• _db
    3.6k
    "God, spare me the physical pain and I'll take care of the moral pain myself."

    -Oscar Wilde

    __________________________________________________________________________________

    I am currently reading Elaine Scarry's The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. Later, after I finish the book, I hope to make a thread discussing the book as a whole. But as it stands, Scarry's book has motivated me to write out a sketch of thinking that I have had for a long while.

    There is, has been and will be experiences of (physical) pain of such unimaginable torture that, prima facie, it seems as though they are irredeemable. I believe recognizing this sort of pain is a key aspect of our response to it as moral agents. That we recognize that there is or will be torturous pain if we do not do anything about it stands as a compelling reason to act to mitigate it. The indubitably moral bad-ness is contained in the very essence or nature of torturous pain, and our duty to remove or prevent such pain can be assumed merely by recognizing the existence of such pain.

    Torturous pain should not exist - it cannot be allowed to happen. This is an imperative, no if's, and's, or but's. This is why responses to torturous pain are so serious. Attending to the prevention or mitigation of extreme pain takes a very high precedence, perhaps (if I am right) the highest precedence.

    Why is it the highest moral concern? As I have stated already, the sheer recognition of pain, and the understanding of what it is like, gives us a good of reason as any to eliminate it. But furthermore, I believe there is something else at stake - the apparent value of the "cosmic moral order" itself. It is not simply that the torturous pain is intrinsically bad, but that a world that contains such torturous pain cannot itself be good. This makes for an interesting expansion of Scarry's argument - not only does torturous pain "unmake" a person's world by destroying language, but it also "unmakes" the shared world by destroying the legitimacy and appropriateness of the many things we typically see as good.

    _________________________________________________________________________________

    To be more precise, I believe that many of the "good" things in life - recreation, love, laughter, culture, pleasure, "progress", innocence (as well as ignorance) - are "conditional" goods. They are conditional upon there being a world that has no absolute, or unconditional evils, which I believe torturous pain to qualify as being. Thus it is inappropriate to consider the world as "justified" by these conditional goods if they come at the cost of an unconditional evil such as torturous pain.

    This not only pertains to the present and the future but also the past, which is something I think gets overlooked almost always. That the Holocaust happened is recognized as having been "unfortunate". Millions of people are captivated and entertained by the means in which man has waged war on man for thousands of years. Nature documentaries, such as Planet Earth, receive unanimous applause despite the suffering pictured; I personally recall many people I know saying they felt "sorry" for some of the animals who were ripped to shreds by predators, and I remember feeling and continue to feel as though this was not the appropriate reaction, that they should have been alarmed, outraged, and sober.

    I seem to remember a quote from Peter Zapffe that went along the lines of, no future metamorphosis can justify the pitiful plight of an organism suppressed against its will. Levinas argued that theodicy was a rationalization to help us cope with life and is no longer appropriate after the Holocaust. To even suggest that somehow the Holocaust was "necessary" to God's great plan is barbaric and threatens to eclipse the unconditional nature of torturous pain as well as our moral duty to prevent it. If God will "make things right in the end", precisely what reason do we have to prevent torturous suffering?

    That torturous pain, an unconditional evil, has occurred means there is forever a blight on the cosmic moral order. There will always be this "debt" that is never repaid. I'm of course focusing mostly on torturous pain because I think it is the most easily grasped as being an unconditional evil, but I also think this applies to things like being wrongly accused or manipulated without compensation or justice. A world that depends on a history riddled with loose ends and unredeemed injustices cannot ever be a truly good world.

    _________________________________________________________________________________

    I realize that this is a pessimistic view of things, but it need not mean the end of conditional goods so long as we recognize that they are conditional and not absolute. What must change is the belief that these conditional goods can somehow "justify" absolute evils. What must change is the belief that the cosmic moral order will ever be good, that it is somehow "redeemable". What must be discarded is the notion that the future has the capacity to right all wrong. Such a belief is not only false but also deeply immoral.

    This may seem to be unfortunate as it precludes the possibility of the all-too-common hope for a future salvation, a future cosmic metamorphosis. To which I say good riddance, it was a childish fantasy anyway, a leftover from the remains of Christianity.
  • schopenhauer1
    11k

    Interesting ideas, but can you explain what you mean by conditional here, and why this is important to the existence of torture?

    It looks like you are saying that the goods of life are only had at the expense of the possibility of something very bad. Is that the main idea? I know that sounds simplistic, but that's all I can get when I put the main points together. But maybe I am not getting the idea of conditional goods and absolute bads here.
  • _db
    3.6k
    It looks like you are saying that the goods of life are only had at the expense of the possibility of something very bad. Is that the main idea? I know that sounds simplistic, but that's all I can get when I put the main points together. But maybe I am not getting the idea of conditional goods and absolute bads here.schopenhauer1

    Yeah, that's the "basic" idea. Though I would say we tend to recognize that goods at the expense of evils are not acceptable in the future, but tend to ignore evils that have already occurred and which provide the historical bedrock on which the present rests. Nietzsche's eternal return must entail a profound disrespect to those who suffered without reason - I often wonder if he would have said the same thing had he lived in post-World War II Europe.

    The length of my OP probably could have been shortened or simplified, but I find it difficult to express in words how barbaric, childish and empty bourgeoisie entertainment seems when the reality of extreme suffering is understood. This is what I found to be a solace in Scarry's thesis about the "unmaking" of the world. Recognizing that extreme suffering exists - and I mean really recognizing it and not simply paying lip-service - makes almost everything else seem like a self-absorbed charade, especially theodicies. It's really very simple, and because of that it's "overwhelmingly underwhelming". The value of the world is stripped away as the reality of pain pushes everything else aside.

    Almost always is pain represented by that which it is not. Pain is without intentionality so when it is communicated with words (and not shrieks, howls and moans), part of the essence of pain is lost and replaced with something that ultimately makes it seem less bad. It becomes "aestheticized", or transformed into a symbol of power, or forgotten about shortly after thanks to our brains' selective memory.
  • schopenhauer1
    11k

    Yes but what does really recognizing it entail? What are conclusions from this about how humans should live or actions to be taken? We should understand more acutely how people in the past have suffered?
  • _db
    3.6k
    One positive conclusion would be to focus more on preventing this kind of stuff from happening. But really I think on the personal level it comes down to what psychological "type" you are, which influences your ability to push certain things out of your awareness. I think if most people were aware of how much torturous suffering there has been, is and will be and the prima facie impossibility of theodicy, the consequences would be quite drastic.

    I'm reminded of Cioran's quote from On the Heights of Despair: "Bring every man to the agony of life's last moments by whip, fire, or injections, and through terrible torture he will undergo the great purification afforded by a vision of death. Then free him and let him run in a fright until he falls exhausted. I warrant you that the effect is incomparably greater than any obtained through normal means. If I could, I would drive the entire world to agony to achieve a radical purification of life; I would set a fire burning insidiously at the roots of life, not to destroy them but to give them a new and different sap, a new heat. The fire I would set to the world would not bring ruin but cosmic transfiguration. In this way life would adjust to higher temperatures and would cease to be an environment propitious to mediocrity. And maybe in this dream, death too would cease to be immanent in life."

    We need not subjugate people to the horror of torturous pain but merely make them acutely aware of its existence elsewhere to alter the perspectives people have on life and the world in general. I think a lot of people already have these perspectives but keep them in check.
  • BC
    13.6k
    Bad, very bad, and the worst things in life are not necessary for the good to exist, and they are not compensation for good things. Visa versa. There are good, better and best things, there is the same range of bad things, and they exist separately.

    A predator (eagle, lion...) captures live prey and begins to eat it before it is dead. The pain the prey experiences before it is dead must be appalling. The pain of severe burns is awful. Cancer, severe injury, and infection can produce pain which rates 10 out of 10. Bullet wounds, blasts, shrapnel, and poisons an produce intolerable pain which until death intervenes, must be endured--not for any good, not in service to anything, not as compensation, not as a balance.

    There are ways of relieving pain; short of an induced coma; all pain can't be eliminated short of death. Pain is rated on a scale of 1 (negligible) to to 10 (intolerable). The worst pain I have experienced was, I suppose, 7 and 8 out of 10 -- a badly broken ankle, a very severely bruised thigh muscle, and broken ribs. Each was pretty bad. Fortunately they didn't happen all at the same time. I was endurable because I understood that it wouldn't last a very long time, and it did become less severe fairly quickly (days or weeks, not hours).

    IF one could eliminate pain from existence, would one eliminate 1 through 10, or maybe 6 through 10? After all, certain kinds of pain (registering that one has touched something hot enough to burn) are vital. One needs to know if a major bone is broken. One needs to know one is having a heart attack.

    Palliative Care specialists are becoming more aggressive in alerting patients to the existence of better pain control (and terminal disease management) than patients might be aware of. But some kinds of pain are still severe and are difficult to quell.
  • apokrisis
    7.3k
    That torturous pain, an unconditional evil,darthbarracuda

    What make a pain an evil exactly?

    I agree pain ain't nice. It could be the most unpleasant thing ever. But why an evil? I presume you aren't just being hyperbolic in your language but can justify this apparently transcendent and rather black and white judgement.

    From a biological point of view, a little bit of pain or suffering is a necessity and even a good. It's a normal part of life. We have to evaluate how things are in our relation with the world.

    But aren't you introducing a false step where you talk about pain as simply an evil? You are now making an ontic leap from an issue of relativity - pains which are a useful biological signal that eventually become useless signals when we are finally trapped in the jaws of a lion or a mangled car wreck - to a claim that pain just is ... an unconditional evil.

    The biological view would be the bad of pain is always conditional on the realistic possibility of an action that would bring its relief. You seem to have abandoned that naturalism. So do you have an ontological-strength justification or are you merely being rhetorical?
  • BC
    13.6k
    how barbaric, childish and empty bourgeoisie entertainment seems when the reality of extreme suffering is understooddarthbarracuda

    What goes on in the animal kingdom isn't barbaric -- it is life. But filming the zebra being attacked by several lions (or other animals) and then being ripped up -- over, and over, and over -- IS barbaric. Similarly, what is the instructive message in showing uncompetitive chicks being pecked at till they die, or kicked out of the nest by the stronger chick? Apparently producers find this kind of footage really useful.

    The selection and inclusion of certain kinds of natural scenes is not, in itself, natural -- it's cultural, and it's done for a pedagogic purpose. No great imagination is needed to derive the message: Killing is natural, the weak die and the strong survive, and the uncompetitive are forced to withdraw and (for all we care) die.
  • _db
    3.6k


    I agree that not all pain and "suffering" is bad. You climb a mountain and endure the struggle to get to the vista, you grind in university for that little piece of paper, etc etc.

    But I made sure to label the pain I am concerned with as "torturous" pain. Irredeemable pain, the likes of which are not beneficial in any way and cannot be said to be for a greater purpose. I find it impossible to not see something like, say, the Holocaust, or an antelope being hunted for sport, as anything but evil.
  • _db
    3.6k
    What goes on in the animal kingdom isn't barbaric -- it is life.Bitter Crank

    Why can't life itself be barbaric?
  • BC
    13.6k
    Because barbarism is a human category of experience. Ripping up plants and chewing them to death is the way animals derive energy. It's not subject to human judgement. One may disapprove of how deer obtain nutrition, but unless one has an alternate method for deer to obtain food... why would one call them barbaric? Deer are not immoral or moral, it's a-moral or non-moral. They are neither barbaric nor civilized; they simply behave.
  • _db
    3.6k
    Sure, I don't blame the lion for eating the gazelle, it's only in its programming and it would starve if it didn't. I'm disapproving of "Life" as a general category of being. Life operates in a way that, if it were a human, you probably wouldn't have a problem with calling it barbaric.
  • BC
    13.6k
    antelope being hunted for sportdarthbarracuda

    When humans engage in horrible acts we can, we should, we must judge it, because judgement is part of our world. Hunting antelope may be natural for wolve, but for your average first world hunter to go shoot animals for trophies can be judged as many bad things.
  • BC
    13.6k
    I understand what you are saying, but gazelles and lions are not human, and we should not judge them as if they were humans.

    Darth, I don't know if anyone has told you the facts of life, yet, but let me alert you to how bad they are. Life sucks! Humans can separate themselves a little from nature (and to that extent we become liable to judgement.

    "Life isn't a person; life isn't mother nature. It's not a self-conscious process. Until we came along it was all pre-moral--not even a-moral, non-moral, or immoral. Moral didn't exist. "Moral" applies to us only. If you apply morals to "life", nature, the cosmos, etc. you end up with absurdities, like... The moon is gradually moving away from the earth. How immoral of the moon. We need the moon. The Andromeda Galaxy is going to collide with the Milky Way galaxy. Isn't that a crime? Shouldn't the galaxy be diverted? The Milky Way doesn't have to take that from Andromeda, after all.
  • apokrisis
    7.3k
    But I made sure to label the pain I am concerned with as "torturous" pain.darthbarracuda

    Yes. So pain that is "meaningless" as a spur to action as you are adding that there is no means of escaping its source.

    But doesn't that shift the "evil" to whatever it is that makes escape impossible. So it is not the pain as such. It is the torturer - and the degree to which you would assign moral agency to that entity.

    I find it impossible to not see something like, say, the Holocaust, or an antelope being hunted for sport, as anything but evil.darthbarracuda

    OK. But you see how you have shifted from pain being bad to the sources of pain possibly being reprehensible. And so likewise the remedy shifts.

    Can we do something about Holocausts and antelope being hunted for sport? Of course. So is the evil an irredeemable aspect of existence itself? You are not showing that.

    This is what I'm complaining about. You don't seem prepared to make a proper argument. You talk about the effect as if it has no cause - no reasons. You attempt to close down a proper discussion by calling the pain itself an irredeemable evil. And then from that faulty premise, you will draw the familiar anti-natalist truths.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    if's, and's, or but'sdarthbarracuda

    Dick comment, but you don't need the apostrophes here. :razz:

    There is, has been and will be experiences of (physical) pain of such unimaginable torture that, prima facie, it seems as though they are irredeemabledarthbarracuda

    Prima facie? Sure, but I'm not willing to go as far as to say that they are unredeemable. How could one possibly know that?

    A world that depends on a history riddled with loose ends and unredeemed injustices cannot ever be a truly good world.darthbarracuda

    Good in what sense? I'm sure you're aware of the long Platonic tradition that equates being with goodness, so that inasmuch as something merely exists, it is good.
  • BC
    13.6k
    if's, and's, or but'sdarthbarracuda

    Dick comment, but you don't need the apostrophes here. :razz:Thorongil

    Without the apostrophes one gets ifs, ands, or buts; these spellings may be correct, by typographically they require a second glance.
  • _db
    3.6k
    But doesn't that shift the "evil" to whatever it is that makes escape impossible. So it is not the pain as such. It is the torturer - and the degree to which you would assign moral agency to that entity.apokrisis

    Sure, and I've mentioned before elsewhere that sometimes the word "evil" is used only as a description of a person's character or actions, and sometimes as something broader that includes things we otherwise would call "bad". That the torturer is evil depends on the fact that they inflict something on the victim that is bad for them - unimaginable pain.

    Can we do something about Holocausts and antelope being hunted for sport? Of course. So is the evil an irredeemable aspect of existence itself? You are not showing that.apokrisis

    No, we can't do anything about the Holocaust (because it already happened), and there's probably no way of eliminating poaching and hunting either. Even if we did, there would still be all the times in the past where animals were murdered for fun by humans.

    This is what I'm complaining about. You don't seem prepared to make a proper argument. You talk about the effect as if it has no cause - no reasons. You attempt to close down a proper discussion by calling the pain itself an irredeemable evil. And then from that faulty premise, you will draw the familiar anti-natalist truths.apokrisis

    There are many cases in which people go through some horribly traumatic experience and live to tell the tale. Perhaps they've changed and grown, became more mature and compassionate. But they still insist that they would never go through such an experience again. There are some experiences of physical (or emotional, "mental" etc) pain that are just so awful that nothing can redeem them in the eyes of the person themselves. They survived to tell the tale, but wish they never had to go through the experience in the first place.

    As I said before I'm focusing mostly on torturous physical pain because I felt it was the most obvious candidate for an "irredeemable" bad / evil. But there's others as well, which I've mentioned: being wrongly accused, one's property being stolen and not returned, being deprived of deserved recognition, being ridiculed without a chance to defend oneself, etc. All of these go down in time and are part of the bedrock of history. There are all these loose ends, unfinished projects, un-redeemed evils. The "healthy" way of approaching this is to habitually look to the future for salvation - each day is a new journey towards salvation as we hope tomorrow will somehow be different than today (and redeem all that has gone wrong in the past - I suspect this contributes to the decision of many to have children). Psychologically "healthy" people must have the capacity to forget what has happened, otherwise the future would have no charm.

    Prima facie? Sure, but I'm not willing to go as far as to say that they are unredeemable. How could one possibly know that?Thorongil

    The point of it being prima facie is that it initially appears to be unredeemable. The epistemological approach I take to a lot of philosophical things is that unless we have a good reason not to, we should take things at face value (phenomenal conservatism). I also mentioned that the prima facie recognition that torturous physical pain is, in fact, irredeemable, is an essential contribution to the motivation we have to prevent or eliminate it. If we honestly did believe God, say, would "make everything right", we might have far less motivation to do anything about torturous pain because the deity would redeem it in the end.

    Good in what sense? I'm sure you're aware of the long Platonic tradition that equates being with goodness, so that inasmuch as something merely exists, it is good.Thorongil

    I was under the impression that the Platonic notion of the good was that it transcends Being, that what exists are mere imitations, or copies, of the perfect Forms. The transcendence of the Good is also a common notion in phenomenology, viz. Levinas' excendance, or escape from Being.

    If we equate Being with Goodness then, in my opinion, we're taking on a picture of Goodness that is something other than a moral Goodness. How am I do understand the existence of torturous pain as a "good" thing, when by all accounts it seems to me to be a purely bad thing?
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    If we honestly did believe God, say, would "make everything right", we might have far less motivation to do anything about torturous pain because the deity would redeem it in the end.darthbarracuda

    I don't see why. God is the highest good, so if God exists, then one surely has even more reason to pursue the good, not less.

    the Platonic notion of the good was that it transcends Beingdarthbarracuda

    Well, I was speaking of the Platonic tradition generally speaking. Non-existence even for Plato would be a privation of the good.

    How am I do understand the existence of torturous pain as a "good" thing, when by all accounts it seems to me to be a purely bad thing?darthbarracuda

    Again, pain on the Platonic account would be a privation of some good thing, like health. Pain is the lack of a good that otherwise would exist.
  • _db
    3.6k
    Again, pain on the Platonic account would be a privation of some good thing, like health. Pain is the lack of a good that otherwise would exist.Thorongil

    Yeah, the privation theory, also prevalent in Scholastic doctrines of good and evil. With respect to that, then:

    I do not understand how we are to identify being with goodness with Being, yet acknowledge the existence of evil. If goodness is lacking somewhere, what is there?

    I also do not understand what Being actually amounts to. I am sure you know this much about Heidegger to see that the notion of Being is ambiguous, vague, and difficult to communicate.

    Finally, I remain unconvinced that something such as extreme agony is "merely" a privation of being. In fact I would more inclined to say that agony is an excess of being. We cannot escape it, it keeps us locked in consciousness, trapped and overwhelmed. The privation theory seems to me to downplay the significance, the positive existence, of unconditional evils like torturous pain.
  • Wayfarer
    22.8k
    I do not understand how we are to identify being with goodness with Being, yet acknowledge the existence of evil. If goodness is lacking somewhere, what is there?darthbarracuda

    I think it depends on the understanding that what the worldly being understands as existence is actually illusory. Because beings wrongly identify with the sensory domain and all that it entails, this is the origin of the world of pain. However when beings awaken to the real nature of being, which is above or beyond existence (depending on the school of thought) then they realise the illusory nature of existence and therefore of the pain that is associated with it. That is why deliverance is said to be blissful. Part of that is 'release from suffering'.

    The corollary of this is that suffering is a consequence of a choice or a decision which has culminated in the mode of existence in which the being is then apparently marooned. The various philosophical and spiritual traditions are then basically about how to overcome or be released from that fallen condition.

    There's a striking statement of something like this in R M Bucke's text, Cosmic Consciousness. It is the first-person account that he received by way of a letter from a correspondent only identified as C.M.C who speaks of an epiphany as follows:


    The pain and tension deep in the core and centre of my being was so great that I felt as might some creature which had outgrown its shell, and yet could not escape. What it was I knew not, except that it was a great yearning—for freedom, for larger life—for deeper love. There seemed to be no response in nature to that infinite need. The great tide swept on uncaring, pitiless, and strength gone, every resource exhausted, nothing remained but submission. So I said: There must be a reason for it, a purpose in it, even if I cannot grasp it. The Power in whose hands I am may do with me as it will! It was several days after this resolve before the point of complete surrender was reached. Meantime, with every internal sense, I searched for that principle, whatever it was, which would hold me when I let go.

    At last, subdued, with a curious, growing strength in my weakness, I let go of myself! * In a short time, to my surprise, I began to feel a sense of physical comfort, of rest, as if some strain or tension was removed. Never before had I experienced such a feeling of perfect health. I wondered at it. And how bright and beautiful the day! I looked out at the sky, the hills and the river, amazed that I had never before realized how divinely beautiful the world was! The sense of lightness and expansion kept increasing, the wrinkles smoothed out of everything, there was nothing in all the world that seemed out of place. At dinner I remarked: "How strangely happy I am to-day!" If I had realized then, as I did afterwards, what a great thing was happening to me, I should doubtless have dropped my work and given myself up to the contemplation of it, but it seemed so simple and natural (with all the wonder of it) that I and my affairs went on as usual. The light and color glowed, the atmosphere seemed to quiver and vibrate around and within me. Perfect rest and peace and joy were everywhere, and, more strange than all, there came to me a sense as of some serene, magnetic presence grand and all pervading. The life and joy within me were becoming so intense that by evening I became restless and wandered about the rooms, scarcely knowing what to do with myself. Retiring early that I might be alone, soon all objective phenomena were shut out. I was seeing and comprehending the sublime meaning of things, the reasons for all that had before been hidden and dark. The great truth that life is a spiritual evolution, that this life is but a passing phase in the soul's progression, burst upon my astonished vision with overwhelming grandeur. Oh, I thought, if this is what it means, if this is the outcome, then pain is sublime! Welcome centuries, eons, of suffering if it brings us to this! And still the splendor increased. Presently what seemed to be a swift, oncoming tidal wave of splendor and glory ineffable came down upon me, and I felt myself being enveloped, swallowed up.

    I felt myself going, losing myself. Then I was terrified, but with a sweet terror. I was losing my consciousness, my identity, but was powerless to hold myself. Now came a period of rapture, so intense that the universe stood still, as if amazed at the unutterable majesty of the spectacle! Only one in all the infinite universe! The All-loving, the Perfect One! The Perfect Wisdom, truth, love and purity! And with the rapture came the insight. In that same wonderful moment of what might be called supernal bliss, came illumination. I saw with intense inward vision the atoms or molecules, of which seemingly the universe is composed—I know not whether material or spiritual—rearranging themselves, as the cosmos (in its continuous, everlasting life) passes from order to order.* What joy when I saw there was no break in the chain—not a link left out—everything in its place and time. Worlds, systems, all blended in one harmonious whole. Universa life, synonymous with universal love!

    The correspondent's sister later wrote:

    It was in December, three months after, that I saw my sister for the first time after the experience described, and her changed appearance made such a deep impression on me that I shall never forget it. Her looks and manner were so changed that she scarcely seemed the same person. There was a clear, bright, peaceful light in her eyes, lighting her whole face, and she was so happy and contented—so satisfied with things as they were. It seemed as though some heavy weight had been lifted and she was free. As she talked to me I felt that she was living in a new world of thought and feeling unknown to me. Sincerely, P. M.

    From here
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.