What constitutes a good life?

Scofflaw

A question which has much more clearly defined answers for theists, but no clearly defined answer for atheists - what constitutes a good life?

In evolutionary terms, presumably, it's simply a case of having as many living descendants as possible. In non-evolutionary terms - fame? wealth? self-actualisation? None of those things will live after you...


cordially,
Scofflaw

OK-Cancel-Apply

I suppose having a good life means being productive in some way. Like creating something, or making the world a little bit better somehow. Or helping to improve our understanding of universe.

Rev Hellfire

An interesting question, I would define it as been content with your lot.
That's not to suggest you should not strive to better yourself, but rather to not be a slave to your wants as opposed to your needs.
Something I feel is quite difficult in today's society.

Tzetze

To paraphrase Dan Dennett. The secret of happiness/meaning of life is... to 'find something more important than you are, and dedicate your life to it'. (Subordinate genetic interests to other interests).

IrishKnight

I think the only person who can answer that, is the person who is asking it. What goes for one person doesn't go for the other. Personally, what I think makes a good life is the following;

You get one life, don't waste it. Do all that you can, sign up for everything, volunteer, be there for your friends, and be happy with what you've got. The odds were against you coming into this world so you better make the most of it!

brianthebard

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

An interesting question, I would define it as been content with your lot.
That's not to suggest you should not strive to better yourself, but rather to not be a slave to your wants as opposed to your needs.
Something I feel is quite difficult in today's society.

thats quite taoist.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote: »

A question which has much more clearly defined answers for theists, but no clearly defined answer for atheists - what constitutes a good life?

A good life for atheists could be the same as that for theists - just without the ever present threats/promises of a god.

IrishKnight wrote: »

I think the only person who can answer that, is the person who is asking it. What goes for one person doesn't go for the other.

I'd agree with that.

Some people just want a big crowd at their funeral, others won't be happy until they've found a cure for cancer.

Scofflaw

Dades wrote: »

A good life for atheists could be the same as that for theists - just without the ever present threats/promises of a god.

I'm not sure that's actually the case. Would you be interested in being a good Christian? That is, not merely following the moral teachings, but also the religious teachings? Also, if, as a non-Christian, you decided to live a good Christian life, why? Why not a good Buddhist life instead?

Dades wrote: »

I'd agree with that.

Some people just want a big crowd at their funeral, others won't be happy until they've found a cure for cancer.

The former does seem particularly unrewarding for an atheist....

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure that's actually the case. Would you be interested in being a good Christian? That is, not merely following the moral teachings, but also the religious teachings?

You could do a lot worse than take the best bits from Christianity and strive to live your life according to them. In fact isn't that what most Christians do anyway? i.e. Ignore the unpalatable bits and attempt to apply the golden rule.

pH

From whose perspective?

A very immoral character may judge himself to have had a good life (in that his needs/wants/desired were very well sated) but others may judge it not to have been (in that his good life meant they suffered).

So to be clear are you asking what constitutes a good life as judged by the person living it or by those observing it?

5uspect

Hi Scofflaw.

Isn't this usually the point in the debate at which the atheist asks, "what if I live a good life, do I still go to hell..."

Of course for a theist a good life is one that not only encompasses altruism but also love of their god. They don't seem to separate the two.

I'd imagine most Atheists simply see a good life as one where they were happy and fulfilled by a combination of self betterment, achievement, kindness to family and loved ones and general altruism.

Of course achievement will include material gains and sometimes selfish actions that theists would probably consider wicked to some extent.

Personally I'm happy to try to understand as much as I can about the world while I exist. I hope to make sure everyone around me is happy while limiting my burden on others as much as possible.

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

From whose perspective?

A very immoral character may judge himself to have had a good life (in that his needs/wants/desired were very well sated) but others may judge it not to have been (in that his good life meant they suffered).

So to be clear are you asking what constitutes a good life as judged by the person living it or by those observing it?

Hmm. I was, first and foremost, interested in how people approached the question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote: »

In evolutionary terms, presumably, it's simply a case of having as many living descendants as possible. In non-evolutionary terms - fame? wealth? self-actualisation? None of those things will live after you...

As I see it, the first issue about what is a good life is whether the standard for good has to be something you sense in your life. As you say, I might find the cure for cancer just before I die and this might make me famous after my death. But is that any good to me? Arguably, if I expect that my discovery will make me famous in the future that will make me happy now. But even that requires me to be able to sense the benefit now – it’s the fact that I’m happy now, knowing future generations will venerate my brilliance.

Now, if we then say a good life must be something we can sense now, that might run the risk of us deciding to become utterly debauched. Why seek any greater good, when the best we can do is seek pleasant oblivion. Although, pushing it a little further, we might more likely hit upon that idea that a good life is a life with some kind of balance. We can envisage the stereotypical extremes. The workaholic who suddenly realises that he hasn’t had any fun, or a happy go lucky sort who suddenly worries that he never did anything worthwhile.

I suppose we find that idea in Aristotle and in Buddhism and probably in other places too. A good life is one that avoids extremes, but still involves both striving to achieve something of value balanced by shooting the breeze.

Unfortunately, I’ve a feeling that this balanced concept may only work when living in reasonably tranquil parts of the world where individuals actually have some choice about their lives. If it turns out that you are of the right age for military service just as the next great tyrant makes a bid to take over the planet, it’s a little hard to insist on your right to balance work with recreation.

Also, leading our good balanced lives while some long-term problem goes unattended will hardly get a chorus of approval from whomever inherits the problem. I take it we recognise that sometimes we need a few thoroughly unbalanced fanatics to take over the GPO and shake people out of their balance. Hence, we might end up admitting that someone who lead an unbalanced life still lead a good life – unless we want to draw a distinction between a good life and a significant life. (which is not to say a significant life cannot be good or vice versa, just that the two are not necessarily the same.)

So, after all that, I think what I’m really saying is I’ve no idea what a good life is, but I think this is a good question - which hopefully means I’m getting some grip on what ‘good’ means.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote: »

As I see it, the first issue about what is a good life is whether the standard for good has to be something you sense in your life. As you say, I might find the cure for cancer just before I die and this might make me famous after my death. But is that any good to me? Arguably, if I expect that my discovery will make me famous in the future that will make me happy now. But even that requires me to be able to sense the benefit now – it’s the fact that I’m happy now, knowing future generations will venerate my brilliance.

Now, if we then say a good life must be something we can sense now, that might run the risk of us deciding to become utterly debauched. Why seek any greater good, when the best we can do is seek pleasant oblivion. Although, pushing it a little further, we might more likely hit upon that idea that a good life is a life with some kind of balance. We can envisage the stereotypical extremes. The workaholic who suddenly realises that he hasn’t had any fun, or a happy go lucky sort who suddenly worries that he never did anything worthwhile.

I think here we run up against the Epicureans, who argued that the problem with debauching ourselves is that it quite quickly leads through satiation to repugnance - that excess destroys both our pleasure in the excess, and our capacity for pleasure.

Schuhart wrote: »

I suppose we find that idea in Aristotle and in Buddhism and probably in other places too. A good life is one that avoids extremes, but still involves both striving to achieve something of value balanced by shooting the breeze.

Unfortunately, I’ve a feeling that this balanced concept may only work when living in reasonably tranquil parts of the world where individuals actually have some choice about their lives. If it turns out that you are of the right age for military service just as the next great tyrant makes a bid to take over the planet, it’s a little hard to insist on your right to balance work with recreation.

I'm not sure that's the case - after all, many of the classic answers to the question originate with the Greeks and Romans, cultures with plenty of time for war - both Socrates and Epicurus fought in the ranks as hoplites.

I suspect many of them would argue that in the absence of war, it is difficult to truly put one's philosophy to the test.

Schuhart wrote: »

Also, leading our good balanced lives while some long-term problem goes unattended will hardly get a chorus of approval from whomever inherits the problem. I take it we recognise that sometimes we need a few thoroughly unbalanced fanatics to take over the GPO and shake people out of their balance. Hence, we might end up admitting that someone who lead an unbalanced life still lead a good life – unless we want to draw a distinction between a good life and a significant life. (which is not to say a significant life cannot be good or vice versa, just that the two are not necessarily the same.)

So, after all that, I think what I’m really saying is I’ve no idea what a good life is, but I think this is a good question - which hopefully means I’m getting some grip on what ‘good’ means.

Personally, I like elements of both Epicureanism and Stoicism - the former for its treatment of pleasure, the latter for its treatment of fortune.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Nothing beyond a term we use to describe a vaguely positive feeling we have towards a life.

A word that describes a feeling, nothing more. What causes those feelings can range from raising cows to murdering infidels. Claiming otherwise simply reveals a slight lack of objectivity.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Acid.

Goduznt Xzst

What constitutes a good life? A life free to choose what makes your life good.

Freedom to choose your path in life is something so many people that have it take for granted, yet the fact alone that you are free, have money in the bank, somewhere to live, an education, available fresh water and food in your belly makes you better off than 94% of the human population on this planet.

A good life for me is waking up every morning and appreciating how easy my life is and the chain of evolutionary and historical events that had to take place for me to even take my first breath.

Tar.Aldarion

A good life is one that you enjoy, it doesn't matter what that is, being chivalrous, greedy, murderous or whatever, as long as it is what you want. For me it could have been world domination, but by then I would eb about 40(pessimistic forecast) and life would be practically over by then, why would you get something that serves no purpose?
For me it has to be just living true to yourself, having a good gal and some good cookies.

Malari

I like this quote from Bertrand Russell...seems to sum things up pretty well:

The main things which seem to me important on their own account, and not merely as means to other things, are knowledge, art, instinctive happiness, and relations of friendship or affection.

aidan24326

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

A good life is one that you enjoy, it doesn't matter what that is, being chivalrous, greedy, murderous or whatever, as long as it is what you want

Enjoying your life is a good start for sure, but what if your enjoyment is being gained at the expense of harming others?

Do we mean a good life purely just for me and my personal amusement and regardless of anyone else's feelings, or are we talking about a 'good' life in a moral sense?

Goduznt Xzst

aidan24326 wrote: »

Enjoying your life is a good start for sure, but what if your enjoyment is being gained at the expense of harming others?

Do we mean a good life purely just for me and my personal amusement and regardless of anyone else's feelings, or are we talking about a 'good' life in a moral sense?

I'm sure if you look hard enough, all of us, in some way, are harming other humans by the way we live our lives. In fact you'd probably be amazed how much mistreatment of humans you support just by your day to day life.

aidan24326

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'm sure if you look hard enough, all of us, in some way, are harming other humans by the way we live our lives. In fact you'd probably be amazed how much mistreatment of humans you support just by your day to day life.

I'm aware of that, although at this stage there's not an awful lot we can do about it short of heading for the hills and abandoning modern society altogether.

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote: »

I'm aware of that, although at this stage there's not an awful lot we can do about it short of heading for the hills and abandoning modern society altogether.

Thereby condemning future generations unasked to disease, starvation, predation, etc etc...which does seem a little harsh. No, I think the cure would be worse than the disease.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Zillah wrote: »

Nothing beyond a term we use to describe a vaguely positive feeling we have towards a life.
A word that describes a feeling, nothing more. What causes those feelings can range from raising cows to murdering infidels. Claiming otherwise simply reveals a slight lack of objectivity.

That’s certainly the starting point for any discussion of what’s a good life from an atheist perspective, and it could be the end point. Any philosophising that we might go on with in between may simply be another vagary like raising cows and killing infidels.

But I suppose what we’re asking is that question. In a context where a ‘good life’ has to be something that an individual senses now, is there anything more to it than optimising sensory pleasure? Does that mean that an atheist in doubt about how to achieve a ‘good life’ (the question being meaningless in the absence of such a doubt) should simply read a lot of Hunter S Thompson? The alternative suggested is that the best way of optimising sensory pleasure may actually be to avoid excess. Hence, our rudderless atheist might be invited to raise a few cows and kill a few infidels, but not to do either to the exclusion of all else.

However, all that still seems to assume a level of personal control over our lives which may not always be present. So the question could even roll on into ‘how do I go about leading a good life when circumstances are hostile’.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure that's the case - after all, many of the classic answers to the question originate with the Greeks and Romans, cultures with plenty of time for war - both Socrates and Epicurus fought in the ranks as hoplites.

I suspect many of them would argue that in the absence of war, it is difficult to truly put one's philosophy to the test.

But do we need to distinguish between the ‘a couple of years in the army will stiffen them up’ idea and being caught up in a calamity?

Also, what is it about warfare that will teach people what they truly believe? Could the opposite not also be said – it’s only in tranquil times that you’ll see what people really want, once necessity has been taken out of the picture.

I know we might say that it’s easy to assert (say) that a principle of a good life is to respect the equal rights of others. I may find, in practice, that if I’m in an extreme situation I’m actually quite happy to keep my head down and see any amount of people doomed so long as I escape. However, does that necessarily mean this is a principle of a good life? I might spend the rest of my life miserable from the discovery of my true nature. Indeed, isn’t survivor’s guilt something that is a recognised phenomenon? Hence, that action would actually not be consistent with optimising sensory pleasure.

If a concept of a good life has any meaning, it would strike me as being a principle that we feel should make us behave differently once we are aware of it. Otherwise, as Zillah might maintain, it’s simply a redundant phrase.

Scofflaw wrote: »

aidan24326 wrote: »

I'm aware of that, although at this stage there's not an awful lot we can do about it short of heading for the hills and abandoning modern society altogether.

Thereby condemning future generations unasked to disease, starvation, predation, etc etc...which does seem a little harsh. No, I think the cure would be worse than the disease.

But have we actually figured out what is at stake here? Are we really harming people now because we’ve made a moral choice that this is an acceptable price for future generations and/or present costs of doing things differently are prohibitive?

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Otherwise, as Zillah might maintain, it’s simply a redundant phrase.

I'll have a think about the rest of the post, but Zillah is our resident equivalent of the Muskrat from the Moomintroll books.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote: »

Zillah is our resident equivalent of the Muskrat from the Moomintroll books.

I'm sure Zillah will agree that all God's children have a place in the choir.

Flamed Diving

Scofflaw wrote: »

fame

Really? What about Hendrix, Monroe, Hitler, et al? These people are very much alive in human memory.

Zillah

I'm sure Zillah does not read Swedish children's stories.

AtomicHorror

Scofflaw wrote: »

A question which has much more clearly defined answers for theists, but no clearly defined answer for atheists - what constitutes a good life?

Playstation 3.

stevejazzx

What constitutes a good life?

I think people have an obligation for slef improvement....and this in my opinion leads to fullfillment and content. Personally I like to try to achieve something, learn something or just do something (like travel for example). A good life has to be earned, I don't think you can just 'have it' and by earned I mean a constant leaning towards improving ones knowledge, health and peace with those around us.

.............oh and lambs shanks followed by berry crumble with custard

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'll have a think about the rest of the post, but Zillah is our resident equivalent of the Muskrat from the Moomintroll books.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw, we missed you while you were away fighting on the Lisbon Crusade. Who else would bring the Moomins into a theological debate?

Any other similar analogies? I've always thought Robin was a bit like the Groke. He slides into the Christianity forum spreading fear and leaving an icy trail behind him - but deep down he just wants to be loved (OK, I know the Groke was female, but that's a minor detail).