The second brother now asks why he was not also allowed to die as a child. If his later wrongdoing and punishment were known, early death would have spared him the suffering.
The argument’s focus is consistency. If early death is justified as the best available protection for the youngest brother, why is the same benefit not obligatory for the second brother? The people differ, but the asserted principle—God must provide what is best for each—has been stated generally.
Thus the challenge is to a universal claim of obligation. Identifying early death as beneficial in one case does not by itself explain why that benefit was not provided in another.