Moral Non-Realists Responses to Suffering

Question

It seems to me that one possible grounding for objective morality is in the inherent badness of suffering.

Suffering is inherently bad, I believe, by definition, and non-instrumental suffering could be specified in order to strengthen the position.

It then follows, perhaps, that if suffering is bad (for the sufferer), then there is a moral duty to prevent it, and statements such as "it is morally wrong to unnecessarily inflict suffering" reflect objective moral facts.

I would like to know how moral non-realists argue against the general argument I presented. I know the specific argument I presented is weak, so I'm more so looking for an argument against the general idea.

Answer 1

A moral non-realist would probably agree with you that "suffering is bad" (in most circumstances, at least) however they would deny that this is an objective statement of fact about the universe.

Most moral non-realist also don't disagree with moral reasoning from premises. A piece of reasoning can be objective even if its premises are not; it's just that your argument about reducing suffering has a conclusion contingent on accepting your premise rather than that conclusion being an objective fact about the universe.

---

Caveat: moral non-realism covers quite a large range of philosophical positions. The precise answer those different positions will give will vary, but I think this answer covers most of them reasonably well.

Answer 2

Nearly all humans try to avoid suffering. How to support the moral duty to prevent suffering without assuming the existence of objective values?

You can argue on the basis of Kant’s Categorical Imperative as a moral principle of generalization:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

Answer 3

Suffering is inherently bad, I believe, by definition...

Wrong. Skipping simple relativist proofs (easy to find), many philosophers (and simple mortals like me) think suffering is good. When you make sport, your body suffers, and so it becomes stronger. When you eat salads, your body suffers because you are ingesting toxic substances, and so, your body becomes stronger. When you suffer mentally, you purify your soul, you learn about life, and you expand your potential of happiness, etc. etc.

"You must submit to supreme suffering 
 in order to discover the completion of joy".
- John Calvin.

It then follows, [...] that if suffering is bad [...], then there is a moral duty to prevent it.

Wrong. If you prevent your child of (a sane dose of) suffering, you are growing him weak. The first circumstance he'll lack of your protection, he might emotionally or physically crash and die. A good education involves a bit of suffering, so to develop strength and find equilibrium and mental/emotional stability.

Another case: nature inflicts suffering to those who break its rules. Any social group follows the same rule, that is, inflicting suffering to those who act against it. If "there is a moral duty to prevent it", we should free all prisoners immediately, give all our money to thieves and promote drug overdosing.

I would like to know how moral non-realists argue against the general argument I presented.

All human groups have different and relative moral rules, and natural selection allows surviving of some, even with opposite moral rules (e.g. some groups with few resources will kill murderers (rule: it is OK to kill), while groups with more resources allow murderers to survive (rule: it is NOT-OK to kill) but in controlled environments, where they change or at least they can't kill anymore).