Surely, it doesn't have to be a definite yes or know. Some people fall apart amidst pain and suffering whereas others learn and are transformed. There is also the extent of pain and how much each person can bear and what support the person has.

Even if suffering is a source of growth and transformation it could be dangerous to just say that it is a good thing because that could lead to us to not offer compassion support for those in pain.

Surely, it doesn't have to be a definite yes or know. Some people fall apart amidst pain and suffering whereas others learn and are transformed. There is also the extent of pain and how much each person can bear and what support the person has. — Jack Cummins

How do you know who or when someone would fall apart prior to their birth? If its about "manning up" then why is thst a value people must be exposed to in the first place?

Even if suffering is a source of growth and transformation it could be dangerous to just say that it is a good thing because that could lead to us to not offer compassion support for those in pain. — Jack Cummins

So we need pain so we can have compassion for those in.pain ? That sounds circular.

Surely, it doesn't have to be a definite yes or know. Some people fall apart amidst pain and suffering whereas others learn and are transformed. There is also the extent of pain and how much each person can bear and what support the person has. — Jack Cummins

That's why I'm not voting in @schopenhauer1's poll.

And my reply would be the same.

And my reply would be the same. — schopenhauer1

Which is this thing below...?

How do you know who or when someone would fall apart prior to their birth? If its about "manning up" then why is thst a value people must be exposed to in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Yep.

Yep. — schopenhauer1

And what are you saying there? It's not like you're making any more sense than when you started this thread.

What dont you understand?

What dont you understand? — schopenhauer1

Oh I understand what you're saying -- I want you to put more effort in giving an account of how pain plays a role in our lives.

For example, can you try to qualify the below statement -- who says they're more fulfilled or complete after experiencing pain? If a physician must suffer all kinds of cancer, headache, broken bones, shattered limbs, and or cracked skull, then she wouldn't be an excellent doctor, would she? She'd be dead, as in rigor mortis.

According to this theory, it has some sort of redemptive quality whereby being exposed to it and overcoming it, one becomes "better", more "fulfilled", a more "complete" person, or something along those lines. — schopenhauer1

No, actually, pain destroys a lot of people. Abusive parents destroyed a lot of children.

For example, can you try to qualify the below statement -- who says they're more fulfilled or complete after experiencing pain? If a physician must suffer all kinds of cancer, headache, broken bones, shattered limbs, and or cracked skull, then she wouldn't be an excellent doctor, would she? She'd be dead, as in rigor mortis. — Caldwell

Not to contradict you but learning is traditionally divided into theory and practicals. I think @schopenhauer1 is referring to the latter when he says:

one becomes "better", more "fulfilled", a more "complete" person, or something along those lines. — schopenhauer1

Too, practicals in this context don't necessarily involve actually experiencing pain/suffering. It may take the form of snippets, brief glimpses, so to speak of pain/suffering - just enough to get an idea of what it feels like but short of the real McCoy.

it has some sort of redemptive quality whereby being exposed to it and overcoming it, one becomes "better", more "fulfilled", a more "complete" person, or something along those lines. — schopenhauer1

The general idea behind such a theory is dualistic, the yin-yang. I've always had a hard time understanding yin-yang. The claim is that to understand yin, yang must be understood but the problem is to understand yang, one has to have a grasp of yin and so on in an infinite loop that precludes any understanding at all.

Perhaps, if we look at it differently, we can achieve some clarity. Happiness and suffering, the duo we're interested in, are, all said and done, emotions and as far as I know emotions can't be expressed propositionally i.e. we can't convey, or it's notoriously difficult to, convey emotions in declarative sentences.

For instance I can describe with a fair degree of confidence that the intended meaning will be conveyed that the plant I posssess is a rose, like so: This plant is a rose.

However, to my reckoning, I can't, in fact no one can, convey the happiness or sorrow or some other emotion fae feels with a sentence: Happiness is... and Sorrow is... What would replace the three trailing dots?

If I'm correct so far then it implies that happiness, sorrow, and other emotions need to be directly experienced to gain even a modicum of understanding of what they are. Since not experiencing pain/suffering firsthand means that one is completely unaware of a certain aspect of reality, we would, in that sense, be incomplete.

For example, can you try to qualify the below statement -- who says they're more fulfilled or complete after experiencing pain? If a physician must suffer all kinds of cancer, headache, broken bones, shattered limbs, and or cracked skull, then she wouldn't be an excellent doctor, would she? She'd be dead, as in rigor mortis. — Caldwell

Assuming the person doesn't die from it (that's not overcoming it then, would it?) the theory goes that she would be better for it. Maybe no one would wish it would happen to them, but if it does, they are better. Indeed, I do see the flaw in the argument. It is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Hence, why I say a post-facto justification. Life has unknown quantities of pain and suffering, yet people say this is permissible to continue to a next generation because, they will learn from it. That sounds like "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Well, certainly it's the only move one can make besides being a pessimist. The life-affirmer would try to co-opt the pain as acceptable, good, or necessary in this argument so as to justify continuing new people who will experience said pain and suffering. It is now "ok" so no problem, apparently.

The general idea behind such a theory is dualistic, the yin-yang. I've always had a hard time understanding yin-yang. The claim is that to understand yin, yang must be understood but the problem is to understand yang, one has to have a grasp of yin and so on in an infinite loop that precludes any understanding at all. — TheMadFool

That would assume we are all in a scheme of yin-yang with no self-agency. For example, If pain is necessary for pleasure (which I still don't think is proven, so we can go back to that), one can choose not to continue this scheme unto a next generation rather than saying "it is what it is" which would be a false presentation of the choice. There is a choice, it isn't.. "So let's continue forward with more people.".

If I'm correct so far then it implies that happiness, sorrow, and other emotions need to be directly experienced to gain even a modicum of understanding of what they are. Since not experiencing pain/suffering firsthand means that one is completely unaware of a certain aspect of reality, we would, in that sense, be incomplete. — TheMadFool

Why would that be important? Even if it was, certainly we wouldn't want to experience all manner of pain just to be "complete" (torture, etc.). If this reality is not a utopia. If this reality needs negative (pain, suffering) states in order to have a contrast, then why is that reality seen as acceptable to cause for other people? In other words, anything less than a utopia- a reality where you don't need pain to be complete, or feel happiness, for example, can be argued to be not an acceptable reality to cause the conditions for future people.

Why would that be important? Even if it was, certainly we wouldn't want to experience all manner of pain just to be "complete" (torture, etc.). — schopenhauer1

As I said @Caldwell, to use a sexual metaphor, one can get some, "adequate"???, idea of what a home run means if you get to first base. Praticals, as part of learning, are controlled environments, carefully designed simulations if you will, with the option, hopefully, to pull out.

To reiterate, emotions can't be conveyed with words, making it impossible to understand what they involve or mean through discourse, written or spoken. This is a major obstacle if one is seeking knowledge of emotions which ultimately narrows our choices down to one viz. actually, directly going through, experiencing in an immediate sense, emotions if we are to ever know/understand them.

That would assume we are all in a scheme of yin-yang with no self-agency. For example, If pain is necessary for pleasure (which I still don't think is proven, so we can go back to that), one can choose not to continue this scheme unto a next generation rather than saying "it is what it is" which would be a false presentation of the choice. There is a choice, it isn't.. "So let's continue forward with more people.". — schopenhauer1

Sorry, I couldn't make head or tail of this.

Sorry, I couldn't make head or tail of this. — TheMadFool

We have agency to prevent pain. Whether the pain is some yin-yang with positive moments, you can make a decision to prevent future people from pain. Just because this up and down is part of the current reality, we do not have to procreate the current situation, just because it is the current situation and can't be anything else.

As I said Caldwell, to use a sexual metaphor, one can get some, "adequate"???, idea of what a home run means if you get to first base. Praticals, as part of learning, are controlled environments, carefully designed simulations if you will, with the option, hopefully, to pull out. — TheMadFool

And now I, can't make heads or tails of this.

To reiterate, emotions can't be conveyed with words, making it impossible to understand what they involve or mean through discourse, written or spoken. This is a major obstacle if one is seeking knowledge of emotions which ultimately narrows our choices down to one viz. actually, directly going through, experiencing in an immediate sense, emotions if we are to ever know/understand them. — TheMadFool

So what is your point with emotions and pain? Are you trying to say that since it's hard to put some sensations into words, that therefore pain is okay to create for other people?

We have agency to prevent pain. Whether the pain is some yin-yang with positive moments, you can make a decision to prevent future people from pain. Just because this up and down is part of the current reality, we do not have to procreate the current situation, just because it is the current situation and can't be anything else. — schopenhauer1

Right! There is no need to perpetuate an agonizing experience. I'm with you on that one. However, don't forget that happiness is something real and that one has to be alive to experience it. This will force us to shift the focus to comparing degrees of happiness and suffering and that, for some, the suffering is far in excess of happiness, so and so forth.

There's truth in this of course? I'm not denying that but, if I were to weigh in on this, the truth of suffering is a contingent truth and not a necessary one. In all honesty, I don't see why we can't decouple suffering from life. I mean red lights turning on in a car's dashboard isn't exactly painful but does the job of warning the driver that something's amiss. I'm speaking from the perspective of pain as a signal mechanism for injury or death.

So what is your point with emotions and pain? Are you trying to say that since it's hard to put some sensations into words, that therefore pain is okay to create for other people? — schopenhauer1

Pain is never ok, it's primary function is to inform the experiencer that something's wrong, that it's not ok.

That said, if one can't/never goes through pain/suffering then that's only half the story of what reality is.

I want to ask you a question. What if we could anesthetize ourselves completely and live a life free from all suffering/pain? Would you then agree that life is worth living?

You say that we have agency to prevent pain but this is not a straightforward.

Yes, certainly through choices we make now, such as one's made by government we have can make a difference to ecology and future generations.

But even then, we are not gods and cannot control nature. For example, no one a year ago would have expected Covid_19. Some people put the blame on a laboratory mistake in China, but even then, the virus as a deathly aspect of nature is hard to control. Of course, decisions made by politicians may have not helped but none of the decisions have been clear because the virus once it is spreading is a force of its own and human beings cannot master it. Also, preventing certain people's suffering may be at the cost of other people. For example, lockdowns may prevent deaths for certain vulnerable people but create poverty for others.

Another complication is that physical pain is easier to define than emotional pain. Certain experiences such as abuse and bullying are highly likely to lead to emotional suffering but beyond that emotional pain can be subjective. Two people can be in a group discussion and one person may come away feeling uplifted and another one may feel completely depressed.


So, the problem of pain and suffering is very complex. So, I really can't see how you thought it was a matter for a vote, and what would a majority vote count for. However, I think the issue is a very important area of philosophical discussion.

I would argue that we should do the best we can to prevent all suffering but we can only do this to this. To intentionally create pain for others on the basis of promoting growth through suffering would be dangerous indeed. However, by the very unpredictable nature of life it is inevitable. We may fall apart or be transformed by it and this is a quest, but the creation of pain itself only partially preventable. Utopian attempts be worthwhile to eradicate a fair amount of suffering as humans are complex creatures it is likely that suffering would still exist in some form or another.

However, don't forget that happiness is something real and that one has to be alive to experience it. This will force us to shift the focus to comparing degrees of happiness and suffering and that, for some, the suffering is far in excess of happiness, so and so forth. — TheMadFool

Let me ask you this then: Is it okay to risk putting someone in pain because there is a chance they may get pleasure out of your decision without asking for their consent first. An example would be buying you things with your money because they were on sale without asking for permission. In that case if you like the thing I buy all is well and good but if you don't then I have harmed you. Is it okay for me to do that? And does it become worse or better the higher the risk? (is buying lottery tickets with all your money worse than the previous example?)

What if we could anesthetize ourselves completely and live a life free from all suffering/pain? Would you then agree that life is worth living? — TheMadFool

There is a difference between worth living and worth starting. I don't think @schopenhauer1 is saying life isn't worth living because of the pain in it but he's saying that it is not worth starting.

For example: Life is still worth living if you're blind, but that doesn't justify going around blinding people. Just because it is bearable once it has begun doesn't mean it is worth starting.

Is it okay to risk putting someone in pain because there is a chance they may get pleasure out of your decision without asking for their consent first — khaled

No, of course not. Your argument is in agreement with truths as they stand but these are contingent truths, something you've failed to address in your post. Is it absolutely necessary that life and suffering have to go together? Even as we speak the world is such that suffering is an undeniable truth and yet we have, among us, those who either suffer less or even not at all. Can I, may I, take this as good grounds to infer the contingent nature of suffering?

There is a difference between worth living and worth starting. I don't think schopenhauer1 is saying life isn't worth living because of the pain in it but he's saying that it is not worth starting. — khaled

But what if life is free from suffering? Would you still feel or think it would be not worth starting?

Is pain a good thing because of some redemptive (or analogous) quality? — schopenhauer1

No. It's good because it makes you pull your hand out of the meat grinder before you lose your whole arm.

:up:

I want to ask you a question. What if we could anesthetize ourselves completely and live a life free from all suffering/pain? Would you then agree that life is worth living? — TheMadFool

What do you think? I do not think pain/suffering is redemptive.

You say that we have agency to prevent pain but this is not a straightforward. — Jack Cummins

I meant in relation to preventing it for future generations (by not having them). It's too late for us. We are in the pain boat. And again, I don't think it is awe-inspiring that we have this pain to appreciate the happiness.. Don't agree with the need the downs for ups (or that this is good), don't agree that pain adds something "more" to the human experience so is needed.

But even then, we are not gods and cannot control nature. For example, no one a year ago would have expected Covid_19. Some people put the blame on a laboratory mistake in China, but even then, the virus as a deathly aspect of nature is hard to control. Of course, decisions made by politicians may have not helped but none of the decisions have been clear because the virus once it is spreading is a force of its own and human beings cannot master it. Also, preventing certain people's suffering may be at the cost of other people. For example, lockdowns may prevent deaths for certain vulnerable people but create poverty for others. — Jack Cummins

All reasons not to procreate life with suffering, yes.

Another complication is that physical pain is easier to define than emotional pain. Certain experiences such as abuse and bullying are highly likely to lead to emotional suffering but beyond that emotional pain can be subjective. Two people can be in a group discussion and one person may come away feeling uplifted and another one may feel completely depressed. — Jack Cummins

Yep I agree, emotional suffering is also a huge factor in life, and hence another reason not to procreate a life that has it.

However, I think the issue is a very important area of philosophical discussion. — Jack Cummins

Perhaps one of the most important in the realm of existential thought and ethics.

I would argue that we should do the best we can to prevent all suffering but we can only do this to this. To intentionally create pain for others on the basis of promoting growth through suffering would be dangerous indeed. However, by the very unpredictable nature of life it is inevitable. We may fall apart or be transformed by it and this is a quest, but the creation of pain itself only partially preventable. Utopian attempts be worthwhile to eradicate a fair amount of suffering as humans are complex creatures it is likely that suffering would still exist in some form or another. — Jack Cummins

Yes, and because of this, we should not create more humans who suffer. Hence, the OP where because we can't get rid of suffering, I suspect some people try to justify the need for it, so they can justify creating new people in a life with suffering as well.

Let me ask you this then: Is it okay to risk putting someone in pain because there is a chance they may get pleasure out of your decision without asking for their consent first. An example would be buying you things with your money because they were on sale without asking for permission. In that case if you like the thing I buy all is well and good but if you don't then I have harmed you. Is it okay for me to do that? And does it become worse or better the higher the risk? (is buying lottery tickets with all your money worse than the previous example?) — khaled

Good example.

There is a difference between worth living and worth starting. I don't think schopenhauer1 is saying life isn't worth living because of the pain in it but he's saying that it is not worth starting.

For example: Life is still worth living if you're blind, but that doesn't justify going around blinding people. Just because it is bearable once it has begun doesn't mean it is worth starting. — khaled

Yes exactly.

No. It's good because it makes you pull your hand out of the meat grinder before you lose your whole arm. — frank

@180 Proof

If we know the world has known and unknown amounts of suffering, what is the justification of bringing people into this? I suspect people use post-facto justifications like "We need the downs to know the ups!" and that "Pain brings some sort of redemptive quality or makes people better." So it is about justifications around pain that people do regarding procreation. They want to co-opt it and circle the square, but I think it is not justified.

If a reality has pain and suffering in known and unknown quantities, then there is no justification to put more people in this situation. Pain is not redemptive. It does not make life better. It is a post-facto way of justifying putting people in conditions where they will inevitably suffer. See Khaled's argument here as well: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460245 . So I am not discussing the evolutionary origins of immediate physical pain as you are discussing, but how people justify pain and suffering when creating new people. How does one justify bringing people into a reality that has pain and suffering?

So, you think the best solution is to avoid bringing new human beings into the world. I have never brought another human into the world personally but surely the problem of pain is not so great that it means that humans should not be born. Surely, life for future humans may have great possible potential rather than being all negative.

At times during the Covid_19 situation I have even wondered if part of the reason leaders have allowed the virus to get out of control was a means of reducing the population, in a world of diminishing resources.

I think you need to smoke more weed.

So, you think the best solution is to avoid bringing new human beings into the world. I have never brought another human into the world personally but surely the problem of pain is not so great that it means that humans should not be born. Surely, life for future humans may have great possible potential rather than being all negative.

At times during the Covid_19 situation I have even wondered if part of the reason leaders have allowed the virus to get out of control was a means of reducing the population, in a world of diminishing resources. — Jack Cummins

Is it justified to bring someone into a world where there is suffering? Suffering can be defined subjectively or objectively here, it wouldn't matter.

In other words, if reality is not a utopia, is it worth bringing someone into it? How? Just saying there may be more good than bad is kind of avoiding the question. What can justify bringing someone into a world with any suffering in it? Let's say a world like ours.

Pain is your bodies messaging system to tell you there is some harm going on that you should try to fix.

Pain that you can fix is good. Pain that you cannot is torture and unnecessary suffering.

Pain that you can fix is good. Pain that you cannot is torture and unnecessary suffering. — Philosophim

If we know pain and suffering exist, why then would it be justified to bring more people into a world with known and unknown amounts of pain and suffering?