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.

[Bust Nak]

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?

None. Since there is no such thing as objective purpose in the first place.

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.

There is no other hand: Even if one achieves some monumental improvement on society, serving humanity greatly, remembered long after his death, there would still be objectively zero manifested purpose of one's being.

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

You make your own subjective purpose for living. It can be what ever you want, including living out one's life for one's own pleasure, and leaves the world in a worse state.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by Bust Nak]

If you leave the world a better, or, for that matter, a worse, place, you have had an objective effect on it. Consider those who campaigned against slavery; or those who campaigned to maintain it. Whether your subjective opinion is that this is an improvement on, or degradation of, society, there is no doubt that the abolition of this social institution was an objective, purposeful result.

There seems to me to be no harm, and possibly some good, to be had from encouraging each other to live lives with the purpose of leaving the world in an objectively better state than it was when one entered it.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 3 by 2ndRateMind]

Objective effect is not the same thing as an objective purpose. Freeing slave was a subjective purpose, freed slave is an objective effect.

There is no objectively better world either. Take your slavery example, it was subjectively better for those against slavery, and subjectively worse for those whose for slavery.

Do not equate popular subjectivity with objectivity.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 4 by Bust Nak]

So, my tendency is to the view that if one has a purpose that will have an objective effect on the world, however subjective the opinion from which that purpose might be derived, then one has an objective purpose. The ontologies of purposes are subtle, but nevertheless real.

There is no objectively better world either.

With all due respect, this is just rubbish. Had you the opportunity to live in the dark ages, or in pre-history, and compare them with now, I think you would realise what rubbish it is.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 5 by 2ndRateMind]

I use screw drivers to open cans of paint, therefore one objective purpose of screw drivers is can opening? I use bricks as a door stop, therefore one objective purpose of bricks is door stopping? If so then there are as many objective purposes for an item as there are people thinking up ways to use them, what then is the difference between subjective and objective?

With all due respect, this is just rubbish. Had you the opportunity to live in the dark ages, or in pre-history, and compare them with now, I think you would realise what rubbish it is.

What made you think I would say otherwise, had I the opportunity to live in the dark ages and compare them with the present? Of course things are better now, I would not deny that. The point is, it is subjectively better.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 5 by 2ndRateMind]

... what then is the difference between subjective and objective?

The difference is quite simple.

What I think is good is subjective.
What you think is good is subjective.
What really is good is objective.

The fact that we may agree or differ over what we think is good makes no difference to what really is good. Mankind's ethical mission, should we choose to accept it, is to disentangle what we think to be good from what really isn't good, and so arrive at a determination of what really is good.

I think this mission may take some time, maybe generations, maybe centuries, maybe millennia, maybe eons. But that is no reason to despair, and claim real, objective goodness to be an illusion or just another opinion or an irrelevancy or completely non-existent.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

There is no objectively better world either.

With all due respect, this is just rubbish. Had you the opportunity to live in the dark ages, or in pre-history, and compare them with now, I think you would realise what rubbish it is.

What made you think I would say otherwise, had I the opportunity to live in the dark ages and compare them with the present? Of course things are better now, I would not deny that. The point is, it is subjectively better.

OK, let's just take one metric; life expectancy at birth:

Prehistory: 25.0 years
Dark ages: 31.3 years
Today (in America): 78.7 years

Life expectancy is pretty objective raw statistic, and I think few would argue that lower is better. Where there is pretty much unanimous consensus, I think it likely the prevailing point of view is converging on a real, objective fact about the world, even if that fact be a moral one.

Or do you think it merely subjective opinion that it is generally better to die aged 78 than aged 25? And that whether this difference is progress or regress is merely more subjective opinion?

Best wishes, 2RM

[Bust Nak]

The difference is quite simple.

What I think is good is subjective.
What you think is good is subjective.
What really is good is objective.

That's a solid distinction. What really is the purpose of a screw driver? To drive screws you may say, how do you that is really its purpose, as opposed to what you and I think is its purpose? How can you tell what really is good, as opposed to what you think is good?

The fact that we may agree or differ over what we think is good makes no difference to what really is good. Mankind's ethical mission, should we choose to accept it, is to disentangle what we think to be good from what really isn't good, and so arrive at a determination of what really is good.

What if there is no such thing as what really is good? Where everything that are considered good, is what someone thinks is good?

I think this mission may take some time, maybe generations, maybe centuries, maybe millennia, maybe eons. But that is no reason to despair, and claim real, objective goodness to be an illusion or just another opinion or an irrelevancy or completely non-existent.

I am not saying objective goodness is non-existent because the mission will take time. I am saying objective goodness is non-existent because it's a self contradictory concept.

Life expectancy is pretty objective raw statistic, and I think few would argue that lower is better. Where there is pretty much unanimous consensus, I think it likely the prevailing point of view is converging on a real, objective fact about the world, even if that fact be a moral one.

Or do you think it merely subjective opinion that it is generally better to die aged 78 than aged 25?

Exactly. People objectively lived to an older age, and that is subjectively better.

[2ndRateMind]

The difference is quite simple.

What I think is good is subjective.
What you think is good is subjective.
What really is good is objective.

That's a solid distinction. What really is the purpose of a screw driver? To drive screws you may say, how do you that is really its purpose, as opposed to what you and I think is its purpose? How can you tell what really is good, as opposed to what you think is good?

Uh huh. How can we tell what really is good? We need two things; to listen considerately to all sides of the great, democratic debate, because everyone brings their own particular wisdom and experience to it, and to love goodness. And even combined, these things will not determine goodness for us, but they will at least leave us open to appreciating it.

The fact that we may agree or differ over what we think is good makes no difference to what really is good. Mankind's ethical mission, should we choose to accept it, is to disentangle what we think to be good from what really isn't good, and so arrive at a determination of what really is good.

What if there is no such thing as what really is good? Where everything that are considered good, is what someone thinks is good?

I'd turn this around. The fact that someone thinks something is good, does not mean that it is not objectively good. The fact that we both understand what we mean by good, even as qualified by the adjectives subjective and objective, suggests that these are terms with purchase and traction on reality.

I think this mission may take some time, maybe generations, maybe centuries, maybe millennia, maybe eons. But that is no reason to despair, and claim real, objective goodness to be an illusion or just another opinion or an irrelevancy or completely non-existent.

I am not saying objective goodness is non-existent because the mission will take time. I am saying objective goodness is non-existent because it's a self contradictory concept.

You have not demonstrated this, yet, or even provided any reasons why it might be so.

Life expectancy is pretty objective raw statistic, and I think few would argue that lower is better. Where there is pretty much unanimous consensus, I think it likely the prevailing point of view is converging on a real, objective fact about the world, even if that fact be a moral one.

Or do you think it merely subjective opinion that it is generally better to die aged 78 than aged 25?

Exactly. People objectively lived to an older age, and that is subjectively better.

See my edit.

Best wishes, 2RM.