A series of physical blows can endanger a person’s life and, even more probably, incapacitate them for a prolonged period or permanently by breaking a bone, rupturing an internal organ, and the like. For this reason, a physical assault must be taken very seriously.
If an action proximally causes psychological suffering, that does not make the action, merely for that reason alone, wrong in the slightest. Suffering of the sort caused by speech is caused by disappointment of our desires, and we typically do not have an inherent right to have the desires in question fulfilled. If we suffer, there are two causes of our suffering: (a) that we desired a certain state of affairs, and (b) that our desire was thwarted. Someone who is insulted, desired to be treated with respect, and his desire was thwarted. Someone who has been rejected romantically, similarly, desired acceptance, and his desire was thwarted. In neither of these cases did the person have any right to get what he desired. That he suffered on account of his disappointment does not in the slightest increase his right to get what he wanted. If it did increase his right, then a person could thereby gain the right to anything he wanted merely by wanting it very very much. Rights would then be assigned to whoever could throw the most impressive temper tantrum.
I agree, or at least close enough, with all of that. But none of it is unique to psychological suffering.
For example, diseases caused by airborne pathogens can cause physical suffering. They can endanger a person’s life, incapacitate them for a prolonged period or permanently, and I therefore endorse taking them seriously. However, if someone’s immune system is so compromised that they cannot be around other people without becoming extremely ill, they don’t thereby gain the right to go wherever they like and have everyone else leave.
If your goal is to argue that suffering doesn’t give me the right to get what I want, I’m right there with you… but you don’t need to draw an artificial bright line between physically mediated suffering and psychologically mediated suffering in order to achieve that goal.
I agree, or at least close enough, with all of that. But none of it is unique to psychological suffering.
I’m not sure about that. Let’s look at the example.
… if someone’s immune system is so compromised that they cannot be around other people without becoming extremely ill, they don’t thereby gain the right to go wherever they like and have everyone else leave.
This is true. But the obvious explanation is this: a person who is harmed may have harmed himself. He may be to blame. So it’s not that there isn’t any harm in the first place, but merely that he may be to blame for any harm that results to himself. Someone with a compromised immune system who goes out in public has only himself to blame if he’s infected.
In contrast, someone whose desires are disappointed hasn’t typically been harmed to begin with. That’s where it typically stops. It doesn’t rise to the level of identifying a culprit, because there isn’t anything to be a culprit about, because no harm has been done.
If someone knowingly exposes himself to the possibility of infection, we typically think such a person deserves an Honorary Darwin Award and the ridicule that goes with it (with occasional exceptions, e.g. if he is being heroic). But if somebody deliberately exposes himself to disappointment—well, what’s so terrible about that? That only means that he’s shooting for the stars, etc. Usually it’s the people who avoid disappointment by never striving for anything that we think are approaching life the wrong way.
As far as I know, not even the Muslims who threaten the lives of artists who depict Mohammed are interpreting their own feelings of disappointment as a harm. They don’t seem to be interested in their own psychological state. They seem to be interested in the act of depiction itself, which they evidently believe they have a right and a religious duty to stop. I am talking specifically here about those who threatened artists for depicting Mohammed.
From Wikipedia:
Chesser wrote, “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh if they do air this show.”
That doesn’t seem particularly interested in the psychological suffering caused by the depiction of Mohammed. It’s focused on the depiction itself, which is called “stupid”. The word is not “hurtful”, but “stupid”. There is scant expressed interest here in the speaker’s own psychological state.
If your goal is to argue that suffering doesn’t give me the right to get what I want, I’m right there with you...
Okay, so we agree on that, and that’s a pretty important point. Maybe everything else is just splitting hairs.
A series of physical blows can endanger a person’s life and, even more probably, incapacitate them for a prolonged period or permanently by breaking a bone, rupturing an internal organ, and the like. For this reason, a physical assault must be taken very seriously.
I would like to second this and more generally point out that I am bothered by the focus on pain rather than damage from physical assaults. Of course, this is not LCPW; we can talk about attacks that are primarily about pain rather than damage, e.g. slapping someone. I just think we should be explicit about doing so.
If we suffer, there are two causes of our suffering: (a) that we desired a certain state of affairs, and (b) that our desire was thwarted.
This isn’t entirely accurate. The thwarting of a desire may be required for suffering, but it isn’t sufficient. One must also have an attachment to the object of desire—a belief that one should have the desire fulfilled, or that something bad will result if it is not.
Desire and attachment are commonly conflated, but they are distinct. One can have attachment without desire, and desire without attachment.
Yes, but also one that does a good job of describing certain situations.
For example: Alicorn has recently moved in with me. We have what should be a very agreeable situation when it comes to keeping the house clean: I don’t care and strongly prefer not to clean; Alicorn cares slightly more and doesn’t mind cleaning; we each clean only to the degree that we feel like cleaning or want the house to be clean, and so far that’s actually working quite well. (The fact that normal fairness is mostly not relevant here probably helps, though Alicorn and I being unusually compatible as roommates go may be a larger factor.)
However, I was raised with the idea that people will care about cleanliness to a degree that will cause them to consider the usual state of our living space unacceptable. This is not something I desire, but it is a thought to which I am attached, and as a result I find it mildly stressful to ignore that in favor of reality—I find myself worrying about whether it’s really okay, or if Alicorn is just putting up with it and will eventually start complaining, or silly things like that. It’s relatively minor in this case—I trust Alicorn enough in the relevant ways that I don’t really think she thinks those things—but if I were more predisposed to that kind of worry I could certainly see it turning into a significant source of discomfort even in the face of evidence. (And yes, I’m working on it. She’s only been here two and a half months and it’s already significantly better than it was.)
Because I stole the word “attachment” from them, yes. But really, it’s a matter of affective asynchrony—i.e., the ability to have mixed feelings.
Human motivational emotions aren’t a single scale, where disutility is subtracted from utility to yield an output value. Instead, they’re points on a plane, where utility and disutility are axes, and certain co-ordinates are unreachable.
So, it’s possible to have things whose absence causes pain, but whose presence doesn’t cause any pleasure (aka “satisficers”), and things whose presence creates pleasure, but whose absence doesn’t cause any pain. (Among other possible combinations.)
The “axes” for these things seem relatively independently programmable—that is, you can usually remove an “attachment” (conditioned displeasure) without affecting the “desire”. (I’ve never tried the reverse.)
(Also, this is still a bit of a simplification, since “desire” is kind of vague—we have things we feel driven to do, but which don’t provide us any pleasure, and things which provide us pleasure, but which we don’t feel driven to do. Human beings are seriously f’d up in the head. ;-) )
A series of physical blows can endanger a person’s life and, even more probably, incapacitate them for a prolonged period or permanently by breaking a bone, rupturing an internal organ, and the like. For this reason, a physical assault must be taken very seriously.
If an action proximally causes psychological suffering, that does not make the action, merely for that reason alone, wrong in the slightest. Suffering of the sort caused by speech is caused by disappointment of our desires, and we typically do not have an inherent right to have the desires in question fulfilled. If we suffer, there are two causes of our suffering: (a) that we desired a certain state of affairs, and (b) that our desire was thwarted. Someone who is insulted, desired to be treated with respect, and his desire was thwarted. Someone who has been rejected romantically, similarly, desired acceptance, and his desire was thwarted. In neither of these cases did the person have any right to get what he desired. That he suffered on account of his disappointment does not in the slightest increase his right to get what he wanted. If it did increase his right, then a person could thereby gain the right to anything he wanted merely by wanting it very very much. Rights would then be assigned to whoever could throw the most impressive temper tantrum.
I agree, or at least close enough, with all of that. But none of it is unique to psychological suffering.
For example, diseases caused by airborne pathogens can cause physical suffering. They can endanger a person’s life, incapacitate them for a prolonged period or permanently, and I therefore endorse taking them seriously. However, if someone’s immune system is so compromised that they cannot be around other people without becoming extremely ill, they don’t thereby gain the right to go wherever they like and have everyone else leave.
If your goal is to argue that suffering doesn’t give me the right to get what I want, I’m right there with you… but you don’t need to draw an artificial bright line between physically mediated suffering and psychologically mediated suffering in order to achieve that goal.
I’m not sure about that. Let’s look at the example.
This is true. But the obvious explanation is this: a person who is harmed may have harmed himself. He may be to blame. So it’s not that there isn’t any harm in the first place, but merely that he may be to blame for any harm that results to himself. Someone with a compromised immune system who goes out in public has only himself to blame if he’s infected.
In contrast, someone whose desires are disappointed hasn’t typically been harmed to begin with. That’s where it typically stops. It doesn’t rise to the level of identifying a culprit, because there isn’t anything to be a culprit about, because no harm has been done.
If someone knowingly exposes himself to the possibility of infection, we typically think such a person deserves an Honorary Darwin Award and the ridicule that goes with it (with occasional exceptions, e.g. if he is being heroic). But if somebody deliberately exposes himself to disappointment—well, what’s so terrible about that? That only means that he’s shooting for the stars, etc. Usually it’s the people who avoid disappointment by never striving for anything that we think are approaching life the wrong way.
As far as I know, not even the Muslims who threaten the lives of artists who depict Mohammed are interpreting their own feelings of disappointment as a harm. They don’t seem to be interested in their own psychological state. They seem to be interested in the act of depiction itself, which they evidently believe they have a right and a religious duty to stop. I am talking specifically here about those who threatened artists for depicting Mohammed.
From Wikipedia:
That doesn’t seem particularly interested in the psychological suffering caused by the depiction of Mohammed. It’s focused on the depiction itself, which is called “stupid”. The word is not “hurtful”, but “stupid”. There is scant expressed interest here in the speaker’s own psychological state.
Okay, so we agree on that, and that’s a pretty important point. Maybe everything else is just splitting hairs.
I would like to second this and more generally point out that I am bothered by the focus on pain rather than damage from physical assaults. Of course, this is not LCPW; we can talk about attacks that are primarily about pain rather than damage, e.g. slapping someone. I just think we should be explicit about doing so.
This isn’t entirely accurate. The thwarting of a desire may be required for suffering, but it isn’t sufficient. One must also have an attachment to the object of desire—a belief that one should have the desire fulfilled, or that something bad will result if it is not.
Desire and attachment are commonly conflated, but they are distinct. One can have attachment without desire, and desire without attachment.
Sounds like a Buddhist analysis.
Yes, but also one that does a good job of describing certain situations.
For example: Alicorn has recently moved in with me. We have what should be a very agreeable situation when it comes to keeping the house clean: I don’t care and strongly prefer not to clean; Alicorn cares slightly more and doesn’t mind cleaning; we each clean only to the degree that we feel like cleaning or want the house to be clean, and so far that’s actually working quite well. (The fact that normal fairness is mostly not relevant here probably helps, though Alicorn and I being unusually compatible as roommates go may be a larger factor.)
However, I was raised with the idea that people will care about cleanliness to a degree that will cause them to consider the usual state of our living space unacceptable. This is not something I desire, but it is a thought to which I am attached, and as a result I find it mildly stressful to ignore that in favor of reality—I find myself worrying about whether it’s really okay, or if Alicorn is just putting up with it and will eventually start complaining, or silly things like that. It’s relatively minor in this case—I trust Alicorn enough in the relevant ways that I don’t really think she thinks those things—but if I were more predisposed to that kind of worry I could certainly see it turning into a significant source of discomfort even in the face of evidence. (And yes, I’m working on it. She’s only been here two and a half months and it’s already significantly better than it was.)
Because I stole the word “attachment” from them, yes. But really, it’s a matter of affective asynchrony—i.e., the ability to have mixed feelings.
Human motivational emotions aren’t a single scale, where disutility is subtracted from utility to yield an output value. Instead, they’re points on a plane, where utility and disutility are axes, and certain co-ordinates are unreachable.
So, it’s possible to have things whose absence causes pain, but whose presence doesn’t cause any pleasure (aka “satisficers”), and things whose presence creates pleasure, but whose absence doesn’t cause any pain. (Among other possible combinations.)
The “axes” for these things seem relatively independently programmable—that is, you can usually remove an “attachment” (conditioned displeasure) without affecting the “desire”. (I’ve never tried the reverse.)
(Also, this is still a bit of a simplification, since “desire” is kind of vague—we have things we feel driven to do, but which don’t provide us any pleasure, and things which provide us pleasure, but which we don’t feel driven to do. Human beings are seriously f’d up in the head. ;-) )