Morally justifiable pain, suffering and torture

[Caesar517]

ateista: as an imperfect being, how can you possibly hope to perfectly determine whether something is needless or not? You are playing God. All you can legitimately say ois that you cannot see the perpose something serves. You are not omniscient.

 

[minkymurph]

God NEVER victimizes, and was only a victim of victimizers once, during His incarnation.
God does not victimize. Full stop. This is an axiomatic statement. It is always true.
.

I was using the term ‘victim’ in the sense it’s used in the Mass. Of course I didn’t actually explain that.

 

[ateista]

I’m not sure people are really seeing what ateista is saying, so I figured I’d give it a whirl.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but I gather that ateista is saying that:

1. Pain is a mechanism that is good for teaching organisms about things to avoid
2. Useless pain, or pain that occurs but does not teach an animal (in the case of death, where the animal will have no chance to learn from the experience) is evil.
3. God is benevolent
4. Yet useless pain occurs in the world, and God does not intervene against the evil therefore God = non-benevolent or non-existant.

Excellent summary. Though I would make a little adjustment to your first point:

1. Some pain can be a mechanism that is good for teaching organisms about things to avoid. Example a toothache for an animal, it does not “teach” the animal anything at all.

However, I do not agree with this argument.
For one, it asserts that there is right and wrong, with which I agree, but find it curious for an atheist to do (yes, I know there are moral atheists, but it all boils down to having no real reason to be so).

Sure there is. Life is a self-sustaining and self-propagating condition and therefore whatever supports life and the quailty of life is “good”, whatever inhibits life or lowers the quality of life is “bad”.

Aside from that, I think it is important to consider the nature of animals, at least as I believe the church sees it:

What the church states is irrelevant for an atheist, I am sure you understand. Your thoughts are relevant.

They do not have souls.

Soul is not a verifyable concept, better leave it alone.

They are unthinking. Yes, they feel pain, but I don’t think they really comprehend the pain, if that’s the right word.

We agree. Most animals do not “think” in a discursive fashion, though there are examples of higher apes, who can conduct conversations in sign language. But for me that is not the point. They feel pain, even though they may not consciously understand it.

However, we should not senselessly inflict pain upon anything.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

Now, the examples ateista gave, such as the wildfire, dealt with nature. I think nature has some ‘good’ and ‘bad’ outcomes, but the thing itself is morally neutral. If a lion eats a zebra, it isn’t a sin.

Very well put. Nature is value neutral, or amoral.

Now, I don’t think God would inflict senseless pain on an animal, but I don’t think He goes out of His way to scoop it up out of the path of the fire either.

Here you deal with the essense of the argument. Wouldn’t you go out of your way and open the door of a burning barn to let the (obviously) scared animals out? Of course you would. That is what a loving, caring person would do. An indifferent, uncaring person would just go by - even if he could open that door without risking his own demise. God does not even need to go “out of his way”, all he has to do is “wish” that the animals would not suffer.

I think the benevolence of God means He does not inflict senseless pain and deals with His attitude toward souls, and since animals don’t have souls, it doesn’t really seem to matter.

It certainly matters to the animals. They try to escape, they exhibit all the signs of fear and pain.

And while plants can’t feel pain and animals can, in terms of the soul they are both equal.

The soul is still an unverifyable religious concept. For an atheist it is meaningless.

Sure, you could say God is all-powerful and could save all the animals, but…we cannot know the mind of God, and to me it just seems senseless.

I did not try to appeal to the mind of God.

The problem of pain (or the problem of evil) has been discussed by many philosophers and theologians. It was their reasoning which I was referring to. Their conclusion is that pain can be justified in those circumstances when it is logically necessary for some greater good - but only in that case. In my examples I showed that there are some instances of pain which do not fulfill this criterion.

 

[ateista]

ateista: as an imperfect being, how can you possibly hope to perfectly determine whether something is needless or not? You are playing God. All you can legitimately say ois that you cannot see the perpose something serves. You are not omniscient.

I don’t need to be omniscient. All I have to know that the painful way of perishing in a fire is not good for the animal so afflicted.

 

[davidv]

I don’t need to be omniscient. All I have to know that the painful way of perishing in a fire is not good for the animal so afflicted.

How do you “know” that this event wasn’t necessary?

 

[ateista]

How do you “know” that this event wasn’t necessary?

Unfortunately your question is too generic for me to understand what you ask.

But I will try to explain what I mean by necessary.

Suppose that a doctor and his friend are on a trip and the friend is bitten by a poisonous snake. The doctor does not have an antidote, and his only option to save the friends life is to cut out the meat around the bite. It is a very painful procedure, but he must perform it to save his friend’s life. In this case the causing of the pain is logically necessary to achieve the desired greater good - saving the life.

Now suppose the same scenario, but the doctor has the proper antidote. In this case the surgical procedure would still save the person’s life, but the pain is not justified any more, since the same result could be achieved by a simpler, less painful procedure - the injection of the antidote.

So necessary pain is not defined by the end result (the end never justifies the means), only the absolutely minimal amount of pain can be justified.

If this does not answer your question, please elaborate.

 

[Benadam]

Unfortunately your question is too generic for me to understand what you ask.

But I will try to explain what I mean by necessary.

Suppose that a doctor and his friend are on a trip and the friend is bitten by a poisonous snake. The doctor does not have an antidote, and his only option to save the friends life is to cut out the meat around the bite. It is a very painful procedure, but he must perform it to save his friend’s life. In this case the causing of the pain is logically necessary to achieve the desired greater good - saving the life.

Now suppose the same scenario, but the doctor has the proper antidote. In this case the surgical procedure would still save the person’s life, but the pain is not justified any more, since the same result could be achieved by a simpler, less painful procedure - the injection of the antidote.

So necessary pain is not defined by the end result (the end never justifies the means), only the absolutely minimal amount of pain can be justified.

If this does not answer your question, please elaborate.

 

[Benadam]

Unfortunately your question is too generic for me to understand what you ask.

But I will try to explain what I mean by necessary.

Suppose that a doctor and his friend are on a trip and the friend is bitten by a poisonous snake. The doctor does not have an antidote, and his only option to save the friends life is to cut out the meat around the bite. It is a very painful procedure, but he must perform it to save his friend’s life. In this case the causing of the pain is logically necessary to achieve the desired greater good - saving the life.

Now suppose the same scenario, but the doctor has the proper antidote. In this case the surgical procedure would still save the person’s life, but the pain is not justified any more, since the same result could be achieved by a simpler, less painful procedure - the injection of the antidote.

So necessary pain is not defined by the end result (the end never justifies the means), only the absolutely minimal amount of pain can be justified.

If this does not answer your question, please elaborate.

This analogy doesn’t work. Unless you specify that the concept of God being discussed is not seperated by the chasm that divides the created from the creator. Whgat applies to the created does not apply to the creator.

 

[ateista]

This analogy doesn’t work. Unless you specify that the concept of God being discussed is not seperated by the chasm that divides the created from the creator. Whgat applies to the created does not apply to the creator.

I don’t accept that. If there is any meaning to the concepts of “good”, “benevolent”, “just”, merciful", etc. they must be applied equally to everyone. The ancient Romans did have a saying: “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”, but I deny the validity of such notions.

The funny thing is that believers assert the existence of absolute categories (like absolute morality) and then immediately deny the same ideas as soon as they are applied to God. Very ironic, and in my eyes highly hypocritical. To say that genocide in a horrible, immoral act - when performed by humans; and perfectly acceptable when ordered (or performed) by God is simply ridiculous.

 

[Benadam]

I don’t accept that. If there is any meaning to the concepts of “good”, “benevolent”, “just”, merciful", etc. they must be applied equally to everyone. The ancient Romans did have a saying: “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi”, but I deny the validity of such notions

Then we cannot discuss the concept of good in this context. The Christian concept of God is harmonious with the philosophies developed by the Greeks and generally adopted by most monotheists. If God wouldn’t have the same nature as already accepted you have to specify this so we can agree on what concept of God is being discussed. Otherwise you are shaping the concept of God to fit the criteria you require to prove that God doesn’t exist

The funny thing is that believers assert the existence of absolute categories (like absolute morality) and then immediately deny the same ideas as soon as they are applied to God. Very ironic, and in my eyes highly hypocritical. To say that genocide in a horrible, immoral act - when performed by humans; and perfectly acceptable when ordered (or performed) by God is simply ridiculous.

It’s you who fails to apply the absolutes. God as creator of good is good absolutely. The absolute good is not apprehendable by beings relative to it without being revealed by the being that is absolute. This isn’t just Christian thought but the thought developed about the nature of God as creator of all that is.

 

[ateista]

Then we cannot discuss the concept of good in this context.

That is pretty amazing. Such a simple concept and we cannot agree on its meaning.

The Christian concept of God is harmonious with the philosophies developed by the Greeks and generally adopted by most monotheists. If God wouldn’t have the same nature as already accepted you have to specify this so we can agree on what concept of God is being discussed. Otherwise you are shaping the concept of God to fit the criteria you require to prove that God doesn’t exist

I am not shaping anything, simply use the word “good” and “benevolent” as it is understood by everyone.

It’s you who fails to apply the absolutes. God as creator of good is good absolutely.

I know that this is what you believe, but that is not the point. This belief is not supported by the facts.

How can you say that the alleged wholescale extinction of the humans along with the animals (who are most emphatically innocent of any wrongdoing) is a “moral” act? How can you say that a God who wipes out the innocent along the supposedly guilty is a “loving”, “caring”, “just” and “merciful” being? Don’t you realize that such claims make your belief system sound like lunacy?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
It is certainly good for some animals to be burned alive, or boiled alive, or eviscerated alive if that is what is best for them to be of most value to us as food!

Good for them? You are weird. In my eyes, to kill an animal for food is natural. But only to kill as painlessly as possible. Not in some elaborate, torturous way, even if that would make them tastier.

The “best (good) for them” clause in my above statement means “best for them to be the best food that they can be”, not “what if good for them as individual animals”.

I agree that to kill a food animal as painlessly as possible is a good thing to be strived for, but if there needs to be (value judgement!) some seemingly-to-you-unecessary pain inflicted for a greater benefit to us (humans) then the animal will be “repaid” by God however it is that God does such a thing.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
That is not an ad hominem attack. It is simply an observation by me of those who claim there is no revelation from God. Those people do indeed tend to be quite angry, despairing and hopeless in their outlook of the world they live in.

Total BS. How many atheists do you know personally? I know many, and somehow none of them is angry, despairing and hopeless.

That’s because they’re not REALLY atheists, ateista. They are agnostic-God-believers who PROFESS to be atheists to be “cool” who simply haven’t had to face their own mortality yet.

ALL true atheists I’ve ever met, which are extremely few for the reason above, are about 30 seconds from suicide at every point in their lives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Since you have a faulty definition, understanding, of God qua God, which means God AS God, ANY conclusion you come to based on your (mis)understanding of God is highly likely to be incorrect.

Don’t be so condescending. I learned Latin. And I only claim to understand the human concept called God, not the hypothetical being this concept is supposed to represent.

Then apparently your sources of info about God, or your ability to correctly process said info regardless of source, is very bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
For example, an omnipotent God, which is God as God is, is not FORCED to create His creation in any way He doesn’t find most best, meaning He is not FORCED to create a creation that is “perfect according to Ateista”!

Who talked about “forced”? I said that it is illogical to create an inferior world, unless of course God wanted a playground? Certainly a self-sufficient being would never create anything.

And this once again vividly points out where you are mistaken as to what God is about!

You simply have no meaningful connection with the information necessary to talk about God qua God so as to describe anything but your misconceptions.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
You seem incapable of accepting that God simply CAN’T do an injustice!

That is merely your opinion. Of course if you define “just” as whatever God does, then you are correct. However, if justice is to have any meaning, it would be defined independently and would apply to humans and gods equally.

Your consistent misunderstanding of God qua God, illustrated perfectly by your using “gods”, as if there were not only one God, makes anything you say about God meaningless, because you’re not talking about God, but rather your incorrect “gods”.

If you won’t talk about God while saying you ARE talking about God why should we take anything you have to say about that which you won’t talk about seriously?

In other words, your mouth is moving, but there’s nothing comin’ out of it!

 

[Benadam]

That is pretty amazing. Such a simple concept and we cannot agree on its meaning

It’s amazing that in a discussion about the God christians believe that you are unable to include what distinguishes human from divine nature. Don’t know if you can’t grasp it or refuse to acknowledge it for obvious reasons. Either way, if you wish to discuss the God of Christian belief you are bound to include His nature as Christians believe. Otherwise you’ll continue saying ‘I don’t accept that’ which really means ’ I refuse to discuss God as you believe Him to be’.

I am not shaping anything, simply use the word “good” and “benevolent” as it is understood by everyone.

I am not. But on the other hand I accept that there is a God and this God is outside of time and space. This God is not contained by what he creates and to be intellectually honest about this God requires that what is good is revealed for man to know not judge.

 

[OTavern]

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?

There are several possibilities in answer to your quandary.

1. Animals may not have a conscious awareness of pain. True they may respond to pain stimuli, but this may be mere stimulus–response with no awareness. If there is no one there to “feel” the pain then no pain in the sense of felt pain is present. Hence no unnecessary pain or suffering. One Scriptural reason for believing that most animals, unlike humans, do not have awareness is there is no sanction against eating (hence killing) the majority of animals, whereas there is regarding human beings.
2. Given that subatomic particles appear to move in indeterminate or “random fashion,” apparently “on their own” or without obvious causal antecedents, it could be that subatomic particles are similar to “control points” that animators use to create the motion of characters in complex animation sequences. Perhaps God is the supreme animator of the universe, controlling all motion through these subatomic control points. The “anima” (not in the Jungian sense, but from the original Latin meaning) or life principle in animals that moves and directs their behaviour may be God himself. So in a sense, perhaps God himself “suffers” in them.
3. Love often involves self-giving and in a manner of speaking, willingly “suffering” loss by giving up something of our own pleasure and bearing the loved one’s burdens. Examples of this may range from child-bearing pain, to labour involved in raising and supporting children, loving despite certain knowledge that death will bring separation from the loved one, etc. It might be said that to live life in all its richness means assuming both these roles that play out in nature – of complete empathy with predator and of prey, conqueror and vanquished - that is, virtue is in finding the balance of having the courage to conquer “evil,” and the long-suffering of bearing with and suffering evil if that is what is called for. Being niggardly with either of these leads to either cowardice or cruelty, but virtue is the right dose of both.
4. Suffering in and of itself may not be evil. True it is discomforting, but that does not make it bad. The discomfort may bring about great good. Consider the pain in “working out” or running a marathon. No pain, no gain. So to assume pain or suffering = evil may be in error. The problem of pain is different from the problem of evil. I suspect the problem of pain is easier to resolve than the problem of evil.

 

[ateista]

It’s amazing that in a discussion about the God christians believe that you are unable to include what distinguishes human from divine nature. Don’t know if you can’t grasp it or refuse to acknowledge it for obvious reasons. Either way, if you wish to discuss the God of Christian belief you are bound to include His nature as Christians believe. Otherwise you’ll continue saying ‘I don’t accept that’ which really means ’ I refuse to discuss God as you believe Him to be’.

Not exactly. God’s “nature” is not the point of contention. God’s actions or the lack thereof is the point.

this is a theological discussion. At least on this side it is.

On my side it is a philosophical discussion. That is why I posted it in the Philosophy section and not in the Apologetic one. My point is that to call someone “good”, “loving” and “caring” is preposterous if that being commits or allows the events we can observe.

I thought we were discussing God within the christian belief system?

True.

Philosophical proofs that have not been refuted are considered facts.

Since no valid counter-arguments have been presented I refuted this one.

What you refuse to acknowledge are these facts. The ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle supported these beliefs long ago. It’s very easy to see that if you did include these philosophical proofs your assertion crumbles. If you can’t keep the concept of God something smaller than humans your argument loses the appearance of having substance.

Aristotele may have been a genius in his time, but his ideas have long ago been superceeded.

I am not. But on the other hand I accept that there is a God and this God is outside of time and space. This God is not contained by what he creates and to be intellectually honest about this God requires that what is good is revealed for man to know not judge.

Unacceptable. If a human being is called “good” for opening the door so that animals will not perish in a fire; and would be called “uncaring” or “indifferent” for failing to do so, then the same adjectives apply to God for similar behavior.

Whether God is a creator or not is of no relevance. A father who is the “creator” of his children has the same obligation. Just because he created his children does not absolve him from the responsibilities; on the very contrary - it makes his obligations even more serious!

 

[ateista]

There are several possibilities in answer to your quandary.

1. Animals may not have a conscious awareness of pain. True they may respond to pain stimuli, but this may be mere stimulus–response with no awareness. If there is no one there to “feel” the pain then no pain in the sense of felt pain is present. Hence no unnecessary pain or suffering. One Scriptural reason for believing that most animals, unlike humans, do not have awareness is there is no sanction against eating (hence killing) the majority of animals, whereas there is regarding human beings.

That is not convincing. Animals exhibit the same signs of fear and pain that humans do. They try to flee from pain, they howl in pain, they learn (when possible) to escape pain. That they have no ability of **conceptualizing **pain is irrelevant.

1. Given that subatomic particles appear to move in indeterminate or “random fashion,” apparently “on their own” or without obvious causal antecedents, it could be that subatomic particles are similar to “control points” that animators use to create the motion of characters in complex animation sequences. Perhaps God is the supreme animator of the universe, controlling all motion through these subatomic control points. The “anima” (not in the Jungian sense, but from the original Latin meaning) or life principle in animals that moves and directs their behaviour may be God himself. So in a sense, perhaps God himself “suffers” in them.

Sorry, I fail to see the significance.

1. Love often involves self-giving and in a manner of speaking, willingly “suffering” loss by giving up something of our own pleasure and bearing the loved one’s burdens. Examples of this may range from child-bearing pain, to labour involved in raising and supporting children, loving despite certain knowledge that death will bring separation from the loved one, etc. It might be said that to live life in all its richness means assuming both these roles that play out in nature – of complete empathy with predator and of prey, conqueror and vanquished - that is, virtue is in finding the balance of having the courage to conquer “evil,” and the long-suffering of bearing with and suffering evil if that is what is called for. Being niggardly with either of these leads to either cowardice or cruelty, but virtue is the right dose of both.

I already stipulated that **willing **suffering is not a problematic case.

1. Suffering in and of itself may not be evil. True it is discomforting, but that does not make it bad. The discomfort may bring about great good. Consider the pain in “working out” or running a marathon. No pain, no gain. So to assume pain or suffering = evil may be in error. The problem of pain is different from the problem of evil. I suspect the problem of pain is easier to resolve than the problem of evil.

I stipulated this as well. The examples I brought up are not of this kind.

 

[Caesar517]

ateista, you can never be sure when pain is “unnecessary” because you are not omniscient. You, like all of us, have a limited perspective.

 

[OTavern]

That is not convincing. Animals exhibit the same signs of fear and pain that humans do. They try to flee from pain, they howl in pain, they learn (when possible) to escape pain. That they have no ability of **conceptualizing **pain is irrelevant.

Of course it is relevant. A certain response may be programmed into the brain of animals so that when a nerve senses hurt or pain it stimulated a howl and flight response. A complex mechanism is thereby put into play, but if there is no consciousness present to “feel” the pain, in a sense there is no pain, just stimulus-response - all quite mechanical.

That makes all the difference in the world as to whether the pain actually exists or not. Kind of like the “if a tree falls in the forest and the is no ONE there to hear it…” The sound is created in the mind of the observer by the brain - but if no mind, then no sound, just a response to the vibration. If no consciousness, then no pain, just an automatic response to the stimulus.

A complex robot could be programmed so that whenever something strikes it, it lets out a high pitched squeal and runs off. Would that mean it is actually “sensing” pain? No. This, in a much more complex way could be what is happening with animals. Certain intrusions on its sensory realm may trigger specific survival responses in very complex ways, ways that seem similar to human responses but without the awareness that is endemic to human beings.