When I think of masochists, I think of people who get a greater psychological pleasure from physical pain. In the case of runners, I think it’s often just the expectation of a greater physical pleasure from short-term pain. And in my opinion, I think things like self-image, confidence, etc, register physically and could in principle be seen like any other kind of pain/pleasure. Why not? —You can sometimes tell if someone has low confidence by how they carry their body. When I have low confidence, I might describe it as anxiety, uneasiness, nervousness, tension—any more subtle description that is basically just an instance of the catch-all ‘pain’. I cannot really think of an example where this is not the case. It’s a porous distinction to begin with.
Well then this is what I would like to hear more about. I just don’t get it. If you have more pain than pleasure in your life, I’m not sure why someone would value life—i.e., continuing it. I can think maybe of a drug addict, who spends more time desperately needing drugs than actually having them. You might think there’s more pain than pleasure in that person’s life. But to the person, if they value living, then I’d think it’s because they think actually getting the drugs will outweigh it all. Or I can imagine a person who suffers more than not, but continues living to help a child or someone they love. I think in that case the person has identified themself with another, and so they’re not only weighing their own pains/pleasures.
Morals are about values, a room full of kids is worth more than a room full of dust. So producing kids is adding value to the world.
Most people accept that life is a bit of a struggle, but the odd moments of joy we experience, and that we see others experience, are usually accepted as recompense to some degree or other. So even if suffering is experienced more than joy, joy has a far higher value…it weighs far more than suffering, so the scales tip toward life.
It’s impossible to say what percentage of parents are in a willing to become aware to be able to pose this question. Even among people cogniscant of this question the child has to be consulted whether he/she thinks his/her conception was warranted. If in fact the parents were such, who could afford a happy, meaningful life for the child, and both parent and child experience their life in a totally positive ,meaningful fashion, then the question becomes mute.
But it is very small segment of families who could even bring themselves to ask this question.
An objective criterion of how other's would evaluate quality of life is of questionable certainty.
This century has seen a massive decline in violence, if you’re looking at it that way now is one of the least ‘cruel’ times to have children in human history- they’re certainly less likely to die young and they have the opportunity to grow up in a much safer and connected world.
I think there’s an argument in terms of population control though considering the amounts of orphans etc. why not choose to adopt instead of forcing procreation for the sake of tradition or for some oddly fetishized manifesto?
it would be interesting to see how it registers. I would guess it is not the same as other kinds of pleasure - thinking of nervous and endocrine systems effects. Well, see if I avoid laziness and look this up. I am sure it has been studied.
Actually, I Think you can have simultataneous positive feelings via value - now I am really pushing it. Look at me get through this wall. Etc. Again, I am not sure how it registers physically. I would think that the person might be ‘enjoying hermself’ but to a scientist monitoring the body it would look like a lot of pain.
I would guess there are physical correlates. Are they the same? That’s my quibble.
I’m in the same ballpark. I Think as long as we broaden the categories to include physical reactions that are experienced as positive despite the presence of pain markers, it can be said that ‘pleasure’ is present. And oddly, with much of this, the more pain, the more pleasure.
One note: you say the addict Thinks the drugs will outweigh. This opens the issue of the person being incorrect, which I Think they would be. At least taking into account what can be measured physiologically.
But I am not sure I can demonstrate this idea of the ‘pleasure’ of existing. I can only say it feels right to me somehow and I am skeptical it necessarily shows up physiologically. Though perhaps the presence of Life in the body is a sign of it.
I don’t know. I’m conflicted about this. From a utilitarian standpoint (speaking from my inner utilitarian), I can’t deny that pain and suffering in themselves carry a certain je-ne-sais-quoi that I can only characterize as “bad”–but as for “immoral,” I’m only weakly utilitarian, weakly in the sense that I think our experience of pain and suffering (along with pleasure and joy) is a prerequisite for understanding the idea of moral and immoral, but not that those experience just constitute moral and immoral. It’s hard for me, for example, to imagine a horrible accident in which one breaks a leg or punctures a vital organ, but no one is at fault, as being “immoral”–bad, yes, but not immoral. The idea of something being immoral seems more appropriately ascribed to an act, a deliberate act, of causing others pain and suffering. It would be the act, or perhaps even the actor, who would warrant the ascription of “immoral”, but not the consequent pain and suffering itself.
Besides that utilitarian standpoint (whether that’s weak utilitarianism or strong utilitarianism), I sometimes wondering if the existence of pain and suffering in the world can make life more beautiful in the end. This would be life overall, for you would have to take in everything from life, the good and the bad, and there’s just something about having that wide range of diversity in what life has to offer that makes the overall picture more beautiful–that is, in such a way that it comes off as having more “aesthetic value” (to coin a term) than, say, even a life of nothing but pleasure and happiness. It would be like the aesthetic value that a color as ugly and unappealing as black can add to a painting (if in good taste). With just the right amount of color diversity, put together in just the right way, black, as unattractive as it may be by itself, can add to the beauty of the painting. I guess, as an alternative to utilitarianism, this would be the “argument from beauty”.
Some suffering is part of life, such as accidents, incurable conditions, broken hearts, etc. We all come in to contact with these things, but most of us learn to accept it and we don’t sit around wishing we were never born, or at least not for very long. We try to grow and become humble and learn to appreciate our allotment and do what we can to find meaning. I like being alive.
Then there are evils that are man against man, and these sting more because these are things we can change today – we have all the tools to do so and we don’t. But I notice that in some ways, each generation is slightly more aware, less bigoted, in short, less hurt, and will therefore have less of a tendency to pass on hurt to others. (There are many exceptions, for instance, the Muslims a long time ago were a lot nicer to Jews, but maybe the question to ask is whether YOUR generation seems this way, in many places America is much more progressive and tolerant.) It may very well be that we have an obligation to tip the scales of humanity in a more peaceful direction, and we do that, in part, but feeding peaceful, aware kids into the population. For if Earth is going to be a haven for man, it will be because of man, but first there must exist a haven in the mind of man. A place where love can grow. And that takes blank slates and committed and mindful parenting. Sometimes our best intentions backfire, parenting is super hard, and even Bertie Russell couldn’t devise a good way to teach, he failed miserably. But that’s different from proving that we must always fail any time we try to make the world a better place through educating and enlightening children.
So I’d modify your OP by saying that it is immoral to create children who add to the sum total of man-made pain, and a self-evident good to bring children into the world who will know the joy and calling of reducing pain in others, and who can appreciate the often deceptive joys of being alive and vulnerable for a short time on this planet.
By the logic of this topic it is also morally wrong to not kill yourself. The brief quantity of suffering you would experience during a suicide cannot compare to the total suffering you will end up experiencing in the rest of your life, and eventually you’re still going to die anyway.
Also it would be morally wrong to not kill other people too, in order to prevent their future suffering. Especially you would have a moral obligation to kill children and infants, since they have generally the greater quantity of years alive left and thus generally a greater amount of suffering that should be prevented.
So the ethical question becomes, should you postpone your suicide long enough to kill a bunch of people first? It would seem morally obligatory to do so, for the sake of removing suffering from the future.
This presupposes that ending your own suffering is a moral obligation, whereas it would actually be more of a logical conclusion. Where immorality going by the standardized definition comes in is
where you have control over effectuating the suffering of another sentient being who has yet in no way harmed you or perpetrated any injustice upon your person.
This part is a lot more accurate. If you use the logic that most people are too dumb or ignorant to prevent their own or future suffering, - it would then render a moral obligation upon yourself who “knows” better to do it for them as a ‘benevolent’ being.
But then you have to consider any “botched” attempts at such an act. You could actually end up harming or maiming countless multitudes of people and end up causing a greater, more extended or prolonged suffering than there would’ve been in the first place. When you have only yourself as the risk factor, - the burden and standards for justification become largely decreased. Despite the ‘old’ Stalinism that “the death of one is a tragedy; the death of millions is only a statistic”, that is only true from the logical standpoint. When you consider things from the “morality” standpoint, its all about risk/reward factors and the level of risk of failure one can morally justify themselves to take as a single individual/sentient being.
