Suffering is the only thing of value

Suffering is

…an experience that the experiencing subject values negatively. (This is what I mean by the word.)

It is a mistake to conflate suffering and any “reward” that may come with it. An example of this can be found in weightlifting, where pain is often considered a good thing because it signals that one is improving. This is a mistake because it is only the signaling aspect of the pain that is good; if the weightlifter could get rid of the painful aspect of the pain, they would, because they consider it to be bad.

Similarly, it is a mistake to say that suffering is good because it “builds character” or otherwise “makes you stronger”. It is the “building character” or the “making stronger” part that is good. The suffering itself is bad.

the only thing

But even the “building character” and “making stronger” aren’t inherently good. The only sense in wanting to be “made stronger” is if you’re weak. It’s better not to be weak in the first place.

As the saying goes: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Take away his need for food and suddenly neither fish nor being able to fish are of value.

And so it is with all good in the world. It only serves to relieve bad. It is not inherently good.

For some down-to-earth examples of this concept, see this piece.

Bad, on the other hand, can be inherently bad. Starving, freezing and burning alive are just a few of the examples I could give.[1]

of value

All subjects value their suffering negatively. They’d rather not experience it. Their subjective valuation of their suffering exists objectively, and is the only valuation that matters.[2] Therefore, suffering is objectively of value.

Footnotes:
[1] I have heard that with decades of commitment, one can learn to (appear to) be indifferent to these sensations, though.
[2] A sadistic individual might value others’ suffering positively, but I see no reason to cater to them.

Advertisement