Suppose I were an agnostic. Logically, this makes no sense, because contingent things don't cause themselves, and I have to have some explanation for what we observe, or can deduce. But let's go with it, for the sake of argument. I see two main ethical frameworks I might use:
1. Existentialism: a philosophy which emphasizes the willing actions of an autonomous agent, who directs his or her own development; or,
2. Nihilism: a rejection of all religious or moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
Let me just reject (2) out of hand. A consistent nihilist would probably just commit suicide, and--going back to a first principle--existence is better than non-existence, so that doesn't seem like a good choice. It should be noted that a fair number of self-killers were likely exhausted existentialists. [Is a suffering existence better than non-existence?--ed.] I answer that, a suffering existence is indeed better than non-existence, because an awareness of some lack hopes for something better. Also, not everyone suffers at the same time, in the same way, or to the same degree. It would make sense to suppose that suffering will lessen, or even end. A person who no longer lives does not suffer, but they are not (presumably) aware of no longer suffering. The supposed benefits of suicide as a relief of suffering are overstated. Bluntly, what's the use, if we're not here to enjoy it?
Most people aren't nihilists, either, despite some talk of it. I find a moralizing nihilist pretty amusing, by the nature of the case. On the other hand, is it even possible to construct meaning and ethics, if nothing is provided from outside? Moreover, what does an existentialist suppose about the nature of knowing itself? If nothing can be reasonably certain, it would seem that "I do not know" is in effect, "I cannot know."
1. Existentialism: a philosophy which emphasizes the willing actions of an autonomous agent, who directs his or her own development; or,
2. Nihilism: a rejection of all religious or moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
Let me just reject (2) out of hand. A consistent nihilist would probably just commit suicide, and--going back to a first principle--existence is better than non-existence, so that doesn't seem like a good choice. It should be noted that a fair number of self-killers were likely exhausted existentialists. [Is a suffering existence better than non-existence?--ed.] I answer that, a suffering existence is indeed better than non-existence, because an awareness of some lack hopes for something better. Also, not everyone suffers at the same time, in the same way, or to the same degree. It would make sense to suppose that suffering will lessen, or even end. A person who no longer lives does not suffer, but they are not (presumably) aware of no longer suffering. The supposed benefits of suicide as a relief of suffering are overstated. Bluntly, what's the use, if we're not here to enjoy it?
Most people aren't nihilists, either, despite some talk of it. I find a moralizing nihilist pretty amusing, by the nature of the case. On the other hand, is it even possible to construct meaning and ethics, if nothing is provided from outside? Moreover, what does an existentialist suppose about the nature of knowing itself? If nothing can be reasonably certain, it would seem that "I do not know" is in effect, "I cannot know."
Comments