It's terrible if you're looking at it through the lens of natural justice, but will always be the most just and merciful outcome on the part of God. We are not permitted to sit here and speculate on why God let person A die young while person B lives a worse life to old age. We are to accept it as the Divine Will and the best possible outcome of that causal chain.
Part of what influences our view of natural justice is the erroneous opinion of Rousseau that man is born naturally good. This incredibly common moralistic fallacy (otherwise known as the is-ought) has been condemned by the Church, and I dare to say is condemned by our common sense.
Especially in these godless times, it is evident to see that man left to his own devices is very prone to become wicked and corrupt. What Rousseau did was try to blame "society" for this tendency, which we know is really the result of Original Sin, instead of the very nature of fallen man.
Though as other users have pointed out (especially the eminent Ladislaus, whom I have sparred with much on other subjects), certain saints and theologians before Rousseau have fallen into this theological kind of the moralistic fallacy out of sentimentality.
A little more about the
moralistic fallacy:
The moralistic fallacy is the informal fallacy of assuming that an aspect of nature which has socially unpleasant consequences cannot exist. Its typical form is "if X were true, then it would happen that Z!", where Z is a morally, socially or politically undesirable thing. What should be moral is assumed a priori to also be naturally occurring.
Evidently in this case we are talking about an aspect of the supernatural that has socially unpleasant consequences, but the logic still follows. Though this fallacy was coined by the infidel David Hume, I think that this fallacy stands to reason as a legitimate kind of fallacy.
Topic: Baptism of desire is totally undeniable (Read 2517 times)