Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae and/or non-US-ASCII text omitted; see image)
From the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure. [...]human suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a person1who is doing well anyway.
Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies2
There is an ocean of unnecessary and avoidable suffering and misery in the world. It is hard to accept, but suffering is endemic for the existence of sentient beings: 'nature is red in tooth and claw'. However, the amount of unnecessary suffering humans cause is a matter of choice. The focus of moral philosophers and politicians should be to strive to reduce suffering and thus to focus first and foremost on victims of unnecessary suffering inflicted by humans.
Shouldn't the purpose of moral philosophy be to make the world a better place, that is: a world with less suffering and more happiness? If that is the case, then we should strive to optimize the position of victims (the so-called maxi-min strategy). The amelioration and avoidance of suffering has priority over the stimulation of happiness: first, no harm; then striving for pleasure and happiness. Focusing on misery, suffering and victims places a heavy moral burden on how to live an ethical life and the goal of politics.
Philosophers can play a role in analysing the concept of victimship. What is a victim? And what is the criterion for victimship? Popper speaks about 'human suffering', but as Peter Singer and others have pointed out, it seems arbitrary to limit the moral consideration to humans only. Suffering is suffering - the 'what' that is suffering is irrelevant. Here we expand the moral circle from anthropocentrism (Popper) to sentientism (Singer/Ryder). Most humans and most societies have blind spots for categories of victims, e.g. homosexuals, infidels, women, apostates, dissidents, believers of...