While I’m skeptical of “progressionist” claims that the human condition has inexorably improved since the Neolithic revolution (the proliferation of technology-related existential risks being one reason for skepticism), it seems that science has made genuine progress. We know that there are three bones – the smallest in our bodies – in the middle ear, and that stars produce light because of thermonuclear fusion. And our grasp of thermodynamics is excellent. We have a pretty good sense of how digestion works. In that sense, sadness in stories act as a signal of deepness, but also a way to access some deeper part of our emotions and internal life. The answer seem that sad elements in a story bring more depth than the fun/joyous ones. I noticed that reading only “positive” and “joyous” stories eventually feel empty. Of them all, unexpected suffering is the worst because it involves both pain and meta-pain. unexpected suffering – the experience of pain that was not expected, so you suffer both the pain itself and the pain of suffering itself from it not being expected and thus having negative valence.expected suffering – the experience of pain that was expected, so you only suffer for the pain itself.
the experience of the experience of negative valence)
pain – the experience of negative valence.I think we don’t quite have the words to distinguish between all these things in English, but in my mind there’s something like In such cases it would be better for my welfare if I did not suffer, but I still prefer to. My intuition is that suffering is bad, but sometimes (all things considered) I prefer to suffer in a particular instance (e.g. I’m a hedonistic utilitarian, and I think that even voluntary suffering is be intrinsically bad, as long as it’s still suffering at that point.īuddhism would say that if you experience sadness without craving that the sadness go away, you continue to feel sadness but you don’t suffer from it. It’s suffering that’s bad, intrinsically (though suffering can be instrumentally good) Furthermore, sometimes in the past, when I’ve been depressed about my own life, I didn’t want to be happy and even preferred to be miserable. This happens to me with both real and fictional situations (I was a fan of tragedies for a while). This is primarily due to personal experience: I often feel sad (sympathy) when I encounter sad stories or sad situations, but I don’t have the intuition that this is bad for me, because I don’t feel like I ought to look away or stop feeling sad in response to these and I often feel like thinking/learning/reading more about these situations even if I feel more sadness because of it (and I usually do). I have the intuition that voluntary suffering might not be bad. More generally, this research demonstrates the potential utility of using empirical methods to address conceptual problems in animal welfare and ethics.” Insofar as analyses of animal welfare are assumed to be reflective of folk intuitions, these findings raise questions about a strict hedonistic account of animal welfare. For chimpanzees with positive emotions, those living a more natural life were rated as happier than those living an unnatural life. We also found that the supposedly more purely psychological concept of happiness was also influenced by normative judgments about the animal’s life. analysis showed welfare judgments depended on the objective features of the animal’s life more than they did on how the animal was feeling: a chimpanzee living a natural life with negative emotions was rated as having better welfare than a chimpanzee living an unnatural life with positive emotions.
“Many scientists studying animal welfare appear to hold a hedonistic concept of welfare -whereby welfare is ultimately reducible to an animal’s subjective experience.
0 kommentar(er)
