I'm not sure whether you actually don't understand or whether you're arguing for fun.
Let's say someone is petrified, that petrification exists. What steps would you take to cure them? How would you prioritize which rememdies to try first? How is your approach any different than random trial and error?
Compare that to the response to covid-19. A vaccine was
rapidly developed using existing technology and existing vaccines which were effective against a similar virus.
For fantasy problems, it is virtually impossible to improve. Even once the problem is solved, the elements which contributed to the success cannot be applied to new problems.
I have no idea why you are assuming that each and every problem in a fantasy world would be absolutely unique and unrelated. Let's use your example: By studying petrification we could learn how to reproduce it, and use it to treat other conditions, much like how venom can be used to treat certain conditions (like blood pressure). You simply won't see fantasy novels where the characters keep trying the most random of things to solve each and every of their problems, there is an underlying rationale just like in our world.
ok, convince me. here's the google search results for: "parents become numb after losing child" -
link. you'll need quite a bit of research to refute all of that.
Refute all... what exactly?
I need actual quotes to know what exactly you are talking about.
if you look up "pain tolerance" there is research that indicates in extreme cases, the individual's response to discomfort is amplified after the experience. If this occurs to many people, the population becomes less resilient, that's not improvement. But if it happens on a limited basis, there's still opportunity for collective benefit that exceeds the damage caused.
I am not sure I understand. If improvement is the value, why would people become less resilient after traumatic events? I am asking this in the sense of: Why would God create us that way? Wouldn't we expect people to become more resilient (or at least not lose resilience)?
the details of your example are what disqualifies it. chopping off limbs does not improve soldiers for battle. chopping off limbs does not inspire the remaining soldiers to become better fighters. You need to come up with a better example.
But I didn't say anything about 'battle' or 'fighters'. They might turn out better (improved) 'human beings' though. Are you going to add the premise that we must improve as 'fighters' specifically?
And since we are talking about collective benefits, it is not even about them specifically. What about the fact that this event lead other people to improving?
No, that's not what I'm saying. And I've said it repeatedly.
If X harms the individual, it might make the individual gain something OR it might make the collective gain something. As long as there is a gain, it's an improvement.
Suffering and evil sometimes harms the individual, depending on how extreme it is. But it always has the potential to benefit society if it occurs in limited scope.
You have said and I quote: "Torture always harms the individual. Sometimes the individual gains something from it. The 'sometimes' does not justify the 'always'."
By that you did mean that if torture always entailed individual gain, that it would be justified, right?
Otherwise, why would you pointing out that 'sometimes doesn't justify the always'?
Notice how you have not stated any reference to collective gains on that sentence.
But more importantly what exactly justifies the harm: The potential for improvement or the improvement itself?
Torture always has the potential for individual gain, so if it is the potential for improvement, torture would be justified. I don't think you would say the improvement itself is what justifies the harm, but I want to know what you think.
