Animal pain
So the first premise in this discussion is that animals are innocent. They are not capable of doing true evil, they did not ask to exist, and they are good because they naturally follow their natures.
Now, it seems obvious that animals feel pain. If animals do not feel true pain then it would not be wrong to torture them.
Therefore, either
1) The world, which reflects God nature, proves that God is not all good. If it's not in God's nature to create a world and allow humans to sin all the while protecting the innocent from pain, then God's nature is imperfect or evil
2) God doesn't exist
I am a materialist nominalist (although I appreciate spirituality). The distinction between a human and an animal is not as great for me than it is for a theist. Animals kill and eat each other. Therefore I believe we can do the same, although we are evolved enough to be capable of understanding that we should cause the least suffering we can for other species
Well there is a topic for conversation. I hope some people find this interesting
Now, it seems obvious that animals feel pain. If animals do not feel true pain then it would not be wrong to torture them.
Therefore, either
1) The world, which reflects God nature, proves that God is not all good. If it's not in God's nature to create a world and allow humans to sin all the while protecting the innocent from pain, then God's nature is imperfect or evil
2) God doesn't exist
I am a materialist nominalist (although I appreciate spirituality). The distinction between a human and an animal is not as great for me than it is for a theist. Animals kill and eat each other. Therefore I believe we can do the same, although we are evolved enough to be capable of understanding that we should cause the least suffering we can for other species
Well there is a topic for conversation. I hope some people find this interesting
Comments (85)
As far as the morality aspect of cannibalism you touched on, I agree. Nothing is inherently bad, but we are intelligent enough to know that eating each other kills the species, killing the species isn't productive for human flourishing and we prefer to flourish. Unfortunately, not everyone cares enough for the coexistence of other species to help them flourish alongside us.
Good thoughts.
The above is best left to argue whether a personal or impersonal deity exists. In addition, we must consider the context to which we are discussing what type of suffering. For example: The difference between biochemical suffering, or suffering due to a socio-political phenomena, or suffering due to an indirect causal phenomenon.
Would you really call a God, an Ultimate reality, something smaller than yourself? Something you can catch, put in a laboratory and study it so you could later manipulate it?
If only people understood that, there would be no need for discusions like this. There would be no need for theodicy. One problem less.
Pain appears to be intrinsically a good thing. If a threat is undetectable, then we become vulnerable to that threat - think stealth technology. God, in his infinite wisdom or perhaps as an oversight, designed us to be capable of detecting nocere/harm as pain in order that we may feel and avoid it - this is what we call pain and, by extension, suffering. Consider pain and suffering to be like burglar alarms - painfully loud but saves you from the dangerous intruder.
It's worth mentioning that in the hands of humans this ingenious, actually protective mechanism has been used in macabre ways - torture. What was God supposed to do? Allow everyone to surely perish painlessly or permit the occasional excruciating pain/suffering?
I don't know. Just saying...
I find it very difficult to associate innocence with creatures who eat their own children alive, specifically target the young and vulnerable to kill and eat or any of the other myriad of horrors that animals inflict and endure on a daily basis. Assigning innocence or lack thereof just doesnt make sense for animals. They are not moral agents, and those are human concepts we apply to other humans. It makes no sense to have animals in the moral landscape.
Mercy and justice are only mutually exclusive in the same instance. One can still possess both attributes and use one or the other at different times (as dictated by whatever ethics the person might have) with no contradictions.
1. If animals are innocent and feel pain, it is wrong to cause pain to them.
2. Animals are innocent and feel pain.
3. It is wrong to cause pain to animals.
4. If God exists, He created a world which causes pain to animals.
5. If God exists, He did something that is wrong.
6. If God did something that is wrong, then He is not omnibenevolent.
7. Either God is not omnibenevolent or He did not create a world which causes pain to animals.
8. Therefore, either God is not omnibenevolent or God does not exist.
I would object to premise 3 though. While I don’t think that one should go around torturing animals, causing pain could mean either directly or indirectly causing pain. I think that if we are to attribute the pain of animals to God, He at most only indirectly caused them pain. I don’t think one should be held morally accountable for being an indirect cause of something though. It’s like when we give someone money as a gift. They are free to use the money as they please. If they buy something that causes them pain or causes someone else pain, we should not be held morally accountable for that.
To use the Christian God as an example of how God can be omnibenevolent despite us living in a world with pain and suffering, if God created the world, He supposedly created a perfect world without any pain or suffering. A part of a perfect life is having free will. Humans then used that free will and brought pain and suffering into the world. God should not be held morally accountable for the pain that is caused to each animal then since He is not the one directly causing it. Supposedly, human beings knew that there would be consequences to their actions, and those consequences were allowing pain and suffering in the world. He had to have consequences because God is supposed to also be just, and I think being just can also fall under being omnibenevolent. You might wonder why the rest of us have to suffer if we were not the ones who brought pain and suffering into the world, but I think we all would’ve brought the consequences upon ourselves.
Animals feel pain. If reality reflects God's nature and yet innocent animals must feel pain than God's nature is imperfect. Is God not strong enough to protect the innocent? Yes
Quoting Gregory
Theist may say that God's infinite mind is too complex to understand for one of us. Perhaps there is more to it, than this argument.
The other possibility is that it is very likely that we are living in a simulation. And in a simulation, animals are very likely not real. What's the point of simulating animal minds? Perhaps in the real world, animals behave differently, who knows?
It's not about God's mind, but his nature. Reality reflects him yet he can't protect the innocent. That's absurd
I guess to add to this, one may say that animals are re-incarnations of evil doers, like Hitler or something. This way, the evil doers are imprisoned in the animal flesh of hell. A theist may say that God works in mysterious ways and this way pain is given to those who have seriously sinned. (I'd say this one is pretty creative lol)
Quoting Gregory
Well God's nature is derived from God's mind. If we cannot understand the infinite mind of God, whose to say that we can understand his nature. We may see what we believe to be evil, but it could be something that we just can't comprehend.
Quoting Gregory
Well in the child rape case, a I guess a Theist could argue that for there to be good and evil, there ought to be a choice between committing good and evil. There wouldn't be point to Heaven and Hell, if one could not make a choice.
I feel like there's another argument to the child rape case. Maybe it'll come to me later.
And again, how can we understand the infinite mind of God. Perhaps the child who is being raped is secretly an angel who feels no pain, sent by God to show mankind the evils of carnal flesh.
Protecting the innocent is not important to your God. He could allow us to choose a sin but prevent us from carrying it out, right?
I never said to read the whole thing. Denying the reality of other people is a sin though. Greed, lust, anger, pride, sloth, gluttony, and envy are sins. Saying other people are a simulation stems from one of those
What argument could we make here?
Perhaps sloth? Are we too lazy to think that others are real? But couldn't we arrive to the simulation hypothesis for other reasons?
But again, we can arrive to the simulation hypothesis for other reasons.
I guess if you're trying to escape from something, then it is irrational and you should confront your fears and etc ...
However, by itself, people like Nick Bostrom don't appear immoral to me.
If humans are believed to be software only, you either do drugs, are fascinated by drugs, or escaping an emotion
Do you think Nick Bostrom does drugs? Is he secretly a junkie by night and a philosophy professor by day?
So is only Christianity right? Islam is wrong. What about the Jews? Are they kinda right or completely wrong?
:ok:
Quoting Gregory
:ok:
Quoting Gregory
The problem with your argument is that first, you claim, rightly so, that animals are innocent, that "they are not capable of doing true evil" and then follow this up by declaring the world to be sinful or bad based on animal pain I presume.
You're using two different benchmarks - intentions (to do harm) to decide animals are innocent and consequence (pain), e.g. when one animal kills another, to come to the conclusion that the world is sinful. But if animals are innocent, how can the world be bad? If the world isn't bad then, god's goodness remains intact, right?
Paraphrased, one cannot make either logically valid or logically sound statements about God, because God is non-existent.
Quoting Eremit
Well said.
I thought animals don't have an afterlife?
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't know about hyenas, but some animals are innocent. A bunny is innocent, obviously. So if you beat a bunny to death and he has no afterlife, what good does the pain do the bunny?
It seems that saying pain is good to creatures would only apply to humans. Maybe we need pain to grow. But how can this apply to animals? If a kitten is innocent, any pain that befalls it must be good for it. But then, how does this situation reflect infinite goodness? If God is perfect, horrible things should not happen in this world. The pain should make sense.
If one believes animals are innocent and incapable of evil then, it follows that there is no evil in the world - all is good whether there is pain or not. Pain is no longer relevant to the measure of evil.
On the other hand if one feels pain is evil then there can be no such thing as innocence, all are evil those that cause pain.
You have to make a choice between innocence and pain to decide whether our world is evil or not? Not an easy choice by any standard.
No it's actually easy. The world allows evil for no reason when a puppy is tortured to death (sorry). Sorry again, but that seems to be the obvious. But it doesn't taint the whole. Evil intent is when a human violates his conscience
So, you want to run with pain as your yardstick? No one is innocent then, not even the bunny that accidentally tips over the kettle of scalding hot water on your lap, causing you painful third degree burns?
When did I say no one is innocent?
If there's such a thing as innocence then, pain can't be used as a metric for evil for the simple reason that the innocent can cause pain, accidentally.
That's a terrible argument. Innocent beings can cause pain and suffer pain. Pain is useful for some species perhaps, but God's goodness is reflected in nature you say. But innocent sheep are sometimes tortured. No good comes from that for the sheep. God dosnt protect the innocent
I suppose it is; after all we can make a distinction between innocent pain - accidental - and evil pain - deliberate. Not all pain is evil because it's not true that the innocent never cause pain. I guess we need to examine the necessity for pain - try and square the, some might even say sadistic, inclusion of the ability to feel pain, excruciating pain and suffer, suffer greatly, with a benevolent god.
Perhaps an analogy is in order. Imagine you're driving on a stretch of road, well built and well maintained, and you notice signs with appropriate warnings alerting you to possible dangers. The signs are there for a good reason - to prevent fatal crashes. Our pain sensing apparatus serve in the same capacity - drawing our attention to injury that, if not sensed and dealt with at the right time, could lead to severe disability or death.
Too, if only evil pain is what bothers you, and this must be for innocent pain is amoral, then it's safe to say that only humans are capable of it - deliberately inducing pain for reasons ranging from play to frank sadism. I daresay the only evil in the world is humanity.
However, in a curious twist of fate, homo sapiens (us) is the only species that has developed, notwithstanding the glaring imperfections, a system of morality. It's like god choosing the vilest, most depraved, individual in the world and making him/her a prophet, a divine messenger. This reminds me of the late Christopher Hitchens who, more than once, said that it made zero sense for god to have revealed himself to iron age illiterate tribal people living in the desert but if you really thinks about it, people who are utterly morally bankrupt are the ones actually in need of holy assisstance. Good people don't need god - that would be pointless, no point carrying coal to Newcastle - but bad people are in need of urgent divine intercession. Triage
In summary, pain is necessary for survival given past and current realities. The only evil in this world is humanity and god, like the good doctor he is, has attended to this emergency three times (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed) in the deserts of the middle east. As odd as it sounds, humans are the problem and also the solution - we're the problem because we're the only ones capable of deliberately causing pain, evil, and we're the solution for the reason that we're the only ones to have come into contact with the divine essence - the sense of right and wrong - albeit these encounters were much too brief than we'd have liked or hoped.
Evil can come from an innocent being or act.
Quoting TheMadFool
God could easily give pleasure in order to avoid things instead of pain.
Quoting TheMadFool
I've already said that other species may be able to do intentional evil. Hyenas perhaps
Quoting TheMadFool
We are very adaptable creatures. That is not an argument for or against God though
Theists can use all the esoteric justifications for the pain sheep, rabbits, and other animals needlessly go through, but their logic is crazy. "God" in the Old Testament not only ordered the murder of men, women, children, and fetuses, but also the needless killing of sheep and the hamstringing of horses to be left to die. Use all your brain power to justify it. I don't care. I use common sense, and I know their justifications are nuts
I have conflicting thoughts about the innocence of animals. On the one hand, the various qualities attached to innocence -- free from moral wrong; without sin; pure; not involving evil intent or motive -- seem to fit animals. Actually, it fits humans a good share of the time as well. Barring the idea of original sin, we are not perpetually immersed in immorality, sin, impure behavior, evil intent or motive. We didn't ask to exist, either (just ask Schopenhauer1, TPF's leading lobbyist against unrequested existence), and we follow our natures. It adds up to our meeting your requirement of goodness. Somehow, though, a lot of us manage to be quite bad much of the time (but nobody here, of course).
On the other hand, most animals (or all of them except us?) seem to be outside moral categories. They are neither innocent nor guilty. There is no guile in their following their nature (which isn't to say they never deceive one another as part of their nature. Many animals practice behaviors akin to deception). They cause pain to other creatures because they have no options. A wolf, lion, eagle, or porpoise can not eat without causing pain.
When we are not being evil we are as innocent as other animals.
That is as far as I am willing to go.
Quoting Gregory
I am not willing to play logic games with God -- NOT because I am afraid of offending god, but because I believe
1) God doesn't exist
or
2) God is sufficiently unknowable that he might as well not exist. I just don't buy the idea of a supreme being who can be sorted out into various capacities and features like beetles. I might be willing to affirm the existence of a god who is just plain unknowable, but who presumably exists because some people require a first cause. I think I can get along without a first cause too.
That's just hiding beyond esotericism in order to avoid the issues. Lions and dogs are probably, I would say certainly, innocent. Just because an innocent lion eats an innocent gazelle, that doesn't mean the gazelle deserves pain. I think the examples of sheep and rabbits are the best to illustrate my point. Imagine a sheep living in pain for years. It's simply pointless and there is no way a good God would have allowed it. I say come to grips that this world is imperfect and stop trying to justify thing wrong
You know what a good God would allow and would not allow? How did you come by this rare knowledge?
Apparently -- if one goes by doctrine and experience -- God created the world and decided that pain and suffering was/is/are/will be acceptable. God could have designed the world in other ways, but he didn't.
Quoting Gregory
Well, I think I have come to grips with a very imperfect world--the world is appallingly unsatisfactory. God doesn't need our defense or justification -- as if we even knew what had to be defended and justified.
Common sense, natural law, and reason.
Every Christian, to a "man", I've asked if they would kill somebody if God asked them to said yes. I can't reason about animals with people who have this mentality. They've committed murder of the heart, which even Jesus said sends you to Gehenna. Jesus was a mentally ill man who noticed he was born in the place that the Messiah was supposed to come from and he tried to fulfill the prophecies. I hear that a good book that talks how Jesus intentionally set out to fulfill the messianic prophecies is The Passover Plot: New Light on the History of Jesus by Hugh Schonfield. John Lennon read it
In your recent post, you made the following claim:
So the first premise in this discussion is that animals are innocent. They are not capable of doing true evil, they did not ask to exist, and they are good because they naturally follow their natures. Now, it seems obvious that animals feel pain. If animals do not feel true pain then it would not be wrong to torture them. Therefore, either 1) The world, which reflects God nature, proves that God is not all good. If it's not in God's nature to create a world and allow humans to sin all the while protecting the innocent from pain, then God's nature is imperfect or evil 2) God doesn't exist.
I think your argument has this form:
1) If God creates a world where animals experience pain, then either God is not good, or God doesn’t exist.
2) God created a world where animals experience pain.
3) Therefore, either God is not good, or God doesn’t exist (from 1, 2 via modus ponens).
If this argument works, it is exceptionally problematic for theistic belief, as it either shows that God does not exist or is not good. I have the following objection to this argument: The conditional expressed in premise one is problematic. Just because animals experience pain does not mean that God is not good, or God does not exist. It is entirely possible that animals could experience pain and even death in the world God created and God could still be good. This could be a natural part of life for animals. It would be wrong if God tortured animals, but the presence of pain in animals on its own is not enough to affect the goodness of God. Pain itself is not a bad thing. It is a natural indicator of something going wrong within or to an organism. In this way, pain itself is not necessarily a bad thing and so is compatible with the existence of a good God. In other words, if God created a world where animals experience pain, he could exist, and he could be good. Because of this compatibility, premise one is faulty, and the argument is unsound.
Sincerely,
Joel
But supposedly God created the conditions of a world where there is pain for this animal, so God is not a passive bystander here. If he is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent then there could have been a world where something like pain was not necessary for an indicator that "something was wrong". In fact, there could be a universe where nothing is wrong. If however, there by logic, can never be such a universe, well then one of those omnis is wrong at least as God is constrained by some other necessity, which kind of knocks his powers down a peg. So therefore, if this ridiculous mythos of a God is true, then he wanted a universe where there was pain. This then leads to the fact that God might have some sadistic tendencies. Then if you add in that we are supposed to "learn" from our trials and tribulations on the planet, God is some sort of petty game-designer that wants to see participants go through suffering in order to overcome it. It sounds like this God is just a projection of us. He is looking all too human. Yet it is said, we are made in his image. I think this is pointing in a hall of mirrors.. It all points back to us.
Because if you do believe that God is free to do what he wants, he could have made a world without negative experiences for his little subjects. He didn't.
This is all a tautology infused with naturalistic fallacy, and has no defense that, indeed it does affect the "good-making" qualities of God. We have nervous systems, therefore it is good, is about equivalent to what you are saying.
Rather, you have not defended that we have pain- whatever avenue this is attributed to (neruons, etc.). and that supposedly, if nature is created by God, that indeed, he participated in the conditions for pain to be possible.
Now, if you think causing the conditions for which pain takes place is a good thing, we have no further argument as I believe that to be unjustified causation of a bad experience for another and you believe this is perfectly moral. However, if you think that it is wrong to create conditions of pain for others, then there is a problem for your omnibenevolent belief.
That's the same thing :lol:.
Quoting Joel Evans
NO its very much the point.
Quoting Joel Evans
Why? We are talking past each other. If God can make any type of universe he wants. He could have created a universe with no pain.
Actually it's not. There is a difference between causing pain and giving one the capacity for pain. God (according to theism) gave us noses but that doesn't mean he directly causes us to smell things.
I never said that. Pay attention. I said the conditions for pain.. which you are replacing with capacity. Same thing.
Quoting Joel Evans
Whence noses then?
This doesn't apply here but good try.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I still think my analysis applies, but let's say it doesn't. That still doesn't show that the conditions for pain are bad. I think that the natural use of pain (as a way of keeping an organism balanced and healthy) makes pain not an inherently bad thing.
Again, if God is free to create any universe he wants, why create one with the capacity for pain or any negative experience?
So we have to go through pain to overcome it? Why must anything be subject to pain in this scheme? That seems immoral to create a universe with the capacity for pain, whether to see them overcome it or any other reason.
They are not overcoming pain, rather it is serving its natural function in their bodies. If I smell something disgusting, that is unpleasant, but it's serving a natural function in our body. If pain is serving a natural function, why is it immoral to create a universe with the capacity for pain?
This makes no sense. This discussion is about a God right? One that created this universe, no? My question was regarding the counterfactual possibility that God could have created a universe where its nature was not to have the capacity for pain. So my questions still stand:
Quoting schopenhauer1
And yet my question still stands of why he would need to create a universe without the capacity for pain. What is wrong with pain when it serves its natural function? You could very well be right that it would be better to live in a world without pain, but you haven't shown me why.
You are either not getting or are purpusefully dodging the question. This discussion is about God who created the natural world, correct? You make it seem as if a universe with pain is a necessity. This would contradict a God who is free to create any world. This world we live in now has pain that may "serve its natural function", but the point is there could have been a universe that does not have pain, and in fact has no need for pain to serve "its natural function".
Quoting Joel Evans
Well, you are right that we cannot go any further if you think that causing conditions of pain for others is not immoral. If you believe that if there could have been an alternative scenario where you didn't provide the condition for pain to others, but you chose to cause the conditions for pain rather than the non-pain alternative, that this is acceptable good or not bad, we have nothing more to argue as we have different foundations for what we deem as moral.
Why is a universe without the capacity for pain fundamentally better than one with the capacity for pain?
To me, its foundational that pain, suffering, negative states are bad and causing conditions which inevitably will lead to them, is wrong if it can be avoided. To purposely create conditions for these negative conditions, when other alternatives can have been created etc..
So pain is bad because pain is bad (foundationally). Makes sense, though I did offer an explanation of pain where is pain is not foundationally bad (when it is serving its natural function). Based on this, it seems that saying pain is bad foundationally faces problems from the natural-function argument.
No, you seem to go back to "natural" implying no creator that created these conditions that pain exists in the first place. Quoting Joel Evans
Pain is bad, even if it has a function to tell you that something is wrong. It can be both.
1. If God exists, and he is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, then a world which animals suffer from human’s torture will not exist.
2. A world which animals suffer from human’s torture does exist.
3. Therefore, either God doesn’t exist, or he is not omniscient, omnipotent or benevolent.
Generally speaking, I think my concerns have regards to the second premise which states that animals are suffering from human’s torture, as I don’t think it is the case, or I should say that I don’t completely agree that human are actually torturing animals in some ways. You have clarified that animals are innocent, they are not capable of doing true evil, they didn’t ask to exist and they are good because they naturally follow their natures. I assume that based on these points, you think that God should not let animals suffer especially from human’s torture because if God is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, then he will protect the innocent from pain. However, firstly, I don’t think the reasons stated above are credible enough to support that animals are innocent. If it is true that animals didn’t ask to exist, I should say that human didn’t ask to exist neither, for we don’t have any conscious before birth. It also seems not credible to say that animals are good because they naturally follow their natures; if it is the case, then humans are good as well because we naturally follow our nature, no matter what our nature is. If evil and torturing something is part of our nature and we didn’t ask for being born with this nature, and we just happened to have this nature, then it seems like that humans are also innocent, and we should be protected from pain as well. Secondly, I don’t think it is credible to assert that human is torturing animals. From theist’s perspective, I think they will agree and it is reasonable to refer to Genesis which God says that let human have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals. From atheist’s perspective, then it depends on personal beliefs, since there are lots of different attitudes towards this moral issue such as sentientism and biocentrism. Therefore, I keep skeptical about the question that whether human is torturing animals in a certain way or not. Above are my two main concerns about the second premise, and please let me know if you have any thoughts.
It can be both. But a world with pain might be better than a world without pain, however, it the pain is necessary for some other good thing. For instance, if it is necessary to have pain to have a functioning nervous system that includes pleasure, then the good of having pleasure (even if it means one will experience pain) is better than the supposed good of no pain whatsoever.
Something being good does not follow from it being natural.
Consider a case of a male animal killing the young of a mate when the offspring are not his. I remember seeing a nature documentary where a male zebra stomped baby zebras to death that were not his own. This is common. Human males have done this on occasion as well. Humans often behave without much moral consciousness according to primitive instincts. It might be argued that this behavior is instinctual and therefore natural. But is it good?
Goodness doesn't follow from naturalness. See the appeal to nature fallacy.
You might say that animals are not really morally conscious and that, knowing not what they do, and being slaves to instinct, they are blameless. But saying that they are good because they follow their instincts is a bad argument.
It might be argued that if animals can be good, then surely they can also be evil, or that conversely, if they cannot be evil, they also cannot be good, as these are two sides of a coin. Both depend on the same moral capacity. I find it strange that right off the bat, you make them innocent of evil, and yet you credit them with goodness. Also, what does their not asking to exist have to do with it? We humans didn't ask to exist either! And any God or god, if such exist, surely also didn't ask to exist. It seems to me to be impossible to ask to exist, as you would then have to exist before you exist. If not asking to exist makes you innocent, then all are innocent. But I don't see how it follows.
Regardless of my objections here, you could still probably reasonably argue that the world involves much suffering on the part of innocents, and that this suggests that God isn't perfectly good.
One possible objection is that this is the best of all possible worlds. Maybe better worlds that we imagine actually couldn't work and would involve violations of the law of noncontradiction somewhere, or something of the sort. If the lives of animals were so different, it is easy to see that we wouldn't be as we are. Humans would be an impossible result of a world set up so differently early on. God would then have to "cheat", essentially to make the world a lie, in order to get what he wants without some of the negatives that might necessarily go with that.
Maybe the world, even with its natural evils, overall has positive value.
Here is another possibility. What if God isn't separate from the world, as in pantheism or panentheism or something like cosmopsychism? Maybe God is all that is. And so maybe God isn't causing any suffering to any another being. Maybe God does it all to himself for some purpose voluntarily. Maybe God is all the animals! Maybe those are even experiences he wants to have! What then?
Quoting Gregory
This is another fallacious appeal to nature. Many of the worst things humans do could be argued to be instinctual or natural and to have some precedent in our pre-human past or in other animals. Take rape for example, or murder, or infanticide, or cannibalism, or war, or theft, or lying, and on and on. If it is okay to appeal to nature, you might argue that there is no such thing as non-nature, and that all human behavior is really natural or instinctual, and that all human actions are therefore okay. But are they? Aren't some actions to be preferred to others?
What you are saying here sounds to me like we are not so different from sharks so it is therefore okay for us to behave like sharks.
We are very different from sharks! We know what we are doing! Do sharks have any understanding that biting animals hurts them? We do. We full well know the horrors of meat production, and we eat it anyway. We, unlike the shark, systematically cause this suffering knowingly. I would suggest that this makes us far less innocent than the shark. I don't see why being atheist would get us off the moral hook here.
I see. You don't even know what an animal is. This is ridiculous! God if he is goodness-perfection itself would have, with almighty power, made learning and living a pleasant enjoyable experience for every animal, bug, and plant. Instead... Therefore your God exists only in you mind (poor guy). It makes no difference if God chooses to suffer with the animal. The animal shouldn't suffer at all. It didn't ask for this.
Maybe pain can also be for the good of others or maybe it was designed as a negative experience that encourages humans to lean on God in our mechanic wish to avoid pain and suffering.
Only humans seems to see pain as a negative thing because it generally comes with emotions such as mourning, grief ect we would like to avoid.
It seems to me that you're arguing with the fantastic premise that animals are void of malice thus should not experience what is appreciated as a negative experience from a purely human perspective.
I don't know what's so problematic with bugs, plants or even hyenas exprience today outside of human malevolence of course but as you said they are all innocent therefore the short suffering of some animals is also a pleasant and enjoyable experience for their predators who would like to have a good meal.
A Christian could also argue that pain is a reminder that there could be a possiblity of a different world where none of that exist. Basically heaven.
Creating the conditions for pain isn't immoral in itself. Some cure could cause pain but it doesnt mean it is immoral since it has a good purpose.
You, sir or mis, are clearly an immoral person
Maybe God is going to make heaven a torture chamber for Christians, where they will for all eternity offer up their suffering to his glory. How about that?
Setting up a game where people have to suffer to overcome it, when one could have set it up differently seems pretty immoral to me!