1) Explain as clearly as you can David Benatar’s so-called “asymmetry argument” (discussed in the slides “Nihilism Benatar”) for the view that non-existence is actually preferable to existence, and then critically evaluate the argument in detail. (There is a growing body of literature on this argument, and you are free to consult any of it if you like, though this is not required.)
2) The philosopher Daniel Hill in Reading 11 attempts to defend the religious view of the meaning and purpose of life. At one point Hill claims that “Belief in a creator and designer is essential, then, for anyone that thinks that life has a meaning.” And a little later he writes that, “Atheists must necessarily deny that life has a meaning, since no overall complete explanation of the existence of living things could be given in terms of the purposes of any set of non-divine agents.” How convincing is Hill’s defense of the religious view in this paper?
3) An objection often raised against Sartre’s existentialist account of the meaning of life is that it is too subjectivist; it implies that anything and everything can count as a meaningful life, which means that the very idea of life having meaning has now been trivialized. Discuss in detail how convincing this objection is. (Start with Reading 16, and then use any other readings you find helpful.) I would suggest that you write on this topic only if you are sympathetic toward an existentialist approach to the meaning of life.
4) The recent documentary 15 Reasons to Live, by filmmaker Allan Zwieig, presents 15 short vignettes about the joy and pain a variety of people experience in confronting some of life’s challenges. Write a review of the film in which you try to capture as accurately as you can its central insights into the meaning, purpose, or value of life. Although this is by no means an easy topic, you might find it worthwhile, as the film definitely has understated charm. (You should only choose this topic, however, if you feel you have something interesting to say about, or in response to, the film. Also, unfortunately, you may need to pay a small fee to obtain the film online.)
5) The 20th Century English philosopher A.J. Ayer attempted to show that the issue of the meaning of life is really a pseudo problem or puzzle, that there is simply no serious philosophical issue about the meaning of life that needs to be addressed. Explain briefly what Ayer’s reasons for promoting this view are and then critically discuss how plausible and convincing it is. Do you think Ayer succeeds in showing that there is no real problem about the meaning of life?
6) Is death a good thing or a bad thing? More precisely, are we better off the way things are, where we die after a life of normal length (say, in the range of a century or so) or would it be better, preferable, to live forever? Would immortality undermine the meaning of life, as Bernard Williams and some others have argued? In addressing this issue, assume for the sake of argument that there is no afterlife in the sense envisioned by many religions. Also, the issue is not whether you would live forever in a condition of being old and feeble, but that scientific medicine would have the ability to keep people in, or restore them to, a relatively youthful, healthy state. Finally, the issue is also not whether eternal life would be good for society, or humanity as a whole, but whether it would be good for the individual who would be living forever. (Reading 22, by Bernard Williams, (p. 223 in our text) is directly relevant to this issue. You can also find many other sources if you look for them.)
7) Hedonism is the doctrine that pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good and valuable. In Reading 30: “The Experience Machine”, Robert Nozick presents a thought experiment involving what he refers to as the experience machine which he thinks refutes hedonism. Explain Nozick’s thought experiment clearly, but concisely, and then discuss in detail how serious and convincing it is as an objection to hedonism. In addition to Reading 30, Readings 27 and 31 are directly relevant to this topic. There is now a large body of literature online that discusses Nozick’s experience machine and its relevance to hedonism. You are free to look at any of this literature, but you must acknowledge any ideas you use, and you must come to your own conclusions.
8) It has been argued by some critics that Buddhism is really a form of passive nihilism, or perhaps “closet nihilism”. Explain, first, why this charge would be directed against Buddhism (and perhaps to some extent also against stoicism). What is it about these belief systems that could make them appear to be nihilistic? Discuss in detail whether the charge is justified: Is Buddhism really a form of nihilism?. Here are two readings relevant to this topic:
“The Dark Side of Buddhism”, by Dale DeBakcsy, available online at: https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4021/the-dark-side-of-buddhism and 2.
Benjamin Studebaker, “A Critique of Buddhism”, at: https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2013/08/23/a-critique-of-buddhism/
9) In Chapter 23 of our text, the contemporary philosopher Samuel Scheffler argues that the existence of an Afterlife (with a capital A), in other words, the continued existence of the human race for a considerable time after we die as individuals, has even greater importance for most people than our own individual afterlife, i.e. our continued existence after our death in this world.
Discuss in detail why the Afterlife in Scheffler’s sense is so important to us. (If you think Scheffler is wrong about this and the Afterlife is not actually very important to people, then defend your view by argument.) In addition to the reading by Scheffler in our text, you should take a look at the two readings that follow it in the text, which contain critical discussions of Scheffler’s view.)