Perhaps you should be asking yourself:

1. Why you believe that one animal killing another to survive is de facto not good.

2. How you (or anyone else, for that matter) can judge whether another approach is better than the one that is in place.

 

If animals could talk, a veterinarian's job would be a bit easier.

 

I find veterinarians to be the most skilled of doctors for precisely this reason: they cannot get an answer to the question, "Where does it hurt?"

 

^^^ They also aren't performing brain surgery to save a dogs life.

 

If "Heaven" is the logical end, then what's the purpose of life? It's a bit like "lets skip hello and go straight to goodbye", isn't it?

 

Again, IF you believe in God, hell is also a factor. This gets back to the trials.

 

I know, I know, good and bad are subjective terms. However, how can the miracle of life ending in the suffering of being eaten alive (re: Cheetah vs. Impala) be thought of as "good"? Good ending for the Cheetah maybe, but the idea itself, couldn't it use a little work? Even in the "Grand Scheme" of things, isn't this act inherently bad? I'm asking because I value your opinion.

 

He could also not do that and die of starvation.

 

Given that dying in inevitable (we can debate the truth of this later), is dying a slow death from starvation or disease better than a swift one from a cheetah's claws and teeth?

 

We'd have to ask the Impala, no?