What's the point of living...

[2ndRateMind]

...if one doesn't leave the world a better place?

I really think this is a key moral consideration.

If one lives out one's life for one's own pleasure, and leaves the world in no better state than one found it, what would be, objectively, the manifested purpose of one's being?

On the other hand, if one achieves some tiny, marginal, incremental improvement on society, that others can build upon in their turn, one has served humanity, even if that service does not go recognised.

So, what otherwise would be the point of living, for all you erudite contributors to this forum?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

OK, so now we have, by default of no reply, some sort of consensus that we can, if we so choose, leave the world an objectively better place when we die than when we entered it, I wonder if anyone might have any other ideas as to the point of living?

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matthew 7:16-20 KJV

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

I agree with Shlomo, "All is vanity and vexation of the spirit" and "Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

[imhereforyou]

...if one doesn't leave the world a better place?

I really think this is a key moral consideration.

If one lives out one's life for one's own pleasure, and leaves the world in no better state than one found it, what would be, objectively, the manifested purpose of one's being?

On the other hand, if one achieves some tiny, marginal, incremental improvement on society, that others can build upon in their turn, one has served humanity, even if that service does not go recognised.

So, what otherwise would be the point of living, for all you erudite contributors to this forum?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Leaving the place a better place is a good thing, but not a requirement for me.
When I'm gone if it's a better place because of me great. If not I won't be loosing any sleep over it (literally).
And does there have to be a point to living? Can't someone just 'live'?

[2ndRateMind]

Leaving the place a better place is a good thing, but not a requirement for me.
When I'm gone if it's a better place because of me great. If not I won't be loosing any sleep over it (literally).
And does there have to be a point to living? Can't someone just 'live'?

No, there need not be a point to living, if your philosophy rules that out. You can squander your talents and resources, and spend your life in whatever aimless, pointless way appeals to you, as you choose. That's a freedom thing.

But most of us, believers and unbelievers alike, think that good is better than evil, and so bringing about a world in which there is more good than evil is a worthwhile thing to do. If not for ourselves, and our children, then impartially for our brethren humanity, whosoever and wheresoever they might be. The improvement in their well-being justifies our existence. And vice versa. The capacity to give to the world, as opposed to merely taking from it, is a liberty thing.

Else, and without the expression of that liberty, however free we are, we are truly insignificant.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[imhereforyou]

Leaving the place a better place is a good thing, but not a requirement for me.
When I'm gone if it's a better place because of me great. If not I won't be loosing any sleep over it (literally).
And does there have to be a point to living? Can't someone just 'live'?

No, there need not be a point to living, if your philosophy rules that out. You can squander your talents and resources, and spend your life in whatever aimless, pointless way appeals to you, as you choose. That's a freedom thing.

But most of us, believers and unbelievers alike, think that good is better than evil, and so bringing about a world in which there is more good than evil is a worthwhile thing to do. If not for ourselves, and our children, then impartially for our brethren humanity, whosoever and wheresoever they might be. The improvement in their well-being justifies our existence. And vice versa. The capacity to give to the world, as opposed to merely taking from it, is a liberty thing.

Else, and without the expression of that liberty, however free we are, we are truly insignificant.

Best wishes, 2RM.

So it seems that, if the above is true, any 'point' is important only to those who accept that 'point' as valid and worthwhile. Which is, as you point out, freedom.
If this is true, then the general question, as asked of everyone, of "is there a point to life" is, itself, pointless due to the simple fact that there is no universal point that can be agreed upon?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 25 by imhereforyou]

No, I do not think you can hold that life is pointless, just because you find it so. In other words, your subjective does not define the objective, any more than mine does.

Nevertheless, I think we would both agree that the good is 'a good thing', and the more of it we can bring about, the better for everyone. You can make this your life's mission, if you so choose, or not, if you so choose. I just advocate living for a greater cause than oneself because it releases one from the misery of selfishness, and makes for a happier life, and might even make other lives happier, too. And that's not necessarily a bad result.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 25 by imhereforyou]

Nevertheless, I think we would both agree that the good is 'a good thing', and the more of it we can bring about, the better for everyone. Best wishes, 2RM.

It would depend on what you consider to be good and who you include in your use of the word "everyone". In almost all situations, what is good for one group or species is bad for another group or species. Of course even this judgement would depend on how you define good and that definition is purely subjective depending on the view of the group or species making such a determination.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 25 by imhereforyou]

No, I do not think you can hold that life is pointless, just because you find it so. In other words, your subjective does not define the objective, any more than mine does.

Nevertheless, I think we would both agree that the good is 'a good thing', and the more of it we can bring about, the better for everyone. You can make this your life's mission, if you so choose, or not, if you so choose. I just advocate living for a greater cause than oneself because it releases one from the misery of selfishness, and makes for a happier life, and might even make other lives happier, too. And that's not necessarily a bad result.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, the term 'good' is rather ambiguous I've found when used around Christians. What they deem 'good' I may not and vice versa. Though the concept of 'good being better for others' is sound. We just would have to define 'good' I suppose.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 25 by imhereforyou]

Nevertheless, I think we would both agree that the good is 'a good thing', and the more of it we can bring about, the better for everyone. Best wishes, 2RM.

It would depend on what you consider to be good and who you include in your use of the word "everyone". In almost all situations, what is good for one group or species is bad for another group or species. Of course even this judgement would depend on how you define good and that definition is purely subjective depending on the view of the group or species making such a determination.

Hmmm. I guess I'm coming at the concept of good from an objective perspective. What is 'good' for humans, and bad for other species, is just not ultimately good. Similarly with what is good for this or that nation, social group, sex or gender, race, locality, family etc, if that 'goodness' is bought at the expense of evil distributed on others. Objective goodness implies universal goodness, or it cannot be 'the Good'. That may require a mature, selfless and impartial degree of compromise, and if so, then so be it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Wootah]

...if one doesn't leave the world a better place?

I really think this is a key moral consideration.

If one lives out one's life for one's own pleasure, and leaves the world in no better state than one found it, what would be, objectively, the manifested purpose of one's being?

On the other hand, if one achieves some tiny, marginal, incremental improvement on society, that others can build upon in their turn, one has served humanity, even if that service does not go recognised.

So, what otherwise would be the point of living, for all you erudite contributors to this forum?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Isn't it a bit arrogant to think we can leave the world in a better or worse place?