want to be happy? become a conservative, go to church/synagogue, donate and volunteer, pray, get plenty of sleep and exercise, find a hobby, share, mostly share. and don't listen to ogion

being conservative is not a lifestyle choice. you're born with it, like being a homosexual.

It's a large question so I'm curious as to your perspectives. I personally believe that all live have a value that's equal in nature to all others. This perspective is flawed, however, it's the only way that's, from my own perspective, consistent. If someone's life gains value from intelligence then the elderly's lives are worth more than a baby's. If it's determined by their potential for happiness then a slave's life actually was worth less than their master's because of social circumstances. If it's simply determined by potential length then, if I were shot one day, would my life be worth less on that day than the previous day? Are our lives continuously declining in value? Is someone's life worth less because they're willing to give it up? I feel that there isnMt one clear answer to any of these things so why does it have value in your opinions? Thanks!

I'm not high and I'm not xconservative. I'm a little out of the loop so what prompted those responses?

oh shit...the notion of worth is arbitrary. What you find worthy, I might not. Is there life that is *objectively* worthy? I don't think so. Even Newton or Einstein, who made great contributions to humanity deprived someone else of the possibility of making those advances. So, for those other people, Newton/Einstein were a hindrance.

Nm I guess. I'll probably mute it for a while and check back later.

i'm skeptical, but i believe there is a possibility for objective worth to be attained.

with this possibility, i accept that the only way to achieve such worth is to seek it out and find it, and that all life should have an opportunity and the freedom to do so, as long as it does not interfere with other people's rights.

Capt Brad, our own WebDiplomacy satarist. I think it's an interesting question from tvrocks. Particularly given the pressure the world's human population is putting on wildlife, mainly from habitat loss. There's also all our rubbish. Eg plastic. Seems like you cannot catch any "plastic free" fish anymore.

"always look on the bright side of life"
- Heinrich Himmler.

My life is valuable to me, because my brain tells me so (or you can claim selfishness, but i think evolution does a pretty good job designing brains to act this way).
Other life is valuable to me by extention of this (or you can claim empathy, but it is also culturally instilled. Amd cultures have taken advantage of our biology to 'be successful' in their own kind of memetic evolution...).
I believe that suffering is wrong, and thus value reducing suffering in the animals used by humans (i try not to contribute directly to the suffering of any life form capable of suffering - i have to draw a line somewhere, but it is not a clear line, it is rather blurry... Working out the precise details would cost me more cognitive effort than i can possibly focus - but for example, i care more about an adult cow than a 8 weeks old human fetus/embryo, though if you killed the cow in a painless way I wouldn't mind as much as if you forced pregnancy on it, drained it of milk, an repeated for four long years until it died at a young age completely drained...).

There is something inherent about me, i wouldn't be able to hold these ideas without a complex brain. The complexity of life is impressive in a Universe of ever increasing entropy. And life can only exist because it seeks to protect its own existance. That is true on a bioligical level of out cells, up to a cognitive level of our behaviours, and on to a social level of our culture - as it acts to preserve itself even as it reinvents itself.

There is nothing inherently valuable about life, nothing mystical, or supernatural. Objectively we are no more valuable than a rock or a star, but as a living being, i happen to have little choice but to value myself. And because my culture values life, i can't exactly go around murdering people or condemning life without bringing consequences upon myself - thus i am bound to value life (though i value non-human life more highly than the average person in my society and am not bound to doing so).

Think about the chaotic events that occured for billions of years (supernova, mass extinctions, worldlet collisions) that by chance allowed the elements in your body to get together in this small place and give rise to a brief moment of consciousness that is able to contemplate for a millisecond of universal time the chaotic events that caused it to be.
You can look at that and say it's either valuable or not valuable, but it is all you have and all you ever will have.

Since i assume this is telated to a discussion of rights (the right to life, and the right to bodily autonomy) i present a philosopher's abalysis of rights: https://youtu.be/tIslPhzI3uc

So you see tv. The liberals are all sad and whiny and will tell you about the terrible world. They don't see the wonder and beauty of life. Everything is a burden. Conservatism like happiness is a choice as is love. As Abraham Lincoln said a man is as happy as he makes up his mind to be.

Liberals are sad right now because regressive old white mean are trying to take things back to the 19th century in terms of human rights and economic and military policy. We were optimistic about moving into the future as a global society looking for increased happiness, equality and mutual goals, exploring and learning from the universe together as we worked to improve life experiences for all living things. Instead we have this dumbass retreat into tribalism which will create political economic and social messes that will take decades to clean up and recover from. Also the environment is going to kick our children's asses. Yay. Glad you are briefly happy brad.

Another angry liberal ^

@ishirk speak for yourself, i am not happy with the progress that was made, it was insufficient, and facilitated the powerful to continue exploiting the weak; rewarded them even.

@Brad, that said, i am happy with my life and life in general. It is my highest life goal, and thus i appear to be succeeding. Whether i manage to leave any impact behind to help others is secondary. Whether all humans die due to the inevitable environmental disaster is secondary, wherher you are happy is secondary....

I do agree with the notion that ignorance is bliss, Brad.
I didn't say I was happy with the progress of the human race @orthaic. Just previously optimistic. I agree I speak for myself.

If a childlike view of the world gives you meaning and makes you happy, I'm cool with it until it leads to bad decisions for society.

Manifest destiny

Life is inherently meaningless, but we all come up with some way to trick ourselves into it having meaning and purpose so we get out of bed in the morning.

Why is it meaningless? If you believe yours is, sad for you. Life is what the individual makes of it

You can believe that life is meaningless (dust to dust) and yet still be happy and enjoy life. Why do they have to be connected?

I've recently come to terms with the meaninglessness and am in fact happy. I wasn't for a while though. Life is what you make of it, or in other words, life is the meaning you create for it to replace the otherwise meaningless existence we all objectively have.

@Ssoren, you can believe life is objectively meaningless (as most nihilists would) and still believe that it has subjective meaning (as most existentialists would) - or as y2kjbk put it "life is the meaning you create for it" - that is inherently subjective.

Thanks for the responses on this. I wasn't sure how it would go over...

I also have a question: it seems that many of you say life is meaningless. In that case is murder ethically wrong (in your personal opinions)? Why or why not?

I feel like I should amend my question. I guess the argument that it's inherently meaningless would mean it's ok to kill those who haven't done anything worthwhile. Is it wrong to kill a baby and/ or someone who was born a "vegetable"? Why/ why not?

Thanks!

TV rocks ultimately all those sort of questions fit under the umbrella of what sort of world the individual wants to live in and how much responsibility they care to take.

Generally people do their best to avoid facing the harsh truth of the world so that they can maximize their own comfort until they check out.

I do believe there is values embedded deep in our genes. Call them instincts if you like. But if you have right experiences you will find these values to be an undeniable truth. You can call that God if you want.

Trouble is these days more and more people live fast-food comfy lives and never ever experience their own true values. So for them life is a purely utilitarian and selfish chore. In a sense they are not really alive. They live through their intellect and the intellect is a very feeble thing, even the best of them.

It's those profound depths of undescribable undeniable truth/mystery that make it worth to keep going, keep exploring, keep the faith.

deus vult?

Cheeseburgers.

If life is meaningless, how can you possibly judge whether someone's existence is worthwhile?

Wrong, yet again Capt Brad.. I'm extremely happy with my life, and appreciate the beautiful world & cosmos in which we live. I'm disappointed with many things..all related to the behaviour of my fellow humans.. The hatreds, violence, pollution, species loss, and backward, archaic, selfish Conservatives, as well as other extremists ..in politics, religion etc.

@fiedler, you sandbagging piece of shit. If you can write so articulately, why do you torment us with such shite all the damn time!

So Mitchell essentially, you hate humans

No, he hates you.

Condensation is that you peeking from behind your mother's skirt? You naughty, naughty little boy, you were in the cookie jar again! Bad child! You go straight to your room and think about what you did! Naught child!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DmYLrxR0Y8

Brad is a sad man

I"m rather close to orathaic on this one. We are social primates, so we value each other's lives to some degree, and have empathy for those around us, especially humans. Anything that has value has value because a human decided we value it. No humans, no value. In some absolutist sense, that means life has no intrinsic value, but we don't live in an absouttist world or operate on absolutist frames of reference. We operate based on our own perspective. So, we value human life highly (usually around $4 -$7 million apiece, as it turns out, in policy terms) and other life less so. Some people value nonhuman life greatly and others not so much, and we fight over those difference rather a lot.

Brad is awesome.

@"I do believe there is values embedded deep in our genes. Call them instincts if you like. But if you have right experiences you will find these values to be an undeniable truth. You can call that God if you want"

Why do you think that?

I mean there are genetic things, violent or sexual behaviour is instinctive, we learn socially when it is appropriate to express those behaviours (violence is ok in a boxing match, or similar scenario dictated by your culture... Sex like-wise)

We instinctively pick up language at a very young age (and children deprived of any exposure to language by the age of 5 almost never develop anything beyond the most basic of grammars - which we know Gorrilas can master.)

But values? No, i think that is ridiculous. Sure we socialise, we instinctively absorb information and the value around us, we develop our own values, we seek security, some knowledge about what we should do (asking the meaning of life, seeking security of knowing we are living our lives the 'right' way...) and many turn to a God concept. But i see no evidence that our values are genetically pre-programmed.

@"y2kjbk
If life is meaningless, how can you possibly judge whether someone's existence is worthwhile?"

We instincitve judge people all the frakking time. So i guess the answer is, 'naturally' - i mean we may not be cery good at judging people; Hilter got elected in the first place, as did Trump/Obama (depending on who you ask, both are Hilter). Life is meaningless, except for what we decide to value.

I value human rights, so i can say, rather clearly, that some people have had a negative effect by denying rights to others. And others are worth more for doing the opposite.

Also, what Ogion said.

OK Ora, let's take the central matter of having children. Why do you believe people create and put their whole lives into raising a family? You really think it's just hormones? Or just egotism?

There is a deeper consciousness that drives all this and by definition it has values. Why this girl and not that one? Why not just masterbate? Why not just spend all your time on webdip? These decisions are really made deep in the unconscious.

I think you captured the two things Ora does in your last three sentences.

@fiedler, some people do spend all their time on webdip... But i'm missing the essence of your question.

Investing time and energy in a family is an evolutionary imperative, but the values we use to do so differ based on culture. Some cultures have extended families with multiple partners, others exclude men from outside the family (so only sons and nephews live with the family, the father of a child will not live with his child and insteas lives with his mother's family), the idea of a 'nuclear family' is very new, and has inly really existed since it has been feasible to produce enough products and houses to keep every member of the middle class (who are likewise relative new).

So in historic terms, before we had machines to do most of the domestic work, the wealthy keep servants to do it for them, and lived however they liked, and the poor just about survived. The middle class is a bit older than machines...

Before we had a middle class, everyone was either a serf/slave working in agriculture or a large land owner living off the labour of their serfs. Two groups with very different values. And yes, they would invest time and energy in their families, but each group also had very different resources to do so.

Before we had agriculture, everyone's job was hunting and gathering (or nomadic living following a herd of semi-domesticated animals) and social groups had completely different values. In Irish myth the people who stole away cattle from the neighbouring valley were considered heroes. So there was no concrete idea of ownership/property rights. It was a world where might made right, or at least the ability to take and keep cattle was all the was needed to prove the rightness.

I can't really speak to how their family values were, because we have very little to go on. But our cultural values vary wildely, with both tradition (varying from place to place) and technology (varying over time).

In short, i think it exists in our memes, not our genes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

Life has value because of diplomacy. and onions

^ based

@fiedler, are you confused hy my answer or just by the original meaning of the word meme? I'm not sure what the hell you mean by 'values' if you don't think cattle theives beig remembered as heroes is the same as our more recent concept of property rights.