Well I'm going to challenge you further and suggest that there is no meaning of life to write to about; this is good because it invalidates evolutionary theory and survival of the fittest in regards to humanity. Evolution is irrelevant to humans as we have no need to survive, for example if I had a son born with a genetic mutation- let's say no eye sight, there is no opportunity or reason why this birth defect would shine as either a disability or as a subtle advantage, society would take care of him. From disabled parking spaces to the NHS, society is an all out war on evolution.

I think you could quite easily in argument cast aside evolutionary theory as a problem by demonstrating that it has no impact on humanity anymore for we have evolved past evolution. If someone does suggest that evolution has an impact on us, it is only because they have mistaken 'evolution' for a man-made ordering principle* (like education),

"It is axiomatic that living beings who continue to survive must be acting in ways that support survival. But it does not follow that the meaning of their lives is survival. I believe that the meaning of life is happiness. After performing their survival activities, animals move on to fun activities. For human beings, the conscious reason for any activity is happiness in one of its forms, and the reason people want to survive is so that they can enjoy life. Not many people wake in the morning looking forward to mere survival. Instead, we look forward to happiness."

Arjen, Worldwide happiness is inclusive, so no one is excluded or labelled 'bad' or 'wrong'. Generally, we move towards what makes us happy anyway, so we just need to remove impediments. I don't think we have to impose or idealise happiness (which would create its opposite), we only have to notice the natural movement towards happiness then help it.

Arjen, I take ages to understand philosophers and when I finally succeed, I quickly and easily find a counterargument that defeats their assertions. This has happened so many times, that I've seen a pattern where they create boxes, which I can open because I don't see the logical mind as having the answers to life, whereas they do. Logic as a trap when you believe it holds the answer to life's questions. It is only a tool, and a very limited one at that.

You say that striving for worldwide happiness excludes worldwide happiness. On the face of it, it is an untrue assertion. It is the same as saying that striving to send a rocket into space excludes sending a rocket into space, when the opposite is the case.

You mention the issue of subjective definitions of happiness. That's solved by letting everyone do what they like so long as they don't hurt themselves or others.

The issue of good or bad is an unnecessary abstraction. We all want to be happy and the way to that is by creating a happy world. There's no need to go into good vs bad or morality or anything else. We can deal with the issues directly.

Regarding the issue of treating others the way you would like to be treated yourself: even that is a strategy. Instead of happiness being an issue of morality, it is an issue of "what works". Once you understand that competing with others, or hurting others, makes you unhappy, you will stop doing it.

I'm happy to continue the conversation about Kant if you paraphrase his relevant idea simply so that I can reply quickly and easily. But I don't want to struggle to read his ideas, then struggle to apply them to my ideas, then counter them in order to tell you about that process. If you think worldwide happiness is impossible then explain why in a sentence or two, and I'll find a convincing counterargument easily, but I'm not going to wade through Kant's books or any long arguments, especially since the rocket and subjectivity arguments above satisfy me already.

BTW, my original post is not related to the questions you raise and the topics you want me to pursue. My original question was a request for help about covering the issue of scientists saying we do everything for survival rather than happiness.

Thanks for your time and replies.

Martin Gifford.

What does matter is that by thinking of a certain goal one tends to act accorddingly. Seeing as a goal proves a certain "rulebase" of things that are nice and not nice one excludes certain things and thereby certain people. That is why such a thing can never create world wide happiness. Because a "rulebase" is formed and consulted certain people will always be defined as "not nice". The exception is when that "rulebase" is empty and one effectively claims everything is "nice". That is what moral skepticism amounts to. To me a more realistic view is that by adoptingthe "duty" view everybody can change their own actions and thus learning from their mistakes. That way we only have to wonder about peoples intentions and therefore allow peopel to learn because we would like to be judged on our intentions as well instead of on our mistakes.

We can start with the goal, which in this case is worldwide happiness, and then we think of the method separately.

You are describing one thing that doesn't work (the rulebase) and one thing that might work (duty and learning from mistakes).

My view is that the core method is understanding what works and what doesn't work, and then spreading that understanding. Of course, learning from mistakes (our own and others) is part of understanding, and straightforward thinking is another part of it.

I think we are pretty much agreeing now.