Well, I thought I'd post another thought experiment before I leave today for the weekend. Enjoy and remember to keep the discussion nice!
Scenario: The tension in the auditorium was palpable as the doctor donned his make and gloves and prepared to take his needle and thread to the CONSCIOUS patient's strapped-down leg. As he pushed the needle through the flesh, the patient let out an almighty cry of pain. But once the needle passed through, he seemed unnaturally calm.
'How was that?' asked the Doc. 'Fine,' replied the patient. 'It's just as you said, I remember you putting the needle through me, but I don't remember any pain.' 'So do you have any objection if I do the next stitch?' said the Doc. 'Not at all. I'm not at all apprehensive.' said the patiente.
The doctor turned to the audience and explained that the process he developed does not, like an anesthetic, remove the sensation of pain. What it does is prevent any memory of the pain being laid down in the patient's nervous system. If you are not going to remember your momentary pain, why fear it? Our patient here shows this is not just theoretical sophistry. You witnessed his pain, but he, having forgotten it, has no fear of repeating the experience. This enables us to conduct surgery with the patient fully conscious, which in some instances is extremely useful. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some stitching to do."
(The scenario is from a novel I was reading a few months back)
A philosopher, Bentham, tackled animal rights at one point. He said the question is not can an animal reason or can they talk, but it's can they suffer? Pain in itself is bad, according to him (and utilitarianism). But how bad IS it? The patient described above doesn't have aversive connotations with pain. So, could the MEMORY of pain uphold as a moral standard?
I think that even if he did not have immediate issues with it, there could still be deep lingerings of psychological trauma. Even if the memory of pain is gone, it would still be physical traumatic on the patient, and could likely cause other issues during surgery. For example, if I was in pain, I would start moving around trying to get away from the source of it, even if I was strapped down for surgery. I can't see that this would be a safe was to conduct a surgery. Even if the patient can't remember it later, you have to deal with their reactions now.
Good point, Carlie! So, you're saying that there could be deeper issues in the patient than just the physicality of the situation? But remember that is just a thought experiment. Let's take it into real world. This would mean that a goldfish doesn't have rights like other animals do because they have a short memory span. So, poking them with a needle would only be an instance of pain, that's it. But with other animals it is that memory of being abused that violates their mind. Thus, almost all animals should have stronger rights, yes?
Well yes. I do think that animals should have rights, such as the right to be free from abuse. Even a goldfish should have rights against that, even if we don't think that they have a longer memory span. I think that you should not do anything to any creature that you would not want to have done to yourself.
Of course, on that note, we would have to bring into question the ethics of animal testing, which I can't fully say is ethically wrong. Yes, I think it is awful to test on animals, but at the same time I know that a family member of mine would be dead right now if they had not had procedures and drugs used on them that had been tested on animals. So I cannot fully oppose the idea.
Yea, I wanted this discussion to touch on animal testing. I'm in the same exact boat as you are. I'm not sure if I feel it is okay, but the Utilitarian in me says, "If it's for the greater good, then so be it!"
I will even go as far as saying I'm still up in the air about the Nazi human experiments. Granted that may of have been one of the worst things to happen to a group of people, (as I am of Jewish decent) but there are great benefits from the messed up things they did.
I would like to equate this problem to burning to death. I think most people would agree that burning to death is in the top 5 of "Ways I don't want to die," but why? Whether or not you believe in an afterlife, the way you die doesn't really matter because either you will be really happy in heaven or you just won't exist any longer. But people still care because burning to death just plain s.ucks. If you do think that it doesn't matter how you die, then at what point do you draw the line for what does matter? If burning to death doesn't matter, then do the events leading up to your death matter? Does your life matter at all? Hm, well, I guess it doesn't... I just lost my train of thought. Or maybe it's still boarding at the the station.
Okay, so we are delving more into psychology. Let's take Albert Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory here. He relies a lot on modeled behavior. This means that we can witness someone going through pain and have the SAME aversion to it as experiencing it. (That is the short version of an aspect of his theory)
My point was more relativistic towards the individual. Either you say that the pain doesn't matter, which implies that your entire life doesn't matter or you say that both the pain and your life matter. I'm not sure if my above argument gets to this point very well...
I think I get what you are saying Moegreche... even if I knew that I would not remember the pain, I would still not want to do it. Because even if you forget about it, you still have to live through it in that moment. Someone is taking a sensation, a life experience away from you. Granted, it would be a painful one. But that still bothers me.
What took me so long to see this topic? Dang it. I missed out some of the fun.
I would imagine how intense and how long the pain lasted.
Anyone ever read the Dune series? The gom-jabbar test? With the box that induced pain straight to the pain receptors with no physical damage and instantly stopped? I thought about that for some reason.
Back to my point. For some, it may have the potential to leave sub-conscious trama with the degree varying based on amount of pain and length. But for others, it may actually have an opposite effect. Unfound reserves of joy. Masochists are people too. Gets the endorphins flowing, leaving them in a state of euphoria. Hell, that would work for most people.
could it have been the endorphins (that hormone in your body is a natural pain stimulator and makes you happy) that made him forget the pain and not feel anything after the initial insertion into the skin?
I think what the case is that some new technique was developed that made the person actually forget the pain, compared to just not feeling it.
If that technique was around for long enough, I am sure it would be abused much like morphine these days. Inflict several painfull but overall harmless injuries, allowing the adrenaline and endorphins build, thus creating a high that I believe would be comparable to cocaine usage.
"A change in the personality means a change in the person, and should be recognized as a different mind within the same body for every new experience, but the person could recognize himself as the same personality." ~quoted from "thought experiment 2" thread.
In other words, I think of a person losing memory as a different person.
I think for the purposes of this thought experiment, we must assume no long term psychological effects, in fact no psychological effects whatsoever - since that would really undermine the principle. I'm thinking about Eshploded's comment, which is a valid point. But wouldn't having new memories also make you a different person, too? In which case, erasing a memory doesn't affect a change any different than creating one, right?
