>

I agree!
/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.