If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?

[LadyForCamus]

Sure, but the instinct to live is just that; a biological instinct. Simply that we can be rational; a de facto attribute or characteristic of being both alive and cognitively capable; isn’t a rational argument for the continuation of life itself, or that the choice to live is somehow a more rational choice than the alternative. At least as far as I can tell. It sounds like you’re saying, “choosing life over death is the rational conclusion because if you stop living you’ll be dead.”

I don't think that we can dispense with the rationality of a thing purely on account of it also being a biological instinct.  It's rational to take a piss when we need to, after all.

Sure. I’m not saying that something necessarily can’t be both a biological imperative and rational. I’m just not sure I’m sufficiently sold on the notion that something is necessarily rational because it’s a biological imperative. If that makes any sense.

What premise? That life is preferable to death? Or, that life is “better”
than death? I’d say both of those are ripe for debate. 

[quote]
All sorts of rational things are ripe for debate.

Of course. Why else are we all here hashing this shit out every day? 🙂

This is interesting.  In what case (or sort of case) where an animal like us might choose death over life would you be concerned with biological instinct as a dealbreaker - but not whatever duress, misfortune, or abject misery the subject might be considering when making that choice?

This seems like a false choice. You don’t think a person can come to a rational conclusion about the value of human life that isn’t the result of either some biological instinct or some specific circumstance or condition of their life that is causing suffering? Let me try to articulate myself here, and bear with me because it sometimes feels like a monumental, near impossible hurdle to find words that adequately reflect my thoughts on the subject:

We don’t exist for any reason; that is to say not in a colloquial sense. There are causes for our existence, ofc; a “how.” But not a reason, or a “why.” At least I’ve yet to see a demonstration for that proposition. Do I have reasons for continuing forward with the life that I already have in this moment in the span of time? Sure, but those reasons are contingent upon other lives. I have two young children, a husband, and living parents. But preventing the harm that my death would cause those people is not necessarily a comment on the value of life, or let’s say conscious life, in a larger sense as a property or biological fact of the world. Rationally speaking, why should our ability to be aware of our own eventual annihilation count as a sound reason to avoid or delay it?

How many times have we come across on the forum, this question: “If our lives have no intrinsic meaning, what is the point of living at all?” Answers tend to be along the lines of: “The meaning of experience is experience for its own sake. You get to laugh, and cry, and feel love when you caress your newborn, and eat ice cream, and contribute something meaningful to society, etc. So why not live? What a silly question!” 

Well, so what? Why am I obligated to participate in experience in order to be perceived as rational? Choosing between life and death isn’t choosing between eternal experience and no experience, after all. I was thrust into an experiential existence without my consent, and I don’t even get to keep it. That, coupled with my awareness that every emotion, thought and pleasure I have is rooted in nothing more than a blind, biological drive to reproduce leads me to regard conscious experience with growing dispassion, or perhaps ‘clinical detachment’ is more accurate. I suppose I just find the whole business of finite conscious experience rather silly and trying. If the inevitable is to end up right back where I started; not existing; if there’s no meaningful distinction between being born, living, and dying, and having never been born at all; then maybe I simply don’t want to be bothered marching forward with the business of it. I’m not depressed (I don’t think) or miserable, or suffering. I just can’t think of many good philosophical reasons for actively living. Camus said we should “revolt” against and in spite of the absurd; that that was the most reasonable choice; and I used to agree with him. But now I’m not so sure.

[The Grand Nudger]

This seems like a false choice. You don’t think a person can come to a rational conclusion about the value of human life that isn’t the result of either some biological instinct or some specific circumstance or condition of their life that is causing suffering? Let me try to articulate myself here, and bear with me because it sometimes feels like a monumental, near impossible hurdle to find words that adequately reflect my thoughts on the subject:

I think that people can rationally arrive at nearly any conclusion.  I doubt that the sorts of scenarios we have in mind where a person chooses death over life are examples of strong biological compulsion not being an issue, is all. If it seems like a valid objection in the one case, it must be even more so in the other.

We don’t exist for any reason; that is to say not in a colloquial sense. There are causes for our existence, ofc; a “how.” But not a reason, or a “why.” At least I’ve yet to see a demonstration for that proposition. Do I have reasons for continuing forward with the life that I already have in this moment in the span of time? Sure, but those reasons are contingent upon other lives. I have two young children, a husband, and living parents. But preventing the harm that my death would cause those people is not necessarily a comment on the value of life, or let’s say conscious life, in a larger sense as a property or biological fact of the world. Rationally speaking, why should our ability to be aware of our own eventual annihilation count as a sound reason to avoid or delay it?

Are those rational cases for life, then?  The question of why we exist and whether or not we have rational reasons to want to live or to keep living, are not the same question.  

How many times have we come across on the forum, this question: “If our lives have no intrinsic meaning, what is the point of living at all?” Answers tend to be along the lines of: “The meaning of experience is experience for its own sake. You get to laugh, and cry, and feel love when you caress your newborn, and eat ice cream, and contribute something meaningful to society, etc. So why not live? What a silly question!” 

We come across all sorts of interesting misconceptions about meaning and it's lack or it's absence, sure.  I would tell them that if they have no intrinsic reasons, whatever that set is supposed to contain, then so be it - but do they have other-than-intrinsic meaning?  

If intrinsic meaning were the only reason a person had for living, and they believed they didn't have that meaning, and they weren;t mistaken in that belief as expressed, they sound like they might be under significant cognitive pressure.  I would onsider it imprudent to then say "well, kill yourself and/or die that's the only rational thing to do.... or even "well, sounds like killing yourself might be rational, wishing that you were dead might be rational.""  We tend to provide people with feelings of abject worthlessness with care, not acceptance of the claim which has them so disaffected.

Well, so what? Why am I obligated to participate in experience in order to be perceived as rational? Choosing between life and death isn’t choosing between eternal experience and no experience, after all. I was thrust into an experiential existence without my consent, and I don’t even get to keep it. That, coupled with my awareness that every emotion, thought and pleasure I have is rooted in nothing more than a blind, biological drive to reproduce leads me to regard conscious experience with growing dispassion, or perhaps ‘clinical detachment’ is more accurate. I suppose I just find the whole business of finite conscious experience rather silly and trying. If the inevitable is to end up right back where I started; not existing; if there’s no meaningful distinction between being born, living, and dying, and having never been born at all; then maybe I simply don’t want to be bothered marching forward with the business of it. I’m not depressed (I don’t think) or miserable, or suffering. I just can’t think of many good philosophical reasons for actively living. Camus said we should “revolt” against and in spite of the absurd; that that was the most reasonable choice; and I used to agree with him. But now I’m not so sure.

Why is it a bad thing that you don't get to keep it - that you bolded this specifically as a negative qualifier? if it has no intrinsic meaning or value, or in fact no rational basis for your preference whatsoever?  You just wake up every day feeling that way? I'm not arguing your perception, it is what it is, just wondering what the bar for rational reasons is supposed to be if none of the things you mentioned or can even think of would qualify.  If someone handed me chocolate covered crickets and I didn't want them - and then they said I couldn't keep them - I'd say thanks, take em back asap.

That's what a homeostat does.  Maintains that equilibrium for equilibriums sake.  That's it's functional purpose.

(I wonder, btw, whether so many cultures strong taboos against suicide amount to the greater relative harm it would cause a lower pop society - were we in a situation where many people would just prefer to kill themselves outside of some pretty heavy duty conditioning?)

[R00tKiT]

Well, so what? Why am I obligated to participate in experience in order to be perceived as rational? Choosing between life and death isn’t choosing between eternal experience and no experience, after all. I was thrust into an experiential existence without my consent, and I don’t even get to keep it. That, coupled with my awareness that every emotion, thought and pleasure I have is rooted in nothing more than a blind, biological drive to reproduce leads me to regard conscious experience with growing dispassion, or perhaps ‘clinical detachment’ is more accurate. I suppose I just find the whole business of finite conscious experience rather silly and trying. If the inevitable is to end up right back where I started; not existing; if there’s no meaningful distinction between being born, living, and dying, and having never been born at all; then maybe I simply don’t want to be bothered marching forward with the business of it. I’m not depressed (I don’t think) or miserable, or suffering. I just can’t think of many good philosophical reasons for actively living. Camus said we should “revolt” against and in spite of the absurd; that that was the most reasonable choice; and I used to agree with him. But now I’m not so sure.

All this is a direct consequence of atheism. That's what an atheistic worldview provides us with: nothing, nihilism. Absent a God, there obviously cannot be an objective reason to live for or something worthwhile to pursue. Being aware of finite existence and disbelieving in God at the same time is not a tenable position for any human being. I don't think even atheists hold this postion rigorously, some will try and defend some rudimentary form of afterlife that doesn't require God.

This can actually be more evidence that we're designed by a deity. The fact that our psychological makeup can't seem to stand nihilism is probably the very imprint of our designer. We crave for belief in God like we crave for food or air.

And one more thing, this assertion right here :

 I was thrust into an experiential existence without my consent, 

is not logical. You need to exist first to be able to consent. So, objecting to existence is logically invalid, it's a non-starter.

[vulcanlogician]

How many times have we come across on the forum, this question: “If our lives have no intrinsic meaning, what is the point of living at all?” Answers tend to be along the lines of: “The meaning of experience is experience for its own sake. You get to laugh, and cry, and feel love when you caress your newborn, and eat ice cream, and contribute something meaningful to society, etc. So why not live? What a silly question!” 

I agree with you, Camus, that the "one-liner" answers to this question are dissatisfying. I think you have a solid critique of the "duh.. life is valuable" position. The topic is WAY deeper than that.

Here is my argument for why I think it's reasonable to value life:

We are rational, conscious, and perceptive beings. We know how to assign value to things. We can look at a hammer and see how valuable it's handle is. We can study a great monument, or large suspension bridge, or a great work of art and recognize the value in these things.

Sure, someone can look at the Golden Gate Bridge and say, "Whatever. I'm not impressed. I see no value in it." That's their prerogative. But we can easily argue against this person's thesis, and make counter arguments saying it is a magnificent structure. It could easily be argued that the person is overlooking many incredible things about the bridge.

It's no different with life. We can evaluate life (as rational, perceptive beings) and see that it has value. Usually. There are scenarios where life doesn't have value, but as a rule, there is much to appreciate about life. You need a big UNLESS to counter the argument that life has value. (UNLESS it is endless suffering, etc.)

Not only that, life CREATES value. Life esteems things. As Nietzsche wrote: "Esteeming itself is of all esteemed things the most estimable treasure. Through esteeming first is there value: and without esteeming, the nut of existence would be hollow."


***

@The Grand Nudger

Thought you might like to know, this got reposted. It's certainly something worth listening to twice. And it (interestingly) relates to to the topic you and Camus are discussing.

[HappySkeptic]

All this is a direct consequence of atheism. That's what an atheistic worldview provides us with: nothing, nihilism. Absent a God, there obviously cannot be an objective reason to live for or something worthwhile to pursue. Being aware of finite existence and disbelieving in God at the same time is not a tenable position for any human being. I don't think even atheists hold this postion rigorously, some will try and defend some rudimentary form of afterlife that doesn't require God.

Some people can't imagine a universe where they no longer exist.  Others are scared of death.  Neither is a logical reason to believe in an afterlife. 

Yes, it makes many flock to churches and mosques to gain entrance into a heaven claimed by priests and books.

For myself, I view consciousness as a process.  Process requires change.  I am not the same person I was a minute ago, though I share the same memories and desires.  When I'm in deep sleep the process is on hold.  When I'm dead the process ceases.

I value the now - each moment of conscious perception.  No gods are apparent, and I neither expect nor desire an afterlife.  That in no way detracts from the value of now.

[R00tKiT]

Some people can't imagine a universe where they no longer exist.  Others are scared of death.  Neither is a logical reason to believe in an afterlife. 

Nice strawman. Keep up the good work.

For myself, I view consciousness as a process.  Process requires change.  I am not the same person I was a minute ago, though I share the same memories and desires.  When I'm in deep sleep the process is on hold.  When I'm dead the process ceases.

I value the now - each moment of conscious perception.  No gods are apparent, and I neither expect nor desire an afterlife.  That in no way detracts from the value of now.

Actually, you can't value the now. Given that, in any given moment, we have widepsread suffering and inequality in this world, and absent an afterlife guaranteed by an all-powerful being that will outweigh the suffering, there is no value to this life whatsoever. If you posit any intrinsic value to life, that would be a profound insult to all those short-lived people and those who never really got the chance to enjoy their lives.

[HappySkeptic]

Actually, you can't value the now. Given that, in any given moment, we have widepsread suffering and inequality in this world, and absent an afterlife guaranteed by an all-powerful being that will outweigh the suffering, there is no value to this life whatsover. If you posit any intrinsic value to life, that would be a profound insult to all those short-lived people and those who never really got the chance to enjoy their lives.

So, if life isn't perfect, it has no meaning?  Meaning to who?

We create our own meaning.  The Earth doesn't care if we live or die.  Where suffering exists, we should work to alleviate it.  When we can't, we can be witnesses to it.  Yes, witnessing tragedy is painful, but it reminds us of work that still needs to be done, and helps us value the time we have.

You think the existence of pain and suffering is evidence for a god - because only a god can create a happy ending?  Who says there has to be a happy ending?  This isn't a Disney movie.

[R00tKiT]

You think the existence of pain and suffering is evidence for a god - because only a god can create a happy ending?  Who says there has to be a happy ending?  This isn't a Disney movie.

That's not what I said, captain. The existence of pain and suffering implies the impossibility of any intrinsic value to life absent a God, this doesn't mean that the existence of pain implies God exists.

And nobody is saying there is a happy ending, not even religions. An afterlife, as defined in religions, won't be a happy ending for everybody.

We create our own meaning.  The Earth doesn't care if we live or die.  Where suffering exists, we should work to alleviate it.  When we can't, we can be witnesses to it.  Yes, witnessing tragedy is painful, but it reminds us of work that still needs to be done, and helps us value the time we have.

You're free of course to create your own subjective meaning. You're forced to admit, however, that under an atheistic worldview, there can't be any objective value to life.

[HappySkeptic]

You're free of course to create your own subjective meaning. You're forced to admit, however, that under an atheistic worldview, there can't be any objective value to life.

I would argue that there is no objective value to anything.  Adding a god doesn't create objective value either.  There would be only be what the god values, which is subjective to that god.

Value is subjective, and it absolutely exists.

[R00tKiT]

I would argue that there is no objective value to anything.  Adding a god doesn't create objective value either.  There would be only be what the god values, which is subjective to that god.

Value is subjective, and it absolutely exists.

Well if you don't define objective as what the creator of reality values, then I don't see what the word "objective" would even mean to you.