Joseph Lynch

In November of 1050 Agnes of Poitou, wife of Emperor Henry III, gave birth to their first son. The birth of a son and heir was always an important event, and in this instance especially so. Henry had been seriously ill several times, including that very year. Although he had four daughters, there was a danger that he might die without male issue. Henry's ill health and lack of a male heir encouraged political instability and even conspiracy. When Henry was seriously ill at Frankfurt in October 1045, ecclesiastical and lay magnates actually discussed whom they would choose as his successor. In 1047 at Xanten, perhaps in the presence of the emperor, Archbishop Hermann of Cologne exhorted his congregation that “along with him they should beg from the heavenly clemency that a son be given to the emperor in order to dispose properly the peace of the realm.”

It is widely acknowledged among those philosophers and theologians who have given the matter much thought that the fact of animal suffering challenges Theism in a distinctive way. Standard attempts to reconcile human suffering with a perfectly powerful and benevolent deity don’t seem to apply easily to the case of animals. Animals can hardly be said to deserve their suffering or be morally improved by it, nor is it generally supposed that animals will be compensated for their pain in an afterlife. On the face of it, then, animal pain appears to be a bothersome evil still left over when all the theodicy work is done. I would like to consider some of the attempts to deal with animal suffering in theodicy, showing why each ultimately fails. Rather than attempting to provide the successful theodicy myself, I will try to show what the theodicies reveal about the relationship between Theism and moral attitudes toward animals