Negative utilitarianism vs. asceticism: thoughts?

Negative utilitarianism is a philosophical stance suggesting that reducing suffering—or minimizing negative experiences—carries more moral weight than increasing happiness or positive experiences, both globally and in our own lives. Consequently, this view suggests our actions should be guided by that priority. Proponents of this school of thought often advocate for asceticism; specifically, the practice of renouncing desires to maximize positive outcomes through a state of tranquility. By doing so, one can diminish the suffering that frequently arises from failing to satisfy our own whims—desires that are notoriously insatiable and ever-expanding. Do you find this philosophical position to be rational, or do you have objections to such a way of thinking?

Utilitarianism is an ethical framework built on the naive, social-constructivist assumption that we are all equals, implying one can simply maximize "total societal happiness."

It might be possible on a small scale, but you can't feed the wolves and expect to keep all your sheep...
Human interests are fundamentally at odds, and they always will be.

But let’s move past that... it leads to the same conclusion. Reducing suffering increases happiness. The two aren't separate. Suffering is a necessary prerequisite for any kind of pleasure.

steeleagle77 said:Utilitarianism is an ethical framework built on the naive, social-constructivist assumption that we are all equals, implying one can simply maximize "total societal happiness."

It might be possible on a small scale, but you can't feed the wolves and expect to keep all your sheep...
Human interests are fundamentally at odds, and they always will be.

But let’s move past that... it leads to the same conclusion. Reducing suffering increases happiness. The two aren't separate. Suffering is a necessary prerequisite for any kind of pleasure.

Reducing suffering implies comfort, but not necessarily pleasure. Therefore, while classic utilitarians argue for maximizing global happiness, negative utilitarians focus their theses on the reduction of desires and the alleviation of suffering.

Ultimately, you end up right back where you started. Intervening like that just interferes with individual interests and desires, which are inherently subjective—what brings one person joy might cause another nothing but misery, and vice versa.

By attempting to alleviate someone's pain, you're effectively stripping away a certain level of potential comfort.

I fail to see the logic in trying to diminish suffering when it serves such a vital purpose for us all. It seems like a widespread lack of awareness. Without pain, there would be no existence at all, nor would there be any pleasure to act as its necessary motivator.

steeleagle77 said:Ultimately, you end up right back where you started. Intervening like that just interferes with individual interests and desires, which are inherently subjective—what brings one person joy might cause another nothing but misery, and vice versa.

By attempting to alleviate someone's pain, you're effectively stripping away a certain level of potential comfort.

I fail to see the logic in trying to diminish suffering when it serves such a vital purpose for us all. It seems like a widespread lack of awareness. Without pain, there would be no existence at all, nor would there be any pleasure to act as its necessary motivator.

To experience pleasure, one requires positive experiences. Reducing suffering is itself a positive experience that results in happiness and comfort. However, according to negative utilitarianism, we ought to limit our pursuits so that suffering does not resurface due to the inability to satisfy our desires; we become more vulnerable to negative experiences because we constantly strive for the positive. As for the claim that suffering is somehow beneficial—that is such utter nonsense that I refuse to even dignify it with a comment.

Gerald Hill said:To experience pleasure, one requires positive experiences. Reducing suffering is itself a positive experience that results in happiness and comfort. However, according to negative utilitarianism, we ought to limit our pursuits so that suffering does not resurface due to the inability to satisfy our desires; we become more vulnerable to negative experiences because we constantly strive for the positive. As for the claim that suffering is somehow beneficial—that is such utter nonsense that I refuse to even dignify it with a comment.

That makes sense. Though I fail to see how one might actually act on it. Our desires are largely dictated by biology...

The idea that suffering is useful is such utter nonsense that I won't even dignify it with a response.

Don't be dramatic. It isn't nonsense at all. I won't bother explaining it to you, as you clearly lack the evolutionary biology background required to grasp why pain matters.

So, you think pain is an evolutionary dead end? That it serves no function whatsoever... 😁

steeleagle77 said:That makes sense. Though I fail to see how one might actually act on it. Our desires are largely dictated by biology...

The idea that suffering is useful is such utter nonsense that I won't even dignify it with a response.

Don't be dramatic. It isn't nonsense at all. I won't bother explaining it to you, as you clearly lack the evolutionary biology background required to grasp why pain matters.

So, you think pain is an evolutionary dead end? That it serves no function whatsoever... 😁

That is precisely the core issue: the idea that suffering serves no objective purpose.

Take this, for instance; there are people who simply don't feel physical pain. Do you have any idea what their average life expectancy looks like?

Are you aware that such a condition is considered an extremely dangerous state?

If one possesses sufficient intellectual capacity, it becomes quite easy to visualize an analogy explaining why psychological pain is just as vital. Furthermore, as I previously noted, it is impossible to experience one without the other. They are inextricably linked... one necessitates the presence of the other.

As the nervous system of an organism increases in complexity, so too does its capacity for both pain and pleasure.
An amoeba feels almost nothing, an insect feels very little, a fish feels a bit more... mammals feel the most. Humans are among the most vulnerable and sensitive species, but that comes packaged with an immense potential for happiness.

steeleagle77 makes a fair point, and I guess even Nietzsche touched on how much pain actually matters... It’s probably not all just black and white.

steeleagle77 said:Take this, for instance; there are people who simply don't feel physical pain. Do you have any idea what their average life expectancy looks like?

Are you aware that such a condition is considered an extremely dangerous state?

If one possesses sufficient intellectual capacity, it becomes quite easy to visualize an analogy explaining why psychological pain is just as vital. Furthermore, as I previously noted, it is impossible to experience one without the other. They are inextricably linked... one necessitates the presence of the other.

As the nervous system of an organism increases in complexity, so too does its capacity for both pain and pleasure.
An amoeba feels almost nothing, an insect feels very little, a fish feels a bit more... mammals feel the most. Humans are among the most vulnerable and sensitive species, but that comes packaged with an immense potential for happiness.

Well, that condition actually creates more suffering than it eliminates, which makes it detrimental to the overall balance of pain. Psychological pain isn't important at all; it is merely harmful and absolutely nothing more than that.

Gerald Hill said:Well, that condition actually creates more suffering than it eliminates, which makes it detrimental to the overall balance of pain. Psychological pain isn't important at all; it is merely harmful and absolutely nothing more than that.

Take fear as one example among many:

It keeps us alive. Someone prone to paranoia is hyper-vigilant, especially out in the wilderness. They hear a rustle behind a rock and assume it's a predator—that instinct provides a survival edge. A person without fear would likely end up as a meal... evolutionary selection at work.

That’s how fear evolved. Those with a stronger survival instinct passed on those genes, shaping the species over time...

Pick any "negative" emotion and I can give you a reason why it serves a purpose. 😁

Pain itself isn't the problem; the failure to act on it is.
It’s an alarm system designed to signal trouble and prompt action...

steeleagle77 said:Take fear as one example among many:

It keeps us alive. Someone prone to paranoia is hyper-vigilant, especially out in the wilderness. They hear a rustle behind a rock and assume it's a predator—that instinct provides a survival edge. A person without fear would likely end up as a meal... evolutionary selection at work.

That’s how fear evolved. Those with a stronger survival instinct passed on those genes, shaping the species over time...

Pick any "negative" emotion and I can give you a reason why it serves a purpose. 😁

Pain itself isn't the problem; the failure to act on it is.
It’s an alarm system designed to signal trouble and prompt action...

The type of fear you are describing is entirely different from true suffering, goodness grief! It doesn't necessarily follow that being anxious or fearful makes someone more careful. For instance, clinical anxiety, paranoia, depression, or even the sheer agony caused by a physical illness—these offer no evolutionary advantage. It is negative life experiences that create actual suffering.

We are discussing actual pain, not the suffering caused by chronic inaction...

Gerald Hill said:Well, that condition actually creates more suffering than it eliminates, which makes it detrimental to the overall balance of pain. Psychological pain isn't important at all; it is merely harmful and absolutely nothing more than that.

steeleagle77 said:Pain itself isn't the problem. The problem is failing to act to resolve it.
It serves as an alarm, signaling that something is wrong and demanding a response...

steeleagle77 said:We are discussing actual pain, not the suffering caused by chronic inaction...

Are you suggesting that individuals dealing with physical deformities, tumors, or disabilities—people enduring genuine physical agony—are somehow to blame because they didn't "take action" regarding their condition? That strikes me as a truly malicious sentiment. It is much like saying animals are responsible for the pain caused by natural disasters, predation, or famine. Furthermore, we face an additional complication: humans naturally gravitate toward positive experiences, which causes our desires to swell indefinitely. Because we can never truly be satisfied, when a negative experience inevitably occurs, it hits us much harder than if we had focused on minimizing suffering by lowering our expectations and seeking a state of simple, tranquil contentment. Of course, adopting a stance of negative utilitarianism or asceticism won't eliminate all suffering entirely; emotions are simply too powerful for us to fully erase negative reactions. However, we certainly can work to eliminate the relentless craving for heightened positive experiences.

Pain is simply the body's reaction to harm.
In most instances, it's something we can avoid through our own choices—unless, of course, we're dealing with certain illnesses beyond anyone's control.

I didn't suggest people are personally responsible for every ailment, good grief. The reality is that evolution is a brutal, indifferent process... it rarely considers whether an animal feels pain if there's no practical advantage to doing so.

steeleagle77 said:Pain is simply the body's reaction to harm.
In most instances, it's something we can avoid through our own choices—unless, of course, we're dealing with certain illnesses beyond anyone's control.

I didn't suggest people are personally responsible for every ailment, good grief. The reality is that evolution is a brutal, indifferent process... it rarely considers whether an animal feels pain if there's no practical advantage to doing so.

Only certain diseases? What about natural disasters, the death of a loved one, or children facing famine without any hope for the future?

As I’ve noted before, evolution hasn't provided a mechanism to distinguish between preventable pain and the unavoidable kind. We feel them both the same way.

It makes no difference whether you strike your own head with a hammer or get hit by debris from an earthquake. The pain remains identical.

I find myself somewhat preoccupied by certain tenets of medieval asceticism practiced by women.