The Meaning of Life and Liberalism

[FAI_Liberation]

The modern age, the age of science, technology reason have, at least for most rational people, destroyed the thin veil of superstition that once ruled the life of man. But without theism to "explain" our purpose, or to support our ethical constructs or mores, what anchors humanity in any ethics? Some humanist would argue that the mere fact of life gives it value and worth. Maybe I am too cynical but I fail to see the logic behind this argument.

In terms of Liberalism or the "Left", why should anyone care about the greater community, about equality for all, when there is no purpose to any of it? Why shouldn’t we act in that clichéd saying; "Every man for himself"? Perhaps my questions and thoughts touch upon the more general origin of morality?

Logically I could argue that it is easier and more beneficial to me and my family if I act only for their well being, what do I get from helping others? Why is their a "moral" compulsion to attach oneself to a Leftist movement or a liberal ideology?

Maybe I am a bad "Leftist" but I find myself asking these questions from time to time, especially at Party meetings or rallies. Am I really helping anyone? and if I am to what ends? I will work for my own liberation and they can worry about theirs.

[Red Axis]

The truth of the matter is that individualism must die. The collective must be put ahead of the individual. To tell the truth, you are helping people by doing what you do. By simply looking only out for yourself, you would contribute to a cuthroat society. One of those things where it is easier in the short run to look out for self-interest first, but in the long run, the selfish will fall. That is why if you believe in Heaven or Hell as I do, your recognize that Ayn Rand is certainly in Hell.

[FAI_Liberation]

The truth of the matter is that individualism must die. The collective must be put ahead of the individual.

Why? Answer that question, without invoking some archaic belief system, but if you insist on the existence of heaven/hell. Why should I care what happens on earth? Why should there be terrestrial equality when there is a guarantee of celestial equality?

[Red Axis]

I believe it matters what happens on Earth because it affects the current state of material life. We at least want to live a life worth living.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think one should be inclined to be moral basically because he/she feels sympathy/empathy and strong emotion for others like his/herself. Meaning life. One naturally knows how valuable life is because he/she has been there his or herself.

[encephalon]

I swing between extreme nihilism and extreme optimism a lot, so I can understand some of these questions. Although it's perhaps not perfect, here's some of the stuff I've come up with.



The modern age, the age of science, technology reason have, at least for most rational people, destroyed the thin veil of superstition that once ruled the life of man.


If you honestly believe this, you're wrong. Religion still dominates the minds of the great many, even with all of the evidence to the contrary.


But without theism to "explain" our purpose, or to support our ethical constructs or mores, what anchors humanity in any ethics? Some humanist would argue that the mere fact of life gives it value and worth. Maybe I am too cynical but I fail to see the logic behind this argument.

To answer this, you have to question what might be considered "value" in the first place. You can go the route of economics, and say that value is perfectly quantifiable, even when applied to humans; or, you can go the humanist route, and value life itself for its own sake.

If you go with economics.. well then, you live in such a world. If you go with life as inherently valuable, however, then of course you have to wonder why. And I'm not sure if there's a materialist answer to this. However, if you value the truth, then you aren't going to want to lie to yourself; and in that sense you aren't going to want some mumbo-jumbo spiritual bullshit to define your values. So instead, ask yourself this: why do you continue to live? You are life yourself, and if you find value in living yourself then there has to be a value of all life. It might not be some great and mmystical meaning, but I don't think there is much meaning. There is, however, reason.

In short, if you value your own life (and want to look out for yourself, as you suggest), then you logically must concede that life itself as a whole is valuable. Which means there's as much reason to fight for life overall than there is to fight for your own life.



In terms of Liberalism or the "Left", why should anyone care about the greater community, about equality for all, when there is no purpose to any of it? Why shouldn’t we act in that clichéd saying; "Every man for himself"? Perhaps my questions and thoughts touch upon the more general origin of morality?


See above. Also, it should be noted that there's a big difference between "liberalism" and "leftism."



Logically I could argue that it is easier and more beneficial to me and my family if I act only for their well being, what do I get from helping others? Why is their a "moral" compulsion to attach oneself to a Leftist movement or a liberal ideology?

Because under such a system of atomization, you and your family would suffer under the weight of it just like the well-being of those you would consider not caring for. It is not beneficial to you or your family to endorse such a system, at least in the long run.



Maybe I am a bad "Leftist" but I find myself asking these questions from time to time, especially at Party meetings or rallies. Am I really helping anyone? and if I am to what ends? I will work for my own liberation and they can worry about theirs.

Without changing the entire system, there is no liberation--for you or anyone else. Liberation is not an individual operation. It's all or none.

[Leo]

the truth of the matter is that individualism must die. The collective must be put ahead of the individual.

"The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organization of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature."-Karl Marx

[Iroquois Xavier]

The meaning of life is 42...or squirells.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Selfishness is has been necessary for survival in the past, however as conscious and rational beings we are capable of existing on more than a competitive plane. Co-operation improves the standard of life for all, and allows for the necessary preconditions of true individuality, rather than stunting them. It is hard to develop yourself as an individual when at all times your immediate concern is survival (such as in primitive times). Technology has afforded us some relief from the strain of life, but it won't and nor should it, deliver us from it all. The problem is largely economic, whereby the benifits of technology are not fully realised because of poor distribution/lack of access.

It is for your concerns about ourselves, and those closest for us that we need to strive for a better system of distribution, and therefore allow the necessary preconditions for creating ourselves as true individuals.

Morality has been used to do two things in the past: ensure the dominance of sustainable lifestyles (those that are subordinate to the ruling class in the most part), and to justify prejudices of a particular day. Now religion has typically been used to justify these, and it proved fairly good at this. The problem with morality is that it assumes infallibilty a-priori, and takes itself as foundationally true.

If we are to have "morals" then they should be demonstratably justifiable, in which case they become more "common sense" than "moral."

Can we keep references to religion and literature in the appropriate forums please people ;) (How many roadss must a man walk down...)

[Seong]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 7 2006, 12:48 PM
The truth of the matter is that individualism must die.
No wonder so many righties think we are all into forced collectivisation! I don't think that the idea of the individual must die for the sake of communism. We are, after all, different in our own beautiful way or whatever. I think instead that ideas of selflessness and community should be promoted. Self-interest should be out, but not individualism.

[Led Zeppelin]

The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity.