Was there physical evil before the fall?

[nickpeter]

Hello my friends,
I enjoy asking questions here since finding answers to some issues is sometimes difficult. I appreciate responses to my other posts. Here is perhaps a simple one.
When God created the world the animal kingdom was not neglected. I assume that some of the creatures created were carnivores or animals of prey.Carnivores behaving naturally would obvious inflict pain on the prey they hunted for food. A hawk
has an appetite for tasty little chicks to the chagrin of the hen.
I presume these activities occurred before Adam and Eve disobeyed God in some manner and introduced all the pain of this Vale.
I respond to my own question thinking that the actions of animals of prey, though they must have inflicted pain, were not evil. We destroy animals for food every day and few of us (non -vegetarians,of course) would consider this evil. Still, there is enlightenment needed here. I hope to read some views.
In Carmel, nickpeter

 

[WarriorInChrist]

Animals do not have souls, therefore they cannot do good deeds or evil works.

 

[nickpeter]

Thanks for the reply. The question deals more with suffering. Is animal suffering of no consequence?

 

[WarriorInChrist]

Thanks for the reply. The question deals more with suffering. Is animal suffering of no consequence?

I would say not, as it does not know what is right or wrong for the simple fact that it does not have a soul. It is living it’s life, nothing more or nothing less. There are no sadistic motives with an animal killing another animal. It’s either for food, defense, or some other natural reason.

 

[mosher]

nickpeter,

The question that you asked seems to falsely associate two different things by necessity. The false equation is that pain equals suffering. While suffering can come about through the experience of pain it is not necessarily true to say that pain causes suffering.

Suffering properly speaking is a thing that humans do. It is, properly speaking, in relation to the Rational Soul. However, animals can suffer in a way that is analogous to human suffering. The soul of the animal, while not rational, is reactive to its environment. In this way an animal is drawn to things that will sate its passions and will be repelled by things that do not bring about pleasure. So, in the world that we know (after the fall) we can see that animals do experience pain and to some limited degree experience suffering in so far as their desires [sic] are not fulfilled. However, the time after the fall is a direct result of the fall of Man. As it is said: all of Creation fell with Adam. But this is the only way in which we actually know the world. Our knowledge of the world prior to the fall is extremely limited and so we rely on hints given us in Scripture.

It should be noted that all the imagery that is used in Scripture to depict paradise has the “lion lying with the lamb & children with asps” feel to it. This would imply that animals didn’t eat each other before the fall (at least not while they were living). However, this is much contested in the liturature. However, there is a great image that one of the Syrian Fathers gives about the order of the world before the fall as Adam and Eve had the “job” of teaching the animals to live in a civilized way - living in little houses, etc. Yet this is more spiritual reflection than theologically precise.

What we do know is that no suffering, as such, occurred prior to the fall - meaning in the way that humans suffer. This is not to say that the “suffering” of animals is unimportant but it is not about that which Scripture tells us. The important thing, however, to take away is that pain and suffering do not necessarily have a causal relationship.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Animals do not have souls, therefore they cannot do good deeds or evil works.

But we’re talking about physical evil. Evil of whatever kind is the absence of something good. Moral evil is what someone does; physical evil is not. Physical evil can be natural disasters, phsyical suffering and sickness, etc.

 

[Benadam]

18 And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone:

There was no evil before the fall because the fruit of the tree of good and evil had not been plucked,

There was evil before the fall but in regards of man it wasn’t seen or known as evil. God pronounces the situation evil. He would say ’ look he has become like us knowing good and evil’ later.

I think it’s not so much a matter of experience as the meaning of it that changed for man. The fall entailed the proper order of creation as it pertains to man. Since in man heaven and earth are united all creation is disordered if man is.

There is physical pain but it is not perceived as suffering because man did not judge so could not experience pain as the consequence of injustice. When experience is judged evil, that judgement extends to a judgement of self as victim.

Original Innocense is a state of being ordered properly. Animals responded to human presence with respect to the proper order God created. In man animals find their end. I doubt strongly animals behaved diferently before the fall except for their response to us. Before the fall when man’s will ruled the powers of nature operating in him and creation, the animal kingdom instinctively responded to man according to the order God created. Perfect image and likeness of God.

 

[Dameedna]

You don’t seem to have recieved an answer to your actual question here. It’s one I’m curious about myself.

Even if you ignore the pain caused to an animal through canivourous acts, we have natural disasters to contend with. Meteorites hitting the planet, and wiping out life in a devastating way, and causing a great deal of pain to animals.

The conditions of the planet that lead to these disasters began 13.7 billion years ago. Volcanoes and tectonic plates are not the result of any kind of “fall” of man, since the initial conditions of “creation” resulted in the subsequent molten middle of our earth, and its cooling surface. It was all put into motion, way before we came into the picture.

Add to that, any life forms on other plants would be suffering the same tragic natural disasters as a result of the conditions of the universe…including intelligent life-forms…

…and you have quite a quandry on your hands.

It seems that the best one can offer, is to ignore the pain that an animal feels and claim it is not suffering and therefore not important. Of course anyone with a pet, would probably think otherwise.

The big kicker will be, If we find intelligent life on other planets, IE self-aware creatures that suffer the same way we do…then I would suggest current religious views will have a challenge on their hands.

I haven’t yet had any decent answer to this problem either, other than to ignore it completely and say that the suffering of animals either by each other, or by natural disasters simply doesn’t matter.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hello my friends,
I enjoy asking questions here since finding answers to some issues is sometimes difficult. I appreciate responses to my other posts. Here is perhaps a simple one.
When God created the world the animal kingdom was not neglected. I assume that some of the creatures created were carnivores or animals of prey.Carnivores behaving naturally would obvious inflict pain on the prey they hunted for food. A hawk
has an appetite for tasty little chicks to the chagrin of the hen.
I presume these activities occurred before Adam and Eve disobeyed God in some manner and introduced all the pain of this Vale.
I respond to my own question thinking that the actions of animals of prey, though they must have inflicted pain, were not evil. We destroy animals for food every day and few of us (non -vegetarians,of course) would consider this evil. Still, there is enlightenment needed here. I hope to read some views.
In Carmel, nickpeter

Evil is a matter of perspective - what’s more, it involves making value judgements. There weren’t any before man - but does it follow there was no eating of animal by animal ?​

 

[mosher]

You don’t seem to have recieved an answer to your actual question here. It’s one I’m curious about myself.

Even if you ignore the pain caused to an animal through canivourous acts, we have natural disasters to contend with. Meteorites hitting the planet, and wiping out life in a devastating way, and causing a great deal of pain to animals.

The conditions of the planet that lead to these disasters began 13.7 billion years ago. Volcanoes and tectonic plates are not the result of any kind of “fall” of man, since the initial conditions of “creation” resulted in the subsequent molten middle of our earth, and its cooling surface. It was all put into motion, way before we came into the picture.

Add to that, any life forms on other plants would be suffering the same tragic natural disasters as a result of the conditions of the universe…including intelligent life-forms…

…and you have quite a quandry on your hands.

It seems that the best one can offer, is to ignore the pain that an animal feels and claim it is not suffering and therefore not important. Of course anyone with a pet, would probably think otherwise.

The big kicker will be, If we find intelligent life on other planets, IE self-aware creatures that suffer the same way we do…then I would suggest current religious views will have a challenge on their hands.

I haven’t yet had any decent answer to this problem either, other than to ignore it completely and say that the suffering of animals either by each other, or by natural disasters simply doesn’t matter.

There are a number of problems here. First, it is not correct to say that his question wasn’t answered but rather that it wasn’t answered fully. These are two different things. Now the reason for this is because the place of this post is more properly in the Moral Theology section than here in the Philosophy section. This is because the nature of his question requires reference to things in Divine Revelation because the knowledge of a pre and post lapsation period are only known through Revelation and not by reason alone. As a result the answer given cannot be definitive because it deals with a Mystery and not a Problem that can be be solved Deductively or through any other manner.

Another problem is that there is, for some reason, a perception that the question of suffering in non-humans is ignored. That is not the case. Rather it is not something that can be known because suffering is a disposition that is interior and unless we resort to some form of the defunct art of Physiognomy then we can’t fully discern internal dispositions by external reactions. For this reason we can’t adequately speak about the proper sense of suffering in animals. Further, it is pointless to speak about other forms of rational life other than humans because that is as all we have any immediate knowledge of other than spiritual beings who can only be said to suffer if we again have recourse to Divine Revelation which is not in the competence of Philosophy. Postulations of hypothetical natures is irrelevant at best.

The problem is the word “to suffer” in the English language. It is analogous to the word “to love” in that the limitations of English make it so that these words cover a broad range of words in the Latin and Greek from where we can gain a much richer notion of the ideas that are expressed by these terms. But for the sake of precision a distinction must be made between human suffering and animal suffering. For animals the term suffering is closer to the word pain (i.e. physical pain) but in humans it may also be used this way but more properly (as I have been using it) it is a specific passion of the rational soul that may or may not include pain. This is because it is a proper aspect of the rational soul to have the possibility of a negative psychical form of suffering that does not find its cause in the senses. Where as by definition the animal soul only affected cognitively by the mediation of the senses.

 

[Dameedna]

There are a number of problems here. First, it is not correct to say that his question wasn’t answered but rather that it wasn’t answered fully. These are two different things. Now the reason for this is because the place of this post is more properly in the Moral Theology section than here in the Philosophy section. This is because the nature of his question requires reference to things in Divine Revelation because the knowledge of a pre and post lapsation period are only known through Revelation and not by reason alone.

I’m sorry but this is quite an assumption you seem to be making.

That the answers to these questions can only be achieved through revelation. Revelation is the escape clause of the believer. You can believe a revelation(which is just a statement) but that has nothing to do with the question or that issue it poses when it comes to philosophy or the philosophy of evil.

As a result the answer given cannot be definitive because it deals with a Mystery and not a Problem that can be be solved Deductively or through any other manner.

Is it a mystery? Or is it simply that there is an answer available but people cannot tolerate it.

Philosophy is a way of “thinking” that attempts to search for truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong about attempting that search and asking for answers. Otherwise, no-one would ever have bothered with philosophy in the first place.

You can’t wipe a problem under the rug, by siimply saying it’s a mystery and can only be answered by revelation. It can’t be “answered” or explained by revelation at all. Revelation is an attempt to circumnavigate around the problem entirely. This is not integrity, nor an honest search for truth.

Another problem is that there is, for some reason, a perception that the question of suffering in non-humans is ignored. That is not the case. Rather it is not something that can be known because suffering is a disposition that is interior and unless we resort to some form of the defunct art of Physiognomy then we can’t fully discern internal dispositions by external reactions. For this reason we can’t adequately speak about the proper sense of suffering in animals.

We may not be able to fully understand how an animal comprehends their suffering, that does not mean we wipe our hands of the problem, or claim it is not important.

Again, anyone with a Pet that they love would not want the pet to suffer. More importantly anyone with a Pet they love…see’s the pets suffering. It is not a fabrication even if the pet can’t tell us how they feel. It’s pretty obvious they have the same awarness of pain and fear that we do, especially considering they are usually quite similar to us biologically.

A dog, that is hit by a Car IS in pain. This suffering is still dreadful, even if we don’t know how the dog is percieving it.

Further, it is pointless to speak about other forms of rational life other than humans because that is as all we have any immediate knowledge of other than spiritual beings who can only be said to suffer if we again have recourse to Divine Revelation which is not in the competence of Philosophy. Postulations of hypothetical natures is irrelevant at best.

Is it irrelevant? or is it something you prefer not to deal with. Philosophy is filled with “thinking” exercises and this is a philosophy forum.

I’m getting the impression from your response that you simply wipe your hands of the matter because you can’t address it.

The problem is the word “to suffer” in the English language. It is analogous to the word “to love” in that the limitations of English make it so that these words cover a broad range of words in the Latin and Greek from where we can gain a much richer notion of the ideas that are expressed by these terms. But for the sake of precision a distinction must be made between human suffering and animal suffering. For animals the term suffering is closer to the word pain (i.e. physical pain) but in humans it may also be used this way but more properly (as I have been using it) it is a specific passion of the rational soul that may or may not include pain. This is because it is a proper aspect of the rational soul to have the possibility of a negative psychical form of suffering that does not find its cause in the senses. Where as by definition the animal soul only affected cognitively by the mediation of the senses.

This is very well written, however …None of that addresses the fact that animals suffer, or feel pain and that they have done, since life burst into being on this planet. To make a claim that human suffering is different, does not negate the suffering of animals.

Nor does it negate the suffering that humans recieve through natural disasters that are not of their own making.

You, have basically just said “this question” doesn’t matter. It may not matter to you, but it does matter to people who are searching for truth don’t just turn to he-said she-said types of revelations that actually answer nothing.

It seems, this…is put into the “too hard” basket.

 

[Dameedna]

Evil is a matter of perspective - what’s more, it involves making value judgements. There weren’t any before man - but does it follow there was no eating of animal by animal ?​

Of course there were animals eating animals. And their suffering was real, and will continue to be real regardless of wether we exist or not.

I’m not sure how this addresses the OP? The lack of awareness of “natural evil” doesn’t mean, it wasn’t happening. Just that no-one who was self-aware existed yet to observe it and recognize it. Doesn’t negate the pain of it at all.

Unless you are a pure relativist?

 

[ready]

The only evil I know of that could have taken place before the Fall would have taken place in the heavens when Satan (Lucifer turned rebellious by abusing his own God-given free will) and the other rebellious angels all refused to serve God. Since the rebellion of Satan and the one-third of God’s angels along with him, there has been evil in the world because Satan and the fallen angels (demons) were cast into hell and upon the earth where they now roam around seeking to tempt souls and to lead them into sin, like happened to Adam and Eve, who were tempted and sinned against God.

The Devil and demons try leading all of Adam’s race into sin and perdition out of evil hatred for God and man. However before Lucifer’s and the other angels’ abuse of their free wills and turn from their Creator, they were all good and there was no evil to be found anywhere in the heavens or on the earth. All was created good in God’s eyes and all was in perfect harmony, in perfect accord with God…not only was Lucifer and all of God’s angels, but also Adam and Eve along with all the other creatures of God’s creation.

 

[mosher]

I’m sorry but this is quite an assumption you seem to be making.

That the answers to these questions can only be achieved through revelation. Revelation is the escape clause of the believer. You can believe a revelation(which is just a statement) but that has nothing to do with the question or that issue it poses when it comes to philosophy or the philosophy of evil.

I think you missed the point of my response. The reason for my statement about revelation is because the question incorporated matters that deal with the state of things before and/or after “the fall.” This, by definition is a matter of Revelation and cannot be treated by philosophy as such.

Dameedna:

Is it a mystery? Or is it simply that there is an answer available but people cannot tolerate it.
(…)
You can’t wipe a problem under the rug, by siimply saying it’s a mystery and can only be answered by revelation. It can’t be “answered” or explained by revelation at all. Revelation is an attempt to circumnavigate around the problem entirely. This is not integrity, nor an honest search for truth.

By definition matter that treat the nature of God and the things of God conclude in and answer to only part of a mystery. This is due to the nature of Revelation since Revelation is by definition a knowledge of things given by God that would otherwise be inaccessible to the human intellect.

In no way do I want to wipe the question under the rug. The problem is that you can’t use philosophy, as such, to treat revelation. The investigation of Revelation is treated by Theology and not Philosophy. To treat it otherwise would be to use the wrong tool. It would be like trying to measure buoyancy with a tape measure.

Dameedna:

Philosophy is a way of “thinking” that attempts to search for truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong about attempting that search and asking for answers. Otherwise, no-one would ever have bothered with philosophy in the first place.

If what you mean by the word “thinking” you mean reasoning then we are agreed. Philosophy broadly defined is the “love of wisdom” but its more narrow and technical definition is the science that as all natural things as its object.

Dameedna:

We may not be able to fully understand how an animal comprehends their suffering, that does not mean we wipe our hands of the problem, or claim it is not important.

This was not said nor was it implied.

Dameedna:

Again, anyone with a Pet that they love would not want the pet to suffer. More importantly anyone with a Pet they love…see’s the pets suffering. It is not a fabrication even if the pet can’t tell us how they feel. It’s pretty obvious they have the same awarness of pain and fear that we do, especially considering they are usually quite similar to us biologically.

A dog, that is hit by a Car IS in pain. This suffering is still dreadful, even if we don’t know how the dog is percieving it.

Here were are in agreement. I don’t know what you are arguing against. The distinction that I made is that these things for men and beasts are analogous not equivalent.

Dameedna:

Is it irrelevant? or is it something you prefer not to deal with. Philosophy is filled with “thinking” exercises and this is a philosophy forum.

One cannot investigate something that is not known to be in reality. A thought experiment of the sort I objected to cheapens the work of philosophy. It is thought experiments of this sort that have caused philosophy to be treated as a Liberal Art and not a Science as is its proper category.

Dameedna:

I’m getting the impression from your response that you simply wipe your hands of the matter because you can’t address it.

Your impression is incorrect.

Dameedna:

This is very well written, however …None of that addresses the fact that animals suffer, or feel pain and that they have done, since life burst into being on this planet. To make a claim that human suffering is different, does not negate the suffering of animals.

Nor does it negate the suffering that humans recieve through natural disasters that are not of their own making.

I did not negate the suffering in animals. In fact I affirmed it.

Dameedna:

You, have basically just said “this question” doesn’t matter. It may not matter to you, but it does matter to people who are searching for truth don’t just turn to he-said she-said types of revelations that actually answer nothing.

It seems, this…is put into the “too hard” basket.

Your assessment of what I said is not correct. In no place did I try to make the question irrelevant. In fact I haven’t even done anything except attempt to make a few clear distinctions. I only answered what I was asked. If we want to dig deeper into the questions that are valid questions I have no problem with that. However, your negative read is unhelpful because it is assuming much and critiquing little. Please don’t infer things from the statements but rather address them and I will try to clarify particular points so that instead of building camps of dissent we can actually have a conversation on a rational level and perhaps learn something.