What do you think about Rowe's Fawn in connection with the problem of evil?

Question

Imagine a world in which no humans exist. The only sentient beings that exist are animals and they are unable to discern what the cosmic point of an evil act is. Suppose that a lightning bolt strikes a tree which in turn starts a fire from which a fawn cannot escape. Not only does the fawn die in the fire; it also suffers an agonizing death. God could have prevented the agonizing death of the fawn or prevented its suffering. But he did not. What good came out of this death? Was the death of the fawn not a gratuitous or pointless instance of evil? How would you address "Rowe's fawn"? I have actually reworked the problem with my own scenario.

How does eliminating do away with the category of evil? Let us define "evil" as "privation of good." The suffering of animals that are capable of feeling pain or agony seems to qualify as the absence of good. Even if there were no humans, for theists, there would be God or other spirits in existence. So eliminating humans does not remove evil.

Who cares about a fawn? A skeptic would say that God should care, if God exists.

Dear Third:

I defined "evil" as "privation of good," which is the way that both Augustine and Plotinus define the word. For Augustine and Plotinus, evil implies a lack of being However, they think that being is good. Augustine contends that evil is an absence, but not an illusion. Evil is not necessarily about right or wrong. It seems to be about a privation of good.

I mentioned the "cosmic point of evil" in my remarks. But I did not mean that humans ascribe evil from a cosmic point of view. The point of my comments were that an animal cannot discern a cosmic point to evil, if there is one, like humans can. This is often a defense used by theists when they try to rebut the problem of evil. Many argue that there is some overarching point to evil occurrences. However, the point of Rowe's fawn (among others) is that an animal in the forest cannot learn anything from suffering the painful effects of a fire. So, I am not arguing that humans determine or ascertain cosmic evil.

Stars or galaxies are probably not sentient beings. What scientific evidence exists to demonstrate that they are? Conversely, we do have evidence that indicates animals are sentient beings.

The pain of suffering death in a forest fire or undergoing death by means of cancer or AIDS fits the description "absence of good." Death itself is an absence of being: it is not necessarily true that one must suffer or die in order to grow. One may grow through suffering or death. But it is not a necessary truth that one must suffer or die to grow.

There are different degrees and types of pain. Experiencing self-imposed pain from lifting weights and experiencing it in a forest fire or while being raped are two different things. Furthermore, how does one grow from death? What if there is no afterlife? Then how does death help the one dying to grow?

Humans can try to see a cosmic or universal point to evil. As one person who answered this question has already said, there may be a "greater good" involved in the occurrence of evil or in God's permission of evil. Just so that you know, I am a theist. However, I think that Rowe's fawn should give theists pause for thought in how we defend God when questions concerning evil arise. I appreciate your thoughts, even if I do not agree with you fully.

Answer 1

I think the good that God brings out of human suffering cannot be compared to what He might bring about as a result of animals or other soulless beings suffering.

The death of Christ on the Cross gave deep and lasting significance to human suffering and pain. What was done to Him was evil yet it accomplished infinite good. In fact, you could say that the crucifixion was an evil act on the part of His executioners and a good act on the part of God.

Our perceptions are so limited down here. God sees and knows all and sometimes it's impossible for us to totally unravel the good and bad in every event. What we do know is that we can join our suffering to Christ's suffering and give it merit. Pain can be useful in that sense. Pain can save not only us but others.

Answer 2

Most of the same solutions to the problem of evil still apply.

The first I call the 'greater good' solution. Sometimes, as we all know, small suffering leads to a greater good. If you have a splinter in your skin it may hurt to pull it out, but if you don't it could hurt far more if you leave it in and an infection occurs. So it is easily arguable that almost any amount of suffering and evil is tolerable if it helps prevent even greater suffering and evil.

So maybe fawns are overpopulated and this one would have died agonizingly from starvation anyway. Maybe burning down the forest helps the forest re-grow healthier and lusher and feed a thousand fawns. Not a problem.

Another classic solution is the 'free will' solution. In this variant, an exceptionally high value is placed on this supposed commodity. And since humans are helpless to defend themselves from whatever an omnipotent being may choose to do, almost any action by that being subjects them to its will and limits their own. This, therefore, might be viewed as an evil itself, and one that an all-good being would be unable to perform.

Even if fawns lack the capability to distinguish between good and evil (some might argue that they don't), they do have some ability to choose - we know this because they can learn. Therefore a diety might arguably be preserving the fawn's free will by letting it die.

Another solution is the 'promise' solution. God allows suffering because it promised not to interfere. Presumably even all-good entities can keep their word, especially if they're all-powerful as well. A good person who is bamboozled into being less than perfectly good because of such an agreement is not any less good, just perhaps a person who made a mistake. Who God might have made such a promise to and when is more a matter of individual theology than logic.

My favorite solution is the 'redefining God' one. The problem of evil is only really a problem if God is BOTH all-good AND all-powerful. All you have to do is allow that one of those qualities is not there, and then God can be indifferent to problems or unable to stop them. Given the vast number of things which might be meant by the term 'god', you are arguably not even making God any less divine by doing so.

All of these still work, and there are still many of other solutions besides...

Answer 3

Nothing is ever lost in nature. The fawn fed who knows how many creatures and organisms. For every good there is an evil. Just as there are two sides to any coin. God (if it exists) appears to be completely neutral.

Answer 4

Forget humans, if you can. The fact that you and I have identified with humanity is irrelevant to your discussion. What you're talking about is sentience, or being able to sense. Differentiation between good and evil requires conscious awareness and a point of reference. The lightning and the forest fire are simply reactions between mathematical variations of primal energy. They can be sensed by sentient beings and they can be created by conscious beings (not necessarily physical beings.) Sentience does not imply consciousness, but consciousness exists wherever there is existence. Existence does not require a physical realm.

Evil in your question implies right and wrong, and you mention an "evil act" from a "cosmic" "point of view." You make a cosmic error in assuming humans ascribe (good and) "evil" from a "cosmic" "point of view."

Humans tend to relate good and evil to humanity and the benefit/joy of humans versus the pain/suffering of humans or creatures similar to humans. But, these ideas are defined by humans relative to the humanity. On a cosmic level why not ascribe these to the feelings of a star or galaxy. Are they not sentient beings? Can you deny that they are? My point here is the the fawn's pain and my own are not evil, especially on a cosmic scale.

If you ask an avid body builder about pain, he/she will tell you it is good - it is a necessary part of growth. So too, is death and suffering of any kind.

A limited point of view will most assuredly bring short-sighted conclusions. By "cosmic" you mean on a scale of infinity?

A skeptic would question any assumption. That does not mean a skeptic believes God should care or that God exists. Certainly God exceeds the "cosmic" point of view that you have invoked.

In fact, Rowe's fawn (or yours) is no better or worse off than any human being of your choosing, because neither sees (or chooses to see) the "cosmic" "point of view." True?

P.S.

If you will define evil as "privation of good" then you must define "good." If, as you say, "evil implies a lack of being" and "BEING is good" then "BEING" tortured to death by fire is "good." You say, "The suffering of animals that are capable of feeling pain or agony seems to qualify as the absence of good." But, that defies your definition of good.

Whether "virtue" is the "good vs. evil," or the "right vs. wrong" has little to no effect on the logical outcome of this argument. Cosmically speaking they are one and the same.

Your "human" subject is no better qualified to "discern a cosmic point to evil" than the fawn in your example. Occurrences cannot be evil by your definition of good because you allow that occurrences exist and BEING is good. If evil is opposite "privation" of good, then evil is non-existence.

Stars and galaxies are more probably sentient beings than you allow. They do not concern themselves with humans, similar to how you do not concern yourself with molecules.

I too am a theist. However, good is a relative term that God has not yet revealed to me on an infinite scale.

Answer 5

Eliminate humans=no concept of evil
eliminate humans=who the hell would care if a fawn dies???