I think in a void it is our default responsibility to mitigate the suffering in front of us.
-
I think in a void it is our default responsibility to mitigate the suffering in front of us. I say mitigate instead of prevent because in most systems, attempts to drop something to zero result in poor outcomes. This is not to say that some amount of suffering is good (it isn't), but attempts at total negation will almost certainly result in counter productive outcomes.
-
I think in a void it is our default responsibility to mitigate the suffering in front of us. I say mitigate instead of prevent because in most systems, attempts to drop something to zero result in poor outcomes. This is not to say that some amount of suffering is good (it isn't), but attempts at total negation will almost certainly result in counter productive outcomes.
@NullNowhere Might depend on one’s point of view. Is the goal the only important part or is the continuous strive to reach the goal the important part?
One thing I’ve always liked is the so called zero vision (nollvision if you want to look it up). The idea is to have zero seriously injured and zero dead in traffic each year.
But it’s not about actually getting there, say mission accomplished, and let it start failing again. It’s about continuously working towards the goal. Doing things like rebuilding roads to become less dangerous and introducing less dangerous designs such as the Spanish left turn and the round about.
So applying the same idea to suffering the goal would be no suffering, but the continous work would be to prevent and ease suffering to the best of our abilities. To never stop if you will.
Sorry, long explaination for such a simple concept! I just like it because there’s a tangible example of it. Though some nations have failed in copying it (I assume due to poor application hindered by politics or corporations). I think the philosophy is generally applicable.
-
@NullNowhere Might depend on one’s point of view. Is the goal the only important part or is the continuous strive to reach the goal the important part?
One thing I’ve always liked is the so called zero vision (nollvision if you want to look it up). The idea is to have zero seriously injured and zero dead in traffic each year.
But it’s not about actually getting there, say mission accomplished, and let it start failing again. It’s about continuously working towards the goal. Doing things like rebuilding roads to become less dangerous and introducing less dangerous designs such as the Spanish left turn and the round about.
So applying the same idea to suffering the goal would be no suffering, but the continous work would be to prevent and ease suffering to the best of our abilities. To never stop if you will.
Sorry, long explaination for such a simple concept! I just like it because there’s a tangible example of it. Though some nations have failed in copying it (I assume due to poor application hindered by politics or corporations). I think the philosophy is generally applicable.
@yon@sakurajima.moe I don't think continuous pursuit is wrong or wholey incompatible. But I think if you fail to take into consideration Goodhart's law, and fail to look at what you're doing from a system-view, you're probably going to become cross purposes with yourself.
If you were trying to reduce suffering to zero, you would probably have to curb an individual's freedom, to stop them from causing harm to themselves or making a critical mistake they cannot see. But you are only free if you are free to make mistakes, and all a desire for freedom is inherent in all sapient beings. Attempting to reduce suffering to 0 in this case would probably engender even more than you prevented.
Essentially its the same idea; you mitigate suffering as much as possible, but you must keep a high-enough view to understand when hitting that next lowest number is going to cause more trouble than it solves.
