Suffering could be psychological or physical, so-called pain in the second case. It seems to me that you don't like suffering, pain, for example. That means that you have a good nature or you are a good creature.

As we discussed in another thread of mine, I think suffering is something intrinsically human. Perhaps something that is very connected to the human condition. We only distinguish between physical and psychological to make boundaries, but the effect is the same.

As we discussed in another thread of mine, I think suffering is something intrinsically human. Perhaps something that is very connected to the human condition. — javi2541997

I think other creatures, like animals, also suffer.

We only distinguish between physical and psychological to make boundaries, but the effect is the same. — javi2541997

By physical suffering, I mean a kind of suffering whose cause is physical, like when you cut your finger. Psychological suffering is otherwise. The effect is the same, namely suffering.

This does not address anything I've said, unfortunately.

Do you like or dislike suffering?

It entirely depends on the scenario, and whether you want me to admit to enjoying it tout court or as an indirect indicator of some other positive (i.e, the pain of healing from a surgery is almost always "a good" in some sense, but may not be pleasant). I do not enjoy arbitrary suffering.

Ok, so could you give an example of when you like suffering?

The goal should be equality for humans. — MoK

Like @180 Proof, this struck me as the unsupported part of your OP and I'd ask why this should be the goal.

To quote Dylan:

"A self-ordained professor’s tongue
Too serious to fool
Spouted out that liberty
Is just equality in school
“Equality,” I spoke the word
As if a wedding vow
Ah, but I was so much older then
I’m younger than that now."

That is, an unnuanced equation of liberty or goodness generally to equality or really to any one single thing is overly simplistic, the behavior of someone who claims to know more than he knows, the result of clinging to youthful unprocessed idealism.

I already discussed what I mean by equality through my conversation by @javi2541997. The thread is short so you can spot those posts quickly. If you wish, I can see if I can find more information than this discussion.

I also respond to @180 Proof as well in this thread. He refused to answer my question, which was key to the discussion, calling it a non-sequitur!

I've given you one. In the morning when I put my body through hell to achieve a better body (inter alia, to be sure. I'm not a pure narcissist).

Ok, so you are having a sort of pain, muscle pain, for example. Muscle pain is my case. I think we are simple people dealing with suffering and are not narcissists at all.

I don't know what you want me to get from this.. .

You respond to my OP by saying about your pain. It seems that you can handle it, which sounds right to me. I still don't know whether you agree with my OP or not.

The goal should be equality for humans. — MoK

I agree ‘equality before the law’ is a good political ideal. That’s one whole conversation, about politics and the formation of the relationship between citizens and the state and the law.

I agree equal opportunity would be nice, but practically will never happen. That’s economics and maybe sociology. Totally different discussion and use of “equality”. We will never be able to create a world where all people have all opportunities equally because of the nature of people and the nature of the world, and the nature of people in the world.

I disagree people are by nature equal to each other. Quite the opposite, I believe all of us are each unique, and unequal. This is biology, psychology and theology.

So depending on what you mean by “equality for humans”, and unless you are only talking politics, I likely disagree with you.

Two alignments get involved when it comes to morality, namely, good and evil — MoK

I don’t know what that means.

I agree ‘equality before the law’ is a good political ideal. — Fire Ologist

I agree too.

That’s one whole conversation, about politics and the formation of the relationship between citizens and the state and the law. — Fire Ologist

Correct, given your last point.

I agree equal opportunity would be nice, but practically will never happen. — Fire Ologist

How about not spending money on the military, saving money for the right education, and creating new job opportunities? Could you rationalize making a weapon to kill humans?

We will never be able to create a world where all people have all opportunities equally because of the nature of people and the nature of the world, and the nature of people in the world. — Fire Ologist

So, you think that we have not evolved well enough?

I disagree people are by nature equal to each other. Quite the opposite, I believe all of us are each unique, and unequal. This is biology, psychology and theology. — Fire Ologist

Yes, we are different.

So depending on what you mean by “equality for humans”, and unless you are only talking politics, I likely disagree with you. — Fire Ologist

By equality, I mean that all members of humanity get what they deserve, opportunities, growth, and then delivering the fruit of the growth.

I don’t know what that means. — Fire Ologist

Morality is about realizing what is right to do, good, or evil, given the definition of good and evil in the OP.

Okay. You can't answer my question:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/999752

This is entirely out of step with what's going on between us. I am saying that pain is not 'bad' because you're conflating suffering with pain. I am pointing out that problem.

Pain does not equal suffering.

This is entirely out of step with what's going on between us. I am saying that pain is not 'bad' because you're conflating suffering with pain. I am pointing out that problem. — AmadeusD

Yes, pain is not wrong/bad per se. That is discussed in the OP. And I am not conflating suffering with pain. Suffering and pain, however, are related; suffering is defined as the state of undergoing pain.

Two alignments get involved when it comes to morality, namely, good and evil. We can realize that something is good when it is pleasing, and in the same manner, we can realize that something is evil when the person is suffering. Good and evil creatures like pleasure and suffering, respectively, and dislike suffering and pleasure, respectively, as well. Morality, therefore, is about realizing what is right (what we should do, good or evil) and what is wrong/bad (what we should not do, good or evil). Humans are not perfect, judge or criminal, for example; therefore, we should leave room for their ignorance as well when it comes to justice. Justice is the ability to realize what the judge should command. The goal should be equality for humans. — MoK

What is evil other than a word? Like ignorance is an evil, but it doesn't always lead to suffering. Ignorance can be bliss.

How can ignorance be bliss?

This flies in the face of almost all of your responses, which are exactly in line with that description. I'll leave you to it.

I don't think so! I would be happy to discuss the OP from the start if you are interested.

What if a person derives pleasure from suffering or suffering from pleasure? I'm not sure this is complex enough a theory to account for the human condition.

How can ignorance be bliss? — MoK

AI says

"The saying "ignorance is bliss" suggests that not knowing certain things can lead to a more peaceful and worry-free state of mind."

Now add to this that there is a God who wants the best for you, and he will protect you and give you what you ask for. And he will do the same for all deserving people.

Now what can possibly go wrong?

What if a person derives pleasure from suffering or suffering from pleasure? — MrLiminal

Can you? The only thing that I am aware of is my mood change, from anger to happiness, for example. I am not denying that moods cannot be interrelated.

I'm not sure this is complex enough a theory to account for the human condition. — MrLiminal

I think it is.

Why do you think that God created us curious? There would be no humanity without curiosity.

Sadists and masochists come to mind. Or the mixed feelings of things like nostalgia. I think you are oversimplifying human emotional range.

Sadists and masochists come to mind. Or the mixed feelings of things like nostalgia. I think you are oversimplifying human emotional range. — MrLiminal

A masochist, for example, is an evil creature. S/he likes evil. What do you mean by mixed feelings? To experience both good and evil? The basic ingredients of such a state are good and evil.

Why would enjoying pain that is caused to you be evil?

And yes, nostalgia is inherently a mixed feeling. It is a longing for a past that combines both positive feelings for the memory and negative feelings for the loss. The current usage of the word has drifted somewhat.

People are complicated, emotions even more so. Also, not everything is reduceable to pure good or evil.