Portrait of an American Hero

[RCSaunders]

I am a person as capable of evil as anyone else, had I not the help of God to preserve me from the worst of it.

...

Psychological studies of South American torturers who were also normal family men have suggested that the human conscience has a limited life. If you repeatedly do evil to another person, eventually it stops telling you what you are doing is evil. I think these men and women all became a kind of "unrepentant torturers" of other human beings; and many of them died without ever having paid a concomitant price for the pain they caused others. They seem to have "gotten away with it."

You totally mystify me. I have no idea what you mean by, "evil." It's something you say you are capable of, but God keeps you from it. Then you describe those that, "repeatedly do evil to another person ..." but what you mean by evil is a mystery. It cannot be making another person suffer, can it? It cannot be a choice because apparently God did not keep them from doing evil. And what is so special about you that God keeps you from evil but not those South American torturers?

Is suffering evil? Is inflicting suffering evil? In either case, why?

From what I know of IC, I would assume that what separates him from the "South American torturers" and why he is different from them would be due to everyone having free will to make their own choices. By giving us free will, God makes it possible to defy his wishes, though s/he doesn't force people to go against his or her wishes. And by evil, I assume IC could very well mean making another suffer unjustly (perhaps among other things). He could perhaps be wrong, but I'm not seeing any inconsistencies or contradictions in his position.

Why don't we let IC answer for himself. He claims to be no different than the South American Indians and attributes his right choice to a relationship to God, which he didn't choose. So who did?

[Immanuel Can]

Then you describe those that, "repeatedly do evil to another person ..." but what you mean by evil is a mystery.

Oh, I don't think so. You have your own conceptions of evil, even if you try to avoid the word. You think indoctrinating children is evil. So is suppressing free speech, you would say. And I don't doubt that you find a whole bunch of traditionally evil behaviours to be evil as well. I'm sure you're against, say, racism, rape, pedophilia, torture, terrorism, and a whole host of behaviours for which you are free to choose your own word to substitute for "evil."

I know what I know, IC. I want to know what you mean by evil.

I could have sworn I already answered that. Bout of amnesia? But I'll rephrase: "That which is not consonant for the purposes for which God created a being." That's a good definition of evil.

It cannot be making another person suffer, can it?

Well, what do you think about that? Would you consider making somebody else suffer "evil" or not?

Are you not certain yourself?

Of course.

As far as I can see, you have no problem with people being made to suffer, so I do not know why you would consider it evil? I asked first. What are you evading?

Not evading at all. Just asking your opinion. You raised the issue of suffering, and I just wanted to know what you meant by the term. Because there is such a thing as justified suffering, and such a thing as unjustified suffering. There is such a thing as suffering for a purpose, and such a thing as suffering that's just plain bad. I wanted to see which kind was concerning you.

Maybe you can specify a case?

It cannot be a choice because apparently God did not keep them from doing evil.

That's backwards. If God "kept them" from doing evil, then they would have no choice. But the fact that they DID evil shows that they DID have a choice...and took the wrong one.

So you believe they could have chosen differently.

That's the very definition of a "choice": something in which one has genuine alternatives.

I would agree with that, but in that case, since you are equally capable of doing evil as they were, you do not have a choice because God keeps you from making the wrong one.

It's your phrase "keeps from" that's making you think so. That's not the right expression.

Not "keeps from" as in "absolutely prevents," but "keeps" as in "gives incentive for so doing," and "keeps" in the sense of "preserves from becoming no more than a victim of his own impulses," and "keeps" in the sense of "directs toward the good..." all of that, and more; but not "predetermines" or "forecloses choice." I can still choose to do that which God prefers I don't, and still sometimes do; but I know I'm doing evil when I do that, even if it's something minor, and I have a higher aim toward which I am directed, so I'm not fated to that.

But, if you claim it is still your choice, God has nothing to do with it. But it can't be both, can it?

That's where the word "keeps" is misleading. I would choose another word to express it more aptly.

And what is so special about you that God keeps you from evil but not those South American torturers?

Nothing about me. Personally, I'm nobody special. Had they chosen to seek God instead of torturing people, I would expect that they would also have been preserved from the worst of their nature. They just made a different choice, it would seem.

So it was serendipity. Doesn't sound like choice to me.

I didn't say "serendipity." You did. I said they chose differently.

How come you had that relationship with God and the South American Indians didn't...?

Where did these "Indians" suddenly appear from? Which ones were troubling you?

[Gary Childress]

You totally mystify me. I have no idea what you mean by, "evil." It's something you say you are capable of, but God keeps you from it. Then you describe those that, "repeatedly do evil to another person ..." but what you mean by evil is a mystery. It cannot be making another person suffer, can it? It cannot be a choice because apparently God did not keep them from doing evil. And what is so special about you that God keeps you from evil but not those South American torturers?

Is suffering evil? Is inflicting suffering evil? In either case, why?

From what I know of IC, I would assume that what separates him from the "South American torturers" and why he is different from them would be due to everyone having free will to make their own choices. By giving us free will, God makes it possible to defy his wishes, though s/he doesn't force people to go against his or her wishes. And by evil, I assume IC could very well mean making another suffer unjustly (perhaps among other things). He could perhaps be wrong, but I'm not seeing any inconsistencies or contradictions in his position.

Why don't we let IC answer for himself. He claims to be no different than the South American Indians and attributes his right choice to a relationship to God, which he didn't choose. So who did?

Just trying to help out. IC is always quick to correct me if I'm wrong.

[RCSaunders]

... there is such a thing as justified suffering ...

What does that mean? Does it mean the one causing the suffering is justified in causing it or the one experiencing the suffering is justified in suffering it? Unless suffering itself is bad or evil, why would it need to be justied?

There is such a thing as suffering for a purpose, ...

You will have to explain how suffering ever accomplishes anything, good or bad. It's an experience, not an action. If you mean doing something that causes suffering to fulfill some purpose there is no value in the suffering. At most, it might be a necessary payment for something more valuable, like suffering a life-saving operation before the advent of anesthesia. The same operation today can be performed without the suffering; the suffering added no value to the operation. There is no possible value in suffering, either to those who cause it or those who experience it, and nothing positive can possibly be gained from suffering itself to either the one who causes it or the one who experiences it.

Vindictiveness, vengeance, cruelty, terrorism, retribution, retaliation, punishment, bullying, torture, and feuds are based on the false belief that suffering (especially someone else's) can have a positive value.

Enduring suffering for the sake of achieving something is not an example of suffering having a value. It's not the suffering that has the value, but whatever was achieved, and if possible the achievement would be better without the suffering.

All suffering is bad, that's why it's called suffering.

[RCSaunders]

Just trying to help out. IC is always quick to correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry, Gary, I didn't intend my comment to be a criticism, and I didn't mean to imply you were stepping on IC's toes. I was just not sure myself what IC's view was, so couldn't judge whether you were right or not. My shortcoming, no yours.

[Immanuel Can]

... there is such a thing as justified suffering ...

What does that mean? Does it mean the one causing the suffering is justified in causing it or the one experiencing the suffering is justified in suffering it? Unless suffering itself is bad or evil, why would it need to be justied?

If one suffers for the right reason, it can be worth it. Ask the woman who has given birth, the athlete who has won the prize, the explorer who has reached the summit of the mountain, or the soldier who has taken the hill and freed the village from the aggressors.

Suffering considered without reasons or causes might well look universally bad. But another name for suffering is "achievement." Another is "overcoming." And with the possibility of suffering come other values, such as work, heroism, mercy, compassion, dedication, endurance, contribution and sacrifice. In a world that had never known any suffering, such things would also not be known.

So I'm just wondering what sort of suffering you're considering...the kind that has offsetting goods, or the kind that has none.

[Immanuel Can]

Just trying to help out. IC is always quick to correct me if I'm wrong.

You're always welcome to contribute, Gary.

[Gary Childress]

Just trying to help out. IC is always quick to correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry, Gary, I didn't intend my comment to be a criticism, and I didn't mean to imply you were stepping on IC's toes. I was just not sure myself what IC's view was, so couldn't judge whether you were right or not. My shortcoming, no yours.

No worries.

[RCSaunders]

So I'm just wondering what sort of suffering you're considering...the kind that has offsetting goods, or the kind that has none.

All suffering is bad. One might endure suffering to achieve or accomplish something, but it is never the suffering that is instrumental in that achievement. The suffering is always an impediment to be overcome, something to be endured, not the means to the achievement. There is not a single good that suffering in itself accomplishes. All suffering is always evil. Anyone who would willingly cause suffering is causing evil and anyone who holds up any form of suffering as some kind of positive value is promoting evil.

[Immanuel Can]

...it is never the suffering that is instrumental in that achievement....

Oh, I wouldn't say that was true. It's quite axiomatic that we don't value that which we got too easily, or with too few pains. And we don't learn much, or become better people so fast from easy experiences as from hard ones, do we?

There is definitely a productive dialectical tension between our efforts and the suffering experienced in reaching our goals that yields that sense of heroism, of achievement, of overcoming, of growing, and of having done something worth celebrating or savouring.

The athlete, the explorer, the birth-giver, the weight-lifter, the gamesman, the survivor, the builder, the scholar...and many more of us know full well how that works.

[Gary Childress]

I think there are different ways of achieving happiness and perhaps different varieties of happiness.

1. There is happiness that is derived from achieving something difficult that comes with a sense of accomplishment. In that sense, yes, if it did not involve suffering, then it might not make us happy to achieve it.

2. There is happiness that may involve suffering as an accidental by-product of achieving what you want. Such happiness would make us just as happy if it did not involve suffering. For example, owning your own car may bring happiness but it usually comes at the expense of hard work to pay for it. However, if a person is simply given a car (as a Christmas present, for example), they may be just as happy. So the suffering is entirely incidental to it.

3. There is also happiness that involves no suffering at all, for example, we may derive happiness just to be alive and do things that we enjoy like listening to music or eating good food, etc. That sort of happiness doesn't depend on suffering and indeed may be a kind of happiness that depends on a lack of suffering in order to experience it.

[Immanuel Can]

I think there are different ways of achieving happiness and perhaps different varieties of happiness...

That's helpful, Gary. Thank you.

[Immanuel Can]

Just trying to help out. IC is always quick to correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry, Gary, I didn't intend my comment to be a criticism, and I didn't mean to imply you were stepping on IC's toes. I was just not sure myself what IC's view was, so couldn't judge whether you were right or not. My shortcoming, no yours.

No worries.

You're good lads, both of you. Real gentlemen.

[Gary Childress]

I think there are different ways of achieving happiness and perhaps different varieties of happiness...

That's helpful, Gary. Thank you.

You're welcome.

[RCSaunders]

...it is never the suffering that is instrumental in that achievement....

Oh, I wouldn't say that was true. It's quite axiomatic that we don't value that which we got too easily, or with too few pains. And we don't learn much, or become better people so fast from easy experiences as from hard ones, do we?

There is definitely a productive dialectical tension between our efforts and the suffering experienced in reaching our goals that yields that sense of heroism, of achievement, of overcoming, of growing, and of having done something worth celebrating or savouring.

The athlete, the explorer, the birth-giver, the weight-lifter, the gamesman, the survivor, the builder, the scholar...and many more of us know full well how that works.

If suffering were not an evil, there would be no virtue in overcoming it. The victory is in not letting suffering stop us. A test of a man's character is what it takes to stop him and that sense of perseverance in the face suffering or other difficulties is very rewarding, but the victory is not because of the suffering but in not letting it defeat us.

The more valuable a thing is, the more it will cost to acquire or achieve it. Sometimes that cost includes enduring suffering, a minor loss relative to the gain. The suffering is a negative that can only be mitigated by some gain of greater value that one estimates the suffering to be. The suffering itself adds no value to anything.

If suffering itself could have a positive value it would be pursued for its own sake, and actually is by some, like ascetics, masochists, hypochondriacs, those with martyr and victim complexes, and certain mystical views. Finding virtue in suffering itself is a kind of mental aberration.