Suffering

[joe1776]

Cool. Agreed.
So my question is, why would a benevolent creator create suffering? Increasing my emotional well being from mildly positive to content or joyful is in and of itself a motivator. And I certainly learn which good behaviors work better than others. I do not need suffering to learn those things.

Your question ties into the discussion I had with others in this thread on the topic of reward and punishment. I was asked why reward alone was not enough to motivate behavior.

Reward alone can motivate behavior. Punishment alone can motivate behavior. But the two combined are far more powerful because of the widened disparity between the two.

Christianity might have been somewhat successful offering only Heaven or threatening Hell. But the offer of Heaven for believers and eternal suffering in Hell for non-believers was a stroke of genius.

 

[ppp]

Scientifically, suffering is simply chronic strong discomfort of some sort, either mental and/or physical.

Scientifically, that's nonsense.

Huh? How is that nonsense?

It is not eliminated by being virtuous, only by changing, if possible, the conditions causing the suffering.

While a virtuous motivation is often correlated with relieving suffering, it is neither causal nor required. A person can cure a disease because they want fame, adulation and cash. Or they can tirelessly struggle to alleviate their patient's pain but ultimately kill the patient because their knowledge is wrong. Changing the conditions causing the suffering is the only way to alleviate the suffering.

 

[ppp]

Your question ties into the discussion I had with others in this thread on the topic of reward and punishment. I was asked why reward alone was not enough to motivate behavior.

Reward alone can motivate behavior. Punishment alone can motivate behavior. But the two combined are far more powerful because of the widened disparity between the two.

Christianity might have been somewhat successful offering only Heaven or threatening Hell. But the offer of Heaven for believers and eternal suffering in Hell for non-believers was a stroke of genius.

It is effective. But it is immoral. Which obviates benevolence.

 

[ppp]

IMO



If you consider science a valid tool for evaluation, then what I have shown is that suffering can occur independent of how one behaves, and as such, is not, in and of itself, a moral teaching tool. One can be rewarded by "bad" behavior and disadvantaged by "good" behavior.

"Good" and "Bad, "Right" and "Wrong" are relative to a given group or society and are not universal.

Groups can use our vulnerability to suffering as a means of enforcing compliance with societal rules, rules which are often not equitable. How many good people suffered throughout history simply by being classified as having less rights than others within the group; to be relegated to harsher, more vulnerable living conditions simply by virtue of the class one is born into? How many good people historically have suffered gulags and concentration camps or in bondage? What is the take-away lesson from such suffering?

Scientifically, suffering is simply chronic strong discomfort of some sort, either mental and/or physical. It is not eliminated by being virtuous, only by changing, if possible, the conditions causing the suffering.

This reminds me of a quote from a Nero Wolfe novel when a woman tries to take down the man she thinks murdered her employer.
“It’s not enough to want to do a good deed, you damn fool. Wanting is fine, but you also need some slight idea of how to go about it."
Stout, Rex. In the Best Families (A Nero Wolfe Mystery Book 17) (p. 226). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

 

[joe1776]

Huh? How is that nonsense?

You clipped the quote. Do you believe that science has shown that good behavior can't ease suffering? (neither do I)

Scientifically, suffering is simply chronic strong discomfort of some sort, either mental and/or physical. It is not eliminated by being virtuous, only by changing, if possible, the conditions causing the suffering.

 

[joe1776]

It is effective. But it is immoral. Which obviates benevolence.

An immoral act, in human terms, involves the intent to harm. Therefore, suffering intended to teach morality would not be immoral.

 

[ppp]

You clipped the quote. Do you believe that science has shown that good behavior can't ease suffering? (neither do I)

I don't think I clipped out anything significant. But lets make sure...

If you consider science a valid tool for evaluation, then what I have shown is that suffering can occur independent of how one behaves, and as such, is not, in and of itself, a moral teaching tool.

That statement is true.

One can be rewarded by "bad" behavior and disadvantaged by "good" behavior.

Again, true.

"Good" and "Bad, "Right" and "Wrong" are relative to a given group or society and are not universal.

Maybe. If he means that what are considered to be good, bad , right and wrong are relative to a society, then yes. Absolutely. But morality of an action is defined by ethologist as being measured by how well it aligns with the moral metrics of empathy, fairness, reciprocity and cooperation.

Groups can use our vulnerability to suffering as a means of enforcing compliance with societal rules, rules which are often not equitable.

True

How many good people suffered throughout history simply by being classified as having less rights than others within the group; to be relegated to harsher, more vulnerable living conditions simply by virtue of the class one is born into?

The intersection of caste systems and karmic beliefs starkly exemplifies this behavior. Keep to your ordained place in society and you will be rewarded in the next life with a higher caste. Otherwise you will come back in the next life as a slug.

How many good people historically have suffered gulags and concentration camps or in bondage? What is the take-away lesson from such suffering?

So. Very. Many.

 

[ppp]

An immoral act, in human terms, involves the intent to harm.

We are only talking about morality in human terms. No other type of morality has been defined.

Therefore, suffering intended to teach morality would not be immoral.

By that reasoning, it is moral to torture your child as long as your goal is to teach them a lesson about what they ought or ought not do.

Inflicting suffering to teach morality is immoral.

The ends do not justify the means.

 

[joe1776]

We are only talking about morality in human terms. No other type of morality has been defined.

By that reasoning, it is moral to torture your child as long as your goal is to teach them a lesson about what they ought or ought not do.

Inflicting suffering to teach morality is immoral.

Your analogy is false since the idea that a Creator might need suffering as a teaching method isn't obviously an absurdly mean and unnecessary thing to do.

 

[joe1776]

I don't think I clipped out anything significant. But lets make sure...

If you want to be sure, start with the same quote. The one you clipped. You're quoting a different one.

MikeF said: ?
If you consider science a valid tool for evaluation, then what I have shown is that suffering can occur independent of how one behaves, and as such, is not, in and of itself, a moral teaching tool.

That statement is true.

No, that statement is also false because (1) Science has nothing to do with it and (2) suffering can be a teaching tool whether or not it is caused by human behavior.

I'd prefer to respond to Mike's post to Mike.

 

[ppp]

Your analogy is false since the idea that a Creator might need suffering as a teaching method isn't obviously an absurdly mean and unnecessary thing to do.

What someone needs to achieve their ends is irrelevant as to whether or not it is moral.
Means do not justify ends.

 

[Sheldon]

p1 If a Creator exists (conditional premise),

p2 We humans were created with free will and with a conscience enabling us to discern right from wrong.

The second premise doesn't follow from the first, it seems to be just an assumption.

p3 Good behavior eases suffering while bad behavior contributes to it.

Unevidenced assumption again, and little facile.

p3 A world without suffering would present no challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

Another unevidenced assumption.

p4 We humans have indeed been making moral progress. We have learned to treat each other far better today than at any time in the distant past.

Whilst ostensibly true, there is no evidence this is down to religion, in fact some progress is demonstrably despite the best efforts of some religions to retard that progress.

c1 Therefore, if a Creator exists, it's likely that life was set up as a learning process. Suffering was needed as a challenge to motivate good behavior over bad.

If you're going to assume a creator exists at the start of your conclusion, then why bother with the argument at all? This is just a begging the question fallacy preceded by a string of unevidenced assumptions.

We are born with the basic structure of conscience. Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist quote:
Paul Bloom Quotes

We humans have been making moral progress
Chart: The Historical Trend of Moral Progress

This need not involved any deity, the precursors to our morality is likely in evolution, all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups exhibit morals, and our evolved brains enable us to examine actions and weigh consequences.

 

[MikeF]

MikeF said:
"If you consider science a valid tool for evaluation, then what I have shown is that suffering can occur independent of how one behaves, and as such, is not, in and of itself, a moral teaching tool."​

No, that statement is also false because (1) Science has nothing to do with it and (2) suffering can be a teaching tool whether or not it is caused by human behavior.

I'd prefer to respond the Mike's post to Mike.

I find it curious that you say science has nothing to do with it, yet you reference psychology researchers. Is it not through science that we are gaining our understanding of human behavior?

What is the lesson of suffering in the case of the small child with a painful terminal illness, one in which the pain of the treatment can be as bad or worse than the illness, all to result in a very premature death? Who are the students of this lesson? What are they learning? In what way does being 'good' or 'bad' affect the outcome or impact the level of suffering? Who's goodness or badness is in play: the child patient, the parents, the doctors?

 

[ppp]

If you want to be sure, start with the same quote. The one you clipped. You're quoting a different one.

If you want to be sure, start with the same quote. You're quoting a different one.

You said I clipped the quote from the below post by only taking the last two sentences (bolded below). Implying that I somehow misrepresented what MikeF was saying by not addressing the post as a whole. So I went back and covered each preceding sentence. I think that he is correct, and that my representation was correct. If MikeF disagrees, I am sure he will correct me.

If you consider science a valid tool for evaluation, then what I have shown is that suffering can occur independent of how one behaves, and as such, is not, in and of itself, a moral teaching tool. One can be rewarded by "bad" behavior and disadvantaged by "good" behavior.

"Good" and "Bad, "Right" and "Wrong" are relative to a given group or society and are not universal.

Groups can use our vulnerability to suffering as a means of enforcing compliance with societal rules, rules which are often not equitable. How many good people suffered throughout history simply by being classified as having less rights than others within the group; to be relegated to harsher, more vulnerable living conditions simply by virtue of the class one is born into? How many good people historically have suffered gulags and concentration camps or in bondage? What is the take-away lesson from such suffering?

Scientifically, suffering is simply chronic strong discomfort of some sort, either mental and/or physical. It is not eliminated by being virtuous, only by changing, if possible, the conditions causing the suffering.

Is this actually important?

 

[ppp]

No, that statement is also false because (1) Science has nothing to do with it and

I don't know why you think that.

(2) suffering can be a teaching tool whether or not it is caused by human behavior.

And it is an immoral tool to use.

 

[joe1776]

The second premise doesn't follow from the first, it seems to be just an assumption.

It doesn't follow from the first because it's a premise not a conclusion. I choose to call it a premise. You may call it an assumption if you prefer.

Unevidenced assumption again, and little facile.

If this is your idea of debate, I'm not interested.

 

[joe1776]

I find it curious that you say science has nothing to do with it, yet you reference psychology researchers. Is it not through science that we are gaining our understanding of human behavior?

Your statement seemed to claim scientific support for your statement. If you claim that support, you need to show some evidence to support it.

What is the lesson of suffering in the case of the small child with a painful terminal illness, one in which the pain of the treatment can be as bad or worse than the illness, all to result in a very premature death? Who are the students of this lesson? What are they learning? In what way does being 'good' or 'bad' affect the outcome or impact the level of suffering? Who's goodness or badness is in play: the child patient, the parents, the doctors?

That we humans learn to ease the suffering of the afflicted is a good thing... rewarded by the pleasure function in our brain. We feel good about it.

 

[Koldo]

Some students won't understand calculus no matter how hard they try. Therefore, calculus shouldn't be taught since its not 100% effective?

It shouldn't be taught to people that can't understand it no matter how hard they try.
I am presuming, of course, the one teaching is an omniscient teacher or similar that can easily figure that out.

I can't think of an example where suffering can't be eased -- not necessarily overcome completely. Can you?

What justifies the existence of suffering that can only be eased but not overcome completely by good behavior when the intent is to motivate good behavior?

 

[joe1776]

It shouldn't be taught to people that can't understand it no matter how hard they try.
I am presuming, of course, the one teaching is an omniscient teacher or similar that can easily figure that out.

Who knows maybe you're right. I try not to second-guess the omniscient, though.

What justifies the existence of suffering that can only be eased but not overcome completely by good behavior when the intent is to motivate good behavior?

I don't know. Questions like that are above my pay grade.

 

[Koldo]

Who knows maybe you're right. I try not to second-guess the omniscient, though.

I don't know. Questions like that are above my pay grade.

Then your answer as to why suffering exists is unsatisfactory, for there is suffering in the world that can't be justified by your reasoning.