The Use and Meaning of the Word “suffering” in Relation to Nature

All complex beings suffer. In fact, the capacity to suffer is as good a measure of biological complexity as any, especially because visceral reactions to physical injury, conscious pain, and emotional distress are visible and measurable. The problem of other minds may prevent us from knowing what pain feels like to another being, but it does not seriously interfere with the conclusion that suffering is widespread in nature. But precisely how widespread is suffering? And in what forms? There is considerable confusion and conflict surrounding these questions. A satisfying account of the characteristics of suffering in nature should gear itself to the various levels of emergent complexity. Such an account should also be multi-dimensional, covering issues important for understanding suffering in nature, such as types of suffering, responses to suffering, and causes of suffering. The conclusion of this discussion can be stated here. “Suffering” is a more useful category than “evil” to frame the initial phase of the problem because “suffering” is more neutrally descriptive and does not prejudge the moral character of natural disasters, predation, and the like. To render the various problems of evil as particular interpretations of suffering would help keep their guiding moral assumptions clearly in view.