• Wallows
    10.1k
    Often in ethics and the philosophy of religion, we encounter circumstances where one can say that suffering imposed by God on human beings or animals is just. The rationale is pretty much in alignment with quietism with respect to the silence of God Himself.

    Yet, there's much to say about gratuitous suffering experienced by animals that live in some burning forest, where there's no escape.

    It's easy for us to spot that a fawn burning in some forest just doesn't make sense, as well as the pain and suffering, experienced by Jews during World War II. These are cases of gratuitous suffering or simply suffering that we cannot comprehend to what divine purpose they may have.

    In my early philosophic experience, I was introduced to the notion of gratuitous suffering as proof that either God doesn't meddle in our affairs, or simply doesn't care, or the worst-case scenario that God works in mysterious ways, to which no reply can be given and we default on some eclectic mix of esoterics and mystery.

    Anyway, my point is thus: If God will not reveal to us His plans, and gratuitous suffering exists, then are we morally obligated to act upon our sense of just or unjust suffering that other humans might experience? Does it mean that because God allows these things to happen, He leaves it to us to resolve?

    What do you think?
  • StreetlightX
    4.7k
    This discussion was merged into The burning fawn.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.