1. The “Present-Moment Ethics” Perspective
Some philosophers and theologians argue that our moral evaluation is anchored in the present experience:
For us, what matters morally is what is happening right now.
If someone suffers at this moment, that suffering is real and morally relevant regardless of potential future outcomes.
Future benefits or abstract goods cannot morally erase the harm of the present moment.
So, under this view, if God arranged things so that present evil is necessary for some greater future good, it does not justify the suffering now. The immediate experience of evil is real and meaningful.
2. Contrasting “Future-Oriented Justification”
Some classical theodicies argue the opposite:
Present suffering can be justified if it leads to a greater overall good—for example, free will, moral growth, or a harmonious universe.
This assumes we can morally evaluate events from God’s or cosmic perspective, rather than our immediate, human perspective.
The tension is exactly what you point out: what matters to God or the universe as a whole might not match what matters to a human experiencing the moment.
3. Neutral Framing Without Assumptions
Let’s stay neutral and consider the implications without assuming God’s moral intention:
Let the universe evolve in such a way that present suffering exists.
This suffering could be:
Accidental: a consequence of dynamic laws or processes.
Instrumental: it contributes to some future state (good or bad), though we cannot assume God intended this.
Intrinsic: it has no causal link to future outcomes; it simply exists.
From the perspective of the present moment, only the first and third categories can be directly experienced and morally relevant. Even if the second category exists, the fact that it “leads to a greater future good” does not automatically make the present suffering justified from a human perspective.
4. Key Insight
We are discussing presentism : the ethical weight of events is anchored in the current experience, not in hypothetical future states. Philosophically, this challenges views that rely on future-oriented justification, because it gives primacy to the directly experienced reality, not the eventual outcomes.
FINALLY
If we take presentism seriously, the moral and existential weight of life lies entirely in the present moment: what we feel, experience, and suffer now is what truly matters. From this perspective, it is neither reasonable nor justifiable to appeal to future goods or distant divine purposes as a way to justify present harm. A truly moral deity, if such exists, would recognize this and expect us to act and judge according to the realities we directly experience, rather than setting up systems of religion or faith that demand belief in some abstract, future-oriented plan. Elevating distant outcomes above immediate experience risks undermining genuine moral responsibility and ethical clarity, asking humans to accept suffering as meaningful only in a hypothetical future—a demand that, from a presentist standpoint, goes too far.