The four requirements of justifyable pain, suffering or harm

[Spock]

Pain, suffering or harm can sometimes be justified. They can be justified if some greater good comes out of them. But the “greater good” is much too vague. Not all harms can be justified simply because some good will ensue. Here are the four requirements I wish to introduce.

1. The recipient of the “greater good” must be the same who endured the harm. It is unacceptable to inflict some harm on person “A”, so that person “B” will reap some benefits. Unless, of course person “A” volunteers for it, and is aware of the consequences.
2. The “greater good” must really outweigh the harm. If the sufferer is mature and lucid, he must be asked first, if he wants the harm. If the sufferer is not mature or lucid, then the one who inflicts the pain must use his best judgment.
3. The harm cannot be lessened without losing the benefit.
4. The harm must be a logical prerequisite to the benefit. If the same benefit can be reached without the harm, the harm cannot be justified.

These are very simple requirements. Maybe you agree, maybe you don’t. If you disagree, please tell me, why?

 

[tonyrey]

Not all harms can be justified simply because some good will ensue.

Which type of harm cannot be justified?

1. The recipient of the “greater good” must be the same who endured the harm. It is unacceptable to inflict some harm on person “A”, so that person “B” will reap some benefits. Unless, of course person “A” volunteers for it, and is aware of the consequences.

It is sometimes acceptable to inflict harm on one person if another person will benefit provided that ultimately both will benefit.

1. The “greater good” must really outweigh the harm. If the sufferer is mature and lucid, he must be asked first, if he wants the harm. If the sufferer is not mature or lucid, then the one who inflicts the pain must use his best judgment.

It is sometimes impossible to consult the person beforehand.

1. The harm cannot be lessened without losing the benefit.

True.

4) The harm must be a logical prerequisite to the benefit. If the same benefit can be reached without the harm, the harm cannot be justified.

True.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Spock:

1. The recipient of the “greater good” must be the same who endured the harm. It is unacceptable to inflict some harm on person “A”, so that person “B” will reap some benefits. Unless, of course person “A” volunteers for it, and is aware of the consequences.
2. The “greater good” must really outweigh the harm. If the sufferer is mature and lucid, he must be asked first, if he wants the harm. If the sufferer is not mature or lucid, then the one who inflicts the pain must use his best judgment.

Mr. Spock, I’m surprised at you. You yourself stated in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan that “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.”

I disagree with requirements one and two. The commander of a naval vessel who seals off some sections (in effect, harming persons A, B, & C) to make the survival of the ship more likely (perhaps saving hundreds of people) has harmed for the greater good whether A, B, & C volunteered or not. Quarantining (or killing) those contaminated or possibly contaminated with an infectuous virus is a similar case.

 

[Spock]

Which type of harm cannot be justified?

Those which violate the 4 principles.

It is sometimes acceptable to inflict harm on one person if another person will benefit provided that ultimately both will benefit.

Give me an actual example, so I can contemplate it. The closest example I can think of is still different. Suppose there are two people, “A” and “B”. “A” is in dire need of a kidney transplant. “B” has a kidney which is suitable. Is it permissible to forcefully take his kidney, against his wishes, so that “A” will survive? Consider, that one can live with one kidney. The donor will not benefit, but at least does not come to more harm. But this example is still not the same as the one you stipulated.

It is sometimes impossible to consult the person beforehand.

Indeed so. In such a case the person who inflicts the pain should try to consult the next of kin. If that is impossible, then he must make the decision to the best of his ability, and hope for the best. Preferably he should imagine what would he do if he were in the place of the person.

True.
True.

I am glad that we have agreement on two points.

 

[Spock]

Mr. Spock, I’m surprised at you. You yourself stated in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan that “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.”

That is not the same Spock. This Spock says that “rights” are not additive. If two people gang up on one does not make the robbery acceptable. Also: “the lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part”. The “might makes right” principle condones or justifies anything and everything.

I disagree with requirements one and two. The commander of a naval vessel who seals off some sections (in effect, harming persons A, B, & C) to make the survival of the ship more likely (perhaps saving hundreds of people) has harmed for the greater good whether A, B, & C volunteered or not. Quarantining (or killing) those contaminated or possibly contaminated with an infectuous virus is a similar case.

Lifeboat situations are a special case. I was not talking about those. In lifeboat situations the normal rules do not apply, and usually the strongest will survive, as you indicated in your scenario.

 

[smichhertz]

Are you saying that is acceptable to INFLICT harm on another provided it does not violate any of the 4 principles above? Or more just it is acceptable to do something that may have the undesirable EFFECT of harming someone?

I would argue that the ends don’t justify the means and it is never acceptable to deliberately inflict harm on another.However, there is also the double effect theory that I think is more what you are getting at. You are looking at the EFFECTS of the action that are going to take place.

I just want to make sure we have the same context here, because it sounds like this could be bordering on Proportionalism / Consequentialism which would be wrong.

 

[Spock]

Are you saying that is acceptable to INFLICT harm on another provided it does not violate any of the 4 principles above? Or more just it is acceptable to do something that may have the undesirable EFFECT of harming someone?

I am talking about the so called “greater good” concept. This is usually expressed as God allows / or inflicts (there is no difference) certain “bad things to happen” which can be justified if one considers the desirable results of these events. I am merely clarifying the necessary requirements for this concept. Usually they proponents just say “greater good”, without specifying the details. And, as we know, the devil is in the details.

I would argue that the ends don’t justify the means and it is never acceptable to deliberately inflict harm on another.

I agree with the concept that the end, in and by itself cannot justify the means. But that is not the same as analyzing the end and the means together. Certain ends achieved in certain ways can form a justifyable process, while the same ends achieved via other means do not form a justifyable sequence.

However, there is also the double effect theory that I think is more what you are getting at. You are looking at the EFFECTS of the action that are going to take place.

I am looking both at the ways and the results.

 

[tonyrey]

Which type of harm cannot be justified?

Can you give a specific example?

It is sometimes acceptable to inflict harm on one person if another person will benefit provided that ultimately both will benefit.

Give me an actual example, so I can contemplate it.

To cause people to suffer from malnutrition by depriving them of their food in order to keep others alive. To imprison criminals for the benefit of society even though they may well degenerate as a result.

It is sometimes impossible to consult the person beforehand.

Indeed so. In such a case the person who inflicts the pain should try to consult the next of kin. If that is impossible, then he must make the decision to the best of his ability, and hope for the best. Preferably he should imagine what would he do if he were in the place of the person.

In other words you accept the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity even though they do not have a rational basis in an amoral universe.

 

[Spock]

Can you give a specific example?

Yes, unfortunately I can. Allowing rape, murder, torture and genocides to go ahead. Allowing hunger to happen due to lack of rain. Allowing cancer to happen due to lack of medication. I wish there would be no examples.

To cause people to suffer from malnutrition by depriving them of their food in order to keep others alive. To imprison criminals for the benefit of society even though they may well degenerate as a result.

Huh? Where is the part where both parties will benefit? That is what you said: “It is sometimes acceptable to inflict harm on one person if another person will benefit provided that ultimately both will benefit”. I find this reasonable, but I cannot think of an example. Your examples do not cover the “both will benefit” part.

In other words you accept the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity even though they do not have a rational basis in an amoral universe.

What I said has nothing to do with this.

 

[vz71]

I can see a great deal of problem with this.

The 4 requirements as laid out show a number of perfectly reasonable exceptions.

I imagine this would be frustrating. It is really not a quantifiable thing this side of judgement.

I am sure there are a few rules that can eventually be laid out, but to include all possible cases without exceptions they would need to be so vague as to be meaningless.

Just as you pointed out ‘greater good’ is too vague.
Yet any attempt to bring it down to specifics will simply generate exceptions.

Perhaps we should leave it up to the one with perfect knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, unfortunately I can. Allowing rape, murder, torture and genocides to go ahead. Allowing hunger to happen due to lack of rain. Allowing cancer to happen due to lack of medication. I wish there would be no examples.

How precisely do these examples violate **each **principle?

To cause people to suffer from malnutrition by depriving them of their food in order to keep others alive. To imprison criminals for the benefit of society even though they may well degenerate as a result.

Huh? Where is the part where both parties will benefit?

That is what you said: “It is sometimes acceptable to inflict harm on one person if another person will benefit provided that ultimately both will benefit”. I find this reasonable, but I cannot think of an example. Your examples do not cover the “both will benefit” part.

1. If you had saved people’s lives by having been malnourished you don’t think you would benefit in any way whatsoever?
2. Don’t you believe the criminals would benefit by not being able to commit crimes and having the opportunity to lead a more rewarding life?

In other words you accept the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity even though they do not have a rational basis in an amoral universe.

What I said has nothing to do with this.

On the contrary. What do think your principles are based on? Thin air?

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

tonyrey:

(To Spock) On the contrary. What do think your principles are based on? Thin air?

I wish to clarify that my use of the term “greater good” and the examples I previously presented should not be construed to imply the belief in any guiding moral principles on the part of myself, the commander, nor the quarantiners–unless you wish to classify self-preservation as a moral principle. In which case, you may consider us all extremely moral.

In other words, an amoral person may do many things for the “greater good” of his society.

 

[tonyrey]

What do think your principles are based on? Thin air?

Self-preservation is merely a form of egoism which does not provide any basis for morality whatsoever!

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Self-preservation is merely a form of egoism which does not provide any basis for morality whatsoever!

We’re on the same page. I curious from what Spock derives the moral principles which form the basis for his requirements.

 

[tonyrey]

We’re on the same page. I curious from what Spock derives the moral principles which form the basis for his requirements.

It will be interesting to see how he extricates himself without any means of moral justification!

 

[Spock]

How precisely do these examples violate **each **principle?

You don’t understand. I said that a harm is justified if it fulfills all 4 principles. The logical negation is that a harm cannot be justified if it violates one or more of those principles. It is not necessary that it would violate all 4 of them. Are you familiar with Boolean algebra? (In a sense you are right, when I said “if they violate the 4 principles”, I meant “if they violate any of the 4 principles”, but it could be understood as “if they violate all of the 4 principles”.)

1. If you had saved people’s lives by having been malnourished you don’t think you would benefit in any way whatsoever?
2. Don’t you believe the criminals would benefit by not being able to commit crimes and having the opportunity to lead a more rewarding life?

Try again. This is what you said:

1. To cause people to suffer from malnutrition by depriving them of their food in order to keep others alive.
2. To imprison criminals for the benefit of society even though they may well degenerate as a result.

How do people benefit when they suffer from malnutrition?
How do criminals benefit from “degenerating”?

 

[Spock]

I can see a great deal of problem with this.

The 4 requirements as laid out show a number of perfectly reasonable exceptions.

Bring them on. I am curious.

 

[tonyrey]

How precisely do these examples violate each principle?

How **precisely **do these examples violate each principle?

1. If you had saved people’s lives by having been malnourished you don’t think you would benefit in any way whatsoever?
2. Don’t you believe the criminals would benefit by not being able to commit crimes and having the opportunity to lead a more rewarding life?

How do people benefit when they suffer from malnutrition?

How do people benefit when they know they have saved others’ lives? How do people benefit when they know they know they have saved others’ lives and did not do so?

How do criminals benefit from “degenerating”?

How do criminals benefit when they are unable to commit crimes and have the opportunity to lead a more rewarding life? Do they benefit from being allowed to commit more crimes?

 

[vz71]

Bring them on. I am curious.

Read your own thread. You need not be curious.

In fact, you specify lifeboat situations as exceptions. Intellectually dishonest of you to boast “bring them on, I am curious” having already had to deal with them.

There is also the Captain that sends men into harms way to win the battle.
And the example of self sacrifice for another.
And the ultimate example of Jesus himself.

 

[Spock]

Read your own thread. You need not be curious.

In fact, you specify lifeboat situations as exceptions. Intellectually dishonest of you to boast “bring them on, I am curious” having already had to deal with them.

There is also the Captain that sends men into harms way to win the battle.

Wars and lifeboat examples are exceptions. The normal rules of behavior do not apply. And I don’t think that you can justify killing others except in self-defense. (To say that one is justified to kill others because food is running short in a lifeboat seems like stretching “self-defense” a little too far.) Or, at least I think this is the stance of the Catholic Church. But, again, what do I know?

And the example of self sacrifice for another.
And the ultimate example of Jesus himself.

Actually these are included. If someone volunteers to go into harm’s way, then the action is his own business. Go back to the opening post. I will repeat it here: “Unless, of course person “A” volunteers for it, and is aware of the consequences.”

I am talking about normal situations, when someone inflicts harm on non-volunteers, and tries to justify it with the excuse of bringing “greater good” to others. I will give you examples (just to show you how it is done, in an intellectualy honest manner).

1. To forcefully cut out a kidney from a non-volunteer, just so that the recipient will survive.
2. In the US the goverment conducted radiation experiments on unsuspecting people (in the 1950’s), so they could know about the effect of radiation.
3. To harvest the organs of a patient in coma in order to save the lives of the recipients of transplant.
4. A less obvious example: many people find it inexcusable to conduct experiments on animals (not even humans, just lowly animals), just so that the cosmetics industry can make better lipsticks and other mascara.

You see? It is easy. Now, maybe you agree with such practices, I don’t know. If you say that these practices are fine and dandy, just say it.