A Neo-Thomistic Responce to the Problem of Animal Suffering: review and evaluation of keltz perspective

Animal suffering and the problem of evil have recently received much attention as a challenge to theism, Keltz seeks to answer this problem with a Neo-Thomistic perspective. This paper examines and evaluates Keltz's defense. In explaining Keltz's view, it is important to note that he, like Aquinas, does not consider unpleasant emotions such as pain, sadness, fear, and despair as evil, but considers them as good physiological processes that are beneficial for animals. likewise, by examining rationality and signs of self-awareness such as metacognition, episodic memory, and theory of mind through scientific researches, Keltz seeks to show that rationality and animal self-awareness is questionable and since cognitive abilities have a direct relationship with the perception of pain and suffering, therefore, the perception of pain and suffering in animals is also a source of doubt. According to Keltz, animals have only the estimative power that causes them to resemble empirical induction. Even if some animal species have self-awareness, the resurrection of the dead and eternal life can be conceivable for them. Objectors might also emphasize the seemingly pointless nature of conditions like chronic pain syndrome in animals. Keltz responds to them based on God's purpose for the universe, the limitations of the universe, and the moral message that such pains bring about. In the following, Keltz's views are evaluated, and argued that episodic memory and the ability of simple conceptualization in some species have been proven in some experiments. Therefore, his approach toward denying animal pain and suffering will not achieve much success, it seems by relying on other parts of his theodicy, such as God's purpose for creating the world, the benefits of pain and suffering for earthly creatures, the resurrection of the dead and divine compensation, Keltz will achieve more success.