The nature of suffering...

In an earlier post, I touched on the relationship between suffering and purpose. In that entry, I touched on the idea that suffering is not in itself evil. Rather suffering with no (good) purpose is evil, and it is the lack of purpose that defines evil suffering. I thought it was about time to expand on that concept and explore it a bit further.

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.

This really brings me to the key question in terms of understanding of the nature of evil.  As a former atheist, I have to say that one of the things that made me a theist was that I could not say with confidence that mankind is the ultimate intelligence in the universe.  This leads to a logical chain:

• 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.

Given that possibility, our arguing about whether suffering is evil may be on a parallel with the child arguing that homework is evil because (s)he doesn't yet understand why it is necessary. 

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.