• _db
    3.6k
    I know, I know, I'm beating a dead horse.

    I'm wary of suffering-focused ethics, those in which the elimination/prevention of suffering is the only acceptable course of action and intention. According to negative utilitarians, for example, it would be better to avoid a pinprick than to allow this tragedy alongside an unfathomably large amount of pleasure. To negative utilitarians, the accompanying pleasure is not important.

    Suffering-focused ethicists might accuse me of being empty of compassion or any number of things, but I find that suffering-focused ethics is far too narrow-minded to be even reasonable. It is clear, to me at least, that there are legitimately good things that are not simply the absence of suffering - in fact I'm rather skeptical that the absence of suffering can be a good thing simpliciter.

    Eudaimonia, or flourishing, can only occur when someone is not suffering. Since, intuitively, it seems as though it would be a legitimately good thing for there to be people who experience eudaimonia (pro tanto), it seems to follows that we should make it so that there are people who experience eudaimonia. At this particular point, I don't care about the attached strings, hence the pro tanto epithet. Therefore, in order to make people who experience eudaimonia, we would need to make sure they do not experience suffering.

    In other words: the focus of our choices should be guided by an analysis of which situation is the best, and the best situation is that in which the requirements for eudaimonia are fully met.

    This severely narrows the landscape of what constitutes a "good" state of affairs, however does not limit quite so much the landscape of what constitutes a "good" or "right" action. This is because pleasure by itself is not enough to call a state of affairs good, however pleasure can be a feature that makes state of affairs better than another. Again, the best choice of action need not result in a genuinely good state of affairs, only the best possible state of affairs.

    For example, if you had the choice between two states of affairs (SoA for now on), SoAa and SoAb, such that SoAa has one person suffering and SoAb has one person barely above manageable levels, the best choice of action would be to choose SoAb. However, if you had a choice between SoAb and SoAc, such that SoAc has nobody existing, the best choice of action would be to choose SoAc, because SoAb is not a good state of affairs in-itself (since it has no eudaimonia), and therefore worse than the neutral state of affairs of SoAc.

    This means that a good state of affairs can only be so if it is a perfect state of affairs, and a perfect state of affairs is one that has eudaimonic persons, or no persons at all.

    Now, within this narrow category of perfection, eudaimonic persons hold precedence over nothing, since the existence of persons means that agential value exists. Therefore, the only good state of affairs is that in which eudaimonic persons exist and no other agential experiences.

    This reasoning can be captured by the following diagrams:

    Slide1.PNG

    eudaimoniaperfectiongraphs1.png

    Notice in the second diagram how, as eudaimonia decreases, the more likely it becomes that the best course of action to take is that which results in nothing.

    I think this captures our intuitions fairly well. If it isn't perfect, it's not worth it. Mediocrity doesn't cut it, especially not in ethics. It also explains why brute hedonism is not worthy enough for the entire picture.

    Furthermore, I think it also helps explain something that I've been struggling to explain for a while now: why we place more emphasis on suffering than pleasure, or why we prioritize suffering. I think that if you are not currently in a eudaimonic state (or unconscious - a state of nothing-ness), you are suffering. You might be in the middle of an orgasm, but this orgasm will ultimately be unfulfilling. A eudaimonic person is not going to be eudaimonic because of basic sensual pleasures (like orgasms or sweets). It is a more complex psychological state.

    So just giving people free chocolate on the street, or a surprise back massage, is not really a good thing unless it relieves them of a pain (which is oftentimes does) - because the only good is eudaimonia. And that's also why we prioritize suffering over pleasure: because the absence of suffering is a requirement for pleasure, and pleasure is a requirement for eudaimonia. A eudaimonic person is in no need of assistance - they are self-sufficient.

    It stands, then, that the requirements for eudaimonia are the presence of certain (desired) pleasures and the absence of any and all suffering. Or, in other words, eudaimonia requires the satisfaction of basic needs in some way.

    If these basic needs cannot be met, or there is reasonable doubt that they can be met, then the best possible course of action is to abstain from attempting to bestow eudaimonia.

    What defines suffering? A key component of suffering would seem to be pain, of some sort. We can describe pain as a kind of intrusion - indeed all experiences seem to be intrusive in some sense. What makes pain, pain, is that it is motivating quality that results in the subject experiencing varying levels of discomfort and an inability to relax. Therefore, suffering could be described as any sort of unsolicited motivational intrusion - an enslavement.

    What defines eudaimonia? Eudaimonia would be the result when the needs of an individual are met and are continuing to be met by the subject itself by its own conceived free will. Once again, the eudaimonic person is self-sufficient. The eudaimonic person is not motivated to meet these needs by anxiety or fear of pain but because they have the desire to independently of pain. The needs are present, and they are happy to oblige. The eudaimonic person is also one who derives a non-negligible amount of legitimate pleasure from the satisfaction of these needs, instead of mere relief. Therefore, the eudaimonic person must have parallel desire-orientation to their needs.

    To summarize: to exist as a conscious person means to have concerns (needs and desires), and eudaimonia requires the satisfaction of these concerns. Eudaimonia is the only good, because eudaimonia is the only experience that is perfect in nature. By establishing the satisfaction of these concerns, you are removing all possibility of suffering. Therefore, establishing eudaimonia necessitates the elimination/prevention of suffering. Therefore, the priority of ethics should be the establishment of eudaimonic persons by the process of eliminating/preventing suffering (by satisfying concerns).

    Note again how if eudaimonia is an unlikely or impossible state to achieve for an individual (or the costs of such a feat are too high), then alternative routes should be taken, namely: nothing-ness. Personally I do believe that eudaimonia is a highly reactive and transitory experience, one that pops up here and there within a sea of suffering. In my view, at least, the perfect good (eudaimonia) is either unattainable or highly unlikely. Please also note that this is focused primarily on the eudaimonia of an individual - the affects of this eudaimonia on other people are not addressed here.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    I'm wary of suffering-focused ethics, those in which the elimination/prevention of suffering is the only acceptable course of action and intention. According to negative utilitarians, for example, it would be better to avoid a pinprick than to allow this tragedy alongside an unfathomably large amount of pleasure. To negative utilitarians, the accompanying pleasure is not important.

    Suffering-focused ethicists might accuse me of being empty of compassion or any number of things, but I find that suffering-focused ethics is far too narrow-minded to be even reasonable. It is clear, to me at least, that there are legitimately good things that are not simply the absence of suffering - in fact I'm rather skeptical that the absence of suffering can be a good thing simpliciter.
    darthbarracuda

    It's clear that suffering can be instrumentally good. I wonder, though, what other ethic than utilitarianism is "suffering focused."

    Eudaimonia, or flourishing, can only occur when someone is not suffering.darthbarracuda

    Eudaimonia as happiness? Sure. But I deem compassion, not happiness, as the basis of morality, and compassion can sometimes only occur when someone is suffering. Perhaps this makes me a suffering focused ethicist (though I am no utilitarian). More specifically, fellow-feeling is the condition for compassion, and the latter does not always result unless one feels another's suffering as they do. This finally breaks through the I-thou relation which otherwise prevents compassion. Happiness is quite irrelevant in this situation.

    Your suggestion is simply to keep human beings on the hedonistic treadmill, it seems to me. That's fine, but I just don't think that has anything to do with morality.

    This means that a good state of affairs can only be so if it is a perfect state of affairs, and a perfect state of affairs is one that has eudaimonic persons, or no persons at all.darthbarracuda

    This is because pleasure by itself is not enough to call a state of affairs good, however pleasure can be a feature that makes state of affairs better than another.darthbarracuda

    And what makes it best/perfect? Not suffering? Perhaps I missed it. If one is feeling pleasure, then one is by definition not suffering, so what, beyond pleasure, is necessary for eudaimonia?
  • _db
    3.6k
    But I deem compassion, not happiness, as the basis of morality, and compassion can sometimes only occur when someone is suffering. Perhaps this makes me a suffering focused ethicist (though I am no utilitarian).Thorongil

    I wouldn't say you're a suffering-focused ethicist, more like a suffering-prioritizing ethicist. I agree that compassion is the source of morality, in addition to the fact that eudaimonic individuals are self-sufficient and therefore not in need of our assistance.

    And what makes it better? Not suffering? Perhaps I missed it. If one is feeling pleasure, then one is by definition not suffering, so what, beyond pleasure, is necessary for eudaimonia?Thorongil

    When I said "pleasure by itself" I meant more like "look! there's pleasure, it must be a good state of affairs!" when this is clearly not correct since pleasure and pain can exist simultaneously.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    I wouldn't say you're a suffering-focused ethicist, more like a suffering-prioritizing ethicist. I agree that compassion is the source of morality, in addition to the fact that eudaimonic individuals are self-sufficient and therefore not in need of our assistance.darthbarracuda

    Hmm, so what are you proposing eudaimonia as, if not an ethic?

    since pleasure and pain can exist simultaneously.darthbarracuda

    I don't know about that....
  • schopenhauer1
    10k
    then alternative routes should be taken, namely: nothing-ness.darthbarracuda

    What is nothing-ness in this case? Suicide or simply lack of any concern/pain?
  • schopenhauer1
    10k
    I don't know about that....Thorongil

    You can feel intense physical pain in the background and laugh at someone's joke, so I tend to agree with this claim.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    You can feel intense physical pain in the background and laugh at someone's joke, so I tend to agree with this claim.schopenhauer1

    Interesting example. It still sounds contradictory on its face, but I shall have to think about it.
  • _db
    3.6k
    What is nothing-ness in this case? Suicide or simply lack of any concern/pain?schopenhauer1

    Nothing-ness is the lack of experience, whether that be by the non-existence of agents, sleep, meditation, etc.
  • _db
    3.6k
    Hmm, so what are you proposing eudaimonia as, if not an ethic?Thorongil

    Eudaimonia would be the only perfect experience, and thus the only perfectly good experience. The attainment of all goals, or the anticipation of doing so. The feeling of power over one's environment, instead of being controlled by it. It's the one experience that you can reflect upon and be able to say without a doubt that it is a positive experience, uncorrupted and pure.
  • mcdoodle
    1.1k
    I deem compassion, not happiness, as the basis of morality, and compassion can sometimes only occur when someone is suffering. Perhaps this makes me a suffering focused ethicist (though I am no utilitarian). More specifically, fellow-feeling is the condition for compassion, and the latter does not always result unless one feels another's suffering as they do. This finally breaks through the I-thou relation which otherwise prevents compassion. Happiness is quite irrelevant in this situationThorongil

    I wholeheartedly agree. There is though certainly a place for compassion in the op's Aristotelian-sounding ethics. Both Aristotle and Epicurus emphasise 'philia', comradeship or fellow-feeling, and the placing of oneself as it were in the imagined situation of the person one has this feeling for. I think this is quite different from modern 'altruism'. But then, I think neo-Aristotelian 'eudaimonia' is expressly not just about hedonistic pleasures, and that indeed the greater virtues in the system are intellectual ones - justice, contemplation, practical wisdom - rather than the appetitive - good food and sex.

    The August reading is relevant to all this, as Thompson seems to try to provide a basis for the 'human life-form' as the subject of a virtue ethics.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Eudaimonia would be the only perfect experience, and thus the only perfectly good experience.darthbarracuda

    It's strange to hear you essentially espouse a summum bonum. What led you to such a seemingly robust teleology? Although, you do say "would be." Does this mean you doubt it can be achieved?
  • _db
    3.6k
    What led you to such a seemingly robust teleology?Thorongil

    Well, nothing else I could think of really made as much sense.

    Although, you do say "would be." Does this mean you doubt it can be achieved?Thorongil

    Yes, I doubt it can be achieved. In fact I think aesthetically-authentic eudaimonia is impossible - a full understanding of the world is not compatible with eudaimonia. Whether this leads to suicide is something I'm not quite sure about, although some like Zapffe thought suicide was a natural death from spiritual causes.

    If it's not perfect enough to start, can it be enough to continue? What difference does it make?
  • Hoo
    415

    A life that is only focus on preventing suffering sounds hobbled indeed. Assuming a godless sky and no afterlife, we do choose to survive down here beneath the hole where some have or continue to seek for a God or a Reason less perishable than a peach.

    I do find hyper-rationalized ethical thinking a bit questionable. It dresses like science, but I don't personally believe it's even a drop less irrational and myth-driven at the core. For instance, we have to be "irrationally" invested in a style or an approach or a method before we can attempt to use that method to ground itself, a questionable undertaking.

    Is life Life without heroism? The hero wears a thousand masks. Give a man a mission and he will glory in his participation even as he suffers. Kierkegaard's "sinful" esthetic man comes to mind. For those no longer seeking the absolute, endless self-enrichment and self-sculpture seems to function more or less self-consciously as this Mission.
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.