Why do bad things happen to good people?

[Spensed]

^As you correctly remind us The Fatalist would have us bend the knee before the likes of Hitler, and other barbaric creatures when stating that "things happen."

Things happen, when we allow them.

Not a particulary satisfactory or accurate summation. Some things, good and bad, happen whether we allow them or not.

In theological terms, unjustified good things are a function of grace and permit spiritual and other break throughs.

Unjustified bad things are just that. I don't think one needs to give God a pass for them as being part of some divine mystery. They can be terrible and inexplicable. But it is true that there is an element of choice in one's attitude to them and great virtue can flow from great evil. And it is also true that we don't have anything like the full picture.

So the summary, if there is to be one, is more that things happen, whether we allow them or not and for reasons that we don't know, but, to say the obvious, how we respond them is our choice.

 

[kallipolis]

Unjustified bad things are just that. I don't think one needs to give God a pass for them as being part of some divine mystery. They can be terrible and inexplicable. But it is true that there is an element of choice in one's attitude to them and great virtue can flow from great evil. And it is also true that we don't have anything like the full picture.

Great virtue can flow from great evil. Really? How so?

 

[FirmaFan]

^Not just an easy answer if you ask me, but a rotten one to boot.

Things happen: a child gleaner lives his whole life of eight years in a garbage dump, only to be buried alive in an avalanche of debris.

Things happen: Dad spoke up to Caligula, so he executed him, and then Mom and my two older siblings before my eyes. When someone in the crowd protested my own impending execution on grounds of my virginity, Caligula ordered my rape before I was choked to death.

Things happen: a thief is burned alive by a crowd on a public street with gasoline, the shame of his death hidden beneath what random trash is easily piled on top of his final agony.

Things happen: women raped, children starved, innocents imprisoned, black people hung, intellectuals exiled, tongues cut off, skin peeled, torture, mayhem, madness, buried beneath tumbled walls, fed to insects, lost, cold, isolated, imprisoned, dehumanized, denied. Left for disease, rot and agony.

To hell with your "things happen."

What was the point of telling me all of this? My response was not to say that simply because "things happen" that we should idly allow horrible events to occur, or to say that we should be accepting of them (i.e. - saying things like "it's part of god's plan" - sickening!), my response was addressing the cliched pondering of "why bad things happen to good people" because such a question implies that some cosmic justice is required, when, in reality, the universe is nothing but completely indifferent to our existence, and to think otherwise is the height of arrogance. Such events, as the ones that you describe, do indeed occur. As humans, we can recognize good vs. bad, and, I would hope, attempt to avoid such instances, but when occurrences do place people we would describe as "good" in situations and circumstances we would describe as "bad", to plead to the sky for an answer as to why it was allowed to happen, utter silence from the universe will be the only response.

 

[TX-Beau]

Plus the question completely and comprehensively ignores that good things also happen to very same good people plagued by the bad apparently, and bad things also happen to bad people.

Good and bad things happen to everyone. Why is this surprising in the first place?

What cosmic consequence do we apply to the fact that everyone has good and bad things happen? What does that have to do with the relative goodness or badness of people, or the fact that good and bad people also happen to good and bad people.

The whole assumption behind the question is fucking puerile.

 

[Spensed]

Great virtue can flow from great evil. Really? How so?

I am not promoting evil as a means to virtue. But much harm leads to healing. Oppression produces bravery, self-sacrifice and survival and so on.

My point is, as others have indicated, that bad and good things happen to bad and good people for reasons no one can fathom and to assert, or suggest, that this is somehow within anyone's control beyond a given point seems nonsensical to me.

What one can control is one's attitude and, as I say, sometimes that results in great virtue flowing from great evil.

 

[kallipolis]

I am not promoting evil as a means to virtue.

Good news. Now we are better informed.

 

[zoltanspawn]

What was the point of telling me all of this?

I bring it up because I think that your initial amoral response to this moral question is dehumanizing. You may consider the question of injustice a cliche, but I find it perenially and crucially human. The problem of injustice is an open question; it doesn't necessarily imply that there must be cosmic justice. Rather, it questions why there isn't justice. If you don't recognize the fury and horror of that question--why isn't there?--as your initial reply that 'things happen' didn't--then I think a strong reminder of the frequent and profound badness of our situation is appropriate.

We are not discussing the simple fact that things happen, but rather a human quandry that bad things do. I don't think that problem of badness should so easily be dismissed.

 

[b0i70y]

Bad things happen to everyone. Restricting it to just good people is pointless. Life is a series of good and bad events. Hold on to the good and overcome the bad. Worrying about it is asinine.

 

[kallipolis]

The problem of injustice is an open question; it doesn't necessarily imply that there must be cosmic justice. Rather, it questions why there isn't justice. If you don't recognize the fury and horror of that question--why isn't there?--as your initial reply that 'things happen' didn't--then I think a strong reminder of the frequent and profound badness of our situation is appropriate.

We are not discussing the simple fact that things happen, but rather a human quandry that bad things do. I don't think that problem of badness should so easily be dismissed.

Well nuanced, particularly when we consider the plight of gays in many countries.

 

[TX-Beau]

There isn't justice because of people - deluded or evil, or simply greedy and venal.

Question answered.

Some people try for justice, but there are always enough of the above to make it a challenge, which says nothing about why good people get cancer, and if you are applying that question to things like that, you are firmly in "things happen," territory that has nothing whatsoever to do with justice of any kind.

 

[bankside]

I bring it up because I think that your initial amoral response to this moral question is dehumanizing. You may consider the question of injustice a cliche, but I find it perenially and crucially human. The problem of injustice is an open question; it doesn't necessarily imply that there must be cosmic justice. Rather, it questions why there isn't justice. If you don't recognize the fury and horror of that question--why isn't there?--as your initial reply that 'things happen' didn't--then I think a strong reminder of the frequent and profound badness of our situation is appropriate.

We are not discussing the simple fact that things happen, but rather a human quandry that bad things do. I don't think that problem of badness should so easily be dismissed.

"How do good people cope with random bad things?" might be a more constructive question than searching the entrails of sparrows for the source of a hurricane.

Asking the right question is important, and rejecting a badly-formulated question does not imply a rejection of central characteristics of our species nor to deem them unworthy of compassion.

 

[kallipolis]

"How do good people cope with random bad things?" might be a more constructive question than searching the entrails of sparrows for the source of a hurricane.

Asking the right question is important, and rejecting a badly-formulated question does not imply a rejection of central characteristics of our species nor to deem them unworthy of compassion.

Your observation triggers the question is everything that we experience, random ?

There is the thought that human beings are the instigators of our own misfortune, or luck arising from our actions. In other words we create our life and everything that identifies us as the result of our decisions, and the actions arising there from.

Thus if I drive my car the wrong way along a one way street I am inviting grievous misfortune, even death.

Randomness is a vague, even inappropriate term when we consider how many human beings short circuit their life by smoking cigarettes, or drinking alcohol to excess.

There is nothing random when permitting a vicious dictator, such as Adolph Hitler to conquer the world with military force leading me to believe that when good men stand idly by and do nothing, evil prevails and randomness is a redundant and rather useless description for human indifference to the evil ways of more than a few human beings.

Bad things do happen to good people when they choose to sacrifice their life for the greater good. Many Canadian, American and British soldiers died to ensure that Hiter's plans were never realised.

Hardly a random response to Hitler's plans, also far from random in their evil intent.

Justice acted upon is never random, rather a calculated action by man to serve the greater good.

 

[SecondTime]

Personally, I'm a big fan of, and agree with, this quote from Dr. House on House:

"People don't get what they deserve. They just get what they get. There's nothing any of us can do about it."

It's my opinion that justice is kind of a moot point in a cosmic sense. I also think it's unfortunate that it tends to play such a large role in many people's theological beliefs...I think that misses the point too. If you're just "being good" because you're worried someone or something (God, the Universe, the cops, etc.) will smite you if you're "bad" then doesn't that sort of dilute the value of virtue? After all integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking. If you believe somehow someone or something somewhere is looking...

 

[kallipolis]

"People don't get what they deserve. They just get what they get. There's nothing any of us can do about it."


This is a fatalistic view when facing the daily challenges of life hyper pessimistic in its willingness to surrender to overwhelming odds, when the courageous person filled with hope embraces all challenges with a determination to overcome, even defeat despair our greatest enemy.

It is often said that when we decide that we can, we are already half way towards resolving that horrendous problem which landed in our lap this morning.

Our daily struggles, often against overwhelming odds fashion us into who we are by rewarding us with experience to face up too, and over come our next challenge teaching us that adversity grows wisdom, and courage sufficient for us to claim victory over the trials, and tribulations that life presents to us to make our journey worth living for.

First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
~Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1933

 

[kallipolis]

Personally, I'm a big fan of, and agree with, this quote from Dr. House on House:

"People don't get what they deserve. They just get what they get. There's nothing any of us can do about it."

It's my opinion that justice is kind of a moot point in a cosmic sense. I also think it's unfortunate that it tends to play such a large role in many people's theological beliefs...I think that misses the point too. If you're just "being good" because you're worried someone or something (God, the Universe, the cops, etc.) will smite you if you're "bad" then doesn't that sort of dilute the value of virtue? After all integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking. If you believe somehow someone or something somewhere is looking...

Speaking for myself my free choice to carry out acts of kindness, and goodness are not propelled by fear of being smitten by God, or any one else rather by an instinctive response to the needs of the needy person.

Integrity is a manifestation of self respect which transcends any personal wish to receive reward for carrying out an act of charity, or love by any other name thus, whether such an action is executed in the public arena, or in private is immaterial to the intention that of assisting another human person who needs help.

 

[bankside]

Your observation triggers the question is everything that we experience, random ?

There is the thought that human beings are the instigators of our own misfortune, or luck arising from our actions. In other words we create our life and everything that identifies us as the result of our decisions, and the actions arising there from.

Thus if I drive my car the wrong way along a one way street I am inviting grievous misfortune, even death.

Randomness is a vague, even inappropriate term when we consider how many human beings short circuit their life by smoking cigarettes, or drinking alcohol to excess.

There is nothing random when permitting a vicious dictator, such as Adolph Hitler to conquer the world with military force leading me to believe that when good men stand idly by and do nothing, evil prevails and randomness is a redundant and rather useless description for human indifference to the evil ways of more than a few human beings.

Bad things do happen to good people when they choose to sacrifice their life for the greater good. Many Canadian, American and British soldiers died to ensure that Hiter's plans were never realised.

Hardly a random response to Hitler's plans, also far from random in their evil intent.

Justice acted upon is never random, rather a calculated action by man to serve the greater good.

No; everything is not random. I considered other permutations of that question before I posted but found them to not be very interesting questions:
"How do good people cope with intentionally malevolent acts?" - generally speaking; oppose them.
"How do good people cope with random fantastically delightful things?" - there is also room for much contemplation here, but I think the question is less pressing than that of dealing with the bad.
"How do bad people cope with random bad things?" - hopefully, badly, and to their detriment. Or perhaps in a way that allows them to learn from the experience and so improve themselves.

I do share zoltanspawn's intution that there are questions about bad things happening to good people which cry out for an answer. I think it is self-evident that formulating the question correctly is of the utmost importance and with that understanding I'd just seek to move toward consensus on the nature of the question, or at least air different views.

 

[zoltanspawn]

"How do good people cope with random bad things?"

Not enough vigor, not enough gravity, I don't think. The problem is more profound than mere coping; beyond that, there's still a sheer bewilderment at the incomprehensible and infuriating fiat of the world that needs expression.

The original gives more heft and poignancy to the issue.

I'm not sure it's the kind of question that is intended to be answered as much as pondered anyway. When we contemplate the problem--why is there injustice?--it provides us with a measure of our own compassion (malice or even indifference?) that distinguishes us from the inhuman. In that way, the question of why bad things happen to good people may be just as important as a description of our predicament meant to be marveled at as it is a question meant to render theories and recommendations.

 

[bankside]

Not enough vigor, not enough gravity, I don't think. The problem is more profound than mere coping; beyond that, there's still a sheer bewilderment at the incomprehensible and infuriating fiat of the world that needs expression.

The original gives more heft and poignancy to the issue.

I'm not sure it's the kind of question that is intended to be answered as much as pondered anyway. When we contemplate the problem--why is there injustice?--it provides us with a measure of our own compassion (malice or even indifference?) that distinguishes us from the inhuman. In that way, the question of why bad things happen to good people may be just as important as a description of our predicament meant to be marveled at as it is a question meant to render theories and recommendations.

Meh…you say 'heft,' I say 'melodrama…' you say 'not enough vigour,' I say 'resplendent in its subtlety.'

I don't think the question is made more central by additional renting of garments or wailing about the crushing inhumanity of what are essentially the bell curves of the universe. I caricature your position somewhat but the question is no less poignant for being considered dispassionately. It is not for want of passion; it is from a very deeply-rooted conviction that passions not be misdirected.

 

[zoltanspawn]

When you say "more central" what do you mean? Have you viewed the bell curves of the universe? Is there some kind of objectivity you are privvy to, regarding this question of badness, that is clearly explained in some journal somewhere?

I would say this instead: that the direst suffering gives clearest dimension to the problems we all endure.

 

[bankside]

When you say "more central" what do you mean? Have you viewed the bell curves of the universe? Is there some kind of objectivity you are privvy to, regarding this question of badness, that is clearly explained in some journal somewhere?

I would say this instead: that the direst suffering gives clearest dimension to the problems we all endure.

Oh. By "central" I meant "essential to our integrity as human beings" and not some kind of mean or median; sorry if the context spun my word the wrong way.

I have not "viewed the bell curves of the universe" but I merely point out that good things do not happen to good people with 1:1 certainty and vice versa. As far as separating good from bad, I firmly reject that these things are subjective or whim-like or that good and bad can be defined arbitrarily and all such similar hippie confections. I would rather unthinkingly embrace Ayn Rand than cave in to that kind of nonsense. Is there any other way to embrace Ayn Rand?

The direst suffering?

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/962145--inquest-called-into-starvation-death-of-jeffrey-baldwin

An inquest will be held into the death of a five-year-old boy who died of starvation in his grandparents’ Toronto home.

Ontario Chief Coroner Dr. Andrew McCallum says an inquest can be held now that all court proceedings in Jeffrey Baldwin’s death have been completed.

Jeffrey weighed only 21 pounds and was covered in sores when he died from complications due to chronic starvation.

Elva Bottineau and Norman Kidman were convicted of second-degree murder in Jeffrey’s death and their appeal was rejected earlier this month.

This, in a first-world country with every opulence.

Why? Well because if "human" ever meant something of dignity or honour, his grandparents are not fit to be accorded this status.

But this falls into the class of obvious questions: good things happen to good people because of people like Jeffrey's grandparents. The answer is simple: Just excise it when you find it. The more interesting question is not "Why did this happen?" but "Why did Jeffrey have to be the one to endure it?"

I've yet to read anything more poignant than Hitchens on this subject:

To the dumb question “Why me?” the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply: Why not?

Jeffrey's plight is terrible not just because of what happened to him; his name is seared into my mind exactly because it just happened to happen to him. That is the nature of the universe we inhabit; I find this, both stark and banal as it is, motivates me to do my fellow citizens a good turn.