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?
Devoidless, that is a fantastic way of looking at it. I didn't even think if how it could be used as a drug... but that makes complete plausible sense. So not only would it be used to 'help', but it could also be a source of an incredibly addicting procedure.
like i said that is probably what "emo" people are doing when slitting their wrists, i have never done that and never will but im sure it is kind of like a drug... "emo" person is sad, they slit their wrists and become somewhat happy again. i've heard they do it a lot so in a way im sure it is kind of like an addiction
when you said it could be kind of like an addiction it sorta of made me think of that, so i was just sorta responding to what you said, sorry to be off topic a little
So earlier, I had made a post about having to choose that either the pain and therefore life is pointless (something along those lines) or both being significant. I think the argument is valid, although if it's not that would be good to know too. But is the argument fallacious (I'm mostly wondering if it's a false dichotomy)?
I was a little confused by your argument Moegreche, which is why I didn't respond to that portion or your argument. I think I can respond a little though...
I think that this is referring to surgical procedures specifically, for patients who may undergo complicates with anesthetics. It is not like they take away all memory of pain, so you would not lose all of your painful experiences. It would just be those while undergoing surgery. Just instead of being knocked out, your brain is just wiped of that particular experience.
I disagree with the whole method of causing pain then removing the memory of it. I just don't like the idea of causing pain that wouldn't be felt in the future. Removing the memory is nearly equivalent to a person who can't imagine pain from the past. For example, I can't imagine the feeling of getting hit with a rock. (uh oh. I went on a tangent and now I don't know what I am talking about. >.<
Yeah, I guess the argument wasn't very clear. Let me try again. I'm drawing a parallel to this procedure to dying - in both cases after the pain is over, it doesn't matter. So when you die painfully you can say that it doesn't matter how you died, now that it's over with, but if you say that, then what actually does matter about your life? You could just as easily argue that everything that happened to you before you died is just as meaningless as the painful death. Or you could say that everything in your life is significant, including the painful death. Bringing this back to the memory erasing procedure, wouldn't the same logic apply? Wouldn't the pain have to be significant even if you don't remember experiencing it? Otherwise your whole life is not significant. Does that make any more sense?
Well I think that with the whole painful death argument, you don't have time to really reflect on how you suffered. The pain does not affect your life, it just brings upon your death. So you do not have the opportunity to learn from it. So I would say that you would not have the opportunity to learn from that quick moment of pain, as you would from a previous experience.
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 get what you're saying. But Another thing in the example you used is that even if people believe in the after life the pain from burning to death would not only mean you don't remember the pain but you'd be in paradise. But still, it matters to alot of people. So the point I'm making is that if most people don't want to burn to death even thinking paradise would come from it. Then not remembering a pain to get nothing out of it is worse.
