The most fundamental aspect of the OP has been asked and answered: why all the unpleasantness? The short answer is that natural selection doesn’t encourage a species to enjoy itself: it only drives it to persist.
The longer answer notes that there are many types of unpleasantness, from the simple and physical (called “Pain” in this thread) to more social forms of suffering.
Pain has clear evolutionary advantages in a wide range of species, as do other physiological mechanisms.
Social forms of suffering (which can coincide with physical pain) only benefit social creatures, though I might add that we shouldn’t limit our focus to pack behavior. When parental care is involved (and especially when there is more than 1 offspring) communicating distress with conviction promotes one’s genes. As does discernment for that matter.
I suppose that social forms of suffering could be subdivided further. Two elements might involve “Calls for aid”, and “Plea not to be cast out”. Obviously, being involuntarily separated from the group without adequate preparation is potentially disasterous.
But there are other incentives that would reinforce group solidarity, many operating from the point of view of the group’s majority. This seems like a topic for specialists.
The reason I asked for clarity from the OP is because the discussants seem to have very different understandings of what is meant by suffering and the discussion therefore wandered all over the place. Does suffering require free will? Anticipation? Capacity for abstract thought? A sense of Self? Consciousness? How much consciousness? Obviously your answer to that will differ depending on your definition of suffering. Or what subset of suffering you’re talking about. I’m not criticizing Wesley at all, in fact I like his posts. I’m just asking him to define the term in his capacity as the OP in order to draw bounds on the discussion. I didn’t mean any unpleasantness towards him.
You’re right, however, that in its simplest and most reduced conception, “suffering” is a motivator. And I suppose if you want to just leave it at that, that’s good enough.
UGlBeech quite cleraly you have nothing to contribute to this discussion beyond obfuscation, ad hominems and declartions that peer reviwed journals are not to be taken as evidence in GD. Enough. I will let the Moderators decide whether your behaviour is appropriate.
IMO, this is a highly misleading characterization. I believe that uglybeech maintained that fishery journals have an agenda and that the science behind the animal rights link was not flakey. The latter claim was substantiated with a link to a BBC article. I did not see the implication that peer reviewed articles in fishery journals should be dismissed -never mind deemed “not evidence” in GD- though I may be over-reaching with respect to the first clause of this sentence.
Personally though, I’d say that animal rights issues are tangential to the thrust of the OP, though I would not call them nontopical per se. I’d prefer it if those strictly interested in the AR discussion took it elsewhere. YMMV.
This question is a sub-category of the classic “problem of evil.” A thorough reply would be quite lengthy indeed, but in brief, suffering can produce the refining of our characters and benefits that transcend mere earthly existence. Also, in a world where human beings are allowed free will, a measure of suffering may sometimes be necessary in order for some greater good to occur – maybe not in our lives, but in the lives of others.
For a more thorough explanation, I recommend the writings of American philosopher Alvin Plantinga. William Lane Craig also does a good job of summarizing Plantinga’s arguments and digesting them for the general public.
Respectfully, this seems to be a rationale for why God would allow suffering. Moreover, the response seems to be begging the question: If suffering does produce “benefits that transcend earthly existence”, I’d like to know specifically tied to suffering versus (say) prayer, which also provides (in most religious traditions) similar transcendent benefits.
Please realize I’m not writing this to knock or ridicule Christianity (the philosophers you mention below are obviously Christian, so I’m assuming this is the place you are coming from), but merely to point out a possible defect in your explanation for suffering.
I agree in the case of Plantinga that there is much of value in his writing, but both of these philosophers approach the problem of evil and suffering in a thoroughly Christian context. Lane in particular asserts that the tools of reason are valid only in service of the Christan faith, not as a critic of it (i.e. reason is ministerial, not magisterial w.r.t. Christianity). That would strike most non-believers (and a few radical believers such as myself) as a wholly irrational position for a philosopher to hold.
That Rose abstract seems sloppy. In many cases, the brain reroutes around injury. Thus even within the same species, asserting a normative view of what substrate is necessary, is premature. If fish are conscious, then almost certainly, they feel “pain”.
Suffering exists because of animal instinct for survival.
Things that would lead to our demise, when taken in small doses, will be recognized as suffering. Suffering is the way we learn what doesn’t work. That applies to worms and amoebas as well as people. It probably works for plants at some level.
Did the gods give us suffering for some purpose in their grand game of life? No gods. No game.