How to Live Well
How do you behave when you know the conventional honours are dross? When you have come to believe with Marcus Aurelius that the opinion of future generations will be worth no more than the opinion of the current one? Is it possible to behave well then? Desirable to behave well then?Thomas Harris, Hannibal, page 164
This is a variation on my long-pondered theme that if there is no ultimate source for ethics (most likely from g0d; there don't seem to be any other options) then there is no real right and wrong, and selfishness is the only rational ethic. I will write more on this one of these days, as so many people are under the illusion - from an unacknowledged theistic past - that people have real value and should be treated well. If we live in a naturalistic 'verse, people have no more value than mud.
listening to Camisra | Solid Ground
posted by xhile at 10:30 am
4 Comments:
Although selfishness might be the only rational ethic. The general outcome for humanity and for individuals is best when we cooperate and has likely been selected for in the history of our mind's evolution.
People that shunned the social ethics (and that were found out) would have the benefits the community provides revoked and be less likely to survive/reproduce. Somewhat similar to what we do with criminals now.
Personally I do believe that conscious entities have real value, otherwise, without observers, the universe doesn't exist. Since I believe animals are conscious to some extent this is partly why I'm vegetarian.
May 08, 2007 12:30 pm
"The general outcome for humanity and for individuals is best".
When I use words like 'best', I am already assuming values, which i am trying to establish in the first place. 'Best' implies that it is 'good' that our species survive? Why is this 'good'?
"People that shunned the social ethics would ... be less likely to survive/reproduce."
This might explain how ethics develop. It is not a justification for why i should keep following an external ethical system. That is a question that nature in itself can't answer.
"Personally I do believe that conscious entities have real value, otherwise, without observers, the universe doesn't exist."
I don't find the threat of the universe not existing a compelling enough reason for me to believe that other beings - or even myself have intrinsic value. Consciousness, or self-awarene beings does not automatically imply they have value. It is very hard to get from "is" to "ought".
I do believe that people have value. But I think most people assume this with no rational ground whatsoever.
On a purely naturalistic view, people are just collections of chemicals. Sentience doesn't bestow more worth on them, any more than being a carbon-chain ring does.
And the planet has no worth either.
May 08, 2007 12:46 pm
Ah good points. Using 'best' does imply that one outcome is better than another, but those are purely based on my values.
You're right, when it comes down to it. We're all just chemicals, none of which has a greater intrinsic value than the other.
Although we could say that heavier nuclei elements have more intrinsic value, since they've been created denser and are closer to the end goal of the universe (assuming the universe's goal is heading to a 'Big Crunch') - but this still assumes that one temporal direction has more intrinsic value than another.
Deep down I know that there is no meaning/value behind anything, and this is usually, or at least seems, most clear when I'm depressed. But I find a little self-delusion makes life more pleasant :)
May 09, 2007 11:05 am
I don't think the universe can have a goal, only sentient beings can :)
I have several hats i wear. One of them is my extreme nihilist hat. It's one i come close to adopting, but not quite.
I _do_ think there is real meaning, and real value. Trying to rationally justify it is a lot harder.
May 09, 2007 4:05 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home