marte's necessity defense

15 Sep, 2025

my logical defense to the Gratuitous Suffering argument, which goes as follows (highly condensed so excuse if i'm omitting any crucial premises from my citation) "God/the Christian God allows unnecessary suffering > therefore God is immoral/bad/whatever the debater implies"

you can parse my defense as me tying evolutionary necessity directly to moral permissibility, and asserting that all suffering is truly necessary, which as far as im aware is a novel approach. i worked on this argument for a few months during my theology phase so if i prompt any questions let me know

most traditional Christians/theologians/philosophers defend by appealing to free will (human-caused suffering) which i think lacks explanatory power, appeal to soul-making (moral/spiritual growth) or appeal to inscrutable divine plan.

parse this argument as: suffering is literally baked into the mechanism that produces life and goodness, so it’s morally acceptable

symbol keys S = suffering occurs N(S) = suffering is necessary G = greater goods exist (complex life, consciousness, moral beings, etc) M(S) = suffering is morally permissible E = evolution operates as it does

premises & argument: if evolution occurs as it does, suffering is necessary: 𝐸→𝑁(𝑆)

(if suffering is necessary, it produces greater goods) 𝑁(𝑆)→𝐺

(if greater goods exist, suffering is morally permissible) 𝐺→𝑀(𝑆)

(if evolution occurs, then suffering is morally permissible)(syllogism:) 𝐸→𝑀(𝑆)

so, God allows suffering for ultimate good via evolution. 𝑀(𝑆)∧𝑇