Why is suffering wrong?

[Conscentia]

Because it's unnecessary.
What could require people to suffer for some viable outcome?
Is the most basic and "logic"-based argument you could make against it.

Life is also unnecessary. The universe does fine without it.
Is life bad too?

[The Parkus Empire]

Because it's unnecessary.
What could require people to suffer for some viable outcome?
Is the most basic and "logic"-based argument you could make against it.

Life is also unnecessary. The universe does fine without it.
Is life bad too?

Since when did the how universe does (please define "fine" here) become the arbiter of what is necessary?

[Kyl-Alel]

My contention, which is the same as Arthur Schopenhauer's, is that all human beings find themselves in a state of desiring things, and this state (in which we lack the object of our desire) is suffering. While you can temporarily fulfill this desire, you don't ever achieve a state of "contentment" (I don't really say this negatively in the Schopenhauerian sense that "happiness is impossible", but just that we're always going to be discontent in life). If you're really hungry and eat a cookie, the cookie doesn't make you content or "fulfill you" as a human being - it just gets rid of your hunger (your desire for it - that is, the pain you experienced in lacking the cookie).

And yes, Schopenhauer remarks that there could exist human beings capable of escaping from desire and those people would not suffer. I just think that isn't achievable for most of us - in fact, it's definitely not achievable for any of us who would even think of doing so or who consider the possibility. The reason is that trying to become this sort of ascetic (this state is called the "ascetic ideal" in philosophy, btw) means that you desire asceticism - that is, you desire to eliminate your own desires. While you can suppress your "will" and avoid food (you can become a starving monk, basically), you're still locked in a state of desire, so it's ultimately a contradiction you can't escape. The only people capable of being true ascetics are those who somehow are just born without the concept of desire... but because any human being to acts to fulfill ends exhibits desire, the only such people who are "beyond" suffering would be those who did not act (so... unconscious/comatose people).

Ascetic ideal, I'll remember that. Thank you.
As for the Ascetic ideal being impossible, if we include things like basic human needs, then I suppose it would be impossible. But would it not be much easier to achieve a "practical Ascetic ideal" wherein one is free from desiring things which are not absolutely necessary for survival? Like Amor Fati or a go with the flow type attitude?
And, in this same vein, if we exclude necessities, I see no reason why a person could not live a fulfilled life. If one is able to consistently attain things one lacks and spends more time on average "not suffering" than "suffering" over the course of a lifetime, could we not say that this person lived a fulfilled life?

[The Parkus Empire]

Because it's unnecessary.

I don't at all agree with that, btw, unless you're arguing from the premise that the optimum reality is a heroin-like trance of bliss for every organism in existence.

[Conscentia]

Life is also unnecessary. The universe does fine without it.
Is life bad too?

Since when did the how universe does (please define "fine" here) become the arbiter of what is necessary?

Since when did life become necessary?

[Greed and Death]

It is by definition. If it's not unfun, wrong, and bad, it's not suffering.

Very circular of you.

[Kyl-Alel]

It is by definition. If it's not unfun, wrong, and bad, it's not suffering.

Very circular of you.

Is "unfun" even a word? It sounds like something out of Orwell. Double plus ungood, bro.

[Kaylea]

because no one likes sociopaths.

[The Parkus Empire]

Since when did the how universe does (please define "fine" here) become the arbiter of what is necessary?

Since when did life become necessary?

Since we were discussing philosophy, not fucking science. Necessary is a relative term, not an absolute one; for something to be necessary it doesn't have to be necessary for every thing and concept, real and imaginary.

[Conscentia]

Since when did life become necessary?

Since we were discussing philosophy, not fucking science. Necessary is a relative term, not an absolute one; for something to be necessary it doesn't have to be necessary for every thing and concept, real and imaginary.

Science is a philosophy. One used to obtain information.

My point was that unnecessary does not always mean bad.

[Kronstad]

Suffering isn't wrong, it just is irrational and on balance its negative outcomes greatly outweigh the positive ones.
Suffice it to say that suffering exerts psychological injuries which hinder the psycho-social development of the person who is suffering. This, in its turn, results in either the economic contribution of that person to society greatly decreasing (e.g. bullying>>school leaving>>low wage) or to crime; both, and other outcomes which may be possible, are clearly negative and they make suffering illogical. As to the positive outcomes, I don't see any except, perhaps, becoming slightly more mature in some cases.

[Arostia]

As someone who once worked in law enforcement, I've seen some pretty bad people, not all of them believed suffering was wrong. There actions are deplorable by our standards, but they genuinely believe they are doing good.

Warning, some people may find this next transcript disturbing

Here's a transcript I remember from a conversation with Keith Hunter Jesperson a.k.a the "Happy Face Killer" some years ago (not exact but it went something like this)

Me: Why did you kill those women?
Him: I killed them because I just didn't like them (matter-of-fact tone)
Me: Do you think that's a good reason?
Him: I did at the time

All of this he said with no more emotion than if he was ordering dinner. So some people don't think that suffering is wrong, just depends on your moral character.

[The Parkus Empire]

Science is a philosophy.

No, a philosophy asks or answers how we should live.

[Conscentia]

Science is a philosophy.

No, a philosophy asks or answers how we should live.

No. Philosophy is 'the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline'.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]
The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".[5][6][7] The introduction of the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" has been ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

[With Teeth]

It's pretty hard to philosophize without assumed premises.

'Because it is' irks me, because it assumes objectivity. I have no problem with assumed premises, so long as they are admitted to rest upon the wisps of emotion and human memory.

Reasoning within axioms, is by definition, objective. It's just not absolute.

[With Teeth]

Science is a philosophy.

No, a philosophy asks or answers how we should live.

Not really.

[With Teeth]

Woman being an imperfect form of man, shit like that. It might not have contradicted the science of the time, but basing philosophy on a premise like that is bad philosophy because it's objectively false.

That's just certain philosophers fucking things up. It doesn't relate to a fundamental contradiction between philosophy and science. I would argue instead that philosophy and science inform each other. Science is build on metaphysical axioms such as the truth of mathematics and logic. Scientists take their methodology (scientific epistemology) from ideas like Karl Popper's falsificationism (read Hawking and Dawkins for example). Philosophy is guided in some ways by the findings of science. Discussions on theism vs atheism (my favorite book deals with this very topic), free will, an other topics always involve a discussion of the scientific evidence. In fact, there are entire branches of philosophy, like the philosophy of physics, which discuss the implications of science on reality.

Well what criteria are you using for "progress" exactly?

Previously accepted idea being repudiated in light of new evidence. Somewhat similar to spontaneous generation being falsified.

[With Teeth]

Assumptions of common sense? I'm not arguing that objective morality exists based on common sense. I'm talking about pure reason, as in logical axioms, deductions, arguments, etc. I'm not talking about reason in the sense of what feels reasonable to do. In fact, I would consider arguments like ''right and wrong are just common sense'' to be the worst for objective morality.

I think it's clear that objective morality can be based on what perfectly rational people would consider to be right and wrong. This is the ontological basis of objective morality. As for practical ethics, so as long as you can understand and comprehend the reasons why you shouldn't do something, you are responsible for your actions.

I very much hold the same stance as you do in the first paragraph of this post. Is the existence of perfectly rational people, however, even attainable, especially considering that the furthest one can go without making any assumptions about anything might probably be the claim that "Something at least exists"? Upon what, then, can these perfectly rational people devise a perfectly rational moral system? This is why it confounds me that you responded to my earlier question that "Nobodies system. It's called reason."

These are epistemological questions.

[HappyShark]

Going to give a weird/value free answer here...


We should probably define "suffering" first. The only consistent, universally applicable definition for suffering I've found was Schopenhauer's: suffering is the state in which man finds himself lacking the object of his desire (man's discontent with his present circumstance). Suffering does not mean "pain" (physical or otherwise) - perhaps a masochistic individual enjoys inflicting pain on himself, yet this is not suffering (he desires pain so, truly, it is the lack of pain that constitutes suffering for him, just that it is the lack of food that constitutes suffering for a starving man). Whenever we want something, we suffer for our lack of the object of our wants. And, because, as soon as we fulfill that want, we take up another desire, and because the only pleasure we take in life is in the fulfillment of wants - i.e., the alleviation of suffering -, we can never really achieve any state beyond this of "suffering" - we are always going to be discontent with the present situation and desire some improved future circumstance. This means that life consists of "suffering" - at all times and for all men (the only men who would not suffer would be those who did not desire, and they would not act at all, for there would be no object of their actions - their actions would be truly aimless, and, so, not actions at all).

Next, define "wrong". This could mean "wrong" in the logical sense (logically or empirically unjustifiable/incorrect) or in some vague sense of valuations (undesirable?). Clearly suffering is undesirable (at least for one individual - perhaps I would desire that another man suffer), as suffering is the opposite of desire (it is the unfulfillment of desire). If you'd like to say suffering is "evil" because of this, you're welcome to, but we should note that all "evil" means is "that which I do not desire" (clearly, none of us desire to suffer as individuals - we all seek to fulfill our own aims). This is a tautology, because suffering is, by definition, that which we do not desire, so the man who says that "suffering is evil" is essentially saying "that which I do not desire is that which I do not desire".

Now, is suffering logically unjustifiable? I am not sure what this would even mean. Suffering is just the state in which we all (always and regardless of circumstance) live - our desires are infinite and our capacity to fulfill them all at once is finite. It is not as if suffering is some course of action we can take, because each action we take is one step towards the object of our desire (the ends of our means/action). It would be logically impossible to set "suffering" as the object of your action, because then it could no longer be suffering (even if you desired physical torture or death, this would no longer be suffering if you desired it - rather, the lack of torture/death would constitute suffering).

Suffering is not "wrong" in any sense - it is the inevitable condition in which all humans live. We can do nothing to arrest this condition, only sate our hunger. Man is always drowning in an ocean of suffering, but there's nothing evil about it, and I don't know why anyone would believe there would be.

Now, I do think asceticism (at least, the ascetic ideal) is unjustifiable. A life lived without suffering is impossible, because the only means to that end is the denial of desire (the suppression of the Will), which generates Lack and Suffering in the first place. But this ascetic life would require that we desire to eliminate desire - it is an eternal contradiction. Truly, life without suffering is wrong in the logical sense.

First off i have to say this is beautiful so

I doubt my own capacity to remotely challenge it intellectually, but I would approach it from a perspective of a differentiation between need and want/desire. Wherein a need is firmly rooted in a want to survive a natural condition none can escape from and fulfilling such an escape would mean death. On the other hand Wants which fall outside of a want to survive i.e food, water, shelter, are subjective to an individual. While it may be true we all suffer due to unquenchable desires it is a conditioning of the mind to assign a value to suffering or level of suffering. Our minds by default must differentiate the various aspects of the environment it finds itself in. A man who has lived in abject poverty their whole life would not understand the suffering of those living in luxury. In this sense if we are to say desire leads to acts of fulfillment in a pursuit for happiness, then the problem of suffering is in how this happiness is being achieved. Is the poor man any less happy than the rich man, though their desires may be different? Happiness would be subjective to level of acceptance we provide to our current condition.

The above is rooted in how we measure the world around us. These measure are based on the values an individual assigns and adjusts based on a personal life experience. What are the morals, ethics, and beliefs of one man vs. another? Asked in a different way is how do we measure what is right or wrong based on the value system of one man vs. another. Asking right vs. wrong is subjective and related to a single individual's experience. What is wrong for one person is not necessarily wrong for another. We can elevate this to a level of consensus and societal normalization, but even here we find exceptions and exclusions. An all encompassing normalization is not possible because each individual subjected to such is unique and will measure the consensus differently. In relation to happiness this ties back to what we are willing to accept vs. what we desire to change. Suffering is measured in this balance of acceptance vs. desire. For example: Those who suffer in a society have a desire to change it, wherein those who have accepted the normalization of its current consensus remain happy.

The question arises to what is an acceptable level of suffering once the basic needs have been met. One can be quite happy and content with just basic needs fulfilled, so long as they are not antagonized with a threat of losing one of their basic needs. Injuring or threatening to injure another person so they can no longer acquire food by whatever means they currently acquire it would be one such form of antagonizing. On the other hand if society is suppressing the ability of some to acquire these basic needs then it can be rightly said these people are suffering. Beyond this it becomes a level of accommodation and consensus or leeway provided to those who wish more from life than just basic needs. Suffering is then measured by what does my neighbor have that I want, and society's consensus that all should have this as a practical way to fulfill and normalize the fulfillment of such desires. In as much as this additional level of desire fulfillment is provided for it should be mindful of the basic needs rule and not normalize in such a way as to deny these basic needs as a sacrifice to achieve normalization.

[Zottistan]

Oh, for fuck's sake, why is this thread still going?

No, suffering is not bad objectively. The most you can say about it is that nobody likes it. That's the same with everything. Nothing is objectively bad, because value is, by nature, a subjective abstraction. Saying anything is objectively bad doesn't make sense. It's like a wooden stone. It can't happen.

However, that doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of people don't dislike suffering, that it isn't immensely useful for an individual or a society to dislike suffering, and that in practical reality suffering should be treated as wrong by anybody with goals.

Suffering is not objectively bad. So what?

[Imperializt Russia]

Because it's unnecessary.
What could require people to suffer for some viable outcome?

Is the most basic and "logic"-based argument you could make against it.

Being unnecessary doesn't seem like a very good argument against something. There's tons of unnecessary things we don't label as wrong.
Philosophy for example.

I couldn't think of a better word.
But to cause suffering does not give you, as the inflicter of that suffering, anything viably useful.

It might give you pleasure, if the person is under torture it might give you information of dubious truth.

But little if anything useful. There is no point to inflicting suffering.

[With Teeth]

Nothing is objectively bad, because value is, by nature, a subjective abstraction.

How many times will people have to point out the difference between moral epistemology and moral ontology to the moral relativist?

[Kyl-Alel]

Oh, for fuck's sake, why is this thread still going?

No, suffering is not bad objectively. The most you can say about it is that nobody likes it. That's the same with everything. Nothing is objectively bad, because value is, by nature, a subjective abstraction. Saying anything is objectively bad doesn't make sense. It's like a wooden stone. It can't happen.

However, that doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of people don't dislike suffering, that it isn't immensely useful for an individual or a society to dislike suffering, and that in practical reality suffering should be treated as wrong by anybody with goals.

Suffering is not objectively bad. So what?

Come on killjoy, don't you know the definition of a philosopher? It's someone who like to think about and debate things approximately 1,000,000,000,000 gajillion times longer than the amount of time it takes any practical person to make up his mind on the subject.

[Zottistan]

Nothing is objectively bad, because value is, by nature, a subjective abstraction.

How many times will people have to point out the difference between moral epistemology and moral ontology to the moral relativist?

Philosophically illiterate me is always open to being educated. Go on.

[Kyl-Alel]

I couldn't think of a better word.
But to cause suffering does not give you, as the inflicter of that suffering, anything viably useful.

It might give you pleasure, if the person is under torture it might give you information of dubious truth.

But little if anything useful. There is no point to inflicting suffering.

Really? Does no one read Orwell anymore? Causing suffering is an end in itself. The ultimate goal of humanity is a boot stomping a face...forever!
No, but seriously, there are plenty of good reasons someone would cause suffering. Perhaps to avoid greater suffering (Watchmen). Perhaps simply to gain a psychological advantage over an opponent (terrorism). Just for shits and giggles (Ted Bundy).