I think you are actually right that there is an unexplored gray area, and I am glad you are pointing this out. We need to become more aware of what we are doing. Resources must be used in the best way possible, because they are not unlimited.
I think the question of unnecessary suffering is intriguing because it challenges our moral beliefs about pain, ethics, and human responsibility. It forces us to ask whether suffering is ever justified, especially when it seems avoidable, and what our obligations are to reduce or eliminate it.
Philosophers continue to discuss whether it is realistic to expect that we can eliminate all unnecessary suffering, or if suffering is such an intrinsic part of life that complete eradication is an unattainable goal. No matter what the answer is, I think we must at least try do do the best we can't whatever that means...
Thanks Ingrid. 😊 Complete removal of suffering seems obviously bad, at least how we are as a society and how sentient beings are today.
For a useful normative philosophy and not just speculation, seems obvious there is indeed “such a thing” as unnecessary suffering. Clearly. And there is such a path as reducing it. I really want to put any lingering questions about that behind us.
And to be crystal about how I’m honing in on unnecessary suffering only. That makes all those philosophical debates about suffering orthogonal to what I’m saying.
Until we do that, people will keep kicking the ball out of bounds and running down the clock on discussions. There should be nothing controversial about reducing unnecessary suffering.
The controversy is in how we discern which suffering is necessary and thus worth reducing. Human sex trafficking doesn’t seem all that necessary to me. Just a thought. We should reduce it. (Remove it.)
But only to the degree that’s it’s feasible to do so without exacting a higher price somewhere else. There’s work to do in playing out these tradeoffs. My claim is it’s not being done because of an obedience to an unexplored gray area that’s put in place precisely to obscure these delineations.
My goal is to shine a light into these dark places, because resources are NOT being used in the best way.
Tighten the noose slowly until feasible reduction is a principle adopted by an empowered majority. Seek definitions that align with the emerging science of well-being. (Santos)
I think you are actually right that there is an unexplored gray area, and I am glad you are pointing this out. We need to become more aware of what we are doing. Resources must be used in the best way possible, because they are not unlimited.
Oh, looking forward to your next article then!
Really a good read, Stella.
I think the question of unnecessary suffering is intriguing because it challenges our moral beliefs about pain, ethics, and human responsibility. It forces us to ask whether suffering is ever justified, especially when it seems avoidable, and what our obligations are to reduce or eliminate it.
Philosophers continue to discuss whether it is realistic to expect that we can eliminate all unnecessary suffering, or if suffering is such an intrinsic part of life that complete eradication is an unattainable goal. No matter what the answer is, I think we must at least try do do the best we can't whatever that means...
Thanks Ingrid. 😊 Complete removal of suffering seems obviously bad, at least how we are as a society and how sentient beings are today.
For a useful normative philosophy and not just speculation, seems obvious there is indeed “such a thing” as unnecessary suffering. Clearly. And there is such a path as reducing it. I really want to put any lingering questions about that behind us.
And to be crystal about how I’m honing in on unnecessary suffering only. That makes all those philosophical debates about suffering orthogonal to what I’m saying.
Until we do that, people will keep kicking the ball out of bounds and running down the clock on discussions. There should be nothing controversial about reducing unnecessary suffering.
The controversy is in how we discern which suffering is necessary and thus worth reducing. Human sex trafficking doesn’t seem all that necessary to me. Just a thought. We should reduce it. (Remove it.)
But only to the degree that’s it’s feasible to do so without exacting a higher price somewhere else. There’s work to do in playing out these tradeoffs. My claim is it’s not being done because of an obedience to an unexplored gray area that’s put in place precisely to obscure these delineations.
My goal is to shine a light into these dark places, because resources are NOT being used in the best way.
Tighten the noose slowly until feasible reduction is a principle adopted by an empowered majority. Seek definitions that align with the emerging science of well-being. (Santos)
Next piece is about pharma profits.