I agree with the basic logical argument of the “Soul-Making” defense described before. I think it is very true that pain and suffering is necessary for us to develop good characters as we discussed previously. Difficult times also help us appreciate more about what we have. Are we grateful for having enough food on the table? I think we would appreciate more if we have experienced a time when there is no food on the table while we are hungry.
However, does that justify our merciful God to allow pain and suffering to enter our lives? Can we accept the fact that the Creator of this universe as well as our own lives, has the right to make us suffer in order to help us develop mature characters? I think in principle the Creator of everything has the right to do anything on His creation. Yet can we still believe that the Creator loves us?
There seems to be a kind of dilemma appear here. A God who loves us should not make us suffer. However, He wants us to be mature with great moral characters. Therefore, He let pain and suffering enter our lives, because without pain and suffering we just cannot develop good moral characters. Does that sound reasonable?
I think even though it may not sound as totally unreasonable, it is not acceptable emotionally. Hurricane Helene killed more than 200 people in October of 2024. Can someone dare to go to one of the funerals of the victims of the hurricane and tell his or her family that the pain they are going through is to help them grow into maturity? I would be kicked out of the funeral if I dare to say that!
Another obvious question to the Soul-Making defense applied to the above situation is: how can such tragedy help the people grow into maturity if they were already killed by the Hurricane? It will be unfair to them if their suffering can help the others but not themselves.
There is another aspect of the Soul-Making argument that we now turn to. As mentioned in the previous post, the Soul-Making argument implies that the suffering that a person or a group of persons experience could eventually bring up a “greater good”. This “greater good” could be the moral characters that the person develops because of the suffering, or there may be some other “greater good” that is not seen or felt at the moment.
Some people argue that there could be suffering that can be truly “gratuitous”, that is, it has no purpose at all. An example of a “gratuitous evil” could be the following: a fawn suffers badly for several days after being burned in a forest fire caused by lightning.
Can we imagine that some “greater good” is simply unachievable without the poor fawn’s suffering? The fawn could die after its suffering without being noticed by anyone, and so its suffering and death cannot help anyone develop any characters. What other “greater good” can be achieved by the fawn’s suffering? Is it simply “none”?
Comments