Argument from evil, restated

[Undeceived]

And humanity would stop hurting others and allowing hunger... why? For what rational reason? I can think of only one reason: love. But that doesn't exist. So you must be describing a world without rational reasons--a world in which we are robots or animals. Can a robot or animal judge that the sudden absence of hunger, disease and war is a change for the better? Or perhaps I should ask: Are you willing to give up your humanity in order to eliminate evil?

Well ... no. You would be you, having woken up to see a great many bad things removed from existence, and retaining an understanding of what they were and why they were bad. I didn't specify why, for all I care we could assume that it was completely and totally inexplicable. Did eliminating smallpox make us "less human"? If we knew how, would eliminating the impulse that some adults have to sexually assault children make us "robots"? Would you really be the one to say, "Hey guys, maybe that's not such a good idea, after all someone needs to rape a child every now and then so that we can all understand the nature of good". These aren't supposed to be trick questions.

The only earthly reason everyone would refrain from injuring others and would end starvation, ect. is if none of us were rational beings. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you were not rational, you could scarcely make a judgment about the situation. It would be impossible to say, "This was a good idea" after the fact. Take away some free will, you take it all away. Evil isn't just the removal of impulse. It includes evil by omission. So not only must humans have no tendency whatsoever for competition, they must be naturally compelled to aid their fellow human beings. Since there is no love or emotion, the aid would be out of duty. Is that the sort of entity you want to be--not even capable of noticing the good your cells are doing?