3. Conceivably, the most effective method of minimizing suffering would be ending the life of every being that can suffer, immediately and simultaneously. — darthbarracuda
This is incorrect.1. If negative utilitarianism is correct, then minimizing suffering is theonlyethical end. — darthbarracuda
This ad absurdum makes no sense. The highest – not "only" – moral end of NU is for the living (sapient sentients "that ... suffer") to prevent and/or reduce suffering of the living while they live (i.e. flourish) as much as practically possible. "Destroying the village in order to save the village", darthb, does not "save" it.3. Conceivably, the most effective method of minimizing suffering would be ending the life of every being that can suffer, immediately and simultaneously.
Destroying the village in order to save the village", darthb, does not "save" it. — 180 Proof
There was an “efilist” on here a couple weeks back, seems like they bit the bullet on premise 3 :rofl: I’ve only met one other person who was a negative utilitarian, and even they thought killing everything WASN’T morally repugnant because the goods in life weren’t instrumentally valuable. Kind of bizarre if you ask me — Albero
prevent and/or reduce suffering of the living while they live (i.e. flourish) — 180 Proof
It's "imprecise" to the point of being incorrect (i.e. useless) – not NU at all as I've pointed out.I will grant that the definition of negative utilitarianism in premise 1 may be imprecise. — darthbarracuda
It means 'to grow, thrive, beyond mere survival' (vide Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Spinoza, Nietzsche ... P. Foot, M. Nussbaum, etc); not just alive, but also living. Wrong question (so answering it doesn't matter). "Not flourish and not suffer" simply does not belong to the highest (or any) moral end as prescribed by NU.What do you mean by "flourishing" exactly, and why is it better to flourish and sufferthan to not flourish and not suffer?
3. Conceivably, the most effective method of minimizing suffering would be ending the life of every being that can suffer, immediately and simultaneously. — darthbarracuda
A "solution" no doubt but ignores another possibility: Life + no suffering. That's the boo-boo unless...life + no suffering is a contradiction. — TheMadFool
"Not flourish and not suffer" simply does not belong to the highest (or any) moral end as prescribed by NU. — 180 Proof
The Wikipedia article lays out that reducing suffering is the first priority and priorities to maximize happiness (and other criterion) come after. — Saphsin
I will grant that there is no logical necessity between having a life and suffering, however I think it can be reasonably assumed that any real life (not imaginary) will inherently involve some degree of suffering — darthbarracuda
My intention was to formulate a simple argument that demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is the only moral end, in order to stimulate discussion over what other moral ends there might be. I believe this argument also demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is always the highest-prioritized ethical end.
I am of the opinion that no real ethical theory can be as formulaic and dogmatic as this. Ethics is guided by a plurality of different, sometimes contradictory, prima facie duties, re: W. D. Ross. Reducing suffering is one of these duties, and is one of the strongest ones, but neither it nor any other duty can lay claim to having ultimate priority — darthbarracuda
I'm of the view that the abolishment of suffering is/should be our primary objective, first order of business, for the simple reason that it (suffering) is, among feelings, the most potent in terms of its capacity to hinder/impede our judgment and, that would basically gum up the works, every and all plans we make would be of such poor quality that it would've been better to simply let the chips fall where they may. Suffering is, I mean to say, incapacitating - our first port of call is to reduce/eliminate it.
[A]lmost everything we call “higher culture” is based on the
spiritualization of cruelty, on its becoming more profound [. . .].
Consider that even the seeker after knowledge forces his spirit to
recognize things against [its] inclination [. . .] and thus acts as an
artist and transfigurer of cruelty [. . .]. In all desire to know there is
a drop of cruelty. (BGE 229)
My intention was to formulate a simple argument that demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is the only moral end, in order to stimulate discussion over what other moral ends there might be. I believe this argument also demonstrates the absurdity of believing that suffering is always the highest-prioritized ethical end. — darthbarracuda
Sure, suffering is okay -- as long as it's not you who has to suffer. — baker
I am of the opinion that no real ethical theory can be as formulaic and dogmatic as this. Ethics is guided by a plurality of different, sometimes contradictory, prima facie duties, re: W. D. Ross. Reducing suffering is one of these duties, and is one of the strongest ones, but neither it nor any other duty can lay claim to having ultimate priority. — _db
Suffering is, I mean to say, incapacitating — TheMadFool
Sure, suffering is okay -- as long as it's not you who has to suffer.
— baker
Alas! Few understand this. The question is why? — TheMadFool
Buddha stands out...like a sore thumb - he was able to, I surmise, actually feel the pain of other beings, both on earth and other worlds.
He once said "a good horse moves at the shadow of a whip." Too bad that's just a myth!
No, don't confuse Negative Utilitarianism (i.e. Epicureanisn) with Transhumanism (i.e. Abolitionism).Negative utilitarianism (seems to) imply that we should all become plants (alive but, get this, no suffering at all because plants can't feel pain). — TheMadFool
Mr. Scarecrow, Fool! :smirk:So who was it that said having a brain is a good thing
:chin:What you say about "abolishing all pain" does not also abolish dissatisfaction or self-immiserating behavior? — 180 Proof
Negative utilitarianism (seems to) imply that we should all become plants (alive but, get this, no suffering at all because plants can't feel pain).
— TheMadFool
No, don't confuse Negative Utilitarianism (i.e. Epicureanisn) with Transhumanism (i.e. Abolitionism).
So who was it that said having a brain is a good thing
Mr. Scarecrow, Fool! :smirk:
What you say about "abolishing all pain" does not also abolish dissatisfaction or self-immiserating behavior?
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof
Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. — J. S. Mill
(I know that) I know nothing. — Socrates
For one, there is in our culture barely any setting in which it would be appropriate to talk about suffering. One cannot talk about it at the watercooler at work, not at the family dinner, not in a cafe with friends. Not at a baseball game. Doctors generally don't have time for any actual discussions, nor do priests or monks. One must also always be alert so as to not give other people reason to doubt one's mental wellbeing. We're left with self-help groups, but there, the group discussion is guided by whoever happens to lead the group, which limits the scope.
There is something perverse in talking about suffering -- regardless of the setting -- and then going back to one's life (even more so if it's a relatively comfortable life) as if nothing happened.
So it's no surprise people don't talk much about suffering, or mostly only in very superficial, sketchy ways. — baker
Well-trained animals understand hints.
"There is the case where a certain excellent thoroughbred person hears, 'In that town or village over there a man or woman is in pain or has died.' He is stirred & agitated by that. Stirred, he becomes appropriately resolute. Resolute, he both realizes with his body the highest truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees. This type of excellent thoroughbred person, I tell you, is like the excellent thoroughbred horse who, on seeing the shadow of the goad-stick, is stirred & agitated. Some excellent thoroughbred people are like this. And this is the first type of excellent thoroughbred person to be found existing in the world. — baker
When "the game" is all there is ... the question is moot. :fire:The game is not worth the candle, is it? — TheMadFool
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.