Or does it only make sense to reduce individual suffering?
Or, is suffering just part of “the way things are”?
Or, suffering??? That’s for martyrs.
Or, something else?
And, if it does make sense to reduce suffering, then how?
Why would it not make sense to reduce suffering in the world?
Just because I’m not suffering doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t care about people who are.
If people only cared about their own suffering and not of others’, the world would be a much colder place than it currently is.
If you reduce one person’s suffering, you are reducing the total suffering too. Why do you see the need to make a distinction?
I am failing to even conceive a way in which you can reduce suffering in the world while not reducing some individual’s suffering.
The two questions were more about the focus of time and energy: Some people are looking to reduce the suffering of the world by addressing “big issues”; others are looking at the more immediate issues. For some, the key issue is reducing individual personal suffering.
In any case, the converse of what you say is possible: Someone can reduce individual suffering without reducing the overall suffering of the world, if the reduction in individual suffering results in greater suffering for the rest of the world.
Anyway, this is not so much about fine distinctions as it is an attempt to get answers to the last question: If it does make sense to reduce suffering, then how?
How, as in how does it make sense?
And, how does someone go about reducing suffering?
Life is suffering - Buddha.
Um, because we humans don’t like suffering, and want as little of it as we have to put up with ?
That depends on the exact type of suffering you are faced with; it’s not a problem that has one, or even just a few solutions. Painkillers here, education there, food donations elsewhere, and so on.
Suffering is by definition something we don’t want. Does it not make sense to reduce that which we don’t want?
If you are wondering why it makes sense to reduce the suffering of other people, I think it makes sense because you are helping yourself by doing so. Just imagine where humanity would be if we weren’t capable of compassion for others.
You educate yourself and find out what you can do that would help people most and then do it. In short, you do what you can.
I’d say we need both. Some people are going to concentrate on developing something like a Lifestraw, potentially reducing rather a lot of suffering, and some people are going to sew warm blankets and outfits for premature infants whose parents can’t afford them, and some people are going to adopt one foster child or something. It’s all needed.
Well, that seems to make sense, but it doesn’t explain why quite a few people cause suffering for others and for themselves. I guess we can say that their behavior is “wrong”, but it’s still common. (I’ve even heard some people say that personal suffering is a good thing.)
Also, when you say “humans”, it seems that you are referring to those who are motivated to reduce suffering for themselves and for other humans. It’s not clear what your view is on reducing suffering for non-humans.
So, does that mean that the more I reduce the suffering of other people, the more I’m helping myself? If so, then it seems that I should dedicate all of my time and energy to helping others. (Also, do I help myself if I reduce the suffering of animals?)
I don’t know where *humanity * would be. I don’t even know where *I * would be.
Like I said before you have to do as much as you can. You don’t have to go as far as getting yourself nailed to a cross, but you do have to sacrifice a little.
Don’t you feel happy when you help other people and even other animals? What other reason should you need?
Imagine no one protecting you from the day you were born. Can you at least accept that it would be a lot worst off?
I’m not asking about what anyone “has to do”.
Are you saying that “feeling happy” is the reason for helping other people and and even other animals, and thereby reducing the suffering in the world?
I had responded to your comment about compassion, not protection.
I’m quite certain that if hadn’t been *protected * from the day I was born, I would not be here to compose this post. In any case, I don’t think that my parents trying to “reduce the amount of suffering in the world” when they protected me.
Disasters can’t be avoided so they should be handled with basic aid. chronic hunger should be handled by teaching people how to grow food instead of just feeding them.
Well I thought we were talking about what one has to do in order to reduce suffering. Whether or not one has to spend all his time reducing suffering, if he chooses to do so (reduce suffering, that is.)
The question of whether or not someone should reduce suffering is separate.
Yes.
Your parents protect you because of their compassion. If no one had compassion, then we would be like reptiles. Human life would only survive if mothers produce hundreds of children at a time. Life would be a lot worst.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Duhkecco] That quandary is the basis of Buddhist thought.
Here’s the foundation points of that view. They are pretty straightforward, but, usually need reflection, again and again, to prove a basis to explore more subtle areas of thought. It’s very clearly explained in an age old system, but takes a good deal of responsibility with one’s self without a knowledgeable teacher to make headway. A good teacher helps explain it all.
Not to skirt the issue here, but to show that there is an immense tradition dealing with this specific question, as a the major philosophical tenet.
On the OP: If efforts to reduce suffering are not futile, then such efforts “make sense”. There are many potential actions with beneficial consequences.
Typically, being kind to those around you doesn’t detract from your efforts to improve the global condition.
The OP is a little too general for my tastes: I’m not sure what exactly he is asking.
If one is allocating one’s charitable contributions, I would emphasize third world development.
If one is choosing a career path, I would frankly attempt to balance one’s skills with what one enjoys doing. IMHO and eg, there’s nothing wrong with making fistfuls of money, provided that one tithes.
And the cause of suffering is Desi Arnaz.
Seriously; he used to smack Lucy around.