The objection
"Since suffering in nature is natural, it's neutral. It isn't bad the way suffering caused by humans is. So we don't need to do anything."
The confusion
The author shows that this idea mixes up two questions:
- Is anyone to blame? (responsibility)
- Is the situation bad? (evaluation)
In nature, nobody is to blame: not the disease, not the predator. But that doesn't mean the suffering isn't bad.
An example
A very young child can't be held responsible for what they do. But if they hit someone on the head with a stick, the victim's pain is real and bad. That gives us reasons to help the victim and to keep it from happening again.
What makes suffering bad
What makes suffering bad is what it's like: pain hurts, fear is scary. It doesn't matter where it came from. A toothache caused by a natural infection is just as bad as one caused by a punch.
And it's exactly this badness that gives us reasons to prevent it.
In short
- Nobody being to blame doesn't make suffering neutral.
- A victim suffers just the same, whether the cause is natural or human.
- What makes suffering bad is the suffering itself.