Death and the Purpose of Life

Ask Your Question
1

Hi friends,

One of the verses in today’s liturgical reading is from 1 Corinthians 15:32b,

If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’

Paul’s argument in this passage is straightforward:

If death is the end, then why not take the one life we have and live for ourselves?

I’ve heard all kinds of justifications to get around this. For instance:

  • Well, we should be good
  • The right thing to do is to help out when we can
  • I wouldn’t be comfortable living a completely selfish life
  • It feels good to help out

But when I reflect on these, I wonder: Says who?

Or even, “Hmmm… that actually seems like a selfish reason to be selfless.”

If death is the end, wouldn’t the most rational approach be to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering?

Why sacrifice for others if it ultimately makes no difference?

If death is the end, the most rational conclusion that I can see is the one Paul mentions: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Of course, the Christian answer is completely different. It says we all live forever, and one day, God will hold us accountable for how we lived our lives.

These considerations create an entirely different set of incentives: run to Jesus, ask for forgiveness, and get as close as possible to God who loves me.

I’d love to hear your thoughts: If death really is the end, wouldn’t selfishness be the wisest approach?

How can we create a good reason to sacrifice for others if death will wipe all our good deeds - and bad deeds - away?

2 Likes
2

I just read an interesting reflection from the philosopher Michael Austin, in his newsletter Rediscovering the Way. He writes:

The following inference, from (1) to (2), is flawed:

(1) Richard is an atheist.

Therefore,

(2) Richard does not believe humans have any moral obligations to each other.

One need not (and unless given more evidence should not) infer from the fact that a person is an atheist that that person also believes we have no moral obligations.

An atheist can consistently believe that there is no God, and that human beings have moral obligations to one another. There are numerous philosophical debates about how this might or might not work. There are different ways of grounding moral claims, on both theism and atheism.

Those debates are vital. But sadly they get shut down when we commit the attitude to agent fallacy.

First, I want to acknowledge that Austin is entirely correct. Every atheist I know also believes they have moral obligations to other people. Second, when asked, they can provide reasons why they believe they have moral obligations to other people.

I’m grateful that most (nearly all?) atheists feel this way. I think it’s important, as a matter of respect (which Austin also advocates for), to acknowledge their sincere commitment to being reasonable, moral people.

At the same time, it’s still helpful for us to reflect upon how death, when reflected upon at length, changes our moral calculus.

I remain convinced that apart from an eternal perspective, connected to the reality of the Living God who is just, holy, and loving, our moral justifications will not stand up to skeptical scrutiny.

I look forward to any other reflections on this subject, that we might think clearly and engage respectfully with our family and friends.

1 Like