• darthbarracuda
    3.4k
    1. If negative utilitarianism is correct, then minimizing suffering is the only ethical end.
    2. If minimizing suffering is the only ethical end, then the most effective method of doing so is the best means to attain this end.
    3. Conceivably, the most effective method of minimizing suffering would be ending the life of every being that can suffer, immediately and simultaneously.
    4. It is morally repugnant to suggest the aforementioned possibility as a means to minimize suffering.
    5. Therefore minimizing suffering is not the only ethical end.
    6. Therefore negative utilitarianism is incorrect.
  • Albero
    130
    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
  • darthbarracuda
    3.4k
    The more interesting issue imo is the justification for premise 4. Can it be clarified, what it is that makes premise 3 morally repugnant? Remember that clarity should be achieved with simplicity of explanation; anything more just contributes to the confusion.
  • Albero
    130
    Forgive me if you're not actually asking, but I think I can clarify what makes premise 4 repugnant. Contrary to positive utilitarian ethics, I think the reduction of suffering does trump making more people happy, but this isn't the only thing we put into the equation when we judge whether something is ok or not. I think most people value autonomy and it's clear killing others overrides that. Otherwise, if you only care about reducing suffering and autonomy isn't important, how can you say something like the Holocaust was bad?
  • darthbarracuda
    3.4k
    Agreed, I think autonomy is at least one of the other major ethical concepts that may come into play in this case. Disgust with the monstrosity/banality of the personality required to do such an act would be another factor I would propose.

    Fundamentally though, I think it has something to do with a violation of the sacred. What is it that is sacred, and why is it sacred?
  • TheMadFool
    12.6k
    3. Conceivably, the most effective method of minimizing suffering would be ending the life of every being that can suffer, immediately and simultaneously.darthbarracuda

    You might want to take a look at mercy killing/euthanasia - done only when it's impossible to live and not suffer extremely. Premise 3 - something's wrong with it.
  • 180 Proof
    6k
    1. If negative utilitarianism is correct, then minimizing suffering is the only ethical end.darthbarracuda
    This is incorrect.
    3. Conceivably, the most effective method of minimizing suffering would be ending the life of every being that can suffer, immediately and simultaneously.
    This 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.

    6. (Your conclusion) does not follow.
  • TheMadFool
    12.6k
    Destroying the village in order to save the village", darthb, does not "save" it.180 Proof

    :fire: On point O wise one!
  • T Clark
    6.6k
    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 meAlbero

    As you probably know, there is a relatively small group of people who consider themselves anti-natalists. They propose achieving the goal of negative utilitarianism not by killing everyone, but by stopping reproduction.
  • darthbarracuda
    3.4k


    I will grant that the definition of negative utilitarianism in premise 1 may be imprecise. The argument can be modified so that it refers to any ethical position that holds that minimizing suffering is the only moral end.

    The chief purpose of the argument was to demonstrate, in a simple manner, that there are other ends involved in ethics aside from the minimization of suffering, in order to generate discussion over what these ends are. To this discussion you have already contributed one:

    prevent and/or reduce suffering of the living while they live (i.e. flourish)180 Proof

    What do you mean by "flourishing" exactly, and why is it better to flourish and suffer than to not flourish and not suffer?
  • Saphsin
    356
    The Wikipedia article lays out that reducing suffering is the first priority and priorities to maximize happiness (and other criterion) come after. The idea is that it's a greater immediate priority to prevent people from being tortured and slaughtered than improving someone's life that is already relatively doing well, not that the latter is never a priority/concern. This intuitively makes sense to me, and it gets around counter-arguments against utilitarianism like Nozick's Utility Monster.

    Now it's not a sharp dichotomy in my opinion, improving the general welfare of the population can reduce suffering causally. The fact that Scandinavian countries are the happiest in the world is relevant to the fact that the crime rate there is also relatively low. When you're happier, you're less tempted towards certain destructive behaviors. But I think the reduce suffering first is a pretty good normative guideline for the most part.

    As for how that comports with positions like anti-natalism, I’m not particularly interested.
  • TheMadFool
    12.6k
    Hedonism in re suffering has two components: Life + suffering.

    While I don't think negative utilitarianism would ever recommend killing every sentient being capable of suffering, let's suppose it does. If so what we have is this: no suffering but no life either. A "solution" no doubt but ignores another possibility: Life + no suffering. That's the boo-boo unless...life + no suffering is a contradiction.
  • 180 Proof
    6k
    :up:

    I will grant that the definition of negative utilitarianism in premise 1 may be imprecise.darthbarracuda
    It's "imprecise" to the point of being incorrect (i.e. useless) – not NU at all as I've pointed out.

    What do you mean by "flourishing" exactly, and why is it better to flourish and suffer than to not flourish and not suffer?
    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.
  • baker
    2.9k
    3. Conceivably, the most effective method of minimizing suffering would be ending the life of every being that can suffer, immediately and simultaneously.darthbarracuda

    No, that would merely render the problem of suffering moot. It wouldn't minimize it, it wouldn't make an end to it, it would only make it not applicable.


    And as for the elephant in the room:

    Define "suffering".
  • darthbarracuda
    3.4k
    A "solution" no doubt but ignores another possibility: Life + no suffering. That's the boo-boo unless...life + no suffering is a contradiction.TheMadFool

    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.

    "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 am unsure I understand what is meant by "first priority" and "come after"; I am taking it to mean, pursue this end as much as possible, before pursuing any other end. These other ends only become relevant if there is more than one course of action that reduces the same maximal amount of suffering.

    Consider two options:

    A. End all lives immediately and simultaneously, and thereby end all suffering.
    B. End all suffering after one second from the present, and promote flourishing for everyone else immediately and simultaneously after.

    An NU would be obligated to choose option A, since reducing suffering is the first priority, is this correct?

    If a third option were given:

    C. End all suffering immediately and simultaneously, and promote flourishing immediately and simultaneously.

    Then an NU would be obligated to choose this option over A, because now there is more than one option that reduces the same maximal amount of suffering, but one of them also promotes another end, that being flourishing.
  • TheMadFool
    12.6k
    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 sufferingdarthbarracuda

    That is the hard truth we all (the living) have to come to grips with. The relationship between suffering and life is nuanced though - all suffer but some suffer more than others, very much like what Napoleon the head pig in George Orwell's Animal Farm delcares "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others". This then requires a more sophisticated approach, taking into account the inherent complexity, to life & suffering.
  • Saphsin
    356
    Do you not juggle different priorities in your life? Is it really so tightly formulaic where you handle everything in one category all at once before moving onto another? Can they not be synergistic, while at the same time, being within a hierarchy of priorities? I'm not sure what you don't understand by "end suffering first, other improvements in well-being second"
  • darthbarracuda
    3.4k


    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.
  • TheMadFool
    12.6k
    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.

    That said, should we be thinking let alone planning? No, according to some. It's complicated! :confused:
  • the affirmation of strife
    2
    @TheMadFool
    Hopefully I don't derail this too much, here goes:

    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.

    I'll bite:

    - Suffering impedes judgement.

    Does it impede or does it shape judgement though? I'm neck deep in Nietzsche at the moment, I'm sure there are better references, but:

    [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)

    - Our first port of call is to reduce/eliminate it.

    So we want to reduce suffering, unconditionally, in general. Is there no suffering that has value, at all? Worse: is there perhaps some pleasure that derives from suffering. How should we measure suffering in general? What if my suffering is pleasurable to others, i.e. reduces their feeling of suffering. Some recent short story about it, I forget. Point is: suffering, like beauty, could be in the eye of the beholder.

    How about "I hate myself because I am weak". To reduce suffering, I desire a feeling of strength (will to power). The most obvious (only?) expression of strength is the overcoming of resistance. How can I find reliable resistance to overcome? By causing suffering...

    More generally, "reducing suffering" is prone to turn into redistributing suffering.

    I'll leave it there. First post on here (second but who's counting) so don't hesitate to be cruel :) Just in case mercy turns out to be finite.
  • baker
    2.9k
    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.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.