Um. Saying pain hurts is a tautology (meaningless).

But this is an excellent opportunity to discuss an interesting defect in language and concept. And perhaps, it might help to remind us that english grammar (the verb) contains the time dimension of “always happened -> happened -> is happening -> will happen -> always shall happen.”

Pain alerts us to damage so that we remember not to repeat the actions that caused that damage again, or avoid further opportunities for damage.

Now it’s true that we humans often conflate:

1 – ‘correct and incorrect’ (testing or calculation of a known),

2 – ‘beneficial and harmful’ (human change in state – immediate)

3 – ‘right and wrong’ (operations to produce an intended outcome OR ‘ethical vs unethical’, OR ‘moral and immoral’ – intertemporal),

4 – ‘good and bad’ (moral actions that produce gain or loss upon others – moral being indirect, and ethical being direct – intertemporal.),

5 – ‘positive and negative’ (economic, financial, entrepreneurial change).

5 – ‘true and false’ (testimonial that is consistent, correspondent, operational, and coherent – intertempral), and

6 – ‘true and false’ (analytic – technically ‘testimony of correctness’ – intertemporal – this is the source of the ‘problem’ since ‘true’ in math and logic is equivalent to ‘true’ in carpentry, not true as in testimony. Mathematical and logical statements are either correct or incorrect or unknown, the are not true or false. Because all we are doing is testing deduction and inference between two states.)

And it is very common for people to use the MEANS OF CALCULATION most common to them:

1 – those people of a religious frame to rely upon ‘good and bad,

2 – those of a moral frame rely upon right and wrong,

3 – those of a rationalist (philosophical) frame ethical and unethical, moral and immoral

4 – those of a legal frame legal and illegal.

5 – those of a scientific frame rely upon beneficial and harmful’,

6 – those of an entrepreneurial, financial, and economic frame rely upon ‘positive and negative’.

And most of us conflate them depending upon the virtue signal we are trying to send. And sometimes we do so deceptively so that we attribute more authority to our assertions than exists: the most common being the pedestrian conflation of moral and legal.

When speaking on this subject we are confronted by in a noun-verb challenge. In that we are discussing both cause and effect and must choose a compromise term because of a deficiency in our language. We have no equivalent of ethical and moral with others for the INDIVIDUAL with himself. We have ethical: directly to others, and we have moral: indirectly to others. But no equivalent for the self.

And therefore are trying to answer a question is this ‘ethical (not harmful) ‘ between the person you are now, and the person you will be in the future. (Although that may be an unfamiliar means of analysis, it provides commensurability that’s a extremely beneficial addition to our linguistic and conceptual inventories. )

1 – Doing something wrong. (harmful).

2 – Done something wrong. (harmful).

3 – Cumulatively done something wrong (harmful).

4 – Something is going wrong despite our efforts (harmful failure).

5 – We are indecline and noting we can do but conserve energy. (chronic harm).

So, from the relationship between our physical body and our acting minds, I choose to use the word “wrong’ to satisfy that relationship between body and mind, where we should, if we can, do something differently from how we are currently doing it.

Because that is the evolutionary origin of pain: to provide information that immediately overloads all other information competing for attention in that network we call the nervous system.

To inform you to do something other than what you are doing.

In the most severe case, that is, to find an answer to the harm that has befallen you by accident, intent, negligence, or fate.

Cheers.