Final answer:
The philosophical discussion on intentionally causing suffering includes various ethical perspectives, from Kantian ethics that oppose such acts to the challenge presented to the Golden Rule by sadism and masochism. Hedonism's focus on pleasure as the highest good is critiqued for oversimplifying the complexity of human well-being, while the principle of ahimsa and Socrates’s views imply that causing harm ultimately harms the self.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question you've asked touches on a set of complex issues that revolve around ethics, philosophy, and human behavior.
Arguments against intentional efforts to make people suffer often include the intrinsic value of human dignity and the ethical imperatives set forth by thinkers like Immanuel Kant, who argues that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves and not as means to an end. This contrasts with the utilitarian perspective that aims to maximize overall happiness, which could, in theory, justify causing pain if it leads to a greater good.
Those who engage in sadistic behavior, deriving pleasure from causing pain, may reference the work of the Marquis de Sade, but his work falls into a realm more of literature and transgressive exploration of human desires than a coherent philosophical doctrine. By contrast, hedonism is a moral theory that posits pleasure as the highest good. However, pure hedonism overlooks the complexity of human well-being, which can be more than just the absence of pain or the presence of pleasure. Critics argue that pleasure is too subjective and conditional to serve as the sole foundation of ethical behavior.
In conversation with the Golden Rule, masochism and sadism present a challenge. While some might argue that if a person desires pain, then giving it to them is ethical, this interpretation is limited and problematic when considering broader social implications and consent. This takes us back to the idea of Kantian ethics, which would not support the infliction of suffering regardless of individual proclivities towards pain or pleasure.
Reflecting on the philosophical arguments from Socrates and the notion of ahimsa from Indian philosophy, both suggest causing harm to others inherently leads to self-harm. These perspectives oppose any intentional efforts to make people suffer, reinforcing the point that such efforts can have far-reaching negative effects on both the individual and society.
Lastly, the concept of pursuing a dream or an objective that inherently causes suffering to oneself or others raises the question of moral responsibility. The irony of pursuing an unsustainable goal that leads to collective demise highlights the need for consideration of the long-term consequences of our actions.