Let me take the example of Guantanamo Bay interrogation methods. The question of whether they are evil (just, legal, etc.) has been debated in many other venues, and I don't intend to either justify or vilify them here. My only purpose is to use them to explore the relationship between purpose and suffering.
On one level, the question of purpose and suffering in a situation like Guantanamo can be reduced to a question of whether the ends justify the means. If one believes that the ends (protecting America from potential terrorists) are sufficiently important to justify the extreme measures that have been documented to extract information from detainees, then one is likely to conclude that the suffering of Gitmo detainees is not evil.
The next question is, of course, whether the suffering of Gitmo detainees is effective in reducing terrorism. This is where, from a philosophical standpoint, the "ends justify the means" position starts to fall apart. If the ends are not achieved by the means, then no justification remains. However, the effectiveness in this case cannot be determined either before or during the suffering. A useful philosophical definition of evil cannot, therefore, be based on effectiveness.
In a way, I alluded to this in the earlier post, in that the firefighter who suffers trying to save people and isn't successful is still seen as a hero for the attempt.
Conversely, one may choose to suffer for some perceived benefit, either for oneself or for others. I think it is sufficiently intuitive that such suffering, chosen by the sufferer, for a purpose that the sufferer sees as worthy is not evil. Foolish, perhaps, but not evil. Indeed, many stories both from various religions and from popular culture honor and extol willful suffering for the sake of another, or for some lofty goal. Indeed, even willful suffering for personal benefit is admired as an example of discipline.
The question then returns to one of the purpose of the suffering.
On behalf of? How can a choice that inflicts suffering be beneficial?
- Ask any pediatric oncologist. The child often does not understand why they are having to suffer, yet the physicians administer chemotherapy and radiation for the child's benefit.
- Ask a parent. Children often do not understand parental rules, and view them as causing needless suffering. The child may see the suffering as evil, however, the parent knows that the end result of not imposing the suffering is worse.
- If one accepts the possibility of a greater intelligence, one must accept the possibility that that greater intelligence may have some hand in humanity's past and future.
- Once one accepts that possibility, one has to accept that human suffering may have a purpose beyond our comprehension.
I landed that earlier discussion in roughly the same place, but I wanted to revisit the idea, because of this additional idea that has come to me of late:
If I have one great fear for our society, it is that, in the interest of "doing good" we eliminate all suffering, and thus miss a lesson that we need.
