We are unable to logically prove that an is, somebody suffering, gives rise to an "I ought to help."
But is and ought are bound together psychologically.
If God has done that, there are other things he should have glued together.
One is misery after doing harm.
Should people who do wrong, always feel unhappy by the power of God until they repent?
Religion says no for it will mean that they avoid evil not because it is evil but because it will ruin their happiness.
But surely it knows that some people do endure misery until they make something right. Their conscience torments them.
Also, ruining your happiness might be your way of taking evil seriously – seeing how terrible it is.
Unhappiness or the prospect of it makes it more likely for a person to do wrong.
Hypothetically, if retribution makes a person sin more, retribution should be scrapped. Cancelling retribution is only rewarding a sin when it is cancelled for nothing.
Christianity rejects this sensible fact. It says that though we would have been trapped in sin forever had Christ not saved us by his death, God was right not to pardon without it though it meant an increase of sin so that inhuman creed rejects this sensible fact. However, God would only have the right to keep us in sin if he couldn't stop us sinning which he could do even without force if he is omnipotent. If wrong makes you happy, and right does the same - you might as well do right and probably will. But the free will defence says that good has to be a free-willed sacrifice.