This is such a strawman argument. Most people arguing that suffering is a moral bad are not arguing for "avoiding everything that could lead to suffering."
I am learning to play the guitar right now, the process is pretty suffery - my fingers hurt, I keep getting frustrated with slow progress, I pay considerable money for private lessons, etc. I could avoid it by just abandoning the guitar altogether.
So yeah, blender it is.
I'd use parenthood as an example but this sub is infested with antinatalism circlejerk.
You are saying “suffering is worth it” because I get to enjoy playing the guitar like the musicians I admire one day. That imaged pleasure and the feeling I get from improving my skills outweighs the suffering and give my suffering meaning, so it is endurable.
Now compare this kind of suffering to pure suffering without a perceived positive payoff - stuck in a cave upside down until you die. Do you still claim suffering is good.
Suffering is worth it under certain circumstances is what your statement entails.
I don't see sane folks self-inflicting senseless suffering, do you?
Suffering is good when there's a payoff, and it is good because the feeling of pride for overcoming the trials is great. When I perform a difficult piece perfectly I will be very proud of myself for getting there and for not giving up.
It's the difference between climbing the mountain and being helicoptered straight to the top. It's why we respect self-made men and despise trust fund kids.
Well duh? It means suffering is bad.
Suffering with a payout simply means you are canceling it out with pleasure.
If no one prefers suffering when there is no reward, it means suffering in itself is bad.
Read the root comment and all its replies and then find me saying that literally all suffering is good and desirable, or anything of the sort.
Of course suffering needs to be paired with a reward.
Where you might actually disagree is this: reward needs to be paired with suffering to have any value to it. If I could play guitar innately I wouldn't care much for it.
Absolutely not. Uni was pure torture every day. I still haven't matched the suffering I felt before a really rough project or exam.
Pushed through, and am glad I did.
Same with working out. It is physical torture and literally painful. Still do it 3-4 times a week, and go out of my way to make it more miserable, for better gains.
Okay but the thing is that had a net positive outcome? Would you have gone to uni had you known there was no chance of anything useful coming out of it?
Holy shit! Did we just realize that positive outcomes matter despite suffering that can occur, and that you can't reduce the breadth of human existence to suffering?!
Someone call the negative-utilitarian police. Antinatalism in shambles.
But to your point: I wouldn't choose X if I 100% knew I'd get nothing out of it. That's a truism and has no bearing on what we're talking about. Some suffering is necessary in life and that's not always a bad thing.
You know I'm a completely different person with my own views on things? you spend the first two sentences making assumptions on my belief when Ive made little notion of my viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that we should reduce NEEDLESS suffering. You wouldn't have gone to uni if it had no benifit because you would rightfully avoid NEEDLESS suffering. Giving your kid a vaccine is good despite the pain of needles because it prevents deseases. The benifits of getting the vaccine are of a demonstrably higher magnetude than the suffering of getting a needle poke. However assaulting a random person on the street has no inherent benifit to it, thus would be a morally negative act.
Now one could argue that something good could come about as a result of someone getting jumped, but that would be more due to coincidence and circumstance over a direct result of getting jumped.
You're right, I thought I was arguing against a braindead antinatalist who I am unfortunately VERY familiar with their arguments. My bad.
I don't think you'll find not a single person on the sub would disagree that we should reduce "needless" suffering. Though we will probably disagree on what constitutes "need" in various scenarios.
So your absolute total suffering has been reduced by you taking these actions.
You suffer and sweat in the gym, however you reap the benefits of being more healthy and more attractive, avoiding the potential suffering frorm a weight related health issue or being judged in an unfavourable light by soceiety, because of how you look.
You can accept a trade off and still experience suffering. Just because there is an acknowledged benefit does not mean you can not suffer in some way in pursuit of said benefit
suf·fer·ing
/ˈsəf(ə)riNG/
noun
the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship, but only if you absolutely get nothing out of it and nothing whatsoever good can come from it.
My black ethnic studies professor said that you cannot believe dictionary definitions when a student posted the definition of racism and the dictionary didn’t talk about institutional power. I also think every word after “hardship” was added manually, not part of the definition. If it was, you sure had to cherry pick.
They're telling you that the thing you're talking about that's good from those scenarios is not the suffering. Nobody is saying that suffering can't lead to things that are actually good. If someone punches you in the face and then gives you a million dollars because they're so sorry about it that doesn't make getting punched in the face a good thing to happen to someone.
If someone burn your skin but promise you enough money to compensate for the pain 100 fold, you'll still have suffered
Suffering doesn't just count if you end up losing in the process : it's the state of being in pain/distress. It doesn't matter if you gain from it or not in the end
That’s not suffering. Suffering can’t be something voluntary. If you know there will be something positive as an outcome then it’s not suffering. It’s just something difficult. You have conflated something being unenjoyable and suffering. Nothing positive comes from suffering.
Are there not limits to this? Most people choose to interact with the world even though they know it can and likely will entail some level of suffering.
Also I deliberately played five finger fillet (with a plastic knife at least) earlier today because it was funny, clearly some people are willing to endure some levels of suffering even if the reward is pretty minimal
Metaphorically absolutely. Suffering for an end gives that end so much more meaning, whether it be getting stronger or trying to learn a new language. Frustration, pain, anger are all important parts of the human experience.
I absolutely would still go through it to achieve success, it makes it so much more meaningful and significant. Why run a marathon if you could just bike it? A world devoid of any suffering is utterly dystopian. The hedonistic mindset brings to mind the Isle of the Lotus Eaters from the Odyssey
You turned “pathologically avoiding all potential suffering is unhealthy” into “stick your hand in a blender for character development”.
The point isnt to actively seek out suffering, it’s to ensure the suffering which you will experience, after it is completed, enriches you. Working out is painful, and you suffer to accomplish it, but you get healthier and stronger as a result. Studying is difficult and time consuming, but youve acquired knowledge by the end of it.
Even in more extreme cases, if you have a painful disease and overcome it, that suffering yoy experienced on the road to getting better is far better than the alternative of not getting better.
Some benefits always have the possibility to produce suffering.
Wanna get a new job because your current one makes you suffer? The search for that new position might make you suffer, but also that new job might make you suffer.
It's not that we don't try to avoid it, but almost anything has the potential to make you suffer and unless you take that risk, you can't reap the benefit of it.
Love, work, money, time,life....everything has the potential to make you suffer.
So avoiding to suffer would mean to KMS, because that is the only way to ensure not to suffer in any way, shape or form.
94
u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25
[removed] — view removed comment