Hacker News Reader

Comment by winter_blue | Hacker News Reader

You’re showing a lack of empathy for the instance of yourself that is experiencing all that pain. Simply forgetting it doesn’t make it right to not have empathy for the version of yourself that went through all the pain and suffering.

View on HN

Yes, I am! Why isn't that fine? Not "right", you say.

Bear in mind that the "version of me" is me, and cognitively is in agreement that this is fine. Instinctively I would very much not think it was fine while undergoing the pain, but I'd also think I was wrong about that at the same time. I don't suppose I'd be all stoic about it like Giles Corey*, but it's the cognitive side of me that has the valid opinion and eventually the executive function.

*Squashed to death in Salem, 1692

I guess this might be a matter of subjective disagreement, but I'm personally opposed to all forms of consensual human suffering and death. I'd be fine with wrestling being banned, a law mandating contact sports amend rules to become non-contact, ban MAID (voluntary/consensual human euthanasia), ban anything that involves violence or harm done to any human being, including consenting adults consenting to violent acts performed on them. But that's just my opinion, and others are free to disagree with me on that. Although I will add that if I had legislative power I would not have an issue enacting such bans into law, even if people may say it taking away "rights"; to which I'd respond that certain rights like free speech are essential to a functioning free society, but certain other rights have no moral basis for being a right. The U.S. Congress (and various U.S. states) over the years progressively banned dueling. And notably, dueling was a consensual activity between two consenting adults, one that sadly took the life of Alexander Hamilton, amongst many others.

This didn't explain what's wrong with the suffering. Death, sure, you're throwing your life away, it's a waste, so some authoritarian could decide on your behalf that you're not allowed to, and that would be reasonable, if heavy-handed. But in the above scenario I don't die, my purpose is maintained, the world benefits, I benefit, but a meaningless thing called "pain" is part of the plan. (I changed the name away from "suffering", because that suggests meaningfulness.) You believe pain is inherently harmful, but how does that make sense? Or can I persuade you that it doesn't count as harm?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com