|
qu |
|
Chapter 2.6 Painism
Painism is an ethical theory that claims the right moral action should be based on abating the pain of individuals who suffer it the most. Painism asserts that the capacity to feel pain is the only morally relevant interest. Factors like degree of consciousness or intelligence, as in different species, are irrelevant, as are acting for the best outcome for the majority or doing one’s duty. By making pain the basic moral issue and stressing the importance of individuals, painism leans towards philosophies that focus on individuals, such as animal rights and human rights. According to painism:
Painism is a counter to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that says an action is morally right if it benefits the greatest number of beings with the greatest good. Accordingly, you determine what is right by calculating the amount of pleasure or suffering your actions may cause and the right action will then be the one that gives most pleasure or least suffering to the majority group. Let's say some of your dinner guests are vegetarians and you wonder whether you should serve roast pig. As a strict utilitarian you poll your guests beforehand. Five guests say no to pig and twenty-five guests say yes. Therefore you serve pig and bring pleasure to the majority of guests - hard luck for the minority and the pig. Painism says the rightness of what you do does not depend on the number of individuals who gain from your action weighed against the number of individuals who lose by it. Adding up everyone's pain in one group and comparing it to the aggregate of pain in another group is meaningless. Each individual can only feel the pain in his own body; no one can feel the total pain of their group. Two units of pain in a body plus three unit of pain in another body cannot total five units of pain that anyone can feel. Unlike utilitarianism, painism does not permit a minority to suffer for the sake of the majority; the suffering of an individual is morally more important than the total number of sufferers. It is the severity of pain in an individual that is critical, not the quantity of pain unrealistically summed over many individuals. Richard Ryder The British psychologist and ethicist Richard D Ryder (b 1940) originated painism (1). Ryder also coined the related term painient, meaning able to feel pain. A mouse, a dog and a human are painient but glass beads are not. Something painient can suffer and according to painism all painient creatures have rights. "The suffering of pain and distress has become the central issue in ethics today." Richard Ryder, Animal experimentation: good or bad. 2002:60.Some Positions How can you assess whether individuals are suffering the same amount of pain? You do not know exactly what pain other animals feel. Trying to compare pain in different species, a rabbit and a chimpanzee, can be difficult. You may only be able to make gross, subjective comparisons and people may disagree about the level of suffering they are witnessing. Can painism help when dealing with a large number of individuals? On the scale of populations you act according to utilitarianism; on the scale of individuals you act according to painism. Perhaps painism can complement utilitarianism. Would it be right to raise countless animals to kill for food so long as they did not suffer? Shooters sometimes say their sport is morally permissible because, they claim, they kill quickly. Painism is a welcome perspective in relation to utilitarianism. But, as with all ethical theories, you have to use sympathetic judgement whether and how to apply it. References (1) Ryder, R D. Painism: a modern morality. Open Gate Press. 2003. ›› To Entries & Home |
Free Illustrations |