Catholic sexual morality - indefensible?

[Spock]

If you say so, but from what I have gathered over the years, the use of the word frown (a frown being a very weak thing) in such an instance usually designates a position that some organization officially doesn’t allow on paper, but in practice does otherwise (nudge-nudge wink-wink).

Well, since we clarified the usage, I hope we can move on.

 

[agangbern]

Marriage is a legal, secular construct. Don’t forget, we are talking about secular matters here. The CC allows separation, but not re-marriage. The de-jure divorce ackowledges the de-facto separation, the cessation of a legal relationship. It makes no sense to say that the legal cessation of a relationship is socially harmful, while the actual separation is acceptable.

Separation does not necessarily mean legal cessation of a relationship. Marriage legally celebrated does not necessarily cease when there is separation. For separation could be only in board and bed. Divorce is different, because in there the bond of marriage is severed. In effect, in divorce the marriage institution is put into a mockery.

There was precious little “manna” on the snowy peaks of the Andes. There was a “choice”, starvation, or cannibalism. And the outside world did not throw the “first stone”. The survivors were accepted and no blame was piled upon them. In other words, their behavior was not condemned as “immoral”.

The survivors are persons like us. No matter how they may have done a wrongful act, they as persons remain worthy of love. But love for the person does not mean we also love the wrongful act done by that person. Although some circumstances may be taken into account to mitigate the wrongness of an act, yet those mitigating circumstance would not convert a wrongful act into rightful act.

Powers do not define “moral laws”, they define “actual legal laws”. The two are not identical. Moral “law” is an. History does bear witness to the constant turmoil, to power struggle, to changing socially acceptable norms. I don’t know if you think that we are headed in the right or wrong direction. Personally, I would not trade places with any member of any of the older societies, not even with the most powerful ones. The good old times are today, and it will be better tomorrow.

If moral law is as you previously defined, then powers would dictate what shall be made socially acceptable and what are not. This is evidenced by the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt. The imposition of Egypt on the Israelites initially appeared unacceptable to the Israelites. But their hopelessness to destroy the imposition soon made them “love” the imposition. In other words, what was initially socially unacceptable to them became acceptable through persistent exposure to it. Is this the way morality should be, that the man or group who has greater power should be the one to determine what norm should be made acceptable or not? To me, it should not be that way.

Both of us *would not trade places with any member of anhy of the older societies, not even with the most powerful ones.*So,how do you think shall we deal with unacceptable impositions that may be made by the most powerful ones?

You cannot expect the people of yesteryear to be aware of the mathematical intricacies of game theory. So, formally they were not aware of it. But they did have a pretty good inclination of the “stuff” behind the theory, which is attested to by the formulation of the Golden Rule, and the Inverse Golden Rule - none of which are original Christian propositions.

Yes, the golden rule is beautiful. But since the time of its formulation even up to now, people generally do not follow it. What element do you think is lacking?

Nevertheless, it is meaningless to speak of the “nature” of man. There are good people, bad people, there are altruistic people, and sociopaths… to speak of a “generic” nature is just about as meaningless, as putting Bill Gates and a thousand homeless people into a room and then declare that “on the average” everyone is comfortably well-off.

If it is meaningless to speak of the nature of man so, what then is man? Why don’t we also consider the dogs and the cats as “man”?

 

[Spock]

Separation does not necessarily mean legal cessation of a relationship. Marriage legally celebrated does not necessarily cease when there is separation. For separation could be only in board and bed. Divorce is different, because in there the bond of marriage is severed. In effect, in divorce the marriage institution is put into a mockery.

Not “mockery”, just into its right place. Marriage is a legal contract, which can be dissolved with mutual agreement, just like any other legal contract. The buzzword here is “mutual”.

The survivors are persons like us. No matter how they may have done a wrongful act, they as persons remain worthy of love. But love for the person does not mean we also love the wrongful act done by that person. Although some circumstances may be taken into account to mitigate the wrongness of an act, yet those mitigating circumstance would not convert a wrongful act into rightful act.

There is nothing “inherently” wrong about cannibalism, it is merely the current societal setup that it is considered “usually wrong”. Some “primitive” tribes (I beg forgiveness for the adjective) practice it even today. For those societies it is not “wrong”.

If moral law is as you previously defined, then powers would dictate what shall be made socially acceptable and what are not.

No, they do not. In the Nazi Germany, most of the people disagreed with the persecution of Jews.

Yes, the golden rule is beautiful. But since the time of its formulation even up to now, people generally do not follow it. What element do you think is lacking?

How can you substantiate such sweeping claim? From my personal experience, most people adhere to it, or something similar, most of the time. Of course my personal experience is not a rigorous “proof”, it is merely a straw-poll, at best, but my sample size is many thousands of people spanning over 50 years.

If it is meaningless to speak of the nature of man so, what then is man? Why don’t we also consider the dogs and the cats as “man”?

You are changing goalposts here.

 

[brentomistic]

I don’t know where these statistics come from, but I will accept them - provisionally - until you can establish them.

• The length of the relationship in not a problem.
• Cheating could be a problem, unless the couple decides to have an “open” relationship.
• STD’s are always a serious problem. Can be decreased by proper use of condoms.
• Divorce is not a problem.

And let’s not forget: correlation is not necessarily causation.

For the purposes of this exercise, let’s just assume that I made the statistics up.

Each individual carries a ‘sense of morality’ which is either based on their internal reasoning or an external reference point e.g. religious teachings, laws of a country etc.

If a man who originally committed to a closed relationship, subscribes to an external source of morality which promotes monogamy and cheats on his partner he will feel internal conflict. He may continue the practice but will continue to struggle with the internal conflict.

If the man who originally committed to a closed relationship subscribes to an internal source of morality and cheats on his partner he can either:
-feel the internal conflict as he has let himself down against his own internal value system and continue to struggle with the internal conflict
-feel fine about it as his own internal value system allows him to do this without feeling any internal conflict
-transition his internal value system from one where he feels conflict to one where he does not feel internal conflict

From a secular perspective it is probably good to explore this area of internal reasoning vs external sources of morality. As a human being you have the free will to take either of these paths.

People who subscribe to a religion are generally more comfortable with an external source of morality and will answer your questions from within that particular worldview. This sometimes conflicts with a secular worldview which is generally based upon an internal source of morality.

(This type of discussion is addressed much more eloquently in ‘The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-secular ethics’)

 

[Spock]

For the purposes of this exercise, let’s just assume that I made the statistics up.

Sure, why not? The precise numbers are not very important.

Each individual carries a ‘sense of morality’ which is either based on their internal reasoning or an external reference point e.g. religious teachings, laws of a country etc.

Yes!

If a man who originally committed to a closed relationship, subscribes to an external source of morality which promotes monogamy and cheats on his partner he will feel internal conflict. He may continue the practice but will continue to struggle with the internal conflict.

If the man who originally committed to a closed relationship subscribes to an internal source of morality and cheats on his partner he can either:
-feel the internal conflict as he has let himself down against his own internal value system and continue to struggle with the internal conflict
-feel fine about it as his own internal value system allows him to do this without feeling any internal conflict
-transition his internal value system from one where he feels conflict to one where he does not feel internal conflict

Agreed, but not 100%. I would say that in your first analysis (externally based moral system) the person can also change his external reference to another one, which will alleviate the conflict. The Oriental sexuality comes to mind, which is also externally established and allows “cheating”. I have no idea, just hard would it be to change such a reference system for either one of the persons. My ingrained ethical system is very deeply rooted, and I suspect that it is true for most of us (regardless of the reference system). That is just my gut feeling, I never studied this question.

Now, let’s get something straight. If one commits to a monogamous relationship, to have an external affair is rightly called “cheating”, with all its negative connotations. It is not an ethical behavior, since it violates the contract (be it a legal marriage, or a handshake agreement). Such a contract is binding, until the partners dissolve it by mutual consent. So I think, we are in a good agreement in the case of adultery. The case against adultery can be correctly established on both theological and secular grounds.

I think, so far we are making excellent progress here.

From a secular perspective it is probably good to explore this area of internal reasoning vs external sources of morality. As a human being you have the free will to take either of these paths.

Right on the money!

People who subscribe to a religion are generally more comfortable with an external source of morality and will answer your questions from within that particular worldview. This sometimes conflicts with a secular worldview which is generally based upon an internal source of morality.

Indeed so.

(This type of discussion is addressed much more eloquently in ‘The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-secular ethics’)

If I find a copy in the library, I will get it. I looked it up on the net, and I think it might be interesting to read it. I can already say that just by reading a very short synopsys, I will have a hard time agreeing with it… after all I am a libertarian, a staunch supporter of economic freedom.

 

[brentomistic]

Agreed, but not 100%. I would say that in your first analysis (externally based moral system) the person can also change his external reference to another one, which will alleviate the conflict. The Oriental sexuality comes to mind, which is also externally established and allows “cheating”. I have no idea, just hard would it be to change such a reference system for either one of the persons. My ingrained ethical system is very deeply rooted, and I suspect that it is true for most of us (regardless of the reference system). That is just my gut feeling, I never studied this question.

Now, let’s get something straight. If one commits to a monogamous relationship, to have an external affair is rightly called “cheating”, with all its negative connotations. It is not an ethical behavior, since it violates the contract (be it a legal marriage, or a handshake agreement). Such a contract is binding, until the partners dissolve it by mutual consent. So I think, we are in a good agreement in the case of adultery. The case against adultery can be correctly established on both theological and secular grounds.

I think, so far we are making excellent progress here.​

I am not familiar with an oriental moral framework which allows cheating. To make it more black and white an individual has the free will to change his external reference to that of a satanic cult which promotes cheating. You have identified a possible ‘inertia’ in someone changing their external moral framework which may apply to many people capable of rational thinking.

This is where we have to leave the secular discussion for a moment as in this ‘inertia zone’ we hit the boundary of the secular framework. The nearpoint OR intersection point (for you to determine) with a non-secular framework would then introduce a concept of ‘natural law.’ Natural law would say that some elements of an external moral framework can be repugnant to a rational individual’s conscience. Many people would find elements of an external framework such as Nazism as being repugnant to their ‘core sense’ of what is right and wrong. Many people find elements of an external moral framework such as ‘western sexuality’ repugnant to their ‘core sense’ of what is right and wrong.

 

[Spock]

I am not familiar with an oriental moral framework which allows cheating.

Not that it is of utmost importance, but the behavior in those societies was not “cheating” in our sense of the word. The males were allowed, even expected to have concubines, and it was the wife who set the bills for these sexual escapades.

To make it more black and white an individual has the free will to change his external reference to that of a satanic cult which promotes cheating. You have identified a possible ‘inertia’ in someone changing their external moral framework which may apply to many people capable of rational thinking.

Yes.

This is where we have to leave the secular discussion for a moment as in this ‘inertia zone’ we hit the boundary of the secular framework. The nearpoint OR intersection point (for you to determine) with a non-secular framework would then introduce a concept of ‘natural law.’ Natural law would say that some elements of an external moral framework can be repugnant to a rational individual’s conscience.

Let’s clarify. I thought that the “natural law” means that everyone shares at least one common “reference point”.

Many people would find elements of an external framework such as Nazism as being repugnant to their ‘core sense’ of what is right and wrong. Many people find elements of an external moral framework such as ‘western sexuality’ repugnant to their ‘core sense’ of what is right and wrong.

Agreed. Many people do. Please continue.

 

[brentomistic]

Not that it is of utmost importance, but the behavior in those societies was not “cheating” in our sense of the word. The males were allowed, even expected to have concubines, and it was the wife who set the bills for these sexual escapades.

Yes.

Let’s clarify. I thought that the “natural law” means that everyone shares at least one common “reference point”.

Think of “natural law” as the perfection of human reason rather than a a ‘common reference point.’ Humans are capable of DISCERNING the difference between good and evil because they have a conscience. However, he differentiates between general precepts that are known to all (e.g. Nazism example) and secondary precepts which may be ‘blotted out from the human heart’ (e.g. ‘western sexuality’)

St. Thomas explains that:

there belongs to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men’s hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, insofar as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion, as stated above (77, 2). But as to the other, i.e., the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)

 

[Spock]

Think of “natural law” as the perfection of human reason rather than a a ‘common reference point.’ Humans are capable of DISCERNING the difference between good and evil because they have a conscience. However, he differentiates between general precepts that are known to all (e.g. Nazism example) and secondary precepts which may be ‘blotted out from the human heart’ (e.g. ‘western sexuality’)

St. Thomas explains that:

there belongs to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men’s hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, insofar as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion, as stated above (77, 2). But as to the other, i.e., the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)

I don’t think so. Conscience is a learned behavioral pattern. People in the stone age saw nothing wrong with cannibalism. People in medieval Japan saw nothing wrong with a samurai killing a lower class person for failing to bow deeply enough. In primitive times the old people were simply abandoned and left to die when food became scarce.

Think about a parallel case: the concept of “beauty”. Every society had some kind of “beauty” concept. But there is no commonly accepted beauty. We find something beautiful if we are exposed to it frequently. The pictures of Madonnas in the middle ages all have protruding eyes (the lack of iodine in the drinking water causes that) and they were found beautiful. Today they are not.

To say that “western sexuality” is somehow inherently wrong, and its prevalence is simply the result of suppressing a “natural” sexual behavior is a hypothesis. I don’t think you can substantiate that. But I am all ears. Do you have any secular arguments to support it? For example: “contraception”. That would be a nice starting point.

 

[davidv]

I don’t think so. Conscience is a learned behavioral pattern.

How do you know this? What evidence to you have? How does it lead to this conclusion?

People in the stone age saw nothing wrong with cannibalism. People in medieval Japan saw nothing wrong with a samurai killing a lower class person for failing to bow deeply enough. In primitive times the old people were simply abandoned and left to die when food became scarce.

Think about a parallel case: the concept of “beauty”. Every society had some kind of “beauty” concept. But there is no commonly accepted beauty. We find something beautiful if we are exposed to it frequently. The pictures of Madonnas in the middle ages all have protruding eyes (the lack of iodine in the drinking water causes that) and they were found beautiful. Today they are not.

Again, how do you know? Just because that activity was condoned or widespread, how do you conclude it wasn’t “wrong”?

To say that “western sexuality” is somehow inherently wrong, and its prevalence is simply the result of suppressing a “natural” sexual behavior is a hypothesis. I don’t think you can substantiate that. But I am all ears. Do you have any secular arguments to support it? For example: “contraception”. That would be a nice starting point.

Why the artificial constraint to “secular argument”?

 

[Spock]

How do you know this? What evidence to you have? How does it lead to this conclusion?

The human brain is born “tabula rasa”, an empty slate. Quoting from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa):

Scientists recognize that the entire cerebral cortex is indeed preprogrammed and organized in order to process sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, motor control, emotions, and natural responses.[6] This preprogrammed part of the brain then learns and refines its ability to perform its many tasks.[7][8] For example, Steven Pinker argues that while the brain is “programmed” to pick up spoken language easily, it is not programmed to learn to read and write, and a human generally will not spontaneously learn to do so.

Again, how do you know? Just because that activity was condoned or widespread, how do you conclude it wasn’t “wrong”?

Moral “right” and “wrong” is a variable according to the specific society, in a specific time. For those societies it was not “wrong”.

Why the artificial constraint to “secular argument”?

If someone accepts the Catholic Church’s authority on these matters, then no further argument is needed. As an atheist, I do not accept this (hardly a surprise, is it?). I am simply interested if there are other, secular arguments, which would be convincing to me. (According to the Spock-doctrine it is best to argue on the epistemological ground of the opponent.)

 

[Contarini]

Very true. I see nothing wrong with it. As long as two people love each other, the “paper” can be superfluous.

If you think that the Christian concept of marriage is about “paper,” then you don’t understand it.

Christian marriage is an indissoluble vow taken between two people and sealed by sexual intercourse. Everything else (even the blessing of the Church, and certainly the legal and ritual formalities common in Western culture) is the icing on the wedding cake!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Very true. I see nothing wrong with it. As long as two people love each other, the “paper” can be superfluous.

If you think that the Christian concept of marriage is about “paper,” then you don’t understand it.

Christian marriage is an indissoluble vow taken between two people (of the opposite sex!) and sealed by sexual intercourse. Everything else (even the blessing of the Church, and certainly the legal and ritual formalities common in Western culture) is the icing on the wedding cake!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Having an easy divorce makes sure that the couple will stay together if they are happy in their relationship.

And that they won’t have much incentive to work harder at the marriage if they aren’t. You’re assuming that the purpose of marriage is to make people feel content and satisfied with their lives.

People had outside relationships, it was a quietly “overlooked” custom. Divorce made the marriage more honest.

By the weird modern definition of “honest,” according to which any failure to live up to one’s ideals is “dishonest,” and so getting rid of the ideal is “honest.”

I don’t think that the kind of “honesty” you are talking about is particularly good for society. It’s only good for the individuals if it leads to repentance and amendment of life.

In other words, yes I’m willing to say that having affairs while remaining in a marriage is relatively better than getting divorced. Both are very bad. But divorce is worse. It’s a complete abandonment of one’s vows as opposed to a failure to live up to them.

(This is the same logic that makes me disagree both with the Protestant justification of schism, and with the common claim by Catholics on these boards that unorthodox Catholics ought to just leave the Church altogether.)

Edwin

 

[davidv]

The human brain is born “tabula rasa”, an empty slate. Quoting from Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa):

Scientists recognize that the entire cerebral cortex is indeed preprogrammed and organized in order to process sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, motor control, emotions, and natural responses.[6] This preprogrammed part of the brain then learns and refines its ability to perform its many tasks.[7][8] For example, Steven Pinker argues that while the brain is “programmed” to pick up spoken language easily, it is not programmed to learn to read and write, and a human generally will not spontaneously learn to do so.

The first line of the quote argues against your “blank slate” assertion. I would submit the “conscience” is a part of the “preprogramming”.

Moral “right” and “wrong” is a variable according to the specific society, in a specific time. For those societies it was not “wrong”.

Really? Are you sure? Or, are you just projecting your own opinion on those cultures?

If someone accepts the Catholic Church’s authority on these matters, then no further argument is needed.

How so? I don’t need to argue from authority.

As an atheist, I do not accept this (hardly a surprise, is it?). I am simply interested if there are other, secular arguments, which would be convincing to me. (According to the Spock-doctrine it is best to argue on the epistemological ground of the opponent.)

Do you think that insisting that the game only be played in your court that you will get you “interest” satisfied?

 

[Spock]

If you think that the Christian concept of marriage is about “paper,” then you don’t understand it.

Christian marriage is an indissoluble vow taken between two people (of the opposite sex!) and sealed by sexual intercourse. Everything else (even the blessing of the Church, and certainly the legal and ritual formalities common in Western culture) is the icing on the wedding cake!

I understand it, however, I talk about marriage (not the Christian marriage), as a legal or social contract between two people.

(It is possible that you did not see my opening contribution to the thread, after all it is buried somewhere in the prior pages. I accepted that for those who accept the authority of the Catholic Church, the sexual morality is perfectly established. I asked about possible secular arguments, if there are any.)

And that they won’t have much incentive to work harder at the marriage if they aren’t.

Only maybe, not for sure. I think that even if a marriage can be dissolved, most people attempt to salvage it. They go to counseling, try to resolve the problems, and finally, if the marriage cannot be rescued, then they divorce. Divorce is not “fun”, it is a rather traumatic experience (except of course in Hollywood ).

You’re assuming that the purpose of marriage is to make people feel content and satisfied with their lives.

Sounds like a wonderful concept to me.

I don’t think that the kind of “honesty” you are talking about is particularly good for society.

Society does not “own” us, we are part of it.

In other words, yes I’m willing to say that having affairs while remaining in a marriage is relatively better than getting divorced. Both are very bad. But divorce is worse. It’s a complete abandonment of one’s vows as opposed to a failure to live up to them.

I disagree. I had two divorces in my life, one was very messy, the other one was very friendly. As a matter of fact, in the second one I did not even have a lawyer, my wife (who was a lawyer) acted both on my behalf and hers. After the divorce she remained a very good friend. So much so, that when she was diagnosed with liver cancer, and was close to death she asked me and my current wife to look after her son, which we did. We still wish that she would be alive. Good friends are always missed.

 

[Spock]

The first line of the quote argues against your “blank slate” assertion. I would submit the “conscience” is a part of the “preprogramming”.

Is there any argument to support it? Conscience is a very complex phenomenon.

Really? Are you sure? Or, are you just projecting your own opinion on those cultures?

The definition of morality is the “written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior”.

How so? I don’t need to argue from authority.

If you can substantiate the Catholic position on secular grounds, I am here to listen.

Do you think that insisting that the game only be played in your court that you will get you “interest” satisfied?

I sure hope so.

 

[davidv]

Is there any argument to support it? Conscience is a very complex phenomenon.

How about centuries of cultures that all, in one way or another, decide what is good and bad and codify some of these into laws.

The definition of morality is the “written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior”.

Where do these rules come from?

If you can substantiate the Catholic position on secular grounds, I am here to listen.

I sure hope so.

OK. Let’s begin.

Does our life have purpose?

 

[Spock]

How about centuries of cultures that all, in one way or another, decide what is good and bad and codify some of these into laws.

Wel, that really supports that there is no uniform sense of conscious, since those societies vary enormously.

Where do these rules come from?

From concensus. They are not “forced” from the outside, rather decades of similar behavior is crystallized into a moral framework.

OK. Let’s begin.

Does our life have purpose?

This is a very open-ended question. Life is a self-sustaining phenomenon. Its “purpose” is to maintain itself. We know (with absolute, 100% assurance) that this life exists. Many people believe that there will be some kind of an “afterlife”.

If one does not believe in an afterlife, then it is evident that we must optimize this existence. However, this optimization process must acknowledge that none of us lives on an island, so the personal optimization process cannot be fully selfish, the optimal startegy must find a good balance between the self-centered goals and the well-being of others. This is all mathematics, to be precise: the application of game-theory.

Actually this is also the optimal strategy for those who believe in an afterlife. The difference is that the believers have a different set of “optimizing criteria”. As long as we respect each other’s goals, we can live peacefully with each other.

Now, maybe your question was a bit different. If so, you can clarify. Maybe you meant if “life has an ulterior purpose”? To this question my answer would be: “no”.

 

[davidv]

Wel, that really supports that there is no uniform sense of conscious, since those societies vary enormously.

Where is the variation in “all societies establish rules of conduct”? This seems be a consistent if not unanimous condition. Any variation is explainable by variation in the criteria for “good”.

From concensus. They are not “forced” from the outside, rather decades of similar behavior is crystallized into a moral framework.

How many of these societies have (or had) true consensus? Americans certainly do not. Are penal, tax and traffic laws always accepted by everyone? If not, where is the consensus?
Note: by consensus, I mean that even if you disagree you are willing to abide by the decision.

This is a very open-ended question. Life is a self-sustaining phenomenon.

Please explain what you mean by “self-sustaining”.

Its “purpose” is to maintain itself. We know (with absolute, 100% assurance) that this life exists. Many people believe that there will be some kind of an “afterlife”.

If maintenance is life’s purpose, why is there so little evidence of this in our population? How many are living with just subsistence levels of food, shelter and clothing? If as your postulate below, that we are to optimize our existence, why would we burden ourselves with any excess?

If one does not believe in an afterlife, then it is evident that we must optimize this existence. However, this optimization process must acknowledge that none of us lives on an island, so the personal optimization process cannot be fully selfish, the optimal startegy must find a good balance between the self-centered goals and the well-being of others. This is all mathematics, to be precise: the application of game-theory.

Actually this is also the optimal strategy for those who believe in an afterlife. The difference is that the believers have a different set of “optimizing criteria”. As long as we respect each other’s goals, we can live peacefully with each other.

Please explain how game-theory is involved, for I am unfamiliar with it. You will also have to provide me with convincing evidence that my life is a set of variables in a mathematical equation.

How does living “peacefully with each other”, further the “purpose”? Why wouldn’t a ‘survival of the fittest strategy’ be more in tune with the “purpose”?

Now, maybe your question was a bit different. If so, you can clarify. Maybe you meant if “life has an ulterior purpose”? To this question my answer would be: “no”.

The question was purposely open ended in attempt to find some common ground. So far this seems to be a very daunting task.