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]

...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?

You may need to explain. Why would that be arrogant? To leave the world better than one found it seems to me to be an entirely worthy, honourable ambition. It might not be for all of us to end slavery, invent a non-polluting power source, or save an entire species from extinction, but even if we only contribute in minor ways to such progress, or to other, lesser objectives, then we have done our bit. And our utmost best is all anyone can expect of us, and it's expression is not arrogance, but service to humanity.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

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.

I'm not convinced that there is an objective perspective as to what is good. For instance, if "What is 'good' for humans, and bad for other species, is just not ultimately good.", I'd have to wonder what humans would eat unless you consider the death of some species individuals as a good thing for that individual.

You simply can't get away from the fact that the evaluation of what is 'the good' is totally dependent of the view of the species/group/individual making that determination.

If we are lucky, we provide a better life for those we have determined to be more important than others. To do so inevitable leads to a poorer life for the others. If we lived in an utopian world of limitless resources in which the use of the resources harmed no others, it would be a different story. We don't live in such a world.

[2ndRateMind]

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.

I'm not convinced that there is an objective perspective as to what is good. For instance, if "What is 'good' for humans, and bad for other species, is just not ultimately good.", I'd have to wonder what humans would eat unless you consider the death of some species individuals as a good thing for that individual.

In defence of us omnivores, since the invention of agriculture, we are generally not talking the eradication of the species we eat. Generally, our farmed animals and plants do pretty well in terms of population when we decide to eat them. Consider pigs, cows, and chickens, the overwhelming majority of whom would have never have been alive at all without the human appetite for flesh. The problem tends to arise when we allocate them grazing/foraging/growing space that diminishes the habitats of other species we do not eat, but still bear the heritage of billions of years of genetic evolution, and which animals are still sentient and capable of suffering, and therefore still deserve our respect, compassion and wise stewardship.

You simply can't get away from the fact that the evaluation of what is 'the good' is totally dependent of the view of the species/group/individual making that determination.

Indeed not. But I would contend that the deliberations of many subjectives, and the persistence of ideas in the competitive environment of 'the great democratic debate' means that the best of them tend to thrive and that over the longer term they do converge on the objective.

If we are lucky, we provide a better life for those we have determined to be more important than others. To do so inevitable leads to a poorer life for the others. If we lived in an utopian world of limitless resources in which the use of the resources harmed no others, it would be a different story. We don't live in such a world.

Quite so. We are forced by the nature of a life that fires moral dilemmas at us in rapid succession at point-blank range to make ethical compromises. That is no reason why, however, we should not seek to do our best for everything and everyone, to the best of our capacity and ability. And no reason to think, either, that our best is not objectively better than our most selfish worst.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[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.

your subjective does not define the objective, any more than mine does.

Seems it would for me. That's all that matters - to me.

it releases one from the misery of selfishness

Then you must be doing it wrong as selfishness isn't misery

Some selfishness is good - Christianity is based on selfishness: 'I do this I get to heaven' it's not 'I do this YOU get to heaven' or 'YOU do this I get to heaven'. And that's Christianity's ultimate goal - for the individual to get to heaven to experience God. Even God is said (or it's taught God says) God wants you to worship him. If it wasn't for his benefit it wouldn't be so closely related to how the individual worships God.
Of course, like most everything, there's a limit when selfishness can become detrimental to the individual. A healthy balance!

and makes for a happier life, and might even make other lives happier, too. And that's not necessarily a bad result.

Yes. And so does selfishness.

[2ndRateMind]

Our philosophies of life are so radically different I scarcely know where to begin.

...Christianity is based on selfishness: 'I do this I get to heaven' it's not 'I do this YOU get to heaven' or 'YOU do this I get to heaven'. And that's Christianity's ultimate goal - for the individual to get to heaven to experience God...

But let us tackle this, first. My understanding is that Christianity, far from being based on selfishness, is based on love. Jesus wasn't crucified because He was selfish; had He been selfish, He would not have died as and when He did, and the history of the world would have been vastly altered, and not for the better. He sacrificed His life for us because He loves us, and that is the way to know God, because, as John assures us*, 'He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love'. And love is inimical to selfishness, and the greater the love, the less the selfishness, and total love is total unselfishness.

One only knows, of course, that selfishness is miserable when one can compare it to that state of total love, which is ecstasy, equal parts pain and joy. And then, and only then, one can grasp the difference between the way of life we choose for ourselves because we are selfish, and the soaring, soul-filling way of life God chose for Himself, and wants us to share with Him, which is complete and utter love.

As for getting into Heaven by doing this or that; that is how we keep children in line. Adults should have a deeper understanding, that salvation is not a matter of works, or even right belief, but of a certain, loving, way of being from which works and beliefs flow automatically. When you are ready to give up your very life because you love humanity, and God's world, and want to save them, then you will understand Jesus, and Christianity, and how miserable selfishness is.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*1 John 4:8 KJV

[imhereforyou]

Our philosophies of life are so radically different I scarcely know where to begin.

...Christianity is based on selfishness: 'I do this I get to heaven' it's not 'I do this YOU get to heaven' or 'YOU do this I get to heaven'. And that's Christianity's ultimate goal - for the individual to get to heaven to experience God...

But let us tackle this, first. My understanding is that Christianity, far from being based on selfishness, is based on love. Jesus wasn't crucified because He was selfish; had He been selfish, He would not have died as and when He did, and the history of the world would have been vastly altered, and not for the better. He sacrificed His life for us because He loves us, and that is the way to know God, because, as John assures us*, 'He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love'. And love is inimical to selfishness, and the greater the love, the less the selfishness, and total love is total unselfishness.

One only knows, of course, that selfishness is miserable when one can compare it to that state of total love, which is ecstasy, equal parts pain and joy. And then, and only then, one can grasp the difference between the way of life we choose for ourselves because we are selfish, and the soaring, soul-filling way of life God chose for Himself, and wants us to share with Him, which is complete and utter love.

As for getting into Heaven by doing this or that; that is how we keep children in line. Adults should have a deeper understanding, that salvation is not a matter of works, or even right belief, but of a certain, loving, way of being from which works and beliefs flow automatically. When you are ready to give up your very life because you love humanity, and God's world, and want to save them, then you will understand Jesus, and Christianity, and how miserable selfishness is.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*1 John 4:8 KJV

My understanding is that Christianity, far from being based on selfishness, is based on love

That's what they say. But ultimately, it's based on what the individual gets out of it - anything else positive for others is collateral.
I do THIS and I get into heaven. YOU do this and that doesn't impact MY heaven.
And, ultimately, getting to heaven is what all Christians' intent is. Everything else is just 'icing on the cake'.

Jesus wasn't crucified because He was selfish; had He been selfish, He would not have died as and when He did, and the history of the world would have been vastly altered, and not for the better.

Don't misunderstand, there are acts that aren't selfish in Christianity. But ultimately, it's about the individual. Even on God's level, it's taught that God wants us in heaven to benefit him more than us (you can't be a jealous god if you're not selfish).

About keeping children in line...of course a parent wants this for their children. But parents don't know everything and aren't capable of doing everything like God is said to be able to do. Therefore it's not an apple to apples comparison and a legitimate conclusion can't be drawn between the two.
Plus parents don't typically let their children die if they can prevent it.
At least not the ones I know. I'm sure there are outliers out there....back east.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the 'selfishness is terrible' mindset. In moderation, it's quite fine and enjoyable.
Of course things can be taken too far, which is what people tend to do. But that's something for the individual to decide on, for that individual, not the masses.
Unless, of course, there's no free will. At which point the entire concept of life changes.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 36 by imhereforyou]

Hmmm. It appears that now is not the right time for you to take on board what I have written. Never mind; perhaps eventually you will grasp what I am getting at. Meanwhile, let me leave you with this thought; that profound happiness and high heaven are both elusive when pursued directly as the objective, but best achieved as the by-product of selfless ways of being, knowing and doing. And that the surest way to selflessness is to love, and to love widely and deeply. And when one does so love, the outcome for oneself seems altogether irrelevant.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 36 by imhereforyou]

Hmmm. It appears that now is not the right time for you to take on board what I have written. Never mind; perhaps eventually you will grasp what I am getting at. Meanwhile, let me leave you with this thought; that profound happiness and high heaven are both elusive when pursued directly as the objective, but best achieved as the by-product of selfless ways of being, knowing and doing. And that the surest way to selflessness is to love, and to love widely and deeply. And when one does so love, the outcome for oneself seems altogether irrelevant.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I get what you're saying, just don't agree with it totally.
Profound happiness elusive in any manner? Nope can't agree with that either.
Heaven on the other hand, depending on the person you're talking with, may or may not be. Even Christians can't all agree on how to get there and who gets there.
But your last sentence is something I can get behind
Well said