As a plain language person I can't get past the word "greater". To my way of thinking, "greatness" implies some mechanism to measure some observable or measurable property. But even this definition falls apart outside strictly defined parameters. Who is the greatest artist? Who is the greatest athlete of all time? Who (or what) is the greatest (fill in the blank)? Any criteria you choose to measure "greatness" in these examples is arbitrary.

Perhaps a naive question here, but does the word "greater" have some special meaning/usage in a philosophical discussion apart from the plain language meaning/usage?

Here is from a recent interview with Chomsky:

"It was observed long ago that the U.S. is basically a one-party state: the business party, with two factions, Democrats and Republicans. Now there is one faction: the Democrats. The Republicans hardly qualify as an authentic parliamentary party. That’s fairly explicit under McConnell’s rule. When Obama took office, McConnell made it clear that his primary goal was to ensure that Obama could achieve virtually nothing, so that Republicans could return to power. When Biden was elected, McConnell reiterated that position even more strongly. And he’s lived up to it. On virtually every issue, the GOP is 100 percent opposed, even when they know that the legislation is popular and would be very valuable for the population. With a handful of right-wing Democrats joining the uniform GOP opposition, Biden’s platform has been cut down very sharply. Perhaps he could have done more, but he’s being unfairly blamed, I think, for the failure of what would have been constructive programs, badly needed. That includes Biden’s climate program, inadequate but far better than anything that preceded it, and if enacted, a stepping stone for going further."

https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-maintaining-class-inequality-at-any-cost-is-gops-guiding-mission/

if you wanted to bring about your preferred solution, what would personally do to help (whom would you petition, what political or social action would you take)?

Or do you consider the electorate just as helpless pawns who can do more than watch as the powers play it all out? — Isaac

Not sure what country you're at, but here in US the Ukraine is for the most part a side show - it simply does not have any direct impact on people's lives. The possibility of a nuclear war is too abstract and remote for most folks to think about. If Putin were to make explicit direct threats to drop nukes on US, that would change the equation.

But as it stands there's no point in even attempting to bring about my "preferred solution". Even if I could somehow join with like minded people, petition my representatives, protest, etc and get some sort of mass movement to force Biden (or Trump in 2024) to say to Ukraine "Either go with this proposal or we'll cut off aid"? Would Putin ever agree to internationally supervised elections? Nyet!

As an aside, my "preferred solution" would be for Putin to tell the world that he was wrong to order the invasion and that there would be a unilateral ceasefire followed by an immediate withdrawal of all Russian troops. But that's not going to happen.

I would gladly be wrong, but it looks like this thing is going to drag on for years.

My guess is that the conflict will slowly freeze, with lines not only far worse for Ukraine than Russia's offer at the start of the war but also without any actual end to the war there will be little repatriation of Ukrainians that left and likewise little reconstruction. — boethius

We're all helpless pawns here.

A naive (and very sketchy) outline for peace plan

1) Ceasefire
2) Russian military leaves all contested territories - to be replaced by UN Supervised International force
3) UN supervised elections within some period of time - let's say 5 years - inhabitants can choose whether they want to be part of Ukraine or part of Russia (maybe offer option of being independent)

Yes, yes - a million and one details to be worked out. Who will administer the contested territories, is there any hope of reparations, etc, etc, etc.

Of course this is currently unacceptable to both sides.

Have at it.

I could be wrong, but I think this is what NOS is on about. If this link doesn't work for you, just google "Race Social Construct".

I guess I wasn't clear. When I said "out here"? That was directed at the folks engaging back and forth conversations here in the forum. There seem to be two prevailing positions I would summarize:

Putin/Russia bad --- USA/Ukraine good.
USA bad --- Ukraine a pawn --- Putin/Russia forced into doing bad things.

Yeah, yeah - this is over simplifying and there are a thousand and one details/nuances. But as I read the back & forth conversations? Both sides make some legit points - hence my comment that both sides share blame.

Am I the only person out here who feels that there is plenty of blame to spread around on both sides for causing this tragedy?

But Ann Coulter is an idiot. — frank

Yup, but she reflects what a significant number of MAGA folks think

Haley will appeal to swing voters because she seems to have a moral center. — frank

That may be so, but apart from Romney and a few isolated others the Republican Party has no moral center. I could be wrong (happens on a regular basis) but I don't see any scenario in which Haley can win in the primaries.

If future generations will, on average, become duller, than this would be worse for humanity as a whole. — Xanatos

Idiocracy

I cannot recall a government doing a clever plan against Covid.
I guess Australia was one of the effecientest when they locked down all their frontiers, for example. — javi2541997

From a distance it seems that New Zealand did a pretty decent job of handling things. Of course it's much easier to isolate if you're an island nation hundreds of miles away from anyone else.

I don't know if there was/is any perfect plan. It's a highly complex situation with many moving parts - and any action you take will have some secondary effects. You mask up and that slows down transmission - but then that potentially affects childhood development. You lock down, but then everyone is out of work. You come up with a vaccine, but there will inevitably be some negative reactions. Etc, etc.

Wait a minute - you mean to tell me that government institutions are not perfect and that individual people can exploit these institutions for their own personal gain? I'm shocked, I had no idea, Thank you for enlightening me. I will have to re-think everything I ever thought.

I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that WHO relies on the member countries for information and funding. As such they have to defer to to each country to implement their recommendations as they see fit.

As a US citizen, what irks me is the vitriol that people hurl at the CDC for simply doing the best they could to keep everyone healthy and alive in a confusing rapidly evolving situation.

Children of this age should not wear masks for a long duration or without supervision. — https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/q-a-children-and-masks-related-to-covid-19

This only applies to children under 5. If we're using WHO as a guide (which you appear to be doing) then you're fine with masks being required for children above 5. So we're only talking about children between 2 & 5 here as CDC said children under 5 did not have to wear masks..

I did not do an extensive web search so maybe I missed something, but I'm not aware of the CDC or US government mandating masks for children between 2 & 5. Recommended yes, mandated no.

But beyond that. given the numerous crises going on in the world, the issue of whether mask wearing was the best strategy for preventing COVID transmission (or minimizing the effects) is wa-a-ay low on my list of things to obsess about.

I'll give you the last word here (if you want tit)

Not sure where you got that info about WHO, here's what I'm seeing:

"Some countries and regions may have specific policies or recommendations in place. As always, follow the guidance provided by your country or local health department or ministry.
WHO and UNICEF recommend the following:

1. Children aged 5 years and under do not need to wear a mask because in this age group, they may not be able to properly wear a mask without help or supervision.

2. In areas where SARS-CoV-2 is spreading, children ages 6-11 years are recommended to wear a well-fitted mask"

etc, etc

I am not an expert in these matters, but there are other highly qualified folks out there who are pointing out significant issues with this study:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-02-masks-covid-dont.html

Also there are numerous studies indicating that masks are effective:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html#anchor_1634654801820

Again - I'm not saying this study is wrong, but it seems premature to draw any conclusions from it. In fact, on the Cochrane website we can see this:

Lisa Bero, Cochrane Public Health and Health Systems Senior Editor and an author on an Editorial published to accompany this review said, “The results of this review should be interpreted cautiously, and the uncertain findings should not be taken as evidence that these measures are not effective.

Leaving religion turned me into a nihilist. — Andrew4Handel

I feel sorry for you that that the act of abandoning religion left you unable to find joy/meaning in your life. But that is on you. While I cannot point to any peer reviewed studies, I feel confident saying that the overwhelming majority of atheists lead meaningful productive lives and are not nihilists. Just for example, I suggest you re-read Tom Storm's post above

Now I am agnostic I have recovered some hope. — Andrew4Handel

And here I'm still not getting your point. Why does being not sure if a God or Gods exists give you hope - while believing that no God (or Gods) exist make you a nihilist? Does the possibility of a God (or Gods) existing give you hope? If yes, then it seems like you are seeking for a religion. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Ah, so people like Mearsheimer, Chomsky, — Tzeentch

Chomsky has stated that the "the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939, to take only two salient examples. It always makes sense to seek explanations, but there is no justification, no extenuation."

I have been following the events in Ukraine and this ongoing discussion with some combination of dismay/sorrow/despair. I understand (tho don't 100% agree) your position (which more or less aligns with Chomsky's) that the war could have been avoided by appeasing Russian concerns and that US support of Ukraine is prolonging the ongoing catastrophe.

I would gladly be wrong but I don't see any end in sight for the near term. I don't see either side gaining a military victory and the Russian strategy of destroying Ukraine's infrastructure (with the side effect of killing civilians) has had the opposite effect of hardening Ukraine's resolve to win.

I don't see any resolution until the two sides get sick & tired of killing each other - and this could go on for years

It would make me very happy to be wrong.

At this point, I'm just trying to figure out what the heck Andrew is trying to say.

I am saying atheism seems to lead to moral nihilism and other forms of nihilism. If someone is consistent about not believing things without evidence or not believing things involving supernatural claims. — Andrew4Handel

I have become agnostic based on my evaluations of theory, evidence, probability, limitations of knowledge etc. — Andrew4Handel

I'm still not understanding you. In your OP you identified yourself as agnostic. Does agnosticism also lead to moral nihilism? If not, could/would you please explain the difference.

I have become agnostic based on my evaluations of theory, evidence, probability, limitations of knowledge etc. — Andrew4Handel

I want to know that my actions are good or bad objectively and not speculatively, subjectively or arbitrarily. — Andrew4Handel

No one has discovered a truth value to moral claims or moral instructions. — Andrew4Handel

I've been trying, unsuccessfully so far, to understand what you're saying. You're agnostic and you want to know whether your actions are good or bad, but then you say that it can't be done.

So then what?

Are you including the philosophical arguments for God in this?

The cosmological argument.
The moral argument for God.
Aquinas's Five ways
The ontological argument
The argument from beauty
The argument from consciousness
The teleological argument — Andrew4Handel

This goes against the idea of a simple disbelief in gods if you have to write thousands of words in response to arguments for God. — Andrew4Handel

How many thousands of words are there in the arguments for God? Certainly the folks debunking these arguments are allowed to use the same number of words, yes?

Maybe. I generally agree with that gods are incoherent ideas. But it is easier to say one is atheist as it's a word people know. — Tom Storm

That makes sense if you're out and about. Maybe I'm being too generous in this assessment, but here in TPF I think we're all reasonably informed enough to understand the distinction.

You have my permission to call yourself an ignostic . . . :smile:

If you're not a theist, then you're an atheist. Don't be afraid of the word. If you are not a believer in any kind of deity then you're effectively an atheist. I think many people with 'spiritual beliefs' are atheists. — Tom Storm

I am an agnostic atheist - a standard definition amongst atheists I know. Agnostic in terms of knowledge, atheist in terms of belief. — Tom Storm

I also think the idea of god is incoherent and lacks any explanatory power, I really don't know what people mean by god except as a kind of vague, Tillich-like mystical metanarrative, or more frequently, a literalist mega-moron as per Islam or Christianity. — Tom Storm

Based on what I'm reading, it sounds like you are closer to ignosticism - which (in essence) says that the very notion of a deity or deities is incoherent.

Is ignosticism a sub-category of atheism? The answer is still being debated, but my 2 cents is that ignosticism is a distinct category unto itself and not some sub-category of atheism and/or agnosticism.

Atheism as a lack of belief is legit if "god exists" (theism) is incoherent or meaningless, — Agent Smith

What you have described sounds to me more like ignosticism.

Per the wikipedia entry, there is an open debate whether ignosticism is a type of atheism or if it is a separate category unto itself.

the crime is the same in both cases: illegally possessing classified documents. — Merkwurdichliebe

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

In other words, merely possessing such material in of itself is not a crime - you have to prove knowledge and intent. Whether Trump and/or Biden will be charged with a crime remains to be seen.

On location reporting of the actual fighting on the front lines. Read it and weep for the ongoing tragedy.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/02/trapped-in-the-trenches-in-ukraine

Notice, there is always energy loss, and "Energy losses are what prevent processes from ever being 100% efficient." Hence the inductive conclusion I made, the law of conservation has been proven to be false. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have no skin in this discussion, but am just pointing out that you have misinterpreted this article. Per your link:

Energy undergoes many conversions and takes on many different forms as it moves. Every conversion that it undergoes has some associated "loss" of energy. Although this energy doesn't actually disappear, some amount of the initial energy turns into forms that are not usable or we do not want to use.

In the context of your link, the term Energy Loss refers to the energy that "is converted to a different form".

I am not making any claim about the truth or falsehood of the Law of Conservation here. I am simply pointing out that your example does not lead to your conclusion.

Carry on.

I can't take any of his insults seriously (I'm assuming B is a he) - he's like a child at a playground.

But thanks for the support. :pray:

Awww. Now you're being cruel.

:grin: :joke: :rofl:

if you can't understand why a proponent of the problem of evil has to accept this principle — Bartricks

If you can't understand that without omnibenevolence there is no problem of evil, then I'm afraid I consider you the intellectual equal of the crow that is currently strutting about on the lawn outside. I think you're just trying to be annoying.

You can't begin to explain, can you, how the problem of evil requires omnibenevolence? Like I say, you haven't a clue - not a clue - what you're talking about. You don't understand the problem of evil or anything I have said. It's just noise, yes?

You have failed. Like I say, you're a bad faith interlocutor and then there's the IQ thing.

This is my last exchange to you on this topic. It's been most revealing.

Now, my claim is that a defender of the problem of evil - so, someone who thinks the evils of the world imply God's non-existence - has to endorse premise 1.

If you think they don't, explain why. — Bartricks

I cannot answer your question set until you explain how YOU define/explain the problem of evil (POE) and what it means to be a proponent of this problem.

Just to recap where we are in this discussion:-
- You have stated that omnibenevolence is not required for the POE.
- This does not even remotely correspond with any standard definition of the POE.

Now maybe there is some formulation of the problem within the writings of one of the medieval philosophers about which you are highly knowledgeable - or - maybe you have your own explanation.

But either way, you need to clarify your question before it can be answered.

1) How do you define/explain the POE without omnibenevolence?
2) What does it mean to be a proponent of this problem?
3) In what way does your definition require that a proponent of the POE must agree with AN?

In the course of our conversation I have asked you these same questions multiple times in a variety of different ways, but for some reason you choose not to answer them. This I do not understand, but I am still trying.

BTW - if you are realizing that you made a mistake and you now agree that the POE does require omnibenevolence, I will not hold it against you to change your mind.

Dear Professor B,

This week's homework assignment in Philosophy 101 was to explain the problem of evil. I went back to the primary sources and here is my understanding of the standard definition:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is omnibenevolent, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Please grade my homework. If I have gotten anything wrong, please correct me.

Your humble student,
EricH

In the Muslim and Jewish traditions God is not omni-benevolent. Yet theodicy still exists; see book of Job. One can be good without omni-benevolence. God lays down the law but he is fundamentally beyond us. — Moses

I've read Job, and I while I am not an expert in these matters I get the basics. But AFAICT that's not what B is saying.

If B had said that a person who believes in God in spite of the problem of evil (either via theodicy or some other explanation) should be an anti-natalist, then that would have made some sense.

In fact that was my initial assumption as to what he was saying, since simply denying God's existence due to the problem of evil does not oblige one to take any moral position about how an imaginary God/person aught to behave. But AFAICT that's not what B is saying. B is saying that by virtue being a proponent of the problem of evil (one who denies God's existence) it logically follows that such a person must also be an antinatalist.

However, as if that weren't illogical enough, B goes one step further and asserts that the problem of evil does not require omnibenevolence. I have asked B to explain this, but he keeps repeating that it's obvious and that I'm not getting it.

a) you are a bad faith interlocuter — Bartricks

I will repeat things I've said in the past. You're a smart person and you are obviously well educated in many aspects of philosophy. You are not a troll. I find your ideas bizarrely fantastical and illogical, but I keep trying to figure out what (if any) logic is underlying your posts. This is why I take this step by step approach to try to echo back to you what I think you're saying.

If we reflect on what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in circumstances X — Bartricks

And here's where you are just not making any sense. In the absence of omnibenevolence there are no constraints on the actions of your person. There is no aught for such a person. Your person is free to do whatever she pleases.

You have not given any explanation or description of (in the absence of omnibenevolence) what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in any circumstance.

I have given you an account of [url=http://an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in circumstances X]my understanding[/url] of The Problem Of Evil and what it means to be a proponent of this problem. You have not done so.

I find it hard to believe that you can re-formulate The Problem of Evil without omnibenevolence, but I keep an open mind. Maybe you have some unique approach. But in the absence of any explanation your argument fails.

If there is no problem of evil then you never even get to your Ps and Qs.

If we reflect on what an omnipotent, omniscient person ought to do in circumstances X — Bartricks

So one last time, if your argument is to succeed you have to successfully resolve this issue.In the absence of omnibenevolence, how does an omnipotent, omniscient person decide what to do? What ought she do?

Please show us your reasoning.

Yes Master. Advice to give you not will I.

What? — Bartricks

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/755502

It's a philosophical issue you.... — Bartricks

Christians are often among the ablest philosophers and some of the very best philosophers have been Christians. — Bartricks

I will correct my previous statement:

So go out to a Christian philosophy forum. — EricH