On page 170, Hurka presents objections to the claim that the existence of real pain is justified because it leads to virtues such as compassion. He contends this is not necessarily true because a.) falsely-believed pain can still lead to compassion and b.) one can feel compassion for self-conciously imagined pain (for example, products of creativity like King Lear which, though ficitonal, evoke very real emotions). In this way, Hurka says, a world could reap the moral benefits of compassion without actually containing pain.
Firstly I find it hard to believe that in a world without pain the members could successfully imagine scenarios of pain for which to feel sympathy. That is to say, tragedies like King Lear can only be written and recieved in worlds where pain really exists. How else would Shakespeare be inspired to write such a play? How else would the audience find the story emotionally believable and compelling? If people knew that pain could not/did not exist, they would not be saddened by its represenation in theater. We cease to fear the Boogey Man under the bed once we realize he's not there, never has been there, and never will be.
That was a response to claim "b." To claim "a." I would point out that compassion is, by definition, really the act of feeling "pain" at another's pain. When you are hurt or pained by the hurt or pain of another, that is compassion. Hurka says that in a world without pain, people could (through lack of knowledge) believe that there is pain. They would then feel compassion and gain virtue points. But the moment they feel compassion, that world is no longer pain-free: their pain at the "falsely-believed" pain is very real. Compassion itself is a manifestation of pain, so compassion cannot exist in a pain-free world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In response to your first rebuttal to Hurka's argument:
I do not believe Hurka is saying that in a society where the people can not/do not know if pain exists. I believe Hurka has room to say that the people of a given society could/would know that pain is real in its existence because all one has to do is look back and examine the history of human beings. A history which has included oppression, war, illness, and many other threats to survival far greater than any society that does not have pain present within it.
Art, many times, is reflective of the era in which it was spawned. So of course King Lear and other works would have pain present within them. Then following that, anyone reading or experiencing art from another time period of much greater pain, one would be able to experience great compassion for the extreme pain that those before them faced and felt; for, isn't that what good art does?
So, I think that is support for Hurka's claim that one could develop compassion and reat its moral benefits without actually containing pain. For that pain that was experienced and captured in history (artistically, textually, etc.) and theoretically would be able to expounge and develop compassion within an individual that does not experience pain very much.
For the claim that if people did not know that pain existed then they could not be saddened by its representation in the theater. Simply because it does not exist does not mean that we cannot create it. For example, dragons do not exist but that doesn't mean we don't understand them. We all know what a dragon is, can visualize it, but it isn’t real. Also, simply because we don’t know what it is doesn’t mean we can’t picture it. Since we know that pain is the opposite of pleasure certainly, an individual would be able to understand at least to some degree what pain is.
Furthermore, Hurka does not make the claim that the world is without pain. He states that a world free of all non-moral evil can contain some compassion. This is very different. Because in this world, pain does still exist. Pain would, however, not exist for the use of evil. But, accidents and the like would still create and cause pain.
To the claim for part a), you said the falsely-believed pain is real. However, we recognize pain to be nerves moving from the nerve receptors to the brain. If there isn't some kind of biological process happening then the pain cannot be real. And so, the falsely-believed pain is false. However, the belief that the pain exists is still what allows for compassion. Compassion does not rely on pain’s existence. Compassion relies upon the belief that the pain is real. This is what allows Hurka to say a world that is pain-free can still contain compassion.
Post a Comment