Introduction
William Rowe is a philosopher who wrote extensively on the ethical issues concerned with suffering. He argued that it is unlikely that all critical cases of intense human and animal suffering bring about the greater good. It is possible to agree with the philosopher that suffering cannot obviously lead to good for living beings.
Discussion
Even though there is some potential for physical and mental or spiritual development during the process of overcoming suffering, it is unlikely that all suffering will eventually lead to the greater good. Rowe believed that there are a number of factors that need to be taken into account when trying to determine whether or not a particular instance of suffering is worth experiencing. Both the ethical and religious perspectives have to be taken into account when deciding on the justification for suffering. Another point frequently referred to when discussing Rowe’s works is the possibility of achieving the good of an omnipotent being without allowing people to suffer. Rowe (1991) made this argument when explaining his views on atheism. However, one cannot agree that if all sufferings lead to greater good, “an omnipotent, omniscient being could not have achieved <…> those goods without permitting the instances of suffering” causing them (Rowe, 1991, p. 69). According to Rowe, even if evil does exist, it does not necessarily prove the existence of God. If the discussed statement is correct, then it is reasonable to conclude that God as the omniscient being does not exist.
Conclusion
This argument presents a challenge to the theodicy or the defense of God’s goodness and power in light of evil. Also, it raises questions about the nature of evil and the purpose of suffering, but it seems to be convincing with reference to the ethical role of suffering in people’s lives.
References
Rowe, W. L. (1991). Philosophy of religion. Philosophical Perspectives, 5, 69–88. Web.