In all Abrahamic religions it is taught that everything that God does is for the good. Is it philosophically possible to argue that our universe is good without arguing from the perspective of a consequentialist?
An obvious problem with arguing that our world is good, is all the barbarity in nature, and when we as humans left nature (agriculture), we inflicted upon ourselves evil as barbarians of war, and violence.
A story Schopenhouer recounts highlights this very well. "Junghuhn saw an immense field entirely covered with skeletons, and took it to be a battlefield. However they were nothing but skeletons of large turtles, five feet long, three feet broad, and of equal height. These turtles come this way from the sea, in order to lay their eggs, and are then seized by wild dogs (canis rutilans); with their united strength, these dogs lay them on their backs, tear open their lower armour, the small scales of the belly, and devour them alive. But then a tiger often pounces on the dogs. Now all this misery is repeated thousands and thousands of times, year in, year out. For this then, are these turtles born. For what offence must they suffer this agony? What is the point of the whole scene of horror? The only answer is that the will-to-live [the world-will] thus objectifies itself"
I know that Nietzsche argues against making a value judgement on life; to quote him, "The consensus of the sages-I comprehended this ever more clearly-proves least of all that they were right in what they agreed on: it shows rather that they themselves, these wisest men, agreed in some physiological respect, and hence adopted the same negative attitude to life-had to adopt it. Judgements, judgements of value, concerning life, for it or against it, can in the end never be true. They have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms; in themselves such judgements are stupidities."
It is a difficult point of view for me to understand; how can one genuinely argue that this world is good?