In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 1 Types of Approaches to Holocaust Suffering Practical Responses as Alternatives to Theodicy THE TOPIC OF EVIL has been widely discussed in academic as well as popular venues in North America and Europe over the course of the twentieth century . One reason for sustained attention to evil lies in the social and political circumstances of recent history. Contemporary consciousness of evil centers around actual events of massive death and destruction that are seared into the collective cultural memory. In particular, World War I (1914–1918) and World War II (1939–1945) are historic landmarks that are influential in shaping reflection on evil and suffering. The First World War represents massive death and destruction, impacting millions of individuals and many nations. It displayed the inhumanity of purportedly “civilized” persons in the indiscriminate slaughter of artillery bombardment, trench warfare, and the gruesome deaths caused by chemical gas. The Great War was a catalyst for widespread loss of confidence in the modern philosophical and scientific ideas of progress, as well as the moral fiber of political institutions and individuals . The Second World War served to confirm and further intensify awareness of the potential of Western nations for horrendous destructiveness and inhumanity. The name “Auschwitz” has become a symbol for memories of mass-death, the dark side of technological progress, moral failure to help victims of Nazi prejudice, and the misuse of bureaucratic efficiency as a tool of genocide. The testimonies of those who have suffered, particularly victims of the Holocaust, have played a prominent role in contemporary Jewish and Christian reflection on evil.1 But the horrors of war and genocide are not the only focal points for such reflection. Attention is also given to issues of economic justice and the suffering of citizens of poor nations, 2 BEYOND THEODICY and to cases of social oppression, based on racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice , that occur in both affluent and underdeveloped countries. Another category of suffering that deserves mention is suffering randomly distributed among all population groups and classes, where individuals are victims of disease, crime, abusive treatment, natural disasters, or accidents of various kinds. Depending on a person’s national, social, geographical, and political situation , different instances of suffering are attended to as paradigmatic horrors . For example, during the last few decades many European and North American scholars, mainly Jewish and Christian thinkers, have focused on the Holocaust as a pivotal example of the extreme depth of evil and suffering . For persons living in Latin America, on the other hand, social problems caused by economic dependency and the legacy of colonization are of major interest. For African Americans, it is the legacy of slavery and racial prejudice that takes center stage. For a white middle-class American, the threat of violent gun crimes or incurable diseases, such as malignant cancer, may be the most pressing issues. It is my thesis that there is a correlation between the kinds of suffering that are given prominence of place and different types of intellectual response to evil. In other words, the decision about how to appropriately respond to evil and suffering, whether in practical or theoretical philosophical mode, is context-dependent. Within the sociohistorical context of this project, the varieties of response to evil and suffering among philosophers and religious writers are numerous , and the strategies of approach are complex. However, four issues recur repeatedly and figure prominently in contemporary reflection. The first two issues are “theoretical” ones concerning: (1) the explanation of the origin of evil, as a cosmological or anthropological question and (2) the justi fication of suffering, exposing God’s reasons for allowing suffering. In contrast , evil and suffering also raise difficult “practical” issues, namely: (3) how a person can cope and even find meaning in the face of suffering and (4) how to alleviate or resist suffering by means of individual or collective action .2 The dominant academic approaches to evil and suffering primarily address theoretical issues of explanation and justification. T H E O R E T I C A L T H E O D I C Y From classical to contemporary times, theists have investigated the theoretical and conceptual questions raised by evil and suffering. Typically, such discussions are categorized under the subject heading “theodicy,” a term whose etymological roots are the Greek words “God” (theos) and “justice” (dike). TYPES OF APPROACHES TO HOLOCAUST SUFFERING 3 Among contemporary philosophers, it is widely agreed that the core...

Share