Meaning of life.

[Viq]

OK, let's dispense with the environment thing, but if we do keep improving, why, Dante, don't you think we will hit a limit?

[Dante]

Because:

A) I don't think it's possible that things will ever get so good that they can't get better. I think it's a physical impossibility.

B) Even if a limit was reached, we would soon fall back from it.

C) People always want more. Give them a wheel and they want a jaguar, give them a jaguar and they want a helicopter. Everyone always wants more.

D) What's perfect for person A is hell for person B. There will never be perfection.

E) The human race will die out before it ever has enough time to reach such a limit. Hopefully.

[Viq]

A very nice last touch there, and i can see where your coming from. It was pretty arrogant of me to think we would reach a limit. We still might, just a really, really low limit. Do you think the human race is really all that bad, or is this just self loathing, or whatever you call it, i'm not sure.

[Dude_Doc]

The meaning of life is quite simple. One may ask, what is the purpose of a decease? Or an ant-hive? All they do is to try to survive into the next year, when they reproduce and continue this cycle until ants are extinct or until the end of the universe. They have no experience. They just "do".

Humans, on the other hand, has been given a wonderful gift. We can actually experience our time in this universe. I believe that in the end, life is like a computer game. You don't buy it to complete it, you buy it because you want to experience it.

I believe that we are here to experience life. And at the end of our lives, we may feel that this life has been the greatest experience we have ever felt.

[Dante]

Both. The human race sucks, and thus by default I suck along with it. My consolation is that I'm not a hypocrite wandering around with rose-coloured glasses jammed in front of my eyes, so I can actually see just how terrible we are. And I've got the arguments to back myself up. They're not very nice, but they're honest. On the bright side, we're getting better. Not that that's difficult...

I remember saying (I think it's somewhere in this thread) that if I were presented with a button to instantly wipe the human race (and no others) from this planet, I would have a hard time decideding whether to press it or not. Current opinion is that I wouldn't, if only because self-preservation tends to overrule altruism with me. But I could change my mind at any moment.

I'm a pessemist. So sue me. My faith in the human race is extremely small, but I'm trying to make the best of a bad situation. The great thing about being a pessemist is that you can't be disappointed.

[Viq]

OK, if there was a button to wipe out only the human race, why would you press it? Who would benefit? Would we, becuase we would no longer suffer? Or would we not, because, obviously, we would be dead. And isn't there an argument that says humans are here for a reason? Oh, wait....that's practically this topic....

[Wolf]

Everything is relative. In order to claim that the human race "sucks" (to attach to it some value statement", one must have some metric of measuring integrity and value. There is no inherent value to the human race. To you, it sucks. To others, it might not. And you are both equally justified. You just use different metrics of measurement.

[Anathema]

I remember reading something about a discussion between Voltaire and some other guy (forgot his name).

Other guy: life is hard.

Voltaire: compared to what?

[Dante]

OK, if there was a button to wipe out only the human race, why would you press it? Who would benefit? Would we, becuase we would no longer suffer? Or would we not, because, obviously, we would be dead. And isn't there an argument that says humans are here for a reason? Oh, wait....that's practically this topic....

Well one reason, which I don't subscribe to, is known as 'negative utilitarianism.'

Utilitarianism is a system of belief, part of which stems from hedonism, the belief that pleasure is inherently good, while pain is inherently bad. Thus anything that causes pleasure is good, while anything that causes pain is bad. There's more to it than that, but I don't need to go into that right now. Suffice to say that a utilitarian will do thir best to maximise happiness and as a secondary goal, minimise suffering.

A negative utilitarian, on the other hand, reverses these goals. Their primary goal is to minimise pain, and then maximise happiness. And, thinking about it, if everyone in the world were to die, then would there be any more pain? Nope. Nadda. Not a sausage. Thus to minimise pain, everyone must die.

But like I said, I don't really care for that. No, my reasons for pressing the button would range from the greater (enviromental issues, stop it before it gets worse, etc) to the slightly more petty (power, revenge, the odd belief that pressing the button would be extremely funny...).

I don't care for human benefit, I care for my benefit. For some bizarre reason, however, I'm also an enviromentalist of sorts and if it's humans or the enviroment, I choose the enviroment. Keep in mind that this is not a crack in my armour here. If I knew that my death would save the enviroment forever then I would damn well stay alive. The only way I'd actually sacrafice myself for a cause would be if I could take everyone else with me. That's why I'd press the button.

Everything is relative. In order to claim that the human race "sucks" (to attach to it some value statement", one must have some metric of measuring integrity and value. There is no inherent value to the human race. To you, it sucks. To others, it might not. And you are both equally justified. You just use different metrics of measurement.

I am aware of that. But I only ever actually pay any attention to it when it's required. Saying that everything is relative and nothing can truly be known may be accurate but it also renders the argument devoid of any potential conclusion.

[Wolf]

Well, I never said that nothing can truly be known. Moral relativism need not necessarily mean just that. To ignore something important -- like how our moral views are relative -- is to also preclude any hope of reaching a potential conclusion. For example, let's say we ignore moral relativism and go with however we both view humanity. Then, we could easily devolve into the old "my god is bigger than your god" game. If we accept it, and move on from there, maybe we can reach a conclusion that is practical, but would have to ignore our personal moral views. Which, considering we're sort of making blanket judgements about the fate of the human race, might not be such a bad idea.

[Caid Ivik]

Relativism is a plague of mind. Already two and half millenia ago Sokrates thought he was able to erase this impotent thinking, however nowadays we see how he failed. But still, it's only because these guys like Protagoras or Kritias simply didn't want any morale. Like some Britney of ethics, they just wanted to sell their popular thoughts. I would say it's an abuse of skepticism. While you can see a bright pattern in all moral conceptions, let it be based on humility, pleasure, eudaimony, justice or love.

[Wolf]

Why?

[Viq]

What intriuges me is that we consider humility good, but also love and other feelings which give us pleasure...I think. Why then do we consider humility good, because that doesn't really bring us any pleasure.

[Caid Ivik]

With love I ment that christian altruism, as "love your neighbors as yourself", not automatically as pleasure-based sensual love. However that wasn't exactly as I ment it. Love, humility, pleasure etc were different bases for ethics (let's say first was of Jesus, second of Kant and third of perhaps Epikuros), however when they were applied to practical moral questions, they brought many times same answers. Like when somebody is hurt, you would: either 1.help him because you want to be moral by expressing love towards that person (christian view), or 2.help him because some higher law forces you to do so (kantic view), or 3.help him and so attain a good feeling (hedonist view), or 4.ignore him because there is nothing, what would reason it (relativist view).

[Viq]

I'm not sure i understand what you're saying on number 4. Could you explain it please?

[Wolf]

What gives you the grounds to write-off all of relativism as just some guys wanting to sell popular thoughts? Personally, relativism is so unpopular today that I would argue the exact opposite. Relativism makes sense, and its verifiable. I do not claim that moral relativism is an end; by no means. It is a mean. Maybe if we acknowledged it and took it into account we could come to terms with that we can't always have our way; that we have to give a little in order to really gain some understanding of our world. Here we are, the same people fighting over the same stuff for years now. Its never going to end because all of us want to be the one who was right. But things don't work like that. If we really cared about understanding and knowledge -- real knowledge, truth, not Truth -- we wouldn't write off peoples' ideas so easily because they come into conflict with our own. Relativism need not necessarily lead to apathy and agnosticism. You've only made it so.

[nemafakei]

You're confusing the belief in absolutes with closed-mindedness.

Caid is right to mention Socrates - relativism encourages apathy towards discovering truth, whereas all you need for a belief in an absolute is the awareness that you're nowhere near that absolute.

[Caid Ivik]

I'm not sure i understand what you're saying on number 4. Could you explain it please?

Relativist view is, that every moral ground or law was based on its creator, who lived in different enviroment, so his ideas have no sicher effect on everyone. So you won't feel no guilt if you wouldn't follow his rules. Surely, it is verifiable, but I still expect Wolfwiz to show where it can be also fruitful.

[Viq]

Tnx 4 that

[Wolf]

A relativistic view is fruitful in negotiation. If you understand that those you negotiate with hold beliefs and ideals that, while possibly total anathema to yours, are held in the same regard as your own, you are more likely to reach an understanding.

[nemafakei]

This still works without relativism.

[Wolf]

You know what, just forget it. I'm going to toss out the assertion that relativism is important because it aids us in the understanding of each other (which is crucially important), but not necessarily in divining some ultimate truth to the universe, or whatever. We can argue that, but I'm probably going to stick by it because the arguments against it so far have been uncompelling. That, and I think we all have slightly different definitions of relativism... making this somewhat futile. Which, ironically, is inherently relativistic.

[Caid Ivik]

That's not relativism, but empathy. However as communication has not only informative, but also formative purpose, pure empathic behavior doesn't help much this way.