Volume VII · Ethics and the Situation of Wild Animals · chapter 13
The Objection That Suffering Has Instrumental Value
Before you read study layer, not part of the original text
Suffering has instrumental value only when it helps the individual increase their well-being, which does not happen for most wild animals; and even when it does, it is better to get the benefit without the suffering, as with anesthesia.
Pain is there to warn you of danger, like when you pull your hand away from a fire. But most baby animals in nature suffer and die without the pain doing them any good. And when we can avoid the pain and get the same result, that is better.
A toothache warns you that something is wrong, but no one turns down anesthesia at the dentist saying "the pain is useful."
- P1 The objection says suffering is useful to those who suffer, so it should not be minimized.
- P2 It is useful only when the individual can use it to avoid greater harms.
- P3 Most animals in the wild suffer from birth until their premature death without that benefit.
- P4 When there is a benefit, it is better to obtain it without suffering.
- C So the usefulness of suffering does not justify failing to help.
The chapter’s central argument in logical form. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. To disagree, you have to show which premise is false.
They say “Suffering is part of life and teaches animals how to survive.”
Answer For those who die young, it teaches nothing. And even we prefer to learn without suffering when we can.
More objections and answers in Debunking objections.
Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume VII, p. 36 of the PDF edition · English translation
One objection to the proposal to help holds that we should not minimize suffering because it has instrumental value for the very being who suffers28. For example, pain helps us avoid what would harm us.
However, suffering has only in those situations in which the individual is able to use the sensation of suffering to increase their well-being (for example, to avoid harms greater than the suffering they are undergoing at the moment). This is not the case for the vast majority of animals who suffer in the wild because of . Such animals experience almost nothing but extreme suffering from the moment of birth until death. Rather than helping them promote their well-being, this suffering only harms them. Thus, even if we should not minimize instrumentally useful suffering, there would still be reasons to eliminate useless suffering.
Moreover, there are also reasons to avoid suffering even when it has instrumental value: whenever it is possible to achieve in some other way the positive outcome that would be achieved through suffering. This is precisely why we prefer to receive anesthesia before surgery. Accordingly, even in situations where suffering helped animals achieve something positive, there are reasons to research how to enable them to reach that positive state without having to suffer for it.
Practice
Study layer. The answers are based on the chapter’s text.
When does suffering have instrumental value?
What example shows that we prefer to avoid pain even when it is useful?
Food for thought
What pain in your life turned out to be useful? And how many were of no use at all?
Author’s notes 1
- 28 See, for example, et al. (2003, p. 23) ↩
This chapter in Volume XII
How the author sums up this debate in The Essentials of Animal Ethics.
We should not help them, since suffering has instrumental value (that is, it helps the individual avoid what would harm them). (VII, ch. 13).
Recommended texts
Keep exploring Ethics and the Situation of Wild Animals.
Does the Proposal to Help Animals See Humans as Separate from Nature?
It is the idea that humans should not intervene in nature that sees them as separate from it; if we are…
If Nature Is Not Evil, Is Natural Suffering Neutral?
Natural suffering is not neutral just because nature is not evil or responsible: what gives us reasons to…
If Nature Is Indifferent to the Suffering of Animals, Why Help Them?
Nature being indifferent to suffering does not justify our being indifferent: ecosystems are also…