5 of 88

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

that "good" (and thus conformity to human nature) meant whatever all human beings in all times and places had reached a general consensus on as "good." Thus, something like the universal prohibition against theft, which exists everywhere that human beings live, tells us that private property is a "good," since the existence of a prohibition against violating something implies the legitimacy of the thing being violated.

Aristotle went further, as did his orthodox Medieval followers (there were some pretty wild heterodox interpretations of Aristotle floating around in the 12th century that would have surprised, if not outraged The Philosopher). They traced the ultimate good to an uncreated Creator which reflected its perfection onto its creation. Thus, by discerning what all human beings agree is "good," we can know a little something about what the Creator reflects from its essence on to its creation.

That really isn't necessary, however. Since opinions as to what a Creator reveals to its creation differ, it is (at least with respect to civil society) a matter of opinion as to the specifics of a Creator that do not consist of what we see reflected as "good" in human nature. It's logical, of course, - but it's not necessary to believe in a Creator to accept that the meaning of human life is to pursue the good, and to define the good as what a general consensus of all mankind has decided constitutes good, thereby determining the meaning of life.

Learn more about this author, Michael Greaney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Finding the meaning of life?
We want to hear your view. Write now!