The desire for a heavenly after life or immortality leads to boredom since in essence there is no real end to life. Life runs on an infinite timeline no matter our interests, habits or values. There is no climax to life no ‘grand exit’ or so to speak. Human beings are naturally inclined towards expectation and accomplishment which in essence bring about a sense of finality. Immortality or a heavenly life after death contradicts this finality concept which can be a strong motivator for greatness. Since life has no real end it loses its ‘kick’ and excitement fades away hence boredom.
Their argument cannot be rejected on the grounds that we can change our habits, interests, values etc. true a change of habits or interest would create a sense of excitement and soil the numbing boredom but this new found ‘lease of life’ would be temporary. If one is immortal life is infinite but it won’t take long before this new found source of excitement becomes in itself boring. No matter how many time we change our habits we would eventually get bored of the new found habits and interests since the prior and latter are finite unlike the life of an immortal.
Their argument lends support to the epicurean view which is of the thinking that in one statement ‘death is nothing to us’. According to the epicurean view we cannot experience death since in death we are deprived of our natural senses. We should therefore not fear death since there is no pain involved in death. Death is therefore no longer a big deal that is to be loathed and the boredom therefore continues.
Thomas Nagel argument on the absurdity of life can simply be explained from the objective standpoint and the subjective standpoint. The subjective view leads us to view the world as an inviting lush place where everything is fine and dandy while the objective standpoint reveals a dubious, Godless wasteland. These two standpoints are antagonistic but the only way to get a clear cut unbiased picture of the world is to adopt both standpoints as absurd as they would occur. Nagel's argument that absurdity should be accepted and accommodated therefore holds.
Nagel suggests that this absurdity is inescapable but this view is highly exaggerated and misinformed. He fails to acknowledge the extent to which absurdity may be nullified by redesigning our moral codes and planning formulae and frame of reasoning. However we should not think that absurdity can be so easily erased from the human existence but can greatly be minimised to some extent. Nagel asserts that difficulty in synchronizing the objective and the subjective standpoint may lead to a heap of confusing and contradicting mistakes. Most clashes of the objective view and the subjective view do not generate mistakes and this alters Nagel’s position on how the synchronisms of both standpoints create absurdity. The plausibility and validity of Nagel’s assertion is therefore greatly weakened.
Robert Nozic argues on a theory mostly inclined towards consequentialism which holds that the ultimate basis for justification and judgement is the consequences of these actions. From this standpoint a good deed is one that will bring about a good result irrespective of the desired result. Nozick's arguments are mostly of the consequentialist point of view but add inviolable additive constraints which limit the somewhat blank cheque on the actions one is allowed to do.
Mills adopts a utilitarian point of view which is of the thought that the most appropriate course of action is the one which maximizes utility. This course of action should offer maximum happiness and at the same time minimise suffering as much as possible. These particular actions should have absolutely no negative impacts on the lives of other people. A string is thus attached that one should do unto others as he would have them do unto him.
Nozic adopts a consequentialist standpoint and Mill adopts a utilitarian standpoint but both converge on the nullification of the blank cheque as far as human actions are concerned. The impact of human actions on other people is of great importance to both Nozic and Mill. They both agree that the best course of action is undoubtedly the one with minimal or absolutely no negative effects on other human beings. Thus both agree that a limit exists as to how far human actions can go. They are both correct in their agreement that the best course of action should have absolutely no or minimal negative effects on other people. Robbing a bank is a quick way to get rich but it has immense negative effects on other people so it’s therefore not the best course of action in persuit of wealth.
This somewhat merger of points of view that the appropriate course of action should have no negative effects on others greatly strengthens their respective points of view. An element of the best course of action being the one that is fair and just on all people are thus created.
References
Nozick, R. (1989). “Happiness” from The Examined Life . New York: Simon and Schuster.
Barnes, J. (1989). "The Dream," from A History of the World in 10.5 Chapters. London: oxford university press.
Mills, J. S. (2012). Utilitarianism. Lanham: Start Publishing LLC.
Nagel, T. (2008). ”The Absurd” The Meaning of Life. A Reader Oxford: Oxford University Press.
