Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The quantity and distribution of suffering in the world vastly exceeds what any plausible greater-good justification could require.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
We lack access to God's full purposes; our inability to conceive a justification doesn't prove one doesn't exist.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Free will, moral development, and meaningful love arguably require risks of suffering that are difficult to quantify or minimize.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim's standard ('plausible') smuggles in assumptions about what counts as plausible to finite human reasoners.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Childhood cancer, predation, and natural disasters cause intense suffering disconnected from any moral agent's choices or growth.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The quantity of suffering (trillions of sentient beings experiencing pain) appears disproportionate to plausible educational or soul-making goods.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
An omnipotent being could achieve any legitimate greater good through less harmful means, making current suffering levels unnecessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42