If there is no real death and no hell, then there would be nothing to care about.

If one believes in objective morality, that is, moral realism, then it is not entirely unlikely that bad and evil actions will have consequences in some "afterlife."

On the other hand, life is painful and death perhaps the absolute end, so it makes one wonder why one has never been told in one's life what it was all about.

Even the cynic and nihilist can never completely free himself from the concern of an afterlife and death as extinction.

Most people care about what happens after their death. Their values and axioms are not temporary. — Andrew4Handel

I don't. I'm here because I paid scant attention to philosophy when I was young and I am trying to work out if I missed anything. Answer: yes and no. I have been interested in clear thinking and justification and I am curious why people might believe in ideas I don't accept. That's the hook for me.

I feel we are all here because we care about something. — Andrew4Handel

We care and we want to be understood by others. There is that period of time in life that you question literally everything: uncertainty, death, time, etc... So you need to be fed up by knowledge trying to get a worthy answer to our cares or thoughts.
I personally think that sometimes nihilism is worthy. Whenever you can go through it, is when you are ready to care even more than ever.

Most people care about what happens after their death. — Andrew4Handel

.
Rationally, one 'ought to care' first and foremost about what happens before one's death: agency; beginning, daily, with

Aligning expectations with reality — 180 Proof

:fire:

Most people care about what happens after their death.
— Andrew4Handel
.
Rationally, one 'ought to care' first and foremost about what happens before one's death: agency; beginning, daily, with
Aligning expectations with reality
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

:clap:

We should care if only because if none us of care, it violates what I call the No All Law which is that every law/rule/pattern (usually) has at least one exception. There was/is/will be, no matter what, at least one person who (really) cares!

Most people care about what happens after their death. — Andrew4Handel

What happens to them, or to those who live on?

I care from fear of suffering mostly. Maybe reason (if I could reason) would help to avoid unnecessary suffering. Secondarily, I care for pleasure.

The golden rule is about care. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I care not to be stuck with a knife, so I won't stick others with knives. I care in maintaining trust, so I want to be trustworthy. I'd care to beautify society and enhance culture so I can benefit too and everyone can feel just a smidge better. Basic stuff. But there are plenty of my habits/actions that fail this rule on account of not self being aware enough. We do not sit down and apply the golden rule to all potential action. We engage the rule mostly with regard to shorter term personal consequences and we succumb to reciprocation (if you slap me, I slap you, then we declare a slap war and the children go hungry).

I feel we are all here because we care about something. — Andrew4Handel

Feel it, brother!

I'd care to beautify society and enhance culture so I can benefit too and everyone can feel just a smidge better. Basic stuff — Nils Loc

Hmmm. This is very far from 'basic stuff' and I doubt you would get much agreement as to what constitutes the notion of 'beautify' or 'enhance culture' in the current world of anti-foundationalism. Those words could come from the manifesto of Nazi's, or from an essay by an old-school aesthete.

Most people care about what happens after their death. Their values and axioms are not temporary. — Andrew4Handel

Certainly if you have loved ones and those who rely on you. When you have children, it's an obvious feeling.

If you are totally alone, have no friends and nobody cares about you, then it can be difficult. Then you might be also indifferent towards the people yourself.

Loneliness is a killer.

I doubt you would get much agreement as to what constitutes the notion of 'beautify' or 'enhance culture' in the current world of anti-foundationalism. — Tom Storm

Do you mean unanimous or majority agreement in any community? I guess we can consider the home (or one's room) as a sovereign microstate and where beautification and cultural enhancement can start. Even at that level there can be plenty of disagreement if others are in the mix. I've no plans to try initiate a mass movement of cultural/political change. If I had Jeff Bezo's money and influence, maybe I could get somewhere (other than space).

:up: I'm curious - can you give an example fo cultural enhancement?

I'm curious - can you give an example fo cultural enhancement? — Tom Storm

Well, maybe it's a bad term because as I think about it, most of what I think would might count as cultural enhancement already exists for those interested. We already have the freedom to choose what we want to do if we have the time and money. Maybe setting up a means to give away free experiences to those who can't afford it. More non-profits for hands on skill trading.

I like the idea of street level cabinets/libraries/farm stands where people can exchange unwanted books/items/food but maybe this would amount to an eye sore, a garbage heap and something to be vandalized and abused. Besides, these things already are a thing.

Edit: I've got it: more time and money (means to ends) for everyone who is lacking.

I thought you were going to say that we should abolish pop music (sign me up) and that people need to read more Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky.