No theodicy fully contends with the immensity of evil that exists.
Extreme content warning:
To aid my argument, I will be employing a paragraph from Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape, an interesting and incomplete proposed moral theory, that sticks out to me in both quality and quantity. This paragraph is meant to help the reader digest the evil in question, but will inevitably make the reader, and anyone who has experienced similar trauma, extremely uncomfortable. I am not a proponent of the book.
Preemptive response to an emotional argument label:
I recognize that my argument comes across as an emotional one. In fact, I did cry when I first read this paragraph years ago. But while emotions are conjoined to this example, I will argue that the fact of this evil is concrete, and has a quality to it that pushes it further along a spectrum of evil. You may also say that no matter what kind of language is used to present these evils, the theodicy remains the same. For this reason I will be targeting the fact that the common theodicies will not suffice when look at evil through these lenses.
No theodicy fully contends with the immensity of evil that exists.
When we talk about evil, we usually talk about children who experience or die from cancer, or in some parts of the world diarrhea, natural disasters, murder, and so on. These crimes and events are horrible, cause destruction and evoke great emotional distress in the victims of these crimes or in the subjects of these events. However, it may be easier for an individual to justify or apologize for events like these, because although they could be considered “evil,” they are more average conceptualizations of evil, less close to an extreme on a spectrum of evil. I am going to present an evil that goes beyond mere murder, natural disasters, and so on. It is clear, I argue, in theodicy that the apologist is inherently less implicated in some evils over others. For example, I am less implicated in a murder case that takes place in a different state than I am in a murder case in which a family member of mine is the subject or victim. The details about this real-life occurrence are important to consider, so as to implicate oneself further in the occurrence. In other words, you exist in a world where the following happens:
>!“After about two years of molesting my son, and all the pornography that I had
been buying, renting, swapping, I had got my hands on some “bondage discipline”
pornography with children involved. Some of the reading that I had done and the pictures
that I had seen showed total submission. Forcing the children to do what I wanted.
And I eventually started using some of this bondage discipline with my own son,
and it had escalated to the point where I was putting a large Zip-loc bag over his head and
taping it around his neck with black duct tape or black electrical tape and raping and
molesting him … to the point where he would turn blue, pass out. At that point I would
rip the bag off his head, not for fear of hurting him, but because of the excitement.
I was extremely aroused by inflicting pain. And when I see him pass out and
change colors, that was very arousing and heightening to me, and I would rip the bag off
his head and then I’d jump on his chest and masturbate in his face and make him suck my
penis while he … started to come back awake. While he was coughing and choking, I
would rape him in the mouth.”!<
Harris goes on to say, which is true, that this isn’t the worst we’ve heard. This is something to consider.
Common Theodicies and Responses Through The Lens of This Evil:
1. Free Will.
It is said that a world in which we have been given free will (which, in my opinion has yet to be proven true), we experience genuine freedom and are free to make our own choices. There are many issues with this defense, but through the lens of the aforementioned paragraph, I will ask the reader to consider if the free will of every individual on earth is worth what happened to this child. If your free will is worth the suffering of this child, how many times over? I know many people who would gladly give up their free will (if they had it) to ensure that these sort of decisions could never be made.
2. Suffering is necessary for moral and spiritual growth. Struggle builds character, and suffering can convey important lessons to those who break through it. But is there not a limit to suffering that builds character? Could the character observed have been built by suffering that didn’t exceed a certain point on the spectrum of evil? If the child in question is living today, would you dare ask him what he learned, or what character he built through his suffering? What do we make of suffering that goes above and beyond what is necessary to build character?
3. Natural Law defenses can fall prey to the same scrutiny as we give the others, and should be considered when talking about unnecessary suffering. However, it is not as important to discuss in our case.
4. The Contrast Argument We can only recognize good because evil exists. This would present, number one, as a constraint or limit in God’s creation. Number two, we must contend with the place on the spectrum of evil of events such as these. Further, is there a good greater than the worst evil? Is that good as poignant and consistent as the suffering that the child has experienced? It seems to be case that prolonged and amplified feelings of ecstasy can cause suffering in its self, whereas a mild happiness and overall joy in life is what would be considered joy. In this case, are good and evil opposites?
5. Skeptical Theism we may never be able to know the mystery of God and God’s reasons for making certain decisions. We are limited beings. And while this quenches the thirst of many believers, it should not be enough for the reader. Especially if suffering like this child’s suffering exists, do we not deserve to know why it must happen? An eschatological theodicy invokes our reward in heaven. But if we haven’t been given sufficient evidence of this, this is a form of torture. I could not look at this child and tell him, “just you wait.”
There are more defenses, which I’d be happy to answer to in this thread, such as the Felix Culpa or a Cosmic Conflict defense.
In conclusion, I believe this paragraph illustrates the extent to which evil can be perpetrated, and a failure to regularly bring up evils like this in conversations on the problem of evil. There is a failure to point out that these are not emotional arguments, but illustrations of worse evils than others in quality and quantity. This is more suffering, and those that defend God must contend with his creation. I ask, lastly, what if you adopted this child and raised him into adulthood? I concede that even in his position, I believe that his life can be good, that he can be supported, and that he can learn about who he is and who others are on a deep level. But if he told you that the extent of his suffering surpassed what was needed for him to know the same things, would you believe him?