Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    once we die on earth that is the end, one no longer exists (no memory), so what differance would it of made whether that person lived for 1day or 100years? at the end of the day their life was completely pointless if it cannot be remembered or continued
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobbage)
    Religion looks like a sweet deal at first glance, might consider it myself :P
    It looks sweet until it starts dishing out illogical rules :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazzarus)
    If you believe there is no god, then presumably you believe there is no heaven... what then is the point of life? If there is no moral reason to do or not do anything, and most desires are instincts to perpetuate this seemingly pointless phenomenon, why then do we bother?
    your question made me realise how selfish people are... we dont live to go to "heaven", everyone has a different aim in life, being a good person, helping others out, teaching children who has no means to be able to pay for tuition who also live in unfortunate conditions, the list goes on... why is it that heaven is given as a reason to live....
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Turkoloco)
    your question made me realise how selfish people are... we dont live to go to "heaven", everyone has a different aim in life, being a good person, helping others out, teaching children who has no means to be able to pay for tuition who also live in unfortunate conditions, the list goes on... why is it that heaven is given as a reason to live....
    :lmao:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Turkoloco)
    your question made me realise how selfish people are... we dont live to go to "heaven", everyone has a different aim in life, being a good person, helping others out, teaching children who has no means to be able to pay for tuition who also live in unfortunate conditions, the list goes on... why is it that heaven is given as a reason to live....
    dude, what are you doing quoting a year old OP. I suggest you read the thread through to my conclusion
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by lazzarus)
    If you believe there is no god, then presumably you believe there is no heaven... what then is the point of life? If there is no moral reason to do or not do anything, and most desires are instincts to perpetuate this seemingly pointless phenomenon, why then do we bother?
    Um I can't remember if i posted here or not... anyway:

    If the point of life or of acting morally is merely reward, then you have something seriously wrong with you. The thought of avoiding murder solely to get in to heaven is deeply immature and a disturbing way to erect a moral framework. I suggest you delve in to a few moral philosophy textbooks - secular morality is entirely possible. In fact, its the only option we have. Morality is real - it is a consequence of evolved cognitive processes combined with the need for social stability to propagate. Heaven is not. Whatever you 'feel' is the point of continuing your life, then that is your solution.

    For one, I think there is a lot of amazing experiences to be had in this life. Life, after all, is a very precious commodity, and we are lucky enough to be in the infantessimally small amount of matter in the universe that has it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T-o dore)
    Um I can't remember if i posted here or not... anyway:

    If the point of life or of acting morally is merely reward, then you have something seriously wrong with you. The thought of avoiding murder solely to get in to heaven is deeply immature and a disturbing way to erect a moral framework. I suggest you delve in to a few moral philosophy textbooks - secular morality is entirely possible. In fact, its the only option we have. Morality is real - it is a consequence of evolved cognitive processes combined with the need for social stability to propagate. Heaven is not. Whatever you 'feel' is the point of continuing your life, then that is your solution.

    For one, I think there is a lot of amazing experiences to be had in this life. Life, after all, is a very precious commodity, and we are lucky enough to be in the infantessimally small amount of matter in the universe that has it.
    This x 100
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To Live
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To elaborate: feed your senses. run feel fight **** cry exercise etc. etc. We are chemical machines that react very positively to certain stimuli. Release some of those happy chemicals in your brain.

    And this now opens a whole new can of worms... but... look into the eyes of a new born child and see the hope, the purpose, the future, something other than yourself in humanity. Try to help humanity develop (gain knowledge man) so that children may continue bringing beauty into this world for a long time to come, and (possibly) forever.

    The second paragraph goes against the first, unless you're like me (don't know whether I was conditioned or born like this) and are naturally inquisitive and wanting to find things out etc. Which I'm sure is a very human instinct, just like socialising and helping others around us. Stronger as a group and all that
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T-o dore)
    Um I can't remember if i posted here or not... anyway:

    If the point of life or of acting morally is merely reward, then you have something seriously wrong with you. The thought of avoiding murder solely to get in to heaven is deeply immature and a disturbing way to erect a moral framework. I suggest you delve in to a few moral philosophy textbooks - secular morality is entirely possible. In fact, its the only option we have. Morality is real - it is a consequence of evolved cognitive processes combined with the need for social stability to propagate. Heaven is not. Whatever you 'feel' is the point of continuing your life, then that is your solution.

    For one, I think there is a lot of amazing experiences to be had in this life. Life, after all, is a very precious commodity, and we are lucky enough to be in the infantessimally small amount of matter in the universe that has it.
    What is it to act morally?
    Are there objective truths?
    If so why should one follow them?
    If not why should people follow subjective ones?
    If there are no subjective or objective moral truths there are no moral truths surely? (in case you answer that there aren't any o or s truths morally).
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    What is it to act morally?
    Are there objective truths?
    If so why should one follow them?
    If not why should people follow subjective ones?
    If there are no subjective or objective moral truths there are no moral truths surely? (in case you answer that there aren't any o or s truths morally).
    You just gave me a few essay titles.

    WHAT IS MORALITY?

    The answer to the question 'what is morality' lies, i believe, in the palm of science. Miller gives a handy bite-size summary: “In evolutionary terms, a moral person is simply one who pursues their ultimate genetic self-interest through psychological adaptations that embody a genuine, proximate concern for others” (note the 'genuine' here). Mill thought morality was about consequences, Kant thought it was about universal maxims. They were both right, and the evidence is in our brains, where both types are represented. When people all over the world are asked about the trolley/footbrigde problem (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/), they consistently have the same response. Joshua Greene put people in functional mri’s while asking this problem, and shows specific parts of the brain universally light up: the Dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex being the utilitarian side of the brain and the medial prefrontal cortex, the area of social emotions/feelings.

    The results of the scanning show that the ‘medial prefrontal cortex’, the area of social emotions and feelings, is most immediately activated when a subject is faced with a moral issue. The rationalization which occurs after the emotive response is assumed merely acts as a lawyer hired to defend a particular case. The primacy of emotion in our response to moral or taboo subjects suggests that our moral stances on particular issues are highly influenced by the wider norms of the society and system of thought in which we have grown up. Our morality, then, is more flexible in its division of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ than many people would like to think.

    ARE THERE OBJECTIVE TRUTHS?

    I am not a moral realist - I don't believe there are fixed imperatives engraved in to the stratosphere or that God has given us a list of 'do nots' which have somehow become 'objective'. There is just too much that is wrong with the idea of an objective morality. If we establish the universal 'do not kill', for example, then should we sit flaccid whilst a crazed terrorist guides the aircraft you are sitting in headfirst towards a massive crowd of people? What abot abortion? Should we allow a horrifically disabled baby, with a disease which causes it a lot of pain, to be born in to a household which will not care for it properly?

    The point is that if there was an objective morality then it would be far more clear. But the reality of moral dilemmas are much more wooly. If I could point to a near-universal in human beings, which seems to be present in all but psychopaths, we seem to have the 'golden rule' etched in to us. As it has probably evolved for social/genetic benefit, its not an objective 'law', but its as close as you're going to get: do for others what they would have done to you. Humanitarianism.

    WHY SHOULD PEOPLE FOLLOW SUBJECTIVE ONES?

    Look at the question 'why should people obey laws', and you have part of my answer. The avoidance of a state of disaster. Do you think the human race would survive for a week if people had no inhibtions or a sense of respect for each other. We follow rules because we are selfish.

    The other part of this question is asking why we should be 'nice' to each other. Maybe it would make it clearer to ask why we ARE nice to each other in the first place. Understanding that morality is an evolved cognitive construt doesn't mean that we immediately regress back to a state of dystopia. I'll end with Greene's conclusion to illustrate this. p.s look out for the word 'humanity'.

    "My goal as a scientist, then, is to reveal our moral thinking for what it is: a complex hodgepodge of emotional responses and rational (re)constructions, shaped by both genetic and cultural influences, that do some things well and other things extremely poorly. My hope is that by understanding how we think, we can teach ourselves to think better, i.e. in ways that better serve the needs of humanity as a whole."
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T-o dore)
    You just gave me a few essay titles.

    WHAT IS MORALITY?

    The answer to the question 'what is morality' lies, i believe, in the palm of science. Miller gives a handy bite-size summary: “In evolutionary terms, a moral person is simply one who pursues their ultimate genetic self-interest through psychological adaptations that embody a genuine, proximate concern for others” (note the 'genuine' here). Mill thought morality was about consequences, Kant thought it was about universal maxims. They were both right, and the evidence is in our brains, where both types are represented. When people all over the world are asked about the trolley/footbrigde problem (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/), they consistently have the same response. Joshua Greene put people in functional mri’s while asking this problem, and shows specific parts of the brain universally light up: the Dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex being the utilitarian side of the brain and the medial prefrontal cortex, the area of social emotions/feelings.

    The results of the scanning show that the ‘medial prefrontal cortex’, the area of social emotions and feelings, is most immediately activated when a subject is faced with a moral issue. The rationalization which occurs after the emotive response is assumed merely acts as a lawyer hired to defend a particular case. The primacy of emotion in our response to moral or taboo subjects suggests that our moral stances on particular issues are highly influenced by the wider norms of the society and system of thought in which we have grown up. Our morality, then, is more flexible in its division of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ than many people would like to think.

    ARE THERE OBJECTIVE TRUTHS?

    I am not a moral realist - I don't believe there are fixed imperatives engraved in to the stratosphere or that God has given us a list of 'do nots' which have somehow become 'objective'. There is just too much that is wrong with the idea of an objective morality. If we establish the universal 'do not kill', for example, then should we sit flaccid whilst a crazed terrorist guides the aircraft you are sitting in headfirst towards a massive crowd of people? What abot abortion? Should we allow a horrifically disabled baby, with a disease which causes it a lot of pain, to be born in to a household which will not care for it properly?

    The point is that if there was an objective morality then it would be far more clear. But the reality of moral dilemmas are much more wooly. If I could point to a near-universal in human beings, which seems to be present in all but psychopaths, we seem to have the 'golden rule' etched in to us. As it has probably evolved for social/genetic benefit, its not an objective 'law', but its as close as you're going to get: do for others what they would have done to you. Humanitarianism.

    WHY SHOULD PEOPLE FOLLOW SUBJECTIVE ONES?

    Look at the question 'why should people obey laws', and you have part of my answer. The avoidance of a state of disaster. Do you think the human race would survive for a week if people had no inhibtions or a sense of respect for each other. We follow rules because we are selfish.

    The other part of this question is asking why we should be 'nice' to each other. Maybe it would make it clearer to ask why we ARE nice to each other in the first place. Understanding that morality is an evolved cognitive construt doesn't mean that we immediately regress back to a state of dystopia. I'll end with Greene's conclusion to illustrate this. p.s look out for the word 'humanity'.
    Firstly essay titles?
    Essays tend to be a few thousand words long, some of these could span for volumes in books:p: . My point was that without going into more detail it was hard to make much from that particular part of your post. But good on you for answering them .

    I'm not sure I entirely agree with all of your reasoning.
    Surely there could be objective moral truths we've not discovered yet. But more than that, does objective always necessarly go with universability. If everyone was in agreement over 5 different cases that would contradict universability couldn't that potentially show show some objective truths are out there in morality?
    Also what universability are you making reference to?
    Kant's?
    Hare's?
    Another philosophers?

    I get Hare's (I think) but with Kant's, how similar do situations have to be?

    Right now I'm, between moral philosophies as such:p: .

    In the subjectivity area:
    you seem to presume that people shouldn't follow their subjective moral codes because they're selfish/there would be a state disaster. Isn't it arguable that corporations are more selfish and powerful than us and are doing more damage?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazzarus)
    dude, what are you doing quoting a year old OP. I suggest you read the thread through to my conclusion
    my bad saw this thread pop up in the right where it sais discussions, didnt even look at the dates >.<
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is no point in life as we'll all die some day.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dzeh)
    once we die on earth that is the end, one no longer exists (no memory), so what differance would it of made whether that person lived for 1day or 100years? at the end of the day their life was completely pointless if it cannot be remembered or continued
    The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would have told you that you were a nihilist for asking that question.

    Life does have value; does have a point...for those who affirm it; who say "Yes" to life. Those who say "life has no value" and "we live, we die and that is all" etc, say "No" to life; they deny life, as Nietzsche might say.

    Of course, Nietzsche recognised that human beings say "Yes" and "No" at the same time. But to be a complete denier to life; to see no point to life or living life - that must be really horrific and deeply worrying. To pose the question, "Does life have meaning?" is already a "No" unless the question is innoncent or is simply an academic question.

    Of course life has meaning!

    But if inside you are asking yourself that very question I suggest you dispell it from your mind at once; it is a black cloud you do not want!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The ultimate answer:

    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...ing+of+life%3F
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lazzarus)
    If you believe there is no god, then presumably you believe there is no heaven... what then is the point of life? If there is no moral reason to do or not do anything, and most desires are instincts to perpetuate this seemingly pointless phenomenon, why then do we bother?
    To repoduce and pass on our DNA.
    Of course, we have evolved to the point where we can refuse to fufill our "goals" and set our own.
    For me personly, being happy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To procreate I imagine and also to evolve genetically or else we face extinction. Speaking as an agnostic.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Parfitian survival.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There doesn't need to be a point to life at all. If there was a point you would just try to get to that point and then think What now?

    Think of life like a song, the point of the song is not to get to the end but rather to enjoy it while it plays.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.