Morally justifiable pain, suffering and torture

[Benadam]

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.

A Christian response is; God allows mankind to be self determined and unfortunately that includes alot of pain with no good reason.

As soon as we let God’s purposes or ‘greater good’ into the dialogue we enter a realm that will always remain in degree mysterious. That is the chasm that exists between the created and uncreated.

The answers you hear will never satisfy because they will never meet your test which is ultimately what you would consider good.

 

[ateista]

A Christian response is; God allows mankind to be self determined and unfortunately that includes alot of pain with no good reason.

Well, that is not the usual response. There are innumerable conversations when the “problem of evil” is contemplated and the usual response is that God only allows necessary pain and suffering.

Furthermore, the existence of a lightning which causes a wildfire, or the falling of a huge meteor which might trigger a devastating tsunami, or a big earthquake cannot be blamed on the free will of humans. Nor can the existence of cancer or any other lethal diseases. None of these are necessary for humans to have “free will” or “self-determination”. (No need to appeal to the original sin. It was not the disobedience of humans which allegedly triggered the appearance of these phenomena. It was God’s explicit curse that did - according to the Bible, of course.)

The answers you hear will never satisfy because they will never meet your test which is ultimately what you would consider good.

But my concept of good is precisely the same as yours, when it comes to humans. I am certain that neither of us would consider a human father “good” if he neglected his children and allowed them to come to harm in the name of “self-determination”. Even if he promised a Cadillac as a graduation present, if and when his child graduates from college.

It is the Christians whose idea of “good” is skewed and twisted - when it comes to God. No human will be considered good, caring, loving, just and merciful if he did or allowed the things that God does or allows.

The concept of good is very simple. I merely apply this concept to both humans and God equally. It is the Christians who try to “whitewash” God whose lack of love, caring, mercy and justice is blatantly apperent.

 

[ribozyme]

The concept of good is very simple. I merely apply this concept to both humans and God equally. It is the Christians who try to “whitewash” God whose lack of love, caring, mercy and justice is blatantly apperent.

So what is your notion of the concept of “good”? For me, I use a negative utilitarian definition:

“I believe that there is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure. Both the greatest happiness principle of the Utilitarians and Kant’s principle, “Promote other people’s happiness…”, seem to me (at least in their formulations) fundamentally wrong in this point, which is, however, not one for rational argument…In my opinion…human suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway.” - Karl Popper

But I thought you would not agree with the notion of the good since you seem to have libertarian tendencies as “individual rights”
(which is simply subterfuge designed to preserve the status of those who are already well off) trumps any concept of “good.”

 

[Pete_1]

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.

Is it possible to torture a worm, or can you only cause it pain?

Is pain alone the same as torture? Or does one require a notion of ‘self’ and some sense of the future to be tortured?

 

[ateista]

So what is your notion of the concept of “good”? For me, I use a negative utilitarian definition:

Useful, harmful, good, bad etc. are only applicable to living beings. Whatever promotes life and the quality of life is “useful” or “good”, the opposite is bad. In animal experiments, when the animals were allowed to stimulate their brain’s pleasure / pain center, the subjects always avoided the pain, and stimulated the pleasure center.

But I thought you would not agree with the notion of the good since you seem to have libertarian tendencies as “individual rights” (which is simply subterfuge designed to preserve the status of those who are already well off) trumps any concept of “good.”

I only subscribe to negative rights (the right to be left alone). Libertarianism simply says that no force should be applied except in self-defense. That allows everyone to live their life as they see fit - as long as they do not interfere with other people’s decisions to do the same. “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. That does not negate the concept of “good” at all.

 

[ateista]

Is it possible to torture a worm, or can you only cause it pain?

Is pain alone the same as torture? Or does one require a notion of ‘self’ and some sense of the future to be tortured?

Torture is the deliberate application of pain regardless of the subject’s ability or discern the intent. No wonder that there are laws against torturing the animals, even though they are unable to understand the intent of the human who causes them pain.

When a cat “plays” with the mouse, it is not called torture, since the cat is unaware of its behavior.

 

[davidv]

Useful, harmful, good, bad etc. are only applicable to living beings. Whatever promotes life and the quality of life is “useful” or “good”, the opposite is bad. In animal experiments, when the animals were allowed to stimulate their brain’s pleasure / pain center, the subjects always avoided the pain, and stimulated the pleasure center.

I only subscribe to negative rights (the right to be left alone). Libertarianism simply says that no force should be applied except in self-defense. That allows everyone to live their life as they see fit - as long as they do not interfere with other people’s decisions to do the same. “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. That does not negate the concept of “good” at all.

In your definition of “good” above you have demostrated that without a doubt it is precisely not the the same as one used by a Catholic Christian. To me, a Catholic, “good” is what is Godly.

But my concept of good is precisely the same as yours, when it comes to humans. I am certain that neither of us would consider a human father “good” if he neglected his children and allowed them to come to harm in the name of “self-determination”. Even if he promised a Cadillac as a graduation present, if and when his child graduates from college.

 

[ateista]

In your definition of “good” above you have demostrated that without a doubt it is precisely not the the same as one used by a Catholic Christian. To me, a Catholic, “good” is what is Godly.

It is interesting that even the simplest terms can be differently defined. What is “Godly”? A human father who neglects his children is “good”? After all God definitely neglects us, his “children”?

 

[davidv]

It is interesting that even the simplest terms can be differently defined. What is “Godly”? A human father who neglects his children is “good”? After all God definitely neglects us, his “children”?

1. That which of the nature of God
2. No, neglect is not good,
3. No, God does not neglect us.

 

[ateista]

1. That which of the nature of God

We know nothing of God’s nature, not even if God exists. So that is not very helpful in defining “good”.

1. No, God does not neglect us.

I have never heard of God taking care of the needy, even if they pray to God. God does not send rain to the drought-ridden territories. God does not warn the possible victims of an earthquake. God does not prevent the innocent from suffering. God does not stop genocides (we have to be “grateful” that nowadays God does not order genocides). God does not answer the prayers of children.

If you assert that such behavior is “taking care” of his “children”, there is not much possibility to have a meaningful conversation. Which is too bad.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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.

Yes. Very big difference!

It IS will, because to needlessly inflict pain **ALWAYS WILL **translate to inflicting needless pain on persons (humans).

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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.

Usually, when a food “tastes better” it is more nutritious. The person, or cat for that matter, who finds that there is a way to make some food taste better naturally assumes (correctly or not) that that food is more nutritious, and is therefore going to choose what they THINK is more nutritious.

If they THINK that there is a way to make food more nutritious, it is a valid motivation to do what makes their food more “hopefully” nutritious.

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

Yes it may desensitize the person, but not if they are well formed in discerning right and wrong as regards our food, and the DIFFERENCE between FOOD and PERSONS.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
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).

Your error above is in your use of the “for the afflicted”.

Pain is morally justifiable where necessary, where “necessary” means the pain is a prerequisite for achieving a greater good FOR A PERSON or PERSONS, and NOT “for the afflicted”.

There IS no such thing as a greater good for non-persons!

Are you in fact arguing that “animals are people too” and are due (some sizable subset of) the rights of human persons?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benadam
A Christian response is; God allows mankind to be self determined and unfortunately that includes alot of pain with no good reason.

Well, that is not the usual response. There are innumerable conversations when the “problem of evil” is contemplated and the usual response is that God only allows necessary pain and suffering.

God does allow only necessary pain and suffering. But only He knows what “necessary” means as He means it.

Furthermore, the existence of a lightning which causes a wildfire, or the falling of a huge meteor which might trigger a devastating tsunami, or a big earthquake cannot be blamed on the free will of humans.

Actually, it can be attributed to (your: “blamed on”) man’s free will to have chosen sin over God in Eden!

Our environment was created for us with various inherent dangers, such as atmospheric electricity and non-planetary rubish on collision courses with earth’s big pools of water, which we have to deal with.

Nor can the existence of cancer or any other lethal diseases. None of these are necessary for humans to have “free will” or “self-determination”. (No need to appeal to the original sin. It was not the disobedience of humans which allegedly triggered the appearance of these phenomena. It was God’s explicit curse that did - according to the Bible, of course.)

What is your REAL argument? That God as “Good God” can’t exist because a God who allows “seemingly (to you)” unecessary pain and suffering would be an EVIL God?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benadam
The answers you hear will never satisfy because they will never meet your test which is ultimately what you would consider good.

But my concept of good is precisely the same as yours, when it comes to humans. I am certain that neither of us would consider a human father “good” if he neglected his children and allowed them to come to harm in the name of “self-determination”. Even if he promised a Cadillac as a graduation present, if and when his child graduates from college.

So, you can’t believe in a “Good God” because you don’t understand how what you see as “neglect” is not neglect as God sees it!?

In other words, you’re yet another believer in the concept that because the universe is not perfect God can’t possibly exist.

It is the Christians whose idea of “good” is skewed and twisted - when it comes to God. No human will be considered good, caring, loving, just and merciful if he did or allowed the things that God does or allows.

Because you don’t understand what you’re talking about, you feel justified in calling God evil? That IS your right, of course.

The concept of good is very simple. I merely apply this concept to both humans and God equally. It is the Christians who try to “whitewash” God whose lack of love, caring, mercy and justice is blatantly apperent.

What is God’s shoe size? Good is NOT a one-size-fits-all thing, even among humans, and infinitely less comparably comparable between God and man.

God’s GOAL is the most good for each of us individually and all of us as mankind.

You demand that God prove that He is “good”, as you understand “good”, to you PERSONALLY!

The typical materialist, or scientistic materialist, gripe is that he needs proof before he will believe. That is his right, but it is precisely backward in matters regarding God.

One either believes revelation and applies it, or believes what is applied (by agents) and considers that revelation (“revealed knowledge/truth”).

It is senseless to argue that God is good, or even exists, with one who doesn’t believe in revelation.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv
In your definition of “good” above you have demostrated that without a doubt it is precisely not the the same as one used by a Catholic Christian. To me, a Catholic, “good” is what is Godly.

After all God definitely neglects us, his “children”?

Does He?

Or is that simply your impression of the intent of “all those powers that aren’t me”?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv
3) No, God does not neglect us.

I have never heard of God taking care of the needy, even if they pray to God. God does not send rain to the drought-ridden territories. God does not warn the possible victims of an earthquake. God does not prevent the innocent from suffering. God does not stop genocides (we have to be “grateful” that nowadays God does not order genocides). God does not answer the prayers of children.

If you assert that such behavior is “taking care” of his “children”, there is not much possibility to have a meaningful conversation. Which is too bad.

Is it very depressing being so hopeless?

 

[ateista]

Yes. Very big difference!

It IS will, because to needlessly inflict pain **ALWAYS WILL **translate to inflicting needless pain on persons (humans).

How do you plan to substantiate such a broad, sweeping claim?

 

[ateista]

Your error above is in your use of the “for the afflicted”.

Pain is morally justifiable where necessary, where “necessary” means the pain is a prerequisite for achieving a greater good FOR A PERSON or PERSONS, and NOT “for the afflicted”.

I disagree with your assessment. From your reasoning it would follow that inflicting even necessary of person “A” in order to achieve some greater good for person “B” is morally justifyable.

There IS no such thing as a greater good for non-persons!

That I agree with.

Are you in fact arguing that “animals are people too” and are due (some sizable subset of) the rights of human persons?

I don’t, however quite a few people do.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Yes. Very big difference!

It IS will, because to needlessly inflict pain ALWAYS WILL translate to inflicting needless pain on persons (humans).

How do you plan to substantiate such a broad, sweeping claim?

With MATH!