Jamie_L

It sounds like a not-quite-religious topic, but it seems to come up a lot in religious/atheist discussions, so:

Often, developing virtue is used as an explanation for suffering in response to the Problem of Evil. How can there be courage if there is nothing to be courageous about? Well, even if we accept the concept that suffering is required to produce virtue, there's still a problem with this arguement.

Classifying "creating virtue" as a greater good than "reducing suffering" assumes that we value virtue in and of itself. Otherwise, we wouldn't care if there could be no courage. The more I think about it, the more I feel human beings really don't value virtues like courage in and of themselves. I'm pretty sure I don't. Virtues are valued because their existence among humans decreases human suffering. I.E., virtues are a means to reduce suffering.

So, to say that we need suffering to create virtue is putting things backwards. Think about it. Are people pleased when a hurricane strikes? Do they think to themselves, "what a great opportunity to increase the virtue in the world?" Do they think likewise when someone dies of cancer? Would a parent rather have a courageous daughter living a hard life fighting a dibilitating disease, or would they rather have a daughter who's a bit cowardly, but who isn't wracked with pain or in fear of dying?

I'd take a world with less suffering and less virtue any day. So, it hardly seems benevolent to inflict suffering on us just for the opportunity of a little virtue.

Thoughts?

Jamie

Biff the unclean

I think we have to turn to Darwin on this question.
There is good reason to believe that pre & early human society was very similar to that of present day low land gorillas. Their social groups center around Alpha Males. All the qualities that we modern day humans consider to be virtues are the same qualities take make an Alpha Male Gorilla effective in insuring the survival of the group. And that is really all an Alpha is--a Darwinian survival adaptation.
Since it is safer for the individuals of a troop to remain with each other (safety in numbers) the central Silverback has evolved qualities, both physical and social, that attract the rest of us. You'll notice this in elections as well as gorilla troops.
The most important job that silverbacks have for the safety of the troop is also what we consider the highest virtue…they die as a sacrifice so that the others might live. When a gorilla troop is being attacked they will all run. Usually they will be lead away from the danger by a Beta male. The Alpha silverback will not run. He will stay and do whatever he can to keep the attacker from reaching his troop. He will not run until he is sure that the group is safe. If this means that he will be killed he will stay and die rather than let harm reach his troop. His death allows his genes to survive and is why this behavior evolved.
You consider "virtue" to be a good thing because you are a primate and it's in your genes.

Ojuice5001

Two reasons I would say:

1. There's a school of thought that says that there is a superior kind of happiness that comes from virtue, and an inferior kind that comes from a life with little suffering. Believers in this doctrine think it's true for everyone; I think it's true for some people but not for others. Whatever someone thinks promotes happiness for people in general, they're almost always right about themselves, but not necessarily other people. I will say, though, that people whose happiness comes from virtue avoid the pitfall of boredom more easily than other people. I, however, am much less easily bored than other people without being especially virtuous.

2. You have to remember that the creators of a religion, human and divine, are speaking to the lowest common denominator. (And then it trickles up into educated theology.) Teaching people that virtue is the most important thing can reduce suffering more effectively than telling them directly to reduce suffering.

Pyrrho

I basically agree with what you are saying, but there is more wrong with the idea that we need suffering in order to develop "virtue" as an explanation for why god allows it.

First, it means that god isn't omnipotent, because he is unable to just directly create the relevant virtues in us. (Remember, god is supposedly able to create things from nothing, like the universe itself.) Or, if he were able to do so, then he would be allowing unnecessary evil to develop these virtues when he did not need to do so, and therefore not be all good.

Second, it means that god must lack those virtues that are supposedly important for us. God cannot be "courageous" if he is invincible; his lack of fear is due to a lack of anything that can harm him, and if it is necessary to have such experiences in order to have such virtues, then god necessarily lacks those virtues that are supposedly good.

Third, if bad things happening creates virtue, then it would seem that we not only should allow bad things to happen, but should actively create more bad situations, so that more virtue can be developed. If I go around starting fires, so that buildings with children in them go up in smoke, I will be giving all of you the opportunity to develop your courage and attempt to rescue them. I should get a medal for creating a situation in which you can become more virtuous! This, of course, is absurd.*

Fourth, bad things happening do not, as a matter of fact, always result in virtues being developed; many times, vices are developed instead. Consider, for example, the fact that many people will trample others to death in an attempt to get out of a burning building; the "opportunity" to develop virtue may be equally accurately described as an opportunity to become worse. In other words, it is just as likely that a completely evil being runs the universe, and uses disasters in order to create moral degeneracy in people. Sure, some people rise to the occasion and become better, but that must be allowed in order to have people freely commit evil actions, and develop true moral degeneracy.*

*The third and fourth reasons are derived from B.C. Johnson in The Atheist Debater's Handbook.

long winded fool

Isn't suffering, or evil, traditionally considered a human mistake? (Sin?) Wouldn't virtues like courage be more like an attonement for our mistakes? Ideally, as Pyrrho points out, courage wouldn't exist because bad things wouldn't exist. "Virtue" is merely the correct response to incorrect stimuli (sin,) according to Biblical tradition as I understand it. (If evil results from sin.) I agree with Jamie_L in that virtues aren't good in themselves. They are good because they represent awareness of mistakes. Without sin, there would be no virtue, and a sinless universe is a good thing. Why then did it go bad if it was created by an all-good deity? Because humans were given the freedom to make it go bad if they so chose. Why were they given this freedom? Because without it, love can't exist, (assuming forced or programmed love isn't true love, and assuming "bad" is the freely chosen rejection of love.) According to biblical tradition, God created humans "in His own image" and capable of love. Therefore, if we follow the argument back logically, evil must exist and virtue consequently must exist and, solely as it applies to the perception and elimination of evil, it is a good thing. To have no need of virtue, of course, would be a better thing, but since evil exists, we need virtue. Suffering isn't good, but the ability for it to exist is necessary for free will, and therefore love, and so an all-loving, all-good God would logically allow it to occur.

This seems like a reasonable theistic apology to me.

Luiseach

But not all 'evils' can be attributed to errors of the human will...

There are so-called 'natural evils' (such as earthquakes, diseases, tornadoes, etc.)...how do we explain such sources of suffering within the theistic paradigm?

Or, to put it another way, where does virtue come in when considering a devastating earthquake or volcanic eruption?

Jamie_L

I agree with Luiseach WRT long winded fool's apology.

It sounds good to say all suffering is attributed to human failings, but this doesn't really fly. This universe could involve much less suffering without any reduction in human free will (if such a thing exists). One could argue that free will is required for love. Saying that all suffering that exists now is required for love is not the same thing. At the very least, it requres a more extensive apology to explain why the universe itself seems to cause all kinds of suffering independent of human will.

The apology that I've often encountered is the one I allude to in the OP: other suffering is necessary to increase human virtue. The implication being virtue is more important that freedom from suffering.

Another interesting side note: If free will is necessary for love. And if free will necessarily results in failure and imperfection. And if God has is capable of love. Then God must have free will. And God must have failings and be imperfect. This apology links love to imperfection. If this is true, how can God love?

Jamie

long winded fool

This is a good point. But the apology would seem to be that not all suffering is evil. Even if not all suffering is attributed to sin, all evil is. The suffering that results from human evils would be logically necessary. The suffering that results from natural cause and effect might just be a teaching tool. If it doesn't occur from sin, it is not evil because evil supposedly is inextricably linked to sin. If it is not evil then it is good (assuming good and evil are the only two possibilities, i.e. acceptance or rejection of "God," whatever that is.) Because we don't like it doesn't necessarily mean that it should not exist. Biblically speaking, suffering and death are things to be avoided if possible, however they aren't inherently evil. From this point of view, they can be considered good things in the sense that they are necessary to progress in life, (physical and spiritual.) They become bad only when they are used improperly. They are painful regardless. Evil only exists so long as the freedom to reject good exists. Other things might be painful, but they are not evil. At least this was my understanding of the Bible.

Virtue isn't more important than freedom from suffering because virtue seems to be defined by the alleviation of suffering in some way. It's always "for the greater good" and the greater good seems to be the releif of someone's suffering. You argue that perhaps free will is required for love but suffering isn't. I argue that suffering is required for free will. I don't agree that there could be less suffering in the world and we could still have exactly the same ammount of free will. I think this is a slippery slope. Whenever you manipulate the consequences of an action in any way you change the structure of the entire transaction. It eventually comes back to the desire for God to say, "You have the freedom to do anything you want, because everything you want must always be A,"(A, of course being "good," or "perfect," or "pleasant" or "what God wants.") This eliminates a human's ability to reject this level of goodness, thus eliminating free will to be bad, thus refuting God's all loving nature. (Since love can't be forced.) As long as there is the possiblility of choosing evil, whatever the consequences are that tell us what evil is must exist. Since some kind of not-ok feeling (suffering/unpleasantness/boredom) seems to be required for all human transaction, the state of being not-ok must exist. No matter what this feels like, any being will identify it in its worst form as suffering. You cannot eliminate the "worst form" because whatever is left will become the worst form and therefore become suffering. If the only bad thing that ever happened was spilled ice-cream, wouldn't humans wonder why an all loving God would allow them to spill their ice-cream and "suffer?"

To put it simply: If an all-good God protected innocent children from rape and murder, why wouldn't he protect me from spilling my ice-cream? The subjective human value judgements on these two things would be irrelevant. Since suffering and death are not evils in themselves according to the Bible, logically they could exist under an all-loving deity. Since the ability to choose evil and to inflict a not-ok feeling onto another person is necessary to say that we truly have free will, and since physical death seems to be currently necessary to go to heaven, suffering and death would logically exist under an all-loving deity.


An interesting point. Free will wouldn't necessarily result in failure and imperfection. The fact is that it does without exception, not that it logically must. (Again, arguing from the theistic apologist stance here.) What must be the case is the possibility for evil. (Or just the ability to reject God/good.) Couldn't one have the ability to choose evil, yet never choose it? Evil doesn't necessarily have to be present, it just has to be accessible. The potential for evil is what is necessary. Humans could theoretically eliminate all evil and still have free will, but this must be a choice, not a divine edict, for the free will label to apply. (i.e. Humans can eliminate evil with their free will, but an all-loving God can't without compromising His all-loving nature.) Therefore, while it is difficult to imagine from a human perspective, God could have free will and never fail to be all-good and all-loving. Therefore love is not necessarily linked to imperfection. This is similar to God being "virtueless." Only those who experience suffering can have virtue, but love can theoretically exist without it. It just doesn't on a human level because all humans freely choose bad over good at some point.

So suffering is necessary for virtue, but virtue is a by-product of free will. The possibility of suffering resulting from evil is necessary for human free will. Suffering can be eliminated, but only by those who choose to eliminate it. As long as one being with free will chooses evil, evil must exist for God to truly be all-loving.

kctan

A person can have virtue without suffering. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to look beyond the western idea of god & salvation.

Virtue is not a by product of free-will. It's a product of our mind when we judge others & their actions.

Suffering is just a state of the mind, if you think you're suffering then you're.

long winded fool

How can virtue exist without suffering? What does salvation and the western god have to do with it? I agree that suffering is a state of the mind. It is the feeling of being not-ok, usually at a very intense level. This feeling is absolutely essential for virtue to exist. You don't need to be currently suffering to have virtue, but one must be aware of the existence of suffering. If there were no not-ok feelings, then there could be no courage or self-sacrifice or tolerance or self control or justice or patience or forgiveness or humility or honesty or mercy... etc. Again, the person exhibiting these virtues need not be currently suffering, but suffering must exist and he or she must be aware of it.