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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The question is flawed. It presumes that a 'point to life' is inherently necessary. Not so. What is the 'point' of mountains? What is the 'point' of gravity?

    Objects having meaning is a human concept that we mistakenly apply to a great deal of things that simply 'are'. We are, at the molecular level, biological machines. Our individual components are replaced on a regular basis, when you look at the atomic level. There is no objective point to human existence - but that does not preclude the fact that we can give ourselves meaning and purpose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To maximise one's personal value, in order to keep the society improve.
    Life is not a 'point', it's a journey.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    if things evolve by selection, and poor characteristics get booted out, and the strong kill the weak, then
    to become more important and successful than the other species, to always be on top, making more of the environment than anyone else to benefit yourself
    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?
    Life is the point of life. Don't you like it? You'd better make something of it, because there is absolutely nothing after it.

    Man's purpose is the achievement of his own happiness - this is only possible if he follows his own rational self interest.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    There is plenty of scope for having morals outside of religion. These morals and principles can be a purpose in of themselves. Life is what people make of it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    There is plenty of scope for having morals outside of religion. These morals and principles can be a purpose in of themselves. Life is what people make of it.
    O RLY?

    Where is this morality from? Unless you're the greatest philosopher in history, I think you'll struggle to find an answer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    O RLY?

    Where is this morality from? Unless you're the greatest philosopher in history, I think you'll struggle to find an answer.
    YA RLY

    Morality comes from mans nature, as a thinking, rational, volitional being. As Ayn Rand demonstrated.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is no point to life. We should all kill ourselves right this instant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tito2502)
    YA RLY

    Morality comes from mans nature, as a thinking, rational, volitional being. As Ayn Rand demonstrated.
    You can't jump from an "is" to an "ought" - you can't just observe our nature and say that we should have a moral system based thereon.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    You can't jump from an "is" to an "ought" - you can't just observe our nature and say that we should have a moral system based thereon.
    Arguably, morality is an "is" (as opposed to an "ought"). A lot of people adopt certain standards, some of the reasons for doing so are evolutionary, and the certain standards can be said to be "morality", the reasons for adopting it the "sources of morality".

    As to whether or not we "ought" to have this morality, that's akin to asking whether there is a purpose to this shard of rock. In some sense, it's even irrelevant. The rock is there, regardless of purpose (or lack thereof), just as the morality is there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    Arguably, morality is an "is" (as opposed to an "ought"). A lot of people adopt certain standards, some of the reasons for doing so are evolutionary, and the certain standards can be said to be "morality", the reasons for adopting it the "sources of morality".

    As to whether or not we "ought" to have this morality, that's akin to asking whether there is a purpose to this shard of rock. In some sense, it's even irrelevant. The rock is there, regardless of purpose (or lack thereof), just as the morality is there.
    Fair enough - the problem is with what you haven't said rather than what you have said. That's all good as an explanation for the causes of our pseudo-moral behaviour, but it doesn't translate into anything instructive. You're talking about descriptive ethics, rather than normative ethics. In any case, Hume says it better than I do:

    In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, that expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    *Cite criticism of is/ought gap here.*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Fair enough - the problem is with what you haven't said rather than what you have said. That's all good as an explanation for the causes of our pseudo-moral behaviour, but it doesn't translate into anything instructive. You're talking about descriptive ethics, rather than normative ethics. In any case, Hume says it better than I do:

    In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, that expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
    Yeah, except what I haven't said is akin to: I haven't told you what the purpose for this shard of rock is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Bachelor)
    Yeah, except what I haven't said is akin to: I haven't told you what the purpose for this shard of rock is.
    Indeed; it has no purpose. It's not a nonsensical to demand a moral system for humans. If you can't find one, don't pretend my question was illogical or illegitimate - simply be consistent and admit there isn't one.


    (Original post by GregoryJL)
    *Cite criticism of is/ought gap here.*
    Go on, then.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is no point, making that the point.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    What is the point of life?

    That is a terrifying question. Not least because it opens up the way for madness and massive depression.

    Stay clear of this question; what is the meaning of life. Stay clear. Ask it at your own risk!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tito2502)
    Life is the point of life. Don't you like it? You'd better make something of it, because there is absolutely nothing after it.

    Man's purpose is the achievement of his own happiness - this is only possible if he follows his own rational self interest.
    Morality comes from mans nature, as a thinking, rational, volitional being. As Ayn Rand demonstrated.
    As much as I love and uncritically worship Miss Rand with every arrogant gland of my body, this answer doesn't entirely work. It starts out well, with 'life is the point of life': It seems hardly important to say what is the point of life, given that the alternative is Nothing. I don't know if Rand actually argued it like this, but at least you go on from that to say, oddly, that the purpose is happiness. Why happiness? Happiness is programmable. We could all just go on permanent soma holidays and be really happy.

    Moreover, I don't see how she can have derived morality from 'man's nature'. As other people have mentioned, she's not getting past the is-ought gap with this one. It's silly to spend so much time trying to justify existing theories about morality, when (1) this is impossible and (2) we could be improving them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Erebus)
    There is no point to life. We should all kill ourselves right this instant.
    After you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liberties)
    After you.
    I'm already dead... to you :mfing:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shamrock92)
    Indeed; it has no purpose. It's not a nonsensical to demand a moral system for humans. If you can't find one, don't pretend my question was illogical or illegitimate - simply be consistent and admit there isn't one.
    Arguably, it could have a purpose. The first of our ancestors used such rocks to tear open the skin of their kills - people might give the rock a purpose. But my point is that the question is very ill-defined. What is a purpose? What is right or wrong? These are just words. It's like asking "what is the foeijeoijioewjgoiwejg of this rock?" Someone might come up with an idea, "oh, the foeijeoijioewjgoiwejg sounds like this", but ultimately it's pretty nonsensical.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.