Socrates famously said that the unconsidered life is not worth living. He meant that a life lived without forethought or principle is a life so vulnerable to chance, and so dependent on the choices and actions of others, that it is of little real value to the person living it.
He further meant that a life well lived is one which has goals, and integrity, which is chosen and directed by the one who lives it, to the fullest extent possible to a human agent caught in the webs of society and history.
Socrates was absolutely correct in his analysis of life worth living and prerequisites pertaining to achieving that meaning in a person’s life. The separation of individuality and society goals are distinct and does not point to a universal totalitarian of both. Society within itself establishes it own prerequisites and allows for standards of tolerance and interaction but by no means should set standards for an individual when society’s standards diminishes all moral standards. Equality and acceptance must be standards no matter how challenging.
A C Grayling summizes that the phrase suggests, the ‘considered life’ is a life enriched by thinking about things that matter – values, aims, society, the characteristic vicissitudes of the human condition, desiderata both personal and public, the enemies of human flourishing, and the meanings of life.
It is not necessary to arrive at polished theories on all these subjects, but it is necessary to give them at least a modicum of thought if one’s life is to have some degree of shape and direction.
A C Grayling narrates correctly by putting these values within the consciousness of our self awareness and the pinnacle goals we place in our journey.
He further elaborates, “To give thought to these matters is like inspecting a map before a journey. Looking at a map is not the same thing as travelling, but it at least provides orientation, a sense of place and of how places relate to each other – especially those one would like to visit”.
These assumptions are absolutely philosophically correct and a person presuppositions in their lives dictate the lifelong challenges faced.
From Socartes to Grayling the narratives outline the need to establish foundations within a person before embarking on any journey. The idea of living by the rules of others negate our independence. If we allow our values to be subjugated, we lose our own objectivity. Or do we? The issue lies on the basis of these subjective beliefs. We assume that killing is wrong and punishable but the essence of that law is not subjective but based on a moral absolute.
Once we include morality onto the playing field we must assume a moral law giver. Good and bad are defined within these precepts. If these laws bound within a moral framework, are never subjective but sourced from a source outside our own conscience.
These is exactly where moral presuppositions are defined within our own objectivity. If we seek a life journey that offers more than subjectiveness than maybe we should anchor our objectivity within the same framework that morals laws are today.
The Christian worldview provides the definitive reference point that is just and equal. It view all humanity created in the image and likeness of God. We are all equal and bound within the framework that provides equality and justice.
Judgement is a different arena to consider. Not only does the Christian worldview reveals our intrinsic value but offers a destiny that is through our creator himself.