Peyzaj Araştırmaları V

Fawn as an Indi idual
Re hinking G a ui ous E il and E olu iona y
Theodicies
A illa Akalın
Lyon 2025
Fawn as an Indi idual
Re hinking G a ui ous E il and E olu iona y
Theodicies
A illa Akalın
Lyon 2025
Fawn as an Indi idual: Re hinking G a ui ous E il and
E olu iona y Theodicies
Au ho • D . A illa Akalın • O cid: 0000-0002-8385-5287
Co e Design • Mo ion G aphics
Book Layou • Mo ion G aphics
Fi s Published • Sep embe 2025, Lyon
e-ISBN: 978-2-38236-898-5
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17193157
copy igh © 2025 by Li e de Lyon
All igh s ese ed. No pa o his publica ion may be ep oduced,
s o ed in a e ie al sys em, o ansmi ed in any o m o by
any means, elec onic, mechanical, pho ocopying, eco ding, o
o he wise, wi hou p io w i en pe mission om he Publishe .
The au ho o au ho s o he ele an sec ion a e esponsible o
any copy igh in ingemen ha may occu due o he images and
g aphics used in he book. The edi o o publishe does no assume
esponsibili y in his ega d.
Publishe • Li e de Lyon
Add ess • 37 ue ma ie on, 69009, Lyon F ance
websi e • h p://www.li edelyon.com
e-mail • [email p o ec ed]

I
CONTENTS
P e ace ............................................................................ III
In oduc ion ...................................................................... 1
1. E olu iona y Theodicies, G ea e Good &
Cumula i e A gumen ............................................. 11
1.1. Beyond E olu iona y Na a i es o P og ess .. 17
2. Animal Su e ing and he On ological S a us o
G a ui ous E il… .................................................... 25
3. Indi iduali y, G a ui ous E il, and Wild Animal
Su e ing…. ............................................................ 35
4. E olu ion, Be e Wo ld and Idyllic View .............. 45
4.1. Agains In ini e P ocess ................................... 47
Conclusion ..................................................................... 55
Re e ences ...................................................................... 59
III
PREFACE
This book se s ou o explo e one o he mos
p essing and di icul ques ions a he in e sec ion
o philosophy, heology, and e olu iona y biology:
he pe sis ence o g a ui ous e il in a wo ld shaped by
e olu iona y p ocesses. In ecen decades, e olu iona y
heodicies ha e eme ged as a popula a emp o econcile
he eali y o na u al his o y wi h belie in a bene olen
God. These heodicies o en po ay e olu ion as a di inely
g an ed o m o au onomy—a space o eedom whe e
c ea ion is allowed o un old in openness, unp edic abili y,
and c ea i i y. Wi hin his amewo k, su e ing, p eda ion,
and dea h a e some imes in e p e ed as un o una e bu
necessa y condi ions o he lou ishing o li e as a whole,
o e en as ins umen s o he e en ual en ichmen and
pe ec ion o c ea u es. Ye his in e p e i e s a egy,
howe e sophis ica ed, aises se ious philosophical
di icul ies. A he hea o he issue lies he dis inc ion
be ween su e ing ha can be explained o ins umen alized
o some g ea e pu pose and wha may igh ly be called
g a ui ous su e ing: pain and loss ha seem o se e no
cons uc i e end, ha yield no compensa o y good, and
ha , om he pe spec i e o he c ea u e unde going hem,
emain i educibly des uc i e. The expe ience o wild
animals p o ides he mos s iking example.
IV   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
Coun less nonhuman c ea u es ac oss e olu iona y
his o y ha e endu ed inju y, s a a ion, pa asi ism, disease,
and iolen dea h wi hou any possibili y o hei su e ing
being in eg a ed in o a na a i e o g ow h, edemp ion,
o mo al de elopmen . To sugges ha such su e ing is
jus i ied me ely because i con ibu es o he un olding
d ama o e olu ion isks i ializing he phenomenological
eali y o pain. This book he e o e a gues ha e olu iona y
heodicies, despi e hei appeal, ail o adequa ely accoun
o he eali y o g a ui ous e il. To desc ibe e olu ion as
he “pa hway” o c ea ion is no , in i sel , p oblema ic;
wha is p oblema ic is he a emp o ea e e y ins ance
o su e ing as somehow subsumed unde a g ea e good.
When heological e lec ion educes he shee weigh o
animal su e ing o an abs ac necessi y o p og ess, i
no only obscu es he dep h o he p oblem bu also isks
unde mining he se iousness o mo al and me aphysical
inqui y. G a ui ous e il canno simply be explained away
as an ine i able byp oduc o di ine gene osi y in g an ing
au onomy o c ea ion. I emains on ologically dis inc ,
esis an o jus i ica ion, and haun ing in i s pe sis ence.
In examining hese ques ions, his book in i es he eade
o conside wha i uly means o con on he su e ing
o nonhuman c ea u es wi hin an e olu iona y cosmos. I
heology is o emain in ellec ually hones , i mus esis
he emp a ion o gloss o e he shee g a ui y o such
su e ing. Ins ead, i mus g apple wi h he possibili y
ha some o ms o pain canno be econciled wi hin he
INTRODuCTION   5
g ow h, di e si ica ion, and imp o emen wi hin he na u al
o de , i canno in any cohe en sense jus i y he exis ence o
g a ui ous e il in he uni e se. To pu i di e en ly, he pain,
loss, and su e ing ha a e immanen in he e olu iona y
p ocess may o en be amed as necessa y condi ions o
he lou ishing o li e, ye o he c ea u es ha ac ually
endu e hem, such expe iences can ne e cease o be el
o pe cei ed as g a ui ous e ils. F om he s andpoin o
hose beings whose li es a e cu sho by p eda ion, whose
bodies a e consumed by disease, o whose exis ences a e
ma ked by ch onic dep i a ion, he supposed “g ea e
good” o e olu ion o e s no consola ion. Thei su e ing
e ains i s g a ui ous cha ac e ega dless o how i migh
be heo ized om a b oade o mo e abs ac pe spec i e.
This book un olds as a sus ained c i ique o ha
endency wi hin e olu iona y heodicies o jus i y su e ing
by appealing o he o e a ching p og ess o c ea ion. In
he i s sec ion, I will e alua e he gene al a gumen s
o e olu iona y heodicies, paying pa icula a en ion
o wha I shall call he cumula i e o e olu iona y iew.
This pe spec i e assumes ha su e ing mus be seen as
an una oidable componen o a long- e m cosmic p ocess
aimed a b inging abou mo e complex, mo e capable,
and pe haps e en mo ally o spi i ually iche beings.
I will a gue ha his cumula i e iew is undamen ally
incompa ible wi h he heme o g a ui ous e il because
i o e looks he i educible pa icula i y o su e ing and
he impossibili y o e oac i ely ans o ming pain in o

6   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
meaning o he one who su e s. In he second sec ion, I will
examine he e o s embedded in he on ology o g a ui ous
e il ha unde pins e olu iona y heodicies. Too o en,
such accoun s ea e il as i i we e me ely an ins umen al
momen in a g and design, educing i s s a us o ha o a
“ empo a y se back” wi hin a eleological na a i e. I will
a gue ha his is a ca ego y mis ake: g a ui ous e il is no
an ins umen al eali y, bu an on ological eali y. I canno
be abso bed o neu alized wi hin a b oade calculus o
goods and e ils.
To a emp such abso p ion is o deny he independen
eali y o su e ing as i is ac ually li ed. The hi d
sec ion will u n o one o he mos in luen ial a emp s
o esol e his ension: he heme o God’s co-su e ing,
p oposed as pa o he g ea e -good de ense in he con ex
o e olu iona y heodicy (Sou hga e, 2008, p. 50). This
app oach sugges s ha di ine solida i y wi h c ea ion—
God’s willingness o sha e in he pain o li ing beings—
edeems o jus i ies he p esence o g a ui ous e il. I will
a gue ha , while emo ionally appealing, his p oposal ails
o espec he indi iduali y o su e ing. God’s co-su e ing
may demons a e compassion, bu i does no and canno
e ase he g a ui ousness o he su e ing expe ienced
by c ea u es. Each ins ance o pain emains pa icula ,
non- ans e able, and beyond he each o any ex e nal
jus i ica ion. In he ou h sec ion, I will c i ically analyze
one o he unde lying assump ions o e olu iona y heodicy:
INTRODuCTION   7
ha he wo ld, as i e ol es, becomes p og essi ely
be e —no only in e ms o physical complexi y bu also
in e ms o he balance be ween su e ing and lou ishing.
Acco ding o his assump ion, one migh expec li e in
he wild o ha e become less b u al, mo e o de ly, and
less illed wi h agony as e olu iona y his o y un olded. I
will a gue ha his assump ion is alse, and I will d aw
on ecen schola ship in he ield o wild animal su e ing
o show ha he belie in a cumula i e educ ion o
su e ing is based on lawed and o e ly op imis ic iews
o li e in he wild. E olu ion does no gua an ee a dec ease
in su e ing; on he con a y, i pe pe ua es cycles o
p eda ion, compe i ion, disease, and dea h on a massi e
scale. Th oughou his inqui y, my ocus will emain on
animal su e ing, pa icula ly wi hin he wild. I ake his
ocus delibe a ely in o de o esis an an h opocen ic
app oach ha would make human expe ience he sole o
p ima y measu e o g a ui ous e il. By shi ing he lens
o animal su e ing, I aim o acknowledge he b ead h o
g a ui ous e il ac oss di e en species and o unde sco e
he eali y ha g a ui ousness is no con ined o human
mo al li e bu is wo en in o he e y ab ic o e olu iona y
his o y. Animal su e ing, I con end, is pe haps he mos
s iking and undeniable example o g a ui ous e il. I o ces
us o con on he eali y ha coun less beings ha e li ed
and died in pain wi hou e e being able o make sense
o hei expe ience, o edeem i h ough mo al e lec ion,
8   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
o o in eg a e i in o a na a i e o pe sonal g ow h. The
phenomenological su e ing o animals canno be jus i ied
in e ms o a g ea e good, because animals hemsel es
lack he concep ual and mo al amewo ks ha would
allow such a jus i ica ion o ca y meaning. Thei su e ing
emains simply and s a kly g a ui ous.
Thus, my b oade claim is ha some e ils expe ienced
in he wo ld—especially hose endu ed by animals—
emain i educibly g a ui ous. They canno be abso bed
in o a la ge eleological na a i e wi hou dis o ion, no
can hey be neu alized by appeals o di ine solida i y o
cosmic p og ess. Fo his eason, I a gue ha g a ui ous e ils
occupy an on ological posi ion independen o wha e e
goods may a ise om he e olu iona y p ocess. They a e
no me ely side e ec s o p og ess, bu eali ies ha s and
apa om and in ension wi h any la ge accoun o he
wo ld as “imp o ed” o “pe ec ed” h ough e olu ion.
This book, hen, is no only a c i ique o e olu iona y
heodicies bu also an in i a ion o hink mo e ca e ully
abou he eali y o g a ui ous e il, especially as i mani es s
in he li es o nonhuman c ea u es. By examining hese
hemes, I hope o open a space o mo e hones heological
and philosophical e lec ion—one ha does no a emp o
explain away he weigh o su e ing bu ins ead akes i
se iously as a undamen al aspec o ou sha ed wo ld.
In his book, I aim o demons a e ha e olu iona y
heodicies inco ec ly in e p e he concep o g a ui ous
e il in he wo ld. I means ha he pain and su e ing
INTRODuCTION   9
immanen in he p ocess o e olu ion can always be
expe ienced o obse ed as a g a ui ous e il o he c ea u es
ha expe ience i . In his con ex , I will aise objec ions o
he idea ha he pain and su e ing expe ienced by li ing
beings du ing e olu iona y change is necessa y o hem
o become pe ec .4
In he i s sec ion, I will e alua e he gene al a gumen s
o e olu iona y heodicies and ocus on he incompa ibili y
o wha I will call he cumula i e/e olu iona y iew wi h
he heme o g a ui ous e il. In he second sec ion, I will
look a he e o s in he on ology o g a ui ous e il ha
e olu iona y heodicies a e based on. In he hi d sec ion,
I will examine he heme o God’s co-su e ing, one o
he g ea e good de enses ha e olu iona y heodicies
pu o wa d o jus i y he g a ui ous e il in he wo ld
(Sou hga e, 2008, p. 50). I will y o show how his app oach
is incompa ible wi h he indi iduali y o su e ing. In he
ou h sec ion, I will discuss he basic assump ions abou
he amoun o su e ing in a wo ld ha has become be e
4 The undamen al e o in e olu iona y heodicies is no ha hey ne e
p oblema ize he indi idual su e ing o animals. Fo ins ance, Sou hga e,
when discussing li ing beings, is ex emely inclusi e o all species. The aul
he e is he cons an dis ega d o he ac ha animal su e ing is expe ienced
by e hically aluable beings. I may be species o amilies ha gain om pain
and su e ing. Bu i is he animals who su e and ha e equal mo al alue
o humans. Th oughou his wo k, I will no conce n mysel wi h add essing
e olu iona y heodicies’ meaninglessness o logical e o s. I will explain ha
he undamen al e o o hese heodicies is ha hey e on he on ology o
su e ing by igno ing he su e ing o an e hically aluable indi idual animal
in he con ex o gene al bene i s. This on ological e o is ha he su e ing
is su e ed by he indi idual, and he e olu iona y bene i is gained by a
species. Rela ing his gain o a cumula i ely be e ou come equi es igno ing
indi idual su e ing. See, (Sou hga e, 2008, p. 48).
10   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
physically as one o he basic expec a ions o e olu ion.
Acco dingly, I will emphasize ha he assump ion ha
li e in he wild would be mo e o de ly and less pain ul
in a wo ld ha has become be e in e olu iona y his o y
is alse. In doing so, I will d aw on he wo k done so a
in he ield o wild animal su e ing and a gue ha he
assump ion ha su e ing in he wo ld has cumula i ely
dec eased is due o ou lawed belie s abou he condi ions
o li e in he wild. When discussing his opic, I will ocus
on nonhuman animal (he ea e animal) su e ing due o
e olu iona y p ocesses, pa icula ly in he wild. By doing
so, I aim o a oid an an h opocen ic iew o g a ui ous
e il in he wo ld and o acknowledge i s p esence ac oss
di e en species.
Animal su e ing is a p ime example o g a ui ous
e il ha comes o mind when conside ing such si ua ions.
My claim is ha i is challenging o jus i y he g a ui ous
e il ha animals su e because i leads o a g ea e good,
as e olu iona y heodicy would ha e i . Animals canno
jus i y hei phenomenological su e ing in e ms o he
g ea e good. In his case, some e ils expe ienced in
he wo ld a e s ill g a ui ous. The e o e, g a ui ous e ils
exis in an on ological posi ion independen o he good
ou come o he e olu iona y p ocess.

11
1. E OLuTIONARy ThEODICIES,
GREATER GOOD & CumuLATI E
ARGumENT
A gumen s ha God pe mi s su e ing o b ing
abou a g ea e good can be ound in all kinds
o heodicies. In he con ex o con empo a y
philosophical deba es, he mos well-known o hese
a e undoub edly J. hick’s soul-making heodicy and R.
Swinbu ne’s libe a ian ee will de ense (hick, 2007;
Swinbu ne, 2008; Li le, 2000). These heodicies a e
undamen ally an h opocen ic when you look a hem.
In hick’s app oach, ou eedom o sin o engage in
des uc i e beha io con ibu es o making us a mo ally
be e pe son. Simila ly, in Swinbu ne’s app oach, God
has limi ed knowledge o human ac ions, and he uni e se
is open o his change.5 Openness can accommoda e
decisions made h ough ee will in human his o y. Wha
bo h app oaches ha e in common is ha hey a gue ha
he eedom o sin and do e il o become a be e o
mo e accessible ‘human being’ is g an ed by God. This
5 Such an idea o an open wo ld delibe a ely kep independen o he will o
God is compa ible wi h a posi ion in he philosophy o eligion o en e e ed
o as open heism. We a e cons an ly eminded ha such a concep ion o
he wo ld is undamen ally based on ee human beings being on hei own
ega ding he decisions hey make, e en i hey a e w ong. In such a wo ld,
when humans cause e il, open heism does no con adic he idea o a pe ec
god. howe e , he incompa ibili y emains when na u al e ils a e conside ed.
See (haske & Oo d & Zimme man, 2011).
12   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
unde s anding in con empo a y heodicies is, he e o e,
o en an h opocen ic.
Views on g a ui ous e il in he wo ld h ough ideas
such as he soul-making heodicy and he de ense o ee
canno ully explain na u al e il and he g a ui ous e il
su e ed by animals. howe e , e olu iona y heodicies,
de eloped in line wi h e olu iona y heo y, a e mo e willing
o explain he e ils ha occu in he na u al wo ld and he
seemingly g a ui ous animal su e ing and o econcile
hem wi h he exis ence o God. The p ima y claim o
e olu iona y heodicies is ha e olu ion is compa ible
wi h he exis ence o God. I is ea ed as a possibili y ha
God has unleashed on all animals, human and nonhuman,
so hey can become mo e complex and be e . In his way,
animals will ei he become ex inc o a oid ex inc ion
h ough hei su e ing in he na u al wo ld, and he wo ld
in gene al will somehow mo e owa ds a be e s a e
(Sou hga e, 2008).
howe e , wi hin his amewo k, indi idual animal
su e ing conce ning he di e si y and complexi y o li e is
consis en ly dismissed in a o o he su i al o species
o ecosys ems. he e, pain and su e ing a e ede ined as
me e means o an end. The idea o indi idual su e ing
o bene i he species seems o be e y much in line wi h
e olu iona y de elopmen (Sou hga e, 2008: 48). I makes
no sense o call some o he bad hings ha happen in
he wo ld g a ui ous e il. E e y su e ing, g ea o small,
EVOLuTIONARY ThEODICIES, GREATER GOOD . . .   13
has he speci ic ask o imp o ing a ce ain species.
The ollowing able can be used o clea ly illus a e he
di e ences in mo al ocus among speci ic posi ions
whe e indi idual su e ing is dis ega ded in a o o he
con inui y o a species.
M. J. Almeida demons a es he logical jus i ica ion
necessa y o e olu ion o be God’s means o making a
pe ec wo ld possible. Acco ding o Almeida, g a ui ous
animal su e ing is a se ious p oblem con on ing
heodicies, and i is ough o explain his pain and
su e ing unless God mus design an e olu iona ily mo e
pe ec wo ld (Almeida, 2012, p.194). In Almeida’s
app oach, he se iousness o animal su e ing is gi en
due c edi when discussing g a ui ous e il. howe e ,
he logical necessi y is a ibu ed he e o God’s making
he wo ld mo e pe ec . Su e ing animals a e no in he
undamen al pe spec i e.
The mos common ea u es ha come o mind
when e e ing o he concep o g a ui ous e il a e ha
hey e e o na u al o a i icial si ua ions ha a ise
wi hou eason. G a ui ous e ils, oughly speaking, ecall
in insically e il si ua ions ha God could ha e p e en ed
wi hou a gene al mo al cos . These a e in insic e ils ha
a mo ally pe ec being could p e en wi hou causing a
gene al mo al deg ada ion o he wo ld (Almeida, 2020).
The e o e, he mos c ucial ea u e o g a ui ous e il is i s
associa ion wi h in insically e il e en s. When we alk
14   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
abou in insically e il e en s, we need o conside ha
hese e ils do no a ise o any sel -in e es o calcula ion.
I he obse ed o expe ienced e il e en does no occu in
he name o any in e es , calcula ion, o g ea e good, i is
close o undamen ally g a ui ous e il. In his espec , we
can call o mind William Rowe’s amous awn a gumen
o g a ui ous e il (Rowe, 1979).
Acco dingly, le us imagine ha a awn ha dies in
he o es a e he i e by a ligh ning s ike and su e ing
g ea pain on i s own does no lea n any lessons o he
u u e om his pain and ha his pain ne e leads o any
posi i e ou come in he u u e. In his case, his e en
exempli ies a uly g a ui ous e il. The e a e many such
cases o g a ui ous pain and su e ing in he wo ld. F om
his poin o iew, Rowe’s use o a de enseless awn in
d awing he heo e ical amewo k o g a ui ous e il
shows us ha he in ui i e connec ion o animal su e ing
wi h g a ui ous e ils is solid.
Thus, when dealing wi h g a ui ous e il, we do no
ha e o adop an an h opocen ic pe spec i e like he
libe a ian de ense o ee will and soul-making heodicy.
Ins ead, we can hink in a way ha ejec s an h opocen ism
and conside s animal su e ing in his case. I am no he e
ying o ind an al e na i e a gumen o heodicies ha y
o jus i y how g a ui ous e il, and God can exis in he
same wo ld. Ins ead, we a e ques ioning whe he su e ing
is indeed g a ui ous.
EVOLuTIONARY ThEODICIES, GREATER GOOD . . .   21
ha pe ish daily om s a a ion, disease, p eda ion,
pa asi ism, o en i onmen al disas e a e no me ely “s eps”
owa d a mo e esilien species o “building blocks” o a
s onge ecosys em. They a e ins ances o p o ound and
g a ui ous loss—loss ha is el , li ed, and i edeemable
in he li es o hose c ea u es. To in e p e hese e en s
solely in e ms o hei con ibu ion o he esilience o
species o he con inui y o ecosys ems is o miss hei
essen ial cha ac e . I is o o e look ha hey a e, i s and
o emos , phenomena o su e ing ha canno be mo ally
o me aphysically edeemed.
The e o e, he cen al weakness o he cumula i e
o e olu iona y posi ion becomes clea : i dissol es he
mo al weigh o indi idual su e ing in o an impe sonal
na a i e o p og ess. I assumes ha no e il can be
g a ui ous, because e e y ac o su e ing con ibu es o
he de elopmen o li e as a whole. Bu his claim collapses
unde he ecogni ion ha su e ing is no an abs ac
a iable o be calcula ed bu an expe ienced eali y ha
weighs upon he conc e e li es o sen ien beings. To deny
his eali y is o all in o a kind o mo al and me aphysical
educ ionism, whe e he li ed pain o coun less animals
is ein e p e ed as an illusion—o wo se, as a necessa y
sac i ice o e ed on he al a o e olu iona y p og ess.
Such educ ionism does no me ely dis o he u h o
su e ing; i i ializes i . I seeks o co e o e he eali y
o g a ui ous e il wi h abs ac language abou g ow h,

22   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
p og ess, and esilience, bu in doing so, i ails o g asp
he dep h o he p oblem i seeks o add ess.
The p oblem o g a ui ous e il canno be neu alized
so easily. I canno be explained away by claiming ha
e e y agony con ibu es o a highe good. I pe sis s as
a s ubbo n eminde , an e e -p esen challenge, ha any
heodicy which ails o hono he indi iduali y o su e ing
ul ima ely ails o engage wi h he ue g a i y o he issue.
G a ui ous e il insis s ha no all pain can be jus i ied, no
all expe iences o agony can be subsumed wi hin cosmic
eleology. Some pain emains, qui e simply, poin less and
de as a ing o he one who su e s i .
Wha eme ges, hen, is he need o a mo e hones and
sobe ing acknowledgmen o g a ui ous e il’s on ological
dis inc ness. G a ui ous e il is no me ely a empo a y gap
in ou unde s anding ha will one day be econciled wi h
di ine goodness. I is an on ological eali y ha demands
ecogni ion in i s own igh . Su e ing canno always be
subsumed in o na a i es o u ili y, p og ess, o cosmic
ha mony. No can i be econciled oo quickly wi h he
idea o a bene olen di ine o de . E en i one g an s
ha e olu ion has indeed p oduced ema kable di e si y,
esilience, and complexi y in he na u al wo ld—e en i
one admi s he g andeu o e olu iona y his o y and i s
as onishing achie emen s— his acknowledgmen does
no e ase he coun less li es ma ked by meaningless
pain. The e olu iona y s o y o esilience and adap a ion
EVOLuTIONARY ThEODICIES, GREATER GOOD . . .   23
does no undo he agony o he coun less c ea u es whose
li es ha e been cu sho , whose expe iences ha e been
sa u a ed wi h pain, and whose su e ing has b ough hem
no compensa ion.
E olu iona y heodicies may succeed in p o iding a
b oad explana ion o why su e ing exis s a he mac o
le el o his o y, bu hey canno elimina e he eali y ha ,
o he indi idual who su e s, he expe ience is i educibly
g a ui ous. To he awn consumed by i e, o he p ey animal
o n apa by a p eda o , o he diseased bi d slowly losing
i s s eng h, he su e ing is no edeemed by u u e goods.
I emains su e ing, aw and de as a ing, expe ienced in
he immediacy o he p esen . This ecogni ion should
no be seen as an obs acle o heological e lec ion bu as
an oppo uni y—a challenge o de elop a mo e nuanced,
mo e humble, and mo ally se ious engagemen wi h he
p oblem o e il.
To con on g a ui ous e il wi hou seeking o explain
i away is o espec he in eg i y o li ed expe ience. I
is o acknowledge he agic dimensions o c ea ion
i sel , a he han educing hem o unc ional necessi ies
wi hin a di ine plan. Only by doing so can we esis
he emp a ion o abs ac ion, he com o o heo e ical
closu e, and emain ai h ul o he eali y o su e ing in
all i s dep h, pa icula i y, and g a ui y. This does no mean
abandoning he sea ch o meaning al oge he bu a he
ecognizing ha meaning canno always come in he o m
24   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
o jus i ica ion. Some imes meaning mus come h ough
acknowledgmen , h ough solida i y, and h ough mo al
se iousness in he ace o wha canno be econciled.
Thus, he endu ing lesson o g a ui ous e il is ha
c ea ion, o all i s g andeu and beau y, is also ma ked by
loss, pain, and agedy ha canno be nea ly esol ed. Any
heological o philosophical amewo k ha ails o hono
his ac will ul ima ely emain inadequa e. The ask be o e
us, hen, is no o e ase g a ui ous e il bu o con on i
hones ly, o in eg a e i s eali y in o ou e lec ions, and o
cul i a e a humili y ha esis s easy answe s. In his way,
ou engagemen wi h he p oblem o e il can mo e beyond
abs ac ion and owa d a deepe ecogni ion o he agili y
and agedy o li e i sel .
25
2. ANImAL SuFFERING AND
ThE ONTOLOGICAL STATuS OF
GRATuITOuS E IL
People gene ally app oach he achie emen s o
animals a he end o hei e olu iona y jou ney
h ough he inclusi e e m o he animal’s amily,
ecosys em, o supe -indi idual base o which i belongs.
The app oach ha e olu iona y heodicies gene ally eso
o in de ense o he g ea e good is simila . The claim
ha g a ui ous e il e en s occu in he wo ld o somehow
cause a g ea e good igno es he indi idual exis ence o
sen ien beings. In o he wo ds, in e p e ing pain and
su e ing de ends he eali y o ce ain easons ex e nal
o he indi idual who eels ha pain (Aal ola, 2014). The
essen ial poin ha needs o be eminded he e can be
easily deduced om Rowe’s a gumen , so much so ha he
su e ing expe ienced by he awn ha dies alone because
o he ligh ning s ike in he o es is a su e ing ha only
he expe iences and wi nesses.
Le us y o e o mula e he su e ing o a awn due
o a ligh ning s ike wi hin he amewo k o he g ea e
good iew o e olu iona y heodicy. Le us imagine wo
di e en dee species li ing in he o es . Since one o hese
o ms o dee canno make much p og ess in de eloping
he abili y o p edic he ligh ning ha cons an ly s ikes
he o es , i g adually becomes unable o su i e and
26   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
becomes ex inc . Le us assume ha he o he o m o dee
has exis ed o many yea s and has become mo e amilia
wi h he ligh ning ha s ikes he o es . This amilia i y
g adually makes hem much mo e esis an o sudden
ligh ning s ikes. O e many yea s, dee s in his o m gain
he abili y o p edic he ligh ning ha is likely o s ike
he o es a ew seconds in ad ance and o escape om he
en i onmen hey ind dange ous o a sa e a ea. They also
become able o pass his abili y on o u u e gene a ions
biologically. Thus, he i s o m o dee ha we men ioned
u e ly disappea s om he na u al wo ld. howe e , in he
amous wo ds o Da winism, he o m ha is be e i o
na u e has su i ed and has ensu ed he con inui y o i s
o m, hus p o iding a causal jus i ica ion o he su e ing
i has expe ienced due o ligh ning s ikes o e he yea s
(Claeys, 2000).
Biological e olu ion, which includes many bad
e en s, has led o a g ea e good in p o iding he animals in
ques ion wi h he abili y o unde s and be e , in e p e , and
ake p ecau ions o en i onmen al condi ions. The e o e,
he a gumen o e olu iona y heodicies owa ds a g ea e
good is pa ially igh he e. howe e , he poin igno ed
he e is ha he g ea e good men ioned is cumula i e. In
o he wo ds, he su i ing dee o m men ioned abo e
has achie ed a good ha encompasses hei o m and he
species o which hey belong. When we e ocus on he
awn in Rowe’s a gumen , i seems ex emely di icul o
say ha i is awa e o he e olu iona y de elopmen s ha

ANIMAL SuFFERING AND ThE ONTOLOGICAL STATuS . . .   27
will occu in he u u e and he cumula i e ou comes ha
i s own amily will ob ain.
Cumula i e/e olu iona y a gumen s p o ide a
subs an ial jus i ica ion o ca ego ically discoun ing
he indi iduali y o he awn’s su e ing in he ace o a
species’ gains. These heodicies a e also ex emely use ul
in legi imizing God’s indi e ence o g a ui ous su e ing
because bo h o ms o dee li ing in he o es s ill ha e
su icien au onomy o ake p ecau ions agains he
cons an ligh ning s ikes.
The undamen al p oblem wi h his pe spec i e is
ha we a e accus omed o cons an ly hinking o animals
in e ms o hei own species and o he biological
ca ego ies, a he han as indi iduals. This habi leads
us o hink ha e olu iona y in e es s a e essen ial
o animals. The e o e, we end o ind he indi idual
su e ing expe ienced by animals as meaningless when
we conside i in p opo ion o he u u e gains o a
speci ic animal o m. howe e , his human endency
does no elimina e he ac ha many animals, including
he awn depic ed in Rowe’s a gumen , a e subjec ed o
g ea su e ing b ough on by na u al and a i icial e ils
(ho a, 2015; Sou hga e, 2018, p. 114).
unde oday’s scien i ic condi ions, expec ing animals
o ac in hei species’ e olu iona y in e es s is no easible.
Mo eo e , he idea ha animal su e ing is accep able
because o e olu iona y heodicies, which p omise u u e
bene i s o hei species, can be iewed as an in usion on
28   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
he animals’ subjec i e expe ience du ing hei su e ing,
exceeding hei li ed eali y.
One in ui i e objec ion o his app oach is o claim
ha animals may also be able o hink abou he u u e.
Indeed, con a y o wha was hough in ancien imes,
animals ha e a mo e complex capaci y o hinking abou
he u u e. In o he wo ds, animals wouldn’ unde s and
he whole explana ion o why hei su e ing is aluable,
e en i such an explana ion made sense, which is highly
con es able. howe e , no de ini i e inding has ye been
eached abou how a ahead in ime animals can hink
abou hei u u e. Animals’ u u e-o ien ed goals a e
gene ally limi ed o ep esen a ions ha include conc e e
pe sonal bene i s. In o he wo ds, i needs o be cla i ied
how deep animals’ insigh s in o hei u u e-o ien ed
hinking p ocesses a e, and mo e esea ch is equi ed o
unde s and he di e ences and simila i ies be ween hese
capaci ies o humans and animals (Redshaw & Bulley,
2018, p. 46).
Expec ing animals o ha e a disposi ion o e hei
species’ e olu iona y in e es s does no seem possible
wi hin oday’s scien i ic condi ions. In addi ion,
e olu iona y heodicies’ g ounding o he exis ence o
animal su e ing in he g ea e good o hei species in
he u u e can be in e p e ed as an excess ou side he
phenomenological eali y du ing he pe iod in which he
animal su e s and is imposed on his subjec i e expe ience
om ou side.
ANIMAL SuFFERING AND ThE ONTOLOGICAL STATuS . . .   29
The e o e, he belie ha be e e sions o li ing
beings will eme ge h ough e olu ion is an h opocen ic.
The pain expe ienced by animals is an insepa able pa o
hei li es and is meaning ul on an indi idual le el. The
pain animals su e is a pa o hei subjec i e expe iences,
and hese expe iences canno be igno ed when iewed
om he ou side. Making indi idual pain unimpo an in
he ace o he e olu iona y achie emen s o he species
e lec s an an h opocen ic pe spec i e and beli les he
indi idual expe iences o animals. The pain su e ed by
animals can be pe cei ed as g a ui ous e il when iewed
om he pe spec i e o indi idual beings, and i is di icul
o jus i y his pain o he sake o he g ea e good. In his
con ex , he phenomenology o animal su e ing shows
ha indi idual su e ing canno be igno ed in he ace
o he e olu iona y achie emen s o he species and ha
each expe ience o pain is aluable and meaning ul. Thus,
all he easons we can come up wi h o hink ha animal
su e ing is no pe cei ed as g a ui ous a e an h opocen ic.
Acco dingly,
1. Theodicies ha a ibu e su e ing o highe goods
equi e in e p e i e capaci ies.
2. Animals lack such in e p e i e capaci ies; hei
su e ing emains phenomenologically g a ui ous.
3. Thus, a leas some e ils in he wo ld appea
g a ui ous in ways heodicies canno esol e.
4. The e o e, many adi ional heodicies ail,
especially in he case o animal su e ing.
30   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
The endency o legi imize God’s indi e ence o
indi idual animal su e ing by making i unimpo an in
he ace o he o e all gains o he species s ems om
he habi o e alua ing animals in e ms o hei species
a he han indi idually. Indi idual animal su e ing may
seem meaningless when seen as unimpo an in he ace
o e olu iona y gains, bu his does no change he ac
ha many animals su e om na u al and a i icial e ils.
Animals may need mo e o hink abou he u u e as
p o oundly as humans do, making i impossible o hem
o ha e comple e con ol o e hei e olu iona y in e es s.
The a emp o e olu iona y heodicies o legi imize
animal su e ing wi h he u u e well-being o he species
ep oduces he an h opocen ic pe spec i e ha igno es
he subjec i e expe iences o animals ha expe ience
his su e ing di e en ly. The e o e, i is i al o ques ion
whe he he explana ions o e ed by e olu iona y
heodicies a e su icien . Explaining animal su e ing
solely in e ms o u u e species gains neglec s he cu en
expe iences o hese c ea u es and p esen s an e hically
p oblema ic app oach. In his con ex , sen ience should
be aken as he only cha ac e is ic o be conside ed a
pe son a he essen ial le el, encompassing all e hical
heo ies, public policies, and esea ch opics. When we
base ou sel es on sen ience, issues such as animals’
le el o consciousness o hei eedom o be agen s will
emain i ial, and in e species inclusi eness will be ully
achie ed (Pe y, 2024).
INDIVIDuALITY, GRATuITOuS EVIL, AND WILD . . .   37
idea o God’s empa hy and co-su e ing, God’s wi nessing
and empa hizing wi h pa icula pains does no elimina e
he physical jus i ica ion o he indi idual su e ing o
pain.11 God’s empa hy wi h he su e ing o c ea u es does
no explain he exis ence o causes o physical pain bu
a he exp esses ha God is no indi e en o his pain and
sha es he su e ing o c ea u es. howe e , o a heis s, he
idea o such empa hy is less con incing because i has
no obse able basis in he physical wo ld (now o in he
u u e o a g ea e good).
An e olu iona y heodicy can be accep ed as an
explana ion ha does no deny he physical exis ence
o la ge-scale su e ing in he wo ld. Because in
e olu iona y his o y, some species ha e su i ed un il he
new millennium. O cou se, he e a e li ing o ms ha
comple ely disappea ed cen u ies ago, bu he emaining
o ms b ing g ea e good o he wo ld by ensu ing ha
mo e po en li ing o ms will exis . I is possible o
conside e olu iona y de elopmen as an ad en u e o
becoming pe ec o li ing hings in ha i essen ially
e eals be e o ms o li ing hings ha may eme ge in
he u u e. howe e , basing he la ge-scale indi idual pain
and su e ing expe ienced du ing his ime on a g ea e
good ha will eme ge in he u u e s ill needs o sol e he
p oblem.
11 he e, he escha ological na u e o pain s ems om a belie ha he
un inished and incomple e well-being o li ing beings due o su e ing and
dea h will be compensa ed a e dea h. Acco dingly, God is empa hic owa ds
he su e ing o li ing beings and will compensa e o his pain in hea en. See
(Pe e s, 2019).

38   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
Animal su e ing in na u e is a eal issue, e en when
animals migh bene i in he u u e. Le us conside he
example o Rowe’s awn again. I we imagine ou sel es
in ha si ua ion, he knowledge ha ou su e ing may
lead o signi ican scien i ic disco e ies in he u u e
will no lessen ou pain. Al hough i migh o e some
psychological com o , i would no change he ac ha
we a e expe iencing agony in he p esen momen .
Mos people may no wan hei dea hs o be jus i ied
by hei con ibu ion o humani y o by sol ing a c i ical
p oblem. howe e , when i comes o animals, we end
o be mo e cou ageous in hinking ha e olu iona y
p ocesses jus i y hei dea hs. This unequal ea men is
based on speciesism.
The su e ing expe ienced by animals aised o
human needs, should no be jus i ied by p io i izing he
bene i s o a species o e he wel a e o indi iduals.
This pe spec i e is called speciesism, and i leads o
iewing animal li e h ough a human-cen e ed lens
(ho a, 2022). Speciesism o en legi imizes he use o
animals o human needs. howe e , i is essen ial o
ecognize ha he su e ing animals endu e in a ming
is signi ican and canno be o e looked. This su e ing
is di e en om he su e ing caused by na u al e en s.
I esul s om human ac i i ies and is coun ed as an
a i icial e il (Mckenna, 2018).
I humans do no emo e hemsel es om he
na u al selec ion p ocess, he su e ings expe ienced by
INDIVIDuALITY, GRATuITOuS EVIL, AND WILD . . .   39
animals p oduced o a ming can be legi imized om his
pe spec i e. The eason o his is o see he li ing species
ha eached he peak in he na u al selec ion p ocess as
humans and o no malize he ensla emen o o he species.
howe e , his e hical unde s anding may no always be
alid o hose wi h an e olu iona y pe spec i e.
The heo y o e olu ion can help de ine he ue na u e
o animals and may equi e humans o posi ion hemsel es
ou side he p ocess o na u al selec ion. This app oach
begins wi h ecognizing ha animals, like humans, ha e
emo ional and cogni i e capaci ies ha can su e . Thus, an
e olu iona y pe spec i e can also ad oca e no exploi ing
animals o human in e es s bu ins ead li ing by hei
na u e (C iscuolo & Sueu , 2020). In con as , animal
su e ing in he wild la gely in ol es na u al e ils, no
a i icial ones. O cou se, when i comes o he damage ha
humans ha e in lic ed on na u e and ecosys ems o e he
yea s, i should no be o e looked ha seemingly na u al
e ils may ha e an h opogenic causes (ho a, 2023, p.
143). On he o he hand, when we e u n o Rowe’s awn,
i is di icul o claim ha a ligh ning s ike in he o es is
an a i icial e il. E en s in ol ing g ea pain expe ienced
by animals exposed o simila na u al e ils can be called
singula wild animal su e ing.
The discussion o e olu iona y heodicies, di ine
empa hy, and he p oblem o animal su e ing e eals a
pe sis en and unse ling u h: no heological s a egy has
ye managed o dissol e he i educible singula i y o pain
40   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
endu ed by nonhuman c ea u es. The examples d awn
om wild animal su e ing, highligh ha he p oblem
canno be explained away by appealing o cumula i e
goods, e olu iona y bene i s, o di ine co-su e ing. To
educe su e ing o i s po en ial e olu iona y ou comes,
o o claim ha God’s empa hy ans o ms i s meaning,
ails o espec he li ed and phenomenological eali y
o agony. The animal ha su e s does no expe ience
i s pain as a con ibu ion o species-le el p og ess,
no does i ind consola ion in he no ion o di ine
companionship. I s pain emains immedia e, aw, and
pe sonal—an undeniable eali y ha no abs ac ion can
e ase. Fo de ende s o e olu iona y heodicy, he claim
ha su e ing is “ he only ine i able pa h” in a wo ld
shaped by na u al selec ion and ecological p essu es
is indeed cohe en om a mac o pe spec i e. Species
e ol e, adap , and some imes lou ish p ecisely because
ha sh condi ions ha e selec ed o esilience. Ye his
mac o-le el cohe ence does no ouch he mic o-le el
expe ience o he su e ing c ea u e. The awn consumed
by lames in he o es , o he bi d slowly dying om a
i al disease, canno access he na a i e o e olu iona y
p og ess. F om hei s andpoin , he e is no consola ion
in he hough ha hei agony may e en ually lead o a
s onge lineage o dee o bi ds. To accep e olu iona y
heodicy unc i ically, hen, is o adop an impe sonal
s ance ha e ases he mo al g a i y o indi idual su e ing
in a o o species-le el abs ac ion.
INDIVIDuALITY, GRATuITOuS EVIL, AND WILD . . .   41
Mo eo e , he no ion o di ine co-su e ing, while
emo ionally appealing, encoun e s se ious limi a ions
when sc u inized om bo h heis ic and a heis ic
pe spec i es. To belie e s, he idea ha God sha es in
he su e ing o c ea u es may p o ide eassu ance ha
God is no indi e en . Ye such eassu ance does no
elimina e o explain he physical ac o su e ing—i
me ely e ames i as some hing wi nessed in solida i y.
In his espec , e olu iona y heodicy appea s mo e
pala able o na u alis s, since i ames su e ing as a
byp oduc o physical p ocesses a he han di ine
mys e y. Ye e en he e, he explana o y gap emains:
why mus g a ui ous e il exis a all, i no simply
because na u e is indi e en ? The concep o speciesism
o e s a u he c i ique o e olu iona y heodicies.
human beings, when e alua ing hei own su e ing,
a ely ind consola ion in he claim ha hei pain
con ibu es o a u u e good o he species. Mos o us
do no wan ou dea hs jus i ied by hei e olu iona y
o scien i ic alue. Ye when i comes o animals, we
a e much quicke o accep p ecisely his easoning—
ha hei dea hs and agonies a e pe missible because
hey uel e olu iona y p og ess. This double s anda d
exposes he an h opocen ic bias a he hea o many
heodicies: human su e ing is ea ed as mo ally
weigh y, while animal su e ing is discoun ed as
expendable. To no malize such inequali y is o ein o ce
a speciesis amewo k, one ha de alues he subjec i e
42   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
expe iences o nonhuman c ea u es simply because hey
do no belong o he human amily.
This ecogni ion becomes e en mo e u gen when
conside ing he dis inc ion be ween na u al and a i icial
e ils. The su e ing endu ed by animals in he wild
is o en ca ego ized as “na u al”—ligh ning s ikes,
p eda ion, disease, s a a ion. Ye many o hese e ils a e
now en angled wi h an h opogenic causes, om clima e
change o ecosys em des uc ion. Meanwhile, he su e ing
o animals in indus ial ag icul u e is clea ly a i icial,
c ea ed by human choices and s uc u es o exploi a ion.
Bo h ca ego ies o su e ing illus a e he limi s o
e olu iona y heodicies. To jus i y animal su e ing as pa
o “na u al selec ion” is e hically incohe en since i a ises
om delibe a e human in e en ion a he han na u al
p ocesses. And o in e p e wild su e ing as a necessa y
ins umen o e olu iona y p og ess dis ega ds he
phenomenological indi iduali y o pain. The implica ions
a e clea : any heodicy ha explains animal su e ing solely
in e ms o u u e goods—whe he e olu iona y esilience
o di ine empa hy— ails o cap u e he eali y o g a ui ous
e il. Sen ience i sel mus become he ounda ion o
mo al ecogni ion. I an animal can eel pain, ha pain is
e hically signi ican , ega dless o species membe ship,
e olu iona y ole, o di ine pu pose. When e alua ed
om his s andpoin , he su e ing o Rowe’s awn, o o
any animal endu ing na u al o a i icial e il, is g a ui ous

INDIVIDuALITY, GRATuITOuS EVIL, AND WILD . . .   43
inso a as i lacks jus i ica ion wi hin he ho izon o he
one who su e s. To dismiss o ein e p e his su e ing
h ough abs ac ion is no only a philosophical e o bu
also a mo al one.
Thus, he b oade lesson is ha g a ui ous e il pe sis s
as a ca ego y esis an o e olu iona y and heological
educ ion. I o ces us o con on he agic dimensions
o exis ence wi hou a emp ing o a ionalize hem away.
Fo heology, his means esis ing he emp a ion o claim
ha all su e ing se es a hidden good; o philosophy, i
means acknowledging he on ological dis inc ness o e il
as i educible. Fo e hics, i equi es ejec ing speciesism
and emb acing a sen ience-cen e ed amewo k ha hono s
he eali y o indi idual su e ing, human and nonhuman
alike. Only by doing so can we begin o ake se iously
he dep h o he p oblem o g a ui ous e il and he mo al
weigh o animal su e ing in he e olu iona y cosmos.
45
4. E OLuTION, BETTER WORLD
AND IDyLLIC IEW
Al hough i is no easy o igno e he su e ing o
wild animals, humans ha e a e y e ec i e habi
o a oiding p oblema izing his ype o su e ing.
This is some imes based on he belie ha animals li e
happily in na u e. This assump ion, which has been called
he idyllic iew o na u e (ho a 2010) is w ong because, in
na u e, animals o en su e g ea ly due o hunge ,
disease, inju y, p eda ion, and o he na u al e ils.¹
humans end o oman icize na u e, which is al eady
ha sh and c uel, and his endency makes i easie o igno e
he g a ui ous e il ha animals su e in na u e. Such
su e ing does no eally ha e any good consequences o
animals’ li es; he e is no lesson ha animals indi idually
lea n om his su e ing, and his su e ing does no seem
o lead o any g ea e good. The e o e, i is in ui i ely e y
easy o conside wild animal su e ing ha occu s na u ally
as g a ui ous e il.
The claim ha e olu iona y p ocesses will achie e
mo e inc edible bene i s o species h ough pain and
su e ing also p o ides a humane elie om wild animal
su e ing. Because his is he wo king p inciple o
e olu ion, and li ing beings can only de elop physically
and men ally h ough pain ul ac ions. Conside ing he
e olu iona y his o y ha has p og essed since he wo ld
¹ Beyond dis ega ding he laws inhe en in e olu iona y de elopmen , he idyllic iew
also unde mines key a gumen s in heis ic deba es, such as ine- uning and appeals o
na u al o de . Fo a s udy ha ein e p e s he idyllic iew in hese e ms, see (Akalın,
2025).
46   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
came in o being, he cumula i e bene i acqui ed o
animals should ha e educed his su e ing in his espec .
The e o e, om he pe spec i e o e olu iona y heodicies,
his e olu iona y ad en u e spanning millions o yea s
mus ha e posi i ely impac ed g a ui ous animal su e ing.
Acco ding o Mu ay, indica o s o he uni e se’s
ansi ion om i s chao ic s a e o a mo e o de ly s a e
a e essen ial o a heis ic heodicy app oach ha does no
exclude e olu ion. The heme o he g ea e good eases
he expec a ion o he wo ld e ol ing om a chao ic s a e
o a mo e o de ly and less pain ul s a e. In his espec ,
he chao ic s a e o he uni e se should ans o m o he
be e (wi hin nomic egula i y) h ough e olu iona y
de elopmen s o e ime. (Mu ay, 2008: 192). This
assump ion is highly compa ible wi h he e olu iona y
heodicy pe spec i e. I change om a chao ic wo ld o
a mo e o de ly wo ld is possible, hen he o de ha he
g ea e good will b ing in he u u e should somehow
educe animal su e ing. The e o e, i would no be s ange
o a gue ha he pain and su e ing in animal li e a e less
han in he pas .
The idea ha e olu ion leads o a mo e o de ly and
less chao ic s a e, esul ing in dec eased animal su e ing,
is lawed. This pe spec i e o e looks he subjec i e
expe ience o indi idual animals acing su e ing. While
i is ue ha animals may be in be e condi ions han
millions o yea s ago and may su e less o e all, his does
no diminish he signi icance o an indi idual animal’s
EVOLuTION, BETTER WORLD AND IDYLLIC VIEW   53
p eda o s, o he diseased bi d slowly dying in soli ude,
o o he in e eb a es ha pe ish by he millions be o e
eaching ma u i y, he na a i e o long- e m species-
le el bene i has no ele ance. F om he s andpoin o
he one who su e s, he u u e gains o e olu ion a e
u e ly meaningless. Wha ma e s is he immediacy o
agony— he aw, embodied, and empo ally inescapable
eali y o pain. And i is p ecisely his immediacy ha
ende s so much animal su e ing g a ui ous, incapable o
being e oac i ely edeemed by appeals o la ge goods.
The e o e, he cen al lesson ha eme ges is s ikingly
clea : g a ui ous e il canno be e ased o neu alized by
appeals o e olu iona y p og ess, by heological asse ions
o di ine empa hy, o by sys emic jus i ica ions ha
p i ilege collec i es o e indi iduals.
To accep e olu iona y heodicies as su icien
esponses o he p oblem o su e ing is o isk
unde es ima ing, o wo se, ou igh dismissing, he e hical
signi icance o sen ience i sel . I is o dis ega d he in insic
mo al alue o indi idual li es and o in e p e beings
capable o su e ing as expendable ins umen s in a la ge
cosmic na a i e. Such an app oach no only weakens he
c edibili y o heological e lec ion bu also pe pe ua es a
sub le o m o speciesism, in which non-human su e ing is
ea ed as mo ally negligible when compa ed o supposed
highe goods. A mo e hones , sobe , and mo ally se ious
engagemen wi h he p oblem equi es us o abandon hese
an h opocen ic and speciesis endencies. Ins ead, i calls

54   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
o a adical shi owa d a sen ience-cen e ed e hic, one
ha ecognizes ha he capaci y o eel pain is, in i sel , a
su icien g ound o mo al conside a ion. E e y c ea u e
capable o su e ing, ega dless o i s species membe ship,
e olu iona y ole, o ecological unc ion, possesses mo al
signi icance ha canno be o e idden by appeals o
collec i e lou ishing. To ecognize his is o a i m ha
he pain o each indi idual ma e s in i s own igh —
ha su e ing is no an abs ac da um o be weighed in
cosmic balances bu a li ed expe ience ha demands
acknowledgmen and espec . Only h ough his e hical
eo ien a ion can we begin o con on he agic dep h
o g a ui ous e il in he na u al wo ld wi hou dis o ion,
wi hou abs ac ion, and wi hou denial. This ecogni ion
does no p o ide a nea solu ion o he p oblem o e il;
a he , i unde sco es he limi s o heodicy i sel and he
necessi y o humili y in he ace o su e ing. By esis ing
he emp a ion o explain away pain and by acknowledging
he i educible g a ui y o much animal su e ing, we
cul i a e a mo e u h ul and e hically esponsible
pe spec i e—one ha hono s he li ed expe iences o
c ea u es in all hei agili y and ulne abili y. In his way,
he c i ique o e olu iona y heodicies becomes mo e han
a heological exe cise; i becomes a call o deepe mo al
se iousness, u ging us o mo e beyond abs ac ions and o
emain ai h ul o he eali y o su e ing in all i s dep h,
pa icula i y, and g a ui y.
55
CONCLuSION
E olu iona y heodicies’ a emp s o explain he
concep o g a ui ous e il in he wo ld ace se ious
di icul ies, especially in he con ex o indi idual
animal su e ing. A gumen s ha he pain and su e ing
inhe en in e olu iona y p ocesses a e necessa y o
he long- e m pe ec ion o species igno e he ac ha
indi idual su e ing is a deep and eal su e ing o he
expe ience. In his con ex , he g ea e good a gumen
o e ed by e olu iona y heodicies alls sho because i
needs o conside he impo ance o indi idual su e ing
su icien ly.
The indi idual and phenomenological expe ience
o animal su e ing appea s as a eali y in which
g a ui ous e ils pe sis , ega dless o he possible good
ha e olu iona y p ocesses migh b ing. A guing ha
his su e ing is accep able o he sake o he species’
e olu iona y gains c ea es a g ea e hical and heological
gap. E olu iona y heodicies ail o deal wi h he concep
o g a ui ous e il because hey canno sa is ac o ily
explain he in ense and pe sis en su e ing ha animals
a e subjec ed o. The e o e, g a ui ous e il con inues o be
an essen ial g ound o weakening heodicies.
The undamen al c i icism o he cumula i e/
e olu iona y posi ion p esen ed by heodicies is ha i
igno es he phenomenological dimension o pain and he
56   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
cla i y o indi idual expe iences. Al hough i is a gued
ha he su e ing su e ed by animals and o he c ea u es
bene i s hei species in he long e m, he ac ha his
su e ing is a na u al and deep sou ce o su e ing o he
c ea u es expe iencing i does no change.
howe e , his su e ing is accep ed as an ine i able pa
o he e olu iona y p ocess, he pa icula i y and in ensi y
o he su e ing expe ienced by indi idual animals canno
be igno ed. Al hough e olu iona y and heis ic heodicies
y o explain he meaning o his su e ing by a guing
ha God empa hizes wi h he su e ing o c ea u es, his
empa hy does no elimina e he exis ence and causes o
physical su e ing.
ul ima ely, he p oblem o g a ui ous e il emains
un esol ed wi hin he amewo k o e olu iona y
heodicies. The claim ha su e ing is jus i ied by i s
con ibu ion o he pe ec ion o species canno e ase he
immediacy o pain as i is li ed by indi idual animals. Fo
he bi d consumed by disease, o he coun less in e eb a es
ha pe ish be o e eaching ma u i y, he no ion o a
u u e g ea e good p o ides no elie , no meaning, and
no edemp ion. Thei su e ing is wha i is—pain ul,
isola ing, and i educibly pe sonal. This ecogni ion
o ces us o admi ha e olu iona y heodicies, despi e
hei in ellec ual sophis ica ion, canno adequa ely b idge
he gap be ween abs ac eleology and conc e e li ed
expe ience. By a emp ing o subsume indi idual su e ing
CONCLuSION   57
unde he ca ego y o e olu iona y p og ess, hey isk
i ializing he eali y o g a ui ous e il and unde mining
he se iousness o he e hical challenge i poses. Wha
is needed ins ead is an acknowledgmen ha some e ils
emain g a ui ous e ils ha canno be jus i ied by appeal
o p og ess, di ine empa hy, o sys emic ha mony. Thus,
g a ui ous e il con inues o s and as a c i ical coun e poin
o heodicies. I exposes he limi a ions o a emp s o
econcile su e ing wi h di ine goodness and challenges
us o ake mo e se iously he mo al weigh o indi idual
pain. A mo e hones engagemen wi h his p oblem
equi es shi ing he ocus om species-le el abs ac ions
and heological jus i ica ions o he phenomenology o
su e ing i sel . Only by doing so can we begin o ace
he agic dimensions o exis ence wi hou dis o ion and
ecognize he ull e hical implica ions o g a ui ous e il in
he na u al wo ld.

59
REFERENCES
Aal ola, E. (2014). Animal su e ing: Rep esen a ions and
he ac o looking. An h ozoös, 27(1), 19–31. h ps://
doi.o g/10.2752/175303714X13837396326297.
Akalın, A. (2025). Pas o al Gö üşün Felse i Temelle i:
Doğal Düzen e Hay an Is ı abı. FLSF: Jou nal o Philosophy
and Social Sciences, 40, 329–347. h ps://doi.o g/10.53844/
ls .1590689.
Almeida, M. (2012). F eedom, God and Wo lds.
Ox o d uni e si y P ess.
Almeida, M. (2020). On necessa y g a ui ous
e ils. Eu opean Jou nal o Philosophy o Religion.
Almeida, M. (2022). E il is no e idence. Religious
S udies, 1(1), 1-9.
Cla k, S. R. (1976, Janua y). God, good and e il. In
P oceedings o he A is o elian Socie y (pp. 247-264).
Comp on Russell L d.
Claeys, G. (2000). The “su i al o he i es ” and he
o igins o social Da winism. Jou nal o he His o y o Ideas,
61(2), 223-240. h ps://doi.o g/10.1353/jhi.2000.0014
C iscuolo, F., & Sueu , C. (2020). An e olu iona y
poin o iew o animal e hics. F on ie s in Psychology, 11,
528735. h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2020.00403
Culp, J. (2015). O e coming he limi s o heodicy: An
in e ac i e ecip ocal esponse o e il. In e na ional Jou nal
o Philosophy o Religion, 78, 263–276. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1007/s11153-015-9525-2
Doughe y, T. (2014). The P oblem o Animal Pain: A
Theodicy o All C ea u es G ea and Small (1s ed.).
Palg a e Macmillan.
60   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
D ape , P. (1989). Pain and pleasu e: An e iden ial
p oblem o heis s. Noûs, 23(3), 331–350. h ps://doi.
o g/10.2307/2215486
Eik em, A., & O esen Sø ik, A. (2018).
E olu iona y heodicies – An a emp o o e come some
impasses. Neue Zei sch i ü Sys ema ische Theologie
und Religionsphilosophie, 60(3), 428-434. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1515/nzs h-2018-0024
Elde , M. (2018). G a ui ous animal su e ing and
he e iden ial p oblem o e il. In A. Linzey & C. Linzey
(Eds.), The Rou ledge Handbook o Religion and Animal
E hics (pp. 1-20). Rou ledge.
Fa ley, E. (1996). Di ine empa hy: A heology o
God. Augsbu g Fo ess Publishe s.
haske , W. (1992). The necessi y o g a ui ous
e il. Fai h and Philosophy, 9(1), 23-44.
haske , W., Oo d, T. J., & Zimme man, D. (Eds.).
(2011). God in an Open Uni e se: Science, Me aphysics,
and Open Theism. Wip and S ock Publishe s.
hick, J. (2007). E il and he God o Lo e. Palg a e
Macmillan.
ho a, O. (2010). Debunking he idyllic iew o
na u al p ocesses: Popula ion dynamics and su e ing in
he wild. Telos, 17, 73-88.
ho a, O. (2010a). Wha is speciesism?. Jou nal o
Ag icul u al and En i onmen al E hics, 23(3), 243-266.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10806-009-9205-2
REFERENCES   61
ho a, O. (2015). The p oblem o e il in na u e:
E olu iona y bases o he p e alence o dis alue. Rela ions:
Beyond An h opocen ism, 3(1), 17-32.
ho a, O. (2017). Why he concep o mo al s a us
should be abandoned. E hical Theo y and Mo al P ac ice,
20(5), 899-910.
ho a, O. & Albe smeie , F. (2020). De ining
speciesism. Philosophy Compass, 15(1), 1-9. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1111/phc3.12708
ho a, O. (2022). Making a S and o Animals (1s
ed.). Rou ledge.
ho a, O. (2023). Wild animal su e ing. In F. Bu ga
& E. Da denne (Eds.), Animal Su e ing: The E hics and
Poli ics o Animal Li es (pp. 141-160).
howa d-Snyde , D. (1994). Theism, he hypo hesis
o indi e ence, and he biological ole o pain and
pleasu e. Fai h and Philosophy, 11(3), 452-466.
k op , R. W. (2004). E il and e olu ion: A heodicy.
Wip and S ock Publishe s.
Li le, B. A. (2000). A c i ical analysis o con empo a y
‘g ea e -good’ heodicies wi h special a en ion gi en
o g a ui ous e il (O de No. 9964714). A ailable om
P oQues Disse a ions & Theses Global. (304675348).
MacG ego , k. R. (2012). The exis ence and
i ele ance o g a ui ous e il. Philosophia Ch is i, 14(1),
165-180.
Messe , N. (2018). E olu ion and heodicy: how (no )
o do science and heology. Zygon: Jou nal o Religion
62   FAWN AS AN INDIVIDuAL: REThINkING GRATuITOuS . . .
and Science, 53(3), 821-835. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/
zygo.12438
Mckenna, E. (2018). Li es ock: Food, ibe , and
iends. uni e si y o Geo gia P ess.
McMullin, I. (2004). ho endous e ils and he
goodness o God. In e na ional Jou nal o Philosophy o
Religion, 55(1), 1-16.
Mu ay, M. J. (2008). Na u e Red in Too h and Claw:
Theism and he P oblem o Animal Su e ing. Ox o d
uni e si y P ess.
Nanay, B. (2005). Can cumula i e selec ion explain
adap a ion? Philosophy o Science, 72(5), 1099-1112.
Peacocke, A. R. (1993). Theology o a scien i ic
age: Being and becoming – na u al, di ine, and
human (1s Fo ess P ess ed., o iginal publica ion: 1990).
Minneapolis: Fo ess P ess.
Pe y, M. W. (2024). Why sen ience should be he
only basis o mo al s a us. Jou nal o E hics. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1007/s10892-024-09487-4
Pe e s, T. (2019). E olu ion, su e ing, and
escha ological edemp ion: Solle ede , Sou hga e, and
Russell on heodicy. Theology and Science, 17(2), 195–
208. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/14746700.2019.1596253
Redshaw, J., & Bulley, A. (2018). Fu u e hinking
in animals: Capaci ies and limi s. In G. Oe ingen, A. T.
Se ince , & P. M. Gollwi ze (Eds.), The psychology o
hinking abou he u u e (pp. 31–51). Guil o d P ess.