Discussion is the suffering of one out weighted by the pleasure of the many

[Darkover]

This question touches on a key issue in ethics, particularly in utilitarianism, which argues that the greatest good for the greatest number is the right course of action. From a utilitarian perspective, if the pleasure of the many significantly outweighs the suffering of one, the overall outcome could be considered positive.

However, other ethical views challenge this. Some argue that no amount of collective pleasure can justify the extreme suffering of even a single individual, emphasizing the intrinsic value of each person's experience. This perspective aligns with the idea that suffering and pleasure are not easily comparable or exchangeable—especially because suffering, in its more intense forms, can overshadow or negate pleasure for the individual enduring it.

What do you think? Should the pleasure of the many justify the suffering of one?

I think it's difficult to justify the suffering of an individual purely for the sake of the pleasure of many. Suffering, especially when it's extreme, tends to carry a profound weight that can eclipse momentary or even sustained pleasure. While utilitarian approaches might suggest that the overall happiness of a group outweighs individual pain, this assumes that pleasure and suffering can be easily balanced on a scale, which doesn't fully account for the depth of personal suffering.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's an interesting idea because the moral and right thing to say would be- no one should suffer. We shouldn't expect people to put up with suffering for our own selfish needs but I'd wager the majority of people on this site (seeing as we're accessing it through smart phones, computers, techology mined for and assembled by people likely struggling) are good at ignoring that fact.

Who hasn't bought cheap goods? Probably because we convince ourselves that we are struggling too! We can't afford free range or organic or fair trade. We justify exploiting others because we ourselves are likely being exploited in turn. It's just mostly tough luck where you happen to have been born and to whom. People might give to charity to try and ease their conscience but, will they start changing their lifestyle in order to make things fairer for everyone? Probably not. We're told we deserve all this crap. All your peers have the latest technology, cars, clothes- why shouldn't you?

The other factor is- do they perceive that they are struggling? Are they happy just to have some work? Not saying that's right of course. They shouldn't be exploited like that just because they can be. I guess at the other end of things though- even millionaires kill themselves on occasions. Who caused their suffering? I think it's the whole system that's rotten.

Maybe human nature itself but, if we're expecting people at the top to share their wealth and stop exploiting everyone and getting them to then exploit others, I think we have to ask ourselves- Would we change our lifestyles, give up our comforts for 'the greater good'? I sort of doubt it. Most people are more keen on looking out for themselves and their loved ones.

Plus, what do we do when someone is talented and works hard and makes a fortune for themselves and their family. Another person is talented but can't be bothered to do anything. Let's say in this instance, there's nothing wrong with them health wise. Should the rich person be made to share their wealth in order that the person who does nothing doesn't suffer? What if the rich person becomes miserable in their job and has a mental breakdown. Now, they are suffering. Who's paying for their care?

I just feel like everyone is suffering to some degree to keep the whole damn thing going and we're simply told to accept it because it's 'normal'. I can't think of another way though. Can you? Pay everyone the same amount? Why bother trying to become a doctor then? Why have all that responsibility and culpability if you could earn the same being a delivery driver?

It's one thing to say something is morally wrong (which of course, it is) but, how do we fix it then? What can we do as individuals even? Are you willing to make certain sacrifices? If not, then others probably aren't either.

 

[Plentiful_Despair]

Questions like this only work when its focused on very specific groups of humans and their desires. If someone really argues that he wants the best for ALL, entire humanity would have to be killed because our existence is destroying the planet on which hundreds of billions of other lifeforms depend. Thats why I don't like questions like this, it always ends in bullshit solutions. Dont get me wrong, I dont want humanity to continue spreading either, but these "greater good" concepts are always at some point used by left or rightwing maniacs to further their agendas.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

No idea, though more often than not it actually seems that the suffering of many is being outweighed by the pleasure of the few, or even the one.

 

[derpyderpins]

Utilitarianism is flawed for many reasons. It ignores the way world is, that humans and other creatures will adapt and change behavior based on what is happening around them, particularly the "rules" that society follows. Hypotheticals in favor of utilitarianism have to be of the "in a world where X and Y, oh and I guess Z, and A, and B. . . and C" in order to try and make the ultimate point that morals don't matter, only results, but you end up so far away from the actual world that the point carries no weight.

As to your hypothetical, again nuance and the nature of the world matters. What is the suffering, and to whom?

The locking up of a mass-murderer has a positive benefit on everyone in the community at the expense of the one murderer. I'd argue that suffering is outweighed because it is brought about by the evil acts of the murderer to the benefit of the innocent.

But what about the action of the murdering? Say the murderer has 10 accomplices and they all get immeasurable pleasure from the act of killing an innocent person. Of course that suffering is not outweighed by the pleasure. The murder of a person affects far more than that person. They have family and other connections. Other people in society will fear being murdered in a similar way. The criminals will be emboldened to commit further bad acts. Local governments may impose more authoritarian restrictions in response.

Even if you try to hypothetical out that it's a tree falling in the forest - no one knows the guy or ever finds out about the murder (again, I don't take anything from this far-out there hypo but I know it's something people will go to) - the pleasure felt does not outweigh the suffering because humanity is above the instinctual behavior of animals. We are capable of reasoning and have higher conciousness, and understand that unprovoked harm done onto another is not acceptable. Beyond that, the suffering of having one's personhood controlled and destroyed is the ultimate wrongdoing that can be committed against them. No pleasure justifies it.

 

[escape_from_hell]

Who is the moral arbiter of whether it is the way things ought to be or not?

The truth is this is the de facto way the world operates. The mere comfort of specific entities is prioritized over the well-being of those further down the food chain. How are the roles chosen? Well, the good people must have exercised better quantum free will and worked harder and so on right?

If a wealthy healthy young studmuffin or beautiful princess in the western world wants a new iphone or fancy electric vehicle, children that nature has deemed less worthy will be tortured in mines elsewhere to make it happen. Oh well. Nature does not care. Some were selected for heaven, others not. The privileged ones will then waste time bemoaning inequities even though they benefit from it and nature chose them for heaven mode. Gratitude practices can help them out mentally but won't do much for the people getting whipped by slave drivers in the mines.

Complain about fair and preach about whatever hypothetic system that will create utopia. The same problem will still exist. Some will be "better" and others "worse" as nature picks and chooses, the selection criteria is obvious. What is less obvious is why a particular conscious observer gets the heaven or hell mode. As best we know it is luck.

 

[sserafim]

Life is suffering for 99% and pleasure for 1%. The masses exist to support the elites. The masses don't even know that they are suffering (they get cheap thrills and their whole life is one big cope) but the only reason why they were even born was to become wageslaves/slaves to the system and make rich people even richer. Society has always been hierarchical like this. This image describes society perfectly. It's a pyramid

 

[Downdraft]

Only if the person suffering is a pederast or the likes of Hitler.

Utilitarianisms are a terrible frameworks that fail flat on application and don't care about action and reaction. I wrote a post about it and I don't wanna repeat myself so there we go: https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/my-argument-for-antinatalism.172274/#post-2599696

In short pls don't follow them, they're really bad.

 

[Davey40210]

Life is suffering for 99% and pleasure for 1%. The masses exist to support the elites. The masses don't even know that they are suffering (they get cheap thrills and their whole life is one big cope) but the only reason why they were even born was to become wageslaves/slaves to the system and make rich people even richer. Society has always been hierarchical like this. This image describes society perfectly. It's a pyramid

View attachment 150351

Amen!

 

[Jarni]

And if it is torture of one for euthanasia open bar forever for everyone? (unrealistic situation :)