Suffering and Evil as Privation

  • Thread starter Thread starter MilesVitae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MilesVitae

Guest
In Thomistic thought, evil (by which I mean physical evil and moral evil) is a privation, a lack of some proper good. For the most part, this seems to me to make sense. I have trouble, however, seeing how suffering is a privation. Sure, the unhealthiness of someone with cancer, say, considered as an evil consists in a privation of the proper, healthy order of the body. But how is the suffering itself a privation? Pain seems to be a very positive reality, not merely lack of due order or proper good. How does this fit in with the theory of evil as a privation?
 
In Thomistic thought, evil (by which I mean physical evil and moral evil) is a privation, a lack of some proper good. For the most part, this seems to me to make sense. I have trouble, however, seeing how suffering is a privation. Sure, the unhealthiness of someone with cancer, say, considered as an evil consists in a privation of the proper, healthy order of the body. But how is the suffering itself a privation? Pain seems to be a very positive reality, not merely lack of due order or proper good. How does this fit in with the theory of evil as a privation?
I don’t see how pain can be considered a good in the ultimate sense. It is a consequence if some evil, some privation which it seeks to motivate us to correct, but wouldn’t be considered a good in itself. In heaven there’ll be no pain, no suffering, no tears. God designed man with happiness as a natural desire and happened is His will for us as well.
 
I don’t see how pain can be considered a good in the ultimate sense. It is a consequence if some evil, some privation which it seeks to motivate us to correct, but wouldn’t be considered a good in itself. In heaven there’ll be no pain, no suffering, no tears. God designed man with happiness as a natural desire and happened is His will for us as well.
Okay - so then suffering is an evil? And, if so, is it an evil which is a privation, or is it not? If not, it blows out of the water the Thomistic conception of evil as privation.

In case you’ve misunderstood me, I was not suggesting suffering was a good. I am saying it is an evil, but asking how it can be a privation.
 
Okay - so then suffering is an evil? And, if so, is it an evil which is a privation, or is it not? If not, it blows out of the water the Thomistic conception of evil as privation.

In case you’ve misunderstood me, I was not suggesting suffering was a good. I am saying it is an evil, but asking how it can be a privation.
It’s a privation of happiness, God’s intention for man.
 
In Thomistic thought, evil (by which I mean physical evil and moral evil) is a privation, a lack of some proper good. For the most part, this seems to me to make sense. I have trouble, however, seeing how suffering is a privation. Sure, the unhealthiness of someone with cancer, say, considered as an evil consists in a privation of the proper, healthy order of the body. But how is the suffering itself a privation? Pain seems to be a very positive reality, not merely lack of due order or proper good. How does this fit in with the theory of evil as a privation?
There’s moral evil, and there’s natural evil, and these are two different things. Natural evils are not moral evils.
 
It’s a privation of happiness, God’s intention for man.
Well, this is true in part, but I’m not sure it is sufficient to answer the question. An experience of suffering does involve a privation of happiness, to some extent or another. But, it seems to me, that we can distinguish between the privation of happiness on the one hand, and the actual, positive pain. The positive pain which one feels does not seem to be a mere privation, but a positive reality.
 
There’s moral evil, and there’s natural evil, and these are two different things. Natural evils are not moral evils.
Indeed, they are two different kinds of evil - but the evil in both cases consists of a privation, an absence of a proper good or due order.
Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence. Perhaps this helps with that distinction.
I didn’t read much of the document in the link - from what I saw of it, it seemed to be concerned with the practical concern of surrendering one’s self to God’s will in the face of evil. I am not asking about this. Even at the theoretical level, I am not so much concerned with the relation of God’s will to evil, but simply the nature of evil as privation, and how suffering fits into that model of evil.
 
Well, this is true in part, but I’m not sure it is sufficient to answer the question. An experience of suffering does involve a privation of happiness, to some extent or another. But, it seems to me, that we can distinguish between the privation of happiness on the one hand, and the actual, positive pain. The positive pain which one feels does not seem to be a mere privation, but a positive reality.
True, but it’s not a reality God intends for us permanently. A pained conscience is perhaps a necessary evil until no longer necessary. And all evil presents itself positively in that it has genuine repercussions, i.e. evil is not merely an illusion or matter of perspective.
 
True, but it’s not a reality God intends for us permanently. A pained conscience is perhaps a necessary evil until no longer necessary. And all evil presents itself positively in that it has genuine repercussions, i.e. evil is not merely an illusion or matter of perspective.
Oh, I wasn’t at all trying to suggest evil is an illusion of some sort.

As for God’s will and the permanency of suffering, I would first point out that some suffering is permanent - namely, the suffering of the damned. In any case, however, as I said in my response to Shin, my primary concern here is not how to relate God’s will with evil, nor to reconcile God’s goodness with the reality of evil. I don’t mean to deny the truth of your point, but it isn’t really relevant to the issue I am trying to get at here. My concern is how to reconcile the reality of suffering as an evil, with the notion of* evil as privation**.*
 
In Thomistic thought, evil (by which I mean physical evil and moral evil) is a privation, a lack of some proper good. For the most part, this seems to me to make sense. I have trouble, however, seeing how suffering is a privation. Sure, the unhealthiness of someone with cancer, say, considered as an evil consists in a privation of the proper, healthy order of the body. But how is the suffering itself a privation? Pain seems to be a very positive reality, not merely lack of due order or proper good. How does this fit in with the theory of evil as a privation?
You are right and the Church also teaches that " evil " is the absence of a good that should be there, this includes all pain, suffering, moral outrages, climatic events, deformed creatures, illness, etc. It all results from the sin of Adam and the accumulated and ever accumulating sins of us all. God created the world without any privations in the beginning.

Suffering per se is a lack of the bodily sensation of " well being " we all have when all is well with our bodies. So suffering is a lack of the sensation or feeling of pleasant bodily comfort.

There is a real good article on suffering and evil by Jimmy Akin on this link.

jimmyakin.com/

And of course you can access the Summa Theologiae at Catholic Answers at the top of the Home Page. 👍
 
Personally, I am not sure of the answers in full but I thinnk the best thing to do is read up on some St. Thomas and other commentators of his or ask a good Thomist this question. I’ll give it a crack though
My concern is how to reconcile the reality of suffering as an evil, with the notion of** evil as privation**.
I have to immediate thoughts for the issue:
  1. Maybe suffering in the sense we are thinking isn’t an “evil” as we are discussing. If we consider good as the completion of the natural order and the fulfillment of every end and the perfection of what should be…evil is just the lack of these things. The evil in suffering is not the actual positive pain but rather the lack of some other good. The pain itself is merely a warning or a notice of the evil present. (The recognition of evil) The pain may be considered a “good” in this sense. For example, If I were having chest pain because of a blocked artery the “evil” present would be a defect in the artery…the pain is merely my nerves functioning properly and letting my body know…the pain itself is not evil, the blocked artery is.
  2. The above is for me a little unsatisfying because I think pain is best considered as an evil. So I think here is another possibility: Pain is the lacking of some good that should be present. Perhaps–Bodily comfort, peace of mind, etc. (or in hell absense of God for that matter) but anyway, if we look at it like this, all suffering, can be considered the lack of this perfection in us. Now true because of the fall this perfection is impossible but in terms of what humanity was meant to be or the theoretical ideal for man is not to suffer. Therefore, I think we can see how pain is a lack of the goods of comfort…which should be there as they were in our humanity before the fall or at least since the fall as they would be there provided no other evil (not suffering but bodily defect causing suffering or a moral evil causing suffering) was present…
Now the objection I would see to this is kind of what you said…
Well, this is true in part, but I’m not sure it is sufficient to answer the question. An experience of suffering does involve a privation of happiness, to some extent or another. But, it seems to me, that we can distinguish between the privation of happiness on the one hand, and the actual, positive pain. The positive pain which one feels does not seem to be a mere privation, but a positive reality.
But I think you are saying that the privation of “happiness” is the only pain…I would add there are many other things. Including bodily comfort, peace of mind, etc.
One can distinguish between a mere lack of the above and the presence of another in ordinary thought/conversation BUT I think that this is just a way of interpreting and experiencing and speaking. In reality on a philosophical level I think that there is no evil but merely a lack of good.

For example,
peace of mind is a good…In most people however it is not completely present as we all suffer some lack of peace of mind due to whatever, fear, anxiety, etc. So one who just says they lack peace of mind in reality has some…IOW they have enough to get through the day and make decisions. On the other hand, one who would be considered insane could be said to have no peace of mind whatsoever, it may come accross as a positive insanity but in reality is the the mere absense of that peace of mind that everyone (almost) has to some extent…

Also, example happiness…The completion of happiness in man that naturally should be there was man before the fall (note not supernaturally could be there as we will have in heaven). This happiness or well being is not perfect in anyone but is somewhat present in most. When it is lacking more than usual one could be considered apathetic or bored. However when one experiences almost no happiness they are completely lacking or almost so in happiness and experiencing this lack feels as a postive depression when in reality one could describe it as “I am not happy at all, everything seems so bleak, etc” and this is merely the lack of happiness.

Ok that was longer than I wanted but…my 2 cents
 
It all results from the sin of Adam and the accumulated and ever accumulating sins of us all. God created the world without any privations in the beginning.
While this is neither here nor there as far as the primary concern of this conversation is concerned, I disagree with you. Assuming one does not accept a literal, six-day creationist interpretation of Genesis (which I don’t), and instead accepts the account of the history of the world which we have received from science (which I do), then, prior to man, there were living creatures who were mortal and, furthermore, who fed off of each other. In that case, these creatures did suffer privations - at the very least, they underwent death by old age or by being consumed by other creatures.
Suffering per se is a lack of the bodily sensation of " well being " we all have when all is well with our bodies. So suffering is a lack of the sensation or feeling of pleasant bodily comfort.
This doesn’t seem correct, to me. As I said to fhansen earlier,
40.png
MilesVitae:
An experience of suffering does involve a privation of happiness, to some extent or another. But, it seems to me, that we can distinguish between the privation of happiness on the one hand, and the actual, positive pain. The positive pain which one feels does not seem to be a mere privation, but a positive reality.
Pain is not merely the absence of feeling of well-being - especially, or at least, when we are talking about at the physical level. It seems to me, at this point, that there is a privation of happiness, feeling of well-being, or whatever it should be called, but that this privation is due to something which is not itself a privation, namely the pain.
And of course you can access the Summa Theologiae at Catholic Answers at the top of the Home Page. 👍
I’ll have to research to see if St. Thomas addresses this problem specifically.
 
Personally, I am not sure of the answers in full but I thinnk the best thing to do is read up on some St. Thomas and other commentators of his or ask a good Thomist this question. I’ll give it a crack though
Well, this question arose for me while I was reading the book The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil by Brian Davies (which I would recommend), whose thought on the matter of evil and God is generally Thomistic. As he was outlining the notion of evil as privation, it occurred to me he failed to explain suffering as privation.
I have to immediate thoughts for the issue:
  1. Maybe suffering in the sense we are thinking isn’t an “evil” as we are discussing. If we consider good as the completion of the natural order and the fulfillment of every end and the perfection of what should be…evil is just the lack of these things. The evil in suffering is not the actual positive pain but rather the lack of some other good. The pain itself is merely a warning or a notice of the evil present. (The recognition of evil) The pain may be considered a “good” in this sense. For example, If I were having chest pain because of a blocked artery the “evil” present would be a defect in the artery…the pain is merely my nerves functioning properly and letting my body know…the pain itself is not evil, the blocked artery is.
  1. The above is for me a little unsatisfying because I think pain is best considered as an evil.
I share that dissatisfaction.
So I think here is another possibility: Pain is the lacking of some good that should be present. Perhaps–Bodily comfort, peace of mind, etc. (or in hell absense of God for that matter) but anyway, if we look at it like this, all suffering, can be considered the lack of this perfection in us. Now true because of the fall this perfection is impossible but in terms of what humanity was meant to be or the theoretical ideal for man is not to suffer. Therefore, I think we can see how pain is a lack of the goods of comfort…which should be there as they were in our humanity before the fall or at least since the fall as they would be there provided no other evil (not suffering but bodily defect causing suffering or a moral evil causing suffering) was present…
Now the objection I would see to this is kind of what you said…
Quite so.
But I think you are saying that the privation of “happiness” is the only pain…I would add there are many other things. Including bodily comfort, peace of mind, etc.
Well, I didn’t mean to define suffering merely as the lack of happiness in the most specific sense of the word - I had in mind the others that you list as well.
One can distinguish between a mere lack of the above and the presence of another in ordinary thought/conversation
It’s a little unclear to me what you mean, but I think I understand you. By the “presence of another” do you mean the presence of suffering?
BUT I think that this is just a way of interpreting and experiencing and speaking. In reality on a philosophical level I think that there is no evil but merely a lack of good.
(Assuming I am understanding you), at least at the bodily level, this seems obviously false to me. If someone is stabbing me, or I am dying from a painful disease, or whatever the case may be, I find it very hard to claim that I am merely experiencing a lack of bodily comfort. I am experiencing an actual, positively present feeling of pain - perhaps very intense pain.
For example,
peace of mind is a good…In most people however it is not completely present as we all suffer some lack of peace of mind due to whatever, fear, anxiety, etc. So one who just says they lack peace of mind in reality has some…IOW they have enough to get through the day and make decisions. On the other hand, one who would be considered insane could be said to have no peace of mind whatsoever, it may come accross as a positive insanity but in reality is the the mere absense of that peace of mind that everyone (almost) has to some extent…
Also, example happiness…The completion of happiness in man that naturally should be there was man before the fall (note not supernaturally could be there as we will have in heaven). This happiness or well being is not perfect in anyone but is somewhat present in most. When it is lacking more than usual one could be considered apathetic or bored. However when one experiences almost no happiness they are completely lacking or almost so in happiness and experiencing this lack feels as a postive depression when in reality one could describe it as “I am not happy at all, everything seems so bleak, etc” and this is merely the lack of happiness.
The notion of suffering as privation seems to me to be possibly more defensible in the case of psychological pain, such as in the examples you give here. At the same time, I still am skeptical - when I experience anxiety, or sorrow, for instance, it still seems reasonable to say that I am experiencing a specific feeling, not merely that I am failing to experience a certain feeling. Isn’t there a feeling of sadness which is more than the absence of feeling happiness?
 
(Assuming I am understanding you), at least at the bodily level, this seems obviously false to me. If someone is stabbing me, or I am dying from a painful disease, or whatever the case may be, I find it very hard to claim that I am merely experiencing a lack of bodily comfort. I am experiencing an actual, positively present feeling of pain - perhaps very intense pain.

**I see what you mean…I think its a tough question…I’ll give my thoughts using your example of stabbing. There are two ways I look at it: 1) The evil here exists primarily in the stabbing, i.e. what the stabbing does to the body (or any cause of pain, Im just gonna use the example for ease). So the stabbing maybe causes a rupture in the skin or some other bodily problem. One could say there is a presence of awound but in reality I think on a deeper level a wound is just a lack of what the body should have or be. So a skin wound for example is the lack of a complete covering of skin over my internal organs…The pain I experience wouldn’t be an evil itself but more of the human experience of an evil. Now the human experience manifests itself as suffering and we could say that the pain is evil insofar as it is connected with an evil (the stabbing)
  1. I have thought more about the pain issue and I do not think pain itself can be considered an “evil.” There is nothing evil (as far as I can tell) in the firing of neurons in teh response to some stimuli…the evil comes in with the [Isuffering* one experiences due to the pain…but this is essentially mental (although experienced through the medium of the physical…one suffers because mentaly one does not like the sensible experience of the neurons’ work) Now with this concept…I am not sure if it changes anything but maybe it helps us look at it differently? **
The notion of suffering as privation seems to me to be possibly more defensible in the case of psychological pain, such as in the examples you give here. At the same time, I still am skeptical - when I experience anxiety, or sorrow, for instance, it still seems reasonable to say that I am experiencing a specific feeling, not merely that I am failing to experience a certain feeling. Isn’t there a feeling of sadness which is more than the absence of feeling happiness? **I think it is true that often we look at it this way, but we say the same thing in the cold…we say I am experiencing cold or “im freezing” never “i am lacking warmth” yet in reality cold is the absence of heat…and that isn’t really faith based statement its I think just the reality that coldness is the lack of the type of energy that causes heat (particle motion)…Now this is just an anlogy to show that sometime we speak of the nonexistence of things (cold) as ‘beings’ or existent ‘realities’ when really they are not.

That said, If we look at something like anxiety or sadness I cannot say I know
for sure…but I think even though we experience what we feel to be a “reality” Its more likely the lack of a reality…i’ll do my best to show why for anxiety (just as example)

anxiety- this is either the presence of some feeling or the lack of peace of mind. If we call it the presence of some thing I think its hard to define. We can describe physical effects (heart rate, sweat, etc.) or even what I “feel” (nothing is right, something bad will happen, etc.) but I think we have a hard time saying what anxiety IS. Now if we call anxiety lack of peace of mind I think can say what peace of mind is, depending on the specific thing (peace of mind about the future or about whatever…ill use future as an example) Peace of mind about future=the presence of knowledge about future events that lead one to believe nothing bad or unexpected will happen OR it = the trust based on knowledge possessed that the future holds nothing problematic. OR it = the presence of the willpower to accept what the future holds whatever it might bring.

**
Thoughts above in bold…I’m not sure as to an answer these would just be my basic thoughts on the matter…tbc
 
I would just like to add that I think things merely because they are experienced in an extreme do not indicate they are really realities as opposed to privations. My heat example attempted to show this.

With suffering I think when we experience a great deal of suffering we are really experiencing a lack of much of what should be present and this ‘feels’ like a great deal of suffering but in reality it is just a lack of a great deal of goods. Just like when we are really cold we feel positive coldness because we are used to a certain amount of heat, and the absence of this heat is startling and easily sensed but that doesn’t make it a “reality.”

So if we continue on my peace of mind example:
I could be going for a job interview. Say as I am driving I realize I forgot a breathmint and had garlic the night before. I realize there is a coffee stain on my shirt. Then I become distracted and start thinking of all the things the interviewer could ask that I would not know the answer too. As my heart starts racing I park my car and I see someone leaving the building who apparently jsut got interviewed who looks very happy and like maybe he got offered the job. I begin to think of “what will I do if this job doesn’t work out??? where will I turn next?? What about little johnny at home who needs a special tutor that’s costing us soo much? What will my wife think…how will I tell her?”
As I walk in the job interview, surely I am experiencing tons of anxiety…but really I think we can look at all of these as lack of peace of mind about future—even though sensibly I FEEL really anxious, in reality I think its just so many uncertainties makes me feel uncomfortable…

i won’t go into trying to show each of my examples in the job interview are really lack of peace of minds but I’ll just use two to make my point:
 
Grace & Peace!
The notion of suffering as privation seems to me to be possibly more defensible in the case of psychological pain, such as in the examples you give here. At the same time, I still am skeptical - when I experience anxiety, or sorrow, for instance, it still seems reasonable to say that I am experiencing a specific feeling, not merely that I am failing to experience a certain feeling. Isn’t there a feeling of sadness which is more than the absence of feeling happiness?
Miles, instead of suffering being the absence of happiness specifically, I think it’s more accurate to say that we suffer when we experience the lack of an actual or a perceived good. Anxiety and sorrow are still very discrete feelings, but the suffering that either occasions is on account of the lack which one is anxious to supply on the one hand or the absence over which one is sorrowing on the other.

Sometimes, however, suffering is the result of a graceful or salutary action–i.e., God may be moving us away from things to which we are inordinately attached, but we, in our fallen-ness, experience that detachment as suffering or deprivation. In this sort of example, suffering is not salutary in itself, but is the result of a salutary movement of grace. God does not ever intend to cause us suffering, but he does intend to liberate us from enslavement to the false goods (and false gods!) to which we are addicted in our bondage to sin. Because of the nature of our bondage, we can experience liberation as suffering–we have learned to love our chains, to see them as good, as natural, and as a sudden light stings the eyes of one too accustomed to darkness, we can experience pain when our bonds are loosed from us, our false gods shattered, our illusions revealed for what they are. In this instance, suffering is a symptom of a change and a reorientation toward values that are actually good and true and beautiful. We suffer twofold in these cases–1) because the illusory goods in which we believed and on which we depended are taken from us; and 2) because grace has awakened in us an unquenchable longing for those goods which are eternal and which alone can satisfy our hunger (which is to say, this hunger cannot be quenched by the things of this world!). That first sort of suffering is sorrow and pain–but the second is the “suffering” of a lover yearning for his beloved and is perhaps better understood as a sweet love-longing; the suffering of the pilgrim lover who cannot be satisfied by anything apart from his beloved!

In the sense of the “suffering of the pilgrim lover,” therefore, sometimes it is the case that suffering is the only (or most needful) way by which we can best demonstrate or articulate our faith, our hope, and our love. This is the suffering of kenosis, of self-emptying for the sake of love and in imitation of the kenosis of Christ. The martyrs are good examples of this sort of witness: they did not joy in their sufferings, but allowed their suffering to witness to their joy which was none other than their hope in-, their faith in- and their love of Christ who is ready to fill the empty vessel with the water of life.

Maybe none of that made sense…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo gratias!
 
Pain and suffering are associated with evil. For example, a cut skin (privation of a normal, intact skin) elicits pain. Likewise, privation of satisfaction or happiness elicits emotional suffering.

But I would go on to say that Pain and suffering themselves are privations in themselves. They are privations of a normal/healthy/good state where one is free from suffering and pain.

However, to be numb from pain and suffering despite experiencing privations NORMALLY accompanied by them is another evil and this is another matter. It means that one is deprived of a normal reaction to evil. It doesn’t mean that pain and suffering aren’t evils in themselves.

Practical discussion:

In general, people in pain aspire for a pain free state. The natural reaction of a person relieved of pain is happiness secondary to attainment of a good (pain-free state).

People usually see willfully hurting someone without cause as a moral evil.

People usually view it as justice when evil is punished by suffering, where the moral evil done is repaid with physical evil.
 
Well, this is true in part, but I’m not sure it is sufficient to answer the question. An experience of suffering does involve a privation of happiness, to some extent or another. But, it seems to me, that we can distinguish between the privation of happiness on the one hand, and the actual, positive pain. The positive pain which one feels does not seem to be a mere privation, but a positive reality.
Maybe it only appears more “positive” to you, when in fact more pain is “increasingly” going to the negative end of the spectrum where one goes farther from the good more and more.

Even moral evil seems to be “increasingly” evil the farther it goes from the moral standard. For example, we can say it’s at least morally neutral if there’s no amount stolen (which is even relatively good). If you steal 1,000 bucks, it’s a moral evil. If you steal 10,000, it’s worse. 1,000,000 is even weightier. It seems that evil is positively increasing, but in fact, it also means that one is going farther from the moral neutral where “no amount should be stolen.”

Similarly, the physical neutral/good is a pain-free state. The greater the pain, the more one is farther from/deprived of a pain-free state (the standard good).
 
Pain or suffering is a positive reality which serves a useful purpose as a warning and defence mechanism. In certain cases it serves no useful purpose and it prevents the enjoyment of life. In that respect it is negative, dysteleological and a privatio boni - of that there is no question of doubt whatsoever. Otherwise it wouldn’t be regarded as an evil!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top