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.