Everyday Philosophy: Where is God when children are starving?
Yet images of emaciated Palestinian children and babies, victims of the Israeli blockade on Gaza, are now so common that we risk becoming immune to them, and to what it means morally for someone to have ordered actions with this predictable result. Some humanitarian aid is getting through now, but for thousands it will be too late.
No one can justify starving a child. Ever. It's not a legitimate response to the sadistic brutality of the attacks by Hamas on Israeli citizens on October 7, 2023.
Adults are dying too, of course, but it is the children and babies that most wrench the heart of anyone capable of compassion. What is happening to them now, today, not as the result of drought or a pandemic, but through Benjamin Netanyahu's policies, is almost too terrible to imagine.
In Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov, the character Ivan asks how widespread and intense cruelty towards children, including their torture and murder in war, can be compatible with the existence of a good God. If the price of believing in God is that this is a necessary feature of a preconceived harmonious whole, then for him the price is too high. Ivan refuses to believe in such a God. As he puts it, 'What have children got to do with it? It's quite incomprehensible why they should have to suffer.'
This is an aspect of the Problem of Evil, the problem of squaring the undeniable existence of evil in the world, both naturally occurring and evil as a result of human choice, with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God. How can this be in the plan of a supremely loving Being? And if it's not in the plan, but down to bad human choices, what possessed a kind God to invent beings with the capacity for such acts? What's going on?
Atheists have a simple answer: it isn't compatible, and this is further evidence that God doesn't exist.
That seems right to me. The usual response of believers is that the gift of human free will brings with it the possibility of doing evil.
But it's worth asking whether we really do have free will, and also why a good God couldn't have made us more prone to treating one another better. Why doesn't He, She, It intervene to stop atrocities like the mass starvation of children? Why perform a miracle like turning water into wine, curing someone of leprosy, or making a statue weep, and not save the many hungry children of Palestine?
For believers, agnostics and atheists alike there is now a practical question about how we should react to the knowledge that children are being starved. Should we, as most of us do, get on with our lives and not think too much about it? We are more or less incapable of helping them.
Faced with the suffering of her compatriots in occupied France during the second world war, the French philosopher and religious mystic Simone Weil, who had escaped to England hoping to join the French resistance from there, chose a radical and self-destructive form of solidarity with them.
Weil had always had a deep and passionate concern for the suffering of others. In 1928, Simone de Beauvoir, her fellow student at the Sorbonne in Paris, learned that Weil had wept on hearing about the outbreak of famine in China.
In Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter, Beauvoir explained 'these tears compelled my respect much more than her gifts as a philosopher. I envied her for having a heart that could beat right across the world.'
They met and discussed which was more important: the revolution that would feed all the starving people of the Earth, or finding the meaning of human existence. Weil chose revolution; Beauvoir put the existential question higher. Weil's reaction was to dismiss Beauvoir as petit bourgeois. She looked her up and down and told her: 'It's easy to see you've never gone hungry'.
Weil's hopes of being parachuted back into France as a resistance radio operative were thwarted by advanced tuberculosis. In 1943, already frail, she decided to eat only the quantity of food she believed people in occupied France could obtain. This extreme act of solidarity hastened her death, which came in August of that year. She was only 34.
Weil experts still debate whether solidarity really was the motivation for her minimal diet, or whether this was an act of religious asceticism inspired by her reading of Schopenhauer.
Either way, self-starvation doesn't help hungry children, and I definitely don't recommend Weil's approach. But what can we do?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Why doesn't Musk like Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'?
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 It's day 135 of Donald Trump's second term, and our US correspondents Mark Stone and Martha Kelner discuss Elon Musk's exit from his Department of Government Efficiency role last week, and his harsh criticism of Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill in a furious X post on Tuesday. Plus, Hamas and Israel have reacted to Mark's Monday interview with former State Department spokesman Matt Miller, who said that 'without a doubt' war crimes had been committed in Gaza by Israel, which is in stark contrast to what he said in office. If you've got a question you'd like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@ You can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
France is a case study in how we approach stopping far right
As Reform UK attempt to break into Holyrood through the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, mainstream politicians have responded with a strong sense of principle. John Swinney has warned that Reform would use a Holyrood seat to undermine the Scottish Parliament itself. Labour, the SNP and many civic voices are drawing a line – saying, in essence: not here, not now, not like this. It's a moment that feels almost quaint – a democratic reflex that has eroded elsewhere in Europe. And yet, watching this from both within Scotland and with the eyes of someone who has lived through the French experience of far-right normalisation, I can't help but feel uneasy. Because I've seen this before – and I know how quickly it can fall apart. In France, we used to take similar pride in our collective ability to shut the door on the far right. The barrage républicain – a decades-old reflex to unite across ideological lines to block the far right from power – was once a moral constant. You held your nose if you had to, but you voted against Le Pen. And for years, that worked. Jean-Marie Le Pen lost in 2002. Marine Le Pen lost in 2017 and again in 2022. The far right made it to the second round, but never through. READ MORE: Nigel Farage's Scottish conspiracy theories fit Reform's agenda. Don't fall for it But what's happening now is different. The barrage has become tired – almost theatrical. It's invoked automatically, and less convincingly. More and more voters on both the left and the right are now saying : 'Not this time.' On the left, people are exhausted from being the adults in the room. Tired of being told their only political role is to vote for someone they loathe in order to stop someone they fear. Tired of voting for a centre that governs with the right and delivers austerity, repression and a deepening sense of democratic emptiness. Emmanuel Macron, in particular, has made the barrage part of his brand – presenting himself again and again as the last defence against chaos, while dismantling labour protections, weakening the welfare state and cracking down on protest. On the right, the moral urgency around Le Pen has simply faded. For some, she no longer seems dangerous. For others, she seems necessary – a reaction, even a correction, to what they perceive as the cultural or political excesses of the left. In the 2022 snap parliamentary elections, we saw just how fragile the barrage had become. The French conservative party – Les Républicains, ironically – didn't even call for it. Members of Macron's government hesitated. Only the left was clear: in constituencies where its candidate had less chance of beating the far right, it stood down and supported the remaining non-far right candidate. The barrage still exists as a phrase, a reflex, a gesture – but it feels increasingly like a relic. A ritual that no longer carries the weight it once did. Now, the French left is reckoning with the very real possibility that the far right could win the presidency, by reaching a second round where the traditional barrage républicain no longer holds. Whether the candidate is Marine Le Pen or Jordan Bardella – increasingly seen as her likely successor following her recent suspended sentence in the EU funds case – the threat is growing. If centrist and right-wing voters refuse to rally behind the left, or if abstention continues to rise, the firewall could fail. That fear is part of what drove the creation of the Nouveau Front populaire – not in a presidential context, but in response to Macron's decision to dissolve the National Assembly and call snap legislative elections in June 2024. At the time, the far right was predicted to win outright. And they did win big. But the united left – despite immense pressure and rushed negotiations – performed better than expected and helped prevent a full far-right majority. The NFP stirred hope, but it was also born of desperation, a last-minute attempt to salvage the barrage and prevent the far right from locking in long-term power. It may succeed in holding the line this time. But even if it does, everyone knows the barrage cannot keep holding forever. Because when the only argument against the far right is that they are worse – and not that we are better – the ground begins to give way. The Hamilton by-election, triggered by the death of SNP MSP Christina McKelvie, is drawing attention in part because of the question hanging in the background: how well will Reform perform? Not because Nigel Farage is especially popular – polls suggest most Scottish voters still strongly dislike him – but because more and more people feel politically abandoned. And that's where the risk lies. People know who Reform are. They know what kind of politician Farage is – and still, they listen. Not out of ignorance, but because they've stopped believing the mainstream parties have anything left to offer. Because the firewall is being guarded by parties that many no longer trust. What happened in France is that voters – especially on the left – are under the impression that some politicians now use the barrage as a kind of shortcut. It becomes a way to avoid the hard ideological work of building a compelling alternative. Rather than doing the patient work of articulating a vision for social justice, public investment and economic dignity, they simply ask people to 'do the right thing' and vote against the far right. In the centre, the strategy is even more cynical – and in France, it has become outright dangerous. Macron built his political brand on opposing the extremes, but his government has consistently borrowed from the far-right's playbook. READ MORE: Douglas Ross slapped down by Holyrood Presiding Officer after FMQs ejection Ministers like Gérald Darmanin have openly echoed its talking points. The government's 2023 immigration law – shaped in part by pressure from the Rassemblement National – was a turning point, enshrining exclusionary and punitive measures that Marine Le Pen could have proudly authored. Far-right ideas are being mainstreamed not accidentally, but deliberately, in the hope that voters will continue to support the 'least-worst' option. Scotland's political culture remains distinct – and in many ways, admirable. There is a strong civic nationalism here, rooted in values of openness, equality and a belief in collective responsibility. There's still a public discourse that values immigration and diversity. There's a deep emotional connection to the idea of a progressive European future. But none of that is permanent. If the parties defending that culture continue to offer little beyond managerialism – if Labour offer no political direction, and the SNP slogans without delivery – then the space for something darker will grow. And the tools to resist it will weaken. The response to Reform so far has often relied on shaming voters: reminding them that Farage is vulgar, dishonest, racist. And he is. But people know that. They're not stupid. The danger isn't that they don't understand who he is. It's that they no longer believe anyone else is fighting for them. What people want is not a lecture. They want a politics that speaks to their lives. To the reality of low pay, high rents, collapsing care and stretched public services. They want someone to say: 'Yes, we see you. And we have a plan.' If the only message is to vote tactically, to hold your nose, to protect what we have – eventually, people will stop listening. Many already are. It doesn't have to end this way. Scotland still has the opportunity to respond to this moment not with fear, but with ambition. Not just by resisting Farage, but by making him irrelevant. That means hard political work. It means putting forward a real programme for investment in housing, for rebuilding social care, for taxing wealth, for redistributing power. It means giving people something to vote for, not just something to vote against. And it means believing that voters don't want to be rescued from themselves – they want to be treated as people whose aspirations still matter. Right now, Scotland is still holding the line. But we shouldn't confuse that with security. The barrage, whether in France or here, is not a political vision. It's a reflex. And reflexes weaken if they're not attached to something deeper. So let's be honest. The threat is real. Farage isn't going away. And shaming him – or his voters – won't be enough. We need to speak less about him, and more about what kind of country we want to live in. We can still beat the far right. But only if we stop trying to outmanoeuvre them – and start out-imagining them.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
BBC defends Gaza coverage after White House criticism
The BBC has defended its coverage of the war in Gaza, after the White House criticised its reporting of an apparent incident in the territory, which reportedly left a number of people dead. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the corporation, after updating an article's headline with new information, had to 'correct and take down' its story about fatalities and injuries following a reported incident near an aid distribution centre in Rafah. The BBC said it has not removed its story and explained that its headlines about the incident were 'updated throughout the day with the latest fatality figures as they came in from various sources', which is 'totally normal practice'. In a press briefing on Tuesday, Ms Leavitt responded to a question about the incident and said: 'The administration is aware of those reports and we are currently looking into the veracity of them because, unfortunately, unlike some in the media, we don't take the word of Hamas with total truth. 'We like to look into it when they speak, unlike the BBC, who had multiple headlines, they wrote, 'Israeli tank kills 26', 'Israeli tank kills 21', 'Israeli gunfire kills 31', ' Red Cross says, 21 people were killed in an aid incident'. 'And then, oh, wait, they had to correct and take down their entire story, saying 'We reviewed the footage and couldn't find any evidence of anything'.' While she was speaking Ms Leavitt held up a document that appeared to show a social media post from X, formerly Twitter, with the different headlines. The person who posted the headlines also posted a screenshot from a BBC live blog and wrote: 'The admission that it was all a lie.' The headline from the blog post read: 'Claim graphic video is linked to aid distribution site in Gaza is incorrect.' A BBC spokesperson said this came from the a BBC Verify online report, and not the corporation's story about the killings in Rafah, saying that a viral video posted on social media was not linked to the aid distribution centre it claimed to show. Ms Leavitt added: 'We're going to look into reports before we confirm them from this podium or before we take action, and I suggest that journalists who actually care about truth do the same to reduce the amount of misinformation that's going around the globe on this front.' A BBC spokesperson said: 'The claim the BBC took down a story after reviewing footage is completely wrong. We did not remove any story and we stand by our journalism. 'Our news stories and headlines about Sunday's aid distribution centre incident were updated throughout the day with the latest fatality figures as they came in from various sources. 'These were always clearly attributed, from the first figure of 15 from medics, through the 31 killed from the Hamas-run health ministry to the final Red Cross statement of 'at least 21' at their field hospital. 'This is totally normal practice on any fast-moving news story. 'Completely separately, a BBC Verify online report on Monday reported a viral video posted on social media was not linked to the aid distribution centre it claimed to show. 'This video did not run on BBC news channels and had not informed our reporting. Conflating these two stories is simply misleading. 'It is vital to bring people the truth about what is happening in Gaza. International journalists are not currently allowed into Gaza and we would welcome the support of the White House in our call for immediate access.' The corporation has faced a backlash over its coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict and it emerged earlier in the year that a documentary it aired about Gaza featured the son of a senior Hamas figure. Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone was removed from BBC iPlayer after it emerged that the child narrator, Abdullah, is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as Hamas's deputy minister of agriculture.
