The Place of Animals in Theodicy and in Justice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I thought this was an important paper that opened up the discussion of animals in the context of the problem of evil and notions of justice on which theodical responses depend. 

This is an important and underdeveloped theme in the literature, and I would certainly intend to engage with its arguments and direct my students to this paper if published.

I found the engagement with historical sources fascinating, and, to be honest, would have valued more on the explicit connection of the theme to the discussion of evil. But at the same time the discussion of accounts of justice was relevant to the paper, and I look forward to the author writing a monograph or longer paper on the question of animals and the philosophy of religion.

Looking forward to seeing this in print!

Author Response

AUTHOR’S REPLY TO THE REVIEW REPORT OF REVIEWER 1.

I greatly welcome the remarks of Reviewer 1, which do not request any specific changes.

However, Reviewer 1 states that she or he ‘would have valued more on the explicit connection of the theme to the discussion of evil’. In response to this point, as well as to related points of Reviewer 2, I have added to the paragraph which introduces historical remarks from St. John Chrysostom and St. Isaac the Syrian, as the penultimate sentence of that paragraph, the following sentence:

‘If God were indifferent to animal suffering, then God could hardly be regarded as either good or just.’

I have also added ‘and just’ to three passages in the succeeding paragraphs about ‘a beneficent Creator’, so that this phrase is changed to ‘a beneficent and just Creator’. The context of these passages draws to readers’ attention that evil can be seen as a problem for belief in God’s justice as well as for belief in God’s goodness/

My hope is that these changes will satisfy Reviewer 1 that steps have been taken to supply ‘a more explicit connection of the theme to the discussion of evil’.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has an interesting topic and good arguments. The references are well chosen and the use of concepts and theories is carefully driven.

The weak point in the article is the vague, uncompleted presentation of the theodicy scenario which is referred to when speaking about the place of animals in Christian context. Important references like Leibniz are missing, as the reader has the impression that the first part of the article is based mainly on secondary literature in the field.

If the author/s chose to address the Christian culture, this part of the article should be more carefully developed. Also, the relation between ”theodicy”   and ”justice” should be better problematized.

Author Response

AUTHOR REPLY TO REVIEW REPORT OF REVIEWER 2

First I want to thank Reviewer 2 for completing a review against the journal’s tight timetable, and for requesting changes no greater than ones that the journal’s editors have interpreted as ‘minor changes’.

Reviewer 2 writes of ‘the vague, uncompleted presentation of the theodicy scenario’. With this in mind, plus one remark of Reviewer 1, I have added to the early paragraph which refers to the statements of St. John Chrysostom and St. Isaac the Syrian about animal suffering, as the penultimate sentence of that paragraph, the new sentence:

‘If God were indifferent to animal suffering, then God could hardly be regarded as either good or just.’

This addition also represents an attempt to ‘more carefully develop’ this part of the article (as requested in the penultimate comment of Reviewer 2). Please also take into account that there are parts of the theodicy debate which could not be discussed in this article, because they relate to moral evil, and lie beyond the field that the editors of this special number and I had agreed that I would write about when they invited me to compose this article.

Reviewer 2 goes on to remark that ‘important references like Leibniz are missing’. I have now made good that omission, inserting at an appropriate point a reference to a 1985 edition of the Huggard translation of Leibniz’s Theodicy(with its full title). An earlier edition of this work (from 1951) had been discussed in my first published book (of the late 1970s), but it has seemed more helpful to readers of this article to refer to the edition of 1985.

Reviewer 2 adds here that ‘the reader has the impression that the first part of the article is based mainly on secondary literature in the field’. The requirements of anonymity prevent me from disclosing here relevant original contributions of my own to this field, but I have added a reference to an article published over twenty years ago which would make it clear to the readers of this article, if it is published with my name supplied, that what is argued about animal suffering and evolution is not in fact either derivative or mainly based on secondary sources.

Reviewer 2 finally states that ‘this (i.e. the early) part of the article should be more carefully developed’ and that ‘the relation between “theodicy” and “justice” should be better problematized’. In response to this point, and in addition to the added sentence quoted above, which comprises a key component of my response, I have added ‘and just’ to three uses of the phrase ‘a beneficent Creator’ so that this phrase becomes ‘a beneficent and just creator’. In context, these changes highlight the way in which animal suffering could appear to be a problem for God’s justice as well as for God’s beneficence. In consequence the relation of theodicy and justice is now better problematized, in the light of the multi-religious readership for which I was writing.

I should add that, while I cite Jewish and Christian sources from the Bible and Christian sources from the patristic period, the issue of theodicy is treated here as one for theists in general, and thus for Christians, Jews, Muslims and Unitarians alike. In these circumstances, none of these faith-stances has been singled out for distinctive attention, so as to make this article accessible to adherents of all of them. While Christians, Jews and Unitarians have long recognised issues of theodicy as important ones, I have recently found, when addressing Muslims, that they are increasingly aware of these issues as well. If I had been writing specifically for a Christian readership, the issues of theodicy could well have been differently problematized.