[lit-ideas] Re: What is the cumulative suffering of mankind?

  • From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:37:46 -0500

WO:
Last week I told my maid I wouldn't be paying her because I had decided to send her salary to the "Free Tibet" league. Imagine, she was so indignant! You just
can't get good moral help these days.

You have a maid?! Jesus Christ, no wonder college tuition is so fucking expensive.


Mike Geary
Memphis




----- Original Message ----- From: <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Eric Yost" <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:51 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: What is the cumulative suffering of mankind?


Does it then follow that the Utilitarian principle of Benefit Maximization is out to lunch? The greatest good for the greatest number would seem to require some measure of pain and pleasure in the choice of maxims where the personal utility of one individual may justifiably be trumped by the "average utility" of the population in question. As such, my "maximum suffering" is nowhere near
equivalent to the suffering of millions of my fellows, and, hence, I may
justifiably be sacrificed to the good of the multitude. Or are we to interpret
Lewis's words in some "literary" manner which, naturally, would escape me?

Last week I told my maid I wouldn't be paying her because I had decided to send her salary to the "Free Tibet" league. Imagine, she was so indignant! You just
can't get good moral help these days.

Walter O.
Bentham Chair in Arithmetic and Moral Philosophy
Outremont Secretarial College
Outremont, QC



Quoting Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>:


Consider this quote:

"There is no such thing as a sum of suffering, for
no one suffers it. When we have reached the
maximum that a single person can suffer . . . we
have reached all the suffering there can be in the
universe. The addition of a million fellow
sufferers adds no more pain."

[C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, Simon &
Schuster, NY:1996, p. 103]


In one way, the statement is persuasive. You
suffer. I suffer. They suffer. It doesn't add up.
Suffering is personal and cannot be experienced
collectively.

On the other hand, "the sum of suffering," as an
imaginative construct -- never felt, but vaguely
imagined -- seems real enough. It's the kind of
thought that makes us shudder and run for cover.
Darfur. Dachau. Atrocities we briefly hold in our
minds before sipping our coffee and turning the page.

I wish I were convinced by Lewis' consolation.
Some people suffer so much more than I do; others
so much less. "The maximum that a single person
can suffer ... can I even imagine that? Failing
that capacity, has Lewis offered any consolation
at all?

Eric




------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html




------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: