Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

  • @ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    With out of context I mean in it’s nature. Imagine you have to cut off someone’s leg who doesn’t like pain and won’t profit from experiencing it during the amputation now or in the future, is it better to do it in the way it causes the most pain or the way it causes less pain, when it leads to exactly the same result?

    • @FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Oh in that context it’s absolutely worse. And in a complete vaccum where no action or even existence precedes or continues from that one moment of suffering it’s also bad.

      Though because such a vacuum does not exist in reality suffering can be good. For example choosing to suffer to bring about some good outcome would be good. Or suffering that builds character for some future event. Also some forms of suffering are enjoyable to some people.

      • @ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Yeah of course. But that doesn’t change that it’s objective. I don’t mean suffering just as in physical pain.

        • @FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Yea, the fact that there are a billion things that can be considered suffering makes it even more subjective since one form of suffering may be someone else’s enjoyment.

          How is suffering morally objective?

          • @ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            If you hit two people with a stick, one enjoys it and the other does not, than clearly one is suffering the other isn’t. That’s not morally objective it’s a biological reality.