The problem of animal suffering
Hello Rabbi,
Recently I started thinking about a slightly different kind of evil problem, one that is hardly addressed at all.
After some investigation, I discovered that this is a distinct theological problem, called “The Problem of Animal Suffering.” I tried to find an answer to it in various places, but it seems that it does not exist. Recently, I came across the claim that this is the greatest problem of Judeo-Christian theology, and the main basis for moral criticism of it.
And here is the question:
Why did God create the world so that living beings must kill each other to survive? After all, it is a built-in moral injustice in the basic characteristics of existence, something that could have been avoided, and it is not clear what its purpose is (3 billion bloody years of evolution of endless predators and prey). It is not a choice of humans with free will for evil, but a compulsion of creatures to act immorally in order to survive.
In my opinion, in dividing between a problem and a question on the subject of the problem of evil, this is a problem.
Because it is not an evil that accompanies a system that is based on good (evil that stems from goodness) like the evil that stems from free choice, or from rigid laws.
This is about an evil that is built into the system, not one that accompanies a greater good.
It’s not that a lion sometimes chooses to eat zebras. He *must* eat them in order to survive. Doing evil was forced upon him.
There does not seem to be a satisfactory general explanation for the existence of immense suffering, one that turns the problem into a question.
The important point is the a priori question.
I suggest you imagine two possible worlds.
One is created and governed by a morally perfect God (with logical limitations of course); the other is governed by blind legalism and evolution.
Which world better explains (on a moral level) the existence of evil in the world?
In the classic problem of evil, which concerns humans, the answer is not at all simple. It is difficult to propose a system that operates without existing evil, and yet contains all the necessary good (such as free choice and a rigid system that can be predicted), so it is reasonable to assume that this is a question that has an answer that our limited knowledge prevents us from knowing.
In the problem of evil concerning animals, the situation is the opposite. It is very easy to think of a different creative process, one that leads to the same result (living beings with consciousness and a body adapted to their environment), and it is very difficult (even impossible) to think of any advantage resulting from the evolutionary creative process, a process *based* on suffering and cruelty, which are the main engines driving it.
I have written many times about human evil and natural evil. The problem you raised is part of the problem of natural evil. People suffer from diseases and tsunamis, and these are not the result of people’s choice either. I explained this according to the need for the world to be governed by rigid rules, and I argued that perhaps there is no better rigid set of rules. Whoever makes it difficult has the burden of proof (that there is a better alternative).
By the way, animals usually don’t cause each other suffering. They prey on what they need and that’s it. Humans cause suffering for the sake of suffering. There’s a story I just saw about two missionaries, a Catholic and a Protestant, during World War I who arrived at a cannibal tribe in Africa and competed for their hearts. The Catholic was facing victory and before the mass baptism he met with the chief who asked him about the war in Europe, and wondered how many people were being killed there every day. The chief answered him about 3,000 (I think). So the cannibal replied: We kill one person because we need to eat, and you’re just a bunch of murderers. They chose to remain cannibals, of course.
I think there is depth to the question of the problem of animal suffering, and that the accepted explanations regarding human suffering are irrelevant to it.
In addition, I think there is a point in seeking explanations for different types of suffering that do not fall into the same category. Otherwise, there would be no point in presenting the reasons for the existence of evil in relation to humans (free choice and a rigid system of laws). One could simply assume that God has good reasons for allowing it, and that would be the end of the discussion.
But seeking these general explanations is necessary. Otherwise, the conclusion would be that it is more likely to assume that God does not exist, or is not good, than to assume that He exists and is good, and allows evil for moral reasons.
The problem with the problem of animal suffering is not that they sometimes suffer. It is that the mechanism of creating life itself is based on suffering and cruelty.
This is not a question of collateral evil. We are talking about 3 billion years of evolution driven by evil (a war of survival and a war of predators and prey), and there does not seem to be any explanation, even a general one, that could lead to the conclusion that God probably has a good reason to allow it.
After all, God could have created them through a different process, one that is not based on a war of predators and prey. There is not even a shred of evidence that allows us to assume that the evolutionary process has a significant advantage (on a moral level), and that its results are far superior to any other possible method.
My question is, is there any general explanation (such as free choice and the rigid system of laws that sometimes leads to natural disasters in relation to human suffering), or is it only possible to assume that God has good reasons for choosing the cruel evolutionary model as the appropriate process of creation, even though there is no possible explanation that justifies it?
I don't see any difference. I explained what I had to explain.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
