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.
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.