Bad Things Happen to Good People (The Problem of Job)

[gruntingslime]

This isn't meant to be a religious discussion, though any opinion is of course welcome.

I was just wondering what some other people make of the idea wherein someone could be set upon by suffering throughout their life, regardless of moral character and also things like effort, learning and revision of approach to success.

I'm also not particularly referring to the life of suffering in something like the Buddhist sense where 'life is suffering' and it is something which must be overcome by everyone. I'm trying to contemplate the kind of situation where regardless of effort there would be failure, disillusionment, detestation among one's fellows, and all of that lovely kind of stuff.

Does anyone have any takes on this idea?

[cafolini]

This isn't meant to be a religious discussion, though any opinion is of course welcome.

I was just wondering what some other people make of the idea wherein someone could be set upon by suffering throughout their life, regardless of moral character and also things like effort, learning and revision of approach to success.

I'm also not particularly referring to the life of suffering in something like the Buddhist sense where 'life is suffering' and it is something which must be overcome by everyone. I'm trying to contemplate the kind of situation where regardless of effort there would be failure, disillusionment, detestation among one's fellows, and all of that lovely kind of stuff.

Does anyone have any takes on this idea?

Well, first lets set things straight. This is not a "lovely kind of stuff." But it is true that such is the situation in more than half the world. We are doing our best to find solutions. But it is a very difficult task because cultures have provided a setup that represses people and does not let them evolve. All we can do is fight it where it appears, usually in the form of terrorism, fascism, mass assasination, etc.
Although you might not like the idea of this being a religious discussion and I agree, most of the places where these situations occur are dominated by one or two religions that promote the form of repression. They will not win. Freedom will, but the process is arduous and long-lasting.
Regarding Buddhism, it has a lot to say that can help motivationally. Of course, peace against the opressors is not the solution because no matter how much you might recommend it, it will not work by miracle. But it is there to teach the individual about ways out of their personal situation in a way that can indeed be lovely. There is a lot to learn from Buddhism for the individual and his best. I am not a buddhist but it is highly reconizable as one of the fairest positions ever develop. It is theoretically a "lovely kind of stuff."

[gruntingslime]

Sorry if I offended you with my context-inappropriate sarcasm.

How I understood what you've said, if in dire circumstances a person should fight for all their worth to change their situation, and in such cases that this struggle would be unavailing would best look toward something like a Buddhist or Stoic philosophy and tend toward an acceptance of the way of the world?

[cafolini]

Sorry if I offended you with my context-inappropriate sarcasm.

How I understood what you've said, if in dire circumstances a person should fight for all their worth to change their situation, and in such cases that this struggle would be unavailing would best look toward something like a Buddhist or Stoic philosophy and tend toward an acceptance of the way of the world?

Okay. You are excused. I think that's the way you are. I didn't interpret any context-inappropriate sarcasm. Case closed.

[gruntingslime]

Not sure I understood that last post. Do you think that life, in such a case, is something merely to be endured?

[YesNo]

Do you think that life, in such a case, is something merely to be endured?
One thing to ask oneself first is whether one thinks the universe is friendly or not. In other words, is it a good thing that we're here?

If one says, "yes," to that, then one will look for a way to suffer appropriately likely with some religious understanding of suffering. Overall, if it is good that we are alive, then suffering can easily have meaning even if we end up dying in the process.

If one says, "no," to life, then suffering is something that is meaningless and one has to simply endure it stoically. It will be over shortly in any case.

The Buddhist view is somewhat in the middle as I currently understand it. Basically, I don't think Buddhists believe it is good to be in the world and yet suicide is not an option because you will just get reborn right back into the universe. It is like that Eagles' song, Hotel California: "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave." However, Buddhists think they have found a way to leave through Enlightenment.

Personally, I think "yes" is the correct answer to whether the universe is friendly or not. Because of that my view of suffering is more positive. Suffering is evidence that we have freedom to make mistakes and suffer the consequences. Suffering allows things to die so other things can live. And suffering allows us a motivation for compassion. All these are good things, as I see it. I suspect this is the conclusion Job came to as well.

[gruntingslime]

I don't think I'm ready at this point to decide whether the universe is friendly or not, or rather, I think that the answer of such a conclusion is something I am searching for.


Suffering is evidence that we have freedom to make mistakes and suffer the consequences. Suffering allows things to die so other things can live. And suffering allows us a motivation for compassion. All these are good things, as I see it.

I am just wondering if this idea of yours is something to be taken as universal. That is, would you say that a child born without resource to clean drinking water and without food to eat has made mistakes whose consequences must be suffered?

Would you say that it is right for chickens to be trapped in cages too small to move around throughout their lives so that we can live?

Do you really think it's right that any living creature would go through a life of torment so that we could feel content in having a sense of compassion towards them?

[YesNo]

I don't think I'm ready at this point to decide whether the universe is friendly or not, or rather, I think that the answer of such a conclusion is something I am searching for.
Moving the focus from the act of suffering itself to something else helps to clarify what is at stake.

When someone complains about suffering or wants to maximize pleasure over pain through some utilitarian ethics it becomes difficult to see what their underlying motivation is without asking other questions. It is too easy to get self-righteous about suffering, especially about other creatures' suffering, and miss the point of it.

A religiously neutral question is to point blank ask anyone fixated on suffering whether they believe their presence in the universe is a good thing or not. If I recall correctly, that is how God challenged Job, but I haven't read the story in a long time. By universe, I mean that space-time matter-energy reality we experience that quantum physics describes and that the big bang claims to have started 13.73 billion years ago. Is it good that we are experiencing it? Or not?



I am just wondering if this idea of yours is something to be taken as universal. That is, would you say that a child born without resource to clean drinking water and without food to eat has made mistakes whose consequences must be suffered?

Would you say that it is right for chickens to be trapped in cages too small to move around throughout their lives so that we can live?

Do you really think it's right that any living creature would go through a life of torment so that we could feel content in having a sense of compassion towards them?
Although I say "Yes, it is good that we are alive," I don't have any religious position to offer. Such religious positions might offer explanations involving reincarnation or an afterlife of some sort to compensate for any suffering that occurs. The most I know at the moment, and I might change my mind tomorrow, is that I am a generic "panentheist": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism I consider this a reasonable position to take in light of the evidence presented by 21st century science for the big bang and quantum physics. I also consider this a reasonable position to take in light of the evidence for near-death and shared-death experiences. That's about all I know at the moment.

As a tentative answer to your questions, I think suffering is universally good whether it is a child or a chicken. That does not mean that we should deliberately cause others pain or pleasure so they can suffer. There is plenty of suffering to go around.

[call12223]

The universe is simple a universe. It is not bad or good. The things just go through us. The main problem is that we can see only with our eyes and we can think only with our minds. This is why we search for good and bad. It is just it.

__________________
Similar movies (http://similarmovies.org/)
Franchising (http://www.franchisingcity.it/)
Bulgarian search engine (http://napred.bg/)
Salone*Franchising Milano November (http://www.salonefranchisingmilano.com/)

[YesNo]

The universe is simple a universe. It is not bad or good. The things just go through us. The main problem is that we can see only with our eyes and we can think only with our minds. This is why we search for good and bad. It is just it.
I think I agree with this.

There are a couple of things that 20th-21st century science have discovered about the universe that are crucial:

1) It had a beginning implying something caused it to exist.

2) The underlying quarks and leptons have an indeterminacy which voids any hope for deterministic materialism.

Calling the universe "good" or "bad" does presume one has some ethics upon which one knows what those terms mean.

If one restricts oneself to a utilitarian ethical perspective where good means whatever maximizes pleasure over pain, I think one would have to come to the conclusion that the universe is "bad". If the universe is bad, can we fix it? Or, assuming it can't be fixed, can we escape it by meditating ourselves to Enlightenment?

Or, one could do as I do and assume that the universe is "good" without really knowing what that means. It saves a lot of needless activity and I hope points me in a more realistic direction.

[gruntingslime]

I think I understand where you're coming from. But isn't there a certain degree to which our feelings/emotions will guide our behaviour, and in a great part our feelings will be determined, at least in part, by our understanding of a thing?

You finished your post by saying that accepting things as being good will allow you to move onto something more realistic. I believe in this statement there is a certain value judgement, along the lines of, this kind of searching may be nothing but a ring-around and we might best move on to something else. But does this not presuppose that something else would have inherently move value. How can we justify science if not to say it is geared toward a purpose? Or else to say it possesses some kind of value in that it should exist and we should pursue it, even if that value be that through new discoveries there could be concrete benefits to our lives or understanding, which in a sense is a utilitarian position. Or do you believe there is another reason for pursuits, or that there need not be reasoning at all? If not, then is there a reason necessarily why this particular pursuit of questioning should be held to another standard than other pursuits?

[YesNo]

You finished your post by saying that accepting things as being good will allow you to move onto something more realistic. I believe in this statement there is a certain value judgement, along the lines of, this kind of searching may be nothing but a ring-around and we might best move on to something else.
There's a risk that I may be wrong. I've changed my mind multiple times in my life.

I started reading Job and the commentaries in the Catholic Jerusalem Bible and the Jewish Study Bible to get some perspective on this story. The theme is about justice which challenges the goodness of the universe and/or Yahweh. This sort of justice is a kind of cause and effect or karma that doesn't seem to be working. Hinduism can always say that the punishment will come in some future life or that we are paying for our crimes in a previous life. For Job, there is only this life. He needs his reward or punishment now.

It makes me wonder to what extent one should expect justice or karma to be at work. Certainly at some level one can see how it seems to work, but I wonder if it matters that it works at all.

[togre]

There's a risk that I may be wrong. I've changed my mind multiple times in my life.

I started reading Job and the commentaries in the Catholic Jerusalem Bible and the Jewish Study Bible to get some perspective on this story. The theme is about justice which challenges the goodness of the universe and/or Yahweh. This sort of justice is a kind of cause and effect or karma that doesn't seem to be working. Hinduism can always say that the punishment will come in some future life or that we are paying for our crimes in a previous life. For Job, there is only this life. He needs his reward or punishment now.

It makes me wonder to what extent one should expect justice or karma to be at work. Certainly at some level one can see how it seems to work, but I wonder if it matters that it works at all.

Make sure you finish Job before drawing any conclusions. Many of the dialogues that Job's "friends" make are shown to be wrong, as are the conclusions he draws. Finally, how do reconcile the idea of Job only having this life with his own words, "I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes--I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!" (Job 19:25-27 NIV)?

I know the OP doesn't desire a religious discussion, so I limit my religious remarks to that.

I have tried to step outside my faith (even before this post) and asked myself, If I didn't know God, how would I understand/endure evil and suffering in the world? I haven't been able to answer. Compared to my ability to trust God in the face of suffering (which isn't the same as understanding) I find the alternatives very distressing to say the least.

[gruntingslime]

I definitely acknowledge the stance of religions, I was just hoping to keep this away from a debate on faith since I know that faith can step beyond the bounds of reason, but that's not to say I won't take it into account.

As to the question, does it matter whether karma is at work? That's something I'm going to have to think a little more about. I think any answer I give at this point would tend toward a contemplation of virtue/selfishness (and all of the thorny brambles which connect the two).

Thanks for the above comments for giving me much to think about. I feel I shall drift towards contemplation for a time.

[russellb]

I think one of the questions about life is the question of 'quality of life.' There is a difference between a young healthy person who is enjoying university and someone who's had a severe stroke and has 'locked in syndrome' (as there has been a case in the uk which was recently publicised)and whose main desire in life is assisted suicide (which the law prevents him from having) One of the questions that this raises is 'who may decide the value of life?' There are the factors of rationality and sound judgement but does it ultimately come down to the individual to decide whether, for want of a better way of putting it, life is worth it or not? This seems to make the value of life subjective but perhaps we can say there are conditions under which we would say it is 'reasonable' to judge life as worth it or no. And there may well be grey areas in deciding 'reasonableness' but less so i think with 'locked in' syndrome. Of course we might say it would be reasonable for someone to give up on valuing life even though they choose not to. Where we might say euthansaia would be justified a person might still want to carry on. I am sure the religous viewpoint is not a simple one but it occurs to me that if God has decided that life has an absolute value this negates any possible human judgement that says it has none. My own opinion is that there is such a thing as rational suicide or assisted dying and this is because it is rationally possible to judge that life has no value. There are people who say life has no value though and cognitive behavioral therapists seek to guide them through apparent errors in thinking. What i can say is that i have a friend who used to do all that and he said he always thought it was rubbish even though he was delivering it and now that he's depressed himself he sees it as worse than useless I think for what it's worth that life is good but i wont put my hand in a flame because i know that's not good. I'm not stupid and as john wayne wisely put it, 'life's tough but it's tougher when you're stupid.'

[YesNo]

More common than locked-in syndrome is old age in a nursing home where a wheel chair is needed to get around that one needs a nurse to push. At another extreme, but not uncommon, are people who habitually project their pain onto those around them in an abusive fashion. That might be considered a "locked-out" syndrome since they have no way to suffer their pain except to cause others pain. I will be at a funeral of one member of my family tomorrow who died from pneumonia after years in a nursing home and have to face the abuse of another who will unreservedly project pain onto everyone for this death.

I am beginning to see suffering as a set of skills that needs to be developed. One of the skills is an ability to pay attention to what we are suffering, to not project it onto others and to not despair.

Although suffering can be a feedback mechanism or karma, I would agree with Job that it also occurs without any justice. Karma, or any other deterministic explanation for suffering, is not the whole explanation.

One of the things that I reject about suffering is that it implies there is something wrong with the universe. Similarly in Job's case he questions whether Yahweh is on his side or not--or even more painfully whether Yahweh loves him or not. Ultimately, Job sides with Yahweh even when he doubts if Yahweh sides with him.

[Pierre Menard]

I think one of the biggest epiphanies you can have (or at least, I've had) is that moment when you realise that bad things can happen to good people and bad people can get away with good things. I don't remember when or what triggered it, but at some point, I just knew. And it changes the way you see things and view people and situations.

I still try to do the 'right' thing and live by my own moral code...but I know it's based on a shakier foundation. I end up doing the 'good' thing...'just cos.'

[mal4mac]

Basically, I don't think Buddhists believe it is good to be in the world and yet suicide is not an option because you will just get reborn right back into the universe.

Where do you get that idea from? The books I've read suggest that most Buddhists think it is a great thing to be reborn into this world because it's a part of the universe where you can do something about your situation. If you committed suicide there's a good chance you'd be reborn into a hell realm where you would suffer a lot more and not be able to do anything about it (even suicide would not be an option!) If you were born into a heavenly realm you'd be enjoying yourself too much to want to bother seeking enlightenment.

Try "Seeking the Heart of Wisdom" by Goldstein and Kornfield - which discusses this point well without getting too overtly religious...