Suffering as Experiential – A Response to Jennifer Corns

In Suffering and Virtue1, I examine defend the idea that suffering plays vital roles in a good life, contrary to prevailing wisdom is (always or typically) detrimental happiness well-being. book, whilst careful acknowledge obvious fact many cases deleterious happiness, propose it can, nevertheless, have both intrinsic instrumental value. argue forms of can themselves constitute virtuous motives; essential cultivation development virtues strength vulnerability; flourishing social groups. Early on book state, without much way reason argument, most naturally used refer negative experiential state. then develop an account suffering, according which affect we mind, where minding cashed out terms occurrent desire not be occurring. ‘Suffering as Significantly Disrupted Agency’, Jennifer Corns challenges my assumption best understood experiential, raises number objections phenomenon, proceeds her own non-experiential view. It will come no surprise want push back against criticisms account, But so doing, hope make stronger case for thinking than did Virtue. five account. Since first more statement theoretical disagreement objection, last acceptance desideratum theory reject (for reasons follow), I'll focus two, three, four. Whilst acknowledging skill elan with these are developed, find none them ultimately persuasive. (i) doubts whether all those who suffer – including young children non-human animals third-order attitudes apparently take constitutive suffering.2 She doubts, illustrate, one-year-old “is able she doesn't hear lawnmower.” If suggests need capacity such sophisticated higher-order order suffer, this extent implausible. agree seems unlikely desires directed at things they don't want, thoughts above kind content explicitly mind. note unpleasantness does posit towards sensation, one subject consciously aware, figures thinking. Indeed, desire-account sensations together something unpleasant present consciousness when has experience. were, presumably theorise about painfulness other would things! Instead, desire-theorists like me hold posits necessary explain capture motivational normative features has. Such partly experiences, therefore, very constitution being experiences. As result, view requires capable having experience cease seem generate meta-cognitive worries supposes. For even one-year-olds noises. (ii) claims recognise importance sufferer's ‘extra-mental situation’. This due two factors. First, thinks am committed saying ‘we typically any experience’. form suffering. unable how (or apparent importance) role generating cease, hence accounting cannot accommodate D5: An felt response is, taken by sufferer be, important typically, but always, result conclusion only follows if ignore once matter some was pains emphasise developing Following Tim Schroeder, “are playing one's psyche moment”. put book: active operative: involved motivating action, drawing attention certain options feelings, acting ‘premises our practical deliberation, ruling various courses inclining us believe things.” (29) So true, suggests, experiences follow cease. plausible throughout day, mental states not, existent occurrent, play operative psyche. There considerable scope recognize extra-mental situation: responsive (perceived) generates perception elevates brings into previously inactive inoperative. The this, Corns, itself valuable work, responsible responses appropriate valued. element isn't (so argument goes) value, indeed harmful value question. instance, affective remorse moves apologies reparations; feelings fifth wheel here, role(s). More damagingly, run counter action: instead making reparations, might because action reduce e.g. through hardening heart. Similar considerations tell D7 D8, grounds respective values explained themselves, rather them. My here simply deny ‘does useful motivating’ thus relevant Although suffering's motive) focusing pain instance physical emotional explicit (see, fn. 8 p. 61) question suitably intense and/or objects events motivate damage avoidance hand, reparations other. previous comments indicate, there think general, benefits. Unpleasantness intense, intrude upon deliberations otherwise given moment, epistemic clearly do. Without desire, keep bodily moral wrongdoing draw mitigate them, provide override lethargy selfishness. Moreover, really merely associated remorse, constitutes response. Suppose done terribly wrong, feel low-level, relatively mild guilt remorse. Clearly inappropriate response, since normatively Something similar applies grief. When loved dies, enough grief, perfectly possible mildly must ones mind degree, psyche; precisely enough, objects/events undergoing what says, heart us. Having rejected proposes own: namely, “that significant disruption agency. One suffers their agency significantly disrupted.” Her agentive strikes subtle, novel, again skilfully done. accounts different forms, ways overlap dynamically related, promise influential, insight humans flourish, equally harmed. However, Corns's proposal satisfactory reasons. better captures desiderata elucidates, reasons) considerably closer ‘everyday theory’ And disrupted false left-to right right-to-left, disrupted, also disruptions What hopefully emerge from discussion everyday theory, philosophical supports experiential. theory’, “countenances occurrences” constituting claim false, insofar one, favours To see consider list varied mental, (unfortunately) too familiar: people easily cite kinds asked. These include: pain, coldness, tiredness, nausea, hunger, thirst, extreme heat, irritation, shame, anguish, rage, disappointment, anxiety, fear, dejection, frustration, depression, loneliness, stress, rejection, lovesickness, boredom, regret … on. Now basic ask here: do common, virtue count types fall under concept? difficult avoid answer (extremely) miserable, hurt, dislike hate. spell involve (Corns), threaten intactness person (Cassell), Of course, well turn mine actually true; necessarily intuitive natural answer, after all. another won't fares capturing far goes, common talk financial loss, team defeat, child closure nursery, points out? language suggest experienced D1 states? Well, happy admit former language-use, book. license part genuine experienced. Or does, licensed include instances After all, coastline erosion, chair strain weight, band's reputation critical mauling; yet coastlines, furniture, reputations agents determined language, threatens undermine too. reason, limit respects use word.3 Still, imagine others why properly considered, Here, then, argument. invoke common.4 provides satisfying explanation pro tanto prima facie) bad sufferer. badness available favour superior agency, so, D2. easiest pain. Nearly everyone agrees intrinsically bad. nearly painful: involves highly pain's disvalue fundamental: other, fundamental understand its badness. someone didn't painful hurts loss know say Contrast disvalue. Chronic cause exceptional demands health system, estimate costs NHS UK £10billion per year. thing. extrinsic invoked applies, think, causes effects utterly devastating, great evil. burdens. explains D2 doing (the of) essentially connected gains further support counterexamples Let's turn. A central problem identifying things, positive, disrupt defining feature Consider, disruptive state falling love be. blissful days, head over heels love, agential general sorts disrupted. “if noisy exercise psychological thereby disrupted”. throes passion) notoriously plan evaluate, detriment consumed lose appetite, sleep, forego exercise, biological tend neglect family, friends, interests beloved, it's aspect viz. characterised functioning peak up disruptions. Maybe I've fallen completely unaware existence, loving agent Still all: feels wonderful, paradigmatically positive away clear psychological, less romaticised example: notes may consume me, biological, doubt true. pleasure person, agency: pleasures orgasm or, extremely, taking heroin, illustrations. especially heroin. surely implausible opposed miserably side-effects consequences, true sex, opiates plausibly extremely nevertheless religious ecstasy euphoria. ecstasy, longer distinct environment, capacities modulate it. (How could act achieved Nirvana, Divine present?) final example puts pressure rightly “as human, biped, University employee, mother, friend, Celtic fan, more.” if, plausible, likely (and view) Note positively valued (unless you Rangers fan). forms: suppose idler, responds his environment norms stimulate laziness lack productivity; negatively still, member elite upper-class student drinking society, prone opulent banquets, ostentatious displays wealth, sneering poor. now restricted knowing: parents decide cut off allowance unless get job; bans society. On implausible: can't indulge lifestyle hardly restrictions impinge right, sufficient nor necessary. examples anything lovesick end relationship. cry myself sleep each night ex, riven regret, been differently. Each pattern, wake morning sense deep sadness, tear-stained pillow. I'm resilient chap, mope moan, immediately up, go business, constraints bodily, feed clothe myself, run, work productive meet socialize, enjoy life full. look forward new relationships, again, albeit keenly aware possibility heartbreak. crying sleep. (It pushing disrupts sleeper, fit over.) deal misery sort: happens expressing business takes seat. Regret, homesickness, emotions often limited quiet moments activity ceases, sometimes threatened (Indeed, suspect susceptible miserable remain bay long can.) makes precisely, awful. accommodates examples, not. arguments sections correct, concept experiential; notion convincing status; attempts factor core counterexamples. No still live option. omission Virtue, favouring