Suffering, Enhancement, and Human Goods

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Quaestiones Disputatae Pub Date : 2015-04-19 DOI:10.5840/QD20155223
C. Tollefsen
{"title":"Suffering, Enhancement, and Human Goods","authors":"C. Tollefsen","doi":"10.5840/QD20155223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A well-intentioned concern for the alleviation of suffering—the “relief of man’s estate,” in Francis Bacon’s words—motivates much of modern science, medicine, and biomedical research.1 Such commonality is possible because man’s estate is one of suffering, pervasive suffering. It includes the suffering of disease and disability, obviously, and this is the focus of those parts of medicine that seek to cure. But it also includes the suffering brought about by both our mortality and our awareness of that mortality; by our limitations in the face of nature, including our own biological nature; by our persistently bad choices, bearing both upon ourselves and on others, and by the corresponding bad choices of those others; and by the fact that our reach always exceeds our grasp, leaving us frustrated in our desires and pursuits. Suffering follows upon each of these features of our condition, and we are quick to respond with the resources of modern medicine and biotechnology: we cure what disease and disability we can; we seek to provide relief for incurable suffering; some seek to end the lives of those whose suffering is intolerable; and the most visionary of us look to the days when the sources of our suffering will have been more thoroughly addressed, not only by the elimination of disease and disability, but also by the indefinite extension of the human life span, and the vast increase of our capacities, such that all that we desire lies within reach. But if concern for suffering runs like a thread through the entirety of our medical and biotechnological world, how is it that this world is so riven with disagreement? If there is a common enemy—human suffering— why cannot we all just rally around the flag, and defeat it together? It is surely not the case that so-called bio-conservatives want to suffer, though this caricature seems sometimes to be drawn by their opponents; so why are there bio-conservatives, people who shout “stop!” at some efforts, at least, to end suffering?2","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestiones Disputatae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD20155223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

A well-intentioned concern for the alleviation of suffering—the “relief of man’s estate,” in Francis Bacon’s words—motivates much of modern science, medicine, and biomedical research.1 Such commonality is possible because man’s estate is one of suffering, pervasive suffering. It includes the suffering of disease and disability, obviously, and this is the focus of those parts of medicine that seek to cure. But it also includes the suffering brought about by both our mortality and our awareness of that mortality; by our limitations in the face of nature, including our own biological nature; by our persistently bad choices, bearing both upon ourselves and on others, and by the corresponding bad choices of those others; and by the fact that our reach always exceeds our grasp, leaving us frustrated in our desires and pursuits. Suffering follows upon each of these features of our condition, and we are quick to respond with the resources of modern medicine and biotechnology: we cure what disease and disability we can; we seek to provide relief for incurable suffering; some seek to end the lives of those whose suffering is intolerable; and the most visionary of us look to the days when the sources of our suffering will have been more thoroughly addressed, not only by the elimination of disease and disability, but also by the indefinite extension of the human life span, and the vast increase of our capacities, such that all that we desire lies within reach. But if concern for suffering runs like a thread through the entirety of our medical and biotechnological world, how is it that this world is so riven with disagreement? If there is a common enemy—human suffering— why cannot we all just rally around the flag, and defeat it together? It is surely not the case that so-called bio-conservatives want to suffer, though this caricature seems sometimes to be drawn by their opponents; so why are there bio-conservatives, people who shout “stop!” at some efforts, at least, to end suffering?2
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
苦难、进步和人类的财富
减轻痛苦的善意关怀——用弗朗西斯·培根的话来说就是“人类财产的救济”——激励了许多现代科学、医学和生物医学研究这种共同性之所以成为可能,是因为人类的处境是一种痛苦,一种无处不在的痛苦。显然,它包括疾病和残疾的痛苦,这是那些寻求治愈的医学部分的重点。但它也包括我们的死亡和我们对死亡的意识所带来的痛苦;我们面对自然的局限性,包括我们自己的生物本性;我们不断做出错误的选择,既影响到我们自己,也影响到别人,而别人也相应地做出了错误的选择;我们的能力总是超出我们的能力范围,让我们在自己的欲望和追求中受挫。我们的身体状况的每一个特征都伴随着痛苦,我们很快就用现代医学和生物技术的资源做出反应:我们治愈我们所能治愈的疾病和残疾;我们寻求为无法治愈的痛苦提供救济;有些人试图结束那些无法忍受痛苦的人的生命;我们中最有远见的人期待着有一天,我们痛苦的根源将得到更彻底的解决,不仅是疾病和残疾的消除,而且是人类寿命的无限延长,我们的能力的巨大增长,这样我们所渴望的一切都触手可及。但是,如果对痛苦的关注像一条线一样贯穿于我们整个医学和生物技术世界,为什么这个世界如此充满分歧?如果有一个共同的敌人——人类的苦难——为什么我们不能团结在旗帜周围,一起打败它?当然,所谓的生物保守主义者并不想受苦,尽管这种讽刺似乎有时是他们的对手画的;那么,为什么会有生物保守主义者,那些大喊“停止!”“至少在某种程度上结束痛苦?”2
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quaestiones Disputatae
Quaestiones Disputatae HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Remnants of Substances: A Neo-Aristotelian Resolution of the Puzzles After Survivalism and Corruptionism: Separated Souls as Incomplete Persons Evaluating Hylomorphism as a Hybrid Account of Personal Identity Editor’s Introduction Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Too-Many-Thinkers Problem
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1