Your dentist doesn’t use anaesthesia?
I go way too often, and I don’t suffer. Except for the cleanings I used to get from Dental Hygienist Ilsa, she-wolf of the dental office, but they’ve even made those less painful. Not all dentists are like the one in Little Shop of Horrors 
OKay, I was just funning using your own analogy. However, there are cases where moral humans make others suffer because they feel the purpose is great enough and good enough. That’s the qualification I meant.
Those humans usually aren’t moral in my book (assuming you mean real suffering like my examples). Anyone who uses “The Greater Good” as justification for anything is to be avoided like a Plague.
Really? Generals who have to command, soldiers into battle knowing many will be killed or maimed are not moral?
Years ago my mother, dieing of cancer, went into a coma at home. My brother an LPN, who was caring for her called and asked the siblings what we thought should happen. Some were willing to let her go while others said no. She went to the hospital and the doctors were able to bring her out of her coma. The result was that she suffered serious pain for another couple of weeks before she passed away. Were the children who couldn’t let her go immoral? Were the doctors who revived her?
I note that you did say usually. My point is that those examples do exist.
Yes, they aren’t. I have no time for any military, and my moral imperative includes full pacifism. YMMV.
I’m rather loath to say what I think, as this is a personal example for you. Suffice to say I’m all in favour of right-to-die and euthenasia laws, and I don’t agree with letting others suffer extreme pain for one’s own whimsy. But again, these are my morals.
This is probably a hijack, but what the hell.
If you became aware of a person attempting to break into your house in the middle of the night–a person whom you knew intended violence to you and your family – would you call the police, knowing they might have to shoot the person to protect you and yours? If so, how are you not responsible for any violence done the person threatening you?
(If you want a rationalization, let’s say you cut someone off in traffic who turned out to be a nutcase and who then fixated on you, threatening your life and attempting to do you harm before this incident. And before anyone claims this is impossible or improbable or only happens in movies, a friend of mine died under exactly such circumstances a few years back.)
I’d call the police - lethal force is not the first recourse, or even encouraged, by the law here (except by one high profile deputy justice minister). So I hope they’d use non-lethal methods first. But I see a world of difference between calling the police to deal with criminals and sending soldiers off to die. Nor do I assume any responsibility for what the police choose to do - they are sentient themselves, not a mindless (and amoral) weapon in my hands. Do a search on threads about pacifism, I’ve explained my stance before.
Okay that’s your morals. The point is moral people sometimes find it necessary for others to suffer to serve a greater good. Faced with a violent attack someone would have to decide to defend themselves and inflict suffering on the attacker or allow the attacker to inflict suffering on others who might be completely innocent. Pacifism is a personal and valid choice but under the right circumstances inaction might contribute to the suffering off others.
I realized afterwards that there was a real question over whether reviving her served the greater good, but the point was that the people that felt that way certainly thought that prolonging her life was the greater good. Neither my siblings or the hospital staff would be considered overly cruel or immoral for their participation. Certainly it wasn’t whimsy but part of our struggle to deal with death.
As I see it, immoral people often justify their immorality with reference to the Greater Good. Why do you get to be right on this and me wrong?
The moral weight of the action falls on the attacker, not the pacifist. We are not, and cannot be, morally bound to hurt others* ever*, even in self-defence. IMO, of course.
I don’t agree. Remember, that is pacifism in the face of violent human action, not passiveness in the face of natural evil, where I agree inaction could be immoral.
Whose greater good? Was your mother working on an AIDS cure or something? No? Then I think the “greater” part there only encompasses your immediate family.
Depends, to me, how much she suffered in the subsequent few days. From your brief description, I’m leaning towards the opposite.
I don’t agree that using another’s life and pain to help oneself deal with an inability to let go is anything other than, at best, a sentimentality charitably characterised as whimsy. At worst, I’d say it was supremely selfish. But that’s why I have a living will, I guess.
I think it’s because I am right and you are wrong. 
I kid!!
It seems on suffering your definition only includes serious suffering while your definition of what constitutes an immoral person isn’t nearly as strict. Nifty how that works together to support your views.
I thought we were talking about people who caused suffering with a clear intent to do harm with no thought of a greater good vs people who sincerely thought the suffering did actually serve a greater good. The revolutionary war for example, or the Civil war that ended slavery and preserved thew union. I don’t want to get hung up on the details or personal moral views. In general people who would be widely considered moral might inflict suffering on others for the greater good.
I think violence should be the last resort and it takes courage to walk away and uphold your principles. I’ve had some experiences along those lines. But sometimes the choice is the lesser of two evils. If you came home and found some pedophile attacking your daughter and decided to wait for the police to get there rather than resort to violence I’d have a hard time calling that principled moral behavior. In certain cases I’d see defending myself or others with deadly force if necessary the same as rescuing people from natural disasters, in the sense that my inaction would allow innocents to suffer.
Regardless of a difference of opinion or your specific views, I think you can see the larger point about suffering and the greater good. Lot’s of moral people would. I believe Voyager has agreed with that point more than once.
We’re getting off track in the details. Neither my siblings or the hospital staff would be considered immoral people in the sense of intentionally inflicting suffering on someone for no good reason. Without being able to know the consequences they made a choice to try and prolong her life which at the time seemed the better choice to them. Whether that choice turned out to be a good one is another matter. Their intent was not to inflict suffering.
Not soon enough.
I cannot think of a single more damaging thing that mankind has dreamed up to inflict on itself than religion.
Remember we’re talking about needless, non-minimal suffering. The general who sends his troops to be butchered for no good reason isn’t moral - consider Paths of Glory for instance.
I’m sorry to hear that, but since we aren’t omniscient, people will make mistakes that lead to unnecessary suffering. God doesn’t have that excuse.
True, but a dentist who ignored the know methods of pain relief during a procedure would be immoral, and would no doubt be kicked out of the profession. So it actually is a good example.
Moral humans try to minimize suffering as much possible. We’re clearly not as good at it as a God could be, so why doesn’t he try as hard as a dentist?
In the case if pure self defense, inflicting harm on the attacker seems morally permissible, but not a moral obligation. However inflicting (minimal) suffering to protect others is, I think, a moral obligation. But I’m nowhere near being a pacifist.
How about gun powder for starters? Weapons in general?
Nope, my definition of morality is pretty strict - don’t act so as to cause harm to others is a big part of it. Anyone who breaks that is an immoral person, IMO.
And no, suffering is suffering. I just don’t equate “suffering” with “any little pain or annoyance”, as you seem to be doing. At least, in my understanding, suffering means a little more than that.
Most maniacs and killers also think their actions serve “The Greater Good”, from Pol Pot on down.
You can see how I don’t trust TGG as justification for any morality, don’t you?
Cherry-picking a few examples where you think the “good” side won doesn’t make my stance on war any softer. I oppose all killing of humans by humans. Yes, I would not have fought to liberate Auschwitz, either, before you ask.
This is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum
I’d probably attempt escaling series of actions starting from nonviolent resistance, then the nonlethal methods at my disposal, and probably culminating in deadly violence, yes. But I wouldn’t call it morally positive. “Lesser of 2 evils” arguments are just that - the other person’s greater evil in assaulting my child doesn’t somehow *erase *the immorality of my causing violence to another human being. I’d have to atone for it somehow afterwards, just to feel better about myself.
And BTW, these same hypotheticals always arise in these conversations - either my kid’s being diddled or my wife’s being raped. They’re tiresome and just a little disturbing.
The difference, of course, is in the origin of the initial action. And the involvement of a human actor. I hold human-on-human violence as the worst possible evil.
Once again, with respect, that’s a double logical fallacy: you’re begging the question in assuming their morality in the first place, and you’re arguing from popularity in any case.
By you. Other moral judges may differ.
Are you saying that the doctors were unable to predict your mother would be in a great degree of pain and would not live long afterwards in any case? Or that your siblings just didn’t think to ask?
You know what they say about the Road to Hell, don’t you?
It’s true we are not omniscient. I believe I’ve made that point myself.
See, now you’ve added a qualification to the thing I said was wrong if left unqualified. Crisis averted.
I haven’t done my homework yet , which I predict, won’t yield any definitive answers, but at this point my conclusion is that the experience itself within a world of duality is the point.
Are we talking strictly physical harm?
True but irrelevant to my point. I’m not talking extreme cases but generalities that are common and obvious. Do your taxes pay for a police department? Sometimes they cause suffering to as they imperfectly enforce the law.
That’s not the point. I’m only saying in general, most average people who would not be considered immoral but the prevailing standards believe we can defend ourselves and use force to fight injustice for TGG.
Your own particular morality is not the discussion.
Admittedly it’s not a perfect system.
So what? I’m correctly observing what the norm is. I’m not asserting the norm is absolutely correct. I’m aware it isn’t. Neither are you and I. That’s the current state of morality IMO.
Yes, but couldn’t the lesser of two evils be called the greater good. IMO intent has a lot to do with it but we must examine our true intent and balance different principles. I don’t wish to harm others and yet I also don’t wish to sit idly by while others are harmed. Finding the correct path isn’t easy. I lean heavily toward pacifist myself and believe violence to be the absolute last resort and to be used in self defense or defense of others. I’ve been called cowardly for not resorting to violence over some macho BS and I’ve intervened on behalf of others on the edge of violence and managed to avoid it. I understand what you’re saying. The reality is that there are moments when a choice has to be made and those choices are struggled with. I’d defend my child, or any child, against an attacker. What about ethnic cleansing? Should nations sit by while thousands are being slaughtered and they have the means to stop it.
That’s another can of worms that probably belongs in another thread.
It’s a lot easier for me to remain a pacifist in the good ole USA where I’ve managed to avoid violent confrontations. As disturbing as they are those are real life possibilities that do happen to others. IMO they relate to the defense of self or others view. You’re welcome to your own moral view but you have no assurance it’s superior to others. {not that you’ve presented it as such}
There’s the issue of physical violence and also mental emotional abuse, as well as inaction and a lack of compassion to those in need. All complex issues with no pat answers. IMO a lot of it is internal. With the proper attitude we might find it necessary to use violence to defend ourselves or others without harboring lingering resentment or animosity.
As I said, simply observing the norm. I’m not looking for absolutes.