For example, "I'm afraid your leg is gangrenous, and it needs to be amputated or else you will die." Generally, whenever causing them stress is the only way to benefit them in some important way. That this has been used to justify all sorts of cruelty (e.g. spare the rod and spoil the child) does not invalidate it, but should lead to a careful questioning of less stressful methods, and the reality and proportionality of benefits.

For example, "I'm afraid your leg is gangrenous, and it needs to be amputated or else you will die." Generally, whenever causing them stress is the only way to benefit them in some important way. That this has been used to justify all sorts of cruelty (e.g. spare the rod and spoil the child) does not invalidate it, but should lead to a careful questioning of less stressful methods, and the reality and proportionality of benefits. — unenlightened

How about the stress of being exposed to the harm in the first place? If looked at more closely, is even the self-imposed stress of games/sports/entertainment not beneficial absolutely, but simply a relative benefit in relation to the anxiety of boredom?

And then there's the self-imposed stress of looking more closely. I mean, stop stressing me, man. ;)

If the options are boredom or stress, and stress is boring and boredom is stressful, then there is little I can do to benefit anyone, and no good reason to either bore or stress them with my interventions. But if your tooth aches, go to the dentist, even if you are frightened.

So now you have a general answer and two exemplary answers to your original question. Let me ask you one: what is the difference between stress and distress?

what is the difference between stress and distress? — unenlightened

Well, here is where we are going to disagree as to the characterization of stress, which, if my OP has it right, is one of the two major defaults (boredom being the other). My implicit and controversial idea is that stress is intrinsically harmful. A light version of stress is simply "dealing" with situations. One creates a burden so one can deal with overcoming the problem. This can be seen in something as seemingly innocuous as a game. There is an aspect of competition, executing proper procedures, and practicing for the execution that is unpleasant, but the acute sense of achieving a victory or the relief of figuring out the problem becomes a justification for undergoing the stress. This stress is preferred over dullness and boredom perhaps but just because one's preferences are attuned to prefer stress, does not mean it is "good" intrinsically, it simply means that ones preferences cause one to want to experience more stress than lounging around.. masochistic somewhat. Admittedly, more people may be masochistic than not (i.e. competition may be preferred to being "idle" or passive).

Distress on the other hand, is non-preferred stress. Though stress is intrinsically harmful, distress has the added distinction of being harmful and not preferred. It also has to cross a threshold of being more than the "average" burden. Both distress and stress are forms of "stress", distress is a subcategory that brings with it usually more harm than your average experience of stress and is usually not preferred. It gets tricky though.

However, I may be talking simply about "undue" stress. Distress as normally used is usually a synonym for unpleasantness, anxiety, and concern.

Yes, I broadly agree with your distinction, and also that stress is generally harmful. By analogy with the engineer's understanding, I would suggest that stress is what results from a conflict of emotions, just as stress in materials are the result of opposing forces. I want a cup of tea, but I don't want to get out of my comfy chair to make it, to give a trivial example.

To take this a step further, being born is essentially being exposed to stress. One has to "deal" with things great and small, preferred and not preferred. Why is it assumed that a new human must be born to experience stress in the first place? Does the parent's preference for stress get carried over to the assumption that the child should also prefer stress? Does stress need to exist in the first place if it can otherwise be prevented?

I don't see causing stress in others as good or bad in itself. Some things that cause stress in others are good in my opinion, some are bad, and some are neutral. It's also dependent on the person in question. Not everyone experiences stress in response to the same things. And some people might be stressed at the slightest provocation whereas almost nothing would stress others.

One example where I think that stressing others is a very good thing is when we're pushing people to get closer to their potentials--performance potentials, artistic potentials, etc.

I don't see causing stress in others as good or bad in itself. Some things that cause stress in others are good in my opinion, some are bad, and some are neutral. It's also dependent on the person in question. Not everyone experiences stress in response to the same things. And some people might be stressed at the slightest provocation whereas almost nothing would stress others. — Terrapin Station

Yeah, I completely disagree. All stress is harmful, and true people can be naturally/socially inclined to become more stressed than others.

One example where I think that stressing others is a very good thing is when we're pushing people to get closer to their potentials--performance potentials, artistic potentials, etc. — Terrapin Station

I do not see this as a justification in itself to cause stress as "reaching potential" is not intrinsically good. That seems like leftover Platonic thinking.. Some sort of Form of the Good is reached. Aristotle's Golden Mean is its own Platonic sweetspot. This is an arbitrary goal. One may get better at skills but that just means one prefers that set of skills as the goals one wants to pursue. It is a way to fill time.

I'd say to beget children to experience stress so that they can reach potential just does not make sense. Once one is born, preferences are varied and too nuanced as to lead to one direction of what goals to strive for.

Yeah, I completely disagree. — schopenhauer1

Okay <shrugs> You can feel differently. It's not as if there are correct/incorrect answers about this sort of stuff. It's just a matter of how one feels about it.

"reaching potential" is not intrinsically good. — schopenhauer1

There's no such thing as intrinsically good or intrinsically bad. Again, it's simply a matter of how we feel about such things. I feel that pushing people towards realising potentials is a good thing. You may very well feel differently. That's fine. We're not going to all feel the same way about things she it comes to ethical matters.

There's no such thing as intrinsically good or intrinsically bad. Again, it's simply a matter of how we feel about such things. I feel that pushing people towards realising potentials is a good thing. You may very well feel differently. That's fine. We're not going to all feel the same way about things she it comes to ethical matters. — Terrapin Station

Okay, but I'm not arguing that you cannot feel this way or that (nor can I), I'm just arguing both a) that it is not some sort of binding mission on everyone to "push people towards realizing potentials" which we both agree with apparently and b) that there is no Potentials with a capital P but rather various skills that people may or may not want to acquire if they so choose, which we probably also agree on. You are very disagreeable about things we agree about! Is that just your natural disposition in these forums?

To take this a step further, being born is essentially being exposed to stress. — schopenhauer1

Well hang on. "Exposed to stress" is to my understanding a term of projection, as if stress were something in the world, rather something in oneself.

Why is it assumed that a new human must be born to experience stress in the first place? Does the parent's preference for stress get carried over to the assumption that the child should also prefer stress? Does stress need to exist in the first place if it can otherwise be prevented? — schopenhauer1

Clearly new humans neither need nor want to be born for themselves. Parental motivations are many and varied, ( a desire to continue oneself through the child, and economic security for a couple of examples) but a lot of the time children are born because of a lack of thought to prevent it and not much else. Assumptions hardly figure.

But to cut to the chase, I would say that stress is not necessary to life. One can very well do without it. But I think you do not admit that possibility?

Well hang on. "Exposed to stress" is to my understanding a term of projection, as if stress were something in the world, rather something in oneself. — unenlightened

I say it like that not to reify stress as some tangible "thing" but to mark it out as a necessary component of being an organism. Organisms must endure stress to survive at the least, endure undue stress when overburdened, and seek out stressful situations to provide novelty and something to do otherwise. So it is exposing an organism to stress because it is a necessary part of being an organism.

But to cut to the chase, I would say that stress is not necessary to life. One can very well do without it. But I think you do not admit that possibility? — unenlightened

Correct, I do not think we can never have stress as it is indeed a necessity of being an organism. Perhaps one can try to avoid undue stress, but even this is hard due to forced cultural interactions of work and other people..and even the therapies that some people to ameliorate these initial stresses are stressful initially. In other words, waking life is almost always filled with some stress unless it is at rest which, though can be relaxed for a bit, if given too long to idling, will lead to acute boredom, and if taken to the extreme, profound boredom, which may be accompanied by feelings of anxiety.

what is the difference between stress and distress? — unenlightened

You knew damn well that 'stress' is the shortened form of 'distress'.

If stress is the result of some stimulus then do you think pleasure can be stressful?

So is it ever good to cause stress in others? When is it justified to cause someone stress? — schopenhauer1

Without stress, life would not have the structure of noodles that had been boiled past the point of dissolution.

Stress, tension, and release is as necessary to life as air. Even the 'stress of the job' or 'the stressful relationship' or the dozens of 'stresses' we complain about all the time are necessary. If there were no deadlines by which time the bill had to be paid, or the gangrenous leg had to be removed, life-as-we-know-it (and can know it) would bog down and eventually cease.

What you are speaking of is your usual concern about suffering. "Stress" is, for many people, interchangeable with "suffering". For the psychologically fragile person, stress is nearly intolerable--but few if any are permanently that fragile.

Yes, sometimes it is good to cause stress in others. Had not a teacher leaned on you, and made you learn the rules of grammar and basic arithmetic, you would have been severely stunted and would have suffered much more by being an illiterate, innumerate lout. Your teachers may have even caused you suffering. Perhaps you were forced to stay after school and finish your assignment under the baleful eye of the detention hall monitor. Suffering, stress, pain. It paid off because you can communicate effectively.

Gratuitously causing stress, suffering, in others is of course another matter altogether. Deliberately causing suffering, stress, for one's own amusement at the discomfiture of others, is wrong, unproductive, fruitless, and pointless.

You knew damn well that 'stress' is the shortened form of 'distress'. — Bitter Crank

Not only did I not know it, but also it is not true. The two words have different origins from latin via Old French. Or so google tells me. But even if it had been true, the two words have rather different meanings currently which is worth teasing out.

Organisms must endure stress to survive at the least, endure undue stress when overburdened, and seek out stressful situations to provide novelty and something to do otherwise. So it is exposing an organism to stress because it is a necessary part of being an organism. — schopenhauer1

Yes, this is rather what I thought. Rather than conceptualise stress as a particular psychological state, you seem to generalise it to include almost any sensation at all, hunger, fear, arousal, whatever. And with such a sense stress is indeed inescapable, since to be alive is to be responsive to the environment, and if any response is stress then life is stress.

But then I no longer agree that stress in this sense has any connection with distress, that is is inevitably negative or harmful.

Yes, this is rather what I thought. Rather than conceptualise stress as a particular psychological state, you seem to generalise it to include almost any sensation at all, hunger, fear, arousal, whatever. And with such a sense stress is indeed inescapable, since to be alive is to be responsive to the environment, and if any response is stress then life is stress.

But then I no longer agree that stress in this sense has any connection with distress, that is is inevitably negative or harmful. — unenlightened

I'd like to make a couple points to this.

1) At the least, "negative" stress, or distress, is not necessarily controllable. It can be managed under certain circumstances, but the circumstances and individual constitutions are so nuanced, one cannot say that any one form is the silver bullet to manage stress for all types of people under the various human experiences. Also, more importantly, an average day might bring more negative stresses than we usually account for, as often distress is associated with larger events.

2) Even just the stress of responding to environmental and internal pressures- why are we giving burdens, goals, needs, wants to individuals by procreating them in the first place? The alternative is to not give beings these things. Again, people may prefer stress and want to see others have the stresses that they are habituated to. They also downplay the distresses and the various constitutions and circumstances that go into everyday life, let alone larger stressful events.

At the least, we have to deal with life. There is no Platonic calm- aesthetics are experiences of perhaps an echo of what a Platonic calm is like, but it's more of a representation of the calm we are seeking. A brief reprieve amongst the tumult.

1. This is undeniable, one cannot know the future or control the whole world.

... people may prefer stress and want to see others have the stresses that they are habituated to. — schopenhauer1

2. This loses its rhetorical force once it is clear that stress is not necessarily negative. It does not require habituation, and indeed the stress of novelty can be included. So you are reduced to saying that folks may enjoy life and want others to enjoy it.

Distress may or may not be harmful. It's a reaction to something (at least potentially) harmful. Respiratory distress, for instance, means the body is trying to cope with something bad. Toward the end, there's no distress... The body no longer has energy for that. Cuihuilain ties himself to a tree and quietly says peace out. What were we talking about?

2. This loses its rhetorical force once it is clear that stress is not necessarily negative. It does not require habituation, and indeed the stress of novelty can be included. So you are reduced to saying that folks may enjoy life and want others to enjoy it. — unenlightened

The work that goes into living- once a life is started, it is perpetual unto death. This is a simple truth, but the implication is one which I've quoted before:

Schopenhauer said:
It lies, then, in the very nature of our existence to take the form of constant motion, and to offer no possibility of our ever attaining the rest for which we are always striving. We are like a man running downhill, who cannot keep on his legs unless he runs on, and will inevitably fall if he stops; or, again, like a pole balanced on the tip of one’s finger; or like a planet, which would fall into its sun the moment it ceased to hurry forward on its way. Unrest is the mark of existence.
-Arthur Schopenhauer, Studies in Pessimism, On the Vanity of Existence

Why is it that we want to start this perpetual motion in the first place- not just of a robot or an unthinking thing, but of one that will feel the consequences of the motion, the burdens, the constant work involved in sustaining, maintaining, and entertaining.

"I know not what I seek; carried on by a wild impulse, I know not where I am going. I wander about in the strange manner (which you have seen), and see that nothing proceeds without method and order - what more should I know?"
-"Zhuangzi", outer chapters, "Letting Be, and Exercising Forbearance", 4.

... the rest for which we are always striving. — schopenhauer

Striving for rest is exactly that unnecessary, contradictory, and fruitless stress creation that I deny is necessary. Like the war to end war it is bound to fail and bound to engender suffering. Don't do it. Stop doing it.

Not only did I not know it, but also it is not true. — unenlightened

Rats! You're right again.

Stress
Middle English (denoting hardship or force exerted on a person for the purpose of compulsion): shortening of distress, or partly from Old French estresse ‘narrowness, oppression,’ based on Latin strictus ‘drawn tight’ (see strict) .

Distress:
Middle English: from Old French destresce (noun), destrecier (verb), based on Latin distringere ‘stretch apart.’

Maybe 'rictus' is a shortening of strictus.

So is it ever good to cause stress in others? When is it justified to cause someone stress? — schopenhauer1

Yes, if your plan is to become the most knowledgeable man of your times - someone of the likes of Aristotle or Newton or Einstein - and your mission is to provide great knowledge and understanding for your civilisation you can stress everyone around you so long as you're getting closer to the goal. If you're the new Alexander and you're going to expand the borders of your civilisation - then likewise you can stress everyone around and make them commit to the vision.

Schopenhauer was right - unrest is the mark of existence. But if regardless of what we do we have to keep running, we can at least devote our lives to a worthy cause - knowledge, morality, civilization building, and so forth.

Quote of David Sarnoff, who ran RCA (parent of NBC) from 1919 to 1970: "I don't get ulcers, I give them."