Purpose

Is it possible that man has emerged from the primordial chaos as a creature with purpose?  Can a purpose-driven being be created by chance and law, crystallize from a self-organizing system of molecules?  We certainly have our own goals and purposes.  Are these simply our own inventions, or are we endowed with them by our “creators”–the universe, law, and time?  If we are endowed with them, then what does that mean for our lives and how we live them?

The only reasonable motivation for doing anything is to increase our own sense of fulfillment, as I have previously argued.  If we are to be reasonable, we must follow where this precept leads.  If nature and history have determined what will bring us the highest fulfillment, the nature and history have determined our purpose, the goal to which we must strive if we are reasonable.

William Grey has written along similar lines:

The whole upshot of the biological story is to show how life and purpose can arise in a lifeless and purposeless world. The fact that life and purpose have emerged from, and are based upon, the exquisite and impersonal processes of chemistry in no way compromises the existence of purpose, and hence of value and significance. Existentialists, while rightly rejecting transcendent cosmic purposes, are wrong in supposing that the only source of significance and value is located in individual (human) choice and commitment. Their claim that man has no nature, or is free to create his own nature through autonomous decision, is a significant mistake.

I suggested above that biology can help throw some light on the question of what sort of life we ought to pursue. Any acceptable answer will have to take into consideration important constraints which derive <492> from the nature of human nature; and biological considerations can be of assistance here (as I suggested above) by helping to elucidate the sort of life to which the species homo sapiensis best adapted. This involves an Aristotelian supposition that organisms, including ourselves, have natural ends: teleology is in fact built into our nature. This innately programmed purposiveness, which is of the greatest importance for the project of establishing significance in our lives, is itself the product of the aimless processes (and “mistakes”) of evolution. An Aristotelian account can not only provide the basis for a naturalised ethic for mankind, it can also provide the basis of an ethic for nature. [11]

From:  Zygon Vol 22, No 4 (1987), pp. 479-496.

 

I want be fulfilled.  I find fulfillment in living honorably, compassionately, and freely.  This, then is my purpose:  To live with honor, compassion, and freedom, fulfilling the duties that I have to my family and others.  I have purposed it.  To the extent that I achieve it, I will be satisfied with my life and will have fulfilled my purpose.

The question is, does it matter if I chose my purpose freely or if it was determined for me?  I am not sure it does.  It would seem that all that matters is the sense of fulfillment I receive from fulfilling the purpose, regardless of the source of that purpose.  I suppose one could argue that simply knowing that you have a purpose brings fulfillment, but I don’t think so.  if I have a purpose, but have not fulfilled it, then how does that bring a sense of fulfillment?  Or, if I have a purpose that does not bring me fulfillment, what does that do for me?

So I guess the question of external teleology is superfluous for me, except in one regard.  if this “purpose” has an external source, then it is by definition, objective.  Nature and evolution have created an objective morality.