In the fifth and final part of this series I discuss my view on suffering and why I think utilitarianism is an incomplete ethical proposal.

For context please refer to the first four parts of this series:

1. Definition
2. Need
3. Scope
4. Communication

With this I close the series and I hope I can get some feedback and interesting discussions in the future either in this posts or in others that I might link here for reference.

Origin of Morals - Fallacy of Suffering

There is a very common theme on the discussion of morals where the basis of moral is presented as the minimization of suffering or pain or other similar aspect. I have found this to be a wrong interpretation of morals. It is a simplification of the concept, not allowing for morals to be formulated upon other values other than pain. It leads to inconsistencies, where if an entity has all the capabilities that you would consider sentient, but lack the ability to experience pain, you are suddenly free of any moral towards that entity, even though you both can mutually reflect a great number of other aspects. It would allow for example for the most atrocious things to be performed on comatose patients, since they don’t experience pain, or to anaesthetise a patient and suddenly not be bound by any moral.

Usually the concept is brought up towards animals: 

“Why is it ok to kill an animal but not to make it suffer? Surely killing is a worse evil than inflicting pain.”

If you are concerned only on minimizing pain that would pose a problem. It will often lead you to start pondering if that animal feels pain, or if the animal feels the pain in way that is lesser than human pain or none at all. 

“fish don’t feel pain” is often thrown around. 

These explanations have always left me deeply unsatisfied, especially when following the conclusions to where they led. This is why I find reflection is a much more realistic concept: You avoid making an animal suffer because you can see part of your sentience in it and the animal is not intent on making yourself suffer.

This distinction, between suffering and reflection, neatly explains why we feel so bad about mistreating a pet or a "cute" animal and not other animals. "Cuteness" is just a measure of increased reflection so the moral scope of that entity is just more inclusive. Once you acknowledge that morals are just an inevitable evolution of beings into sentient beings you can stop evaluating the world through the lens of a fairy tale. Life's purpose is to exist, to grow and to adjust to the universe. Morals are just an efficient way to do it.

You can be fined or go to jail in most places for torturing a dog but not for killing it. The often untold  and un-admitted reason for your penalty is not really that you made the animal suffer, but instead the law is reflecting back to you what kind of person ignores that suffering and is unable to reflect your own morals. Someone incapable of following morals is a potential danger to society since morals only work if you can expect them to be reciprocated.

The suffering argument is also often based on the altruistic principle. That morals are created towards others. I find this argument ignores the basic principles of evolution. Evolution is individualistic, it is driven by diversity and adaptation to the environment. Evolution would never create a being capable of altruism if that behaviour would not ultimately be a benefit for himself. Unfortunately, our mind plays trick on us very often. The pleasure centres that are activated in the brain every time we do a good deed for someone else were evolved, humans did not create that mechanism out of our pure intellect.

Ultimately, morals cannot emerge from minimizing suffering alone. Avoiding suffering is not the reason a moral is created, in fact, many morals that are considered altruistic can lead to increases in suffering. If suffering was the core basis of morals then a dog would display a moral code, in fact any being that reacts in a complex way to nefarious sensory inputs would develop morals, and that is just not the observable case. This is a clear indication that avoiding suffering is just a nice side effect of morals but its not its origin. 

A moral is inherently selfish. You are only helping others to the extent it helps you in some way. As strange as it may seem, sacrifice, even the ultimate sacrifice of offering your own life for someone else, like a fireman going into a blazing building, is selfish. That person is making an evaluation of what she has to offer in that moment versus the rest of her life and decided that the gain in moral values is greater in that moment. Not for the moral values of others, but for the moral values of herself.

The concept of altruism is a complex one. The calculation involves the lives of populations of individuals and the small benefits that altruistic behaviour has into that population. It works like a natural insurance, allowing individuals to move past obstacles in life by having others that are more fortunate to spend very little, and then returning the favour. 

The success of that strategy is such that self-sacrifice began to surface towards family members to better protect your genetic material. As you extend your scope of reflection to your neighbours or nation, you can be tricked  into sacrificing for others. 

A reminder that the individual belief in a set of morals is not the same as the objective moral. We are not perfect and will never be. Both you the individual and Humanity has much yet to learn and evolve. Understand the biological, cultural and environmental forces that shape your morals. Make sure they are your own, that they are justified by reason, that they protect you, your family and friends. And be happy in life.

In the framework I propose, suffering is just one of the values that the moral function evaluates, sometimes it is the most significant, other times it’s not. Defining morals as the minimization of suffering is simplistic and often leads to inconsistent outcomes.