If there Is no God, Heaven, or objective moral value, Why survive?

[John21652]

Thats nice. So where is the argument?

You wrote that “You have an instinctual desire for survival, everybody has.” If that statement is true, then, objectively, the human race has a desire to survive. If, as your statement suggests, the instinct to survive is an objective characteristic of the human race, then it would not be rational for any single human being to act to the contrary. To do so would be to act in contradiction to one’s ‘normal’ (as defined in your statement) instincts.

Thus, the statement I made in post #7, “I want to”, is perfectly rational.

Why is it rational for the human race to survive?

See above.

Why does that make it reasonable? Thats just an emotional response. Its fabulous for you in particular; emotionally speaking. I have not yet seen a rational response to my question: why is it rational for the human race to survive.

The human race deems Survival to be X, where X has characteristics which are good and beneficial and so X is sought.

Why is instinct rational?

That statement begs the question, “is all instinct rational?”
Objectively, according to your statement, everyone posseses this ‘instinct’. Objectively, acording to the information you have given us, the ‘instinct’ to survive is a universal characteristic of the human race.

I think people continue in spite of suffering because of their emotional attachments to things. I am asking is there a rational reason for the human race to continue living and surviving.

If the ‘instinct’ to survive is an objectively discernable characteristic of the human race, then it can be logically assumed that there is a mental calculus at work which drives this ‘instinct’. After all, isn’t rationality merely a process that causes humans to carry out a mental calculus to arrive at the benefits to be derived from an action?

What you term as “emotional responses” are just indicators of the mental calculus being so ingrained, having already been done, if you like, as to be called ‘instinctual’.

Thus, when a bear jumps out of the forest, I get all emotional about it and flee!

Perfectly rational!!

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

I cannot speak for the rest of the human race, but I can speak for myself.

If I believed there is no God, Heaven, or objective moral value, then I probably wouldn’t want to survive. Life is darned hard and under some circumstances I would want to end it all. What would be the point of going on?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

but the very fact that there are such people is a terrible indictment of our present society…

Why should it be terrible that people only care about the people they receive comfort from? They don’t owe me anything if my objective nature has no value. What meaningful value is their beyond a subjective utility-value? You are only social because you need to be; like needing medicine for your own survival? Or our you social because you recognize that it is truly good to comfort others and truly wrong to reject them on the basis of utility.

I don’t want people to care about me because of my utility to them. Emotionally speaking, for me, thats not a world worth living in. I want people to recognize my true moral value as a living person; and the only way they can do that is by recognizing my value in relation to God’s nature and God’s creative act. And every-time i am denied that true value i am deeply hurt and demoralized.

The real issue here is that a lot of people refuse to recognize the objective value of my life and thus only perceive a humans utility value or lack there of.

 

[tonyrey]

I cannot speak for the rest of the human race, but I can speak for myself.

If I believed there is no God, Heaven, or objective moral value, then I probably wouldn’t want to survive. Life is darned hard and under some circumstances I would want to end it all. What would be the point of going on?

Peggy, would you end it all on the “strength” of a belief?

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Peggy, would you end it all on the “strength” of a belief?

If I believed there was no God, sure.

However, I DO believe in God, and on the “strength” of that belief, I have not given in to the temptations that would cause me to end it all.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I cannot speak for the rest of the human race, but I can speak for myself.

If I believed there is no God, Heaven, or objective moral value, then I probably wouldn’t want to survive. Life is darned hard and under some circumstances I would want to end it all. What would be the point of going on?

Would you even say that it is perhaps irrational to go on living for something that has no true value?

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Would you even say that it is perhaps irrational to go on living for something that has no true value?

I’m not clear about what you mean. Are you asking me if I consider it irrational to go on living, even if I didn’t believe in God, Heaven or objective moral value? Or are you asking me if I would consider giving up living if life, without a belief in God, got too hard?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

She just wanted to stop treatments, die, and get the pain over with. It took a lot of affection from close friends and close family to encourage her to continue the suffering a little while longer.

I mean no disrespect, and the person you speak of is in my prayers and i pray that her suffering is not in vein.

But i must ask you why would you want her to continue suffering? What is the point? What rational reason do you have for prolonging the inevitable. What rational reason is there for prolonging the pain of a potentially terminally ill patient? The prolongation of suffering makes sense under theism because if life is intrinsically valuable it would contradict that value to commit suicide under any circumstance. But it doesn’t make sense to prolong suffering if metaphysical naturalism is true.

This is another problem i have about suicide under the context of metaphysical naturalism. What rational right do people have to make people feel guilty about ending their own emotional suffering? That does not make sense to me, and in fact seems rather disturbing and obsessive.

Thanks for the posts.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I mean no disrespect, and the person you speak of is in my prayers and i pray that her suffering is not in vein.

As far as I can tell comparatively speaking she’s fine, minor ailments aside. She hasn’t needed a cancer treatment in years.

But i must ask you why would you want her to continue suffering? What is the point?

I didn’t have any desire for her to suffer. My desire for her was to have an enjoyable life. But the only known pathway between her previous unhealthy state and the more enjoyable life was a path that was covered with initial suffering. Think of it in terms of goal seeking behaviour. A rat doesn’t go though a maze because it wants to be in a maze. It goes through it because it believes there is a prize at the end. A person doesn’t run into a burning building because s/he wants to be surrounded by fire, s/he does it to save something in the building. I didn’t ask the friend to endure suffering because I wanted her to suffer. I did it because I want her to live and enjoy life.

What rational reason do you have for prolonging the inevitable. What rational reason is there for prolonging the pain of a potentially terminally ill patient?

The question as asked is inapplicable. As I mentioned in post 40 and post 13 I don’t think that rational thought can be completely divorced from irrational motivations. Not that I expect it to have been considered in this thread, but I’ve gone into bits of detail on this position in a few other post in other threads (like this one). From what I’ve seen here in the Catholic Answers Forums there seems to be negative associations with the word “irrational” and “rational” seems to be associated with some level of superiority or seen as unconditionally more positive. Given what I’ve said about my views of rational and irrational then one might also take note that I won’t label something as positive or negative simply for being seen as rational or irrational. You may have identified this is a person for which I care. So this is also a matter of affection (irrational). I cannot provide a sensible answer about my actions and motivations that excludes any consideration for affect.

The best applicable question I can identify is “what motivation is there for encouraging her to endure the pain.” The answer to that question was given above.

The prolongation of suffering makes sense under theism because if life is intrinsically valuable it would contradict that value to commit suicide under any circumstance. But it doesn’t make sense to prolong suffering if metaphysical naturalism is true.

I’m not sure I completely understand what you mean when you say "is “makes sense under theism” when I consider the many forms of theism (mono-, poly, pan-, panen-, and others).

Since we are talking about behaviour lets introduce a behavioural concepts. What you are describing sounds like it ventures into the realm of the “Acceptance theory” of behaviour. In short when a situation is unchangeable or only changeable through actions that would involve high risk or high consequences than acceptance of the situation is encouraged. It’s not a religious concept, but encouraged in both religious and secular entities (you can even find some applicability of this theory to the scenarios I described with the two ladies).

This is another problem i have about suicide under the context of metaphysical naturalism. What -]rational/-]] right do people have to make people feel guilty about ending their own emotional suffering? That does not make sense to me, and in fact seems rather disturbing and obsessive.

I struck out the word rational myself for reasons mentioned in one of the earlier paragraphs. Getting into a discussion of rights and entitlements is going to be difficult unless we both agree on one or more systems of rights. I personally find the Declaration of Human Rights to be agreeable. At the same time I don’t think the declaration alone is helpful to those that live a life in which these rights are denied.

I discourage suicide. The third situation that i did not detail involved some one that seemed to be considering taking her own life. And for that person I had to enlist the assistance of a psychologist. However, I am not unconditionally opposed to suicide. In horrible situations for which there is no apparent escape it may be the “best” available course of actions.

There were people that jumped from the World Trade Center towers after the planes flew into them. They might have lived a few more minutes if they had stayed in the building, but then they would have also suffered being burned. I believe that the impact from falling to the street ended their lives quickly and itself did not contribute to their suffering, while remaining on the floor would have only contributed to it.

 

[fhansen]

Is there any rational basis for survival?

The desire for survival is more than instinctual-it’s an embrace, whether consciously or not, of goodness, existence being that good. We’re wired to desire it continuously, but the specter of death gives it finality-a horizon. But I believe that people, generally speaking, don’t necessarily believe it’s all over at death; either we deny death, ignore it, and/or have a sense that things may well carry on, albeit in a different state.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As far as I can tell comparatively speaking she’s fine, minor ailments aside. She hasn’t needed a cancer treatment in years.

I recognise that as truly good.

I did it because I want her to live and enjoy life.

Why? Do your perceive her being as having some-kind of utility value that you can benefit from?

I cannot provide a sensible answer about my actions and motivations that excludes any consideration for affect.

Thus you have no rational reason to preserve life, promote it, or bring it in to being.

The best applicable question I can identify is “what motivation is there for encouraging her to endure the pain.” The answer to that question was given above.

Emotional reasons that do not reflect the objective reality of other natures, but rather the fantasy that you impose on objects for various subjective reasons.

Therefore in respect to life itself you believe what ever is necessary for your psychological comfort? I think this is a correct analyses of you and other people who lack a rational reason to exist.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The desire for survival is more than instinctual-it’s an embrace, whether consciously or not, of goodness, existence being that good. We’re wired to desire it continuously, but the specter of death gives it finality-a horizon. But I believe that people, generally speaking, don’t necessarily believe it’s all over at death; either we deny death, ignore it, and/or have a sense that things may well carry on, albeit in a different state.

I mean no disrespect, but If there is no God, then what you are saying is quite delusional.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I discourage suicide. The third situation that i did not detail involved some one that seemed to be considering taking her own life. And for that person I had to enlist the assistance of a psychologist.

Given metaphysical naturalism, why do they need a psychologist? There is no such thing as “wrong emotions”. What rational basis do you have for imposing your emotions and ideals on other minds?

 

[fhansen]

I mean no disrespect, but If there is no God, then what you are saying is quite delusional.

Yes, but people can be/are quite deluded. I mean, I don’t think most atheists are totally without faith-they just don’t have -or they reject-formal descriptions of it. The basis for our faith is already there-it’s built into us by God and we act on automatic pilot-we just don’t recognize the source so we lack the full benefit of knowledge that revelation gives us.

 

[JDaniel]

Is there any rational basis for survival?

MoM:

There are those that believe that in the universe all things have a survival dynamic, whatever that means. Obviously, this comes from a dialectic that shows us that 99.99% of everything we have seen seems to strive to perdure. So, knowledge of it is intuitive. The rationale, then, would be:

1.) Anything that has a drive to perdure has a survival dynamic.
2.) But, all, or nearly all, things have a drive to perdure.
3.) Therefore, all things have a survival dynamic.

The question becomes, what exactly is a survival dynamic?

God bless,
jd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Why? Do your perceive her being as having some-kind of utility value that you can benefit from?

I don’t evaluate her on her potential utility. If she has a problem and recognizes that I can solve it (or the other way around) then we’ll ask each other for help and either one of us might take issue if the other failed to ask for help. But that’s not our primary motivation for interacting. When I first met her I was into a habit of helping any one that I thought was in need without respect to what I could get out of it (and often refusing to allow some one to “pay me back” if I thought it was of some burden to them). I had no motivation to interact with her until I saw she was in need of something. I don’t do that as liberally any more because I started to encounter people that seem to make a career off of appearing to be in need. Our friendship began that way but at present we find enjoyment in each other’s company.

Thus you have no rational reason to preserve life, promote it, or bring it in to being.

If you want to say that, feel free. I’ve made my position known that it’s an invalid/non-applicable statement. It’s kind of like stating that some one has no irrational reason that the the product of an even number and an odd number is an even number.

Emotional reasons that do not reflect the objective reality of other natures, but rather the fantasy that you impose on objects for various subjective reasons.

Sounds like there is a significant difference in the semantics that you and I use when selecting our words. The way you use “Emotional reasoning” may map to how I use “emotional motivation” or reasoning that is motivated by the attainment of some goal that provides some emotional satisfaction. Emotions can be influenced by elements within one’s environment (objective reality). If you want to speak of some sense that some one has that may map to “objective reality” then speak of perception. Emotion would be a mental state influenced by elements in the environment influenced by previous experiences, previous emotional states, associations, and other internal and external stimuli. If some Perception is always subjective; you can’t have a perception without a perceiver.

I consulted a few dictionaries for the meaning of “fantasy” and I can find no meaning that fits this context. There have been no improbable suppositions, no imagined sequences of events presented, or anything that matches any of the other definitions.

Therefore in respect to life itself you believe what ever is necessary for your psychological comfort? I think this is a correct analyses of you and other people who lack a rational reason to exist.

I don’t think your analysis is correct. My beliefs are not driven for psychological comfort. There are things that I know/believe that I actually find to be rather disturbing. As I mentioned in post #13, #40, and #49 you are going to find some element of irrationality in about any motivation, either directly or burried between several layers of of other thoughts and rationalizations (applicable definition of rationalization here: To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one’s behavior)).

I did a quick search and I found a few articles on the psychology of survival. You might find them of interest. They don’t invoke any gods, heaven, “objective moral values”, and may meet the criteria that you’ve set.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Given metaphysical naturalism, why do they need a psychologist? -]There is no such thing as “wrong emotions”./-]

Her situation was such that I did not think I had the capability of convincing her not to kill herself with high certainity. The sources of stress in her life were not something that I knew how to alter myself. The psychologists that I spoke too (two) had experience in treating those with depression and that have tried to kill themselves. You can also apply a goal seeking model of behaviour here. My goal was to both prevent her death and improve the quality of her life and the psychologists interaction was involved in attaining that goal.

I’ve not suggested or implied any concept of “wrong emotions.” So I am striking it out.

What rational basis do you have for imposing your emotions and ideals on other minds?

Once again since we are talking about behaviour language from the study of behaviour is useful here. I will interpret your question as a question of what motivations drove my behaviour. The relevant motivations are that I cared about her well being, because of empathy some of her feelings were “contagious.” Because it seems that I was initally the only person that was privied to how things were going in her life (before I introduced the psychologist) I was the only person of which I knew that could initiate actions that would lead to a resolution.

I also think the lady was asking me for help. We were looking out an 18th story window (which is actually 17 stories up since this building had no 13th floor) and she said “Some times I feel like jumping out this Window. If I jumped out this window would you try to save me?” There’s a possibility that was a thinly veiled requests for help. People have been known to jump from high elevations to end their life in this city (happened at my current place of employment a few months ago, some one jumped from a 4th floor balcony to the lobby below) so I think there is a possibility she would follow through with it. (This is an example of something I believed that was not something that brought any psychology comfort. I found it to be quite disturbing).

Also among my friendships there’s a sometimes explicitly stated expectation that one will intervene to save some one else from harm. It’s not interpreted as being imposing.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Her situation was such that I did not think I had the capability of convincing her not to kill herself with high certainity. The sources of stress in her life were not something that I knew how to alter myself. The psychologists that I spoke too (two) had experience in treating those with depression and that have tried to kill themselves. You can also apply a goal seeking model of behaviour here. My goal was to both prevent her death and improve the quality of her life and the psychologists interaction was involved in attaining that goal.

I’ve not suggested or implied any concept of “wrong emotions.” So I am striking it out.

If you are not suggesting wrong emotions then why did you act? Surely you felt that your way of viewing things was the best way? You obviously felt that those emotions were not good. And you would obviously feel bad if you didn’t help her. These are emotional reasons; and if they don’t reflect the real world, they are evidently highly ideological, subjective, and genetic. In a world without God, objective moral value, or heaven, and in which we are all going to cease to exist in a relatively short period of time, what rational reason do you have for prolonging hers or anyones existence or preventing her suicide; much less making them feel guilty for doing so?

Your behavior does not seem rational if in fact metaphysical naturalism is true, for there is no such thing as a good or bad choice in terms of life and death, there is just action; and in the absence of moral truth it is really irrelevant what the people we leave behind feel on an emotional level because of our suicides. Such people are slaves to their emotions and are delusional especially when they think they have lost something that was owed to them. Life and death does not have any true value meaning beyond our subjective fantasies and instinctual impulses. What is evident to me is that you were driven by your emotions to impose your subjective feelings about life and death on another object, the bag of chemicals we call a human being.

empathy.

Its interesting that word; its chock full of the implication that you perceive true meaning and moral value in the lives of other people. Do you think that you are truly good, more human, a better person, for having empathy? Given metaphysical naturalism, what possible or relevant meaning can that word have in so far as rational behavior is concerned? Or are you merely saying that you did not want to lose her utility value or feel guilty for letting her go?

I also think the lady was asking me for help. We were looking out an 18th story window (which is actually 17 stories up since this building had no 13th floor) and she said “Some times I feel like jumping out this Window. If I jumped out this window would you try to save me?” There’s a possibility that was a thinly veiled requests for help. People have been known to jump from high elevations to end their life in this city (happened at my current place of employment a few months ago, some one jumped from a 4th floor balcony to the lobby below) so I think there is a possibility she would follow through with it.

She was going to jump because she thought that her life had no true value. Ironically enough according to metaphysical naturalism it doesn’t.

(This is an example of something I believed that was not something that brought any psychology comfort. I found it to be quite disturbing).

You helped her because you didn’t like the way the idea made you feel, and not because her life truly has a true value that ought to be saved?

Also among my friendships there’s a sometimes explicitly stated expectation that one will intervene to save some one else from harm. It’s not interpreted as being imposing.

All this tells me is that you are all happy to participate in a fantasy.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

"Quote Group:

If you are not suggesting wrong emotions then why did you act?

…] And you would obviously feel bad if you didn’t help her. These are emotional reasons

What possible or relevant meaning can that word have in so far as rational behavior is concerned?

…]what rational reason do you have for prolonging hers or anyones existence or preventing her suicide; much less making them feel guilty for doing so?

Grouping these together. From reading them I would almost feel that you’ve missed what I’ve said about emotions and the separation of irrational and rational thought. These were addressed in my previous messages. Also see where I used the word “inapplicable.” If you come across something that needs more explanation please ask specific questions about those explanations.

Surely you felt that your way of viewing things was the best way?

It was the solutions that came to mind it was what I evaluated as the “best” in a satisficing way. “Satisficing” may be an esoteric term. It comes from behavioural economics and was originally coined by a Herbert Simon in the later half of the 1950s. In acknowledging that have have limited time, resources, cognition, and other limitations what we find is that humans in general tend to seek a solution that is sufficient and satisfying. There may be better solutions. But there is also potential harm that can occur if too much time is spent deliberating potential solutions.

Your behavior does not seem rational if in fact metaphysical naturalism is true

What I’ve shared thus far isn’t contingent on metaphysical naturalism, though it is compatible with it I’ve also not invoked that word or suggested that philosophy. You might find it is compatible with other philosophies as well.

for there is no such thing as a good or bad choice in terms of life and death, there is just action; and in the absence of moral truth it is really irrelevant what the people we leave behind feel on an emotional level because of our suicides.

I’ve not invoked “good” or “bad” in any moral sense (that is I’ve not stated that any thing is morally good or morally bad). What I have done is talked about aspects of goal seeking behaviour. This can be used to explain some behaviours that you might evaluate as moral, immoral, or ammoral. ex: I won’t make any assertions on how your morally evaluate some one robbing the bank, but in any case the motivating goal may be the money and the pathway to that goal that the person has decided would be robbing the bank. The money may be an indirect goal. For example if some one’s goal is to get an expensive life saving operating then the money is the more indirect goal and the operation is the more direct goal.

Here’s a thought exercise. Try to find an explanation for this behaviour using a goal seeking model of behaviour. This happened in North Carolina back in July.

• A man is in need of an operation to remove a growth from his chest.
• The man has depleted his money, as no job and no health insurance.
• People in jail receive free health coverage.
• The man enters a bank without a weapon and informs the teller he is commiting a bank robery with a note. He demandsa single dollar.
• After he receives the dollar he tells the teller he will be waiting in the chair for the police to arrest him.

Was the man’s goal the USD? I’m confident that you can come up with an explanation for his behaviour from the above!

Life and death does not have any true value meaning beyond our subjective fantasies and instinctual impulses. What is evident to me is that you were driven by your emotions to impose your subjective feelings about life and death on another object, the bag of chemicals we call a human being.

If that’s how you feel. I don’t feel the same way, but I’m also somewhat apathetic with respect to trying to change your evaluation there.

Do you think that you are truly good, more human, a better person, for having empathy?

I don’t know what is meant by “more human”, “truly good.” “Better” also isn’t something that I apply to an entire human in general. I will use it to say that some one is “better at some skill” or “a better fit for some task” provided that I can find some method for comparing one person’s skill to another (ex: Tennis player A would be better than tennis player B if player A consistently defeats B in Tennis competitions). I also think you may be drifting off topic.

-] Or are you merely saying that you did not want to lose her utility value or feel guilty for letting her go?/-]

Given what I’ve said about utility this statement is also inapplicable.

She was going to jump because she thought that her life has no value.

I don’t know that she evaluated her life as having no value. It seems that she found some value in terminating her suffering and saw jumping out the window as a potential pathway to remove that suffering. In terms of behaviour this gets into how one deals with approach-avoidance conflicts. But I don’t want to detail that here. It may be to esoteric.

You helped her because you didn’t like the way the idea made you feel…

That’s one of the motivations that I previously declared. Thanks for taking notice.

and not because her life truly has a true value that ought to be saved?

Couldn’t tell you. I don’t know what you mean by “true value.”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Grouping these together. From reading them I would almost feel that you’ve missed what I’ve said about emotions and the separation of irrational and rational thought. These were addressed in my previous messages. Also see where I used the word “inapplicable.”

Your reason for choosing not to accept rational analyses of your emotional behavior (this is to ask if your behavior or feelings are rationally consistent with the true nature of objective reality) is based purely on the arbitrary claim that rational analyses is not applicable to that area of human activity which involve emotional responses.

I have seen no argument. And i am not going to chase a wild goose hunting for it. If you have presented an argument which rationally justifies your position beyond the assertion that its not applicable, quote it. If you have not, admit it, and then try to make a rational defense. At the moment it just seem as if you are having an emotional problem with accepting the conclusions of my analyses. But that is not good enough if you expect me to think that your philosophical position is valid.

We need to deal with this problem first, before we can move on in this debate. Otherwise its a waste of time.

Thanks for the posts.