By “suffering” I mean pain, whether physical or emotional.
By “evil” I mean moral evil, i.e., sin, wickedness.
It is important to keep these distinct. For one thing, not all suffering is evil – it was a good thing that my parents disciplined me, even though it hurt sometimes. In addition, while evil acts may cause suffering, a person can have evil thoughts without acting on them and thus there can be evil without (overt) suffering.
Because suffering and evil are two different things, the so-called “problem of evil”, a popular objection to theism, should be distinguished from the “problem of suffering”.
To appreciate the importance of the distinction, consider this claim attributed to Socrates:
Now, I think Socrates is right about this. Indeed, I think the Socratic principle is foundational to morality, as foundational as the Golden Rule.
The principle does, however, carries implications that will seem counterintuitive to many:
- It means that you should not do evil even if your own life is at stake.
- It means that the evil in the heart of the rapist, murderer, etc. are worse (objectively speaking) than the suffering of their victims.
- It means that natural disasters are not as bad (objectively speaking) as murder, rape, theft, hatred, envy, etc.
I think most of us don’t really believe Socrates. We are generally far too caught up in the affairs of this world – the sights and sounds, the hustle and bustle, etc. – to appreciate the depth and seriousness of our own evil. Suffering gets our attention, however. And so we tend to feel that the really bad stuff, the stuff that (if possible) ought to be fixed first in the world before anything else is the suffering that smacks us in the face. Evil, on the other hand, is mostly hidden in the recesses of the heart, where it is easily forgotten.
One’s attitude toward the Socratic principle is, I believe, a reflection of one’s operant worldview. If you accept a materialist or physicalist worldview according to which you just are your body (brain) and according to which the death of your body (brain) is the end of you, then it is natural (though perhaps not inevitable) to think that protecting and providing for your body/brain should be your highest priority. Socrates doesn’t believe that. He doesn’t think that you are your body. Rather, he believes that you are your soul and that you have a body. Consequently, he believes that it is very plausible to suppose that the death of your body will not be the end of you. From that perspective, Socrates’ principle makes good sense.
This yields a partial explanation of why atheists (who tend to be materialists) think that the problems of evil and suffering (especially suffering) are so bad that belief in an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God is just plain irrational, whereas, in contrast, theists tend to see evil as the main problem, not suffering. Suffering can be a bitch, to be sure, but from a theistic perspective that’s the symptom, not the disease. Nor is the death of my body the end. This life is only a way-station before moving to something different, and – if one humbly submits to God – better. So why get hung up over natural disasters and such? We should work hard to ameliorate suffering, but ultimately as a means to healing the soul.
This also yields a partial explanation of why atheists have often been charged with immorality. Clearly, the charge is not a fair one if left unqualified. Many atheists are decent, hard-working, upstanding citizens who would gladly help a neighbor in time of need. But if your worldview is exclusively centered on this world. And if you believe that this life is the only life you’ve got, then it’s hard to see why you should obey the demands of what we might call “higher morality” – especially when it might involve sacrificing your life. For example, if someone gives you a loaded gun and makes a credible threat to kill your family unless you shoot an innocent bystander, do you do it? Socrates would say absolutely not, even if it means your own death by slow torture. His worldview, and the theist’s, has a built-in rationale for such self-sacrificial behavior. I doubt, however, that the typical atheist’s worldview has enough resources to encourage sticking to moral principle under extreme situations.
If the choice is, “Become evil, or the innocent suffer,” might we ask whether it would be selfish to prefer my own non-evilness to the suffering of others?
Does that even make sense?
I suspect I may be confused.
I would replace “objectively speaking” with “morally speaking.” Objectively speaking, the suffering of a rape victim is worse than the suffering of the rapist. Clearly, morally speaking, the rapist is bad.
BDK,
A plausible suggestion. That gets me wondering if severity of suffering and extent of evil can be meaningfully compared on the same scale of values. Perhaps the two are incommensurable.
If so, then it would be incorrect for me to say either that the suffering is worse than the evil or vice-versa. If they are incommensurable, then they are just different.
I’ll have to think about that possibility further.
You wrote:
… if your worldview is exclusively centered on this world. And if you believe that this life is the only life you’ve got, then it’s hard to see why you should obey the demands of what we might call “higher morality” – especially when it might involve sacrificing your life. For example, if someone gives you a loaded gun and makes a credible threat to kill your family unless you shoot an innocent bystander, do you do it? Socrates would say absolutely not, even if it means your own death by slow torture. His worldview, and the theist’s, has a built-in rationale for such self-sacrificial behavior. I doubt, however, that the typical atheist’s worldview has enough resources to encourage sticking to moral principle under extreme situations.
Can you explain that, because I don’t see how both the theist and Socrates have the resources for explaining why you ought to stick to your moral principles in this situation. It seems if you point to considerations beyond this world (e.g., considerations having to do with divine punishment or reward), then the fact is that you have _not_ explained why you ought to stick to your moral principles. You have explained how prudence can make you act as if you are moral. These are two entirely different things.
Socrates can tell a story about why you ought to be moral that does not appeal to anything beyond the here and now. (Is it a good one? Well, that depends. I do not think that the story requires mind/body dualism as you suggest. If it turned out that you were annihilated when your body and soul separated, the value-theoretic claim that it is better not to be responsible for evil than suffer could still be true and it could still be that by doing evil you cannot know the kind of true happiness that comes with the possession of the moral virtues) It seems the atheist and theist alike are free to borrow it.