As I mentioned, or hinted at, in my first post in this thread, I don't understand why we wouldn't focus on pain when we talk about suffering rather than focusing on desire. I can't really make sense out of saying that not having a desire met is sufficient for suffering when we also use the term "suffering" for, say, someone who has just been in a serious car accident and who now has a sharp piece of metal going through their trapped leg--especially where it's supposedly not a different sense of the term. — Terrapin Station

How about something like this. Robert Kraft and millions like him have what I would call a disordered desire when it come to sex. To satiate this desire they are willing to walk into strip mall massage parlors and exchange money for sex. To fulfill the demand for this disordered desire, other people with an equally disordered desire for money find ways to entrap vulnerable women into working in these places.

I would propose that the disordered desires above are causing great suffering - to the women, to the people entrapping/enslaving the women and to all the Robert Krafts that pay the woman.

I would propose that the disordered desires above are causing great suffering - to the women, to the people entrapping/enslaving the women and to all the Robert Krafts that pay the woman. — Rank Amateur

I'd say that the only suffering happening there would be (a) if the women are really being held against their wills at least via what I'd classify as criminal threatening, and (b) the arrested Johns due to it being illegal to pay for sex.

But none of this makes desires sufficient for suffering.

regarding 'disordered desires':

Maybe a useful analogy could be the desire for food. We need food to survive, so take someone who doesn't have access to enough food. They still 'desire' food, and have access to some, and choose to eat some non-food items to try and stave their hunger, like eating clay or something.
The original desire isn't disordered, it is the way the person who is behaving to try and fulfil the desire/need which is perhaps symbolic with disorder.

Maybe food is a bad example as it is a complex issue...

But if you take the general case of a desire being based on something which isn't disorders, it still might lead to a disordered attempt to try and fulfil it...
And the thing is with having to try to fulfil a deeper need with something that isn't going to do it in the long run, is that the behaviour might just escalate, as they are never going to be satisfied.

Because most people think it's ridiculous to even talk about "persons who don't exist" as if they do. — Terrapin Station

Well, that's the point in regards to the absence of pleasure for a possible future person.

But none of this makes desires sufficient for suffering. — Terrapin Station

Am I correct that what you are saying here is there is no link between the desire to pay the coerced and trapped woman and the desire of money to enslave them - and the suffering of the people involved ??

Well, that's the point in regards to the absence of pleasure for a possible future person. — schopenhauer1

I don't think anyone is lamenting the absence of pleasure for non-existent people. Some people are rather upset at not having kids, not being able to have kids, etc. If they'd not be allowed to have kids they'd be upset at that, too. (And people are also upset at being penalized by laws that put them at a disadvantage if they have more kids.)

Am I correct that what you are saying here is there is no link between the desire to pay the coerced and trapped woman and the desire of money to enslave them - and the suffering of the people involved ?? — Rank Amateur

I'd say the desires do not cause that specific suffering. What would cause it is someone falsely imprisoning someone else or criminally threatening them. Whatever reason they decide to do those things if they do is another issue. They could make a different decision.

Re that decision, by the way, the issue would be easily dissolved if we would simply legalize prostitution.

I'd say the desires do not cause that specific suffering. What would cause it is someone falsely imprisoning someone else or criminally threatening them. Whatever reason they decide to do those things if they do is another issue. They could make a different decision. — Terrapin Station

think I have to respectfully disagree with the above. I would still propose the disordered desires are the proximate cause off the suffering. "whatever reason they decide" seems an important concept to me. Certainly not one to be so easily dismissed with out reason. As far as " they could make a different decision" that again, for me comes down to if the desire is ordered or not, there is no good option, just less bad ones, to fulfill a disordered desire, except to eliminate or control the desire itself.

It seems you are saying the hammer drives the nail and ignoring the carpenter swinging the hammer.

Re that decision, by the way, the issue would be easily dissolved if we would simply legalize prostitution. — Terrapin Station

not sure there is very good evidence to support this. Legalized gambling hasn't prevented folks gambling away the mortgage, legalized alcohol hasn't prevented alcoholism, etc etc. It may make it easier to tax, it may do any number of other things, but what it won't do is turn a disordered desire into an ordered one.

But if you take the general case of a desire being based on something which isn't disorders, it still might lead to a disordered attempt to try and fulfil it... — wax

been thinking, and at least with my frame of reference - I cant think of an example of the above.

I think there is always some disordered desire at play that causes the suffering.

an example:

Jean Valjean's family is starving, they desire food ( taking a small liberty here for sake of argument - but such things as food, water and shelter I would describe as needs and not desires ). Jean being a loving father and seeing no other way - steals a loaf of bread. Gets caught and undergoes great suffering. First pass would say is desire to feed his family was ordered and I would agree. Even giving the benefit of the doubt that there was absolutely no other way to feed them other than stealing. I would propose the baker who would not give the bread to the needy has a disordered desire of money over charity. I would say the government and prosecutors and jailers had a disordered desire of punishment over forgiveness.

It seems you are saying the hammer drives the nail and ignoring the carpenter swinging the hammer. — Rank Amateur

I'm excluding decisions from causes, as one could decide to do differently. The carpenter has to apply physical force to the hammer, though. (Just as they'd need to apply physical force to falsely imprison or criminally threaten someone).

not sure there is very good evidence to support this. Legalized gambling hasn't prevented folks gambling away the mortgage, legalized alcohol hasn't prevented alcoholism, etc etc — Rank Amateur

??? I didn't say anything like "Legalized prostitution would get rid of prostitution."

If prostitution is legal, it would eliminate the illegal industry. There's no illegal alcohol industry to speak of, because alcohol is legal and there's no motivation to produce alcohol illegally.

I don't want to get rid of prostitution. I want to get rid of the absurdity of it being illegal.

The carpenter has to apply physical force to the hammer, though. — Terrapin Station

and to me this all starts with the desire to drive the nail.

From that point, you can make a decision to drive the nail or not.

I don't want to get rid of prostitution. I want to get rid of the absurdity of it being illegal. — Terrapin Station

absolutely agree that legalizing prostitution would make prostitution legal. Not sure that is any great insight. My point was it would not make the desire to use one any more ordered, ( don't read religious here - not the intent) Much of the suffering that is part of prostitution would still remain at least IMO legal or not. As in gambling, alcohol, prescription drugs, etc etc.

I don't think anyone is lamenting the absence of pleasure for non-existent people. — Terrapin Station

That's the point he was trying to make. You really don't know how to agree with someone. :roll: .

ome people are rather upset at not having kids, not being able to have kids, etc. If they'd not be allowed to have kids they'd be upset at that, too. (And people are also upset at being penalized by laws that put them at a disadvantage if they have more kids.) — Terrapin Station

Ok, a lot of people are unhappy about things that they may want to do to other people that they maybe shouldn't do.

I don't want to lessen prostitution. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with it. Rather I'm very much in favor of it. I think it's a good thing for people who want an alternate means of having sex.

Re your definition, I don't see how prostitution has anything to do with "lessening love," etc. . . . although I don't see why that should be the criterion, anyway. Re defining suffering with respect to ordered/disordered desires and then making the part of the ordered/disordered desire distinction a reference to suffering, that's pretty shallowly circular.

That's the point he was trying to make. — schopenhauer1

In making the point he was making, at least according to you, he talked about people not feeling sad for nonexistent people, as if that was significant. It's not. Because people don't think anything about nonexistent people.

Ok, a lot of people are unhappy about things that they may want to do to other people that they maybe shouldn't do. — schopenhauer1

Whether anyone should or shouldn't do anything is subjective, of course.

Re defining suffering with respect to ordered/disordered desires and then making the part of the ordered/disordered desire distinction a reference to suffering, that's pretty shallowly circular. — Terrapin Station

Don't see where i did any of that. What seems circular is you saying I proposed something circular and then said it was circular.

What I proposed was, disordered desires lead to suffering . And I only defined ordered desires as those that increase love in yourself or in others. I see nothing circular there - unless i am missing your point.

So I went back to review the "ordered/disordered" desire distinction you're making.

You said:

"A very Jesuit way of looking at this is not that desire causes suffering, but disordered desires do."

So a way to understand suffering that you're suggesting is that disordered desires cause suffering contra ordered desires. So we need to understand that distinction to understand what suffering is.

You say: "Ordered desires . . . are those desires that stated simply increase love, desiring things that increase love in yourself and in others will not cause suffering."

So you're defining ordered desires in terms of suffering (not just, however that was part of it), but you just defined suffering in terms of ordered/disordered desire distinction.

From that point, you can make a decision to drive the nail or not. — Terrapin Station

think this point from above addresses this point.

" As far as " they could make a different decision" that again, for me comes down to if the desire is ordered or not, there is no good option, just less bad ones, to fulfill a disordered desire, except to eliminate or control the desire itself. "

If one does not act on the desire than there is no suffering. However that does not eliminate the desire as causal in the cases where it is acted on.

think this point from above addresses this point.

" As far as " they could make a different decision" that again, for me comes down to if the desire is ordered or not, there is no good option, just less bad ones, to fulfill a disordered desire, except to eliminate or control the desire itself. " — Rank Amateur

I don't see how it addresses it unless you're claiming that one can't, in fact, make a different decision.

So we need to understand that distinction to understand what suffering is. — Terrapin Station

no we don't we just need to define suffering. I would hope some garden variety general understanding of suffering would do.

There is nothing circular here.

Ordered desires ( those that increase love ) = no suffering
disordered desires = suffering

the relationship is causal - not circular

of course they can. no one acts on every desire - good or bad. If your point is there is no suffering without action. I agree, just not particularly profound. We are back to the hammer an nail.

Okay, so how do we determine whether a desire "increases love" or not?

Okay, so how do we determine whether a desire "increases love" or not? — Terrapin Station

If in your most honest self that is your pure motivation. ( that is the my attempt at a secular answer)

The Jesuit answer would be something called "a discernment of spirits". Is the source of the desire, feeling, emotion etc God, or some of evil. I understand that is not a very philosophical answer.

In making the point he was making, at least according to you, he talked about people not feeling sad for nonexistent people, as if that was significant. It's not. Because people don't think anything about nonexistent people. — Terrapin Station

But that is his point. No one cares about non-existent pleasures. That is significant if people argue that we are "depriving" something of pleasure. Clearly no one exists to be deprived of pleasure, and no one cares about the millions of possible people that could exist who could experience pleasure. Thus, absent pleasure matters not if there is no ACTUAL person for which it is a deprivation. However, that harm is absent IS a good thing, even if there is no actual person to enjoy the not being harmed. His asymmetry only applies to the procreational decision when there is an absence of an actual person, but the possibility that someone could be born based on decisions.

If it's just a self-assessment like that, then any arbitrary desire could either be ordered or disordered, couldn't it?

That is significant if people argue that we are "depriving" something of pleasure. — schopenhauer1

I'd agree with that, but who argues that?

However, that harm is absent IS a good thing, even if there is no actual person to enjoy the not being harmed. — schopenhauer1

No one argues that the absence of harm for nonexistent people is a good thing, either. (I mean, outside of Benatar and some followers--I'm not saying literally no one on the face of the Earth. I mean, to characterize it as some common sentiment is completely unfounded.)

In the secular maybe, depending on your belief if we can in our deepest most honest selves actually lie to ourselves. I don't think we can. Do you think you can lie to yourself and not know it? I don't mean rationalize - we are all great at that. Can you actually believe you are acting out of pure love and be not be ? I may need to think some on that - but i cant see how that is possible.

I don't think we can. Do you think you can lie to yourself and not know it? — Rank Amateur

No, a fortiori because I don't buy the notion of unconscious mental content.

But I think that someone could think that any arbitrary action is "purely out of love" or not.

So I don't see how that would make prostitution an unordered desire. I can see how it would be in a religious context simply via stipulation, but outside of that I don't know if the distinction works very well.

Headlines now: Medical doctor treats tape worm infection using experimental Buddhist surgery. Worms still there, attachment to body gone.