Swinburne's soul-making theodicy grounds this: a world with genuine moral development is better than one without, and such development metaphysically requires the possibility of suffering.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Genuine moral development(as the goal that Swinburne claims justifies suffering): Real, meaningful growth in a person's character and ability to make good ethical choices, as opposed to superficial or forced improvement.
Metaphysically requires(as describing the relationship between suffering and moral development): Means something is necessary at the deepest level of reality—it's not just practically needed, but genuinely cannot exist without it.
Possibility of suffering(as the condition Swinburne argues is required for moral growth): The potential for pain, hardship, or negative experiences to exist in the world—not necessarily that suffering always happens, but that it could happen.
Soul-making theodicy(the specific theory being critiqued in the statement): A philosophical explanation for why suffering exists that argues God allows pain and hardship because going through difficulties helps people develop morally and spiritually—like how muscles grow stronger through exercise.
Swinburne(in philosophy of religion): Richard Swinburne, a famous British philosopher who wrote about God, religion, and the problem of evil—he argued that God's existence can be rationally defended despite the existence of evil in the world.
theodicy(Central concern of Plutarch's era): The philosophical problem of reconciling the existence of evil and unpunished wrongdoing with the existence and goodness of divine providence.

1 topic