Morality can cause suffering, and can also relieve suffering. But where exactly is the balance? Does morality create more suffering than it relieves, or relieve more suffering than it creates?
Yes, morality creates more suffering than it relieves
Morality is irrational and can cause internal conflicts with one’s self, life would be much easier with less suffering without morals. The absence of morals can end in narcissism, which would mean not having the moral obligation to go out of your way for anything that doesn’t benefit you, and the ability to take advantage of others for a benefit to you.
Yes, moral codes encourage people to embrace suffering in themselves or towards others.
Morality can cause more suffering than it relieves if it encourages people to embrace suffering in themselves or towards others. This can be detrimental to the well-being of the person embracing suffering and/or the person suffering is directed towards.
Morality often limits what someone can do. Additionally, people will inevitably slip up in the pursuit of a moral goal, and the shame that doing so causes contributes to suffering rather than relieving it.
No, morality relieves more suffering than it creates.
Morality relieves more suffering because morality allows others to depend on you and vice versa, it makes everyone feel needed in some way, as well as the fact that for religious people, having strong morals can lead to a pleasant experience after they pass away. Strong morality can also lead to altruism, which can physiologically cause happiness.
No, proper morality prioritizes the reduction of suffering.
Although values are relative between individuals, suffering is a universal evil. In order for us to live a moral life, we must do what we are capable of to relieve suffering on any scale.
