Assuming that life is objectively meaningless (i.e. no God, ultimate destruction of the universe, certain death...), can making the decision to continue living be justified? In other words, how can a person justify his existence coherently if he acknowledges that whatever he does has no real and meaningful purpose? Surely life is neither worth nor not worth living. So why does everybody insist that it is worth living? It is irrational, isn't it?
---
Icarus

Assuming that life is objectively meaningless (i.e. no God, ultimate destruction of the universe, certain death...), can making the decision to continue living be justified? In other words, how can a person justify his existence coherently if he acknowledges that whatever he does has no real and meaningful purpose? Surely life is neither worth nor not worth living. So why does everybody insist that it is worth living? It is irrational, isn't it?
---
Icarus

Some ideas here:
www.ephilosopher.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum.php

And here:
www.ephilosopher.com/e107_plugins/forum/t331.html&start=0

And (strangely), here:
www.ephilosopher.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum.php

I think that one can find some (non-deductive) justification for our feelings of meaningfulness sans God. I rather DON'T think our feelings of "Ultimate Significance" make sense sans some Ultimate Reality.

Greetings,

exist-

Welcome to the board
-

Well, if life really is meaningless and there's no god etc then why would one have to justify anything? Indeed, is continued existence something that needs to be justified anymore than my breathing needs to be justified? Living is just something that we do and is a perfectly natural state for organisms to be in. It's also perfectly natural for organisms to die after varying amounts of time. It's also natural for organisms to make sure that this length of time is as long as possible.
The desire for life is really an instinct (just like breathing). What we want or believe doesn't enter into considerations and nor does justification since there are no considerations to be had. Living is not a rational belief or practice which one holds or adheres to. it is not something that one can, so-to-speak, 'step back from' and decide if one wants to do it or not. If you are alive then you are already doing it.
Of course, sadly, some people do take their own lives. However, such actions are rarely informed by reason save for some cases of euthanasia in which the sick person really has no genuine life to speak of.

When one asks 'is X justified?' we are, in this context, being asked to give a reason for why X should happen. In cases where X is something that could only come about through human means then the opportunity arises for rational considerations before X is chosen. However, asking for the justification of continued human existence is much like asking for a justification for the existence of the planet, in this context. There is no point asking of the planet 'why ought it exist?' Such questions misunderstand the nature of human power and put too much under it's dominion.

A human question about what 'ought' happen is really a question about whether it is morally correct for humans to bring something about.
A more natural sense of 'ought', however, is better understood as asking about what conditions would naturally bring something about.

So, if justification is really a matter of 'what ought happen'...

The first reading is inapplicable because the brute fact that we exist (as a species) has nothing to do with human's bringing about that fact. It was a fact long before we could consider it as a fact.

The second reading is more plausible and is thus really just a question about how we, as a species, developed- and that's stuff that science should fill in. <!-- editby --><br /><br /><em>edited by: anon-e-mouse, Feb 12, 2006 - 06:26 PM</em><!-- end editby -->

But from a personal point of view, life is what you make of it.
The continuation of it varies, but the end of it does not admit reversal.

It is worth living because life has inherent and personal value to the individual.

If there is no greater meaning, or god, or higher order etc, then life is worth living simply because it is entertaining and sensually stimulating. It gives us something to do.

If there is no higher order of things then it seems like selfishness would really be the utmost virtue, and that which gave the individual the ultimate pleasure would be of highest value.

So, life would be worth living just to obtain pleasure. There would not have to be any meaning other than personal satisfaction, and seeking the satisfaction would make living worthwhile because the opposite case, dying, would unnecessarily limit the individual's amount of pleasure.

s-fido <!-- editby --><br /><br /><em>edited by: Superfido, Feb 12, 2006 - 12:34 PM</em><!-- end editby -->

Well said actually, Superfido.
Add another couple of layers of more refined enjoyment on top of
the strictly sensual (religion is not the only summa-cum-loudly we can
graduate to above good times, of course ), and the chances
of having an interesting time keep improving.
See Carlos Casteneda's "path with heart" or "the purpose-driven life"
or Buddha's "8-fold path" or a more sweeping scope. If the wild
times aren't sustainable or deep enough, that is. <!-- editby --><br /><br /><em>edited by: leonardomenderes, Feb 12, 2006 - 12:49 PM</em><!-- end editby -->