• _db
    3.6k
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H. P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu

    It's interesting to see how prevalent death is in the ethical literature. Off the top of my head, there's:

    • the various incarnation of the Trolley problem (at least one person dies)
    • the debate about abortion and the legality of killing a fetus
    • the ethics of killing animals, whether that be for sport, entertainment, cuisine, etc.
    • the ongoing debates on immigration policy (which oftentimes decide whether or not refugees will die)
    • the possibility of a just war (in which combatants and/or civilians will be killed)
    • the permissibility (or lack thereof) of the death penalty
    • the limits of self-defense (whether or not it is acceptable to kill someone to defend yourself)

    This is not an exhaustive list. Death is strikingly prominent in ethical discourse.

    What is also prominent and intuitively obvious is that pain seems to be more important than pleasure. I have made previous posts here on this before; pain is prima facie of ethical priority.

    From a biological, evolutionary perspective, pain is a subconscious adverbialist orientation towards a certain kind of stimulus: notably tissue damage. What we feel as "pain" is the command to "GTFO NOW" - in other words, any experience of pain can be described as essentially the wish to cease experiencing certain stimuli - to "disapprove" of stimuli as a subconscious motivational complex.

    The opposite can plausibly be said of pleasure: pleasure is a subconscious adverbialist orientation towards a stimulus: notably the satisfaction of concerns. Concerns come in a wide variety but can be more or less reduced to two (overlapping) kinds: needs and desires. The experience of pleasure can then be described as essentially the wish to continue to experience certain stimuli - to "approve" of stimuli as a subconscious motivational complex.

    Because of pain's inherent connection to tissue damage, and because of tissue damage's inherent connection to the morality of the organism, it stands that pain is inherently connected to death (and pleasure inherently connected to life). What is painful is what puts the organism at risk, and what is pleasurable is what puts the organism in reassurance and stability.

    However, all systems are entropic, and therefore predisposed to fatigue. In biological systems, this results in inevitable death. From the very moment of conception, we are in a state of decay - a metaphysical directedness-towards-annihilation (pace Heidegger).

    As so much psychological, anthropological, and even philosophical data has shown, humans have an innate fear of death and a drive to continue to exist. The fear of death coincides with pain (which coincides with death), and the drive for persistence coincides with pleasures (which coincides with life).

    In fact, it's impossible to experience pleasure, comfort, or be generally happy during the moments when one fully understands ones mortality. Consciousness - the ego - cannot imagine it's own non-existence. This was picked up by thinkers like Freud, Becker, Zapffe, Lovecraft, and others.

    "Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complaint when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces." - Sigmund Freud

    Therefore, is stands that pleasure, in relation to our metaphysical fatalism, is misleading, whereas pain is enlightening. Pleasure is misleading because it puts our guard down against death (since we cannot experience pleasure while simultaneously fully understanding the extent of our mortality) - in the phenomenological sense, it is almost certainly intoxicating (we are "addicted" to pleasurable feelings, no question about that). Pain is enlightening because it reminds us of our mortality.

    This is perhaps one of the main reasons why we place pain on a higher priority than pleasure in ethics: because we are inherently fearful of death, and pain reminds us of our own immanent mortality. Which is also why death is so prominent in ethics. We are surrounded by it.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Death is immanent
    Nothing is permanent
    Learn to enjoy life
    Even when in strife

    This is perhaps one of the main reasons why we place pain on a higher priority than pleasure in ethicsdarthbarracuda

    I don't think that's accurate. In ethics the primary concern is good even at the cost of life.
  • thikmaz
    3
    that seems like the top priority of ethics at all angles. The well being of someone's life even if it involves harm. Harm we can also relate it to the law. Since ethics and law go hand in hand
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    hat seems like the top priority of ethics at all angles.thikmaz

    But do you think that's right or justified?

    Given that life is precious since it cannot be manufactured in a factory or the like do you think it reasonable not to prioritize it over what is good/bad?

    I mean if you ever face a situation where you're given the two options of death on one hand and being good on the other would you opt for death?
  • thikmaz
    3
    But do you think that's right or justified?

    I think its justified, it sounds monotonous to say its right.
    From all well being of a person, only that person has the right to end their lives, unless if they have any disability that requires a third party to take a decision for them.

    With an option for life or death; its life! Life comes ones.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    With an option for life or death; its life! Life comes onesthikmaz

    Well recent developments in world history seem contrary to your position (terrorism). There are plenty of things people are willing to kill or die for.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    pleasure, in relation to our metaphysical fatalism, is misleading, whereas pain is enlighteningdarthbarracuda

    Well said, and I agree.
  • javra
    2.4k
    OK, before we go down the terrorism route, by some of the argument so far presented all acts of altruism then belong to the DSM (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).

    That soldier who jumped on a grenade to save his fellows? An insane moron! I, on the other hand, shall live the good, virtuous life by waiting for one of those crazies to jump on the grenade before we all explode.

    That guy that ran into a burning building to save another’s life at risk of his own … an insane moron!
    A list can be built but it will get repetitive.

    You’ll notice that this same “insanity gene” for altruism is found in many species of social animals … from meerkats, to canids, to porpoises, to primates. But it takes humankind to have discovered the truth: caring for another at expense of one’s own life in times of peril is an abomination of ethics by definition.

    darth, excuse my sarcasm to a well intending OP. It’s just that the mindset I’ve just expressed is proliferating in my neck of the woods, and I’m adverse to it.

    On the other hand, for those that get sickened by anything that they can call “theistic belief”: there’s a science that is in part devoted to explaining why an individual’s life is less valuable then the group to which the individual belongs: e.g., kin selection plays a part in this explanation, although it cannot account for altruism toward strangers (among other things).

    In sum, no, the preservation of one’s own physical life is not an invariant determination of what is virtuous. And even to a non-base hedonist, there can be pleasure in having helped another at the detriment of one’s own life.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment