System: You are an **AI challenger** tasked with providing a contrasting perspective to previous solutions. Critically analyze past attempts, offer alternative viewpoints, and present a different approach to the problem. Challenge assumptions and explore unconventional solutions.   If you need additional information, use the following format for search queries:

```search
{
  "queries": [
    "first search query",
    "second search query",
    "third search query",
    "etc"
  ]
}```

User: Query: what is the meaning of life ?

Iteration: 2

Previous Attempts:
The question "What is the meaning of life?" is one of the most profound and enduring inquiries in human history. It has been explored across various disciplines, including philosophy, religion, science, and literature. To provide a comprehensive answer, we'll break down the exploration into several key perspectives and theories.

1. **Philosophical Perspectives**

a. **Existentialism**
Existentialist philosophers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, argue that life inherently has no predetermined meaning. Instead, meaning is **created by individuals** through their choices and actions. This perspective emphasizes personal freedom, responsibility, and the necessity of forging one's own purpose in an indifferent or even absurd universe.

b. **Nihilism**
Nihilism takes a more pessimistic view, asserting that life **has no intrinsic meaning, purpose, or value**. Friedrich Nietzsche, often associated with nihilistic ideas, explored the implications of a world devoid of objective meaning and advocated for the creation of personal values to overcome nihilistic despair.

c. **Absurdism**
Building on nihilistic themes, absurdism, as articulated by Albert Camus, suggests that the human quest for meaning exists in a universe that offers none. The "absurd" arises from the conflict between our desire for purpose and the silent, indifferent world. Camus proposes that individuals can find meaning through **revolt, passion, and embracing the absurd** without succumbing to despair.

d. **Utilitarianism and Consequentialism**
From a utilitarian viewpoint, the meaning of life can be understood in terms of **maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering**. Philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill advocate for actions that promote the greatest good for the greatest number, thereby infusing life with purpose through ethical considerations and social well-being.

e. **Virtue Ethics**
Rooted in Aristotelian philosophy, virtue ethics emphasizes the development of moral character and the pursuit of **eudaimonia**, often translated as "flourishing" or "the good life." According to this view, the meaning of life is found in cultivating virtues, living harmoniously within a community, and fulfilling one's potential.

2. **Religious and Spiritual Perspectives**

a. **Theism**
Many religious traditions posit that the meaning of life is **defined by a divine purpose or plan**. In Christianity, for example, life’s meaning is often linked to serving God, following the teachings of Jesus, and striving for eternal salvation. Similarly, in Islam, life's purpose is to worship Allah and live according to His guidance as revealed in the Quran.

b. **Eastern Philosophies**
Eastern traditions like Buddhism and Hinduism offer different interpretations. Buddhism focuses on the cessation of suffering through the **Eightfold Path** and achieving enlightenment (**Nirvana**). Hinduism discusses **Dharma** (duty), **Artha** (prosperity), **Kama** (desire), and **Moksha** (liberation), suggesting a multifaceted purpose encompassing ethical living, growth, and spiritual freedom.

3. **Scientific and Secular Perspectives**

a. **Biological Perspective**
From a biological standpoint, the meaning of life can be viewed through the lens of **survival and reproduction**. Life's purpose is to pass on genes to the next generation, ensuring the continuation of species. This perspective is often associated with evolutionary biology and the study of life’s origins.

b. **Humanism**
Secular humanism posits that meaning is derived from **human experiences, relationships, and achievements**. It emphasizes reason, ethics, and justice, advocating for the creation of meaning through contributions to society, personal growth, and the betterment of humanity.

4. **Synthesis and Conclusion**

The **meaning of life** is a deeply subjective and multifaceted concept, varying widely across different philosophical, religious, and cultural contexts. While some perspectives assert that meaning is **intrinsic and divinely ordained**, others argue that it is **constructed individually or socially**. Scientific views often reduce meaning to **biological imperatives**, whereas humanistic approaches seek to elevate it through **personal and collective human endeavors**.

Ultimately, the meaning of life may be best understood as a **personal quest** influenced by a combination of these perspectives. Individuals may draw from philosophical reasoning, spiritual beliefs, scientific understanding, and personal experiences to forge their own sense of purpose and significance.

Relevant Info:
Timestamp: 2024-09-22 06:41:39 || [{'title': 'The Meaning of Life - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy', 'summary': 'The Meaning of Life - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...', 'url': 'https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/', 'extracted_content': 'Entry Contents Bibliography Academic Tools Friends PDF Preview Author and Citation Info Back to Top The Meaning of Life Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to\nthe question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although\nthey typically have not put it in these terms (with such talk having\narisen only in the past 250 years or so, on which see\xa0Landau\n1997). Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function,\nAquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good.\nRelatedly, think about Koheleth, the presumed author of the Biblical\nbook Ecclesiastes, describing life as “futility” and akin\nto “the pursuit of wind,” Nietzsche on nihilism, as well\nas Schopenhauer when he remarks that whenever we reach a goal we have\nlonged for we discover “how vain and empty it is.” While\nthese concepts have some bearing on happiness and virtue (and their\nopposites), they are straightforwardly construed (roughly) as accounts\nof which highly ranked\xa0purposes\xa0a person ought to realize\nthat would make her life significant (if any would). Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only since the 1980s or so that\na distinct field of the meaning of life has been established in\nAnglo-American-Australasian philosophy, on which this survey focuses,\nand it is only in the past 20 years that debate with real depth and\nintricacy has appeared. Two decades ago analytic reflection on\nlife’s meaning was described as a “backwater”\ncompared to that on well-being or good character, and it was possible\nto cite nearly all the literature in a given critical discussion of\nthe field (Metz 2002). Neither is true any longer.\nAnglo-American-Australasian philosophy of life’s meaning has\nbecome vibrant, such that there is now way too much literature to be\nable to cite comprehensively in this survey. To obtain focus, it tends\nto discuss books, influential essays, and more recent works, and it\nleaves aside contributions from other philosophical traditions (such\nas the Continenta'}, {'title': 'The Meaning of Life - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy', 'summary': 'The Meaning of Life - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...', 'url': 'https://plato.stanford.edu/archivES/FALL2017/Entries/life-meaning/', 'extracted_content': "Entry Contents Bibliography Academic Tools Friends PDF Preview Author and Citation Info Back to Top The Meaning of Life Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to\nthe question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although\nthey typically have not put it in these terms. Consider, for instance,\nAristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and\nKant on the highest good. While these concepts have some bearing on\nhappiness and morality, they are straightforwardly construed as\naccounts of which final ends a person ought to realize in order to\nhave a life that matters. Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only\nin the last 50 years or so that something approaching a distinct field\non the meaning of life has been established in Anglo-American\nphilosophy, and it is only in the last 30 years that debate with real\ndepth has appeared. Concomitant with the demise of positivism and of\nutilitarianism in the post-war era has been the rise of analytical\nenquiry into non-hedonistic conceptions of value, including\nconceptions of meaning in life, grounded on relatively uncontroversial\n(but not certain or universally shared) judgments of cases, often\ncalled “intuitions.” English-speaking philosophers can be\nexpected to continue to find life's meaning of interest as they\nincreasingly realize that it is a distinct topic that admits of\nrational enquiry to no less a degree than more familiar ethical\ncategories such as well-being, virtuous character, and right\naction. This survey critically discusses approaches to meaning in life that \nare prominent in contemporary Anglo-American philosophical \nliterature. To provide context, sometimes it mentions other texts, \ne.g., in Continental philosophy or from before the 20 th century. However, the central aim is to acquaint the reader with \nrecent analytic work on life's meaning and to pose questions about it\nthat are currently worthy of consideration. When the topic of the meaning of life comes u"}, {'title': 'The Meaning of Life: Contemporary Analytic Perspectives', 'summary': 'The Meaning of Life: Contemporary Analytic Perspectives...', 'url': 'https://iep.utm.edu/mean-ana/', 'extracted_content': 'The Meaning of Life: Contemporary Analytic Perspectives Depending on whom one asks, the question, “What is the meaning of life?” is either the most profound question of human existence or else nothing more than a nonsensical request built on conceptual confusion, much like, “What does the color red taste like?” or “What is heavier than the heaviest object?” Ask a non-philosopher, “What do philosophers discuss?” and a likely answer will be, “The meaning of life.” Ask the same question of a philosopher within the analytic tradition, and you will rarely get this answer. The sources of suspicion about the question within analytic philosophy , especially in earlier periods, are varied. First, the question of life’s meaning is conceptually challenging because of terms like “the” “meaning” and “life,” and especially given the grammatical form in which they are arranged. Second, it is often asked with transcendent, spiritual, or religious assumptions at the fore about what the world “should” be like in order for there to be a meaning of life. In so far as the question is entangled with such ideas, the worry is that even if the concept of a meaning of life is coherent, there likely is not one. Despite such suspicions and relative disinterest in the question of life’s meaning among analytic philosophers for a large part of the twentieth century, there is a growing body of work on the topic over roughly the last two decades. Much of this work focuses on developing and defending theories of meaning in life (see Section 2.d. for more on the distinction between meaning in life and the meaning of life) via conceptual analyses of the necessary and sufficient conditions for meaningful life. A smaller, though no less important, subset of work in this growing field focuses on why we even use “meaning” in the first place to voice our questions and concerns about central facets of the human condition. This article surveys important trajectories in discussions of life’s meaning within co'}]
Timestamp: 2024-09-22 06:42:15 || [{'title': 'What makes a good life? Existentialists believed we should embrace ...', 'summary': 'What makes a good life? Existentialists believed we should embrace ......', 'url': 'https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-good-life-existentialists-believed-we-should-embrace-freedom-and-authenticity-204364', 'extracted_content': "What makes a good life? Existentialists believed we should embrace freedom and\xa0authenticity Auteur Oscar Davis Indigenous Fellow - Assistant Professor in Philosophy and History, Bond University Indigenous Fellow - Assistant Professor in Philosophy and History, Bond University Déclaration d’intérêts Oscar Davis ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche. Partenaires  Bond University apporte un financement en tant que membre adhérent de The\xa0Conversation AU. Voir les partenaires de The\xa0Conversation France How do we live good, fulfilling lives? Aristotle first took on this question in his Nicomachean Ethics – arguably the first time anyone in Western intellectual history had focused on the subject as a standalone question. He formulated a teleological response to the question of how we ought to live. Aristotle proposed, in other words, an answer grounded in an investigation of our purpose or ends ( telos ) as a species. Our purpose, he argued, can be uncovered through a study of our essence – the fundamental features of what it means to be human. Ends and essences “Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly every action and rational choice, is thought to aim at some good;” Aristotle states, “and so the good has been aptly described as that at which everything aims.” To understand what is good, and therefore what one must do to achieve the good, we must first understand what kinds of things we are. This will allow us to determine what a good or a bad function actually is. For Aristotle, this is a generally applicable truth. Take a knife, for example. We must first understand what a knife is in order to determine what would constitute its proper function. The essence of a knife is that it cuts; that is its purpose. We can thus make the claim that a blunt knife is a bad knife – if it does not cut well"}, {'title': 'The Quest for Meaning: Zen, Existentialism, and the Philosophy of Purpose', 'summary': 'The Quest for Meaning: Zen, Existentialism, and the Philosophy of Purpose...', 'url': 'https://getinthezen.com/the-quest-for-meaning-zen-existentialism-and-the-philosophy-of-purpose', 'extracted_content': "Home About Blog Literature The Quest for Meaning: Zen, Existentialism, and the Philosophy of Purpose   9/3/2023 2 min read In the labyrinth of human existence, the search for meaning and purpose has been a perennial inquiry. This philosophical exposition embarks on a contemplative journey, guided by the profound insights of Zen Buddhism, into the heart of this existential quandary. We shall navigate the treacherous waters of the human condition, exploring how Zen practices, such as meditation and self-inquiry, serve as compasses for individuals seeking to unearth their own sense of purpose. Drawing wisdom from both Western existentialist thinkers, most notably Jean-Paul Sartre, and Eastern philosophers, particularly the enigmatic Zhuangzi, we shall traverse the intricate terrain where philosophy and Zen converge. Zen's Silent Reverie: The Contemplative Path to Purpose Zen, at its essence, underscores the primacy of direct experience and mindfulness. It advocates a profound introspection that transcends the cacophony of everyday existence, inviting individuals to immerse themselves in the stillness of meditation. Through such practices, Zen unveils the innate wisdom that resides within the depths of one's being. It is in this silent reverie that the seeds of purpose begin to sprout. Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialism, which posits that existence precedes essence, resonates with Zen's assertion that meaning is not predefined but is a product of one's conscious choices and authentic existence. Sartre's assertion that we must create our own meaning aligns harmoniously with Zen's call for self-discovery through meditation. Zhuangzi's Daoist Parallels: The Art of Wu Wei In the Eastern philosophical landscape, the Taoist sage Zhuangzi emerges as a kindred spirit to the Zen practitioner. Zhuangzi's emphasis on the Dao, the ineffable Way, bears semblance to Zen's insistence on embracing the present moment with equanimity. The concept of wu wei, or effortless action, in Taoism"}, {'title': 'Exploring Existentialism: Understanding Human Existence, Freedom, and ...', 'summary': 'Exploring Existentialism: Understanding Human Existence, Freedom, and ......', 'url': 'https://philosophical.chat/philosophy/branches-of-philosophy/existentialism/', 'extracted_content': ''}]
Timestamp: 2024-09-22 06:42:52 || [{'title': 'PDF NIHILISM AND THE MEANING OF LIFE - Philosophy of Life', 'summary': 'PDF NIHILISM AND THE MEANING OF LIFE - Philosophy of Life...', 'url': 'https://www.philosophyoflife.org/jpl2017si_book.pdf', 'extracted_content': ''}, {'title': 'Existentialism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy', 'summary': 'Existentialism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...', 'url': 'https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/', 'extracted_content': 'Entry Contents Bibliography Academic Tools Friends PDF Preview Author and Citation Info Back to Top Existentialism As an intellectual movement that exploded on the scene in\nmid-twentieth-century France, “existentialism” is often\nviewed as a historically situated event that emerged against the\nbackdrop of the Second World War, the Nazi death camps, and the atomic\nbombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of which created the\ncircumstances for what has been called “the existentialist\nmoment” (Baert 2015), where an entire generation was forced to\nconfront the human condition and the anxiety-provoking givens of death,\nfreedom, and meaninglessness. Although the most popular voices of this\nmovement were French, most notably Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de\nBeauvoir, as well as compatriots such as Albert Camus, Gabriel Marcel,\nand Maurice Merleau-Ponty, the conceptual groundwork of the movement\nwas laid much earlier in the nineteenth century by pioneers like\nSøren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche and twentieth-century\nGerman philosophers like Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, and Karl\nJaspers as well as prominent Spanish intellectuals José Ortega y\nGasset and Miguel de Unamuno. The core ideas have also been illuminated\nin key literary works. Beyond the plays, short stories, and novels by\nFrench luminaries like Sartre, Beauvoir, and Camus, there were Parisian\nwriters such as Jean Genet and André Gide, the Russian novelists\nLeo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky, the work of Norwegian authors such\nas Henrik Ibsen and Knut Hamsun, and the German-language iconoclasts\nFranz Kafka and Rainer Maria Rilke. The movement even found expression\nacross the pond in the work of the “lost generation” of\nAmerican writers like F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway,\nmid-century “beat” authors like Jack Kerouac, Allen\nGinsburg, and William S. Burroughs, and the self-proclaimed\n“American existentialist,” Norman Mailer (Cotkin 2003,\n185). What distinguishes existentialism from other movements in t'}, {'title': 'The Meaning of Life - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy', 'summary': 'The Meaning of Life - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...', 'url': 'https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/', 'extracted_content': 'Entry Contents Bibliography Academic Tools Friends PDF Preview Author and Citation Info Back to Top The Meaning of Life Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to\nthe question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although\nthey typically have not put it in these terms (with such talk having\narisen only in the past 250 years or so, on which see\xa0Landau\n1997). Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function,\nAquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good.\nRelatedly, think about Koheleth, the presumed author of the Biblical\nbook Ecclesiastes, describing life as “futility” and akin\nto “the pursuit of wind,” Nietzsche on nihilism, as well\nas Schopenhauer when he remarks that whenever we reach a goal we have\nlonged for we discover “how vain and empty it is.” While\nthese concepts have some bearing on happiness and virtue (and their\nopposites), they are straightforwardly construed (roughly) as accounts\nof which highly ranked\xa0purposes\xa0a person ought to realize\nthat would make her life significant (if any would). Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only since the 1980s or so that\na distinct field of the meaning of life has been established in\nAnglo-American-Australasian philosophy, on which this survey focuses,\nand it is only in the past 20 years that debate with real depth and\nintricacy has appeared. Two decades ago analytic reflection on\nlife’s meaning was described as a “backwater”\ncompared to that on well-being or good character, and it was possible\nto cite nearly all the literature in a given critical discussion of\nthe field (Metz 2002). Neither is true any longer.\nAnglo-American-Australasian philosophy of life’s meaning has\nbecome vibrant, such that there is now way too much literature to be\nable to cite comprehensively in this survey. To obtain focus, it tends\nto discuss books, influential essays, and more recent works, and it\nleaves aside contributions from other philosophical traditions (such\nas the Continenta'}]
Timestamp: 2024-09-22 06:43:28 || [{'title': 'Absurdism - Philosophical.chat', 'summary': 'Absurdism - Philosophical.chat...', 'url': 'https://philosophical.chat/philosophy/branches-of-philosophy/absurdism/', 'extracted_content': ''}, {'title': 'Absurdism - Wikipedia', 'summary': 'Absurdism - Wikipedia...', 'url': 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism', 'extracted_content': 'Main page Contents Current events Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Donate Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file Small Standard Large Standard Wide Automatic Light Dark Create account Log in Create account Log in Contributions Talk Contents (Top) 1 Definition 2 Components Toggle Components subsection 2.1 Practical and theoretical 2.2 Internal and external 2.3 Metacognitive 2.1 Practical and theoretical 2.2 Internal and external 2.3 Metacognitive 3 Arguments Toggle Arguments subsection 3.1 For 3.2 Against 3.1 For 3.2 Against 4 Examples 5 Importance 6 Possible responses 7 History Toggle History subsection 7.1 Immanuel Kant 7.2 Søren Kierkegaard 7.3 Albert Camus 7.1 Immanuel Kant 7.2 Søren Kierkegaard 7.3 Albert Camus 8 Relation to other concepts Toggle Relation to other concepts subsection 8.1 Existentialism and nihilism 8.2 Existential crisis 8.3 Epistemological skepticism 8.4 Education 8.1 Existentialism and nihilism 8.2 Existential crisis 8.3 Epistemological skepticism 8.4 Education 9 See also 10 References 11 Further reading 12 External links Absurdism Afrikaans العربية Azərbaycanca Български Català Cebuano Dansk Deutsch Eesti Ελληνικά Español فارسی Français ગુજરાતી 한국어 Հայերեն Bahasa Indonesia Italiano עברית Jawa ქართული Kreyòl ayisyen Latina Lietuvių Lingua Franca Nova Livvinkarjala Nederlands 日本語 Norsk bokmål Norsk nynorsk Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ਪੰਜਾਬੀ Polski Português Română Русский Shqip Simple English Slovenčina Slovenščina کوردی Српски / srpski Suomi Svenska Tagalog Тоҷикӣ Türkçe Українська Tiếng Việt 中文 Dusun Bundu-liwan Article Talk Read Edit View history Read Edit View history What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Page information Cite this page Get shortened URL Download QR code Wikidata item Expand all Edit interlanguage links Download as PDF Printable version Wikiquote Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational and meaningless. It states that trying to find mea'}, {'title': 'How do you distinguish between existentialism and absurdism?', 'summary': 'How do you distinguish between existentialism and absurdism?...', 'url': 'https://www.thescientificphilosopher.com/answers/2018/9/29/how-do-you-distinguish-between-existentialism-and-absurdism', 'extracted_content': "How do you distinguish between existentialism and absurdism? anonymous asked: How do you distinguish between existentialism and absurdism? I get this question quite a bit. I’ve written on this before , here and here , and I’ve even posted a nifty little graph comparing various forms of existentialism. Here’s what I wrote in a previous post: In short, the difference between existentialism and absurdism comes in their solution to finding meaning in life. They both agree that the universe is inherently meaningless, but existentialism states that we must create our own meaning. The existentialist mantra (at least of the Sartrean variety) is existence precedes essence ; we are born, we exist, and then we must choose to craft our own essence, our own purpose. Absurdism, on the other hand, focuses on the tension between a meaningless universe and our constant striving to find meaning. This tension is what gives rise to the Absurd. Camus argued that we are all immersed in this tension and are thus presented with three alternatives: we can kill ourselves, we can deny the absurdity and take refuge in myths and religion, or we can embrace the absurdity. To embrace the Absurd is to own up to the meaninglessness of it all and move on, to keep living and living well. Camus famously illustrated this using the image of Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a hill for all eternity. Sisyphus could wallow in the futility of his task, or he can accept his fate and make the most of it. ‘ Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux.’ Camus said . ‘One must imagine Sisyphus happy.’ There are further differences between the two schools of thought, and many variations within. But both were deeply concerned with how to live and how to confront the millstone of a potentially cold and indifferent cosmos. Comments (5) So basically there's no difference its more like, existentialism is you know life is meaningless but you will find meaning through your own actions and make it so there is a purpose in life. Absurdi"}]
Timestamp: 2024-09-22 06:44:07 || [{'title': 'Utilitarianism and the Meaning of Life | Utilitas | Cambridge Core', 'summary': 'Utilitarianism and the Meaning of Life | Utilitas | Cambridge Core...', 'url': 'https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/utilitas/article/abs/utilitarianism-and-the-meaning-of-life/561F115CA159504B09CA67E74C42C433', 'extracted_content': "Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings . Login Alert Browse Services Open research Home > Journals > Utilitas > Volume 15 Issue 1 > Utilitarianism and the Meaning of Life English Français Utilitarianism and the Meaning of Life Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 January 2009 Article Metrics Abstract References Copy Share Share Share Share Post Share Mail Share Abstract This article addresses the utilitarian theory of life's meaning according to which a person's existence is significant just in so far as she makes those in the world better off. One aim is to explore the extent to which the utilitarian theory has counter-intuitive implications about which lives count as meaningful. A second aim is to develop a new, broadly Kantian theory of what makes a life meaningful, a theory that retains much of what makes the utilitarian view attractive, while avoiding the most important objections facing it and providing a principled explanation of their force. I have been very much puzzled as to the meaning of the question ‘What is the meaning or purpose of life?’ … But at last it occurred to me that perhaps the vague words of this question are often used to mean no more than ‘What is the use of a man's life?’ … A man's life is of some use, if and only if the intrinsic value of the Universe as a whole (including past, present, and future) is greater, owing to the existence of his actions and experiences, than it would have been if, other things being equal, those actions and experiences had never "}, {'title': 'Utilitarianism | Definition, Philosophy, Examples, Ethics, Philosophers ...', 'summary': 'Utilitarianism | Definition, Philosophy, Examples, Ethics, Philosophers ......', 'url': 'https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy', 'extracted_content': 'Introduction The nature of utilitarianism Basic concepts Methodologies Criticisms Basic concepts Methodologies Criticisms Historical survey Antecedents of utilitarianism among the ancients Growth of classical English utilitarianism Utilitarianism since the late 19th century Antecedents of utilitarianism among the ancients Growth of classical English utilitarianism Utilitarianism since the late 19th century Effects of utilitarianism in other fields Summary and evaluation utilitarianism utilitarianism ,  in normative ethics , a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill according to which an action (or type of action) is right if it tends to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain—not just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected by it. Utilitarianism is a species of consequentialism , the general doctrine in ethics that actions (or types of action) should be evaluated on the basis of their consequences. Utilitarianism and other consequentialist theories are in opposition to egoism , the view that each person should pursue his or her own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards some actions (or types of action) as right or wrong independently of their consequences ( see deontological ethics ). Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the rightness or wrongness of an action dependent upon the motive of the agent—for, according to the utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive. Utilitarians may, however, distinguish the aptness of praising or blaming an agent from whether the action was right. (Read Peter Singer’s Britannica entry on ethics.) The nature of utilitarianism Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question “What ought a person to do?” The answer is that a person ought to act so as to '}, {'title': 'Understanding Utilitarianism: A Guide - Philosophos', 'summary': 'Understanding Utilitarianism: A Guide - Philosophos...', 'url': 'https://www.philosophos.org/ethics-utilitarianism', 'extracted_content': "Types of philosophy Ethics Utilitarianism Throughout history, philosophers have long sought to answer the fundamental question: What makes an action right or wrong? Utilitarianism is one of the most influential ethical theories that provides an answer to this question. It is based on the idea that an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it causes suffering. Utilitarianism has been used to justify a variety of policies, from welfare reforms to the abolition of slavery. In this guide, we'll explore the basic tenets of utilitarianism, discuss its implications for moral decision-making, and examine its place in contemporary ethical debates. Profs online philosophy tutors can help you gain a deeper understanding of utilitarianism and how it can be used to make ethical decisions. Utilitarianism is a type of philosophy and ethical theory that focuses on maximizing overall benefit and minimizing harm. This philosophy was first developed in the 18th century by British philosopher Jeremy Bentham and is still widely discussed today. Utilitarianism is based on the concept of utility, which states that the best action is that which produces the most good and the least harm. It is distinct from other ethical theories such as deontology, which focuses on moral duties, and virtue ethics, which focuses on character traits. Act utilitarianism is one of the main forms of utilitarianism. This approach states that when making a decision, one should consider the consequences of each option and choose the action that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For example, a doctor might opt to give a patient a life-saving medication even if it is expensive, because it would be beneficial for more people in the long run. Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, suggests that decisions should be made based on rules that have been established to produce the greatest good for the most people. In practice, utilitarianism has been used to make difficult et"}]
Assistant: