Is EVERYTHING meaningless?

[Charlemagne_III]

The “greatest happiness principle” is a shorthand for “the most moral actions are those that tend to increase the net happiness of all sentient beings”. That is the axiom, although there are several variations of it that have been developed to address its criticisms.

Since the definition of “happiness” varies from one person to another (and some people don’t even believe it exists), this principle is still about a particular state of mind to be pursued, rather than a universally objective principle of morality concerning good and evil. Nor is it fundamental and self-evident that there are any particular moral actions that “increase the net happiness of all sentient beings.” And it’s very likely that you could not find any general agreement as to what those actions are that are supposed to be self-evident … so how can the “net happiness” actions be axiomatic?

Remember, we are talking about axioms … not principles of morality that might follow the axioms and need to be proved. An axiom has to be basic and self-evident.

You haven’t offered the most fundamental axiom of moral philosophy.

Want to try again?

 

[Oreoracle]

Since the definition of “happiness” varies from one person to another (and some people don’t even believe it exists)…

As I’ve said, such criticisms have long since been addressed in various ways. Some forms of utilitarianism are more specific about what constitutes happiness. As for questioning its existence, that is like questioning the existence of pain. Only someone who hasn’t felt pain would question whether it exists.

this principle is still about a particular state of mind to be pursued, rather than a universally objective principle of morality concerning good and evil.

For the umpteenth time, it is only from the viewpoint of your axioms that you can make such a statement. From my perspective, other people’s axioms do not seem relevant to good and evil. I could make exactly the same arguments you are making.

That is why you aren’t addressing the issue of conflicting axioms, because it effectively ends the discussion and forces you to admit that you cannot prove your presuppositions without assuming your own presuppositions.

Nor is it fundamental and self-evident that there are any particular moral actions that “increase the net happiness of all sentient beings.”

The main advantage of utilitarianism is that it takes context into account. Thus, utilitarians never categorically say things like “stealing is always wrong” because there are situations in which stealing prevents negative outcomes. For example, it clearly isn’t wrong to steal your friend’s car keys if he wants to drive home drunk.

Someone with a different moral code may have to invent an ad hoc rule to justify stealing a friend’s car keys (they may contrive a convoluted definition of “stealing” to avoid the dilemma, for example). But since utilitarians have no a priori qualms with stealing, no such ad hoc reasoning is required for us. We judge the action by the situation.

Remember, we are talking about axioms … not principles of morality that might follow the axioms and need to be proved. An axiom has to be basic and self-evident.

Notice that it is self-evident, not us-evident. Just because you don’t find it self-evident doesn’t mean that I can’t.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For the umpteenth time, it is only from the viewpoint of your axioms that you can make such a statement.

That is why you aren’t addressing the issue of conflicting axioms, because it effectively ends the discussion and forces you to admit that you cannot prove your presuppositions without assuming your own presuppositions.

For the umpteenth time axioms by definition cannot conflict. If by the term “pre-supposition” you mean “self-evident,” there is no need for axioms to conflict. I do not have to prove my axioms and you do not have to prove yours. That is what axioms are:

Unprovable!

What you have said about Utilitarianism is a theorem, not an axiom! I was challenging your theorem, not your axiom.

Get with the program!

 

[Oreoracle]

For the umpteenth time axioms by definition cannot conflict.

Axioms within the same system cannot conflict, that is correct. But our axioms are apart of different systems. The fact that another deductive system exists that is incompatible with one’s own system does not invalidate one’s own system. The systems essentially must be regarded separately, or else you’ll have people trying to make different geometries agree with each other when they don’t. This doesn’t mean that one geometry is “correct”; correctness only makes sense relative to a particular deductive system.

I do not have to prove my axioms and you do not have to prove yours.

I agree entirely. But I don’t think you fully realize the consequences of this. This means that when you say something like “Utilitarianism is far from being a basic moral axiom” or that it is not the most fundamental principle, you are making a statement that requires us to presuppose your own moral code to begin with. If we presuppose my morality, of course the greatest happiness principle is most fundamental.

Your argument amounts to “If you agreed with me, you would agree with me”. I’ve been saying that that is a tautological argument and could be made for absolutely any morality.

 

[Oreoracle]

It seems that the fact that this discussion is about morality is distracting, so let’s just talk about the relationships between deductive systems. I’ve been using geometries as an example, so I’ll frame my questions in terms of them.

In Euclidean geometry there is the Parallel Postulate, and in elliptic geometry its negation is assumed instead. Suppose we asked which geometry is correct, or which axiom is true. How would you go about answering that question? I will not respond to anything else you write on this thread if you do not address this question.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I will not respond to anything else you write on this thread if you do not address this question.

Sorry to hear that! You don’t have to respond.

I will only close by saying that I don’t think you understand the difference between an axiom and a theorem, so what point is there in talking mathematics with you.

Utilitarianism is not an axiom. It is a philosophical theorem, if anything. Had you stayed on topic we might have had an interesting discussion about moral axioms. But as it is: :sad_bye:

 

[Nihilist]

The question begs the question.

It presupposes that the question is meaningful.

Therefore the answer is a resounding “No”.

Are you sure my question is meaningful? If my life as a whole is meaningless (which it often feels to be), then surely everything I do, any question I ask, etc., are also meaningless.

I have found myself essentially a person redundant to the workings of human society. In response to the world finding me uselss- I respond that if I am useless to the world, the world is equally useless to me.

And both I and the world seem useless in the context of eternity.

 

[tonyrey]

Are you sure my question is meaningful? If my life as a whole is meaningless (which it often feels to be), then surely everything I do, any question I ask, etc., are also meaningless.

As I pointed out, feelings are often deceptive.

“life as a whole” is also ambiguous. If some parts of your life are meaningful why are they meaningful? If the final outcome is meaningless why do the meaningful parts become meaningless? Is it because you believe death makes everything meaningless?

O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 55-57

I have found myself essentially a person redundant to the workings of human society. In response to the world finding me uselss - I respond that if I am useless to the world. And both I and the world seem useless in the context of eternity.

St Paul had a far more positive outlook:

So, my dear brothers and sisters, be strong and immovable. Always work enthusiastically for the Lord, for you know that nothing you do for the Lord is ever useless.

1 Corinthians 58

Even from a strictly secular point of view your concept of eternity loses sight of the indestructible nature of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and - above all - love…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

St Paul had a far more positive outlook:

"So, my dear brothers and sisters, be strong and immovable. Always work enthusiastically for the Lord, for you know that nothing you do for the Lord is ever useless."1 Corinthians 58

This is another great moral axiom, self-evident and requiring no proof.

 

[tonyrey]

This is another great moral axiom, self-evident and requiring no proof.

Even for non-believers…

 

[opusAquinas]

Are you sure my question is meaningful? If my life as a whole is meaningless (which it often feels to be), then surely everything I do, any question I ask, etc., are also meaningless.

I have found myself essentially a person redundant to the workings of human society. In response to the world finding me uselss- I respond that if I am useless to the world, the world is equally useless to me.

And both I and the world seem useless in the context of eternity.

If you are a believing Catholic - nothing is meaningless. Salvation in hope.

 

[TarkanAttila]

It seems that the fact that this discussion is about morality is distracting, so let’s just talk about the relationships between deductive systems. I’ve been using geometries as an example, so I’ll frame my questions in terms of them.

In Euclidean geometry there is the Parallel Postulate, and in elliptic geometry its negation is assumed instead. Suppose we asked which geometry is correct, or which axiom is true. How would you go about answering that question? I will not respond to anything else you write on this thread if you do not address this question.

Well, of course no one who understands both concepts denies Euclidean geometry or non-Euclidean geometries. Within their own fields, they make sense.

But any rational person can adopt both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries because non-Euclidean geometry is not used in conventional Earth geometry given its utility here. It is used elsewhere.

But Happiness, however you define it, is not an axiom. It is a principle derived from other axioms, or principles derived from axioms. The Philosopher Aristotle understood this and posited three criteria for the supreme good: “it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its sake.” (1) He called this supreme good “eudaemonia”, or well-being. Haven’t gone through the whole of it, but even I figured out happiness requires some figuring out. It is not self-evident.

Furthermore, neither Christianity nor utilitarianism are axioms. Christianity is a conclusion based on historical, philosophical, and theological grounds. Utilitarianism is a philosophy which can be incorporated into any philosophy that has a definition of happiness, but which cannot work without such a definition.

I will decimate all forms of happiness that derive from temporal pleasures with one axiom: death. Death destroys all earthly pleasures. Any history of it within a person. You will not think about pleasure after you have died because you will not exist - not here, anyway. All attempts at happiness in this life alone gain a net sum of zero due to death.

We can agree with this, can we not?

 

[hu324b]

If the visible universe was all that existed you might be right- the current view is that the visible part of the universe only accounts for 4% - 96% of the universe is not visible to us - according to the current theory but you don’t have to believe that. Note:These numbers may have been undated.

If we could sum up the universe as a tree - we only see the shadow of the tree - we cannot see the tree.We don’t know whats going on really and have just scratched the surface with our observations.So the information we have which is almost nothing and is unreliable - its a massive leap to base our opinions on what we see.

The church preaches what is seen and unseen,I don’t believe God lives in the universe because God created the universe.
We live in a mystery that we will likely never understand as living beings in it on the earth. I believe God made it that way with a purpose which will be revealed to us in the next life or the coming of Christ.

 

[Oreoracle]

But Happiness, however you define it, is not an axiom. It is a principle derived from other axioms, or principles derived from axioms.

Whether or not it’s an axiom depends on the axiomatic system in question. Again, we can use mathematical examples: In some geometries, the Parallel Postulate is assumed and used to prove that the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. But you could instead take the latter “theorem” as an axiom and make the Parallel “Postulate” a theorem. In set theory, there are multiple ways to axiomatize things like the empty set and infinite sets. What is derived and what is assumed varies from system to system.

The choice of which statements will be axioms and which will be theorems depends, in part, on the philosophical question of which ideas seem simpler than others. The Parallel Postulate seems more obvious than the statement about interior angles of triangles (in my opinion), but they are logically equivalent. To me, the idea that happiness is preferable–that is, that it is a moral good–is the simplest notion I can think of in terms of morality. You are free to disagree and say it isn’t self-evident to you, but it is self-evident to me.

I will decimate all forms of happiness that derive from temporal pleasures with one axiom: death. Death destroys all earthly pleasures. Any history of it within a person. You will not think about pleasure after you have died because you will not exist - not here, anyway. All attempts at happiness in this life alone gain a net sum of zero due to death.

This is like saying that teams cannot score goals in a sport because the game will eventually end. Sure, happiness is temporary. But I don’t see how one jumps from “X is temporary” to “X isn’t worthwhile”.

 

[codesmith]

That pretty much says how I feel. We work, struggle, achieve things- they fall to pieces, everything comes to nothing. All loves fail, all dreams die, nothing in this world is worth the trouble. All pointless vanity. What advantage has the wise man over the fool, since the same fate comes to both.

C.S. Lewis in his essay “De Futilitate”, observed the following…

“There is, to be sure, one glaringly obvious ground for denying that any moral purpose at all is operative in the universe: namely, the actual course of events in all its wasteful cruelty and apparent indifference, or hostility, to life. But then, as I maintain, that is precisely the ground which we cannot use. Unless we judge this waste and cruelty to be real evils we cannot of course condemn the universe for exhibiting them. Unless we take our own standard of goodness to be valid in principle (however fallible our particular applications of it) we cannot mean anything by calling waste and cruelty evils. And unless we take our own standard to be something more than ours, to be in fact an objective principle to which we are responding, we cannot regard that standard as valid. In a word, unless we allow ultimate reality to be moral, we cannot morally condemn it. The more seriously we take our own charge of futility the more we are committed to the implication that reality in the last resort is not futile at all. The defiance of the good atheist hurled at an apparently ruthless and idiotic cosmos is really an unconscious homage to something in or behind that cosmos which he recognizes as infinitely valuable and authoritative: for if mercy and justice were really only private whims of his own with no objective and impersonal roots, and if he realized this, he could not go on being indignant.”

 

[blase6]

Nothing created by God is meaningless because its purpose was bestowed on it by God. Though we cannot see a purpose in a lot of it, we believe that nothing created has no purpose. However, it might be said that this world is absurd because the existence of God is necessary for this world to exist, and the existence of God is absurd because we see that nothing causes its own purpose, its purpose is given from another, as in our purpose from God or a computer’s purpose from the inventor. God did not have a purpose bestowed on him from another because there could not be a precedent being. So either, God has no purpose, so God and the world is absurd, or God causes his own purpose or has a necessary purpose, neither of which makes sense without the argument that God is higher than or not bound to human reason and logic. Even if the world is absurd, it is not meaningless.

 

[Nihilist]

Nothing created by God is meaningless because its purpose was bestowed on it by God. Though we cannot see a purpose in a lot of it, we believe that nothing created has no purpose. However, it might be said that this world is absurd because the existence of God is necessary for this world to exist, and the existence of God is absurd because we see that nothing causes its own purpose, its purpose is given from another, as in our purpose from God or a computer’s purpose from the inventor. God did not have a purpose bestowed on him from another because there could not be a precedent being. So either, God has no purpose, so God and the world is absurd, or God causes his own purpose or has a necessary purpose, neither of which makes sense without the argument that God is higher than or not bound to human reason and logic. Even if the world is absurd, it is not meaningless.

You have captured the essence of my problem. Yes, I accept the world has a purpose, in relation to humans, and humans have a purpose, in relation to God. But in relation to what does God have a purpose? (Sorry, this seems blasphemous- I don’t mean it that way). If we step outside the totality of everything (including God), what is the purpose of the whole lot?

And if there is no ultimate purpose, what’s the point? Why couldn’t there be nothing, rather than something?