Utility and Suffering in Culture
by Socrethics
|
Table of contents
1. Introduction 6. Conclusion
|
|
Abstract
Starting point The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference (Richard Dawkins) “Ethical” principles on the sociobiological level serve the utility function of biology.
Type of Problem 1) Is there a utility function of culture analogous to the utility function of biology? 2) Does suffering increase with cultural evolution as well as with biological evolution? 3) To what extent can culture overrule the biological mechanisms? 4) How will suffering end?
Utility function The utility function of culture (if there exists any) is unknown.
The evolution of suffering 1. On the biological level the increase in suffering with evolution is evident and seems to increase the survival value (utility). On the cultural level only the quantitative increase in suffering is evident. 2. Although there are many indications, that the degree of suffering increases as well, the system of culture is too complex to make a reliable prediction. The general situation is one of opposing and overlapping trends. 3. Thesis: Cultural evolution acts like an acceleration of biological evolution. The degree of suffering increases as long as the lifetime of the individuals and the complexity of the environment increase. 4. Unpredictability is no argument for optimism. Thesis: As long as there is a potential for a higher degree of suffering (keyword technology) at least a minority will be affected by an unforeseen development or by hazard. An increase in happiness has to be “paid” by an increase in risks (see On the Perception of Risk and Benefit)
The end of suffering Theses: 1. Destruction is more likely than salvation. 2. Suffering will end by the destruction of life by non-human forces.
|
1. Introduction
Starting point
The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference (Richard Dawkins)
“Ethical” principles on the sociobiological level serve the utility function of biology.
Type of Problem
1. Is there a utility function of culture analogous to the utility function of biology?
2. Does suffering increase with cultural evolution as well as with biological evolution?
3. To what extent can culture overrule the biological mechanisms?
4. How will suffering end?
2. Assessment of Suffering
Definition of pain
1. Pain is a synonym for physical suffering. It is defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage; see International Association for the Study of Pain.
2. For a neurological definition see Pain: Past Present and Future, by Ronald Melzack.
Definition of suffering
1) Suffering or pain in this sense is a basic affective experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with harm or threat of harm in an individual. It constitutes the negative basis of affective states (emotions, feelings, moods, sentiments). The term suffering includes the term pain (from Suffering, Wikipedia).
2) Health care approaches to suffering remain highly problematic, according to Eric Cassell, which is the most often cited author on that subject: "The obligation of physicians to relieve human suffering stretches back to antiquity. Despite this fact, little attention is explicitly given to the problem of suffering in medical education, research or practice." "In fact, the central assumptions on which twentieth-century medicine is founded provide no basis for an understanding of suffering. For pain, difficulty in breathing, or other afflictions of the body, superbly yes; for suffering, no." (from About Suffering)
Assessment
1) How is it possible to know, if a creature suffers? No matter how much we know about the brain of an animal, we can never unlock its inner perspective.
It is true that we never know how it is for an animal, to feel pain. But the same is true for a human being. In many cases (e.g. brain damage, young children) there is no language for communication. Even if there is a communication the investigator might be deluded by fraud or semantic differences. Besides it is almost impossible to describe feelings by language. Nevertheless we are often forced to empathize or to carry out estimation from the outer perspective (using scientific methods).
a) Much research has been done on the capability of animals to feel pain; see Utility and Suffering in Biology.
b) Concerning the worst cases of human suffering there are hardly doubts how to valuate them (despite of the above mentioned problems).
2) The terms “suffering” and “utility” are much too general, i.e. they do not consider the differences in individual vita.
a) The comparison of individual vita and corresponding emotions is in fact an immense problem, but it can be radically simplified, if we concentrate on the worst cases of suffering.
b) In an economic context the interpersonal comparison of utility is realized by free markets, i.e. by exchange and formation of prices.
3) A possibility to measure suffering is the International Human Suffering Index, although it relies on the statistic of the World Bank, UN and other readily available resources, with no attempt at involving citizens in drawing up subjective measures of dissatisfaction.
4) As far as suffering can be interpreted as negative happiness there are established methods of measurement. Empirical research on happiness divides the term into specific cultural preferences and measures the degree of satisfaction (see The Economics of Happiness and World Database of Happiness).
3. Utility Function
Thesis 1
The long-term success of an ethical norm is defined by the influence it has on the survival value of its supporters.
Welfare functions are attempts to overrule the biological utility function by cultural ones. If above thesis is true, then welfare functions cannot influence the evolution of suffering in the long run. An argument in favor of the thesis is fact, that religiosity has a positive influence on the fertility rate of a population [Blume].
Thesis 2
Cultural evolution is non-Darwinian; it overrules the biological utility function.
1. Culture is characterized by the proliferation of ideas (see The Meme Machine, by Susan Blackmore) and due to the progress in biotechnology genes might soon be proliferated in much the same way as ideas. Possibly we enter a new evolutionary period where genes are transferred across species, as it was before the beginning of the Darwinian period.
2. The power of ideas is an argument in favor of the controllability of cultural evolution. Ideas are independent of specific persons and hard to suppress. Their proliferation also isn’t strongly coupled to material resources.
Thesis 3
Evolution is unpredictable and therefore uncontrollable.
Arguments in favor of uncontrollability are
1. the power of contingency [Hampe].
2. the limitations of free will, see Eine interdisziplinäre Betrachtung zur Unfreiheit.
4. The Evolution of Suffering
4.1 Suffering as adaptive trait
Suffering expresses a lack of adaptation
An evolutionary perspective offers insights into some major obstacles to achieve happiness. Impediments include
1. large discrepancies between modern and ancestral environments
2. the existence of psychological mechanisms which cause subjective distress, designed to solve specific adaptive problems.
3. the fact that evolution by selection has produced competitive mechanisms that function to benefit one person at the expense of others.
(From The Evolution of Happiness, David M. Buss)
Biological mechanism and cultural analogue
1) The biological laws described in Utility and Suffering in Biology are still valid within cultural evolution. The selection criteria for human mating are strongly influenced by the biological utility function. See Human mating strategies and The Evolution of Human mating.
2) The importance of pain increases in long-lived creatures with learning mechanisms. Cultural evolution so far increases the lifetime of humans. It also adds to the complexity of the environment and increases the need for adaptation so that learning mechanisms become more important.
Thesis: Suffering becomes a driving force of cultural evolution as well as pain became a driving force of biological evolution. As long as suffering is a driving force, the degree of suffering increases with cultural evolution.
Example: Humans with a higher sensibility are better equipped to master the challenges of cultural adaptation. As a consequence the survival value of sensibility increases.
4.2 Suffering as by-product
Counter-productive mechanisms
Most attempts to fight suffering produce undesirable side-effects. Examples:
1) Because of the increased risks in violent conflicts the cultural trend goes towards diminished physical violence; see Steven Pinker. The decrease in physical violence in turn may have to be “paid” by an increase in sadomasochism and pathological narcissism or by an increase in structural violence.
2) Medical progress has reduced child mortality and maternal help, but also lead to overpopulation and (as a consequence) to epidemics and civil wars
3) Medical progress has lengthened the average lifetime, but also lead to a tightened competition for medical resources and to an increase in the duration of suffering. The risk to become a victim of cancer increases with lifetime.
Increased risk
Short-term success in the fight against suffering distracts from increased risks and (as a consequence) long term failure. Success is visible and accompanied by applause; risk grows in the silent. Examples:
1) Atomic deterrence has successfully prevented a third world war, but nuclear know-how is proliferated and the risk of nuclear terror has increased.
2) The higher the risks of terror, the more likely a restriction of privacy, the control of public places and the torture of terrorists will be accepted by the majority. This in turn increases the risk to be controlled and abused by a dubious government.
Statistical normality and aberration
Undesired side-effects of cultural progress are tolerated and may even satisfy a need for sensation, as long as they concern a minority of the population only:
1. The higher velocity in transportation dramatically increased the number and cruelty of accidents.
2. Economic pressure motivates people to spend organs for money or to subject themselves to medical experiments.
3. Pathological narcissism is an undesired side effect of self-control and individualism. In a pathologically narcissistic civilization - social anomies proliferate. Such societies breed malignant objectifiers - people devoid of empathy (from The Psychology of Serial and Mass Killers). A similar mechanism leads to the proliferation of sado-masochism.
4. High-tech torture is an undesired side effect of palliative research. Experience has shown that it is almost impossible to prevent the abuse of technological know-how in the long run. See the history of torture. As a consequence the trend towards a qualitative increase in suffering cannot be broken.
Exclusion from benefits
For almost every kind of suffering which is culturally defeated, there remains a fraction of the population which is excluded from the benefits. Because of the overall increase in population size, this fraction is often bigger than the original number of sufferers.
Example: According to anti-slavery-organizations the actual number of slaves exceeds the number of slaves that were shipped from Africa to America (see Economics of contemporary slavery)
5. The End of Suffering
Starting point
It is easier to make predictions about extreme developments of the system than to make predictions about a detailed parameter like the degree of suffering. In the following an attempt is made to assign probabilities to the end of suffering. These probabilities are based on evolving knowledge and may have to be revised.
Salvation by Non-Human Forces
Historical overview: Sin and Salvation
New concepts: New Religious UFO Movements
Probability: From a scientific point of view the probability for a salvation from outside is very unlikely, but science is limited by the following circumstances:
1) only a small part of reality is conscious
2) the conscious part of reality is shaped by the brain
It is dangerous though to use these limitations as an argument for salvation because they can be used for opposite visions as well.
Salvation by Human Forces
Technological progress becomes a vision when it is interpreted in the context of Transhumanism or Paradise-engineering. The vision is based on the following ideas:
1) bio- and nanotechnology could be used to eradicate aversive experience in all sentient life, see The Abolitionist Society
2) mental states like consciousness may not depend on biological substance. Some day life could be transformed into a spiritual form free from suffering.
Suffering then could be seen as a limited, intermediary state associated with the birth of an ecstatic or spiritual world. By this interpretation suffering receives a sense and a purpose. Evolution could be regarded as a project which reduces or eliminates (extreme) suffering, whereas otherwise it would persist or increase
Probability: From a scientific point of view it is unlikely that suffering will loose its role in evolution. More likely is therefore a symbiosis of biological and spiritual life with ongoing or new forms of suffering.
Following some indications how evolution could create new kinds of suffering:
1) deprivation from new forms of ecstasy (drug withdrawal)
2) refused access to prolonged lifetime
3) suppression or replacement of humans by machines
4) high-tech torture
Destruction by Human Forces
Conscious destruction
Atheist or agnostic philosophers who have lost the hope for salvation (because they identify the human race or the mechanisms of life as the cause of suffering) may develop a wish to destroy humanity or life as whole. A precursor of this worldview is A.Schopenhauer (1788-1860). The first promoter of conscious destruction may have been N.Hartmann (1842-1906). It is known that Schopenhauer and Hartmann used far eastern sources. Old Indian philosophers clearly emphasized the inseparable connection between life and suffering, but by their aversion to killing (and may be by the lack of technology) never thought of destroying life as a whole.
Destruction by unawareness, high risk tolerance or accident
Philosophical and religious extremists of any kind may wish to destroy life but (by the lack of access to technology) cannot realize their dreams. On the other hand global destruction could be caused by people who desperately want to live, e.g. the creators of the MAD doctrine or the millions of people who cause a climatic catastrophe. Therefore the corresponding philosophy of apocalypse is mixed with cynicism and irony (or it insinuates that there is a subconscious death wish), see U.Horstmann, Das Untier.
Probability: From a scientific point of view some qualitative statements about the probability of apocalypse have been made:
1) Estimated probability of complete destruction before 2100 A.D. = 50%, according to Martin Rees, Our Final Hour
2) Estimated probability of complete destruction before 2500 A.D. = 30%, according to John Leslie, The End of the World.(p.146)
Destruction by Non-Human Forces
Fatalist, Hindu, Buddhist, back-to-nature and other philosophies maintain the thesis, that suffering cannot be defeated on a global level. In order to release this world from suffering, life as a whole has to be terminated by natural causes.
Probability: According to actual physical theory life will be terminated by one of the following events:
1) Climate change as a result of volcanic explosion
2) Asteroid collision
3) Burnout of the sun
4) Burnout of the universe
With the restriction that nothing is absolutely certain (i.e. scientific theories are open to falsification) we can still say that above statement is close to certain.
Summary
Following some qualitative statements about the probability for the end of suffering:
|
global termination of suffering
|
by non-human forces |
by human forces |
|
by destruction
|
close to certain |
possible |
|
by salvation
|
very unlikely |
unlikely |
Destruction is more likely than salvation.
6. Conclusion
Utility function
The utility function of culture (if there exists any) is unknown.
The evolution of suffering
1) On the biological level the increase in suffering with evolution is evident and seems to increase the survival value (utility). On the cultural level only the quantitative increase in suffering is evident.
2) Although there are many indications, that the degree of suffering increases as well, the system of culture is too complex to make a reliable prediction. The general situation is one of opposing and overlapping trends.
3) Thesis: Cultural evolution acts like an acceleration of biological evolution. The degree of suffering increases as long as the lifetime of the individuals and the complexity of the environment increase.
4) Unpredictability is no argument for optimism.
Thesis: As long as there is a potential for a higher degree of suffering (keyword technology) at least a minority will be affected by an unforeseen development or by hazard. An increase in happiness has to be “paid” by an increase in risks (see On the Perception of Risk and Benefit)
The end of suffering
Theses:
1) Destruction is more likely than salvation.
2) Suffering will end by the destruction of life by non-human forces.
|
Resources
Assessment of Suffering 1. Cassell Eric, The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine 2. Global Ideas Bank: International Human Suffering Index 3. Kleinman Arthur, The Illness Narratives: Suffering, Healing & the Human Condition, Basic Books, New York, 1988 4. Morris David, The Culture of Pain 5. Norridge Zoë, Perceptions of Pain in Contemporary Zimbabwean Literature
Assessment of Happiness 1. Bächler Samuel, Happiness and Economics, Universität Zürich, Switzerland, 2006 2. Veenhoven Ruut, World Database of Happiness
Utility Function 1. Sociobiology, Memetics within Googles Open Directory Project 2. Memetics within the directory of the Institute for Sociology, University of Zürich 3. Links on Evolutionary Theory and Memetics, F.Heylighen and C.Joslyn 4. Blume Michael, Religiosity as a Demographic Factor – An Underestimated Connection, Marburg Journal of Religion No.11, 2006 5. Social Sciences, Methodology within Googles Open Directory Project 6. Social and Cultural Evolution, Institute for Sociology, University of Zürich
Evolution of Suffering 1. Bromberg S.E., The Evolution of Ethics, An Introduction to Cybernetic Ethics 2. Caudana Bruno, Evolution and Ethics 3. Think Quest, Team, Evolution and Ethics 4. Hampe Michael, Die Macht des Zufalls, Wolf Jobst Siedler Verlag, Berlin, 2006
End of Suffering 1. Lomborg Björn, Apocalypse No!, , Verlag zu Klampen, Lüneburg 2002 2. Fukuyama, Fr.: The End of History and the Last Man, London 1992
Systematic Study of Suffering
|
|
Published on the internet |
Jun 06, 2005 |
|
Last update |
Apr 20, 2008 |