Would You Eliminate Suffering?

If you had the power to eliminate pain (other than the normal warning signal type), and
suffering from the planet (including the removal of all destructive type personalities some call ‘evil’)…
would you?

Why or why not?

You eliminate suffering, you eliminate pleasure - one cannot go without the other.

Two truths to all things.

I would eliminate complainers who expect to have their pain free existence handed to them


I would argue that the purpose of doing this is purposeless. YOu cannot eliminate as such, because how would we judge the value of good if we had never known the opposite?

You never know, we now, on this Earth, could have had the worst of the evils eliminated, and are now living in ‘relative stages’ of good. So what we think is bad, is actually nowhere NEAR what the reality of ‘BAD’ is.

And I think we do have the power, though it is very immoral to even do this, to eliminate pain and suffering from the planet.

It’s called a massive Nuclear war.

Yes, we would wipe EVERYTHING out.

No more pain. No more suffering.


Ok ok, i just reread the question and am rewriting my point, hehe :stuck_out_tongue:

You said if we had the power to eliminate this from the world, then would we?

On what grounds, I would then ask?

If it was so we would all live in this pseudo-bliss, which was the absence of pain, we would have no reason to do ANYTHING anymore. Because to go to work and feel the pleasure there would be the same as lying in bed all day and receiving the same amount of pleasure.

You would feel no pain or agony from going to work, much as you would feel no pain or agony from wasting a whole day lazing around in bed.

You wouldn’t feel fear of the boss, because the boss wouldn’t care, much as you wouldn’t even HAVE a job, because you would have had no “measure of pleasure”

ooh. I like that. LmAoOoOo :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

to judge!

We could have just stayed naked, in the Garden of Eden, and had no pain at all.

You forget that pain serves a PURPOSE. It’s purpose is to DRIVE you away from what you don’t like, and PLEASURE to drive you to where you want to go.

To ‘Want’ is to desire, feel pleasure.

If we don’t have pain, we want everything and nothing at the same time.

Therefore, life has no purpose.


Analyze? Ta :smiley::smiley:

Hell no. It is from suffering we learn.
I have learned more from suffering and
defeat then I have ever learned from
happiness and success.


The compassion in me would like to see suffering end, but I can’t imagine any way it could be done. Suffering is a by-product of being human. We could eliminate many things that cause suffering, things like disease & poverty, but the incurable root cause may be the human mind.

Its like the Happiness Box …
Just enter this box and be happy forever. You can leave any time you want, but no one who has ever entered it has left. Why would you? You’re happy.

I think that many of us here would find it surprising how many people would get into that box without a second thought, willingly and wholeheartedly.

I agree with the others, yes happiness and suffering are two halves of a whole and cannot exist without one another - and yes, suffering is a part of the human condition and helps define us as a species. I think it teaches us to appreciate the little things that we are given. The simple things - because everything can be so fleeting.

But the compassionate side of my nature struggles with these thoughts, and thoughts of children born to parents who couldn’t feed them or in a country wracked with war, the innocents dying in droves - so much pain, and this hypothetical situation giving me the power to wave my hands and have it all stop? Can I deny them this, can I look at these faces, these people, knowing that I can make the pain go away and not do it.

Its easy for me to argue for the necessity of suffering from an intellectual standpoint. But I fear I’d crumble if I heard the voices begging me to save them. Just me.

They are just another form of suffering (to others) in and of themselves.

and with their elimination, more happiness is generated.


Yes, I would.

I would limit my addressing of pain-elimination, however, to that which is caused by evil behavior.

Evil behavior would include things like child abuse (abuse both physical and spiritual) … … all the way to systemic physical and spiritual abuse caused by the Money System.

I wouldn’t want to eliminate other kinds of pain that are a necessary, natural part of being a being (the pain of illness, loss and dying not inflicted by evil).

I’d just eliminate the evil afflictions.

But … I wouldn’t want to do it by snapping my fingers if that’s what is meant by “the power” to do so … as such power is just a fantasy.

The truth of the matter is I do have the power to address pain born of evil.

We all do.

One person at a time, eventually becoming many, and many more … … we can eliminate pain born of evil, by each of us eliminating our own evil behavior, until all evil and the needless unnecessary pain of it is gone.

We learn a lot from non-evil pain.

But the only thing that’s true we learn from pain born of evil is that it hurts, a lot.

Sadly, we end up being taught by evil pain a lot of things that simply aren’t true, such as tht it is the “nature” of human beings to do evil things, that the human-engendered destruction of the world is absolutely inevitible, and, that there is an afterlife.

“if I had the ability to elivitate suffering, would I.”

No, because if I could do that, then I must be god, and I would want people to learn about pain and happiness.

But since I am not god, I do want to help suffering, but not get rid of it all together.

Suffering AND eliviating suffering are both important. Both are needed for a community to work.

We all need suffering, because some of life’s greatest lessons are the by product of it. But helping someone is a also a good thing, because one day you may be the one playing the other role.

If I had the power to end all pain I would not, perhaps add perspective or acceptance, but each person deals with pain and can grow from it, to deny that chance would simply be too cruel.

But don’t we learn most effectively through pain and suffering?

To quote a wonderful movie:
…A punker. Still a man. He is alone in the universe, but he connects. How? They hit each other. No clearer way to evaluate whether or not you’re alive.

Or if you prefer:
It’s not until you lose everything that you’re free to do anything.

growth? who needs growth when the leviathan fullfills your every want and desire?


Since the basic drive of all healthy organisms (including humans) is to
seek pleasure and avoid pain,
I’d say all posters who say they wouldn’t end suffering are unhealthy
or lying due to another undisclosed posting pleasure/agenda
(ie: to be contrary, unusal, etc.)

I would tend to agree with you, to a degree, with regard to those who say they wouldn’t end the suffering of those that is caused by evil.

But there are a lot of pleasures that can only be had by first going through pain.

The joy of raising a child can only be had by going through the sometimes painful days of gestation complete with very painful childbirth.

We do well to never forget that we are a spiritual entity by virtue of being the tens-of-billions-of-cells organism that we are.

Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is more than a mechanistic bio response to stimulus summed-up from apparent single-cell behavior.

Our spirituality allows us to see the past, present and future, conceptually, and to reason things like an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, five minutes of pleasure, nine months of pain, and the exquisite pleasurable joy of being with one’s children.

Erroneous, irrelevant. You can adopt, or clone yourself, or put the embryo in a cow. Your sophistry is showing.

Copycatting, TZ18, especially to initiate a personal attack complete with irrational perspective based on your deliberate syntactical mistake, is not a sign of maturity, which, of course, is obvious to all. :sunglasses:

Your precocious use of polysyllabic diatribes, flush with a pertinacious slight of all logic, is symptomatic of a hue of mania as of yet without prefix.

The idea that good cannot exist without evil, or happiness cannot exist without suffering (or light without dark, etc. etc.) is an implicit acceptance of moral relativism. It suggests that perception is the key to any ethical/moral value.

If some X is good, it is good regardless of whether any non-X exists. One may not recognize X as the good, but that’s a problem of perception, not objective value.

One could argue that we couldn’t recognize what the good is without some knowledge of evil, but that doesn’t mean that an objective good does not exist.