I began to realize that I might not want to admit to myself that bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own. This would mean that life is unfair, which sometimes, it is.
I have heard that we can attempt to feel in control of things by blaming ourselves. If others are to blame or things just happen then we are less in control. Maybe believing bad things only happen to bad people is another way of attempting to make the world more predictable.
And less unjust too. Which would make the world a far far safer place - although at a potentially deadly cost to ourselves.
Maybe it is a logic problem. But the problem is not with the reasoning, but with some of the hidden assumptions.
FWIW this is an old old problem - it goes by the name of "theodicy" in philosophical theology - A.k.a. "the problem of evil." The problem is, as you say "sometimes bad things happen to good people" and conversely, "sometimes good things happen to bad people." The difficulty is this: we are using "good" and "bad" in two different senses here.
When we say a person is "good" or "bad" we generally are making a moral judgment - we are evaluating their character as virtuous or vicious, and their intentions as benevolent or malicious. When we talk about "good" or "bad" thing happening we are talking about a set of circumstances and/or the results they produce, specifically whether they tend to produce pleasure or pain. The assumption that "good" things only happen to "good" people and that "bad" things only happen to "bad" people is plainly false. (The rain falls on the guilty and innocent alike.) And it gets the whole thing… backwards, or maybe better, inside out.
So here is the thing. If we are human and breathing and conscious we cannot avoid pain for long. Shit happens. And while we can refrain from enjoying pleasure much, we cannot avoid it entirely either. So, the alternation of pleasure and pain for us is a fact of nature. Like that rain. Suppose we don't take it as a punishment or reward? What then? Entertain the possibility that "good" things (health, wealth, power) are best for persons of virtue (people with good character and intentions) still good for people with only good intentions who are yet in the grip of some vice/neurosis/compulsion, and worst for people who lack good intentions and are also in the grip of some compulsion. (There is reason to believe that people who have BAD intentions are generally so far in the grip of a compulsion or vice that they can not recognize the good … but I won't defend that here unless you ask)
For people in the grip of a vice or neurosis or compulsion (as we all well know) ANY circumstances are not so great - They cannot respond appropriately to what is before them - that's what "compulsion" means. You act like you are going to act, whether it makes sense or not. If you INTEND good outcomes and have at least the virtue of honesty then there is a possibility of correction. So you are better off than if you don't intend those good outcomes or don't believe them possible. Notice this doesn't' get you out of the pain … immediately. It may reduce that specific pain in the long term, but it won't get you out of pain altogether. Only death does that, maybe. So ALL circumstances are "bad" or pain producing if we are in the grip of a compulsion. If we are NOT aiming for the good, this is out of our control entirely. If we ARE aiming for the good, then every adverse event is an opportunity to heal and grow and improve, pain or no.
The aim is to become a person of virtue - that is someone whose physical/emotional/intellectual/etc reactions are well calibrated to the circumstances we find ourselves in. Almost no one gets this totally "right". But that's ok, because the better we get the better we can cope - and (this is the crucial bit) although we never get to the point where we don't feel pain and have painful things happen to us, we can get to a point where we don't SUFFER over them so. It is painful. Ok. Is there something I can do about it? Yes? Do it. No? Accept it and act accordingly.
My H and I call this "the roof thing." We had our SIL put a new roof on our house. A couple of sheets of plywood over the deck had rotted and needed replacing. So my SIL tore them off and sent his helper to store to buy new, and busied himself with some other task until the helper got back. Perfectly sensible, right? Right. Except we both agreed that WE couldn't do this. We would suffer and grind ourselves about putting things off for so long that the plywood rotted…. you get the idea. For us the rotten plywood was an indictment of our worth and competence. For him, they were just a couple of pieces of plywood. And really, they were just a couple of pieces of plywood - easily replaced. No muss. No fuss. No good to be got out of any handwringing over it. Just tear up the old, and put down the new. Twenty minutes and its history. SIL is virtuous with respect to such things. They just "ARE." We are getting better.
So you see if you are NOT trying to get better every circumstance, however "good" is bad, because the better things get the less opportunity you have to improve. And if you are on the road to good, all circumstances give you opportunity to improve. In fact, the "bad" may give you slightly more incentive to get "better' (as it is painful and you are highly motivated to escape) than the "good." Notice that this does not make painful situations un-painful or even less painful necessarily. It just makes them not morally loaded. And I think it makes compassion for ourselves and others more available. We don't
deserve pain. Pain just
happens from time to time, and we deal with it as best we can. Sometimes the best we can do is ride it out. If we have good people around us, sometimes they can give us advice about how to shorten its duration. Sometimes the best they can do is just hang out with us while it happens. That sucks, but it sucks less than being alone.
If you didn't
moralize pain itself, but just focused on whether there is something to
do about it (and if there is doing it) would it make a difference?
After all feelings (while they do not REPRESENT facts) ARE facts. They are "original existences." They don't inherently refer to anything else - so they can't be "true" or "false" like ideas about the world can. If you give someone a shot of adrenaline and don't tell them what you are doing they will inevitably
invent a reason for "why I am feeling like this." But there is no such reason. They just got a shot of adrenaline. Sometimes what we feel
is related to what is going on, other times
it is just old stuff being triggered. And that is, I must say, confusing as all get out. But if we pay attention we can start to distinguish between old stuff and current stuff. And that is very helpful. Getting good at distinguishing between feelings and beliefs is very very helpful. It does take some practice tho. And then we need patience when the old stuff comes up - patience to ride it out and let it pass. Not easy, but ultimately do-able.
This is a view (it is way old) that is explained - in poetry and prose in a book by a guy names Boethius (who knew from injustice and pain) called "The Consolation of Philosophy."
Do we get pleasure and pain in proportion to our ethical score? Plainly not. So life is not "fair" that way. But it IS "fair" in another way - that the more conscious and skillful we get, the more interesting and manageable and … dare I say… fun life is. So it is fair in that way. If you want "fair" to include the possibility of getting out of pain altogether, you are not going to get that. If fair can include a life that has pain in it (and the possibility that that pain could sometimes be useful and other times just, well, painful) then that kind of fair is available.
I hope this helps the cognitive side. It won't do much about the old emotional reactions welling up. That's a different story entirely!
