What would it mean to you if either
A) Humans never were able to figure out how to increase well-being (the knowledge problem) or
B) total well-being could not be increased (e.g., http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/infinite.pdf)

I think then the only point to life would be to maximize one's own well-being - as might as well have fun, but life would be much less rewarding than it could be if B were false and A didn't apply (we knew how to increase well-being). Since I think we're very far from knowing A, since B hasn't been ruled out, and since there are other serious criticisms of utilitarianism, I definitely struggle with this issue. Often life seems absurd in Camus' language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism)

Elijah wrote:No. If infinite well-being exists, it can still be morally right to create new well-being - even if that doesn't change the amount of well-being in the worlds.

Can you explain that some more? Would creating new well-being increase total well-being in such a scenario? I'll give an analogy of how I understand the situation, although I find the concept of infinity confusing. If infinite utility exists, then I picture efforts to improve utility as being analogous to a guy spending his whole life pouring bottles of water in an ocean thinking that he will make a lasting change in the amount of water in the ocean (water = utility here). However, the bottled water will just evaporate and be replaced later with new water that would have been there anyway (I think).

LJM1979 wrote:I think then the only point to life would be to maximize one's own well-being

Imagine you had an infinite capacity for individual well-being (this is distinct from Bostrom's scenario where total well-being is already at infinity). Your life certainly would still have meaning; you wouldn't dispair merely because your capacity for fun was endless! Indeed, I imagine you would rejoice instead that there's no limit!

I think meaning in life comes from having well-being, not from the actual maximization process. Sure, the maximization process might be fun, but most of my fun comes from the actual fun things themselves, not the very process of getting more fun things.

Maximizing well-being is merely a means to having more well-being. I think you're making it an end in itself, which is your mistake.

Did I miss something?

peterhurford wrote:

LJM1979 wrote:I think then the only point to life would be to maximize one's own well-being

Imagine you had an infinite capacity for individual well-being (this is distinct from Bostrom's scenario where total well-being is already at infinity). Your life certainly would still have meaning; you wouldn't dispair merely because your capacity for fun was endless! Indeed, I imagine you would rejoice instead that there's no limit!

I think meaning in life comes from having well-being, not from the actual maximization process. Sure, the maximization process might be fun, but most of my fun comes from the actual fun things themselves, not the very process of getting more fun things.

Maximizing well-being is merely a means to having more well-being. I think you're making it an end in itself, which is your mistake.

Did I miss something?

I think I agree with you.

I think an individual's life would be 'pointless' if the happiness they felt or caused others was outweighed by the pain they felt or caused others.

Even if the amount of total well-being in the world was fixed, I think it would still be an overall good place if it outweighed the total amount of suffering.

Ubuntu wrote:

peterhurford wrote:

LJM1979 wrote:I think then the only point to life would be to maximize one's own well-being

Imagine you had an infinite capacity for individual well-being (this is distinct from Bostrom's scenario where total well-being is already at infinity). Your life certainly would still have meaning; you wouldn't dispair merely because your capacity for fun was endless! Indeed, I imagine you would rejoice instead that there's no limit!

I think meaning in life comes from having well-being, not from the actual maximization process. Sure, the maximization process might be fun, but most of my fun comes from the actual fun things themselves, not the very process of getting more fun things.

Maximizing well-being is merely a means to having more well-being. I think you're making it an end in itself, which is your mistake.

Did I miss something?

I think I agree with you.

I think an individual's life would be 'pointless' if the happiness they felt or caused others was outweighed by the pain they felt or caused others.

Even if the amount of total well-being in the world was fixed, I think it would still be an overall good place if it outweighed the total amount of suffering.

But I'd also feel like there were no meaningful goals in life to have