Q&A: The Problem of Animal Suffering
The Problem of Animal Suffering
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Recently I started thinking about a somewhat different kind of problem of evil, one that people hardly deal with at all.
After looking into it, 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 there isn’t one. Recently I came across the claim that this is the greatest problem in Judeo-Christian theology, and the main basis for moral criticism of it.
So here is the question:
Why did God create the world in such a way that living creatures have to kill one another in order to survive? After all, this means building a moral wrong into the basic characteristics of existence itself, something that could have been avoided, and it is not clear what its purpose is (3 billion years of blood-soaked evolution involving endless predators and prey). This is not a matter of human beings with free will choosing evil, but of creatures being forced to act immorally in order to survive.
In my view, in the distinction between a difficulty and a question regarding the problem of evil, this is a difficulty.
Because this is not an accompanying evil in a system whose basis is good (evil that stems from good), like the evil that comes from free choice, or from rigid laws.
This is evil built into the system, not something that merely accompanies a greater good.
It’s not that a lion sometimes chooses to prey on zebras. It *must* prey on them in order to survive. Doing evil has been forced upon it.
There does not seem to be any sufficient general explanation for the existence of this immense suffering, one that would turn the difficulty into a question.
The important point is the a priori question.
I suggest that you imagine two possible worlds.
One was created and is governed by a morally perfect God (with logical limitations, of course); the other proceeds as a result of blind laws and blind development.
Which world better explains (on the moral level) the existence of evil in the world?
In the classic problem of evil, which concerns human beings, the answer is not at all simple. It is hard to propose a system that operates without the existing evil and still contains all the necessary good (such as free will and a rigid, predictable system), and therefore it makes sense to assume that this is a question that has an answer, but our limited knowledge prevents us from knowing it.
In the problem of evil as it relates to animals, the situation is the opposite. It is very easy to imagine a different process of creation, one that leads to the same result (living creatures with consciousness and bodies adapted to their environment), and very hard—indeed almost impossible—to think of any advantage that stems from the evolutionary process of creation, a process *based* on suffering and cruelty, with these serving as the central engines that drive it.
Answer
I have written more than once about human evil and natural evil. The problem you raised is part of the problem of natural evil. People suffer from diseases and tsunamis too, and these are also not the product of human choice. I explained this in terms of the need for the world to operate according to rigid laws, and argued that perhaps there is no better system of rigid laws. Whoever challenges this bears the burden of proof that there is a better alternative.
By the way, animals usually do not cause one another suffering. They prey on what they need, and that’s it. Human beings 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 came to a tribe of cannibals in Africa and competed for their hearts. The Catholic was on the verge of 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. He answered 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.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t see any difference at all. I explained what I had to explain.
I think there is real depth to the question of the problem of animal suffering, and that the usual explanations regarding human suffering are not relevant to it.
In addition, I think there is reason to look for explanations for different kinds of suffering that do not fall into the same category. After all, if not, there would be no point in presenting reasons for the existence of evil with respect to human beings (free will and a rigid system of laws). One could simply assume that God has good reasons to allow it, and that would be the end of the discussion.
But searching for these general explanations is necessary. Otherwise, the conclusion would be that it is more reasonable 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. Rather, it is that the very mechanism of the creation of life is based on suffering and cruelty.
This is not accompanying evil. We are talking about 3 billion years of evolution driven by evil (the struggle for survival and the struggle of predators and prey), and there does not seem to be any explanation at all, 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 not based on the struggle of predators and prey. There is not even the slightest clue that would allow one to assume that the evolutionary process has a significant advantage (on the moral level), and that its results are vastly superior to any other possible method.
My question is whether there is any general explanation at all (like free will and the rigid system of laws that sometimes leads to natural disasters with respect to human suffering), or whether all that remains is simply to assume that God has good reasons for choosing the cruel evolutionary model as the proper process of creation, even though there is no possible explanation that justifies it?