The Problem of Hell is an ethical conflict that arises from the idea that subjecting people to eternal suffering is inconsistent with a benevolent God. It is hard to argue against this. Let us break it down.
On one hand:
Statement 1. God punishes forever those that do not do as he wants.
On the other hand:
Statement 2. God is benevolent and wishes us no harm and he can ensure that we are not harmed.
God is someone that can avoid someone’s pain yet does not because he does not want to do so.
The above statement fully captures the Drowning Children Situation which was covered here. The key idea from the Drowning Children Situation was that:
if I can prevent something undesirable and unnecessary without sacrificing anything of similar ‘moral value’, then preventing something undesirable and unnecessary is the desirable and necessary thing to do.
Not conforming to the above would earn you the label of “morally indifferent”. And just like us, God’s not conforming to the above would also earn him the label of “morally indifferent”. Since he does not prevent people’s suffering when they are sent to Hell, he deserves the label of “morally indifferent” rather than the label of “benevolent” just like any of us would in his situation. The Drowning Children argument is a powerful argument where power and moral responsibility increase in direct proportion. When your power becomes infinite, so does your moral responsibility. Just like Voltaire said:
With great power comes great responsibility