by In 2011, I posted an essay by Dan Geinster on "Anti-Hurt". Dan wrote to me with a new essay that presents a simpler approach to the topic. It's copied below.
--------
On the nature of hurt (a new approach to negative utilitarianism).
The first thing that can be said about hurt is that it is the only thing that actually does hurt, while all non-hurt simply does not. So if someone says for instance, “hard work never hurt anyone”, this seemingly ridiculous statement is technically valid, since it is only hurt itself that actually hurts anyone or anything, rather than the non-hurt of hard work, which may also entail anything from being harmed or injured to dying. Indeed, all these things are completely separate from the phenomenon of hurt itself and are thus non-hurt. For all intensive purposes, hurt in this discussion shall be abstracted as the only phenomenon that actually bothers anyone or anything - period.
Conversely, because all non-hurt doesn’t hurt, all of it must necessarily be regarded as a type of perfect and absolute bliss that can never be surpassed in its purity or intensity by any other non-hurt. If a certain type of non-hurt was regarded as a more intense bliss than another, eg extreme pleasure as opposed to a vacuum of non-existence, that would only be because this supposed non-existence actually had traces of hurt present, such as not being completely content. However, true non-existence would in fact be equivalent to perfect bliss on a par with ecstasy. To paraphrase Epicurus, there is no greater pleasure, joy or happiness than to be completely without pain.
To re-phrase the above, if only hurt hurts and all non-hurt is purely perfect bliss, then this would imply that even the most sublime heights of pleasure (itself a type of non-hurt), can never surpass the bliss of any other non-hurt. In fact, experiences such as pleasure, happiness, and even love are only made possible because of non-hurt, which is the only active ingredient in them, just as hurt is the only active ingredient in pain and suffering. It is not quality of hurt that makes hurt what it is, but rather, quantity, or in the case of non-hurt, lack of quantity. If one type of suffering seems “worse” than another, that is only because the quantity of its hurt is greater.
Interestingly enough, the very things we value, and our whole understanding of right and wrong is based on the dichotomy of hurt and non-hurt, whereby we avoid things that hurt, while embracing those that don’t. An exception to this is when hurt is pursued only to avoid a greater hurt, as in the phrase, “no pain, no gain”. Pain-avoidance however, can be corrupted when one only focuses on the immediate rather than on the bigger picture of achieving non-hurt, such as suffering in vain, or indeed, catering to greed at the expense of need.
Morality itself is not magic, or as nihilists might say, an illusion. Like everything else, it is based on the very essence of logic itself. Contrary to the claim that one can’t “derive an ought from an is”, it is purely non-hurt that determines the status of “ought”, while conversely hurt determines the status of “ought-not”. We can get to the point and call this logic “anti-hurt”, whereby greater hurt takes priority for reduction over lesser hurt because it more so ought-not be.
Some may say that pain “makes things better” or can be enjoyed. This is only because the pain involved would in fact involve less hurt than being discontent without it, as for instance, thrill-seeking in place of boredom. However, enjoyment would be better still if it involved no hurt at all. Some may also say that things like joy and happiness somehow outweigh or justify suffering, which is essentially saying that non-hurt justifies hurt, even though greater hurt takes logical priority in terms of prescribed reduction. Also, non-hurt cannot reduce hurt that exists in any case, as for instance, the “high” one gets from drugs cannot reduce the misery that one still feels in spite of it. And logically speaking, all reality is only better off without hurt as all else is equally non-hurt and thus equally perfect bliss anyway. Or in other words, get rid of the hurt and the bliss of non-hurt takes care of itself.
Of course, it may be asked that if all hurt and non-hurt are equally infinite in an infinite universe, then nothing that ever happens really makes any difference at all. But then it’s remotely possible that they aren’t infinite, in which case it does make a difference, and so it just logically may be worth taking the chance in making the world a better place. And although perhaps selfish, if it’s better for us or our in-group, isn’t that a type of (internal) logic in itself?
--------
On the nature of hurt (a new approach to negative utilitarianism).
The first thing that can be said about hurt is that it is the only thing that actually does hurt, while all non-hurt simply does not. So if someone says for instance, “hard work never hurt anyone”, this seemingly ridiculous statement is technically valid, since it is only hurt itself that actually hurts anyone or anything, rather than the non-hurt of hard work, which may also entail anything from being harmed or injured to dying. Indeed, all these things are completely separate from the phenomenon of hurt itself and are thus non-hurt. For all intensive purposes, hurt in this discussion shall be abstracted as the only phenomenon that actually bothers anyone or anything - period.
Conversely, because all non-hurt doesn’t hurt, all of it must necessarily be regarded as a type of perfect and absolute bliss that can never be surpassed in its purity or intensity by any other non-hurt. If a certain type of non-hurt was regarded as a more intense bliss than another, eg extreme pleasure as opposed to a vacuum of non-existence, that would only be because this supposed non-existence actually had traces of hurt present, such as not being completely content. However, true non-existence would in fact be equivalent to perfect bliss on a par with ecstasy. To paraphrase Epicurus, there is no greater pleasure, joy or happiness than to be completely without pain.
To re-phrase the above, if only hurt hurts and all non-hurt is purely perfect bliss, then this would imply that even the most sublime heights of pleasure (itself a type of non-hurt), can never surpass the bliss of any other non-hurt. In fact, experiences such as pleasure, happiness, and even love are only made possible because of non-hurt, which is the only active ingredient in them, just as hurt is the only active ingredient in pain and suffering. It is not quality of hurt that makes hurt what it is, but rather, quantity, or in the case of non-hurt, lack of quantity. If one type of suffering seems “worse” than another, that is only because the quantity of its hurt is greater.
Interestingly enough, the very things we value, and our whole understanding of right and wrong is based on the dichotomy of hurt and non-hurt, whereby we avoid things that hurt, while embracing those that don’t. An exception to this is when hurt is pursued only to avoid a greater hurt, as in the phrase, “no pain, no gain”. Pain-avoidance however, can be corrupted when one only focuses on the immediate rather than on the bigger picture of achieving non-hurt, such as suffering in vain, or indeed, catering to greed at the expense of need.
Morality itself is not magic, or as nihilists might say, an illusion. Like everything else, it is based on the very essence of logic itself. Contrary to the claim that one can’t “derive an ought from an is”, it is purely non-hurt that determines the status of “ought”, while conversely hurt determines the status of “ought-not”. We can get to the point and call this logic “anti-hurt”, whereby greater hurt takes priority for reduction over lesser hurt because it more so ought-not be.
Some may say that pain “makes things better” or can be enjoyed. This is only because the pain involved would in fact involve less hurt than being discontent without it, as for instance, thrill-seeking in place of boredom. However, enjoyment would be better still if it involved no hurt at all. Some may also say that things like joy and happiness somehow outweigh or justify suffering, which is essentially saying that non-hurt justifies hurt, even though greater hurt takes logical priority in terms of prescribed reduction. Also, non-hurt cannot reduce hurt that exists in any case, as for instance, the “high” one gets from drugs cannot reduce the misery that one still feels in spite of it. And logically speaking, all reality is only better off without hurt as all else is equally non-hurt and thus equally perfect bliss anyway. Or in other words, get rid of the hurt and the bliss of non-hurt takes care of itself.
Of course, it may be asked that if all hurt and non-hurt are equally infinite in an infinite universe, then nothing that ever happens really makes any difference at all. But then it’s remotely possible that they aren’t infinite, in which case it does make a difference, and so it just logically may be worth taking the chance in making the world a better place. And although perhaps selfish, if it’s better for us or our in-group, isn’t that a type of (internal) logic in itself?
