>

The meaning of life is to know your creator. So you’re on the right path.
/u/MrMarkson (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

If the meaning of life is to prevent suffering, then the logical course of action is to kill everyone to prevent any further suffering. There is no life without suffering, but without life, there is no suffering.
The meaning of life is simply to live, keep on living, and continue life beyond one's self by reproducing and helping others. >

Not necessarily, when a mode of being without suffering is achievable. 
Also, you would kill all joy. >


Also, you would kill all joy.

So? If the only point is to prevent suffering, the fact that there would be no joy is irrelevant. It is likely that any given human will suffer. Therefore, if the only morally relevant goal is to prevent suffering, the most logical course of action is to simply kill everyone instantly. The fact that it might be possible to live without any suffering doesn't make life superior- there's still a chance that someone might suffer, and if the only thing that matters is preventing suffering, they're still better off dead to avoid that possibility. >

Killing everyone instantly would technically work for the sake of this argument.
Although, killing 100% of all human beings in the entire universe is also highly unlikely, before the universe dies naturally. The chance to miss two human beings that can procreate might be higher than expected. Even with developing warfare, when humans exist in other parts of the universe that are unreachable due to the speed of light limitation.
So simply killing everyone is probably not a valid option. Understanding the brains chemistry and achieving a state of being without suffering seems more realistic in my opinion. >


Understanding the brains chemistry and achieving a state of being without suffering seems more realistic in my opinion.

What we call "suffering" is intrinsically tied to human condition. For a working definition, we can define it as pain or deprivation over a certain threshold. To get rid of it would likely 1) render humans incapable of performing actions suitable for survival on their own, and 2) require a wide-reaching program to modify every human. It would probably be much easier to build a lot of nukes and carpet the planet. >

Maybe, but we can’t know for certain.
Even if we kill everyone, there is a chance that evolution produces new humans or beings capable of suffering.
It might be better to control life than to destroy it and risk rebirth so to speak. >

I'm saying it's even less possible to modify all beings so they don't feel suffering. If you can't kill humans on the other side of the galaxy, how exactly are you going to get them to stop suffering? In contrast, it's pretty easy to kill them. >

“In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth — only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.”
— C.S. Lewis >

seems pretty empty; the best we can do is "prevent suffering?"  sometimes suffering can be meaningful, we can grow as people from suffering, we can overcome suffering and grow stronger in the doing.    
if all we're doing is the least amount possible so the least amount of people feel the least amount of suffering, we'll be creating a static world as dead as when the last stars burn out  
what about striving towards building something greater?  or becoming someone greater? >

If preventing most suffering requires that some individuals suffer, so be it. Then suffering can be meaningful. But it is still the ultimate goal. >

Why? >

Because I intended the phrase “ultimate goal” in this case as the logically best thing to pursue. >

how can something so abstract and value-based be "logical"?    
why is preventing suffering a good ultimate goal?  what's the point in preventing suffering? >

I explained it in my post >

so then just because its unpleasant to feel suffering, that's the reason we should try to limit as much of it as possible?  that's the only thing that matters? >

It is not merely unpleasant to get stabbed with a knife, or to experience schizophrenia, or depression, or to loose a family member. Suffering is the worst in the world. Therefore the best is everything that prevents suffering. Everything else is secondary in my opinion. >

well it is unpleasant, very unpleasant, sometimes maybe even extremely unpleasant.  but is that it?  its just very, very unpleasant to feel suffering, and that's why it should be avoided?  what's the deeper point there?  what's the point of my life, if all it is is avoiding pain and suffering?  that's like an animal, that's what animals do.  there's no deeper meaning there.  its nihilism, really >

You need to think bigger. It would not be efficient to just avoid your own suffering. The most efficient way would be to minimize suffering of most people in your surroundings. That can be the meaning of your live. >


The meaning of life is preventing suffering
So: there is no ultimate end goal which means that we must find purpose on the road to this future.
Therefore the best you can do in life is preventing suffering

You've stated the meaning of life is preventing suffering, but then stated that there is no ultimate goal, somewhat conflicting your own argument. You've said with your explanation that preventing suffering is the best thing we can do, but that's a very different argument to it being the meaning of life. 
You've come to this conclusion based on it being the opposite of the worst thing you can do, but that would not make sense given the opposite to the worst thing you can do is not the meaning of life - the opposite of the worst thing you can do is the best thing you can do.
I don't think your view is about the meaning of life, just what you consider to be the best thing you feel someone can do with their life. >

I believe OP meant as a whole there's no ultimate end goal but personally one should prevent suffering >

Preventing suffering isn't a "meaning" its an ambition/virtuous goal.
You may call that a meaning but it isn't a solution to any mysteries or tangible problems. >

Δ
You are correct. While preventing suffering is still logically the best thing to do, it does not mean:
best action = meaningful action
No one can know the meaning of life, because we can not ask a creator for his intention. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Presentalbion (58∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

It is a logical fallacy to say that the opposite of X is "Not X". 
For example, the opposite of 5 isn't "not 5" - 2 isn't 5, but it's not 5's opposite. -5 is. 
The opposite of suffering is not the absence of suffering. It's the concept's complete inverse - the opposite of an unpleasant experience is a pleasant one. >

What is the opposite of warmth? Coldness.
What is warmth? Movement of atoms through kinetic energy. The absence of this energy causes Coldness.
What is the opposite of light? Darkness. Light is the presence of photons. Their absence is darkness. >

Some things just do not have a direct opposite, but others do.
So you are saying warm is not the opposite of cold?
Furthermore, my main point still stands, because the best IS the opposite of the worst. They are two extremes on a scale that are diametrically opposed to each other. If something is the worst, it can’t be the best from the same perspective. >

The opposite of “hot”, which is referring to a temperature noticeably above some threshold, it a temperature noticeably below that same threshold. In this case, the “opposite” is referring to the direction of the deviation from some rough benchmark.
The fact that you ignored basically everything I said though is quite informative on your honesty. >

Suffering is literally the force that drives evolution. From birds in the Galapagos island to humans, you suffer through life and if you do such your prodigy lives an easier life >

That is not science. We don’t understand why the universe is expanding from nothing, but we think mass and energy are related and convertible, which means eventually the universe can’t expand further, in our current understanding of physics. The universe can’t “die,” which is (I’m guessing) why the next plausible theory is the universe reaches some waypoint then contracts until again it is unable to contract further. Then it will probably expand, because energy and mass do not simply die and disappear but end up elsewhere. Like between two universes, perhaps, in a larger system of universes. So while not your opinion, it’s also not scientific. The universe can’t die, so there’s no need for the universe to be given purpose unless we want to. >

The consensus now is that the "Big Crunch" hypothesis (that the universe will eventually contract back to a singularity) is incorrect.
The current prevailing hypothesis is that eventually all matter will decay and the universe will reach an ambient level where energy at all points is equal to energy at all other points.  This is known as "heat death" as at this point there is no longer usable energy available to do work, and all of the fundamental forces of the universe (like gravity) will not longer affect what is left.
So the universe may, for all intents and purposes, die. >

Looks like a good theory to my untrained eyes. Would that also mean as time goes on, as energy and other fundamental powers slow and end, we as a civilization could choose to do less and less effort to avoid suffering? In other words, without constant expense of energy, what’s the point of being more proactive in aggregate to achieve any universal mission. >

No.  The timelines around the heat death of the universe are so far beyond the reasonable timeline of us as a species that they are not remotely related.  Even the shortest estimates have this taking upwards of 10^106 years.  We will be long gone by then. >

We are the universe’s attempt at understanding itself. Learn all that you can. >

You can prevent a lot of suffering by being careful, responsible, living a healthy lifestyle, and helping others. But ultimately you can't prevent suffering. There will always be accidents, diseases, and bad, bad people. What do you say to the patient with a terminal diagnosis? How can they "prevent suffering" in a meaningful way? They can't prevent their own suffering and they can't prevent the suffering that their loved ones will go through. >

I'm pretty sure early forms of life — like single cell organisms — can't suffer. What was the meaning of life back before suffering existed? 
Why did life forms that could suffer evolve? >

Life IS suffering. Release expectation. >

I agree! >

The meaning of life is to be happy. >

The meaning of life is to be interesting at parties. That is not as easy as it first appears. >

Why do you even care about something that will happen billions and billions years in the future? Cool but that doesn't affect you in the slightest.
Don't project to others, your end goal may be to waste your life away fascinating about the sun blowing up of something, but that's your fetish not ours. >


The universe will die in the far future. There will be no light anymore, because all stars died and we will follow soon after. This is not my opinion, this is science.

If any of us were to be alive until the end of the universe,  this might play a part in a valid argument. But likely humans will become extinct before the end of even our planet. However, even if they don't, we as individuals likely will, so the "ultimate end goal" isn't the end of the world,  it's our inevitable individual deaths- because 'meaning' is subjective, and it's definition will vary across space and time. All we have is our unique minds to experience the world through. And like our minds, our experiences differ considerably. 

Hence the question: What is the best thing we could do?

The only thing that has a negative effect on the present moment is what we see as being 'bad' emotions, feelings and perceptions about whatever 'bad' is happening. What you say is right in a way because shit happens. People are "tortured, depressed, ill or [lose] loved ones". But are these things always bad? Can nothing good ever come from them? That's where you and I most differ in opinion because suffering isn't always irrefutably bad, and with time and perspective it can sometimes be seen as something that made you kinder, facilitated transformation, or gave you a completely different perspective on life. Then you, as a changed person, can create ripples of positivity that spread out into the world #oikeosis
We would not know what joy is if we didn't know what suffering is. The contrast between these states informs our definition of what happiness and meaning are. I think it's true that humans aim to avoid discomfort and seek comfort. But what's comfortable doesn't allow us to grow. Why would anyone want personal growth if they had no adverse life conditions to grow away from? Doing wrong has to be an option for doing right to be an admirable choice. Sometimes people will do wrong. And other times life just doesn't seem fair, with illness and death and destruction. But in some ways acknowledging the chance that could happen makes us treasure the opposite of that even more. We cannot change the fact that some people are in pain and everyone dies. But we can change our perspective on it.

Since we know that suffering is the world, we also know that no suffering is the best. Therefore the best you can do in life is to prevent suffering. This is the logically highest and most meaningful objective.

I disagree. Imo suffering is wanting an impossible version of reality to exist, fighting it, and saying it's not fair and that nothing good could possibly be on the other of it. Pain is a natural part of life, but suffering doesn't have to be. We can accept things and people for exactly how they are. We don't have to fight it, or hate them or the world for it, even though we may not like it. There are many variables outside of our control and it would be in our own best interests to permit ourselves to let go of the bad, and instead be committed to seeking out the positives in whatever shitty situations come our way. 
The opposite of suffering is not 'not suffering', it's personal empowerment over anything that's happening beyond your control that you do not like. It's letting things that aren't in your control dissolve, and focusing on what you can do to grow as a result of what's happened or is happening. We choose how we see things. We cannot choose not to be hurt but we can be empowered and choose not to suffer. All we have is the here and the now, and the fewer negative feelings that are in it, the happier we will be. Imagine not seeing suffering as being inevitable, being able to look forwards past it even though you might be sad- that is true happiness and freedom. >

What do you think u/mrmarkson >

Perhaps reducing suffering would just as acceptable goal.  Life isn't just suffering! Pain exists, true, but isn't IMHO suffering. >

Your first premise isn't a for sure thing. That's just one theory. There are plenty of possible situations where there could be multiple universes or a universe that doesn't ever end and is cyclical. There is too much we do not know to make this statement and act like it is definitely true.
I think preventing suffering is pretty good but I think we complicate life too much. The purpose of life is to live. It's really that simple. We get bogged down in all of these social constructs that we invent -- so much that we lose sight of juss living in the moment and being content to live.
Instead of just living, you build up all this shit so that it's not enough and that you have to be doing a particular thing. You actually complicate life so much that you cause suffering by insisting that you need to end suffering.
You are a human being. An animal on the planet Earth. You are not a God. You aren't going to end suffering. Suffering is a part of the universe that you need to come to terms with otherwise you will live your entire life shitting and pissing yourself over suffering. You do not have any particular need to do anything other than live your life.
Just live. In the moment. Without the bullshit. You don't even need to use language if you do not want to. >

Nah. Meaning of life is defying nature. By seeing not just how far we go. But what we do to get there. Keeping people from getting hurt as much as possible is just one facet of that. >

Saying the opposite of suffering is not suffering is like saying the opposite of the color red is colorlessness.
Why not just take the extra step and say the meaning of life is not just to prevent suffering but to promote happiness
Also if you spent your entire like living in a box, not “suffering” would you consider that a fulfilled and meaningful life? >

I agree OP, everyone should just always be hopped up on morphine to really enjoy what little time we have left.
Also, human emotions are complex and insinuating that human beings are like light switches alternating between joy and suffering is willfully and so overly reductionist. 
And the idea that suffering is so inherently reprehensible that we should all be working to eliminate jt is an opinion I think you should re-examine. I'll have you know that giving birth, something so core to life as humans experience it, isn't exactly a walk in the park. Maybe one day medicine will advance so far pregnancy won't cause any physical pain, which I agree is an admirable goal, but just not having babies in the meantime to minimize suffering isn't exactly tenable. And even if we were to eliminate all pain through scientific advancement, there'd still be people "suffering" away home birthing.
The fact that anyone would willfully undertake any action that could even be remotely be considered "suffering" and find some good or enjoyment from it kinda blows up your entire argument, unless you want to argue that suffering we consent to isn't really suffering. But if that's the case, it's more an argument in favor of free will to make your own decisions in life as that would be the best shot at people trying to minimize suffering for themselves.
If biological life is as natural and inescapable as the "death" of the universe, then so is suffering. Any animal eaten by another suffers. Again, unless you think the meaning of science (not "life") is to prevent all suffering, your argument doesn't work and you need to clarify or make a new one.
When you say meaning of life are you just referring to people or all forms of life? Just biologically people or socially? Maybe you do think the meaning of life is to turn everyone into potted plant just photosynthesizing all day in our own little worlds without even the capacity to feel suffering would be best. The thing is that suffering (as human beings know it) is an adaptation humans and other animals evolved that helped us survive and reproduce. Our concousiousness of pain and suffering is part of what makes us people and forms the foundation of our ability to even formulate some nebulous idea like the meaning of life. The goal then either becomes keep our consciousness but cut out ability feel pain and only feel joy (effectively lobotomizing us or shooting us full of drugs) or lose both to really turn us into plants. I mean plants found your meaning of life - all the living while preventing all of the suffering. They did it. Either way, the prevention of suffering doesn't hold any water with evolution and definitely not with any of this cosmological absolutism you're trying to espouse.
Maybe you do think we humans have out developed that need for suffering, but I firmly hold that as an impossibility. You can't assert that the meaning of life for people should be to prevent suffering because people without suffering , as a group, does not align with any current understanding of what people are, and thus that group would not be people, socially or biologically. >

We will die way before the universe does. But isn't suffering linked to pain in that we know not to touch a hot iron skillet with our bare hands? It's when we put on our oven mitts to pick up the skillet and burn other people where suffering continues.
We're supposed to learn from our mistakes so we don't repeat them. Instead, we find a loophole so that the problem becomes someone else's. 
If all the stars in the universe burn out who's to say we can't adapt to that? Maybe we'll go from living in this illuminated age with all of the stars to a dark matter age where things are different, not dead. Adaptation has always been our strength. Unfortunately, we have to suffer a bit to learn. But that's what pushes us forward. You can't adapt by living in a bubble. >

Clarifying question: since it's actually impossible to eliminate all suffering in life, however nice a goal that is... 
Isn't it always immoral to have a child, knowing that it will experiencing some suffering, that could be prevented if they didn't exist?
If you have no children, they will not suffer, and you will have maximally prevented suffering with your choices. >

No, Douglas Adams already said the answer here is 42. >

Have you read the short story ‘The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas’ by Ursula K. LeGuin? It touches on a similar theme and if you haven’t read it you might find it interesting. >

My only clarification/disagreement is that the removal/prevention of suffering must be done in a moral framework.
Otherwise, mass extinction would be the singular most effective way of removing suffering possible.
Likewise, all kinds of horrible temporary suffering could be an excuse for "the greater good". This is like textbook villain motivation. >

The meaning of biological life is reproduction, we see this on nature and ourselves. It is the major driving force for evolution, survival of the human species and motivates many individuals actions. >

Overly simplified and impossible, but I see where you're coming from. Suffering is inevitable. Therefore, One must endure some suffering. Hence the impossible. 
I would offer this to counter the simplicity: humanity is not that straightforward or limited in scope. To alleviate suffering would be one alternative i could get behind. But what about looking up? For lack of a much needed more eloquent way of putting it:  Can't we aim high as well, instead of only looking down at what we fear or most want to avoid? That seems like a good starting point for what our purpose might be to me. >

You are mistaking the absence of something bad for something good. This is not the case. A much better statement would be that the meaning of life is to thrive. >

Looking past human experience, the suffering of creatures from simple protozoans to complex mammals is a feature of the system of life.  Hunger, predation, injury, etc, are major driving forces of the evolutionary processes that have created things as cool as microscopic gastrotrichs and big ol' dogs and shrikes and camouflaged insects and monkeys.
That's not to say you should intentionally cause suffering - I agree with your take.  But in a more universal sense it is an unavoidable side effect of the most creative forces driving evolution and life complexity. >

The Buddha says everything is suffering and I think he's an expert on this stuff. >

The meaning of life is to learn how to cope with the obstacles and pain. Then, when you die, your consciousness expands inwards to inner space until it is time for a new trial. >

Okay but what if I don't care if other people, or even I suffer? This may be your meaning of life, but you can't go around imposing this on others as if it is some fundamental truth. The truth is this meaning of life is wholly subjective, seeing everyobody jas different values. >

By this logic wouldn’t the goal to life be to prevent your own suffering. It’s not like you are going to be rewarded for stopping others from suffering. So why waste time helping others when you could spend more time seeking joy for yourself. >

Y’all need to go listen to some Alan Watts…