Morally justifiable pain, suffering and torture

[ateista]

When contemplating the problem of “evil” it is frequently brought up that not all pain, suffering and torture (let’s call them collectively PS&T) is morally impermissible, there are instances when they can be morally justified. This is a correct observation. However, it is usually left at that, and it is not examined in detail. Let’s do that.

There is one instance when PS&T **can be **morally justified, when allowing / inflicting PS&T logically leads to some greater good; that is the greater good cannot be achieved without the inflicted PS&T. This observation is more or less correct, but still needs further examination.

If the being subject to PS&T is the one who gets the greater good, there is no problem. Example: even if a child is subject to a painful operation - which he cannot comprehend - it is morally permissible to perform it for the child’s benefit.

If, however, someone is subject to PS&T and that leads to some greater good for someone else, we do have a problem.

Generally speaking: to torture “Joe” so that “Jack” will reap some great benefit cannot be morally justified. There is one exception to this: If “Joe” explicitly consents to the pain, so “Jack” can reap the benefits, then his prior agreement is the moral justification. (Example: Joe agrees to a procedure to remove one of his kidneys and transplant it into Jack.)

But this is the only exception. If someone is exposed to pain without his prior consent, then this cannot be justified, even if others gain great benefits from this fact. There is no moral / ethical system which permits to inflict or allow PS&T on someone even if some others would gain benefits from his suffering. (Example: “waterboarding” or torturing as an interrogation method. In some extreme cases it may be deemed necessary, but it is still morally reprehensible.)

My question: do we agree so far?

Now we can move further. When speaking of PS&T for humans, the theists posit that the greater reward will not necessarily come in this life, rather in the afterlife. From their perspective it is a logical assumption, even if though it is unconvincing for the atheists. (Not only because they cannot establish the validity of a heaven, but because they cannot prove that the pain is necessary to get into the heaven. A reward - even a great reward cannot justify the prior suffering, if there is no logical connection between the two.)

However, no Catholic will argue that animals have an afterlife. For the animals “this” is it. When they perish in natural disasters, there is no “reward” for them. They are subject to pain and death. Their suffering cannot be dismissed on the premise that “maybe” their reward will come later, because there no “later”. Furthermore, even if their suffering would bring some greater good for others, it would still be morally unjustifiable, since they cannot give their prior consent.

Summary: the PS&T of animals is morally / ethically indefensible. Their pain, suffering and torture is unnecessary. As such, God does allow unnecessary pain and suffering.

My conclusion is obvious. What is yours?

 

[Pete_1]

When contemplating the problem of “evil” it is frequently brought up that not all pain, suffering and torture (let’s call them collectively PS&T) is morally impermissible, there are instances when they can be morally justified. This is a correct observation. However, it is usually left at that, and it is not examined in detail. Let’s do that.

There is one instance when PS&T **can be **morally justified, when allowing / inflicting PS&T logically leads to some greater good; that is the greater good cannot be achieved without the inflicted PS&T. This observation is more or less correct, but still needs further examination.

If the being subject to PS&T is the one who gets the greater good, there is no problem. Example: even if a child is subject to a painful operation - which he cannot comprehend - it is morally permissible to perform it for the child’s benefit.

If, however, someone is subject to PS&T and that leads to some greater good for someone else, we do have a problem.

Generally speaking: to torture “Joe” so that “Jack” will reap some great benefit cannot be morally justified. There is one exception to this: If “Joe” explicitly consents to the pain, so “Jack” can reap the benefits, then his prior agreement is the moral justification. (Example: Joe agrees to a procedure to remove one of his kidneys and transplant it into Jack.)

But this is the only exception. If someone is exposed to pain without his prior consent, then this cannot be justified, even if others gain great benefits from this fact. There is no moral / ethical system which permits to inflict or allow PS&T on someone even if some others would gain benefits from his suffering. (Example: “waterboarding” or torturing as an interrogation method. In some extreme cases it may be deemed necessary, but it is still morally reprehensible.)

My question: do we agree so far?

Now we can move further. When speaking of PS&T for humans, the theists posit that the greater reward will not necessarily come in this life, rather in the afterlife. From their perspective it is a logical assumption, even if though it is unconvincing for the atheists. (Not only because they cannot establish the validity of a heaven, but because they cannot prove that the pain is necessary to get into the heaven. A reward - even a great reward cannot justify the prior suffering, if there is no logical connection between the two.)

However, no Catholic will argue that animals have an afterlife. For the animals “this” is it. When they perish in natural disasters, there is no “reward” for them. They are subject to pain and death. Their suffering cannot be dismissed on the premise that “maybe” their reward will come later, because there no “later”. Furthermore, even if their suffering would bring some greater good for others, it would still be morally unjustifiable, since they cannot give their prior consent.

Summary: the PS&T of animals is morally / ethically indefensible. Their pain, suffering and torture is unnecessary. As such, God does allow unnecessary pain and suffering.

My conclusion is obvious. What is yours?

Is pain the same as suffering?

A counter argument would be to say that suffering is an emotion whilst pain is not. You must prove that animals possess emotions before you can argue that animals are capable of suffering.

Pain alone is justified as it protects animals from danger.

 

[Xuan]

Have you never seen a dog jump up and down in happiness at the return of its owner?

Have you never seen a dog display the emotion of anger?

 

[steveandersen]

When contemplating the problem of “evil” it is frequently brought up that not all pain, suffering and torture (let’s call them collectively PS&T) is morally impermissible, there are instances when they can be morally justified…

When is it exactly that torture can be morally justified?

…
Summary: the PS&T of animals is morally / ethically indefensible. Their pain, suffering and torture is unnecessary.

As Pete_ said pain is a useful natural mechanism & suffering supposes emotions

Torture i.e. the intentional infliction of pain and/or suffering for no good reason is never allowed.

As such, God does allow unnecessary pain and suffering.

He doesn’t….we do.

My conclusion is obvious.

Not very obvious. What are you trying to say? That there is no God or that God isn’t “good” or is this some animal rights manifesto?

What is yours?

That some people confuse pain & suffering with evil.

 

[Pete_1]

Have you never seen a dog jump up and down in happiness at the return of its owner?

Have you never seen a dog display the emotion of anger?

How can you prove what you are seeing is the result of an emotion, not a biological mechanism?

 

[davidv]

Have you never seen a dog jump up and down in happiness at the return of its owner?

Have you never seen a dog display the emotion of anger?

Is this really emotion? Or, is it simply the the instinctual reaction to the circumstances?

 

[Xuan]

When a person displays anger it’s an emotion, but when a dog displays anger it’s not an emotion?

 

[ateista]

He doesn’t….we do.

Really? At the bare minimum God allows ligthnings, wildfires and earthquakes, all of which cause incredible pain and suffering (not mental anguish, prolonged physical suffering). They cause unnecessary pain. This pain serves no purpose for the afflicted creatures. They gain no “greater” good as the logical corollary of the pain - they simply die in agony.

Not very obvious. What are you trying to say? That there is no God or that God isn’t “good” or is this some animal rights manifesto?

Your first two picks… either will do. All I had to do is to prove the existence of unnecessary pain and that literally disproves either God’s benevolence or existence (if benevolence is part of God’s definition).

That some people confuse pain & suffering with evil.

To allow unnecessary pain and suffering is evil.

 

[davidv]

When a person displays anger it’s an emotion, but when a dog displays anger it’s not an emotion?

No. When a person who displays anger, they make a choice to react a certain way to their feelings. One can choose not to display the anger they feel.

But back to the OP topic.
Lumping pain, suffering and torture together in this context unnecessarily complicates the discussion. The key difference is that torture is alway a deliberate act. Pain and suffering may not be the immediate result of a deliberate action. In many cases pain and suffering are the natural result of morally good or morally nuetral actions. And many times where not the intended nor anticipated result, as in accidents.

 

[Pete_1]

Really? At the bare minimum God allows ligthnings, wildfires and earthquakes, all of which cause incredible pain and suffering (not mental anguish, prolonged physical suffering). They cause unnecessary pain. This pain serves no purpose for the afflicted creatures. They gain no “greater” good as the logical corollary of the pain - they simply die in agony.

Your first two picks… either will do. All I had to do is to prove the existence of unnecessary pain and that literally disproves either God’s benevolence or existence (if benevolence is part of God’s definition).

To allow unnecessary pain and suffering is evil.

But you have not proved animals are capable of suffering, pain is a different matter.

 

[steveandersen]

Really?

Yeah really.

At the bare minimum God allows ligthnings, wildfires and earthquakes, all of which cause incredible pain and suffering (not mental anguish, prolonged physical suffering). They cause unnecessary pain. This pain serves no purpose for the afflicted creatures. They gain no “greater” good as the logical corollary of the pain - they simply die in agony.

Earthquakes, fires, et al are natural processes key to the survival of life. (As is pain as pointed out above)

If key nutrients weren’t replenished in the soil via plate tectonics or other processes (such as death and decay) there would be no greater good to worry about.

Your first two picks… either will do. All I had to do is to prove the existence of unnecessary pain and that literally disproves either God’s benevolence or existence (if benevolence is part of God’s definition).

too bad you didn’t quite do that

To allow unnecessary pain and suffering is evil.

Yes of course!
So you must prove that natural phenomenon are unnecessary.
Is it possible that, like a young child or an animal that doesn’t understand a medical procedure, you may not have a total understanding of what is “necessary” in the grand scheme of things?

 

[ateista]

But you have not proved animals are capable of suffering, pain is a different matter.

Semantics. Suffering could be the pain from a broken leg. An elongated, persistent pain. Or a chronic, painful condition. Animals suffer from these conditions. A wildfire which causes excruciating pain before death does not have any useful consequence for the sufferer. Therefore it is unnecessary pain. As such allowing it is not benevolent. That is all,

 

[davidv]

Semantics. Suffering could be the pain from a broken leg. An elongated, persistent pain. Or a chronic, painful condition. Animals suffer from these conditions. A wildfire which causes excruciating pain before death does not have any useful consequence for the sufferer. Therefore it is unnecessary pain. As such allowing it is not benevolent. That is all,

Unless we want an argument and not a discussion we may dispense with concern over semantics. If, however we want a discussion, we must have a common understanding of the terms we are using.

I believe that your defining the pain due to a wild fire to be unnecessary is completely arbitrary. I would submit that this pain is in fact necessary simply by the nature of the animal. The biology of the animal is such that high temperatures cause pain. Normally the temperature rise is slow enough so the animal, if not otherwise constrained, can experience the pain and react to it before it causes irreversible harm.

 

[ateista]

Earthquakes, fires, et al are natural processes key to the survival of life. (As is pain as pointed out above)

Some pain, maybe. But not all. However, it is irrelevant. The existence of pain, which is not necessary for the sufferer is the point. Example: the burning in a wildfire. To be crushed in an earthquake. The existence of such pain contradicts benevolence.

too bad you didn’t quite do that

Your saying so is not really convincing. Why don’t you argue your point?

Yes of course!
So you must prove that natural phenomenon are unnecessary.
Is it possible that, like a young child or an animal that doesn’t understand a medical procedure, you may not have a total understanding of what is “necessary” in the grand scheme of things?

But there is no “grand scheme” of things. There are only individual beings who burn to death. For them the pain is not “necessary”. The argument that one must allow pain for someone who does not benefit from it, even if someone else might - leads nowhere. There is no ethical system which allows a forceful blood transfusion (for example) even if someone else’s life might be saved in the process.

Show me that there is a moral system which allows the infliction of pain on someone, who does not consent in order to allow someone else to gain some unspecified “good” from it. There is no such system to my knowledge. If someone freely consents to be exposed to pain to help someone else - then we have moral justification.

The point is that you cannot have an argument based on natural causes and maintain God’s existence. If we ponder only nature and disregard God, then your points are valid. Nature is value-neutral, neither benevolent nor malevolent. Things just “happen”. But allegedly there is a benevolent deity “out there”, who allows pain and misery - even if it is not necessary for the ones involved. And that is the problem.

 

[ateista]

Unless we want an argument and not a discussion we may dispense with concern over semantics. If, however we want a discussion, we must have a common understanding of the terms we are using.

Agreed. That is why I specified the difference between mental anguish and elongated pain.

I believe that your defining the pain due to a wild fire to be unnecessary is completely arbitrary. I would submit that this pain is in fact necessary simply by the nature of the animal. The biology of the animal is such that high temperatures cause pain. Normally the temperature rise is slow enough so the animal, if not otherwise constrained, can experience the pain and react to it before it causes irreversible harm.

How many animals perish in a wildfire? In an earthquake? In a tsunami? Even if one does, its pain did not “teach” it anything.

 

[davidv]

{snip}
How many animals perish in a wildfire? In an earthquake? In a tsunami? Even if one does, its pain did not “teach” it anything.

How does the fact that other circumstances existed that prevented their survival negate the necessity of the protection mechanism that pain provides?

 

[ateista]

How does the fact that other circumstances existed that prevented their survival negate the necessity of the protection mechanism that pain provides?

Very simple. It is not a good idea to confuse the different aspects of possible pain. If a pain is a temporary “warning” it has its use for the afflicted. This kind of pain is useful for the one who suffers from the pain. Therefore it is morally justifyable. The mortal pain has no such use. Its existence could be prevented by a powerful and benevolent deity. The lack of such prevention proves that there is no such deity.

Let me reiterate the basic points to avoid confusion:

1. Pain which has benefit for the afflicted, and this benefit is the logical corollary of the pain and which benefit is great enough - morally justifyable.
2. Pain which has no benefit for the involved, but the sufferer of the pain gave prior consent to the pain - morally justifyable - even if the result of the pain benefits someone else.
3. Pain which has no benefit for the afflicted, and the sufferer did not (could not) consent to the pain - morally unjustifyable.

That is all. Since allegedly God only allows morally justifyable pain, the existence of pain inflicted on the animals (who are unable to consent) and which pain does not benefit the afflicted creatures negates the benevolence (or existence) of God.

 

[davidv]

Very simple. It is not a good idea to confuse the different aspects of possible pain. If a pain is a temporary “warning” it has its use for the afflicted. This kind of pain is useful for the one who suffers from the pain. Therefore it is morally justifyable.

It is also not a good idea confuse cause with effect when judging morality. All of the primary definitions for “moral” or “morality” define them as adjective and noun respectively that describes an relating to an activity. Pain is not an activity so it is not appropriate to categorize it a moral or immoral. As such, pain can be neither morally justifiable nor morally unjustifiable. The activity causing the pain can be so judged.

The mortal pain has no such use. Its existence could be prevented by a powerful and benevolent deity. The lack of such prevention proves that there is no such deity.

What is “mortal pain”? This seems to attribute death to the pain rather than the fire or weapon or other mechanism that causes both the pain and death. Certainly God “could” prevent this. How do you know that the end result would be better? Such lack proves no such thing. It only proves that God is not who you imagine Him to be.

Let me reiterate the basic points to avoid confusion:

1. Pain which has benefit for the afflicted, and this benefit is the logical corollary of the pain and which benefit is great enough - morally justifyable.

Since I reject Utilitarian morality, this caries no weight with me.

1. Pain which has no benefit for the involved, but the sufferer of the pain gave prior consent to the pain - morally justifyable - even if the result of the pain benefits someone else.

I also reject consent of the affected as a deciding factor in determining the morality of an action. These are the criteria tha I accept in determining morality.

1. The intrinsic morality of the act
2. If 1. is moral or neutral, the intent of the actor, i.e., for good or harm.

1. Pain which has no benefit for the afflicted, and the sufferer did not (could not) consent to the pain - morally unjustifyable.

That is all. Since allegedly God only allows morally justifyable pain, the existence of pain inflicted on the animals (who are unable to consent) and which pain does not benefit the afflicted creatures negates the benevolence (or existence) of God.

Since God created us with free will, allowance of evil and its resultant pain become a necessity and ought to serve as a warning to us to mend our ways. You conclusion simply does not follow.

 

[tessi]

A wildfire which causes excruciating pain before death does not have any useful consequence for the sufferer. Therefore it is unnecessary pain. As such allowing it is not benevolent. That is all,

How do you know that doesn’t have useful consequences? Are you God to know every thought of every man on earth or to know that in time that suffering will prove worth it?

 

[ateista]

It is also not a good idea confuse cause with effect when judging morality. All of the primary definitions for “moral” or “morality” define them as adjective and noun respectively that describes an relating to an activity. Pain is not an activity so it is not appropriate to categorize it a moral or immoral. As such, pain can be neither morally justifiable nor morally unjustifiable. The activity causing the pain can be so judged.

I agree, but I was talking about “allowing” pain. I simply used a shortened version and did not spell out “allowing pain” in every sentence.

What is “mortal pain”? This seems to attribute death to the pain rather than the fire or weapon or other mechanism that causes both the pain and death. Certainly God “could” prevent this. How do you know that the end result would be better? Such lack proves no such thing. It only proves that God is not who you imagine Him to be.

Better for whom? There are millions of animals who perish in disasters or to diseases. Do you wish to assert that in each and every instance their existence would be worse if they were allowed to continue? Even if you could prove this (which I seriously doubt), the possible painless extinction would result in less pain.

Since I reject Utilitarian morality, this caries no weight with me.

But this is not utilitarian morality at all. It is the standard Christian reply when attempting to justify “God permitting evil”.

I also reject consent of the affected as a deciding factor in determining the morality of an action. These are the criteria tha I accept in determining morality.

1. The intrinsic morality of the act
2. If 1. is moral or neutral, the intent of the actor, i.e., for good or harm.

It would be nice if you could substantiate that there is an “intrinsic” morality of an act. If I am not mistaken, it is a Calvinist assertion that acts have their intrinsic morality, regardless of the intent of the agent.

Let me reiterate the example: if someone consents to be exposed to pain in order to help someone else (Joe is willing to donate his kidney to help Jack) that is usually praised as a moral act. His exposure to pain is justified by his willingness to suffer - in order to help someone else. If, however, he does not consent, he cannot be forced - morally - to undergo such procedure. It is his consent which is the deciding factor.

Since God created us with free will, allowance of evil and its resultant pain become a necessity and ought to serve as a warning to us to mend our ways. You conclusion simply does not follow.

I never mentioned “free will”, because it is irrelevant in this context. I specifically talked about the suffering of animals due to natural causes (disasters and diseases). Nevertheless their suffering (experiencing pain) is something that God allows to happen.

Furthermore, you switched your reasoning. Pain is not a necessary prerequisite to “free will”. The Christian defense of allowing pain to happen is that it must be a logical necessity to achieve some “greater good”. (Performing a surgery to restore someone’s health.)