Why Do Anything? Essay Version

Introduction

To ask “Why do anything?” is not a trivial question. It is a cry that echoes from the depths of a soul standing on the threshold between existence and oblivion. It emerges when all motivations collapse, when survival feels mechanical, and meaning seems absent. But the question itself is already a sign of life—because to ask is to care, and to care is to stand on the side of life. This essay begins from that point. From the raw fact of being alive, I will explore the logic, ethics, and reality of continuing, of doing, of living. Not to create false comfort, but to uncover honest, grounded truth.

1. I Exist, Therefore I Begin

The foundation of all thought, all action, all responsibility begins here: I am alive. I exist. That simple fact is not passive—it carries weight. Life is not a static state. It moves, it breathes, it presses forward. Once begun, it holds its place until something acts upon it to bring it to an end. That means life is the starting point. It does not need to be justified; its presence is enough.

2. Death Requires a Cause

Unlike life, which sustains itself unless interrupted, death is not spontaneous. It is caused—by degeneration, violence, neglect, disease, or choice. This means death is not neutral. It is an event. A change. Something must happen to bring it about. That makes death not a return to a natural baseline, but a deviation from life’s momentum.

3. Suicide Is a Form of Murder

If I bring about my own death deliberately, it is not an act of escape—it is an act of destruction. It is suicide, and suicide is ethically indistinguishable from murder. It is the willful ending of a human life, with full knowledge and consent. And as argued in detail elsewhere, it is morally wrong: Destroying Every Good Reason for Suicide.

4. Assisted Death Is No Escape

Even if I allow another to kill me, the moral burden does not disappear. Choosing passivity in the face of evil is still a form of choice. I cannot ethically absolve myself by saying, “I didn’t do it.” If I allow it to happen when I could stop it, I am still responsible.

5. Is Nature’s Death Different?

Suppose I simply stop trying. I don’t kill myself. I just let nature take me. I stop eating, stop sheltering, stop acting. Isn’t that different? Isn’t that nature doing its work? The answer is no. Because I have a will. I have knowledge. If I stand on train tracks knowing what will happen, I am still the one who caused it—even if the train never saw me.

6. Nature Is Not Neutral When Used

Nature does not think or choose. It acts blindly. But if I use nature’s blindness to enact my own death, I am the agent. The tool doesn’t absolve the hand. Walking into the sea to drown is no less suicide than using a rope or blade.

7. The Biological Argument for Survival

My own body resists death. My heart beats automatically. My lungs draw air. My skin heals from cuts. This isn’t random—it’s design. Every inch of me is built to persist. To sustain. To protect itself. So even nature within me is on the side of life.

8. Choosing Death Is a Rejection of Self

If I choose death, I am not simply ending pain. I am rejecting my very being. I am siding against the force that created me, nurtures me, and drives me. That rejection carries deep moral weight.

9. Responsibility Doesn’t End at Inaction

Doing nothing is not innocence. If I starve to death by refusing food, it is still a form of suicide. The cause is inaction, not accident. And ethical responsibility remains.

10. The Inevitability of Death Doesn’t Justify Its Acceleration

Yes, I will die. That is certain. But that certainty does not license my hand to bring it sooner. We do not justify murder by saying the victim would have died eventually. Time’s inevitability is not a moral escape hatch.

11. Death Is Transformation, Not Termination

In nature, nothing disappears. Bodies decompose, atoms are recycled, energy persists. So death is not an end. It is a transition. If that’s true for matter, it may be true for consciousness. Ending your life may not end your suffering—it may simply relocate it.

12. You May Wake on the Other Side With Guilt

If consciousness survives, and if morality persists beyond this world, then suicide may carry consequences after death. One might wake up not free, but condemned.

13. Therefore, Life Becomes the Minimum Requirement

I cannot kill myself. I cannot let others kill me. I cannot let nature kill me. Then I must live. That becomes the moral starting point: stay alive. Survival is the lowest ethical bar.

14. Survival Means Taking Responsibility for My Body

That means I must eat, drink, rest, and seek warmth. These are not luxuries. They are duties. To fail in them knowingly is to inch toward suicide through neglect.

15. From Survival to Living

But life cannot remain at the baseline forever. Once survival is secured, I must ask: then what? What lies beyond mere continuation?

16. The Modes of Life Beyond Survival

We can group human life into several potential modes:

1. Survival alone.
2. Survival plus reproduction.
3. Survival plus personal mission.
4. Survival plus social contribution.
5. Any mixture of the above.

These are the only meaningful ways to live.

17. Reproduction Is Nature’s Plan

Of these, reproduction is the most ancient. Nature built me to reproduce. From cells to instincts, my body points toward it. It is not only biological—it is deeply personal. Raising a child gives structure, purpose, and love that nothing else quite matches.I know now also, that this provides maximum meaning in life. This I know personally basd on my own philosophical investigation.

Here:  https://realphilosophy.blog/2025/06/01/a-descent-into-the-abyss-to-find-the-truth-about-meaning-and-freewill-and-i-found-the-answer-thankfully/

18. The Moral Importance of Reproduction

If no one reproduces, the species ends. So some must do it if we believe human life matters. And we do. We feel it when we see children. We know it when we imagine future generations.

19. Not All Are Meant to Reproduce

But not everyone can or should. Nature does not assign every individual the same role. Some are chosen. Some are not. That is not failure—it is reality.

20. Reproduction Is Deeply Healing

For those who do, parenting is not just obligation—it is healing. It binds wounds. It calls out strength. It gives 18+ years of mission, love, and meaning. And often, it repeats.

21. Mission: An Alternative Path

If one does not have children, another path is mission. A personal calling. A work that burns with enough fire to light the way forward. This is not an escape from parenting—it is a different version of it.

22. Mission Is Harder But Still Noble

Finding a mission is harder. Children come from nature. Missions must be found, built, maintained. But when they’re real, they save lives. They create art, heal wounds, build structures. They are sacred.

23. Contributing to Society Is Another Route

Even if one has no children and no clear mission, there remains society. We benefit from others—from farmers, builders, guards, and doctors. The ethical response to that benefit is contribution.

24. Contribution Is a Debt We Owe

You use the roads. You breathe clean air. You survive thanks to unseen hands. To give back is justice. To give nothing is theft. At minimum, we must not harm. At best, we serve.

25. Social Contribution Can Become Mission

Sometimes, working for others becomes its own mission. A nurse, a teacher, a street sweeper—anyone who serves with care and pride carries meaning, whether or not they realize it.

26. Inaction Breeds Suffering

Doing nothing, refusing meaning, ignoring purpose—these choices lead to decay. Depression, addiction, nihilism. The soul rots when unused.

27. Our Souls Crave Meaning

Humans are not built for pleasure alone. We want to matter. We want to be needed, seen, remembered. Meaning is not a luxury—it is an essential nutrient for the soul.

28. Meaning Requires Effort

But meaning does not come cheap. It must be carved, fought for, failed at, returned to. It must be earned. That effort is not suffering—it is what makes the reward real.

29. We Are Builders, Not Passengers

We are not here to observe. We are here to build. To shape. To protect. To pass on. That is what separates us from dust and wind.

30. So Why Do Anything?

Because you are alive. Because you are not permitted to kill yourself. Because passivity is still suicide. Because meaning exists—but only through action. Because you owe something to the life that made you. Because even in despair, life still calls.

Conclusion

Do something—because doing nothing is not innocent. To live is not just to breathe. It is to choose. It is to act. It is to take responsibility for being here. And if you are here, then something must be done. Even the smallest gesture—a meal, a word, a breath of love—is already a stand on the side of life. So stand. Move. Build. Love. Live.

Why do anything – my raw logic

Im alive

Im not dead

Life is the default state – in other words once I’m alive, I will live until something changes that. 

Death is the new condition after life is established. Death would require something to happen e.g degeneration of my body, a sudden thing like being killed or whatever. 

I could kill myself or let myself die

But I cant kill myself – its unethical

Cant let someone kill me its unethical

Full exaplanation: https://realphilosophy.blog/2025/06/09/destroying-every-good-reason-for-suicide-saving-my-own-life-and-yours/

Wht boiut nature 

Could let nature kill me?

Ethical or not?

natural?

Som parts of nature ‘want to’ kill me

Theres no intent its just automatic

If i stay in ocean water i will die eventually from cold or drowning, or predator

So too with letting myself get bit by poison insect etc

Or large predtatory animal

But my own biology ‘wants to’ live and reproduce. Not die. My entire body and brain and shaped to survive and reproduce my dna. 

So naturally its equal. And since im me, i suppose i lean in favour of my surviving and reproducing. 

Ok so naturally unethical to let nature kill me. 

What about outside of that?

If i know its unethical to kill myslef, or let someone kill me, and i dont know if its unethical to let nature kill me – but naturally speaking iti s, then it stands to reason that it would be unethical to let nature kill me even if i cant lay out an exact argument. Theres just more weight in that direction. 

What if i try figure it out?

Why isnt it open and shut like letting myself kill me or another person = humans have reason plus free choice tp some extent. Something like divine spark or something. 

Anyway if human kills me its murder, so too if i kill myself. 

Only exception is as justice for war or like if i kill someone else intentionally. Or self defense if im intentially trying to kill or seriously hurt someone. 

But not just standard day to day. That would be murder.

Nature is not like that i.e. i dont think it has  amind in that way. Or choice in that way. Its  a sea of cause and effect. 

Step into the sea and it will have effects on u. Like a machine.

Our bodies n brains r like this too but we also – to keep it simple – hav a soul 

Thts y we can choose, 

So then i guess if  i let nature kill me im killing myself since i choose butr nature doesnt

Like walking in front of an automatic train – the train dopesnt see me or choose to kill me it just moves forward

Hence im doing the choosing

So too if i go into ocean in a risky way n stay there 

Or let poisoin insect bite me on purpose etc

Ok so then all this would also be suicide which is murder

Ok so i cant let nature kill me . 

Eventually it will kill me. 

I will die. 

But the point is i cant actively make that death happen, as thats murder. 

Someone says whatrts the difference? Itll happen nyway lets just get to th point.

Non sequitor 

But to address it – cant mk it happen thats murder

If u want to b a murdere ok fine 

Also u are assuming death is the end. Which is unlikely. Since nothing actually dies. Not really.

Nothing goes from existence to non-existence. It just breaks apart and changes form. Retakes form as something else. 

Example: the carbon inside my body will leave it . enter the earth and become soil. My nitrogen will leave and join the atmosphere and so on. 

Eventually some of my carbon and whatever else will become a plant. 

Etc.

If this is true for the physical, why wouldnt it be true for the soul/consciousness/self. 

Anwyya your taking a gamble which could result in u being on the other side as a murderer. Not a great idea. And again its unlikely death is the end. 

Ok so to put a bow on it. Once we are alive we cant end our life. We need live. 

Eventually we will stop living in this form. But we cant force that to happen. 

So then i must live. 

Ok if i must live, what are my options?

I can do the minimum to stay alive: drink water , eat food, stay warm. 

This would fulfill the conditions of what we said previous. 

So at a minimum why do anything? You must do what is needed to stay alive at a minimum level. 

So first reason to do anything: to stay alive. 

Again the reasoning behind this is that you have a moral imperative to not let nature kill you – because that is achoice. Its like making your bed on train tracks. Then going to sleep. 

Whether the train kills you slow or fast . that was your choice. 

So too with letting yourself starve to death, or thirst to death, or freeze or wahtever. These are choices. You are making thus you will be responsible — if you can help it that is. 

Obv if you’re actually disabled or something thats a diff story. But im talking in general. 

What about beyond this? 

What modes of living are there? 

• Survival – do what is needed to stay alive.

• Survival plus reproduction – find someone to mate with, and have children.
  • Raise them (this is technically additional but the ethics are solid and natural to human reproduction).
    • This can obviously be multiplied i.e multiple kids with one mate or multiple mates and multiple kids

• Survival plus take on some kind of personal mission: i spend my time doing x activity I care about, or feel is important or just want to do.
  • Can be societally given or just chosen.
  • This is usually what people think when they think of purpose in life and so on.
    • Can be work or play
      • Can be hedonic or eudamonic
        • Can be done purely for self or for the world/others.
          • Can be one main thing or multiple things. 

• Survival plus personal mission plus reproduction

• Survival plus take on some societal role: do something that society requires to function well.
  • Some kind of job or career or role which society needs people to do.
    • Example be a school teacher, be a plumber, be a street cleaner, join the government, etc etc..
      • Can be paid or done voluntarily.
        • Point is its necessary for society to function. You help society to keep living essentially.
          • You fulfill some essential task that needs to be done or society is missing something and eventually breaks down.
            • Can also extend this out to doing something the world might need. 

• Some different combinations of the above. 

• Survival plus dedicate yourself to harming others or doing generally antisocial things . This isnt a serious option to consider however as its obviously unethical. So i wont bother with it. 

Ok so these are the different ways to live. Survival is demonstrated to be a requirement and duty everyone must do. What about the others ? 

What about finding a mate and reproducing? Ought it b done? If so why?

This is what all of my dna and body structure have been step by step evolved for. Every cell in my body – if the scientists are right – is evolved for maximising my ability to reproduce. 

I know now also, that this provides maximum meaning in life. This I know personally basd on my own philosophical investigation.

Here::  https://realphilosophy.blog/2025/06/01/a-descent-into-the-abyss-to-find-the-truth-about-meaning-and-freewill-and-i-found-the-answer-thankfully/

So for these two reasons alone it would be very intelligent and logical to do it. 

But is it a moral imperative? 

If no one does it, the species disappears: no more humans. 

So if we think human life is worth having, then that right there would mean at least some minimum amount of people must do it. And if they do it, the others wouldn’t need to. 

This obviouslyt begs the question: is human existence worth maintaining? 

In some sense its a non-starting question in that there will always be people who mate with others and have children. 

The answer from our biology would be yes, its of utmost importance to keep the species alive. 

From nature herself – the answer might be more neutral – other species have disappeared. Many of them. Whether through natural disaster or predation or whatever. 

I would find it difficult to say the species as a whole shouldnt exist. That’s a very dark position to take and its consequences lead to very immoral places. 

So maybe ill take nature’s position of neutrality. 

Then again, I see children and they do speak to my heart and make me believe in the good and do wipe away all my suffering. 

That’s not exactly a logical argument. 

But okay I’ll say the answer is at least neutral but probably we ought continue to exist. 

Why ought we continue? 

I dont have a good answer for this right now.ill need to deep dive into it at some point. 

Ok anyway what about each individual reproducing then? 

Logically speaking, there will be some people who dont reproduce whether thats due to disability, due to being in prison, due to not having anyone that wants to mate with them, due to poverty, or just feeling like they personally don’t want to have children. 

This has been the case – I think – always. In that we can imagine in every group there is a limited amount of fertile men and women, of these the women will select some and reject others. Hence there will be some who don’t reproduce. 

I think this is fair to say and stands to reason. 

It would be strange to say they have failed morally. If a person can’t do something, we can’t say they’ve failed.

What about then for those people who can mate, who are attractive to the opposite sex, and thus if they want to , they can have children. What about these? Is it there moral imperative to do so?

As we said before, if the species continuing is a good thing, then some of these people must do it. 

But again ive not thought deeply about it enough to make that statemtn defnitieveyl myself. 

What I’ll say then is that it would be very wise to find a mate and have children if you are able to do so. It will provide you likely with the most meaning you’ll ever feel. And will make you feel satisfied on a cellular and spiritual level. And then dedicating youreself to raising your children well will give you a very clear, meaningful, fulfilling task for at least 18 years. And then you can do it again if you like. 

It would be very unwise to not do this – especially if you have nothing else to seriously dedicate your life too to get meaning from. 

What happens if you can have children and you dont?

You will miss out on what is the most natural, easiest way to gain maximum meaning in your life. I have estbalished this to be the case in my other essay linked previous. 

So that maeans you will have a massive existential gap that will demand fulfillment. Or you will suffer a lot. 

It potentially can be filled with a career that is very engaging and makes you feel highly necessary. Or maybe a personal mission like some great task you dedicate yourself to. But generaly speakign i dont know if most people will have the willingness or the intelligence, or the know how etc or the material opportunity even to do this. I dont know. But its not easy to do this. No where near as easy as having children. 

So then my basic point is not doing this will mean you pay a big existential cost long term. You will also find yourself having no one to depend on in older age. And moreover have a serious situation of loneliness especially fi you have no long term partner or close family. This itself will cause more suffering, more physical negative consequences etc. You will want to die. Whereas if you have children and raise them well you will want to live. 

In other words having children will push you to survive more, and solve your need for meaning. The opposite will make you more likely to kill yourself and moreover make you want to die (unless you find another replaecment – which is difficult to do) and leave you with a gap. 

So i’d say tho its not techincalliy necessary. Id say the consequences are so bad for most people that having children and dedicating yourself to raising them well may as well be given the ‘necessary’ categorisation.

What about personal mission? 

Is it necessary? I dont see any foundation for it being necessary. It’s similar to the children thing except less meaning creating (depending on what you do). Now there could be a situation where it is as meaning creating if the mission is big enough, difficult enough, intense enough, or engrossing enough. But id say this is quite a tricky thing for people to find. Most people have jobs or careers and then some hobbies. But very few live by sacred mission they are pulled to complete. It takes a lot of thinking to find that and moreover to lay it out, track it, and so on. So i’d say this is not necessary unless you don’t have children. In which case it will be practically necessary yes – to go along with your life and reduce the amount of existential pain you’ll feel. Which will lead you to the consequences of what we said before.

What about societal role? 

This is same as previous. If you have no kids, this is very necessary practically speaking but not techincalyl speaking. Ideally you would do this plus personal mission. Or they would both be the same thing to make it more practical to do. 

Now the only difference between this and the prefvious is that if you live in a society, do you owe that society anything? 

Others are working and you are benefiting from their labour and work etc. and sacrifices etc. so do you owe them anything? Intuitively my gut says yes. 

You at least owe them not being harmful i would say. That would just be an extension of being moral. 

If we say what about the principle of justice? 

Then id say, well work demands payment right? Or its slavery. Thus if people work for you, you are required to pay them. 

The working here for you being them fulfilling various societal roles so you can live . 

Now you say well im not asking them to work for me. 

True. 

But you are benefiting from their work. 

And you say how can i pay back everyone in society? Its not possible.

True. 

So then perhaps we can say yes we lean to the answer that a person ought contributing something to the society that is keeping them alive. And at the very least they shouldnt harm it. 

The more you contribute the better you will be. 

That seems fair. 

So then why do anything?

• Because you must stay alive.
• You cannot kill yourself or let nature kill you. 
• You must have somethign that provides you meaning. 
• Children are parenting are the best solution to this for most people..
• If you dont have children, you must find a personal mission.
• You ought also contribute to your society so that you can repay those who are keeping you alive. 

So then doing nothing and giving up is not ethical. 

But rathe we have things to do. 

Things we must do. 

Take this knowledge and apply it accordingly.