Hacker News Reader

Comment by omega3 | Hacker News Reader

Unpopular opinion but I'm yet to hear a convincing argument that the reduction of suffering is something that we should strive for.

Edit, looking at the replies I'm disappointed in hn, expected better.

View on HN

That's obvious flamebait, and tedious self-congratulatory tropes like "Unpopular opinion" and "expected better" are flame multipliers. Please don't post like that here.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27492086.

If the reduction of suffering is not something that you internally see as valuable, you might want to check with a psychologist (I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly). While I can construct philosophical arguments and know what nihilism is, outside of thought experiments this is highly unusual for any individual capable of any empathy at all.

Some additions:

I want to second the clarifications by adrianN and shawnz -- there is a difference between not actively caring about suffering, and not even seeing the point in anyone caring about it.

It seems my "I in fact believe you should see a psychologist" worked exactly as well rootusrootus implied it would. Many seem to think I want to label the previous poster as a psychopath, and do so in hatred. That was not my intention. I admit, I fail at communication, regularly, even more so the more I try to refrain from it.

Although suggested otherwise, my message did *not* contain a diagnosis. Given this extremely limited context, I doubt anyone could give a proper remote diagnosis. And I especially did not attach a psychopathy label to the previous poster. I personally know of at least three mental/neurological atypical (and not voluntarily chosen) states that cause people to (partially) adopt nihilism, and I'm sure mental health professionals have seen quite a few more.

> I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly

When you find yourself having to qualify such a statement, that could be a useful indicator that what you said isn't constructive.

Its true though, not being able feel empathy for anyone or thing that is not normal. So any individual who can't would be well served going to a psychologist or being expelled from society entirely. Reduction of suffering being good is generally viewed as axiomatic. I don't want any part of any moral code that doesn't assume that. And I frankly don't care about the feelings of those who are indifferent to suffering.

I think it is a pretty big leap from 'maybe this is not automatically good' to 'you must be a pscyhopath.' If there were no trade-offs, then it would be a short discussion and we could definitely fall back on axioms.

I mean more likely the OP is just being edgy and is only performatively apathetic at a surface level, but the only thing we have to go off of are their words, which do point to some deeper problem.

Theres a huge difference between the statements "Lots of humans eatanimals for sustenance and there is a tradeoff between the value we derive vs the suffering of the animals" vs "Prove that I should care about suffering".

>or being expelled from society entirely

So the main reason to exploit animal is because the other human hate it and that other human could harm you. I see so it has nothing to do with the animal suffering itself.

No its because the presence of such people in society only increases total overall suffering (animal or human).

But why would I care about the increase of animal suffering (if not because other human may angry) ?

I know that rule of thumb, but it's only a rule of thumb. I haven't yet seen a way to suggest seeing a doctor via the written part of the web that won't immediately get interpreted as name calling by many people.

Thanks for the diagnosis, I think it's not as highly unusual as you might think. I bet outside of their relatively small social circles humans aren't preoccupied with reduction of suffering or altruism in any meaningful way. Of course, it's not a fashionable thing to say (see the downwotes) and I'd love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.

I disagree, the rate of vegetarianism has been increasing over the years and the rate of people demanding more ethical meat products e.g. free range eggs and chicken becoming more popular too. This is the free market catering to demand that was almost non existent 30 years ago.

There is a difference between not actively working on reducing suffering and not seeing a point in reducing suffering.

Most people probably don't preoccupy themselves with reduction of suffering, but that is not the same as saying most people don't see value in reducing suffering.

> I bet outside of their relatively small social circles humans aren't preoccupied with reduction of suffering or altruism in any meaningful way

Could it be that reduction of _observable_ suffering is what many people are actually concerned about, not the underlying suffering as such?

It's OK to buy a burger - just as long as you don't have to watch how it's made.

It's OK to buy a $5 imported shirt - as long as you don't have to observe the conditions under which it was produced.

Most people may not be concerned with reduction of suffering but those that argue for not killing animals for food definitely are. I'm not sure why you think it has anything to do with being fashionable.

You dropped a controversial opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up and are now disappointed of the replies. What else did you expect instead? (Well, beside something "better")

> What else did you expect instead?

I've expected for people to formulate an interesting, persuasive counter argument. That's how you advance a conversation. You don't advance the discussion by ad hominem remarks or ignoring the argument like some people have done.

There was no argument that could have been countered. You stated the opinion that you have not heard any argument yet that suffering actually should be minimized but did not list any of these arguments much less explained why you did not find them convincing. There was nothing anyone could possibly have debated in a reasonable way.

You wrote down a truly idiotic thought with no argument or justification whatsoever and you expect people to take you seriously, where did you learn to be so brave and clever.

Please don't cross into personal attack or respond by breaking the site guidelines yourself. Regardless of how bad or annoying another comment is (or you feel it is), you owe the community better if you're participating here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that human life matters at all, but I operate as though it does because it feels like it does and in some sense that's all the reason you should need.

That seems like a perfectly legitimate question. Is it a good idea to anthropomorphize other animals? Is it beneficial to society overall to make macro-level policy decisions based on moral beliefs that are more of a personal thing?

FWIW, HN on the weekend is a different beast entirely than it is on weekdays. Even dang needs some time off, and the reduction in moderation can be glaringly obvious. Makes me really appreciate how much of the 'HN we all love' is a result of his efforts as much as it is a general consensus by participants on this site.

The way you are using the word anthropomorphism implies that there is a difference between humans and other animals and that we should concern ourselves with human suffering, but not with animal suffering. If you think we shouldn’t concern ourselves with the second, then what is the argument for concerning ourselves with the first?

Of course we make policy decisions based on moral belief. We do outlaw murder and rape, for example.

I think this is probably sample bias. HN on the weekend isn't a different beast entirely, and FWIW my and other mods' time off doesn't particularly correlate with weekends. Thanks for the kind words in any case!

Because you wouldn't want to be subjected to suffering yourself. It's not complicated.

All humans everywhere desire the end of their own suffering. We're awful at minimizing it but you can see our hamfisted attempts in our seeking out of pleasures and avoidance of activities which are unpleasant, stressful, and painful.

When we observe other humans/animals hurting most of us feel with what is suffering.

Exactly. If anyone reading this is puzzled about whether reduction of suffering is worth striving for, you only need to observe yourself when you are suffering. Do you want more suffering or less suffering?

I suppose a person could argue that the universe is just a bunch of atoms and that living beings and their suffering is just chemicals behaving in a certain way and in that sense it doesn’t matter any more than any other chemical reaction but it seems like that argument would also render the concept of “striving” to be moot.

Do you honestly not understand what an outrageous comment this is?

I've got a good one: happy critters taste better. Modern factory farmed pork is fine, and $2/lb is awesome and wonderful; but I'll never have pork like the pig I raised as a child, or the pigs the neighbor ran in a retired peach orchard, from such a lifestyle.

I personally don't care about animal suffering, whatever you do to non-human is fair game to me. I draw the line between human and non-human.

The only reason I may care about animal suffering is because the other human that care about animal can get angry and cause me trouble.

Now I’m curious: why do you care about human suffering?

I guess its just matter of subjective preference, like some people hate eating chocolate some people loves it.

You seem like a self-interest oriented individual, so perhaps you will find this idea worth considering:

The animals are in some ways like our collective ancestors, who have continued living the way we changed from.

The machines are in some ways like our collective offspring, finding new ways to function while we stay where we currently can't move from (carbon-DNA mechanics).

It has been observed that machines learn the same way animals do -- mostly by watching and repeating, not by "listening" to what they're told to do.

So in how we treat the animals is going to translate into how we are treated once we are no longer in power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com