Darkover
Angelic
- Jul 29, 2021
- 4,618
It's understandable why someone might see things that way. The suffering and violence inherent in nature—animals having to kill to survive, people facing illness, disasters, and other hardships—make the idea of a benevolent deity seem incompatible with the harshness of life.
The brutality of the animal kingdom raises challenging questions about nature itself. In the natural world, suffering seems to be woven into the fabric of life: animals endure painful deaths, predation, diseases, and even behaviors that could be seen as cruel, like infants being abandoned or killed by their own species.
Animals don't make moral choices—they follow instincts that have evolved over time, leading to behaviors that are often violent and unrelenting. For them, there's no apparent reward or higher purpose to justify this suffering. These instincts aren't about choice but survival in a system where pain and struggle are inevitable.
Being neutral in a hostile environment does seem especially challenging to justify. If a deity exists and chooses neutrality in a world full of suffering, it can feel like an active choice to allow harm to persist without intervention. In a setting where pain, struggle, and survival dominate, the choice not to alleviate suffering—or even prevent it—seems like a passive endorsement of that suffering.
In a neutral world where creatures didn't have to kill to survive, neutrality might look more benign, as you mentioned. But when suffering is unavoidable, a deity allowing this without intervention could feel indifferent at best, or even malevolent at worst, to many people.
The brutality of the animal kingdom raises challenging questions about nature itself. In the natural world, suffering seems to be woven into the fabric of life: animals endure painful deaths, predation, diseases, and even behaviors that could be seen as cruel, like infants being abandoned or killed by their own species.
Animals don't make moral choices—they follow instincts that have evolved over time, leading to behaviors that are often violent and unrelenting. For them, there's no apparent reward or higher purpose to justify this suffering. These instincts aren't about choice but survival in a system where pain and struggle are inevitable.
Being neutral in a hostile environment does seem especially challenging to justify. If a deity exists and chooses neutrality in a world full of suffering, it can feel like an active choice to allow harm to persist without intervention. In a setting where pain, struggle, and survival dominate, the choice not to alleviate suffering—or even prevent it—seems like a passive endorsement of that suffering.
In a neutral world where creatures didn't have to kill to survive, neutrality might look more benign, as you mentioned. But when suffering is unavoidable, a deity allowing this without intervention could feel indifferent at best, or even malevolent at worst, to many people.