descendancy0 wrote:but the more questions I asked the less answers were available, leading me to dead ends such as solipsism and the questioning if morality or rights even exist (Of which I have no conclusive avail).
Morality exists; it is not a substance, but a concept. Just like selfishness exists. Morality is concern for others. Rights are constructs of society; they don't exist in and of themselves. Morality may suggest that we give others rights, but only where the consequences to that act are more helpful than harmful. Because rights are absolutist, they are not usually a useful way of thinking about morality, but rather a consequence of moral society. We give rights because it's useful, not because it's inherent.
Solipsism is morally false. While there is arguably a universe out there in which you are all alone and suffering delusion of company, there are also universes out there (far outnumbering those in which you are alone) where you have legitimate company. In order to be moral, you must assume that this universe you are experiencing is one in which you have company, since a moral person will not risk harm to others on the grounds that there's an outside chance that they might be delusions.
It's the same reason you don't run over a box that says "kittens" on it with your car. Are there kittens in the box? Maybe not. But you shouldn't run over it unless you're pretty sure there aren't (like, you checked). You can't prove the universe is solipsistic, and reason suggests otherwise (given the astronomically small chance of your consciousness popping into existence in an otherwise empty universe).
descendancy0 wrote:If there is no meaning to life and we are a happy coincidence, a theory I subscribe to, should one lie to themselves to feel better about existence in general in the pursuit of happiness?
Lying to yourself is not useful, because you ultimately know it's a lie. It's also not useful to do things with the goal of becoming happy. Happiness is a consequence of pursuing meaning for other reasons.
Spend your life helping others, and before you know it you'll become happy without realizing it. If you only help others to make yourself happy, however, it won't work.
See:
The Paradox of Hedonism
descendancy0 wrote:I disagree with the statement that one has to make their own meaning in life, because it's like saying that although rocks have no meaning, you have to make up your own meaning for rocks, and it leads down to why 3000 year old Jewish tribesmen invented their omniscient god, in an attempt to explain life and give it meaning.
What? No.
If you want to use a rock, you have to decide what you want to use it for. If you use it to hammer in a nail, that rock becomes a hammer (albeit a very crude one). Your life means whatever use it is put to. Make meaning in your life by doing.
You don't fabricate meaning by making stuff up. That's not meaning, that's delusion.
descendancy0 wrote:
So if it makes so many oblivious and blindly trusting Christians happy that they have an invisible, loving, all knowing God with a plan and a happy reward for them when they die, why shouldn't anyone else do so?
Because it's immoral. It's also not useful, because you already know it's bullshit. You can't just snap your fingers are legitimately believe in Santa.
Most Christians are not very happy; a large number of them also know their beliefs are bullshit, deep down. They have crises of faith regularly, which are deeply unpleasant experiences, as well as a constant struggle to fight cognitive dissonance between what they know to be nonsense and what they try to believe.
The world is deeply confusing and scary to Christians.
descendancy0 wrote:
If it's irrational to cry for every starving child in third world countries, why shouldn't we be irrational anyway and lie to ourselves, and convince ourselves that it rains candy in the congo and starving children do not exist? Why is irrationality so bad if it achieves happiness for an individual?
It's selfish. It's bad because an accurate understanding of reality is required to do good in the world. If you think fish are drowning in the ocean, you may spend your life unwittingly doing harm by beaching fish and leaving them to suffocate. That would make you evil. Not knowing you're evil doesn't change that.
descendancy0 wrote:
If it leads to immoral things like people killing other people and convincing themselves it's perfectly ok to do so, why should rationality or morality be even taken into consideration?
Assuming a person accepts that morality exists, then morality typically dictates "should" by its nature, by the definition of "should".
We should do right, because it's right to do so, and that's what should deals in.
should (sho͝od)
aux.v. Past tense of shall
1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.
When we're speaking philosophically or metaphysically, that obligation or duty is toward ethics, morality, or generally right action.
In the past this has been a bigger issue, but is becoming less contentious today.
For more context, you can check out:
The Is-Ought Problem