Pain

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Pain

Postby Carleas » Fri Nov 04, 2016 2:35 pm

In discussions of morality, particularly utilitarian morality, much weight is put on pain. For example, discussions of animal rights often hinge on an animals ability to feel (or express that they are feeling) pain. But why should we put moral weight on pain? Pain has a specific evolutionary purpose, namely to encourage the person experiencing pain to avoid things that are damaging: being punched hurts because it is destructive to the body, and once we know that it hurts we will avoid being punched and thus increase our likelihood of survival. The selection value of this is particularly apparent when we consider the parts of the body that, in a normal individual, are the most sensitive to pain (e.g. the eyes, the underarms, the neck, the genitals), which tend to be areas where even small damage is either life- or reproduction-threatening.

But problems arise when we look at examples of individuals who don't feel pain. First, it seems odd to say that if someone does not feel pain, then it is not immoral to punch them or otherwise damage their body. Second, it also seems that the world would actually be better if these individuals did feel pain: because they don't feel pain, they are prone to accidents and often early death, because they do not learn to avoid damage.

Consider also a sentient machine which is simply not programmed to experience pain. Assume it has internal experiences and is conscious and intelligent, but pain is not one of its experiences (a not unreasonable choice for a sentient machine, who can more easily swap out a damaged body). What role does the absence of pain play? It seems that, by virtue of its sentience, it is still a moral agent, much like a human who does not feel pain.

Contrast with a machine that only feels pain. It does not think or have internal states, and is otherwise a zombie but for its ability to experience significant pain. Is this machine a moral agent? Does its pain have independent moral weight? I would argue not. This might be

Pain seems neither necessary nor sufficient for moral weight. Instead, pain should be thought of as a poor proxy for the actual locus of moral weight, namely sentience. What destroys sentience is wrong, regardless of whether it creates pain. What does not, is not, regardless of whether it produces pain.

It is important to point out, of course, that pain itself can be destructive of sentience. Pain is tied closely to human learning, so experiencing great physical pain can significantly affect the long-term functioning of a human mind. But this, again, is destruction, the pain itself seems without moral weight. Consider, for example, hot sauce and wasabi, which create intense pain with no associated damage. They are not generally considered morally relevant.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6109
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Pain

Postby James S Saint » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:16 pm

Carleas wrote:In discussions of morality, particularly utilitarian morality, much weight is put on pain.

Really?

Morality is based upon long term anentropy (aka "stable harmony"). Pain has always merely been an indicator or sign of disharmony - entropy of the stable harmony. Quite often pain is accepted as necessary in order to accomplish greater good (anentropy), such as getting a flu-shot. Pain has never been the compass of morality.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Pain

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:40 pm

Fact is, the greatest pain is Cageism, Annui, boredom. De-stimulation, anhedonia is the worst.

Thus morality must switch to the new and out with the old. It is time to be Enlightened. Carleas you present one, maybe more, good points and let me expound on them.

People are against hunting (causing animals temporary pain) but not against caging animals their whole lives. This is sick and disgusting. Therefore Carleas you have a point, in modern morality there is an over emphasis on physical pain, thus making their moral systems bankrupt.

For example, if a man touches a woman on the ass, which causes her mental pains for a few minutes, society believes he should rot in a small room with nothing to do for 6 months. This is sick, twisted, cruel and unusual.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Pain

Postby phyllo » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:44 pm

Consider, for example, hot sauce and wasabi, which create intense pain with no associated damage.
There is a difference between choosing to eat hot peppers and being force-fed hot peppers.

Pain is generally unpleasant and undesirable ... it is taken on willingly because one gets some compensation for it.

Why would it be ethical to inflict pain, an unpleasant experience, on someone without his consent?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Pain

Postby Carleas » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:08 pm

James S Saint wrote:Morality is based upon long term anentropy (aka "stable harmony").

Yes, I think this is right. "Anentropy" is a good word and a good way to think about it. Complexity or information seem to be loci of moral value, and they are frequently understood to be the inverse of entropy.

James S Saint wrote:Pain has never been the compass of morality.

I agree that this should be the case, but Millian utilitarianism is strongly focused on the reduction of suffering. For Mill, the subjective experience of suffering seems morally bad in itself, and not just because it is associated with increased entropy.

phyllo wrote:There is a difference between choosing to eat hot peppers and being force-fed hot peppers.

Pain is generally unpleasant and undesirable ... it is taken on willingly because one gets some compensation for it.

Why would it be ethical to inflict pain, an unpleasant experience, on someone without his consent?

I think of the unwanted infliction of pain as being wrong because of its destructive effects. For example, if you spike a friend's meals with hot peppers, it will make them distrustful, may hurt your relationship, may make them go hungry, etc. All of these are bad independently of the pain, and the pain itself is not enough to make them bad (since we have examples where there is pain and no bad). So again, the pain is neither necessary nor sufficient for their to be a moral wrong.

Let's think of it another way: suppose that one night, shortly after a person fell asleep, they were seized and tortured in such a way that they weren't damaged and they did not remember it. The pain was absolutely excruciating, but with absolutely no long term effect (they even awake the next day feeling rested). What is the moral weight of that experience? I would argue it's small, and if it's non-zero, I'm tempted to say that it's only because I have difficulty fully suspending my disbelief that the pain would have zero continuing consequences.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6109
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Pain

Postby Arminius » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:32 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Carleas wrote:In discussions of morality, particularly utilitarian morality, much weight is put on pain.

Really?

Morality is based upon long term anentropy (aka "stable harmony"). Pain has always merely been an indicator or sign of disharmony - entropy of the stable harmony. Quite often pain is accepted as necessary in order to accomplish greater good (anentropy), such as getting a flu-shot. Pain has never been the compass of morality.

Yes. At least not really. And if pain has ever been "the compass of morality", then for rhetorical reasons.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Pain

Postby phyllo » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:39 pm

I think of the unwanted infliction of pain as being wrong because of its destructive effects. For example, if you spike a friend's meals with hot peppers, it will make them distrustful, may hurt your relationship, may make them go hungry, etc. All of these are bad independently of the pain, and the pain itself is not enough to make them bad (since we have examples where there is pain and no bad). So again, the pain is neither necessary nor sufficient for their to be a moral wrong.
They are distressed because eating the peppers is painful. Attempting to remove the pain as the cause of the distress is absurd.
Let's think of it another way: suppose that one night, shortly after a person fell asleep, they were seized and tortured in such a way that they weren't damaged and they did not remember it. The pain was absolutely excruciating, but with absolutely no long term effect (they even awake the next day feeling rested). What is the moral weight of that experience? I would argue it's small, and if it's non-zero, I'm tempted to say that it's only because I have difficulty fully suspending my disbelief that the pain would have zero continuing consequences.
There is moral aspect to the pain when it is applied. The fact that it is forgotten in the future does not change that. One only lives and acts in the present.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Pain

Postby Carleas » Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:21 pm

phyllo wrote:They are distressed because eating the peppers is painful. Attempting to remove the pain as the cause of the distress is absurd.

And yet others eat the peppers, and choose the pain. Is it that pain+consent is OK, and pain+lack of consent is not? In that case, it looks like the consent is doing most of the work.

phyllo wrote:There is moral aspect to the pain when it is applied. The fact that it is forgotten in the future does not change that.

Under what moral theory?

To the point of forgetting pain: let's say there's an anesthetic, and there's a 50% chance that it doesn't numb you, but makes you unable to move, appear unconscious, and forget what happens to you while under its influence (such that there is zero lasting effect), but experience 100x more pain. I would say that the use of this anesthetic is morally identical whether or not it works by numbing you or by making you seem unconscious and forget. I say this because I would minimize destruction, and that harm is identical in either case.

phyllo wrote:One only lives and acts in the present.

One should be cautious that this is not taken too far. If I push a boulder down a hill, and there's an orphanage at the bottom, by living and acting in the present has moral consequences only because of what happens in the future. In the same way, pain seems to have moral consequences only if it has long term harmful effects in the future. One might live and act in the present, but one's actions are frequently judged by the future.

Arminius wrote:Yes. At least not really. And if pain has ever been "the compass of morality", then for rhetorical reasons.

This is pretty clearly overstated. See Mill, Singer, or especially Richard Ryder.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6109
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Pain

Postby Arminius » Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:11 pm

First this:

Carleas wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Pain has never been the compass of morality.

I agree that this should be the case, but Millian utilitarianism is strongly focused on the reduction of suffering. For Mill, the subjective experience of suffering seems morally bad in itself, and not just because it is associated with increased entropy.

Then this:

Carleas wrote:
Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Pain has never been the compass of morality.

Yes. At least not really. And if pain has ever been "the compass of morality", then for rhetorical reasons.

This is pretty clearly overstated. See Mill, Singer, or especially Richard Ryder.

So something "should be the case" (Carleas) and, if it is, it is "pretty clearly overstated" (Carleas) to you. That is odd. You either (a) want that "overstated" things "should be the case" or (b) you are contradicting yourself here.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Pain

Postby phyllo » Fri Nov 04, 2016 8:15 pm

And yet others eat the peppers, and choose the pain. Is it that pain+consent is OK, and pain+lack of consent is not?
I already said that consent is a critical part of morality.
In that case, it looks like the consent is doing most of the work.
How does consent "do work"? Why are are you separating pain and consent?
Under what moral theory?
I have to pick a moral theory in order to discuss this??
To the point of forgetting pain: let's say there's an anesthetic, and there's a 50% chance that it doesn't numb you, but makes you unable to move, appear unconscious, and forget what happens to you while under its influence (such that there is zero lasting effect), but experience 100x more pain. I would say that the use of this anesthetic is morally identical whether or not it works by numbing you or by making you seem unconscious and forget. I say this because I would minimize destruction, and that harm is identical in either case.
This is just getting too bizarre. You can't discuss this in terms of real people having real experiences? That indicates, to me, that it's based on contrived logic.
One should be cautious that this is not taken too far. If I push a boulder down a hill, and there's an orphanage at the bottom, by living and acting in the present has moral consequences only because of what happens in the future.
Okay but in your example, someone had to inflict pain in the present but you chose to only consider the morality in the future. IOW, you were extremely careful in selecting a particular time at which there appears to be no moral aspect to the pain. If one looks at the entire sequence of events, there is a point when the morality of inflicting pain arises.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Pain

Postby Carleas » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:01 pm

phyllo wrote:How does consent "do work"? Why are are you separating pain and consent?

The pain is constant. We have two events that are identical in terms of the pain experienced, so it can't be the infliction of pain that makes one of them immoral. If x+y>x+z, it can only be because y>z.

phyllo wrote:You can't discuss this in terms of real people having real experiences? That indicates, to me, that it's based on contrived logic.

I have offered two:
- Spicy foods
- People who don't feel pain
The first shows that pain is not sufficient, and the second that it's not necessary.

But intuition pumps are a common part of philosophical exploration, especially when it comes to morality. Contrived examples help tease out fine distinctions in moral intuitions. And really, real people having real experiences is just another form of intuition pump when it comes to generalizing a moral theory, right?

phyllo wrote:Okay but in your example, someone had to inflict pain in the present but you chose to only consider the morality in the future. IOW, you were extremely careful in selecting a particular time at which there appears to be no moral aspect to the pain. If one looks at the entire sequence of events, there is a point when the morality of inflicting pain arises.

Yes. Because I suspect that pain by itself, divorced from its consequences, is not actually a moral bad. To which...

phyllo wrote:I have to pick a moral theory in order to discuss this??

You don't have to... but if, for example you're defining a moral system in which pain is just a moral atom, which just is bad as a given and which we can't analyze, the conversation isn't very long or interesting :)

So, I ask in part out of curiosity, and part so we can move past disagreeing about whether inflicting pain without inflicting damage is morally wrong, and get to 'why' and explore the nature of our moral intuitions.

Arminius wrote:Show me a real example where pain has been "the compass of morality" (except for rhetorical reasons).

I'm not sure what you mean by "except of rhetorical reasons", but Richard Ryder certainly seems to present his case as centering on pain as a locus of morality.

Furthermore, isn't Phyllo making basically that case right here?

Note, in case this is just a case of confusion, I have said "a locus", "much weight", "strongly focused", etc., which is to say that I'm not claiming that any moral system takes pain to be the exclusive source of morality (though such a system may exist), only that it is morally relevant. That latter claim is common, and it is what I'm questioning here.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6109
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Pain

Postby Carleas » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:04 pm

Sorry, didn't see this before my last post:
Arminius wrote:You either (a) want that "overstated" things "should be the case" or (b) you are contradicting yourself here.

I don't see anything wrong with (a). It should be the case, but it isn't, and to say that it is as strongly as you have is to overstate things.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6109
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Pain

Postby Arminius » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:16 pm

Carleas wrote:Sorry, didn't see this before my last post:
Arminius wrote:You either (a) want that "overstated" things "should be the case" or (b) you are contradicting yourself here.

I don't see anything wrong with (a). It should be the case, but it isn't, and to say that it is as strongly as you have is to overstate things.

But it is not overstated to say that "pain has never been the compass of morality" and "if pain has ever been 'the compass of morality', then for rhetorical reasons", because it is a fact that it is used rhetorically.
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Pain

Postby Carleas » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:26 pm

Arminius wrote:it is a fact that it is used rhetorically.

Can you say more about what you mean? Are you saying Mill intended something else when he talked about suffering?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6109
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Pain

Postby phyllo » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:35 pm

The pain is constant. We have two events that are identical in terms of the pain experienced, so it can't be the infliction of pain that makes one of them immoral. If x+y>x+z, it can only be because y>z.
They are consenting to experiencing pain. There is not some abstract 'consent' separate from the thing being consented to. (X can't be removed from the equation, therefore you can't write y>z alone.)
- People who don't feel pain
The person who inflict the pain(or non-pain in this case) does not actually know that the 'victim' feels. That, in itself, would restrain their actions. If one can be certain that the 'victim' feels nothing, then the moral evaluation proceeds to considerations of physical damage. If there is no pain and no physical damage, than I would say that there is nothing immoral about the action.
Because I suspect that pain by itself, divorced from its consequences, is not actually a moral bad. To which...
Pain is unpleasant... that is one of it's attributes. I don't see how you can get away from that fact.
So, I ask in part out of curiosity, and part so we can move past disagreeing about whether inflicting pain without inflicting damage is morally wrong, and get to 'why' and explore the nature of our moral intuitions.
You would need to explain why we have morality ... what purpose does it serve?

The relationship between pain and morality becomes obvious once that question is answered.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12112
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Pain

Postby James S Saint » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:44 pm

Oh for heaven's sake. Carleas, you are using a psychologist as your authority reference on morality???
...geeezzz.. Why not use a Scientologist or a botanist, perhaps a civil traffic engineer or street cop.

You know, when it comes to ethics and morality, you can find some idiot to agree with anything. During liberal eras, ethics gets over emphasized and applied to ridiculous issues (giving plants equal rights because they might be feeling pain).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Pain

Postby Arminius » Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:13 pm

Carleas wrote:
Arminius wrote:it is a fact that it is used rhetorically.

Can you say more about what you mean? Are you saying Mill intended something else when he talked about suffering?

Pain has either (a) never been the compass of morality or (b) if it has been, then as a fake, namely for rhetorical reasons (almost everywhere, especially in the media).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Pain

Postby Arminius » Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:17 pm

James S Saint wrote:Oh for heaven's sake. Carleas, you are using a psychologist as your authority reference on morality???
...geeezzz.. Why not use a Scientologist or a botanist, perhaps a civil traffic engineer or street cop.

You know, when it comes to ethics and morality, you can find some idiot to agree with anything. During liberal eras, ethics gets over emphasized and applied to ridiculous issues (giving plants equal rights because they might be feeling pain).

Yes. That is how it works - and with an increasing success.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Pain

Postby Arminius » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:00 am

Carleas.

Why have you deleted my post?

I mean the following one which you quoted:

Arminius wrote:Show me a real example where pain has been "the compass of morality" (except for rhetorical reasons).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Pain

Postby WendyDarling » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:16 am

Physical pain is more about present suffering, emotional pain is more about past, present, and future suffering which far outweighs physical pains and is easily understood by a multitude of psychology examples with far reaching implications from self-medicating (addictions/obsessions) all the way to phantom limb syndrome. Psychological pains are what determine the type of society we endure.
Last edited by WendyDarling on Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 7756
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Pain

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sat Nov 05, 2016 7:13 pm

Carleas wrote:In discussions of morality, particularly utilitarian morality, much weight is put on pain. For example, discussions of animal rights often hinge on an animals ability to feel (or express that the are feeling) pain. But why should we put moral weight on pain? Pain has a specific evolutionary purpose, namely to encourage the person experiencing pain to avoid things that are damaging: being punched hurts because it is destructive to the body, and once we know that it hurts we will avoid being punched and thus increase our likelihood of survival. The selection value of this is particularly apparent when we consider the parts of the body that, in a normal individual, are the most sensitive to pain (e.g. the eyes, the underarms, the neck, the genitals), which tend to be areas where even small damage is either life- or reproduction-threatening.

But problems arise when we look at examples of individuals who don't feel pain. First, it seems odd to say that if someone does not feel pain, then it is not immoral to punch them otherwise damage their body. Second, it also seems that the world would actually be better if these individuals did feel pain: because they don't feel pain, they are prone to accidents and often early death, because they do not learn to avoid damage.

Consider also a sentient machine which is simply not programmed to experience pain. Assume it has internal experiences and is conscious and intelligent, but pain is not one of its experiences (a not unreasonable choice for a sentient machine, who can more easily swap out a damaged body). What role does the absence of pain play? It seems that, by virtue of its sentience, it is still a moral agent, much like a human who does not feel pain.

Contrast with a machine that only feels pain. It does not think or have internal states, and is otherwise a zombie but for its ability to experience significant pain. Is this machine a moral agent? Does its pain have independent moral weight? I would argue not. This might be

Pain seems neither necessary nor sufficient for moral weight. Instead, pain should be thought of as a poor proxy for the actual locus of moral weight, namely sentience. What destroys sentience is wrong, regardless of whether it creates pain. What does not, is not, regardless of whether it produces pain.

It is important to point out, of course, that pain itself can be destructive of sentience. Pain is tied closely to human learning, so experiencing great physical pain can significantly affect the long-term functioning of a human mind. But this, again, is destruction, the pain itself seems without moral weight. Consider, for example, hot sauce and wasabi, which create intense pain with no associated damage. They are not generally considered morally relevant.


It's funny you posting this because psychological pain and trauma exists everywhere yet so called moral or ethical theorists time and time again dismiss it all throughout society.

We should just rename morality and ethics in human philosophy institutionally enforced hypocrisy.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Pain

Postby Arminius » Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:07 pm

HaHaHa wrote:
Carleas wrote:In discussions of morality, particularly utilitarian morality, much weight is put on pain. For example, discussions of animal rights often hinge on an animals ability to feel (or express that the are feeling) pain. But why should we put moral weight on pain? Pain has a specific evolutionary purpose, namely to encourage the person experiencing pain to avoid things that are damaging: being punched hurts because it is destructive to the body, and once we know that it hurts we will avoid being punched and thus increase our likelihood of survival. The selection value of this is particularly apparent when we consider the parts of the body that, in a normal individual, are the most sensitive to pain (e.g. the eyes, the underarms, the neck, the genitals), which tend to be areas where even small damage is either life- or reproduction-threatening.

But problems arise when we look at examples of individuals who don't feel pain. First, it seems odd to say that if someone does not feel pain, then it is not immoral to punch them otherwise damage their body. Second, it also seems that the world would actually be better if these individuals did feel pain: because they don't feel pain, they are prone to accidents and often early death, because they do not learn to avoid damage.

Consider also a sentient machine which is simply not programmed to experience pain. Assume it has internal experiences and is conscious and intelligent, but pain is not one of its experiences (a not unreasonable choice for a sentient machine, who can more easily swap out a damaged body). What role does the absence of pain play? It seems that, by virtue of its sentience, it is still a moral agent, much like a human who does not feel pain.

Contrast with a machine that only feels pain. It does not think or have internal states, and is otherwise a zombie but for its ability to experience significant pain. Is this machine a moral agent? Does its pain have independent moral weight? I would argue not. This might be

Pain seems neither necessary nor sufficient for moral weight. Instead, pain should be thought of as a poor proxy for the actual locus of moral weight, namely sentience. What destroys sentience is wrong, regardless of whether it creates pain. What does not, is not, regardless of whether it produces pain.

It is important to point out, of course, that pain itself can be destructive of sentience. Pain is tied closely to human learning, so experiencing great physical pain can significantly affect the long-term functioning of a human mind. But this, again, is destruction, the pain itself seems without moral weight. Consider, for example, hot sauce and wasabi, which create intense pain with no associated damage. They are not generally considered morally relevant.


It's funny you posting this because psychological pain and trauma exists everywhere yet so called moral or ethical theorists time and time again dismiss it all throughout society.

We should just rename morality and ethics in human philosophy institutionally enforced hypocrisy.

This thread reminds me a bit of another thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=191214).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Pain

Postby Carleas » Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:39 pm

Arminius wrote:Why have you deleted my post?

I haven't and would never intentionally delete a post, but I'm looking into where it went. It certainly wasn't anything that deserved to be removed, especially since it is partially quoted anyway. Please PM me if you notice any other missing posts.

phyllo wrote:They are consenting to experiencing pain. There is not some abstract 'consent' separate from the thing being consented to. (X can't be removed from the equation, therefore you can't write y>z alone.)

But we know that other morally neutral actions, taken without consent, are bad. For instance, petting someone's head does not cause them pain, but petting someone's head without their consent does seem morally bad. Is it just the presumption of consent or lack of consent? I'd agree that we can presume that someone does not consent to being made to experience pain, but we can also presume that actions that cause pain also cause damage, so I don't think that moves us forward.

But we don't need to cancel pain from both sides of the equation, it's enough to see that the presence of pain is not what makes the action immoral.

phyllo wrote:Pain is unpleasant... that is one of it's attributes. I don't see how you can get away from that fact.

Yes, but so is Justin Beiber music, but it isn't immoral. In all seriousness, unpleasant is either too broad and includes things that aren't immoral, or just begs the question: they are immoral only if pain and unpleasantness are inherently immoral.

One thing that makes this unlikely is, for example, that a racist may find the presence of members of a disfavored race unpleasant, but it is not immoral to subject the racist to that unpleasantness. I would argue that that experience of unpleasantness is better described as immoral than is the actions that makes them experience it.

phyllo wrote:You would need to explain why we have morality ... what purpose does it serve?

The relationship between pain and morality becomes obvious once that question is answered.

Yes, I agree this is a good place to start.

I'd say that morality exists because of our evolutionary roots: we have evolved to be moral because it makes our social existence possible, and our ability to have complex social systems has increased our ability to survive. If that's the case, then what's moral is whatever furthers our survival, especially when it comes to social norms.

And while pain seems a valuable shorthand, I think it's the-thing-that-pain-is-a-shorthand-for that is actually doing all the work of aiding survival. Because we're a social species, we do better when there are lots of us, and when those lots of us are fully functional, so damaging them is bad. Pain is a shorthand for damage, but it isn't damage, and to the extent it isn't, to the extent it's just unpleasantness, it's not immoral in itself.

Arminius wrote:Pain has either (a) never been the compass of morality or (b) if it has been, then as a fake, namely for rhetorical reasons (almost everywhere, especially in the media).

So Singer's inclusion of animals as moral beings on the basis of their ability to feel pain is not really about pain? What's is his real reason?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6109
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Pain

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:15 pm

Carleas wrote:
phyllo wrote:Pain is unpleasant... that is one of it's attributes. I don't see how you can get away from that fact.

Yes, but so is Justin Beiber music, but it isn't immoral.


Justine Bieber music is deeply immoral. We, as citizens of Humanity and a Free Earth, must sue Justine for his audio atrocities. We deserve 25,000 grand checks paid for all the irrepairable mental trauma his music has done to our soul.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Pain

Postby Kriswest » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:06 pm

Damage and intrusive/intrusion would be better than pain as deciding morality. The biggest pain one could ever have generally comes from loved ones and yet it is acceptable. Sadly animals are seen as objects not life
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users