The basis of secular values and ethics?

[Qoeleth]

Let’s assume that one is seeking to develop some kind of purely secular ethical basis for living. Now, in the absence of an afterlife, what possible basis can there be for ethics? If this world is all we have, with no punishment or reward, the most advisable thing to do would seem to live purely for personal pleasure, or, if that wasn’t available, simply to throw oneself of a cliff. What possible value or meaning could anything offer- life, society, oneself, the entire universe- that would provide a basis making the effort? Why should I care about anything, since it will all be reduced to dust soon enough…

Am I wrong?

 

[inocente]

in the absence of an afterlife

A secular humanist’s morality may be based on the principle that everyone is better off if one acts fairly and decently, while you seem to be suggesting that religious values are based purely on personal reward. If Christian ethics was really that selfish I’d go for secular morality any day, so I think you might like to rewrite that bit.

 

[Bagheera]

Yes, you are wrong. What you imply here that the ONLY “value” of this life is in its alleged continuation. Which translates into: “this life has no value of its own”. On the other hand, if one has no expectation of a “reward”, then one can concentrate on this existence, and enhance its quality. Also contrary to some people’s beliefs this does not necessarily end in mindless hedonism (though, of course, it MIGHT). But just look at those kids who developed Linux, and made it public domain.

Not everyone is selfish, and most people realize that a good balance of cooperation and confrontation (when necessary) is the optimal way to maximize one’s well-being. And those people who study game-theory find a mathematical proof for this balancing act.

The main problem with the religious morality is that it is based upon the carrot-and-stick principle. Be obedient and you will be rewarded, or follow your own values, and you will be punished. The main theme of the bible is not “love”, but “obedience”!

 

[LittleFlower378]

One can be secular and still still be loved by God in the sense that God is still trying to draw that person to Himself. That person may also have a will to love. The problem is without God, love is materialistic, based on things of this world. Wisdom tells us that we as Christians should seek what is above, namely Christ.

 

[Qoeleth]

A secular humanist’s morality may be based on the principle that everyone is better off if one acts fairly and decently, while you seem to be suggesting that religious values are based purely on personal reward. If Christian ethics was really that selfish I’d go for secular morality any day, so I think you might like to rewrite that bit.

Yes, you are wrong. What you imply here that the ONLY “value” of this life is in its alleged continuation. Which translates into: “this life has no value of its own”. On the other hand, if one has no expectation of a “reward”, then one can concentrate on this existence, and enhance its quality. Also contrary to some people’s beliefs this does not necessarily end in mindless hedonism (though, of course, it MIGHT). But just look at those kids who developed Linux, and made it public domain.

Not everyone is selfish, and most people realize that a good balance of cooperation and confrontation (when necessary) is the optimal way to maximize one’s well-being. And those people who study game-theory find a mathematical proof for this balancing act.

The main problem with the religious morality is that it is based upon the carrot-and-stick principle. Be obedient and you will be rewarded, or follow your own values, and you will be punished. The main theme of the bible is not “love”, but “obedience”!

Agreed. Now, I recognise that people are not entirely selfish naturally. Most people care about family, friends, and strangers in need- I suppose because of our social and biological make up. Yes, that inclines us to be good, even in the absence of anything else.

But it is clear that this life, in itself, has no value. Sure, many people go on living and working, to support their family, their friends, etc. But that paints a grim picture for the secularist- they are obliged to continue being ‘good’ and living, although can hope for nothing of real or lasting value out of it, merely for the sake of avoiding causing pain to others. It’s like a dinner party, where everyone stays and behaves, to avoiding giving offence to anyone else, but no one actually wants to be there.

Without Heaven and Hell, life is surely like digging a ditch in the sun, with no pay at the end of the day. But not only that, knowing also that at the end of your day, the ditch, which serves no purpose anyway, will be filled in five minutes after you have gone.

Secularism is surely the most wretched of all philosophies. The carrot-and-stick approach may not be popular, but without the carrot and stick, what’s in it for the poor donkey? And are each of us not that donkey?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But it is clear that this life, in itself, has no value.

Afraid that’s not clear. You’ll find both secular and non-secular people that don’t agree with the above. There’s also a problem in the concept of “value” without a “valuer” but I won’t get into that here.

But that paints a grim picture for the secularist- they are obliged to continue being ‘good’ and living, although can hope for nothing of real or lasting value out of it, merely for the sake of avoiding causing pain to others.

Not quite. This seems to take the view that people are only motivated by “extrinsic motivation.”

It’s like a dinner party, where everyone stays and behaves, to avoiding giving offence to anyone else, but no one actually wants to be there.

If you ever find yourself facing that situation, just don’t go to the dinner party. It can be rather liberating to be honest to the person that invited you.

Secularism is surely the most wretched of all philosophies. The carrot-and-stick approach may not be popular, but without the carrot and stick, what’s in it for the poor donkey? And are each of us not that donkey?

You may find interest in the study of “motivation.” Most of your post seems to involve only a form of “extrinsic motivation” while not taking into consideration the many other forms of motivation that a person may experience. People usually are not quite as “flat” as what have been described in the scenarios that have been presented. While these simple scenarios are useful for looking at a very narrow aspect of behaviour they are not sufficient for examining the bigger picture.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Let’s assume that one is seeking to develop some kind of purely secular ethical basis for living. Now, in the absence of an afterlife, what possible basis can there be for ethics?

Reason, which is rooted in the eternal law.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. “Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law.” (Leo XIII, Libertas præstantissimum: AAS 20 (1887/88),597; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,90,1.)

Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him. (Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc, 2,4L 2,288-289)

If this world is all we have, with no punishment or reward, the most advisable thing to do would seem to live purely for personal pleasure, or, if that wasn’t available, simply to throw oneself of a cliff.

Happiness, however, surpasses mere bodily pleasure seeking. We all have a desire to be truly happy. Reason, wisdom and the desire for happiness combine in man to produce and tend to a rational and moral order, because only by living in accordance with moral truths can we hope to be happy. Indeed, even consistent indulgence in pleasures generally requires at least some acknowledgement and acceptance of reality and the laws of nature. Man seeks pleasures because he thinks they will make him happy.

What possible value or meaning could anything offer- life, society, oneself, the entire universe- that would provide a basis making the effort? Why should I care about anything, since it will all be reduced to dust soon enough…

Am I wrong?

The desire to be happy is restless in man. He will tend to it even if -as he often tends to and does- he is ignorant of this truth working within him.

 

[phil19034]

Many secular people even atheists will live by the idea of the Golden Rule, “do onto others as you would have them do onto you”

That’s why so secular women who would never abort a child themselves are pro-choice… They would not want someone to tell them what they can or cannot do with their body, hence they will not tell others what they cannot do.

You can have good ethics which are not morally centered, but this can also lead to ethics which are NOT morally centered like Abortion and “Gay Marriage”

For societies to not go down hill, the ethics of societies must be morally centered, not strictly freedom centered.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, you are wrong. What you imply here that the ONLY “value” of this life is in its alleged continuation. Which translates into: “this life has no value of its own”. On the other hand, if one has no expectation of a “reward”, then one can concentrate on this existence, and enhance its quality. Also contrary to some people’s beliefs this does not necessarily end in mindless hedonism (though, of course, it MIGHT). But just look at those kids who developed Linux, and made it public domain.

Not everyone is selfish, and most people realize that a good balance of cooperation and confrontation (when necessary) is the optimal way to maximize one’s well-being. And those people who study game-theory find a mathematical proof for this balancing act.

The main problem with the religious morality is that it is based upon the carrot-and-stick principle. Be obedient and you will be rewarded, or follow your own values, and you will be punished. The main theme of the bible is not “love”, but “obedience”!

This is not a problem with religious morality, per se, though it is a problem with your limited understanding of religious morality. It may be true that some religious persons are motivated by extrinsic rewards, but that is also true of some secular atheists. It is also true that some secular atheists are motivated by considerations of intrinsic good - that some valued ends are good in themselves and not as a means to some other end. The problem with your statement is you seem to exclude that as a possibility for religious persons, which is simply not true. Read Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and how the view of goods as ends in themselves is further developed by Aquinas and Thomism.

In Catholic and Christian moral teaching, the highest good is love, which is to carry out actions for the good of the other and for love of God (not for fear of punishment or hope for reward.) God’s will is to be done because it is essentially what the highest good for all is. To BE in the fullest possible way is the highest good for any being and God is Being at its fullness of perfection and the reason why intrinsic goods have any worth - because these are good in their very act of being achieved and make us more complete in their achievement.

The good achieved by the developers of Linux was not merely in providing a good to others but also in making themselves better human beings in the process.

My suspicion is that you understand the phrase “fear of God” as a cowering before God, but that is not a correct rendition. Fear of God means an awareness of the possibility of losing the highest good in the sense of not being a part of the best possible outcome for all when it comes about because of our own negligence or malice. Fear of God is a general term for an awareness of the importance that in God’s being the fulfillment of all good resides because he is the source of all good and that is the ultimate intrinsic good that could be lost to us if we trade it for lesser goods of our own conception - even those with some intrinsic value.

Fear of God means to take very seriously what is at stake when considering moral options because of what might be lost, not merely to ourselves but in terms of the overall positive contribution we could be making towards the achievement of what the good is or could be for all.

The role of God as a moral “determiner” must be considered in terms of the classic attributions of omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence. As moral agents, we have an ally who is not merely MORE capable of making moral judgements of what our good ultimately should be but provides the ultimate moral end - the fulfillment of all possible good for all moral agents provided they seek the highest possible good.

A final point…

Religious persons who act for extrinsic reward would appear to be following commandments and postponing hedonistic satisfaction for the sake of greater hedonistic satisfaction after death are missing the point, in my estimation. Christian (and in particular Catholic) moral teaching is NOT about being small minded and cashing in for greater pleasure by putting off smaller pleasures now.

Much more important is the idea of transformation, of becoming a different kind of being who takes the right kind of pleasure in what is intrinsically good. We mistake the conception of true good because of the state we are in. Simply transferring that selfish state into Heaven will make us miserable - what hell is actually. The core idea is transformation - loving and appreciating what is truly good for its own sake. What we should rightfully fear is not becoming what the infinite goodness of God would have us BE by neglecting to fulfill our eternal destiny (our birthright) by treating it frivolously.

 

[tonyrey]

People generally behave as if life is valuable regardless of what they claim to believe. For a start they attach value to pleasure - and even if they commit suicide they welcome death as a means of escape…

 

[Qoeleth]

Reason, which is rooted in the eternal law.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. “Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law.” (Leo XIII, Libertas præstantissimum: AAS 20 (1887/88),597; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,90,1.)

Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him. (Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc, 2,4L 2,288-289)

Happiness, however, surpasses mere bodily pleasure seeking. We all have a desire to be truly happy. Reason, wisdom and the desire for happiness combine in man to produce and tend to a rational and moral order, because only by living in accordance with moral truths can we hope to be happy. Indeed, even consistent indulgence in pleasures generally requires at least some acknowledgement and acceptance of reality and the laws of nature. Man seeks pleasures because he thinks they will make him happy.

The desire to be happy is restless in man. He will tend to it even if -as he often tends to and does- he is ignorant of this truth working within him.

Yes, but take God out of the picture, and what happiness is there for man? None.

When I refer to secular values, I am assuming the secularist is not taking God into consideration. Now, for a Christian the final end of the universe is God- which gives a basis for ethics. But, for a secularist, there can be no final end to anything. Therefore, for a secularist, the only happiness could be some kind of satisfaction in life. But that is a myth for children.

I suspect why that is why secularists surround themselves with substitute gods (personal ambition, good causes), because they find that there is no basis for value in life unless it has a final end.

 

[Bagheera]

Agreed. Now, I recognise that people are not entirely selfish naturally. Most people care about family, friends, and strangers in need- I suppose because of our social and biological make up. Yes, that inclines us to be good, even in the absence of anything else.

It all comes from our biological nature. We are all both individuals and herd animals. Also we are all “prompted” by our biological nature to seek pleasure and avoid pain. This is all biology. “How” we seek that pleasure and “how” we attempt to avoid that pain is the point where ethics comes into the picture.

But it is clear that this life, in itself, has no value.

Yes, but we are free to fill it up with value.

Sure, many people go on living and working, to support their family, their friends, etc. But that paints a grim picture for the secularist- they are obliged to continue being ‘good’ and living, although can hope for nothing of real or lasting value out of it, merely for the sake of avoiding causing pain to others. It’s like a dinner party, where everyone stays and behaves, to avoiding giving offence to anyone else, but no one actually wants to be there.

How pessimistic. Of course we have no say-so in our existence, we are dealt certain cards, and have to make the best of it. There is a very wise old saying: “it is the journey that matters, not the destination”. Or in another form: “it does not matter if you win or lose, what matters is how well you play the game”.

Without Heaven and Hell, life is surely like digging a ditch in the sun, with no pay at the end of the day. But not only that, knowing also that at the end of your day, the ditch, which serves no purpose anyway, will be filled in five minutes after you have gone.

Where does this pessimism come from? In the national forests there is a sign: “take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but footprints”. If we leave “good” footprints, then we shall live on (for a while) in the memories of those whose life we touched. Since we are biological beings, and as we age, there is a natural “breakdown” of information transmission (the new cells are never identical to the old ones) it is natural that we age and eventually die. Maybe there is a way to arrest or reverse this process, and we can live a healthy life in a 30 years old body - as long as we want to. Maybe this is just a pipe dream. But one thing is certain. We live longer and healthier than our forefathers did. Another wise observation: “The good old times are TODAY”.

Secularism is surely the most wretched of all philosophies. The carrot-and-stick approach may not be popular, but without the carrot and stick, what’s in it for the poor donkey? And are each of us not that donkey?

Your view of secular philosophy is based on a huge misunderstanding.

I certainly do not see myself as a “donkey”, who is being offered carrot for obedience, and whips for disobedience. It comes from the lack of belief in someone who wields that whip and offers a carrot for “good, obedient” behavior. So your “analogy” is only applicable to believers, not the atheists. As a matter of fact, there is nothing more horrifying than the prospect of eternal “anything”, be it eternal bliss or eternal torture. If people would really consider some “eternal, unchanging” existence, they would reject it immediately. People don’t really want to live “forever”, they simply do not wish to get old and die of age. Read the story of the “struldbrugs” in Swift’s wonderful Gulliver’s travels, and think about it.

I suspect why that is why secularists surround themselves with substitute gods (personal ambition, good causes), because they find that there is no basis for value in life unless it has a final end.

Well, this is called facing reality. The “faith” in some afterlife is the quintessential BLIND faith. There is no evidence for it, it is all wishful thinking (read Hebrews 11:1). And there is a “final” end of our existence. It is called “death”. Not fun, and if there would be a benevolent God, he sure could have arranged a better solution.

 

[Qoeleth]

Religious persons who act for extrinsic reward would appear to be following commandments and postponing hedonistic satisfaction for the sake of greater hedonistic satisfaction after death are missing the point, in my estimation. Christian (and in particular Catholic) moral teaching is NOT about being small minded and cashing in for greater pleasure by putting off smaller pleasures now.

Much more important is the idea of transformation, of becoming a different kind of being who takes the right kind of pleasure in what is intrinsically good. We mistake the conception of true good because of the state we are in. Simply transferring that selfish state into Heaven will make us miserable - what hell is actually. The core idea is transformation - loving and appreciating what is truly good for its own sake. What we should rightfully fear is not becoming what the infinite goodness of God would have us BE by neglecting to fulfill our eternal destiny (our birthright) by treating it frivolously.

A good many saints, though, put it in precisely those terms- about pinning our hopes entirely on a future happiness, and being motivated by fear of Hell and desire for Heaven. After all, desire for Heaven is basically the same as “desire for the Good”, or “desire for God.” Christ Himself has no problem about presenting Heaven and Hell as motivating forces.

 

[Qoeleth]

Yes, but we are free to fill it up with value.

How pessimistic. Of course we have no say-so in our existence, we are dealt certain cards, and have to make the best of it. There is a very wise old saying: “it is the journey that matters, not the destination”. Or in another form: “it does not matter if you win or lose, what matters is how well you play the game”.

Where does this pessimism come from? In the national forests there is a sign: “take nothing but pictures and leave nothing but footprints”. If we leave “good” footprints, then we shall live on (for a while) in the memories of those whose life we touched. Since we are biological beings, and as we age, there is a natural “breakdown” of information transmission (the new cells are never identical to the old ones) it is natural that we age and eventually die. Maybe there is a way to arrest or reverse this process, and we can live a healthy life in a 30 years old body - as long as we want to. Maybe this is just a pipe dream. But one thing is certain. We live longer and healthier than our forefathers did. Another wise observation: “The good old times are TODAY”.

Your view of secular philosophy is based on a huge misunderstanding.

I certainly do not see myself as a “donkey”, who is being offered carrot for obedience, and whips for disobedience. It comes from the lack of belief in someone who wields that whip and offers a carrot for “good, obedient” behavior. So your “analogy” is only applicable to believers, not the atheists. As a matter of fact, there is nothing more horrifying than the prospect of eternal “anything”, be it eternal bliss or eternal torture. If people would really consider some “eternal, unchanging” existence, they would reject it immediately. People don’t really want to live “forever”, they simply do not wish to get old and die of age. Read the story of the “struldbrugs” in Swift’s wonderful Gulliver’s travels, and think about it.

Well, this is called facing reality. The “faith” in some afterlife is the quintessential BLIND faith. There is no evidence for it, it is all wishful thinking (read Hebrews 11:1). And there is a “final” end of our existence. It is called “death”. Not fun, and if there would be a benevolent God, he sure could have arranged a better solution.

I agree that in a certain sense the prospect of ‘eternal life’ can be, at a certain level, terrifying. But even more terrifying is the propsect of Hell. This life can be viewed as a dud movie, which your forced to watch, and you pretend to enjoy so you don’t upset your friends, who have also been forced to watch. But, at least you know it doesn’t go on forever, so it can be tolerated.

But without the possibility of Heaven, the situation of the human race is unspeakably bleak…There must be some bright side or compensation for it all. Therefore, Heaven must exist.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As a matter of fact, there is nothing more horrifying than the prospect of eternal “anything”, be it eternal bliss or eternal torture. If people would really consider some “eternal, unchanging” existence, they would reject it immediately. People don’t really want to live “forever”, they simply do not wish to get old and die of age.

The problem with this analysis is that temporal goods are just that and are only meant to be. Any temporal good reaches a point of satiation which is precisely why Jesus said, “It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.” (John 6:63) and why Paul made this exclamation:

I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” (1 Cor 15:50-54)

And

If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained?

True, an everlasting life with temporal goods would be unbearable, but that is not the Christian message. The promise is that our nature will changed to enjoy eternal goods, goods which we do not and can not now appreciate.

“What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived” – the things God has prepared for those who love him-- (1 Cor 2:9)

 

[Peter_Plato]

A good many saints, though, put it in precisely those terms- about pinning our hopes entirely on a future happiness, and being motivated by fear of Hell and desire for Heaven. After all, desire for Heaven is basically the same as “desire for the Good”, or “desire for God.” Christ Himself has no problem about presenting Heaven and Hell as motivating forces.

Christ spoke this way because he knew his audience. This kind of motivation works for those moved by fear and pleasure, but ultimately love must be the principle that reforms and transforms us into the kind of beings that will find joy rather than extreme discomfort in God’s presence. It is in the practice of supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity made possible by grace that the Good is attained.

Even the ideas of fear of hell and desire for Heaven are understood differently by sinners who stand as enemies of God and saints who are on more “friendly” terms.

Fear of hell for a sinner could be taken as fear of punishment, but fear of hell for a saint is more like dread of offending the goodness of God because they have grasped a tiny shred of how awesome eternal goodness truly is.

Likewise, desire for Heaven for a sinner might be taken as something “better” than currently possessed but along the same lines of pleasure. For a saint, desire for Heaven is more in the context of the utter joy of being in the presence of the source of ultimate Goodness, Truth and Beauty.

 

[Portofino]

What possible value or meaning could anything offer- life, society, oneself, the entire universe- that would provide a basis making the effort?

Some of what you are saying is tied up with questions of temperament and emotional constitution, which differs from person to person. An evaluation of what constitutes sufficient motivation – what is worth the effort, and what is not – will not be the same for all people.

To give an example – for some people, building a sand castle at the beach would be a waste of time, because the sand is fragile and the tide will wash it away (plus, you can’t take it home with you). For others, the very experience of having made the sand castle is sufficient motivation, even though it will not last. For others, it is worthwhile if you can at least take a photo of it, before it is destroyed. Others, on the other hand, have no need to take a photo, and wouldn’t have any interest in looking at the photo, anyway; it is the experience, in the present moment, that matters to them.

Questions of what constitutes sufficient motivation for living – what is good enough, compelling enough? – is necessarily subjective. Some are more demanding than others; others are more easily pleased, more easily content. Some view a kind of profundity in being more demanding, wanting more; others, on the other hand, view a kind of wisdom in being content with less, and not making such demands on life (such as the demand that it last forever).

 

[tonyrey]

Some of what you are saying is tied up with questions of temperament and emotional constitution, which differs from person to person. An evaluation of what constitutes sufficient motivation – what is worth the effort, and what is not – will not be the same for all people.

To give an example – for some people, building a sand castle at the beach would be a waste of time, because the sand is fragile and the tide will wash it away (plus, you can’t take it home with you). For others, the very experience of having made the sand castle is sufficient motivation, even though it will not last. For others, it is worthwhile if you can at least take a photo of it, before it is destroyed. Others, on the other hand, have no need to take a photo, and wouldn’t have any interest in looking at the photo, anyway; it is the experience, in the present moment, that matters to them.

Questions of what constitutes sufficient motivation for living – what is good enough, compelling enough? – is necessarily subjective. Some are more demanding than others; others are more easily pleased, more easily content. Some view a kind of profundity in being more demanding, wanting more; others, on the other hand, view a kind of wisdom in being content with less, and not making such demands on life (such as the demand that it last forever).

Anyone who deeply appreciates life - and love - wants it to last forever.

There is also a lot of unfinished business on earth…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Qoeleth

Am I wrong?**

It is possible, but I suspect very rare, for a secular ethical system to put altruism ahead of hedonism. Since nature abhors a vacuum, it would be easy enough for those who think there is no God to adore themselves.

 

[Qoeleth]

Some of what you are saying is tied up with questions of temperament and emotional constitution, which differs from person to person. An evaluation of what constitutes sufficient motivation – what is worth the effort, and what is not – will not be the same for all people.

To give an example – for some people, building a sand castle at the beach would be a waste of time, because the sand is fragile and the tide will wash it away (plus, you can’t take it home with you). For others, the very experience of having made the sand castle is sufficient motivation, even though it will not last. For others, it is worthwhile if you can at least take a photo of it, before it is destroyed. Others, on the other hand, have no need to take a photo, and wouldn’t have any interest in looking at the photo, anyway; it is the experience, in the present moment, that matters to them.

Questions of what constitutes sufficient motivation for living – what is good enough, compelling enough? – is necessarily subjective. Some are more demanding than others; others are more easily pleased, more easily content. Some view a kind of profundity in being more demanding, wanting more; others, on the other hand, view a kind of wisdom in being content with less, and not making such demands on life (such as the demand that it last forever).

So, a person who is wildly optimistic could conceivably find a secularist philosophy acceptable. They might say human society, human achievement, the joy of living, all make it worthwhile, not only to ‘be good’, but to ‘be’ at all.

But a person who is a pessimist, who finds the things of the world to be meaningless and the evils of life to outweigh the goods, would not be able to derive a meaningful positive morality from secularism- except perhaps a purely ‘remedial’ morality based on compassion, of minimizing the sufferings of others.