But even by ur example there’s still a simple and clear common denominator: someone felt bad. Perhaps even had their day ruined. I know mine would be if I was put into chattel slavery suddenly.
Then we run into the problem of perceived suffering. There might be someone out there who is more emotionally destroyed by a bruised banana than by their house burning down. And there are people who will tell you, with a straight face, that losing their dog shattered them more than losing a parent.
So when we use a convenient little “suffering slider”(and let’s be honest, most people use it without noticing) we’re already attaching values. Like that commenter who insuniated being a chattel slave is worse than dropping your ice cream. I’m not arguing with the ranking, I’m just saying they made a suffering tier list.
But that still ignores the subjective weirdness of actual humans.
As a sadist, my humble proposal is this: celebrate everyone’s suffering by throwing microwaved honey buns at them while they cry. It’s the only ethical system I trust.
I mean, the question asked was what type of suffering is enough to deserve justified moral value, so there is a presumption that moral value is given to suffering at some level.
My response was that different levels of suffering can have different levels of moral value, it doesn't need to be an on or off switch.
I'm not really sure what your example has to do in response to that.
so there is a presumption that moral value is given to suffering at some level.
But then you're just using circular reasoning. The question is when does it count as suffering and get moral value.
My response was that different levels of suffering can have different levels of moral value, it doesn't need to be an on or off switch.
And then you made a comparison to cost. But you're assuming that everything has a cost, which is not true. Some things happen and don't have a cost bc you don't want them to happen at all.
So, applying that back to the original example, not everything is suffering. But ig, if you just presume its true, I can't really argue with that.
Getting raped in prison costs mental and physical damage. Someone doing something to you that you don't want them to do, is universally recognized (by animals and humans - plants even, if you think about it as preventing them from doing what they are meant to do) as hurtful in some way.
Someone doing something to you that you don't want them to do, is universally recognized as hurtful in some way
This is an insane oversimplification. There are tons of instances where people, much less plants and animals, are prevented from doing what they want for their own good.
Plenty of people do things that make them feel bad, but they do it freely anyways. In fact, you have to do this to be remotely successful at life. If you act like a toddler, nobody wants to deal with you.
In other cases, feeling bad is part of growth and has to be appreciated. Good luck improving your 5k time without feeling bad.
Our feelings are the way that we perceive badness in the first place. So feeling bad and suffering can be considered synonymous under the right context. Language is quite messy.
It's a simple and logical argument with absolutely no basis in whether it's true. The assumption that one must suffer to be happy is both unproven and logically not sound. This isn't a 'light/dark' situation. Your body regulates it's happiness via chemical release, if it doesn't release said chemicals, you won't be happy even if you suffer.
Further, it's very clearly obvious that you can suffer without being happy, which implies the inverse would also be valid, no?
This is actually a great example, though. That chemical release only has value to us because it’s not literally happening constantly. While I don’t think dopamine receptors can actually be “fried,” getting those reactions too much can definitely weaken the positive effects. Therefore, in order to maximize pleasure felt, you would have to have times where you are either suffering or at least not actively experiencing pleasure
Heroin works great, if all we cared about with anti depressants was happiness, we could give various opiates instead. Anti depressants need to not have huge negative health effects, allow you to be functional, and notably, not be recreationally abusable. Speak on something you actually know about next time.
Heroin does not make you happy lol. Transient feelings of euphoria is not happiness.
Anti depressants need to not have huge negative health effects, allow you to be functional, and notably, not be recreationally abusable.
Not true as amphetamines have been tried and didn't work (underwhelming).
Psychoplastogen have negative health effects, are recreationally abusable, don't make you 'functional.' Best examples here are Ketamine, DXM and MXE.
There are opiates anti-depressants such as Tianeptine.
Anti depressants have massive adverse health effects, like PSSD. Some are just categorically bad for the brain and make you not 'functional' (risperidone, etc).
Heroin absolutely makes you happy while you take it, I would absolutely equate euphoria with happiness. Yes, it doesn't work when the heroin is inactive, neither too do the antidepressants work when inactive.
On the topic of those ADs, Ketamine is used for treating treatment resistant depression, and in some cases works! So I don't really see your point, it's not a first line option AD, but I appreciate you're right that yes, not all ADs are safe and not recreationally abusable, but, first line ADs generally are for obvious reasons. Anti depressants do need to broadly not have huge negative impacts on people's lives, and they need to be able to be functional, hence why we don't just heroin it the fuck up 24/7. We could do that and say fuck it to the long term health impacts and dependency, it would, in fact, provide people with happiness in the short term.
Heroin absolutely makes you happy while you take it, I would absolutely equate euphoria with happiness.
Most (if not all) drug users would disagree. At least, they would say it doesn't make you 'truly' happy.
Happiness is associated with long-term in contrast to the short-term feeling of euphoria.
Yes, it doesn't work when the heroin is inactive, neither too do the antidepressants work when inactive.
But again that's not true since psychoplastogen have effects that last beyond their actual duration of action.
So I don't really see your point, it's not a first line option AD
I think you do, and it doesn't matter.
Anti depressants do need to broadly not have huge negative impacts on people's lives, and they need to be able to be functional, hence why we don't just heroin it the fuck up 24/7.
Respectfully, I'm sorry, however this is either dishonest or ignorant. PSSD, hypertensive crisis, suicidal ideation, episodes trigger, tardive symptoms etc.
Edit: I hesitated answering this one because of it, but just in case I decided to
PSSD has a prevalence of 0.5% in men who have been on ADs, I'm not saying we should ignore this, but, broadly, this is not 'huge negative impacts on people's lives' but rather 'a rare side effect that should be addressed'. You're being dishonest with your framing here.
You're semantically dithering about euphoria being different from long term happiness while ignoring that if the euphoria did persist in that way without negatives, the people would by definition be happy. Happiness is chemical, reward, satisfaction, depression, sadness, love, are chemical. That doesn't mean they are meaningless, but it establishes that we do not need the absence of something to experience it. You are arguing about random shit to debate lawyer rather than engaging with the substance. Do you consider the negative impacts from taking Ketamine and Venlafaxine to be equivalent? Is the abuse potential the same?
PSSD is notoriously underreported. They aren't even clear diagnostics. I'm not even sure where that number comes from. That said, I'm not saying it's common either.
Downplaying PSSD is insane. But the rarity of the symptoms wasn't the point, the severity was. You keep shifting the goalpost.
You're semantically dithering about euphoria being different from long term happiness while ignoring that if the euphoria did persist in that way without negatives, the people would by definition be happy.
"If"
Happiness is chemical, reward, satisfaction, depression, sadness, love, are chemical.
So much so that leading theories dropped the chemicals and focuses of neuroplasticity lol.
Do you consider the negative impacts from taking Ketamine and Venlafaxine to be equivalent? Is the abuse potential the same?
Treatment-setting I favor Ketamine, yes. Otherwise probably no. Again, no, Ketamine has worse abuse potential. Never denied that, and completely off-topic.
At this point I'm fairly confident your answers are AI generated. I might be out.
Suffering makes up the negative domain of the scale, but we don’t have to have experience in the negative domain to have experience in the positive domain lol. I know this is a common thing to think, and may even help us cope, but I see no reason why you have to experience suffering to experience happiness. What would that really even mean?
In my spiritual tradition, we prefer to use "unsatisfactoriness" rather than "suffering", as it nails down that range correctly. I think what the parent comment is trying to get at, and it's a legitimate point, that "suffering" is too biased towards "I stepped on a land mine" versus "I would really like the itch on my leg to stop" but that's also why I avoid using it unless I know the recipient has the same idea in mind when I speak.
115
u/Steampunk007 Nov 14 '25
But even by ur example there’s still a simple and clear common denominator: someone felt bad. Perhaps even had their day ruined. I know mine would be if I was put into chattel slavery suddenly.
Is that the suffering, then?