I seem to have the feeling that as the super-ego or some moral tendency defined as a good conscious concerned with truth or whatnot must find that they ought to reduce suffering in the world if they are to feel good with themselves as a philosopher. — Shawn

Do you not think that there aren't enough philosophers who had written volumes on social critique and human condition (economically, sociologically and politically)? In what way could we do more to reduce suffering without sacrificing the will of individual? I'd like to know. Just to give you an example, we have our very own @schopenhauer1 bent on anti-natalism.

In what way could we do more to reduce suffering without sacrificing the will of individual? I'd like to know. — Caldwell

I'm not quite sure. Coming as the average Westerner it would be mostly through the political process mostly at the moment. Then personal choices, like whether or not to eat pork or bacon, meaning veganism. On the other hand, philosophers have spoken with fervor about this; but, it seems that the gist is that it's hard to enlarge the sphere of interest that one lives in from the atomic family that struggles more or somewhat less nowadays to feed the family.

Some other thoughts is that if philosophers want to feel good about themselves then shouldn't or ought they not to concern themselves with the need of the many; yet, at what point as to entertain the need of the few vs. many?

I think, you can talk about politics all you want; but, then there are historically hurt badly folks like those spoken about by Black Lives Matter.

Otherwise, that's all I got at the moment.

... must find that they ought to reduce suffering in the world if they are to feel good with themselves — Shawn

Ah, so the purpose of reducing suffering is so that I can feel better about myself? What if I could feel better about myself by increasing suffering? I think this statement can't be right.

We could say that everyone has a moral duty to reduce the suffering of others. I could easily give lots of counterexamples and corner cases, but at least the basic claim is that I have a duty to reduce suffering. The way you put it, the only reason I would want to reduce suffering is to feel better about myself. That's what virtue signaling is all about. I act in such a way as to convince others that I am a moral person, even if my actions actually make the situation worse. Like opening the border, which only serves to increase human misery and strengthen the cartels, but which allows proponents to feel better about themselves.

The problem of evil must be common knowledge to any regular visitor on this forum; and, this seemingly states that God allows evil to happen, so how does this mesh with Him or Her being all good? — Shawn

We are supposed to be good, or at least, we COULD be good if we wanted to, at least a good share of the time. But quite often we opt for doing things that are not good. It's as difficult to reconcile our refusal to be as good as we could be, as it is to reconcile evil and a good god.

...one must address as a good person or at least a person concerned with the good? — Shawn

Yes: we can, we should reduce suffering. We should do that just because each of us wants to avoid our own suffering. Do for others what you would like them to do for you.

What is your take? How do you feel about being a philosopher, perhaps even a futility affirming pessimist that there is a gratuitous and incomprehensible amount of suffering in the world that leads to a miserable state of affairs for others, that one must address as a good person or at least a person concerned with the good? — Shawn

There are many people who are not interested in and probably not concerned by in the suffering of others. What do you think is the difference between those who don't care and those who do?

How do you feel about being a philosopher, perhaps even a futility affirming pessimist that there is a gratuitous and incomprehensible amount of suffering in the world that leads to a miserable state of affairs for others, that one must address as a good person or at least a person concerned with the good?

Is this something philosophy is most knowledgeable about or seemingly speaks about it as if it were a trite truth about living? — Shawn

I feel the same thought of always. Living is painful. Simple. We can not truly know how to be happy or at least finding a scenario with regular life as you said with the last pain possible. Remember that Aristotle in his writings about Ethics he proposed that the main goal of humanity is find happiness.
When you reach a society with happiness supposedly everything will work properly. But this is the hardest equation.
How can we be happy? It is difficult and somehow impossible because depends a lot of own personal beliefs and ideas. Also it is important point out that we live in a toxic generation where weirdly famous or influencers spread all over the network fake happiness. This is a big problem to the youngest. Because when a teenager see them and then see himself he gets frustrated to easy.
I think philosophy is clear here. We have to promote the act of knowledge and then each step will drive us to our goal. Thus, the happiness.
Nevertheless, sadly, this is not a task the governments are considering for. They are just there like in a jungle getting profits and spread depression to the youngest people. When I see politicians criticising each other with bad words it makes me sad because they show that they do not care at all about mutual consent or at least equal stability.

Deleted

I think it’s important to realize that not every normative ethical standard out there defines suffering as inherently bad. Personally I try to reduce suffering when I can but I think “reduce suffering” as an imperative tends to lead into some world exploding scenarios

I am obligated only not to be the cause of suffering. It is not my duty to reduce suffering, although I may or may not be inclined towards it.

Some other thoughts is that if philosophers want to feel good about themselves then shouldn't or ought they not to concern themselves with the need of the many; yet, at what point as to entertain the need of the few vs. many?

Rousseau’s pitié extended to the many, but apparently not to his own children, 5 of whom he deserted in foundling hospitals. So I get suspicious when I see the common refrain of reducing some abstract notion of suffering. One might do best to alleviate the suffering of flesh-and-blood human beings, the people around him, instead of the abstract people he imagines in his skull.

I seem to have the feeling that as the super-ego or some moral tendency defined as a good conscious concerned with truth or whatnot must find that they ought to reduce suffering in the world if they are to feel good with themselves as a philosopher. — Shawn

Some thoughts:

I don't think there is a duty to reduce suffering. That would seem like quite a large burden for an individual to bear.

Perhaps what you name the super-ego leads us to wisdom and self-realization, and the reduction of suffering for those around us is a natural result of this process. Perhaps the duty is self-realization and the attainment of wisdom.

Coming as the average Westerner it would be mostly through the political process mostly at the moment. — Shawn

The political process in western countries can be described as the individual attempting to have their worldview imposed upon others by government, generally through majority-decision. Does this seem like a suitable tool to reduce suffering?

How do you feel about [ ... ] gratuitous and incomprehensible amount of suffering in the world that leads to a miserable state of affairs for others, that one must address as a good person or at least a person concerned with the good? — Shawn

If one seeks to be(come) "a good person", then one ought to do good (via right conduct^ & just practices^^) whenever it's possible to do so effectively. Negative utilitarianism^ & negative consequentialism^^, respectively. Why 'negative'? Minimize suffering: because suffering, in contrast to "happiness", is objective in so far as it is factual what deprivations & harms, fears & losses render (almost) every individual of a / our species dysfunctional or dead, that is, whatever is not good for a / our kind, and, therefore, that it can be known whether or not "gratuitous suffering" is foreseen and, if so, prevented or mitigated or reduced.

Is this something philosophy is most knowledgeable about or seemingly speaks about it as if it were a trite truth about living?

No. Philosophy, perhaps, is most reflective on – makes explicit, or problematizes – our rationalized evasions from, or denials of, the difficulties & exigencies of living, especially those of the lives of others (i.e. the less we identify with 'them', and the farther away 'they' are, the more incorrigible our evasions), which is a mode of socialized, or indoctrinated, meta-ignorance (i.e. not wanting to know which culminates in the blissful state of not knowing that one does not know). I understand philosophy to be only "most knowledgeable" of the gaps or inconsistences in 'what we (make)believe we know', and thereby creatively-critically proposes heuristic work-arounds for such epistemic defects (e.g. dialectical revisions).