Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on May 19, 2012 at 4:01pm

There's no way to quantify how much another creature can suffer because the suffering of another is something one imagines. Our own suffering is the only real suffering we shall ever know. The suffering of others is imaginary, even should it be real to others, a situation for which there will never be proof.

To believe in the suffering of others and act on same requires faith as well as imagination, so believe in the suffering of others if you like, but in doing so be aware what you are doing and on what basis.

I believe strongly in science and seeking evidence, but I can't just convince myself that suffering (other than my own) isn't real. Again, even empathy alone is enough to make me feel the suffering of others, and even if I'm just imagining it, it's still real to me. At the same time that we know how science (based on evidence) is superior to faith (based on feeling), that doesn't mean that lack of evidence for, or scientific description of feeling makes feeling or empathy irrelevant to each of us.

Seriously, I believe in the "perfection" of science, but only insofar as we can admit humbly when we don't have enough evidence (e.g.) to disprove the relevance of feeling. What I mean is, I want to avoid having so much faith in science that I can draw any conclusion I want based on lack of evidence.

Just as it takes more intelligence to better understand the universe and life in terms of scientific probabilities instead of faith-imposed, absolute dogma, I suggest that people who believe in science should also be able to humbly step back and admit that feeling and empathy are still relevant to discussions like this, even if we lack "proof" of such relevance.

Am I making any sense? A line wrt how much suffering in others we will accept (whether merely personally imagined or not) still has to be drawn somewhere, right? Even if we draw our lines in different places, somewhat arbitrarily. Perhaps the main problem is that it's currently difficult to explain it 100% reasonably.

(Whoops, when I re-read what you wrote, maybe we're really agreeing with each other?)

And now, as I re-read my own writing, it seems to me again that science really should be focusing more on what can be proven, and less on disproving matters of faith (unless they're obvious). I.e., despite lack of scientific definition or description of suffering, suffering is still a very relevant topic to me, even it it's just philosophically relevant. (I apologize if I'm misinterpreting anyone.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trevor on May 19, 2012 at 4:07pm

Hey Popy, your not as far in the dark as some.  What a terrible nonsense filled pickle the world becomes when you try and remove God from it. 

 

To even contemplate as a serious possibility that other people's suffering isn't real is so wild and determined in its atheistic convictions that utter blindness has set it.  How irrational and unreasonable.  I am so glad you cannot go along with it.  You give me hope that not all atheists have ejected their brains ;-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trevor on May 19, 2012 at 4:09pm

Absolutely loved your picture! 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Major on May 19, 2012 at 4:25pm

Trevor. Unseen can speak for himself. I don't think he (I certainly don't) thinks other peoples suffering is not real. It is just imagined. 'imagined' might be a poor choice of word, perhaps assumed would be better since it cannot be proven. That is, the only pain we can actually feel is our own, we just imagine or assume others feel it the same way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trevor on May 19, 2012 at 4:30pm

Thanks for the clarification John.  It seemed to me to smack of the realist / anti-realist thing which is down those lines, and quite strange.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on May 19, 2012 at 6:09pm

Assuming others feel pain is even less supportable than imagining others feel pain. It boils down to basing an action on something we merely imagine. I'm not saying that I don't make that leap myself, but I do feel it should prevent anyone from getting on a moral high horse.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Major on May 20, 2012 at 4:26am

Well we disagree then. I would say people who engage in torture of others are prima facie wrong. I have no problem getting on my 'moral high horse' when looking at concentration camps and the like. I certainly would not reserve judgement because I had no proof others felt pain and suffering, and that I could only imagine rather than assume their pain. I guess we are just different.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on May 20, 2012 at 12:32pm

Oh my, you are making me feel so guilty. The thing with evangelicals and self-declared messiahs is that they just make people roll their eyes. Can't you see here that the pro-vegetarians/vegans are making NO headway? None. People don't reach their conclusions by being browbeaten, guilt-tripped, or annoyed. You are doing it primarily to make yourself feel better. Ponder the ethics of that.

Why not trust people to reach their own decision in moral matters? And if you can't why is that?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dogly on May 20, 2012 at 1:03pm

Why did the abolitionists not just, "Live and let live."  Or in this case, "Live and let die."  Why?  Because they recognized a grave injustice that their peers seems unwilling, or unable to see.  They were capable of empathy and compassion.  They loved justice.  They wanted to share the benefits of freedom with those who had been denied it.    Slave owners did not give up their privileges, and unfair advantages, without presenting many arguments, both biblical and scientific in favor of slavery.  In fact their arguments are almost identical to those stated here, by those who enjoy their power over " lesser beings".

Permalink Reply by John Major on May 21, 2012 at 1:46pm

@Unseen. As Dogly has made an excellent point. Without the persistent voicing of a moral concern, maybe slavery would still be in vogue. I am sure the pro-slavery lobby rolled their eyes too and claimed, without knowledge and in error, that abolitionists were making no headway.

I do trust people to make up,their own minds but they should look at the arguments before doing so. Some vegetarians/vegans are presenting facts and arguments based on ethics of compassion. Those lacking the necessary compassion will never be persuaded.

You think it is a 'leap' to believe non human animals feel pain as we do and on that basis disparage anyone taking a moral view. I believe you have not looked at the evidence showing the similarity of central nervous systems. This may help:

http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/pdfdownload.php?doi=14756331

The CNS seems absolutely key to the survival of most species. With it playing such a key role in the survivals of species, with the similarities in behaviour that pain stimulus provokes, how can you maintain it a 'leap' that we are similar. It would surely to a leap to think opposite we're true, that other animals do not feel pain and suffer as we do. Your reasoning and attitude are, I believe, still entrenched in the dominionist view of the world made popular by Christianity.

Permalink Reply by Dogly on May 20, 2012 at 11:47am

Sophistry, unseen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on May 20, 2012 at 12:53pm

That's easy to say. It's kind of like "whatever."

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 70
• 71
• 72
• 73
• 74
• …
• 87
• Next ›
• Page