Animal Grief and the Problem of Evil

[Whag]

Lately i've been thinking about the implications of animal grief as it relates to the morality of God and the problem of evil. As far as I know, grief in animals has only been observed in apes and domesticated animals, particularly dogs and cats. That might have some explanatory value given the deep connection between these species. But if it turns out that grief, or something very much like it, is experienced in a wide variety of species, does that add to the problem of evil? The idea of meaningless emotional pain in animals in addition to meaningless physical pain seems to add another layer of inexplicable cruelty to the teleological plan that, to me, strikes me as only a tad less depressing than an ultimately nihilistic universe. Why does human suffering require compensation while animal suffering is barely considered in these modes of belief?

[robertb]

Why do you think grief is evil? The only evil I know of, at least in relation to God, would be what God specifically calls evil.

[Whag]

I mean evil only in the philosophical sense. The problem of evil juxtaposes suffering with a loving god. Physical pain and grief inihuman beings was always a component of the argument, but now it seems that science has revealed a whole new component of the problem in that animals seem to experience a type of protoemotion that seems similar to grief.

ETA: physical pain can be explained as being justified as a type of warning system, but how would grief in animals be explained?

[ZackMartin]

I've heard that elephants mourn. I'd expect grief is probably quite common to animals - any animal with pair bonding in mating, and any animal with a social structure based on the value of the individual (as opposed to the collectivist social structures of bees, ants or termites) - I'd expect could experience something at least analogous to grief when faced with death of its partner or fellow group member. Even if the animal doesn't have an intellectual concept of "death" per se, I'd think the death or sudden disappearance of a loved one must be confusing and disturbing to animals, and that emotional disturbance is akin to human grief.

But is grief evil? Well, if death is the permanent end of existence, then grief is mourning a great tragedy - but in a sense, the tragedy mourned is more evil than the mourning itself. Whereas, if there is an afterlife - what will think of grief when we meet our loved ones again on the other side? No matter how evil we felt grief was while we were in the midst of it, might it not seem but as a passing trifle when reunion has cured it?

The question then is, do animals have an afterlife? I believe that they do, or at least the higher animals who have some form of sentience do. And just as humans get reunited with their loved ones in the afterlife, I believe that animals get reunited with their loved ones also. In the afterlife, humans are reunited with the humans they love; humans are reunited with the animals they love; animals are reunited with the humans they love; animals are reunited with the animals they love.

[Kenny]

But if it turns out that grief, or something very much like it, is experienced in a wide variety of species, does that add to the problem of evil?

Yes. It does. The problem of animal suffering (in all of its varieties) is one to which theologians and theistic philosophers ought to pay more attention (many theistic philosophers are starting to give this issue significant attention, however).

Why does human suffering require compensation while animal suffering is barely considered in these modes of belief?

I think, most likely, non-human animals will be compensated for their suffering. Nothing in Christian theology precludes the idea of an afterlife for non-human animals.

[KingsGambit]

Yes. It does. The problem of animal suffering (in all of its varieties) is one to which theologians and theistic philosophers ought to pay more attention (many theistic philosophers are starting to give this issue significant attention, however).

I saw something on the issue while browsing WLC's website recently.

[Kenny]

I saw something on the issue while browsing WLC's website recently.

Here’s a book in which theistic philosopher Michael Murray lays out the problem in depth and scrutinizes some of the proposed solutions to it (honestly, I have not yet read it myself, but it is often cited in connection with this issue).

http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Red-Too.../dp/0199237271

There’s an interesting post by WLC that makes reference to Murray’s work.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-suffering

In addition, here’s a link to an article proposing one way of extending Plantinga’s Free Will Defense so as to cover non-moral evil (including Animal pain that is not brought about by the activities of morally responsible agents other than God).

http://kennethboyce.files.wordpress....ll-defense.pdf

There might be a few pieces to the puzzle, at least, to be found in all of this.

[Hamster]

[Whag]

Glad to see an Onion video actually being clever and funny for a change. Great post.

[robertb]

I mean evil only in the philosophical sense. The problem of evil juxtaposes suffering with a loving god. Physical pain and grief inihuman beings was always a component of the argument, but now it seems that science has revealed a whole new component of the problem in that animals seem to experience a type of protoemotion that seems similar to grief.

ETA: physical pain can be explained as being justified as a type of warning system, but how would grief in animals be explained?

Why would "evil" in a philosophical sense, apart from the definition of evil in a theistic sense, have any relevance to theism? I am not sure how "the problem of evil juxtaposes suffering with a loving god" eve makes any sense if you do not use the word evil in the theistic sense when referring to God.

I would say that evil does not exist apart from being a description of certain intentions we may find less than desireable. In fact, isn't the definition of evil with regards to God simply a description of certain intentions that God may find less than desireable? So, that said, I really do not see how this can be a problem for God if, in fact, God defines evil. If we define evil, we are necessarily talking about something else.

[ZackMartin]

Why would "evil" in a philosophical sense, apart from the definition of evil in a theistic sense, have any relevance to theism? I am not sure how "the problem of evil juxtaposes suffering with a loving god" eve makes any sense if you do not use the word evil in the theistic sense when referring to God.

Which assumes that evil "in the philosophical sense" and evil "in the theistic sense" are different things. There is not one single philosophical understanding of evil, nor is their one single theistic understanding of evil either. Some understandings of "evil" might be seen as essentially theistic, and others as essentially non-theistic. But I think for at least some understandings of "evil", the "philosophical" and "theistic" senses may in fact be the same. For example, I am a theist and a believer in objective morality; but I don't think my understanding of objective morality is so explicitly theistic that no atheist could possibly agree with it. I'm not a divine command theorist by any means.

[robertb]

Which assumes that evil "in the philosophical sense" and evil "in the theistic sense" are different things. There is not one single philosophical understanding of evil, nor is their one single theistic understanding of evil either. Some understandings of "evil" might be seen as essentially theistic, and others as essentially non-theistic. But I think for at least some understandings of "evil", the "philosophical" and "theistic" senses may in fact be the same. For example, I am a theist and a believer in objective morality; but I don't think my understanding of objective morality is so explicitly theistic that no atheist could possibly agree with it. I'm not a divine command theorist by any means.

Sure, but all I could assume from Whag's question was that he was somehow referring to some other evil. Something other than theistic evil, of any flavor.

[magellan004]

'What use is grief to a horse?' from Equus, a play by Peter Shaffer. A great film starring Richard Burton


Magellan

[Tassman]

'What use is grief to a horse?' from Equus, a play by Peter Shaffer. A great film starring Richard Burton

Magellan

And even greater when seen live on stage, more intense.

Grief surely has the evolved benefit of strengthening the bonds within a social unit and would apply to all of the higher social animals. This in turn would benefit their survival capacity.

Physical pain is a different matter altogether and is hard to justify if part of the divine creation. ALL living things suffer pain as is evident in how they struggle to avoid it. And while it is said to ennoble one, it surely would be something best done without.

[robertb]

Physical pain is a different matter altogether and is hard to justify if part of the divine creation. ALL living things suffer pain as is evident in how they struggle to avoid it. And while it is said to ennoble one, it surely would be something best done without.

The fact that placing your hand on a hot stove causes you pain is probably a good thing. Suffering, other than as another description of physical pain, is a by-product of emotion. So if emotions are a desireable trait, then the consequences of having them are simply the uneaten cake, I suppose.