Is Life Worth Living?
For the ethicist, a fundamental question of philosophy is the following; "what does the good life entail and how can we attain it." Contrast this with Albert Camus' stunning remark within The Myth of Sisyphus where he boldly posits that:
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judgine whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy."
Basically, he's taking Socrates' famous axiom that "the unexamined life is not worth living" and twisting it a bit, so as to pack it with the punch of death and command us to seriously consider if life has any meaning in it at all- if in fact, perhaps we'd be better off facing death than to continue in this existence.
He's not the first to insinuate that this life is full of disappointment and struggle. The writer of Ecclesiastes has the famous line "all is vanity, chasing after the wind." And even the apostle Paul concluded toward the end of his life that whatever comes next would be better than remaining here on earth (although he did remain, for the sake of those he ministered to). But what's fundamentally different about Camus is that he's questioning a more rudimentary reality than whether life has any worth- but whether or not it's worth living. This may sound like semantics, but the difference is astounding. Most of those who decide that life is meaningless still resist killing themselves in favor of enjoying what little pleasures they have here on earth. They determine that the best thing to do is "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" (tomorrow does not literally mean tomorrow, but rather a metaphor regarding the brevity of life).
But Camus argues that it may in fact be better to END life than to continue living. This a notion that demands a little more than just a passing shrug because, in essence, he's saying that before we can determine quality of life, we need to make sure that our very existence is appropriate. Is it fitting that we live? Should we even bother continuing to propagate? Or to borrow a lyric from Greg Graffin of the punk band Bad Religion, "Why do we pity the dead?"
Graffin, obviously influenced by either Camus or a similar school of thought has a very dreary outlook on humanity. In fact, his closest rivals on the depravity of the human condition is probably a fond enemy- Calvinist Christians who use the total depratity of mankind as their primary point in the TULIP model. They not only agree on the evils of mankind, they also are of the opinion that a complete and total destruction of humanity would be the best way to resolve this problem (Calvinists, of course, would add that God's redemption saves and transforms His elect into a new creation, excluded from the fires of hell). Consider Graffin's song, Leave Mine to Me he says:
"things cannot change too fast,
it took us this much time,
to reach our current platform and walk this fragile line,
if I thought I'd make a difference I'd kill myself today,
but so many are like me lost in the fray"
As it stands, Graffin's suicide alone is meaningless. He's arguing that there are so many like him that his own death would simply be a drop in the bucket. It wouldn't amount to enough to make a difference. It would take world-wide-suicide to answer humanity's dilemma and he's not going to give up his own life unless he can take the rest of us with him into "final everlasting peace" (as he calls it in the song Everything Must Cease).
Both Camus and Graffin (and Calvinists) represent a very pessimistic outlook on humanity. But before we blow them off as outliers (and also consider that Camus is speaking in completely theoretical terms or that Graffin is prone to sarcasm and biting satire in order to provoke his audience), we must note that they represent (an extreme version of) about half the ethical theories out there. It's not exactly a 50/50 split, but there's a definite polarity between those who believe than man is basically good and those who believe that man is inherently evil.
For those philosophers like Kant who propose a strict set of rules and regulations to keep humanity in line, perhaps Camus and Graffin are right- perhaps it would be better for all of humanity to blow themselves up in a nuclear firefight and leave this earth to creatures who would actually enjoy it (or what's left of it). Perhaps, since the outcome of mankind is so wrought with destruction, it would be better for us to go ahead and end things now before they get worse in the future.
Then again, even the most hardened cynic must agree that there is some joy in life, even amid the pain. The sunrises, the mountains, the embrace of a friend, the thrill of overcoming a challenge, all of life is kept with hidden joy that makes even the worst of days better than the alternative. Jews in concentration camps fought to live, even in the inhumane circumstances because they believed that even in the midst of pain- there was something good- whether it was the sky or the change that comes with seasons.
Life is only worthless if we choose to ignore the goodness that was placed here. When God created this world, He looked at what He made and called it GOOD.
I think there's an arrogance that surrounds an attitude that we are SO powerful that our presence or our sin could destroy what God deemed GOOD. No matter what evil comes from our misdeeds, God's love and design wins. Life is good because it was created by a God who loves us. And that said, suicide and genocide are never the answer.
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judgine whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy."
Basically, he's taking Socrates' famous axiom that "the unexamined life is not worth living" and twisting it a bit, so as to pack it with the punch of death and command us to seriously consider if life has any meaning in it at all- if in fact, perhaps we'd be better off facing death than to continue in this existence.
He's not the first to insinuate that this life is full of disappointment and struggle. The writer of Ecclesiastes has the famous line "all is vanity, chasing after the wind." And even the apostle Paul concluded toward the end of his life that whatever comes next would be better than remaining here on earth (although he did remain, for the sake of those he ministered to). But what's fundamentally different about Camus is that he's questioning a more rudimentary reality than whether life has any worth- but whether or not it's worth living. This may sound like semantics, but the difference is astounding. Most of those who decide that life is meaningless still resist killing themselves in favor of enjoying what little pleasures they have here on earth. They determine that the best thing to do is "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die" (tomorrow does not literally mean tomorrow, but rather a metaphor regarding the brevity of life).
But Camus argues that it may in fact be better to END life than to continue living. This a notion that demands a little more than just a passing shrug because, in essence, he's saying that before we can determine quality of life, we need to make sure that our very existence is appropriate. Is it fitting that we live? Should we even bother continuing to propagate? Or to borrow a lyric from Greg Graffin of the punk band Bad Religion, "Why do we pity the dead?"
Graffin, obviously influenced by either Camus or a similar school of thought has a very dreary outlook on humanity. In fact, his closest rivals on the depravity of the human condition is probably a fond enemy- Calvinist Christians who use the total depratity of mankind as their primary point in the TULIP model. They not only agree on the evils of mankind, they also are of the opinion that a complete and total destruction of humanity would be the best way to resolve this problem (Calvinists, of course, would add that God's redemption saves and transforms His elect into a new creation, excluded from the fires of hell). Consider Graffin's song, Leave Mine to Me he says:
"things cannot change too fast,
it took us this much time,
to reach our current platform and walk this fragile line,
if I thought I'd make a difference I'd kill myself today,
but so many are like me lost in the fray"
As it stands, Graffin's suicide alone is meaningless. He's arguing that there are so many like him that his own death would simply be a drop in the bucket. It wouldn't amount to enough to make a difference. It would take world-wide-suicide to answer humanity's dilemma and he's not going to give up his own life unless he can take the rest of us with him into "final everlasting peace" (as he calls it in the song Everything Must Cease).
Both Camus and Graffin (and Calvinists) represent a very pessimistic outlook on humanity. But before we blow them off as outliers (and also consider that Camus is speaking in completely theoretical terms or that Graffin is prone to sarcasm and biting satire in order to provoke his audience), we must note that they represent (an extreme version of) about half the ethical theories out there. It's not exactly a 50/50 split, but there's a definite polarity between those who believe than man is basically good and those who believe that man is inherently evil.
For those philosophers like Kant who propose a strict set of rules and regulations to keep humanity in line, perhaps Camus and Graffin are right- perhaps it would be better for all of humanity to blow themselves up in a nuclear firefight and leave this earth to creatures who would actually enjoy it (or what's left of it). Perhaps, since the outcome of mankind is so wrought with destruction, it would be better for us to go ahead and end things now before they get worse in the future.
Then again, even the most hardened cynic must agree that there is some joy in life, even amid the pain. The sunrises, the mountains, the embrace of a friend, the thrill of overcoming a challenge, all of life is kept with hidden joy that makes even the worst of days better than the alternative. Jews in concentration camps fought to live, even in the inhumane circumstances because they believed that even in the midst of pain- there was something good- whether it was the sky or the change that comes with seasons.
Life is only worthless if we choose to ignore the goodness that was placed here. When God created this world, He looked at what He made and called it GOOD.
I think there's an arrogance that surrounds an attitude that we are SO powerful that our presence or our sin could destroy what God deemed GOOD. No matter what evil comes from our misdeeds, God's love and design wins. Life is good because it was created by a God who loves us. And that said, suicide and genocide are never the answer.