Don't protest that something should not be, or it is for the best

I've read a lot of books in my seven decades or so of avid reading.

What I've learned is that sometimes a book is worth reading for a single memorable thought that sticks in the mind long after the rest of the book has been forgotten.

I feel this happening with a sentence that keeps popping up in my psyche several days after I came across it in "Life is Hard," by Kieran Setiya, a philosopher who teaches at MIT. I've boldfaced the sentence below, placing it in the context of where it appears in Setiya's book.

Here it is by itself in all its thought-provoking glory.

Religious or not, we conjure the problem of evil whenever we protest that something should not be; and we engage in something like theodicy when we say it's for the best.

Here's an experience you may have had. You tell a friend about a problem you are coping with, maybe a blowup at work or in a close relationship, a health scare that has you rattled. They are quick to reassure you -- "Don't worry; it will all be fine!" -- or to offer you advice.

But their response is not consoling. Instead, it feels like disavowal: a refusal to acknowledge what you're going through. What we learn in moments like these is that assurance and advice can operate as denial.

Worse than denial, even, is the urge to justify human suffering. "Everything happens for a reason" -- except, of course, it doesn't. Philosophers have a word, "theodicy," for an argument that vindicates the ways of God to man.

Theodicies address the problem of evil: if God is omnipotent and benevolent, what accounts for the manifold evils of the world? 

But theodicy has a life of its own, outside of narrowly theistic or doctrinal contexts. Religious or not, we conjure the problem of evil whenever we protest that something should not be; and we engage in something like theodicy when we say it's for the best.

The problem with theodicy is not just intellectual -- none of the arguments work -- but ethical, too. It's wrong to justify your own or others' suffering, to mute pity or protest in that way. 

I find this sentence amazingly brilliant and well-said. It shows the value of having a philosopher take on the problem of living as well as possible in a world filled with suffering of many varieties.

Every day, many times a day in fact, I protest that something should not be.

When the sciatica in my right leg is more painful than usual. When our dog won't come when I call her. When Putin fires missiles at Ukraine apartment buildings, killing innocent civilians. When I'm late for my Tai Chi class and can't find a nearby parking space.

I'd never thought that I was conjuring the problem of evil when I do this. But it makes sense. After all, evil is viewed as the presence of something horrible that shouldn't be. In the paragraph above, that would be Putin wantonly killing Ukrainians who have no connection to the military.

Yet I think Setiya is correct that the conjuring of evil occurs when we protest that anything should not be.

After all, what exists is a fact. We may not like that it exists. We may want to work to stop it from existing. However, Setiya correctly says in his book that "We have to live in the world as it is, not the world as we wish it would be."

Evil is a creation of the human mind. I use the word occasionally. From now on I'm going to try to use it less often, because it serves no real purpose. What Putin is doing to the Ukrainian people isn't evil; it is terribly wrong. 

Evil demands an explanation for its existence. But we conjure it into existence by viewing evil as something substantively real, often supernaturally real. Dealing with serious problems can happen just as easily without bringing evil into it. 

Politicians like to use the term "evildoers" to justify harsh reactions, as was the case after 9/11. Why not just call them terrorists or extremists? 

More broadly and personally, why do I need to tell myself that such-and-such shouldn't be in my life, when it so obviously is? I can dislike what is happening to me without feeling that its very existence is a mistake.

What is real never is a mistake. It is simply reality. If I don't like the pain in my leg, I can try to lessen the pain. But I gain nothing by complaining to myself that the pain shouldn't be, since it clearly is.

Regarding theodicy, which Setiya defines as vindicating the ways of God to man, I also agree with him that we engage in a secular version of theodicy when we say something is for the best. No, it is just a thing. It is just what is.

The sciatica in my right leg isn't for the best. There's no outside message being communicated to me when I feel that pain. Sure, I've learned some things from the pain, like having the fortitude to ignore it as much as possible for the 75 minutes or so of a Tai Chi class. 

However, this is different than viewing something disagreeable as being for the best, as if there's a Cosmic Teacher who gives us suffering to convey a life lesson. That's absurd, and as Setiya says, "It's wrong to justify your own or others' suffering, to mute pity or protest in that way."

Suffering is simply suffering.

If we find meaning in our suffering, that's our business, and our creation. But to tell someone that they should look upon their suffering as being justified either by God's will or some human rationalization, that's cruel and wrong.

Comments

[Appreciative Reader]

Heh, I haven't actually read that famous RSSB book of yours, Brian; but the fact of the matter is that life is NOT (intrinsically) fair. Fairness is a human concept, and life is simply what it is. Life per se is neither intrinsically fair, as some of us fervently imagine it is; and nor is it intrinsically unfair, as some cynics might believe it is. Life is simply what it is.

But of course, we humans are free to fashion our lives and affairs and institutions in such a way that life does, in a purely human sense, become more fair. To that extent, ironically, it is the belief that life is intrinsically fair that keeps people from actually making life fair for people in general; and it is a clear recognition that life is not fair (or good, or "the best of all possible worlds", or overseen by a kind and just God, or whatever) that opens the way to actually making life fair for people, in a purely human sense and when it comes to human affairs and human interactions and human institutions.

[Appreciative Reader]

Actually, thinking about this, what this is about is not necessarily fair and unfair per se, at least not in general. It is more about order, and about control by understanding the nature of the ordering.

It is utterly, completely frustrating, and terrifying, and extremely disheartening, to live in a world driven by main chance, and random events. Add to that that we humans have evolved to be pattern-seeking creatures, and what you end up with is us finding faces in clouds, and baby Jesus in omelets, and our fortunes foretold in tea leaves and in astrological constellations and in the lines on our palms. Given that backdrop, and given an age when empricism and specifically science had not yet been invented --- which is to say all of our history bar the last few hundred years --- and I'd say that the Karma theory, that Brian's book is about (qualification, repeat: I haven't actually read it!) is actually a brilliant construction. It is far more sophisticated than the brutish Commandments, or other similar claptrap. And it kind of sort of rings true, given belief in reincarnation and what not. And really, before science was invented, what grounds would anyone actually have to reject such a brilliant, well-ordered, and, yes, such a MORAL piece of ...deduction, constructiojn, call it what you will? It's one fatal flaw, the Karma theory I mean to say, is that it is plain wrong; but before science was invented, how in the world would anyone know that?

So that, I don't blame the people of the past for having come out with this ...thing, this Karma theory. Unlike the Commandments thing, this isn't flat-out lying, after all, just brilliant deduction gone wrong, a matter of ascribing an admirable morality but ascribing it where it does not actually belong, ascribing it wrongly.

It's just that today, standing where we do, there's absolutely no way, and really, no excuse, to continue to believe in this sort of claptrap.

Life is still fair, in the sense that it is indeed not without order and not without "rules". Gravity, for instance; and the germ theory, and viruses, and vaccines. Science, in other words. We do need to know what the ordering actually is, and to live in consonance with that order, in order to live our lives well, or at any rate as well as might be possible ---- haha, much like our ancestors (as well as our more superstitious and more dense brethren even today) sought to divine the will of God and the laws of karma et cetera, and to live in consonance with that will and those laws et cetera. To that extent, life is indeed fair, I suppose, for one definition of "fair", that is to say.

------

(By the way, Brian, I realize your article isn't about Karma per se, that is a subject related only somewhat incidentally to what you've been saying and quoting here. But somehow I've ended up focusing on that part of it in my reflections and my comments, perhaps given your book and all, I don't know.)

[Ranvir]

Life is hard and definitely there's allot of suffering if you make the wrong choices in life be they in a conscious or unconscious state ( half a sleep). This is what has happened to millions of sangat who have been promised heaven in there afterlife provided they worship a living self made master , who they make the lord of their soul and surrender everything for. These poor sangat have inadvertently sold their soul for a life of suffering and a dog's life. A life where they loose all and the clown master gains everything. Gurinder singh dhillon has been able to fool millions of guilable sangat because they simply follow the crowd and stupidly did no research especially considering everything is on Google these days. Gurinder your days are numbered, and the truth is coming out. Your swindled billions will be no good when the sangat wake and find out they been had by a crook, a pervert, and narsisst who is having a time of his life at their expense.