Morally justifiable pain, suffering and torture

[ateista]

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?

Maybe you did not read my post. I was not talking about humans, I was talking about the animals… and their painful fate in disasters. They cannot think, but their pain is nevertheless very real.

 

[steveandersen]

Some pain, maybe. But not all. However, it is irrelevant. The existence of pain, which is not necessary for the sufferer is the point.

Since you are trying to determine what is ”necessary” pain then the cause of the pain is very relevant.
Pain is a reaction to a stimulus. It is not an evil. Your nerve endings can’t tell if your toe hurts because you stubbed it or if I intentional ground my heel into it.

The pain is useful in both instances.

Example: the burning in a wildfire. To be crushed in an earthquake. The existence of such pain contradicts benevolence.

As I pointed out wildfires renew the soils. Some species cannot reproduce without them, other species would be choked out if their competitors weren’t occasionally thinned out.

Individuals may suffer but the species and ecosystem as a whole is better off. The death of individuals is not the intention of such natural phenomenon and therefore it is not immoral.

The gift of pain clearly is benevolence. Lepers loose sensation in their extremities and can’t tell if they are injured and therefore loose fingers and toes to accidents and opportunistic infections. A living thing that can’t feel pain is at a serious disadvantage.

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

I was. You said that in your first post that pain that serves a higher purpose or greater good doesn’t necessarily bother you as much as pain that you see as arbitrary and capricious. I pointed out that the examples you gave of earthquakes and fires clearly serve a higher purposes so the problem you had in you first statement appears to go away.

But there is no “grand scheme” of things. There are only individual beings who burn to death.

Of course there is.
An area that occasionally has a fire is a very different place than one that doesn’t.
It may be difficult for individuals but in your first post you talked about the “greater good”

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.

How does the inconveniencing of one life to save another compare to your examples of natural phenomenon such as fires and earthquakes?

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.

Life would be impossible without death. Even plants need soil to grow in and soil gets a lot of its goodness from dead things.

The point is that you cannot have an argument based on natural causes and maintain God’s existence.

Sure I can.

Why is that any different than you offering natural phenomenon as proof that there is no God?

Catholics believe that nature and Creation are just additional parts of God’s revelation.

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.

Only because you have determined that certain types of pain are unnecessary and that certain types of greater goods are not the same as others.
Why and how can you make that determination?

 

[ateista]

As I pointed out wildfires renew the soils. Some species cannot reproduce without them, other species would be choked out if their competitors weren’t occasionally thinned out.

Individuals may suffer but the species and ecosystem as a whole is better off. The death of individuals is not the intention of such natural phenomenon and therefore it is not immoral.

The gift of pain clearly is benevolence. Lepers loose sensation in their extremities and can’t tell if they are injured and therefore loose fingers and toes to accidents and opportunistic infections. A living thing that can’t feel pain is at a serious disadvantage.

What you say is true as far as it goes. The simple death of the animals in a disaster would achieve the same result. The painful nature of the death does not have any added advantage.

I was. You said that in your first post that pain that serves a higher purpose or greater good doesn’t necessarily bother you as much as pain that you see as arbitrary and capricious.

I was simply quoting the usual Christian assertion that God only allows pain if it is a logical prerequisite to achieve some greater good. As it is usually stated, it is a very vague assertion, and I specified under which condition can allowing pain be morally justified.

Most importantly I stated that allowing someone to suffer in order to create some “good” for someone else is a highly dubious proposition. As an unrestricted moral principle it would allow to forcefully cut someone up so that their body parts could be used to elongate the life of many others. I am pretty sure that both you and I would consider such an act immoral.

Why do you think then that the painful nature of the death of animals is “irrelevant”? Even though they cannot think, they certainly can experience pain. Is their pain irrelevant? It would be another highly problematic principle.

I pointed out that the examples you gave of earthquakes and fires clearly serve a higher purposes so the problem you had in you first statement appears to go away.

But it does not. You simply did not differentiate between the beneficiaries of the disasters. Again, I ask: what moral code would allow causing pain to “A” to help “B” if “A” does not consent to it?

Only because you have determined that certain types of pain are unnecessary and that certain types of greater goods are not the same as others.

Which is blatantly obvious. The “greater good” of pleasure a sadistic person might gain from torturing an animal to death could not morally justify his action, could it?

 

[Benadam]

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.

This is a false premise. God does allow pain that has no apparent benefit, or ‘justifiable reason’. There is existential pain such as the pain of limitation, the pain of loneliness.

In Genesis, Adam was alone and God said it wasn’t good. We can assume that Adam felt loneliness from the sense of the following passages. God allowed Adam to feel loneliness that was not good and required resolution. Up to the time it was resolved Adam felt the pain of existing alone.

 

[Benadam]

Also, Ateista,you are projecting a human response to pain onto an animal as a basis for this argument. For humans the experience of pain raises a need for it to be judged. A person innocent of evil causes for pain will not be victimized by it. The question isn’t what is to blame for this pain, or am I suffering this pain for no reason? There is pain that we experience that brings us to a state of dispair that a person who has no concept of evil would shrug off and just experience.

Animals aren’t victim’s of their pain, they are unaware of evil therefore to them it is not experienced as an evil.

It is wrong to cause an animal to suffer without good ‘reason’ but the animal is not experiencing evil done to it only the human is.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

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?

Animals are part of our environment, created FOR mankind, and are here for our benefit.

To needlessly inflict pain on an animal simply to get PLEASURE in doing it is the sin of uncharity (anti-love) to oneself, because to establish the HABIT of torture-for-pleasure is debasement of oneself and misusing a gift of God (the animal).

But, if animals must have pain inflicted on them for human benefit, of “sufficient value”, then we are more than allowed to use them as we see fit.

There is no need to get “their constent”, which as non-persons they can’t possibly give.

Do not confuse persons with non-persons. Only humans, angels/demons, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are persons.

No animal is a person. No vegetable is a person. No non-anima/vegetable-biota is a person. No chemical is a person. No energy is a person.

All non-person things are our environment, and for our use.

 

[ateista]

This is a false premise. God does allow pain that has no apparent benefit, or ‘justifiable reason’. There is existential pain such as the pain of limitation, the pain of loneliness.

In Genesis, Adam was alone and God said it wasn’t good. We can assume that Adam felt loneliness from the sense of the following passages. God allowed Adam to feel loneliness that was not good and required resolution. Up to the time it was resolved Adam felt the pain of existing alone.

It is not “my” premise. It is the standard Christian reply when confronted with the problem of evil. If you say that God allows unnecessary, gratutious pain and suffering (your example is more like mental suffering) then you merely strengthen my case: God is even less benevolent.

I did not want to bring up human examples, because it would be too easy to counter them with some mambo-jumbo, like: “maybe God was just whetting Adam’s appetite, so eventually it was to his benefit to wait a little”.

 

[ateista]

Also, Ateista,you are projecting a human response to pain onto an animal as a basis for this argument. For humans the experience of pain raises a need for it to be judged. A person innocent of evil causes for pain will not be victimized by it. The question isn’t what is to blame for this pain, or am I suffering this pain for no reason? There is pain that we experience that brings us to a state of dispair that a person who has no concept of evil would shrug off and just experience.

Animals aren’t victim’s of their pain, they are unaware of evil therefore to them it is not experienced as an evil.

Sure, I agree. But I never said otherwise.

It is wrong to cause an animal to suffer without good ‘reason’ but the animal is not experiencing evil done to it only the human is.

Well, then, tell me what good “reason” is there which necessitates the pain of burning to death?

My point is that allowing some creature to suffer pain (not simply die) for the benefit of others is a morally unjustifyable act. Whether the animal is aware of the moral aspects or not (clearly not) is of no consequence.

 

[ateista]

To needlessly inflict pain on an animal simply to get PLEASURE in doing it is the sin of uncharity (anti-love) to oneself, because to establish the HABIT of torture-for-pleasure is debasement of oneself and misusing a gift of God (the animal).

Why is it “misusing”? Getting pleasure from observing (or causing) suffering is very sick in my eyes, but the end result is the same: some sadistic person “uses” the animal to raise his pleasure. His pleasure is more “important” then the mere suffering of a non-person.

But it does not even have to be a sadist. It is a well-known fact that cats “play” with the mouse, since the fear the mouse feels raises its blood-sugar level, thus rendering it more tasty.

A human who is stuck on a mouse-diet (see the book: “Never cry wolf”) could also “use” the same method to make his meal tastier. He would “use” the mouse as you stipulated. Still, most people would find his method reprehensible.

But, if animals must have pain inflicted on them for human benefit, of “sufficient value”, then we are more than allowed to use them as we see fit.

I was not even talking about human involvement. The diseases (cancer, for example) or a wildfire caused by lightning have no human factor involved in them. Nevertheless they cause a lot of pain, not merely death. I am questioning the moral aspect of allowing such pain to happen. You seem to shrug it off on the grounds that the sufferers of pain are not persons.

There is no need to get “their constent”, which as non-persons they can’t possibly give.

Do not confuse persons with non-persons. Only humans, angels/demons, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are persons.

No animal is a person. No vegetable is a person. No non-anima/vegetable-biota is a person. No chemical is a person. No energy is a person.

All non-person things are our environment, and for our use.

Nevertheless, animals still feel pain (while plants do not) and their pain cannot be shrugged of as inconsequential - just because they are not persons.

 

[Pete_1]

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,

My definition of suffering is emotional pain.

Your definition of suffering seems to be just prolonged physical pain.

In my opinion physical pain is not intrinsically evil as it protects animals and us from danger.

Emotional pain is a different matter, first you must prove that animals possess emotions.

 

[ateista]

My definition of suffering is emotional pain.

Your definition of suffering seems to be just prolonged physical pain.

Both are valid definitions. It is good clarify the matter.

In my opinion physical pain is not intrinsically evil as it protects animals and us from danger.

Some pain does have that attribute. It would be incorrect to generalize and assert that “all” kinds of pain are the same. For example cancer is painless in its first stages (when it has a petter chance to remove it). That does not help the animals who did nothing special to get cancer and cannot “learn” to avoid it. However, in the OP I already stipulated that some pain does have useful features.

Emotional pain is a different matter, first you must prove that animals possess emotions.

Some animals exhibit signs of having emotions. Sometimes dogs simply lie down and die when their master disappears. Especially the higher apes exhibit love toward their offspring, and love is definitely an emotion.

Nevertheless, this is not really relevant to the current topic. I am simply talking about the physical pain which serves no purpose. You, or anyone else is welcome to try and give a valid reason why the painful way of perishing in a disaster or due to cancer would have a useful corollary, which might give a moral justification to allow it to happen. So far it has not even been attempted.

 

[Pete_1]

Both are valid definitions. It is good clarify the matter.

Some pain does have that attribute. It would be incorrect to generalize and assert that “all” kinds of pain are the same. For example cancer is painless in its first stages (when it has a petter chance to remove it). That does not help the animals who did nothing special to get cancer and cannot “learn” to avoid it. However, in the OP I already stipulated that some pain does have useful features.

Some animals exhibit signs of having emotions. Sometimes dogs simply lie down and die when their master disappears. Especially the higher apes exhibit love toward their offspring, and love is definitely an emotion.

Nevertheless, this is not really relevant to the current topic. I am simply talking about the physical pain which serves no purpose. You, or anyone else is welcome to try and give a valid reason why the painful way of perishing in a disaster or due to cancer would have a useful corollary, which might give a moral justification to allow it to happen. So far it has not even been attempted.

If animals do not posess emotions or a concept of self (a soul) then ‘pain’ is just the result of chemical messages in the brain. As these messages have no emotional reprocussions how can you say these messages are ‘evil’? They are just matter.

 

[ateista]

If animals do not posess emotions or a concept of self (a soul) then ‘pain’ is just the result of chemical messages in the brain. As these messages have no emotional reprocussions how can you say these messages are ‘evil’? They are just matter.

Just like our brain. “Soul” is just a poorly defined (and unverifyable) religious concept. But I did not say that they are “intrinsically” evil (I do not subscribe to such a concept), I said that allowing them is morally unjustifyable. From your reasoning it would folllow that deliberate torture of animals is acceptable, since it also results in “just” chemical messages to the brain. I doubt you would say that, but logically speaking there is no difference.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
To needlessly inflict pain on an animal simply to get PLEASURE in doing it is the sin of uncharity (anti-love) to oneself, because to establish the HABIT of torture-for-pleasure is debasement of oneself and misusing a gift of God (the animal).

Why is it “misusing”? Getting pleasure from observing (or causing) suffering is very sick in my eyes, but the end result is the same: some sadistic person “uses” the animal to raise his pleasure. His pleasure is more “important” then the mere suffering of a non-person.

It is “misusing” the animal because it is using the animal to develop a habit of inflicting pain for no other purpose than to experience the infliction of pain, which WILL translate over to pain infliction on persons (other people) which is an obvious (grave) sin.

“Raising ones pleasure” is not a virtue.

But it does not even have to be a sadist. It is a well-known fact that cats “play” with the mouse, since the fear the mouse feels raises its blood-sugar level, thus rendering it more tasty.

A human who is stuck on a mouse-diet (see the book: “Never cry wolf”) could also “use” the same method to make his meal tastier. He would “use” the mouse as you stipulated. Still, most people would find his method reprehensible.

Actually, if only mice were available as food, then this method of making mouse-meat more nutritious would be perfectly acceptable!

But this would ONLY apply if only mice were available as food, which is not a normal condition.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
But, if animals must have pain inflicted on them for human benefit, of “sufficient value”, then we are more than allowed to use them as we see fit.

I was not even talking about human involvement. The diseases (cancer, for example) or a wildfire caused by lightning have no human factor involved in them. Nevertheless they cause a lot of pain, not merely death. I am questioning the moral aspect of allowing such pain to happen. You seem to shrug it off on the grounds that the sufferers of pain are not persons.

So, God is “immoral” for allowing pain at all?

The pain of non-persons is not to be needlessly enhanced, any more than we are to needlessly “pain” (trash, waste, etc) any other part of our God given environment.

But the purpose OF our environment is to be for our (mankind’s) benefit, and non-persons have no share in that benefit, and are not a part of the “pain problem” except in as much as their pain is actually harmful to us.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
There is no need to get “their constent”, which as non-persons they can’t possibly give.

Do not confuse persons with non-persons. Only humans, angels/demons, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are persons.

No animal is a person. No vegetable is a person. No non-anima/vegetable-biota is a person. No chemical is a person. No energy is a person.

All non-person things are our environment, and for our use.

Nevertheless, animals still feel pain (while plants do not) and their pain cannot be shrugged of as inconsequential - just because they are not persons.

Only when the pain of animals causes actual damage in humans, as for example when the needless torture of animals causes a “coarsening” of sensitivities and morals within those who do it such that they are more likely to treat persons (humans) like their animal victims, is the pain of animals of ANY concern to humans!

The pain of animals IS utterly inconsequential in all respects OTHER THAN where their pain damages humans.

Only those things which ultimately adversely (or ultimately positively) affect PERSONS are consequential.

 

[ateista]

It is “misusing” the animal because it is using the animal to develop a habit of inflicting pain for no other purpose than to experience the infliction of pain, which WILL translate over to pain infliction on persons (other people) which is an obvious (grave) sin.

Not: “will”, only “may”. Big difference.

“Raising ones pleasure” is not a virtue.

Virtue does not even come into the picture.

Actually, if only mice were available as food, then this method of making mouse-meat more nutritious would be perfectly acceptable!

But this would ONLY apply if only mice were available as food, which is not a normal condition.

The method delineated above does not make the meat more nutritious, it simply tastes better.

Nevertheless, it still increases the pleasure of the consumer of the meat, and it still MAY desensitize the person who performs this act.

 

[ateista]

So, God is “immoral” for allowing pain at all?

I did not say that. Allowing necessary pain is morally justifyable - where “necessary” means that the pain is a logical prerequisite for achieving some greater good for the afflicted. (Not even God could achieve that greater good without allowing the pain).

 

[Benadam]

Ateista, what I’m hearing …er reading you say is…my judgement about what should be considered good pain, therefore permissable pain differs from what I see in reality. Therefore God must not exist.

 

[ateista]

Ateista, what I’m hearing …er reading you say is…my judgement about what should be considered good pain, therefore permissable pain differs from what I see in reality. Therefore God must not exist.

It is not just my judgment… when discussing the problem of pain and suffering, it is the Christians who assert that God only allows pain if it logically leads to some grater good. However the concept of “greater good” is never defined precisely. I wanted to clarify the issue.