What constitutes a good life?

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote: »

indeed, the only person who can really describe a theist as wasting their life is another theist.

I think that's a 'its so obvious now you say it, why didn't I think of it' point.

It occurs that it also ties in reasonably well both with the sort of iterative path to faith that PDN set out so clearly a while back. A person experiences their faith, says 'that actually works for me', and so confidence grows that they're making the right choice. If they come from a reasonably healthy family with a tradition in the faith, they'll even have that confirmation of 'well, it worked well enough for mom and pop'.

And, if its working for them, from our perspective they're doing the right thing. Or at least not doing the wrong thing. They're doing a thing. Whatever.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Scofflaw wrote: »

Exactly - I am, unsurprisingly, working from the premise that there is no such thing as an objectively 'good' life. The theist cannot therefore be described as "wasting" their life, as long as they judge themselves to be leading a good life (in which they are supported by other theists) - indeed, the only person who can really describe a theist as wasting their life is another theist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Could it not be objectively said (i.e. using reason, as opposed to our emotions or personal preferences) that a generally good life would be one in which a person makes an effort to produce more than they consume?

EDIT: Though technically, I suppose it could be said that we can only produce something equal to what we consume.

AtomicHorror

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Could it not be objectively said (i.e. using reason, as opposed to our emotions or personal preferences) that a generally good life would be one in which a person makes an effort to produce more than they consume?

How does not using emotions or personal preference make a judgement objective? It's just a logical subjective view. In a purely logical sense, there is nothing that makes "production" good.

Dades

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Could it not be objectively said (i.e. using reason, as opposed to our emotions or personal preferences) that a generally good life would be one in which a person makes an effort to produce more than they consume?

That might indeed pass as a good life - but I think the important point is, that for atheists, there is no one definition of a good life. So it could be that, or it could be simply to clothe and feed your kids until they fend for themselves.

OK-Cancel-Apply

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How does not using emotions or personal preference make a judgement objective? It's just a logical subjective view. In a purely logical sense, there is nothing that makes "production" good.

Dictionary.com wrote:

Objective:

–adjective

5.not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

If we give 2 very different people of equal intelligence a logical problem to solve, would they not come to the same solution? Or what about an alien from another world (of equal intelligence to the aforementioned people) - would he not come up with the same solution? Surely if they were thinking about it without the subjectivity of their personal preferences and emotions, they would.

As for production being 'good'. Well, if we take 'destruction' to its logical conclusion, it would mean the end of the universe. Production (or construction) is the opposite of destruction, so must not that be good?

pH

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Could it not be objectively said (i.e. using reason, as opposed to our emotions or personal preferences) that a generally good life would be one in which a person makes an effort to produce more than they consume?

So if I have 4 children and only eat 2, all other things being equal, I've lived a good life?

Scofflaw

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Could it not be objectively said (i.e. using reason, as opposed to our emotions or personal preferences) that a generally good life would be one in which a person makes an effort to produce more than they consume?

EDIT: Though technically, I suppose it could be said that we can only produce something equal to what we consume.

In its widest sense, entropy means that we can never produce more than we consume, and the poor levels of efficiency we can generally obtain mean that we must always consume much more than we produce - indeed, the more one strives to produce or create, the more havoc one wreaks.

Having said that, the energy for everything we do is taken from the sun in the first place, and it's not as if its doing anything else.

cordially,
Scofflaw

OK-Cancel-Apply

pH wrote: »

So if I have 4 children and only eat 2, all other things being equal, I've lived a good life?

That's the idea! :pac: LOLOL

all the stars

pH wrote: »

So if I have 4 children and only eat 2, all other things being equal, I've lived a good life?

:pac: ha ha :pac:
this makes "funny of the day"

AtomicHorror

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

If we give 2 very different people of equal intelligence a logical problem to solve, would they not come to the same solution? Or what about an alien from another world (of equal intelligence to the aforementioned people) - would he not come up with the same solution? Surely if they were thinking about it without the subjectivity of their personal preferences and emotions, they would.

If the question is one of the moral value of an event, then probably not. Your definition of "objective" is not really what I mean in the context of subjective and objective values. I mean that there is no absolute good or bad, just many subjective valuations that may be based on emotion and/or cold logic.

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

As for production being 'good'. Well, if we take 'destruction' to its logical conclusion, it would mean the end of the universe. Production (or construction) is the opposite of destruction, so must not that be good?

Production destroys too. Arguably as efficiently if not more so than randomised destruction or decay without intervention. I would speculate that life itself is an agent of entropy. One that works in systems where less energy is available than say in a star. If we take entropy as some sort of measure of "good" then really it seems as if the universe would like to end as quickly as possible. Every action we take, produce or destroy, is essentially a struggle in the quicksand.

AtomicHorror

pH wrote: »

So if I have 4 children and only eat 2, all other things being equal, I've lived a good life?

No you need to keep 3. It takes two people to make a person so to make a personprofit you need three surviving kids. Eat the runt.

OK-Cancel-Apply

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If the question is one of the moral value of an event, then probably not. Your definition of "objective" is not really what I mean in the context of subjective and objective values. I mean that there is no absolute good or bad, just many subjective valuations that may be based on emotion and/or cold logic.



Production destroys too. Arguably as efficiently if not more so than randomised destruction or decay without intervention. I would speculate that life itself is an agent of entropy. One that works in systems where less energy is available than say in a star. If we take entropy as some sort of measure of "good" then really it seems as if the universe would like to end as quickly as possible. Every action we take, produce or destroy, is essentially a struggle in the quicksand.

True, there's no true objective morality, but surely we can strive to come up with the most objective positions we can, especially when considering the question of what constitutes a 'good' human life. That means putting aside our personal preferences and emotions. IMO, either we do that, or we just concede that nothing we do ultimately makes any difference, and we allow our definitions of 'good' to slip into 'whatever makes you happy or turns you on', and that just won't work for us.

Perhaps we can define being 'productive' as creating in equal value to what we consume. How do we define value? Something that is somehow useful to other people on the planet, and does not cause suffering.

I suppose all of our objectivity exists within the bubble of our human world, and can never be truly objective in the broadest sense, but as I said before, it's something we should work at. Perhaps the furthest our quest for objectivity can take us will be a global consensus on certain concepts (e.g. Suffering in general is not a 'good' thing, and should be avoided).

Schuhart

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Perhaps we can define being 'productive' as creating in equal value to what we consume. How do we define value? Something that is somehow useful to other people on the planet, and does not cause suffering.

Applying that principle would require a major restructuring of global society. Maybe that's what we should be aiming for - I just think we should be clear that this is what's required.

At present, as Jack Nicholson memorably gets to say in "A Few Good Men", we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Schuhart wrote: »

Applying that principle would require a major restructuring of global society. Maybe that's what we should be aiming for - I just think we should be clear that this is what's required.

At present, as Jack Nicholson memorably gets to say in "A Few Good Men", we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns.

Yeah I know what you mean. It's been many years since I've seen the film, but if I remember correctly, he was making the point about necessary evil, and how some people are monsters so others don't have to be. Kinda feel like I'm on the Dark Knight thread at the mo! lol

There are crazy people in the world who would run riot without law, or the deterrent of a consequence. Weapons are unfortunately a part of society, and probably will be forever.

Scofflaw

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Yeah I know what you mean. It's been many years since I've seen the film, but if I remember correctly, he was making the point about necessary evil, and how some people are monsters so others don't have to be. Kinda feel like I'm on the Dark Knight thread at the mo! lol

There are crazy people in the world who would run riot without law, or the deterrent of a consequence. Weapons are unfortunately a of society, and probably will be forever.

On the other hand, it is not necessary for the men with guns to behave in ways that are more monstrous than necessary - indeed, it is necessary that the men with guns be more strictly judged than the rest of society. It is also possible to see that film as part of a process of justification that led to Abu Ghraib, and an acceptance of torture as a routine part of intelligence-gathering.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the other hand, it is not necessary for the men with guns to behave in ways that are more monstrous than necessary - indeed, it is necessary that the men with guns be more strictly judged than the rest of society. It is also possible to see that film as part of a process of justification that led to Abu Ghraib, and an acceptance of torture as a routine part of intelligence-gathering.

Except, as I recall it, the film chickens out and Nicholson's character is not vindicated. Now, memories can be faulty. But I recall that being my impression at the time.

Apocalyse Now, on the other hand, does try to confront that question of what is moral. There is a strong contempt in the tale of any attempt to cast a veil over what is happening. For whatever reason, the line that stays with me out of that film is Colonel Kurtz, overwhelmed by the responsibility he has tried to exercise but also supremely aware of his wrongs, saying to the man he knows has been sent to assassinate him "you have the right to kill me, but you have no right to judge me". I think there's a thought buried in the illogic of that statement that captures the idea of a moral sense that belongs to the species, and no individual, but is so hard to define.

I find it present in the way that (personally) I find morality quite impossible to define and justify. I can think of no reason that would allow us to objectively choose between a totalitarian society being morally better or worse than a democratic one - just to pick an example at random. At the same time, I find that absence of a reason unsatisfactory - and I feel that dissatisfaction must be what a moral sense is, or at least the start of a moral sense.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote: »

Except, as I recall it, the film chickens out and Nicholson's character is not vindicated. Now, memories can be faulty. But I recall that being my impression at the time.

You're probably right - but what I am considering is only the bit that escaped into popular culture. Come to that, it's possible 48 Hours (if that is what it is) is slightly more nuanced in its treatment of torture than the simple idea that torture is necessary but useful - whereas all the evidence points to it rarely being either. Still, we're talking about a nation that believes in the polygraph.

Schuhart wrote: »

Apocalyse Now, on the other hand, does try to confront that question of what is moral. There is a strong contempt in the tale of any attempt to cast a veil over what is happening. For whatever reason, the line that stays with me out of that film is Colonel Kurtz, overwhelmed by the responsibility he has tried to exercise but also supremely aware of his wrongs, saying to the man he knows has been sent to assassinate him "you have the right to kill me, but you have no right to judge me". I think there's a thought buried in the illogic of that statement that captures the idea of a moral sense that belongs to the species, and no individual, but is so hard to define.

I find it present in the way that (personally) I find morality quite impossible to define and justify. I can think of no reason that would allow us to objectively choose between a totalitarian society being morally better or worse than a democratic one - just to pick an example at random. At the same time, I find that absence of a reason unsatisfactory - and I feel that dissatisfaction must be what a moral sense is, or at least the start of a moral sense.

It is pretty unlikely you lack a moral sense, since only a very small proportion of the population do - indeed, most animals appear to also. However, the problem that is that, as so often, it means taking what is observed, and suggesting it should be normative. We can do it, but it contains the hidden assumption of utilitarianism.

Nor, of course, does it answer the question - is a moral life a good life?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote: »

It is pretty unlikely you lack a moral sense, since only a very small proportion of the population do - indeed, most animals appear to also.

Indeed, and you'll understand that I'm not kidnapping babies to eat. I simply find that I cannot construct a sound verbal case for morality.

It seems to me that it always has to start with an arbitrary principle and that arbitrary principle could be that the supreme good is to maximise the opportunities for eating babies.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nor, of course, does it answer the question - is a moral life a good life?

Indeed, and I think that question is cloaked a little by a matter of definition. As in, maybe a good life involves allowing yourself to be a little immoral on occasion.

Possibly, we might envisage the 'good' life as meaning a healthy life for an individual. That would mean it would chiefly be about the things that make an individual feel satisfied - which probably includes the individual feeling he is basically a moral person.

The moral life, on the other hand, could be more concerned with obligations to others.