Pain is not an unfamiliar experience to any one person. It’s important to not think of pain just as physical pain from a stubbed toe or broken bone, but also pain from the loss of a loved one or a failure. Often times, the sensation of pain is associated with misery and suffering throughout the existence of the supposed discomfort. However, Colin Klein details how that actually is not the case through his Imperative Theory of Pain. In it, he discusses how suffering is merely a consequence of pain and that the two are not synonymous. Using an Imperativist stance and a theory composed of relative simplicity, he presents a compelling argument. Throughout the entirety of this paper, I will detail Klein’s argument and discuss how he presents a theory of the relationship between pain and suffering that is correct.
Colin Klein looks at pain and suffering from an imperativist point of view. Imperativism concludes, according to Klein, that motivation is an intrinsic, or naturally belonging, feature of pain. Colin Klein begins his argument by discussing the two senses in which he believes pains motivate. He acknowledges pains do many things and the pains motivate the one who is experiencing said pain. Primary motivational force, Klein explains, is simply the command of the body to protect the affected and pained body part. He explains that the primary motivational force is simply derived from the content of the pain. Secondary motivation, however, is deeper than the idea of primary motivation. Secondary motivation contrasts primary motivation completely and includes all motivations that are extrinsic to pain. Klein explains how pain can often cause emotional and mental states directed toward or caused by the pain itself, but since secondary motivations are not always present, the emotions and motivational states can also be absent when pain is present. Klein describes situations in which pains arouse emotions and cause actions related to specific pains.
Furthermore, Klein describes pain and its relationship to suffering, which is of interest for this paper. Klein makes a point that because pains are unpleasant, it is generally acknowledged that people go out of their way to avoid them and get rid of them when they arise. Because hurt is a feature of pains both emotional and physical, it is often assumed that it must be an always occurring property of pain. Klein then offers four arguments to distinguish between pain and suffering. The first argument, he claims is also the simplest. He claims that pain and hurt come apart, and calls this the argument from dissociation. He explains that some pains don’t hurt, and many things that hurt aren’t pains. Klein gives example after example of pains that do not hurt, and hurts that do not stem from pain, but instead just motivate the bearer to move them self or take initiative to use their power to fix the pain.
The next argument he presents is the argument from independent variation. Before he delves into the argument, he reminds readers that the question trying to be answered is whether pain and suffering should be distinguished as separate phenomena, not whether pain can occur without suffering. He returns to the argument, stating that pain and suffering are able to independently vary from one another in their intensity. Simply stated, something can hurt intensely but not cause suffering or hurt mildly but bring intense suffering. He claims that this is solid evidence for his view that proposes pain intensity alone is part of pain, while suffering is a secondary characteristic. His third argument is what he calls the argument from differing domains. In it, he attempts to distinguish between pain and hurt. He states that all things that hurt don’t deserve the title of pain and continues to argue that pain and hurt motivate in different ways. His example describes it perfectly, where he says that pain from a heartbreak motivates acts that have set goals, where the pain from the heartbreak motivates actions that have goals to relieve the sensation of the heartbreak. He says this can be true of pain and suffering. Klein’s final argument considers phenomenology. He explains it clearly in his last paragraph of the argument:
“…separating pain and hurt takes an apparently heterogenous phenomenological set and
distinguishes two phenomenologically homogenous partitions. There’s pain, which is a
distinctive sensation with a distinctive motivational role, and there’s hurt, which qualifies
an extraordinarily heterogenous set of mental states but promotes the same activity
toward each of the token mental states that it qualifies” (Klein, 55).
That presents the last of Klein’s arguments, and the last support of his novel idea that pain and suffering are not synonymous. He concludes that it is factual that pains do sometimes cause suffering, yet suffering is not a necessary feature of pains.
I think Klein offers a compelling argument in an arena that seems straightforward. Furthermore, I believe his argument that pain is not the same as suffering is successful. However, this presents a relationship between pain and well-being that needs to be explored. The idea that pain and suffering are not the same, and that pain can exist without suffering presents the idea that pain does not have to have a negative impact on well-being. Suffering has a negative impact on well-being, but since pain isn’t the same as suffering, I think it is only fair that pain doesn’t have to have a negative impact on well-being. Of course, this is completely subjective to the person experiencing the pain and the situation. An argument for this is the fact that people voluntarily choose to do things that hurt, yet bring them joy. Childbirth is a perfect example- the woman endures 9 months of being uncomfortable and then the pain of delivery and labor, all to bring life to something that will bring her joy for the rest of her life. That long-term pain did not negatively impact their well-being, but positively impacted it instead. Another case that supports the idea that pain does not have to negatively affect well-being is patients who undergo elective surgeries, specifically cosmetic and plastic surgeries. These patients are unhappy with their appearance in some way shape or form, which negatively impacts their well-being by lowering self-esteem. Therefore, they subject themselves to the pain of surgery and recovery as a means to an end of their lowered self-esteem and negative well-being. The outcome results in an increase in their self-esteem and well-being. These cases offer just the beginning of scenarios that support the idea that well-being is not always negatively impacted by painful experiences.
Personally, I have experienced this notion that pain can exist without negatively impacting one’s well-being. At the age of thirteen, I had extensive spinal surgery. I was sentenced to recovery for six months, a long six months of pain and a life that looked a little different than the one I lived before. At fifteen and seventeen, I subsequently underwent two more, leaving me hurting and in pain for weeks once again. The pain and lifestyle changes passed, however, and looking back, I don’t consider that my pain caused me to suffer or contributed to a downgrade in my overall well-being. During my recovery, I did not feel in peak condition, but my prosperity stayed the same. Even now, I have the same quality of life as I did before my surgeries. Sure, I still experience residual and chronic pain every day, but I can still walk, exercise, study, spend time with my friends, and go about my days the same as I did before. I am the same me, and my well-being has stayed stable, if not increased due to the lessons and experiences that came out of my operations. The only things that differentiates me from my peers is my experience and the twelve-inch scar that runs down my back.
One might oppose this, however, by asking where do we draw the line in terms of pain negatively impacting one’s well-being? A perfect example of this is athletes and sports injuries. Say an athlete of any sport, any level, blows out their knee. They undergo surgery but the damage is too extensive and the doctor informs them that they can no longer actively participate in their sport due to the nature of the injury. While upsetting to any athlete, there are two ways this can go. On one hand, it could be a high school athlete who does not have the desire to continue their athletics at the collegiate or professional level. Consequently, their athletic career may have ended earlier than they planned and their live may look a little different without daily practices and games and without the constant presence of their teammates, but their life goes on. The injury is still upsetting to them, but their well-being isn’t diminished and they aren’t suffering. Adversely, the athlete could be a professional athlete, one who is using their athletic talents to provide for them self and their family. For that person, the injury takes a completely different toll than it does on the high school athlete. It ends their career. It doesn’t just end their athletic career, but their income-earning career. They lose their job and their ability to earn for them self and whomever else they provide for. This, it could be argued, is why there needs to be a way to objectively put these two scenarios into categories by drawing a line.
In cases such as these, the line could be drawn when the pain or result of the pain, in this case the career ending injury, begins to negatively impact day to day functions, as they are synonymous with well-being. If a person cannot perform the simplest of tasks necessary to function throughout their day, their well-being will obviously diminish. It would, therefore, have a negative impact on well-being. Negative impacts on day to day functions can be defined subjectively, because each person’s daily routine varies. Therefore, in the case above, the high school athlete would not have diminished well-being, but the professional athlete would because their everyday functions and routines would change since they would no longer be able to go to work and provide for their family. Other situations this would be applicable in could be two victims of car accidents of differing severity that walk away with different injuries. It could also be applied to people who suffer from differing degrees of depression that impact their daily functions differently. Day to day functions exist to every person, so in any situation that results in pain, drawing the line by evaluating the impact on those functions can subsequently decide if that pain resulted in negative well-being.
In analyzing Colin Klein’s presentation of pain and suffering, he consistently reiterates that pain and suffering are not the same thing. He presents this idea through a series of simple arguments and examples that relate pain as a causation of suffering, but does not allow the two to intertwine as one in the same. Klein successfully approaches the notion that pain and suffering can co-exist, but are not necessities when one or the other is present. Furthermore, I believe that pain does not have to have a negative impact on well-being when it is present, and can sometimes have a positive impact. In murky situations, a line can be drawn by analyzing the pains impact on day to day functions, and therefore the affected person’s well-being. Pain and suffering are not equivalents, and diminished well-being can sometimes be attributed to pain, and sometimes not. Overall, pain does not have to negatively impact well-being, and oftentimes does not.