Pain is very debilitating, and the worst thing is that the more intense it is, the harder it is to do anything except writhe. However, it is not altogether true that the duration is unimportant. I know myself that being able to count on intense pain ending in a short time makes it more bearable, that not knowing adds demoralization and panic to the mix. Further, it is quite different to be rendered prostrate for a few days rather than a few years. We can spare days, years are a high price.
The interesting thing is that pain is so often used as a proxy for "badness", when it is, of course, an inadequate criterion. It is a commonplace that medical intervention may cause pain but leave one healthier in the end, as with a dislocated shoulder. But more than that, the relative pain or pleasure of something often has no bearing on its moral quality. If I kill someone in his sleep with a narcotic overdose, I am still a murderer. The painlessness of the act does not make it right to deprive him of life. If I were to invent a method of mental control that permitted me to take over someone's life, gaining acquiescence through the liberal triggering of endorphins, would that be right? Even if I were not acting to his detriment, but merely treating his autonomy with contempt?
An interesting mental experiment would be this: suppose that someone could have prevented the Taliban from destroying ancient Buddhist statuary by consenting to endure excruciating pain for one minute, without adverse health effects. Would the pain be worth it to preserve inanimate objects? And if so, why? |
