4 ms·
> Only recently did people realize the physical universe could continue — aimlessly — without us ... And, in realizing that the entire fate of human value withi
by hirundo 6y ago
> Only recently did people realize the physical universe could continue — aimlessly — without us ... And, in realizing that the entire fate of human value within the physical universe may rest upon us, we could finally begin to face up to what is at stake in our actions and decisions upon this planet.
This does not compute. In the old paradigm we were at the center of the universe with the creator's undivided attention, and answerable to Him after life, with eternal bliss or torture on the table. In the new one we're trivial beings on a trivial dust mote in a trivial galaxy, answerable to ourselves only, and death is the end. Those stakes seem vastly lower. How does that translate into more responsibility for our actions?
- jlokier 6y agoIf in the new paradigm we're in control of our own destiny, how does that make the stakes lower than when it was out of our hands?
- _jahh 6y agounder the new paradigm what control remains independent of biological and evolutionary history?
- jolux 6y agoBecause there is no second chance. We are not answerable to god, we will not live forever no matter what we do in life. The universe does not care whether or not we exist, so if we care about existing, our sole responsibility is to each other and ourselves. God will not save us, there is no salvation that we do not create.
- irrational 6y agoBut, once I’m dead I don’t really care if everyone else dies 5 minutes later, do I? I’m dead and I have no way to know what happens after that point. Nothing that happens after I die has any affect on me.
- jolux 6y agoI think a lot of people would care if everyone they loved died five minutes after they did. Seems like a worst case scenario in fact.
- irrational 6y agoBad wording. I should’ve said 50 years or some longer time period. The point is I no longer exist so anything that happens can’t matter to me.
- kjs3 6y agoMy child will hopefully outlive me by several decades. My grand kids certainly could live more that 50 years beyond that. I may never know my great-grandkids, but kinda hope they won't get snuffed out arbitrarily. But fundamentally I don't think "after X years, screw humanity" is something I'll buy into.
- pojzon 6y agoThis is the exact way of thinking that makes this world the shithole it was and still is. It’s painful to watch but I don’t expect 8billion ppl to sudenly stop being so egoistic. The world as we know it is doomed to fail, so gonna enjoy the ride while I still can.
- krcz 6y agoYou don't care after, but you do care before you die if you know that's about to happen.
- irrational 6y agoMaybe instead of 5 minutes I should’ve said 50 years. The point is, I don’t exist so I can’t care about life, the universe, or anything.
- kjs3 6y agoMany of us with children, family and, you know, friends care very much that life goes on after we die, regardless of our role in it.
- hnracer 6y agoWhy do I have a responsibility to other people in a materialistic universe? Why shouldn't I just do what I please no matter the harm to anyone else? I've heard the usual arguments from the new atheists on this topic and have found them unpersuasive (although I am agnostic myself)
- jolux 6y agoIt’s pretty hard to live socially without any concept of a responsibility to other people, and I think you would find yourself alone pretty fast. Of course if you didn’t care, there are a lot of other answers to why you should strive not to harm others but ultimately if it’s the thing you most want to do and you don’t care about the consequences that’s not really different whether there’s a god or not, is it?
- hnracer 6y agoYes let's suppose I'm a psychopath who is purely interested in self-maximization. I have an opportunity to steal money without getting caught. Why wouldn't I do it? If there's a hell then sure I can understand (it would become self maximizing to be legitimately good), otherwise why wouldn't I? I can feign responsibility and make the right moves to get want I want. Again, I can be ruthlessly self-maximizing.
- tux1968 6y agoYes, a psychopath is just being true to his nature in that case. There's no "responsibility" to other people, just actions and consequences. Those of our ancestors who had a bond with their tribe, and took care of each other, did better and reproduced more than the selfish loners. And most of us are left with those successful strategies baked into us. You're free to choose a different path (if it is even a choice), and there will be no comic-book judgement day... but if the past is anything to go by, it's often a losing strategy. It might not be as clean a getaway as you hoped.
- hnracer 6y ago
- hudon 6y ago> if we care about existing, our sole responsibility is to each other and ourselves The conclusion does not derive from the premise... I can care about existing in a hedonistic way and then responsibility in no way derives from my caring about existing. I’ll just do whatever I want to do and get the most pleasure possible while I exist, with nary a worry. Unless you mean “we” as in “all of humanity” and “existing” as in “humanity surviving”, but then I don’t see why we should assume this premise to hold. Most people don’t have the energy to care about the survival of their entire species, there are enough problems to deal with in an individual’s life.
- jolux 6y agoI did mean the survival of the species. I’m saying we are required to care about these things if we want to survive as a species. I’m not personally certain that we will, because as you said most individuals will have a hard time caring about it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- marmaduke 6y agoI think the sibling comment is right; the “old” paradigm is one in which an appeal to the powers that be will roll back the transaction so to speak. Still, the new paradigm isn’t that we’re answerable only to ourselves but that we are the powers that be and there is no way to roll back the transaction.
- tshaddox 6y agoI’m not sure why you’re asking that. Clearly when we’re just sheep in God’s flock or God’s children (both common wording in Judeo-Christian scripture) you have less responsibility than self-determining agents.
- hudon 6y agoProbably the first thing to help you understand “why [OP] is asking that” is that different Christians and Jews will tell you different things with respect to “self determination”. Some believe in free will, some don’t, and there is plenty of nuance in between. Roman Catholics, for example, believe in free will, in that you are free to choose sin and therefore you are ultimately held responsible to choose love.
- disown 6y ago> both common wording in Judeo-Christian scripture No such thing as judeo-christian scripture. Who created this term? Edit: Instead of downvoting, why name this judeo-christian scripture so I may read it?
- grzm 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_books_of_Judeo-Christian_scripture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_books_of_Judeo-Chris...
- disown 6y agoWhat a silly page. Wonder who wrote that. It lists Christian texts and it lists Jewish text. Not a single mention of a judeo-christian scripture. What I was looking for was the "judeo-christian scripture". Is the Talmud a judeo-christian text or is the new testament the judeo-christian text? Or was the guy referring to the old testament?
- avmich 6y agoIf the world ends with us, there is no worries about what would be after us. There will be nothing, in some sense. If the universe could continue, it's our responsibility to keep it making aim - in our understanding. That is, if we destroy ourselves, then the rest of history wouldn't make sense from our point of view.
- amelius 6y agoPerhaps because we have now taken (in a way) the role of God?