Is it rational & moral to attempt to end all unjustified human suf

[Edwin]

I hate unjustified human suffering. I believe it is unnecessary.

I think it possible to end it through better medicine, diagnostics, charity and law enforcement. Is it rational or moral to pursue such a goal?

[softwareNerd]

I hate unjustified human suffering. I believe it is unnecessary.

I think it possible to end it through better medicine, diagnostics, charity and law enforcement. Is it rational or moral to pursue such a goal?

You left out the most important way to end human suffering: a better political system. When China changed from communist to its current mixed-economy, it resulted in an improvement in all those other things you mention. Even places like Russia that have some plutocracy/mafia-type government are so much better off than when they were communist. This story is repeated across a whole lot of examples: one does not to become a capitalist paradise to address human suffering, all one has to do is to improve one's political system substantially. What this means is that one allows more individual freedom in more arenas.

One can pour all the money one likes into Africa, and see only slow improvements. However, the real problem of Africa is self-inflicted. Through ignorance and folly they have decided to have the wrong political system. Change that and you will have a rich continent.

[Eiuol]

Why would it be necessarily irrational?

Edited May 27, 2011 by Eiuol

[Grames]

I hate unjustified human suffering. I believe it is unnecessary.

I think it possible to end it through better medicine, diagnostics, charity and law enforcement. Is it rational or moral to pursue such a goal?

That depends on the meaning of 'unjustified', and what kinds of things are justifiable. Do you use Ayn Rand's definition and reduction of the concept 'justice' as a starting point? What path of reasoning are you following that goes from justice to medicine? The intellectual shortcut from justice to medicine is socialized medicine.

[ttime]

I hate unjustified human suffering. I believe it is unnecessary.

I think it possible to end it through better medicine, diagnostics, charity and law enforcement. Is it rational or moral to pursue such a goal?

Good luck.

[philosopher]

It's definitely moral for the people concerned to try and end their suffering. Morality as a concept mostly pertains to how you act towards yourself, not how you act towards other people. If you tried to end the suffering of others I'm not sure what that would be called.

[Edwin]

That depends on the meaning of 'unjustified', and what kinds of things are justifiable. Do you use Ayn Rand's definition and reduction of the concept 'justice' as a starting point? What path of reasoning are you following that goes from justice to medicine? The intellectual shortcut from justice to medicine is socialized medicine.

I am thinking of Rand's definition of justice when I talk about unjustified suffering. The idea that any person has to suffer consequences of events one had no choice about, is strikingly similar to the disgusting idea of Original Sin, and, therefore unjustifiable. Certain diseases are consequences of events which no one has had any choices about. For example, cluster headaches, which is considered to be the most painful disease human beings suffer has no known causes linking it to the actions of any person. And therefore I believe it is moral to end such suffering by developing better painkillers or more preventive solutions.

I believe if we walk along that path of discovery we will be able to end all unjustified human suffering.

Yet I have had people tell me that it is unrealistic and therefore irrational & immoral to pursue such a goal in life.

Edited May 29, 2011 by Edwin

[RationalBiker]

I am thinking of Rand's definition of justice when I talk about unjustified suffering.

I'm not certain the concept "justice" applies to "events no one has a choice about" when you are talking about events outside the province of man and man's choices (i.e. natural phenomena). One has no right or realistic expectation for "life" to treat them in a particular way. One cannot hold nature accountable if a meteor comes crashing down on one's house. Unfortunate, awful, and tragic may all be relevant, but justice does not apply in the situations to which you appear to refer. These various events that may befall a person during the course of their life are not subject to whether they deserve them or not, they just happen. They happen regardless of whether you personally think they are "unnecessary" (another term which may also be inapplicable).

On the other hand, "Original Sin" does, as it is a concept referring to a false condition propagated by some people to guilt people into particular modes of behavior.

Your initial post is so vague on details that the default here is that it is unrealistic; believing doesn't make things happen. Specifically, what do you want to do to end some particular form of human suffering? How do you think it is possible to eliminate ALL tragic human suffering? How would you stop natural events from occurring that will result in tragic human suffering? I'm not sure you have really thought through the monumental undertaking which is so easily typed out on a forum.

[Grames]

I believe if we walk along that path of discovery we will be able to end all unjustified human suffering.

Yet I have had people tell me that it is unrealistic and therefore irrational & immoral to pursue such a goal in life.

Reducing unnecessary suffering is one aspect of progress. Increasing the enjoyment of life is the other aspect.

Ok, so you believe in progress. I do too. It is too non-specific to want to achieve progress. Achievement must take some specific form, that is the gist of the objections. For example if you solved the problem of cluster headaches that would be a specific achievement and a step forward in general progress.