'All theodicies fail' discuss

The problem of evil states that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God cannot exist due to the fact that there is evil in the world. If God exists in the way that we imagine, then he has the power and ability to prevent evil, yet doesn't. This leads us to question and refute his existence. A theodicy, however, is a way to defend God's existence even in the presence of evil. I will be discussing two theodies and argue that although one may be seen to fail, the other is more plausible and so the conclusion that all theodicies fail may be unfair. 
The first theodicy I will discuss is Hick's soul making theodicy. Hick believes that evil and suffering exist as a way for us to perfect ourselves and develop virtues. We become compassionate through helping those in need. This is only possible through suffering. It enables us to perfect ourselves and grow into the image of God and choose to be good people. However, this theodicy does not account for the severity and unfair distribuition of suffering, in my opinion, and therefore is not satisfactory. 
Another theodicy is the free will theodicy. This maintains that evil is a byproduct of free will. God cannot create beings without free will, why would he want humans to have no freedom to act? He wants us to freely choose him and choose to do good. However, we do not always choose to do good, this is why evil exists. In order to have freedom, we must also have the freedom to perfrom evil actions. Therefore evil is an unfortunate effect of free will. This theodicy is more plausible and would explain why evil must exist to maintain freedom. Therefore to say that all theodicies fail is unfair.