C
catholic1seeks
Guest
**Why do animals suffer? ****The answer can’t be original sin because animals SUFFERED before “Adam”. **
(I don’t know why I put quotation marks around Adam; I feel awkward even talking about the subject anymore.)
**Dinosaurs ate other dinosaurs. Animals are in agony when they are torn apart by animals bigger (or even smaller) than them.
What is the origin of this “physical evil”? Why does God permit animals to suffer? It’s not their fault, and Adam didn’t cause it either.**
From New Advent:
The nature and degree of pain in lower animals is very obscure, and in the necessary absence of data it is difficult to say weather it should rightly be classed with the merely formal evil which belongs to inanimate objects, or with the suffering of human beings…Thus it has often been supposed that animal suffering, together with many of the imperfections of inanimate nature, was due to the fall of man, with whose welfare, as the chief part of creation, were bound up the fortunes of the rest…The opposite view is taken by St. Thomas (I, Q. xcvi, a. 1,2). Descartes supposed that animals were merely machines, without sensation or consciousness; he was closely followed by Malebranche and Cartesians generally. Leibniz grants sensation to animals, but considers that mere sense-perception, unaccompanied by reflexion, cannot cause either pain or pleasure; in any case he holds the pain and pleasure of animals to be parable in degree to those resulting from reflex action in man.
newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm
New Advent makes distinction between three kinds of evil:
physical, moral, and metaphysical
(I don’t know why I put quotation marks around Adam; I feel awkward even talking about the subject anymore.)
**Dinosaurs ate other dinosaurs. Animals are in agony when they are torn apart by animals bigger (or even smaller) than them.
What is the origin of this “physical evil”? Why does God permit animals to suffer? It’s not their fault, and Adam didn’t cause it either.**
From New Advent:
The nature and degree of pain in lower animals is very obscure, and in the necessary absence of data it is difficult to say weather it should rightly be classed with the merely formal evil which belongs to inanimate objects, or with the suffering of human beings…Thus it has often been supposed that animal suffering, together with many of the imperfections of inanimate nature, was due to the fall of man, with whose welfare, as the chief part of creation, were bound up the fortunes of the rest…The opposite view is taken by St. Thomas (I, Q. xcvi, a. 1,2). Descartes supposed that animals were merely machines, without sensation or consciousness; he was closely followed by Malebranche and Cartesians generally. Leibniz grants sensation to animals, but considers that mere sense-perception, unaccompanied by reflexion, cannot cause either pain or pleasure; in any case he holds the pain and pleasure of animals to be parable in degree to those resulting from reflex action in man.
newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm
New Advent makes distinction between three kinds of evil:
physical, moral, and metaphysical