well if the univers just is an accident ......... it may be morally meaningless. but man makes morals. in order to 'try' to be some cohesive unit. to 'try' to get along .... for the most part it works.

the incentive to be moral? well let's look at it this way ., would you want some immoral person and going by the thought that the universe is an accident hence no need for morals so most would not have any , would you want that immorality busting into your home taking what they wanted and killing your family ? and no recourse since there is no incentive to be moral ?

the incentive to be moral really isn't dependent upon God....... it's the human ability to empathize with others.

Well put, Lt. Ripley. I came to the conclusion that moral objectivity or subjectivity doesn't really matter to me because one way or another I have moral values that I am going to follow. So if the universe is an amoral place, then I can make it moral by adhering to my own morality.

Simply because when somebody does something horrible or painful to you it feels, and is, very real. If it is not necessary to inflict these feelings upon thinking beings then to do so is not right because they feel pain in a very real sense and pain and suffering is a horrid thing whether it be physical or emotional.

Things don't need a purpose to be real.

Be nice.

I'd like to ask how would the Topic Starter feel about being tortured because the universe is amoral or without greater meaning? Does it not matter because you will die eventually anyway?

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer somebody to do pleasurable things to you instead?

No i did understand. But you cant separate the elements like that. Let us suppose i try.

Ok the universe ismeaningless (well that would presuppose the universe has no intelligent life in it, because intelligent life creates a purpose for itself and the universe. )

So, as i said, ethics, morality and purpose only apply to life, particularly sentient life, tTus for your hypothetical supposition to be true the universe would have to be with out life ,and also without any potentiality for the creation/evolution of life. In such a universe i would accept your hypothesis.

But because the universe has demonsrated an ability to create life ,and particularly sentient life with purpose, it simply cannot be without purpose.

Your assumption is that the universe must begin with conscious purpose. It may or may not, but the available evidence is that universes create life, and life/sentience then attribute purpose to the universes. Thus the univeres and sentience do have purpose. More to the point we must maintian sentience to continue to give purpose to the universe and one of the successful mechanism for maintaining life and developing sentience is an ethical moral system.

So we value ethics because they promote intelligent lifes survival chances, and we promote life/sentience', because that creates wider potentialities for itself and for the universe itself.

Are you even reading anything I post?? The answer to your question is simple: there isnt a nessisary inclination to CARE about anything; it's totally up to you!! Now don't tell me your going to come back and question my answer and claim I didnt answer your question, because I did, and many times. If the universe and life is merely and accident without meaning then why should you care  whether the species survives or not?! YOU DONT HAVE TO CARE! THERE IS NO INCENTIVE! It's your choice whether you choose to care or not! It doesnt matter either way! Do you understand what I just said? Thats the answer to your question. Why keep quesitoning the answer of the question you've asked, only to come back then restate, "your side stepping my point"?????? Me, and others have answered you initial question, what's left to say??

OK! my answer/reply is to ALL the science heads that state in different ways that the reason we are moral and ethical, or the reason why we should be moral and ethical if life and the universe is accidental and without meaning is because of our survival instinct (or insert whatever survival orientated preposal you used here), the selfish gene, Richard Dawkins blah blah....

My answer is also aimed at anyone who gives a sort of subjective "whatever you choose it to be" style "we as individuals define our own reasons and purpose for morality and ethics" answer.

These are all very good answers, and quite true aswell. As an individual, i do buy some of the survival instinct, selfish gene stuff. I do agree that we can create our own individual meaning.

BUT! what would your answers be from an objective perspective?

..If the "survival" and "choice" answers be the case then theoretically you cant rule out the prossibility that you are only going with that answer to justify your living and by this very point these answers are bias and unobjective.

Before getting defensively caught up in what i have just said, just take time to consider the possible implications brought by BNW's philosophical question when looking at it from an objective perspective.

The micro view is "survival" "choice" blah blah blah....yeah yeah, thats great, lets all get caught up shall we?..........

Whats the macro view people? Many of you have come to the obvious answer to this one with the point that there is no reason to be moral if the universe is accidental and we are just going to die anyway....true

BUT

This is always followed by the "Pro choice" subjective blah, with little open minded contemplation of this interesting paradox.

It is a pardox. As this is a paradox, then, perhaps it could even be a contradiction, which implicates that there is something we do not know here, something unaccounted for....its very interesting i think.

I thought, that in science, when something is unaccounted it is then researched further, hypothetically and theoretically, which is where science meets philosophy, but this one seems to just get left behind.

With this in mind, why is it that only the subjective "survivalist" "pro-choice" views receive any acclaim?

Science so eagerly discovers many things via its hypothetical and theoretical inductive reasoning methods, but kind of comes to a halt with this one and seems to only attatch acclaim to the subjective answers concerning the micro perspective.

mmm....bye.

PS: sorry if i am taking this slightly off topic BNW , great topic btw

It is interesting you mention this. My immediate response is that I wouldnt like someone doing what you mention. But on second consideration, my family are going to die anyways so what difference does it make whether they die now from the hands of a human murderer or from the murderer of natures natural causes?

I can empathize with others but if the universe and the life that came with it is an accident then why should I be so purposeful with empathy?

Also I am not trying to advocate 'god' or 'nirvana' in any way.

Please, explain what your really trying to argue more clearly, because right now, your being vague. What point are you making? Be specific.  In reguards to morality, what are you saying, outright?

will answer in a bit

*sighs* ok, sorry bout that someone else wanted to get on

hmm, what am i really trying to argue?

Perhaps i am asking what happens to this line of inquiry when you remove the subjective answers?

What subjective answers?

Answers like "survival" and "pro choice" which become subjective (even if their content is scientific) because sociologically they appear as a response to the final supposition that we are faced with in the starting question, to accept that: there is no reason to be moral if the universe is accidental.

From this, it can be seen that this sort of response has an agenda and is therefore bias which some might say was unscientific.

OK, so, when you remove the subjective answers, if you are a plank you would simply be left with: "there is no reason to be moral if the universe is accidental." and nothing else. If you are of the inquiring mind you might like to explore and perhaps question the two statements and their validity within this paradoxical supposition further.

My personal opinion is that as a species we know far less than we think we do. We often justify what little answers we do have of the world on assumptions about things that can not be proven either way. And then to save us from having to deal with the fact that we do not know, we attach ourselves to these assumptions as if they were a team in a race which we desperately want to win.

I would prefer somebody to do something pleasurable instead. However If someone was torturing me and I cried out 'stop this at once it is immoral', and the torturer asked why, I would be stumped as to give him a good self contained answer.

Ok we are getting somewhere here. You have said that there isnt a necessary inclination to care. I can accept that because the premise here is that the universe and life is merely an accident and therefore meaningless. You go on about saying 'the choice is yours, it doesnt matter either way', that is also true because there is no real purpose behind life.

My point is, even though it is my choice whether to be moral or not, why should I bother being moral if there is no real incentive?

Why cant you understand my thread? Why is it so hard to be hypothetical here? If the universe is an accident and the life with it is also an accident and therefore all the intelligence that life possesses is also accidental (and therefore in the grand scheme of things as meaningless as the universe itself) then what is the point of being moral or for that matter creating meaning which is going to die when we die?

POST 60 (just incase you missed it cause i couldnt write straight away)

will answer in a bit

*sighs* ok, sorry bout that someone else wanted to get on

------------------------

hmm, what am i really trying to argue?

Perhaps i am asking what happens to this line of inquiry when you remove the subjective answers?

What subjective answers?

Answers like "survival" and "pro choice" which become subjective (even if their content is scientific) because sociologically they appear as a response to the final supposition that we are faced with in the starting question, to accept that: there is no reason to be moral if the universe is accidental.

From this, it can be seen that this sort of response has an agenda and is therefore bias which some might say was unscientific.

OK, so, when you remove the subjective answers, if you are a plank you would simply be left with: "there is no reason to be moral if the universe is accidental." and nothing else. If you are of the inquiring mind you might like to explore and perhaps question the two statements and their validity within this paradoxical supposition further.

My personal opinion is that as a species we know far less than we think we do. We often justify what little answers we do have of the world on assumptions about things that can not be proven either way. And then to save us from having to deal with the fact that we do not know, we attach ourselves to these assumptions as if they were a team in a race which we desperately want to win.

I dont think alot of people are grasping the consept of this question. Cause if it is really how science says it is, then there is no such thing as "right" We are the only known beings that even consider such a thing. And even that is just a chemical reaction in your brain. If that really is reality, that everything here came about by total chance, neither our start nor our outcome has any true relevance at all. As far as the Universe is concerned, wether we are here or not doesnt change a single thing.




Thats kinda the thing though, cause we are talking about truth here (according to what we learn in school) there is no such thing as genuine ethics. The very Idea is just another chemical reaction. Every thing is a chemical reaction. There is no such thing "right action" nor is there a "virtuos person", in the big picture it wouldnt matter if we all dropped dead right now. Everything would go on the same as it always has.

Cool question brother, really gets you thinking.

Hey Brave...
Why bother eating..or breathing...when you are just going to have to take another breath or meal?
Everything you are stems from "love"...what you "love" you become...you follow it, you seek it out...you experience it.
By not being moral...is a choice just as carrying certain morals is.
By not choosing to be moral is a choice in itself about morality.

Blessings

Why does it have to be concerned? Would you sleep better at night knowing that the dimensions of space and time cared about you?




Thats contrary to what I was taught, that humans are naturally empathetic creatures like all social animals. See, whether you like it or not, everything is just a chemical reaction, but your problem is you're viewing that as a bad thing. Look at a picture of a galaxy, it's a collection of stars, undergoing a chemical reaction which has occured a billion billion times all over the universe, bound by gravity, but it's also a beautiful picture which is worth a thousand worlds. It shows us how big the universe really is, and how there are subtle laws that shape everything all over.

Why is a chemical reaction bad? If you boil it down to the smallest level it might not seem like much, but humans are truly incredible creatures. The Sistine Chapel ceiling is just some paint splashed on the roof of an arrangement of building materials, does that diminish it's meaning or beauty? Beethovens 9th Symphony is just vibrations in the air, does that mean it's not touching and beautiful?

There are actions that are right and wrong on different levels. Abandoning a sick elderly member of your tribe so they don't waste resources, as the Inuit used to do, is both right and wrong on different levels. On the personal level it's wrong because that members family might not wish to lose their grandparent, and the grandparent might rather live and spend his last months with his family. That is a connection that occurs naturally, no religion required. On the tribal level, a tribe that provides for a dying member is less likely to survive while competing for food with tribes that dont provide for dying members, therefor it's right, for the security of the tribe and the species, to allow the dying person to be left in the wilderness.

On a planetary level, a species such as ours that is facing massive overpopulation in the next decades, birth restrictions are the right thing to do, but on the personal liberty level, nobody has the right to place those restrictions and such restrictions are wrong.

A 'virtuous person' is just a label.

My point is, why should I be moral and restrain myself in any way or form if there is no real purpose behind it other than perpetuating the species which is pointless because the universe and life with it is a mere accident? What difference does it make to the quantity of the universe whether there is life at all let alone moral life? If the universe is completely indifferent to the way I behave why should I discriminate my behaviour? And as for life what difference does it make whether I live enjoying myself or die depressed since we all come to death anyways and forget everything we have done? Also why should we breed for that matter if the next generation is going to be subjected to the same depressing fate and on and on it goes?

I am in no way saying there needs to be a 'god'.

I would ask that they stop because I don't like it. That is reason enough but does rely on the person inflicting the misery having at least a shred of empathy.

If the torturer has no empathy then maybe one would then be stumped.

Even if life is accidental, it doesn't mean we can't appoint our own purpose. Create our own destiny so to speak. The only way to successfully accomplish that is by working together with morals in place so we can rise above general chaos. Just my opinion.

I agree.

When it comes down to survival there is no point to morality.

Sorry to be so redundant, but the concept of morality arose as merely a comfort tool when we as a species became the dominant predators. Once humans realized that they (we) were at the top of the food chain they abandoned the better-him-than-me attitude and decided that it's better to develop as a collective rather than isolated individual groups (not that that idea has helped much throughout our social evolution).

What we conceive in our minds really has no influence on the universe. The universe will continue to exist as it has for billions of years whether we total wipe ourselves out or not.

You hate me, you kill me, so what? The sun will still rise again tomorrow. Morals play no part in the outcome.

The aftermath to the killing will simply be part of a game devise by man, not by any god.

Life is what you make it. Concepts of right and wrong are subjective and are matters of perspective and opinion.

Why care? Because you want to and because you think you should. There doesn't need to be a grand design or a master plan.



“People look to you to save them – probably most of the time – from their own mistakes. They do things – knowingly – wrong. And they look to you afterward to make them right. Why do you bother?”- Father Daniel
"Because I can"-Superman

"If nothing we do matters then all that matters is what we do"-Angel

"What is the meaning of life? Perhaps it is the most profound egnimatic reason...to live."

But to what end should we create our own morals and destiny? We are all gonna die anyways and forget it all. What is it about our created purposes that makes us want work together and live in harmony? Ignorance?

If they had a shred of empathy they probably wouldnt be torturing in the first place. What if the torturer gets pleasure from seeing others in agony?

Well put! Also I might add that with this in mind it makes absolutely no difference whether or not we socially evolve.

I dont think I should nor do I want to. I want truth and if truth is indifferent to morals then why shouldnt I be indifferent to them?




Nice quotes but they still dont explain why I ought to do my best at life if life and the universe is a mistake with no purpose than the short lived purposes I subjectively create but cannot in any way be proven.

I'm not sure what it is about humans that we always look to the future, and that would be my purpose of having morals. To work together for a better tomorrow, so our children can have a better life than we do now. Man has within him the ability to be greedy and immoral, but he also has it in him to be selfless. It is true I suppose, that if you don't look to the future, then morals don't necessarily apply. But what a sad state to be in IMO.

Why should I care what kind of life my children have? They too are just gonna die like me and not remember anything that happened in the 'now'.




I am looking also to the past. If science is correct and that life and the universe is a mistake and therefore without purpose then why should I be moral? The morals could very well also be a mistake.

I am not asking you to agree with me. I am asking that you understand what I am coming from as written in the original thread post. If our true nature is survival of the fittest and to be selfish then why bother disengaging from such natures? I might as well only be moral insofar as it is going to help me achieve my own and childrens personal survival in which case I wouldnt be moral because I am only fulfilling my own selfish ends.

On another level, if the universe is a mistake then so is survival. What is the incentive to continue such a process such as survival when we are all gonna die anyways? Why bring up children only to tell them 'there is no meaning to the universe, enjoy the emotional and physical pleasures while you can because life and is short and at death we are all gonna be severed from life forever'. ??

I can see where you are coming from BNW. Life is selfish, it always has been. We have to consume other living things just to survive. But we have an opportunity that animals will never have, we can do better. Thats all I really have to say about it.

Damn i really thought i explained all that. There may well be no connection between the origin (accidental or not) of the universe and any meaning attached to the universe. or any morality attached to the universe. However once life, and particularly sentient life, evolved began was created imagined itself into existence take your pick, the universe created purpose and thus morality (as i previously explained)

Theres no point in dealing with the purely hypothetical, and logically you often can't anyway, as i already explained. Philosophy has great entertainment value for humanity but it rarely, if ever, serves any practical purpose, or even contributes to logical debate and furtherance of our understanding of existence. in any constructive way.

Common sense, good observation, and the application of many tools to those observations serve us much more constructively.
For example you asked a question in another post if some one you love is killed /raped now , what does it matter in the scheme of things, as they are only going to die at some future time.

Common sense supplies so many answers to this. 60 years is one. Experience, potentialities (as i explained) the difference between having a genetic line which ends here, and one which goes on to inhabit the stars, the ability to give love, to make the world and the universe a better place. To catch a killer who destroys a child. or a world, to write a book paint a picture, compose a song or a poem.

Any and all of those are potential differences between dying now and not dying for another 60 years. And there are almost limitless more. If you live for another 60 years there is a very good chance you may live for several hundred more.

If you simply dont enjoy life, i suppose several hundred more years may not provide an incentive, but for most whose minds are open to the wonders of the universe, any extra time one can gain to enjoy, appreciate and better understand them, is a wondrous thing
(you may see a connection between my attitude here, and my implacable opposition to the temination of an unborn human child)
You are simply wrong about one critical thing. The meaning we create does not die when we die. It lives on, and compounds in the experiences of our children, those we teach and influence, and those who read our humble words on these pages or elsewhere.

I have had many cases where someone has come up to me and said, basically, "Mr Walker you made a real difference in my life. "

That difference has varied from actually saving them from suicide, to giving them purpose and meaning in their life, to setting them on the road to a satisfying career through the example of my own love of learning and teaching.

The meaning my life has created will live on through those people and through the ones who follow and learn from them. If i had children of my own, this would be even more true in some ways, and yet i have had the privilege to teach some 3,000 children in my lifetime.

And to take a bigger picture. If morality and ethics ensures the survival of humanity, are you so sure that in another 6 billion years it wont make a difference. I suspect we might not recognise ourselves in that time and perhaps we wont even live within this universe, but as long as we survive, there is a chance that our descendants will exist "forever" and will reshape and reform not just humanity but the very multi- verse itself. Thats the true potentiality of humanity.( and so as not to be accused of specieism, it is the true potentiality of any species which develops a certain level of sentience)

Nice post put still misses the point of my thread. My argument isnt whether we can or cant make a meaning for life but whether there is any reason to if life is but an accident.

You say:

'Theres no point in dealing with the purely hypothetical, and logically you often can't anyway, as i already explained.'

I dont believe you did explain it because people including myself can often have dialogues around a pure hypothetical scenario. I am not trying to change the world here or immortalize myself with practicality but simply speculate over my stated hypothesis and morals relating to that hypothesis.

I have in no way said that the universe is meaningless but stated 'if' it was.

Please read my original post for further clarification. If you think this isnt logically constructive speculating over this hypothetical scenario then I suggest you create thread in which the assumption is that there is a meaning to the universe.

the question is better served when asked like this...... 'if' there is a meaning to life what is it... I .would suggest there is no inherent meaning other than the one we give it....

My philosophical scenario is that the universe has no inherent meaning. If it doesnt then what is the point of creating them when they are only as real as we make them and not objectively real?

Blast i created a beautifully cooked reply to this, but it must have got left out in the rain, and i dont know if ican bake it again, but ill give it a go.

I think the heart of our differences lie in the fact that i dont see subjective and objective as being so far apart as you do.

If i give purpose to the universe, that purpose may be subjective., but in acting on my belief, i create objective alterations in the universe. On a personal scale those differences are small, but on the scale of all sentience in the universe they are major.They could potentially completely altertthe universe even preventing its ultimate destruction.

Thus a purpose any sentience creates does have an objective reality atached to it. That is the key point i am making about the influence of life, and particularly sentience, on purpose. Our purposes have efffects and those effects do make an objective difference to the universe,

Thus i reiterate. Iit is irelevant whether life was created accidentally or with conscious intent. Reason has an existence independent of either scenario once sentience develops Ergo the only universe which could not have a reason for its existence is one withoout life(particularly intelligent life in it)

Im truly sorry if im missing something which is bleeding obvious to you, but either i'm mis understanding your hypothesis, or i'm making logical steps which you dont see as fitting within that hypothesis( ie there is no point in hypothesising a universe without purpose, if that universe contains sentient life, because those two factors are mutually exclusive / cannot coexist)

Its like hypothesising the existence of a 10 legged spider. By definition, if it had 10 legs, it wouldnt be a spider, nullifying that hypotheseis and susequent develpment of it, before it can really begin)

Sentience is but a concept, defined and understood only by the beings who created it. Being nothing more than a waking dream it has no hold over the workings of the universe.

If soil was sentient would it praise my feet or curse my weight? In either case I wouldn't care and would continue walking upon it.

Hey Mr Walker, i just wanted to come in on your and Brave's exchange, i can see something missing from what you are saying also, and i think i might be able to put it in clearer terms.

You are missing the answer to the main question, before you start discussing your disagreement with it.

To answer Braves's question, would it not make sense to answer: if the universe was accidental, then it would be very difficult to find any reason to be moral....then, from this you could follow: But i feel that the universe is not accidental orrrr our subjective meaning gives an objective meaning and so on.

No, it is just that I have set a definite hypothesis for dialogue and dont wish swerve from it.



A) If everything in the universe is energy and as quantum physics says energy cannot be created or destroyed (but for arguments sake lets say it was created by the big bang and only then could it have been created) but only changes form and always remains the same quantity. Then how does our life prevent the destruction of the universe when the universe is always gonna be here in the same quantity regardless whether we live or not?



You write lovely posts but you keep missing my point. I dont want to have to repeat myself again. Why bother creating meaning when it dies when mankind dies? If it survives as you say while all mankind is living then why should mankind go on surviving under a deluded meaning it has had to create for itself (and live under the false happiness this meanings gives) because it has discovered that the universe is meaningless?

No sorry, but i dont think so. It doesnt matter if the universe was an accident or not. If it contains sentient life, then by definition it has a purpose. That purpose is partly whatever the sentient life chooses it to be, but also inherently, once sentience exists, possibilities open up
The inherent purpose of the universe then becomes to maintain sentience so that it may maintain those options and potentialities ( which may include making both a species and a universe immortal)

Eg a rock can not create potentialities, but a sentience can choose to use a rock as a weapon, or as half of an instrument to create fire. From the moment that choice is made, and applied, the universe will never be the same again.

And continued application of sentience will continue to shape the universe.

Thus our morality(how we choose to use the rock) plays a critical part in shaping the destiny of the universe from the very first sentient thought, through increasing momentum and development, up until quite possibly a god like sentience which has integrated itself into the universe and is evolving/ changing it to suit its own will and purpose. I know such an entity already exists, but supposing it did not, i can easily envisage human sentience developing these skills and abilities through either an evolution of technology or an evolution of our physical form and function.

Right now we are approaching a critical mass in technology, where the protoypical developments of knowledge and technology required for this are either happening, or being planned by humans.

At this point(when we become what would appear as gods to our ancestors) i just hope we have developed the ethics and morality to utilise those powers constsructively.
If not, there is a real chance that, we will wipe ourselves out and do considerable harm to the universe, or come into conflict with other emerging sentiences . If iam correct and an earlier god precedes us then, that earlier god may well do, as he appears to have been tempted to do before, and destroy us, in order to prevent us from completely stuffing up his " hand crafted" universe.

But lets assume, hypothetically, that we are the first sentience to approach god hood from a purely accidental and randomly formed universe .Still ethics and morality are of critical importance to us as, we choose how to go about reshaping ourselves and the universe around us.

Because some of us choose to and do not find it meaningless. We believe in an afterlife and in the legacy we leave our descendants. I am to the inclination that those with nihilistic tendencies, who do not find meaning or purpose, will simply disappear, and the rest of mankind are truly better off without them.

The best advice for them is /wrist and not to have children. The world is better off without these people or them passing on their genes. Sad as it sounds I believe it to be true.

That is all very good and well. Again I have not stated that the universe is meaningless but if it is. I am not trying to convince people it is meaningless but have simply set a scenario of if it is then why. ...*insert my orignial post*.

That is all. I am not here in this thread to debate whether or not it is meaningless but to explore the possibilities of if it is.

Yes, I am sure you do not find it so. How can you? You believe it has meaning from all your other posts. I realize you are playing devil's advocate and exploring.

ok, fair enough Mr Walker

jj

Mr Walker





Why is it so hard to merely look at the possibility of if the universe has no meaning or purpose and that the only purpose of sentient life is to survive and breed? I knwo that is your definition but I have already stated the hypothetical definition for this thread and wish to stick to it.

I only want to look at the universe in this thread from this point of view and work within these limits. I dont care to discuss that the sentient creatures of this hypothetical accidental universe have a purpose beyond breeding and survival. I want to ask why bother creating meaning and morals and adhering to them if we are only here to survive and breed and that if the universe is an accident then why bother surviving and breeding if the life is also as accidental as the universe?

Why bother if we are gonna die anyways and forget it all? Why bring up children only to them 'enjoy life and family while it lasts because it wont be long until you are ripped from the splendors of life andin the grave forever'.

One of my favourite books.





It is interesting to repeatedly refer the the universe if not created by God as a 'mistake' or an 'accident' as these have quite negative connotations. Is the polar opposite to a God universe an accidental one? Or is the universe just a backdrop for contrasts? We must, as humans, I suppose view things as having intent or not. Accident/mistake or perfectly created? Lol sometimes it is irritating how we can't view things from outside the human prism.

Also interesting that your concept of morality does not make allowances for where it came from. As if that sullies how you would like to view the term or experience of morality to be.

Just because we seem to know where morality came from biologically - does that steal away the mystical side of it? You seem to want it to be pure and unsullied by biological implications.

Like taste - you could say that taste is a biological evolutionary adaptation - but does that steal the joy out of chocolate cake? Just because we can explain why - doesn't take anything away from the experience or steal its essence?

Quite off topic I know, and all posts of mine that have multiple ???????? are normally just me thinking out loud.

Best response in this thread so far Belle. Just because one was to think God does not exists does not mean life loses meaning. The same goes for a pure chance Universe. Chance and randomness are better words than mistake or accident.

This is what I am here to explore. The mistake can in itself be perfect in the sense that it is complete in itself without anything perfect or imperfect to compare it with. In this sense it can be either because we can also compare it to our imagination of how the universe ought to be like (not that our imaginations are necessarily right with its imaginnings).



I am simply wondering what the true incentive for morality if we are all gonna die anyways and if the universe is an accident without meaning. I am in no way trying to advocate God here.

As aldous huxley says:

The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do.



It does actually because it points out that the mystical side is mere illusion and that we are deluded into beliving it is there. Therefore the morality isnt morality but an evolutionary function.



The taste is the same and quite enjoyable. In fact I can appreciate that science has found that our brain and tongue work in a complex way in order to give us the simple delicacies of taste. However this doesnt give me the incentive in and of itself to want others to enjoy such a taste at my expense and be moral.



Please dont think I am trying to show that the universe needs a 'god'. I am simply showing that the universe ultimately doesnt need morals and because that is so then why adhere to them?

People have to find their own meaning and purpose for their own life and the world or to rely on others for such. Quite a few question these things and then reach their own conclusions. There will be no consensus on the issue. I am placing self and loved ones at the forefront of the question and going by whatever system allows me to do the best by them. I still feel for individuals who cannot find meaning and purpose are better off exiting stage left. Not only for them but for the other actors and actresses on the stage. Life is but a play after all...

Again, this is all good and well. However if you and your loved ones are mere accidents in a chance rollplay of the universe then why bother? What difference is ultimately gonna make? If you die for your loved ones so they can see more life then arnt you in effect making things worse for them? As in they may get more and more attached to the beauties of life and therefore more and more panic and despair leaving it at death etc?

Lol, I know your not trying to point to a God existing - you're stretching us to think in different directions and through implications - which is cool I still can't quite get where your coming from, but I will try another time he he.



Thanks Clovis and that is what I was looking for! - I am always pleased that you can finish off and articulate my internal dialogue