necessary cycle in its overall life. Animals return, are born and life continues, made better by the fire. Not by the suffering they expirenced, but the fire itself. This new life didn't suffer at all.

Relative and subjective based upon your scope.

But I'm feeling very inarticulate today for some reason...

Nothing in what you're just written indicates that suffering is 'relative and subjective'.

It is an objective fact that the animals who burned to death in that forest experienced pain.  There's nothing 'subjective' or 'relative' about that!

The ecologists are using the term 'suffer' in an entirely different way -- they have a different concept in mind (something like 'ecological balance' or 'ecological wellbeing').  That is, they may as well be using a different word, as the concept they're referring to is entirely different from that of physical pain.  

The fact that the ecologists are referring to a different concept hardly makes the animals' pain a 'subjective' matter.