I’ve been thinking about the negative utilitarians recently and I don’t think they’re right but surely the world IS more evil than good today. Ironically for the antinatalists, this is probably only not true for humans living in even barely functional societies. I feel like I may be close to the luckiest conscious being ever to live on earth, which also makes me deeply suspicious about that from an anthropic point of view.
I just made my first Substack post about this, but consciousness is a true mess. I really hope that bugs don’t have consciousness but I agree that the chance they do is high enough to this has a good chance at seriously being the biggest issue in the world. And if they’re not conscious, animal suffering is DEFINITELY the biggest issue in the whole world!
"Morality for me is about crying out at the horrors of the universe and pleading for them to stop."
I think about this quote on a nearly daily basis, it sits close to my heart. I agree that this is one of your most important articles! This also reminds me of Humane Hancock videos such as "I finally understand speciesism and now I can't sleep" and "Invisible Tragedies and How to Spot Them", which express these difficult themes quite well.
It’s been years since I read it so I might misremember this a little, but at the end of 1984, when he’s getting tortured, I think the protagonist says something along the lines of “there’s really nothing worse than physical pain” and has no problem betraying the woman he loves to put a stop to it. I think about the few times I’ve felt something like serious physical pain (though I don’t think I’ve ever experienced anything truly truly severe) and how little tolerance I have for it, and am disturbed to think of how quickly I would likely give up any moral principles to avoid being tortured even a little
"But for everyone there is something unendurable—something that cannot be contemplated. Courage and cowardice are not involved. If you are falling from a height it is not cowardly to clutch at a rope. If you have come up from deep water it is not cowardly to fill your lungs with air. It is merely an instinct which cannot be destroyed. It is the same with the rats. For you, they are unendurable. They are a form of pressure that you cannot withstand, even if you wished to. You will do what is required of you."
Yes, definitely in that passage! His face was getting eaten by rats or something? I also was able to find the more specific quote I was thinking of -
“Never, for any reason on earth, could you wish for an increase of pain. Of pain you could only wish for one thing: that it should stop. Nothing in the world was so bad as physical pain. In the face of pain there are no heroes, no heroes, he thought over and over as he writhed on the floor, clutching uselessly at his disabled left arm.”
I have been considering these themes generally for years, and more acutely lately since I've been wanting to write a post about this. Thanks for giving me a great initial articulation and framework to work from, and thanks for your sensitivity to the horrors of the universe and your empathy for sufferers.
I suspect that we have a much greater capacity for pain than for pleasure, and that this is responsible for the intuition behind negative utilitarianism.
(Haven’t read the literature so not sure if this point is widely recognized already)
I believe something along those lines is contemplated (haven't dug in too much either). At the very least I remember the thought experiment of "Would you agree to be subjected to the worst pain imaginable for 2 minutes to then receive the best pleasure imaginable for 10 minutes." Numbers may vary. The intuition was that the worst pain appears quite a bit higher magnitude than the best pleasure.
Yeah that seems right. And I think the relationship is probably purely quantitative. It seems plausible to me that some amount of pleasure exists that could balance out the worst pain - just not that my current hardware is capable of experiencing it. The brain given to us by evolution seems to moderate pleasure a lot. It’s difficult to imagine something like pure, undiminished bliss, though maybe drugs or genetic engineering could get us there.
I think the picture is somewhat complicated by the quality of hedonic experiences not always matching up with the strength of our motivational drives. For example, some of my most intense pleasures have been from LSD and meditation, yet I weirdly never had any drive to repeat my LSD trip, and I have to force myself to meditate. Thus, I might not be motivated to undergo suffering to experience these things - even though perhaps from the moral pov, they are worth it? On the other hand, people experience intense drives to do addictive drugs to the point that they are willing to suffer an insane amount. However, many addictive drugs, such as meth, aren't really pleasurable at all. All to say - I'm not sure whether the asymetry is due to the differing intensity of our actual good and bad experiences, or to the way our brain handles motivational tradeoffs, and it seems hard to disentangle the two.
This is a great point. I think I've heard that the drive to do stuff is mediated by dopamine despite serotonin creating a more pleasurable sensation of happiness (probably a dramatic oversimplification; my understanding of neuroscience is very low).
From my brief Andrew Huberman period, that sounds right. It is sort of mysterious to me that we experience happiness at all, given how much our behavior is just following urges.
Whatever comes next in the syllogism, this articulation of the problem is beautiful. I think if we had the capacity to truly empathize with everything that’s experienced in the world — extreme suffering, yes, but also deep joy — we’d probably do things very differently. I think a lot about mental illness, including the sort of isolation debilitating psychological pain that drives some people to believe that non-existence is the only viable option. Just knowing that this level of anguish is real and prevalent reshapes the way I see everything else. As, certainly, does the awareness of the torment humanity routinely inflicts on the world around it.
I’m not sure that I share all your views on non-human-related suffering in the natural world — there seems to be good reason that a spider might trap, paralyze, and devour a moth, based on a calculus that has nothing to do with me. But you make a strong argument that suffering is a significant factor to be weighed in any situation, whether or not it’s the sole gravitational force.
There are some hard questions about temporal perspective here. I agree that, during an extended episode of intense agony of the kind BB mentions, I would likely give up pretty much anything to make it stop, including killing myself. But if I made it through and could still live a decent life, I would probably be glad I hadn't had the option to kill myself. And if I knew I was going to die of horrible burns in six months unless I killed myself now, I don't think I would, and that seems rational to me. This all makes me wonder whether how bad suffering seems while suffering it is a great guide to its overall normative significance. Maybe it is more like the way the deliciousness of a slice of cake looms large when you are craving something sweet and it is right there.
If there were pleasures as unfathomably good as the unfathomably bad pain of this world, it would be hard for me to see what the problem would be with making these trade offs.
I agree in your assessment of the enormity of suffering in nature, though I think you might overlook the years, sometimes decades of certain human suffering that takes place at the end of nearly every elderly human life. Nature’s scary, but civilization is no picnic.
How does a theist then reconcile the magnitude of suffering you illustrate here with an omnibenevolent God’s creation, maintenance and dissemination of it? And does one have to resort to some notion of how suffering’s contrast with pleasure/goodness somehow perfects pleasure/goodness? This twisted logic would suggest that beating children might be one of the best things you can do for them.
I’ve been thinking about the negative utilitarians recently and I don’t think they’re right but surely the world IS more evil than good today. Ironically for the antinatalists, this is probably only not true for humans living in even barely functional societies. I feel like I may be close to the luckiest conscious being ever to live on earth, which also makes me deeply suspicious about that from an anthropic point of view.
I just made my first Substack post about this, but consciousness is a true mess. I really hope that bugs don’t have consciousness but I agree that the chance they do is high enough to this has a good chance at seriously being the biggest issue in the world. And if they’re not conscious, animal suffering is DEFINITELY the biggest issue in the whole world!
"Morality for me is about crying out at the horrors of the universe and pleading for them to stop."
I think about this quote on a nearly daily basis, it sits close to my heart. I agree that this is one of your most important articles! This also reminds me of Humane Hancock videos such as "I finally understand speciesism and now I can't sleep" and "Invisible Tragedies and How to Spot Them", which express these difficult themes quite well.
It’s been years since I read it so I might misremember this a little, but at the end of 1984, when he’s getting tortured, I think the protagonist says something along the lines of “there’s really nothing worse than physical pain” and has no problem betraying the woman he loves to put a stop to it. I think about the few times I’ve felt something like serious physical pain (though I don’t think I’ve ever experienced anything truly truly severe) and how little tolerance I have for it, and am disturbed to think of how quickly I would likely give up any moral principles to avoid being tortured even a little
This?
"But for everyone there is something unendurable—something that cannot be contemplated. Courage and cowardice are not involved. If you are falling from a height it is not cowardly to clutch at a rope. If you have come up from deep water it is not cowardly to fill your lungs with air. It is merely an instinct which cannot be destroyed. It is the same with the rats. For you, they are unendurable. They are a form of pressure that you cannot withstand, even if you wished to. You will do what is required of you."
Yes, definitely in that passage! His face was getting eaten by rats or something? I also was able to find the more specific quote I was thinking of -
“Never, for any reason on earth, could you wish for an increase of pain. Of pain you could only wish for one thing: that it should stop. Nothing in the world was so bad as physical pain. In the face of pain there are no heroes, no heroes, he thought over and over as he writhed on the floor, clutching uselessly at his disabled left arm.”
I'd give up a lot to avoid being tortured in the future, even a little.
I wouldn't give up *anything* to get rid of the pain, suffering and hardships I've already experienced.
It's astounding how the food industry keeps this hidden. If youngsters only knew.
Great post! Appreciate you quoting Tomasik too. Preventing the worst types of suffering is so important
I have been considering these themes generally for years, and more acutely lately since I've been wanting to write a post about this. Thanks for giving me a great initial articulation and framework to work from, and thanks for your sensitivity to the horrors of the universe and your empathy for sufferers.
A really powerful post, giving us lots to think about. Very well written, sir.
Thanks.
I suspect that we have a much greater capacity for pain than for pleasure, and that this is responsible for the intuition behind negative utilitarianism.
(Haven’t read the literature so not sure if this point is widely recognized already)
I believe something along those lines is contemplated (haven't dug in too much either). At the very least I remember the thought experiment of "Would you agree to be subjected to the worst pain imaginable for 2 minutes to then receive the best pleasure imaginable for 10 minutes." Numbers may vary. The intuition was that the worst pain appears quite a bit higher magnitude than the best pleasure.
Yeah that seems right. And I think the relationship is probably purely quantitative. It seems plausible to me that some amount of pleasure exists that could balance out the worst pain - just not that my current hardware is capable of experiencing it. The brain given to us by evolution seems to moderate pleasure a lot. It’s difficult to imagine something like pure, undiminished bliss, though maybe drugs or genetic engineering could get us there.
I think the picture is somewhat complicated by the quality of hedonic experiences not always matching up with the strength of our motivational drives. For example, some of my most intense pleasures have been from LSD and meditation, yet I weirdly never had any drive to repeat my LSD trip, and I have to force myself to meditate. Thus, I might not be motivated to undergo suffering to experience these things - even though perhaps from the moral pov, they are worth it? On the other hand, people experience intense drives to do addictive drugs to the point that they are willing to suffer an insane amount. However, many addictive drugs, such as meth, aren't really pleasurable at all. All to say - I'm not sure whether the asymetry is due to the differing intensity of our actual good and bad experiences, or to the way our brain handles motivational tradeoffs, and it seems hard to disentangle the two.
This is a great point. I think I've heard that the drive to do stuff is mediated by dopamine despite serotonin creating a more pleasurable sensation of happiness (probably a dramatic oversimplification; my understanding of neuroscience is very low).
From my brief Andrew Huberman period, that sounds right. It is sort of mysterious to me that we experience happiness at all, given how much our behavior is just following urges.
But have you considered the Faustian spirit? /j
Whatever comes next in the syllogism, this articulation of the problem is beautiful. I think if we had the capacity to truly empathize with everything that’s experienced in the world — extreme suffering, yes, but also deep joy — we’d probably do things very differently. I think a lot about mental illness, including the sort of isolation debilitating psychological pain that drives some people to believe that non-existence is the only viable option. Just knowing that this level of anguish is real and prevalent reshapes the way I see everything else. As, certainly, does the awareness of the torment humanity routinely inflicts on the world around it.
I’m not sure that I share all your views on non-human-related suffering in the natural world — there seems to be good reason that a spider might trap, paralyze, and devour a moth, based on a calculus that has nothing to do with me. But you make a strong argument that suffering is a significant factor to be weighed in any situation, whether or not it’s the sole gravitational force.
Indeed. Now imagine thinking that some amount of pinpricks could ever outweigh billions of creatures experiencing extreme suffering! It’s crazy!
There are some hard questions about temporal perspective here. I agree that, during an extended episode of intense agony of the kind BB mentions, I would likely give up pretty much anything to make it stop, including killing myself. But if I made it through and could still live a decent life, I would probably be glad I hadn't had the option to kill myself. And if I knew I was going to die of horrible burns in six months unless I killed myself now, I don't think I would, and that seems rational to me. This all makes me wonder whether how bad suffering seems while suffering it is a great guide to its overall normative significance. Maybe it is more like the way the deliciousness of a slice of cake looms large when you are craving something sweet and it is right there.
Negative utilitarian blogs should be required for all high schoolers. Perhaps the most important-to-promulgate false view.
"[T]here’s some amount of good that can outweigh even the worst forms of torture"
So, if the lobster was big enough and the utility monster enjoyed eating only boiled lobster enough - let the torture begin?
The great opposition you have to inflicting torture strikes me as too contingent on the facts of the world.
If there were pleasures as unfathomably good as the unfathomably bad pain of this world, it would be hard for me to see what the problem would be with making these trade offs.
Your view of nature is so so histrionic and inaccurate. You really need to get out more: https://backcountrypsych.substack.com/p/nature-is-not-hell
Your exaggerated aversion to pain and your whack utilitarian calculous leads you to act like a misspecified AI: https://backcountrypsych.substack.com/p/misspecified-utilitarians-hate-existence
I agree in your assessment of the enormity of suffering in nature, though I think you might overlook the years, sometimes decades of certain human suffering that takes place at the end of nearly every elderly human life. Nature’s scary, but civilization is no picnic.
How does a theist then reconcile the magnitude of suffering you illustrate here with an omnibenevolent God’s creation, maintenance and dissemination of it? And does one have to resort to some notion of how suffering’s contrast with pleasure/goodness somehow perfects pleasure/goodness? This twisted logic would suggest that beating children might be one of the best things you can do for them.