potential happiness - an ethical consideration

aHappyNihilist

I have a somewhat nuanced question about buddhist ethics but i'm beginning to feel this particular question of normative ethics is beyond the scope of the buddha's teachings.

The question is basically this, is potential happiness a value that ought to be acted toward?

any ethical system operates around concepts of positive and negative values. Utilitarianism holds that pleasure is the only positive and pain the only negative (basically.) Buddhism holds the same idea but also holds a set of precepts that should be applied as a system of applied ethics. So happiness (in others) ought to be acted toward and pain ought to be acted against. but what of potential happiness? this is the fundamental philosophical enigma behind the question of abortion and similar issues. It asks should we act toward providing the circumstances in which happiness may be felt.

The obvious quick answer here is yes, if it is possible for us to create happiness where it didn't exist before we ought to act toward that goal. But then isn't every moment a woman spends without being pregnant an immoral one? she could be creating a child, she has the ability to create circumstances for potential happiness. Are we immoral not to devote our resources toward the creation of robots who's only function is to feel amounts of pleasure beyond the level humans could comprehend? This of course seems ridiculous, but when you see this as ridiculous you can apply it to other applied ethical dilemmas.
If it is not immoral not to give happiness to the world, (think about the robots) then how can it be immoral to hurt animals? What is the real value of happiness? what is the real negative of pain? What is the value of the happiness of another? My theory, supported by group-evolution theories, is that the very idea of a being similar to us experiencing happiness brings us pleasure. The further removed from us that creature the less pleasure we feel from knowing its happiness. Would you rather punch a newborn baby in the face or a pig (assuming that there would be no punishment dealt to you in either case outside of that of your own conscience) Also would you rather your family member die or someone across the world from you die?

My conjecture essentially comes to this, happiness is only valuable in the circumstances in which you are feeling it.

If you don't want to think about this then don't a partial understanding of this would likely lead to more suffering but i believe a true understanding would lead to more happiness.

DhammaDhatu

The Buddha said giving birth to a child is suffering & a difficulty. For those who do not realise this, the Buddha said: "Have you not ever witnessed a new born infant uncontrollably rolling around in & soiled by its own urine & excrement?"

In the Buddha's time many women committed suicide to avoid child birth. Also, many women lost their life during or after the act of childbirth.

Today, the pain, difficulties & dangers of childbirth are minimised with medical care, anethesia, CSs, etc. However, that bringing a child into the world entails sufferings & difficulties does not change.

This is why birth control is so popular. Many couples choose to have only two children to minimise their burdens from their desire for a family.

Many actions bring some pleasure (or relief) but potentially alot of pain. Abortion is one of these actions. Here, a woman feels she does not have the mental, social and/or economic resources to bring a child into the world, so she decides to have an abortion. From this, often the woman has regrets and other sufferings.

The question of ethics is about seeing the harm & suffering in actions that superficially may be perceived as pleasurable.

It is not as simple as saying "this action brings happiness". Many forms of happiness (from killing, stealing, sex, drugs, gambling, etc) also bring suffering.

Kind regards

DD

Simonthepilgrim

I'm not at all sure what your point is, @aHappyNihilist. In what way would your reflections lead us to change our behaviour or beliefs? Or havw I missed something by laughing bitterly at your sub-Atwood image of immoral non-pregnant women (or, comversely, non-impregnating men).

Sabre

So much questions. I don't get them all and I don't want to think about all because it has no use. But remember that the four noble truths talk about the ending of suffering, not the creation of happiness. Of course there is cause and effect between those, but there is a difference.

aHappyNihilist

The question is essentially this, what are we valuing in our system of buddhist ethics? It doesn't seem to be happiness generally, or we would be making the robots. It doesn't seem to be human happiness because non-pregnant women aren't amoral and we are still nice to animals. What we seem to be valuing is our happiness coming from the happiness of others. We help those who we can, but don't go around creating happiness, unless we can see its results and are affected by them.

The logical value in an ethical system is the happiness brought to you by affecting happiness in ways that you can easily understand and make you happy.

My conclusion doesn't have us change our actions, just questions the motivations behind them.

aHappyNihilist

Many actions bring some pleasure (or relief) but potentially alot of pain. Abortion is one of these actions. Here, a woman feels she does not have the mental, social and/or economic resources to bring a child into the world, so she decides to have an abortion. From this, often the woman has regrets and other sufferings.

Interesting, your saying that the mother's suffering may outweigh her happiness from the action. But you agree with me at least that the concept of protecting the potential happiness of the baby is ludicrous and impractical? In the case of not causing the mother pain, i think the choice should be left to her which action she should take if the only issue is how much happiness vs. suffering it will cause her.