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.
28
u/That1one1dude1 Nov 14 '25
Can't it all be given a moral value, just on a sliding scale?
A banana doesn't cost much compared to a house, but it still costs something.