I think we need to add English to the courses you'd fail.

I think we need to add English to the courses you'd fail. — Bartricks

I actually give those courses, it pays reasonably well where I live.

If you need help presenting your ideas here on the forum, you can PM me. But I do not help people do their assignments, there is a special section for that.

Maybe I could offer another tip. Try looking at other societies and their histories before making sweeping, generalized statements about how society came to be. — Sir2u

They are all subsumed. Look at my text in parenthesis closely.

Work is healthy and doesn't have to be hard. — Cobra

You have to do it. If not, free riding SOB, born into wealth, or they want you to kill yourself so you aren't a hardship on those that do work. Pessimism.

The engineering mind tinkers whether it is funded by financial backers or not, — Vera Mont

Ford, Edison, Tesla, it was all with money. And the list goes on and on.. In fact, some technology absolutely needed government backing first.. usually from wartime.. then university money, then private sector.

Here in lies the contention. You're calling it a fact. But for others, it's a point of view. — L'éléphant

A point of view has real consequences when it affects/effects others. Affirming life (and then having a life) will affect others.

How well does it pay? A chicken a week? Two? Two chickens, three curse-liftings, a bag of shells and a hat that looks like a teacosey made out of a heavy tappestry?
Look, I think my OP is pretty clear. If it is wrong for an omnipotent person to subject people to life in this sensible world unless they are going to change it, then our inability to change it implies that it is wrong for us to procreate as well. It's a delightfully simple argument.

Therefore if one is to exist it must be subject to both creative and destructive forces. As you cannot have one without the other. If one wishes not to exist then it is removed from competition to do so. — Benj96

How is this alone not reason to not willingly produce more beings into that situation? The inevitability of X suffering, doesn't mean that one thus has to willingly allow to continue X suffering because X suffering already exists in some form or another. Lions kill, therefore humans can kill for example is a really simplistic form of this argument. It is the naturalistic fallacy of course.

How well does it pay? A chicken a week? Two? Two chickens, three curse-liftings, a bag of shells and a hat that looks like a teacosey made out of a heavy tappestry? — Bartricks

Maybe a change in career is needed but don't try comedy, you would fail at that as well.

Look, I think my OP is pretty clear. — Bartricks

That is one person at least I suppose.

If it is wrong for an omnipotent person to subject people to life in this sensible world unless they are going to change it, then our inability to change it implies that it is wrong for us to procreate as well. It's a delightfully simple argument. — Bartricks

And there you go right back to what I have already explained. If there is only one of these "omnipotent persons" how could something be judged as right or wrong. He/she/it is the judge and jury as well as the witnesses and victims.

Because most agree that there is a problem of evil for God. If I can show how those who think such things are committed to having to agree that this implies it is wrong for us to procreate, then that's philosophically interesting. — Bartricks

Not nearly as interesting as you seem to think. If you wanted to indict God for some wrongdoing - and god know he's guilty of lots! - then go directly there and stop involving Susan and Mary and whoever in irrelevant no-applicable examples. If you are going to indict a god, you should specify which god and read the charges plainly.
All this palaver about an omnipotent entity having created a world - which is supposed to be 'sensible' according to no stated criteria - and then hanging himself unnecessarily on the horns of a moral dilemma no god would entertain for a minute... It simply doesn't work.

I don't know who these "most" are who agree that this is a reasonable way to address the problem of evil, or morality, or procreation. But of course the perennial problem of evil reflects on all the gods humans have ever invented. You simply invented another, even less credible one, stuffed with straw to joust against.
Asking what's moral or immoral for a god to do, according to our own concept of what's right in dating and mating has little relevance to what we ought to do under the auspices of holy matrimony and having been instructed by a quite popular God to go forth and multiply, which "most" of us have been doing with every encouragement from the earthly representatives of our various gods. Incidentally, I doubt any of those people found the world 'sensible' when they entered it or considered it their prerogative to decide its fate.

... a common mistake is not to address the question ..... — Bartricks

There were several unrelated questions in the OP. I addressed one:

Morally what ought they to do?

But you didn't like the answer, so you marked it 'irrelevant' and told me, as you do pretty much everybody, "You missed the point." The point, I assume, being "It's wrong to have kids!" You could have stated it clearly at the outset.

(I know --- all of that is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what you were saying. Carry on!)

I do sympathize with your students! Mine were able to arrive at many clever and correct answers, given a little encouragement.

Ford, Edison, Tesla, it was all with money. — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure Tesla, Ford and Edison all come from the same mold, but you're still restricted to 20th century capitalist (the capitalistest nation on Earth) America. And ignoring all the other people and all the other inventions. That's okay, but having a narrow view doesn't mean the world has to conform.

In fact, some technology absolutely needed government backing first.. usually from wartime.. then university money, then private sector. — schopenhauer1

Some technology, yes. And most of the guys who made useful things in their garage or basement were subsumed by that same capitalist machine, yes; and many were robbed of the fruit of their labour. Yet that still doesn't stop the next genius tinkering, painting, composing, solving equations, dreaming up theories, pouring the content of one test-tube into another, growing a new hybrid - unnoticed, unpaid and unappreciated - just because it is their passion. Humans are curious and creative by nature.

Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.

And imagine that this omnipotent omniscient person really likes the sensible world, and likes how it operates and does not want to interfere with its operations, with one exception: they want to introduce life into it. — Bartricks

Bartricks, my friend, you are moving your own goal posts, very conisistently to your style, but this time you are fucking your own self.

If the world is exactly like ours, then it ihas sentient beings; if it does not have sentient beings, then it's not exactly like ours.

You shot yourself in the foot right in two of the first few paragraphs.

Morally what ought they to do? — Bartricks

You show here very clearly that you haven't the slightest clue what morality entails. It is a social construct. There is no morality without society. So what society does a single god live in? Outside of his or her own company how many other gods is this god responsible for survival?

Yikes!! Your questions make exactly as much sense as your other participatory remarks on this board.

Mine is not an original idea, but I developed it on my own without reading about it... some I expect will find it outrageous.

Soiciety is a living, evolving creature, which is multi-cellular, and its cells are people.

Much like a multi-cellular biological organism, its cells will differentiate to perform their functions better.

And some funcitons will be coveted because they provide power, pleasure and variety; other functions will be shunned, but some will be forced into doing it, because they are dirty, dangerious and unrewarding.

A street-sweeper or a janitor or a mortician (funeral home employee) will perform societal functions comparable to cells that line the stomach walls and the rectum.

Some CEOs, movie stars and politicians will perform societal funcitons comparable to brain cells, and to cells that promote and conduct the process of an orgasm.

Societies are not as well-organzied into differning funcitonality of their parts as biological units. Yet some permanent differentiation can be observed. They predicate the functions of a unit (humans acting as cells). A low-IQ low-self-confidence, not very attractive person is not very likely to become a mainly pleasure-receiving unit. His or her progeny, ditto.

Naturally, or unnaturally, unless you ask 180 Proof who does not beleive that there is anything unnatural in the real world, according to this writer's impression based on the posts of 180 Proof, this process will be aborted very soon with the advent of an AI population explosion.

By "this process" in the prevous paragraph I meant the evolution of societies as viable stand-alone units created by humans organized similarly to how cells are organized in a human body.

Naturally or unnaturally, my description above is a skeletal picture of the process... there are much intricacies and nuances that my post did not delve into.

I know --- all of that is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what you were saying. Carry on!) — Vera Mont

Correct.

Not nearly as interesting as you seem to think. — Vera Mont

Incorrect. The problem of evil is taken to be the most powerful objection to theism. So if it implies that procreation is wrong, that's extremely significant, for very few think antinatalism is true.

I do sympathize with your students! Mine were able to arrive at many clever and correct answers, given a little encouragement. — Vera Mont

Yes, but your students are in your imagination. Mine are real.

If the world is exactly like ours, then it ihas sentient beings; if it does not have sentient beings, then it's not exactly like ours. — god must be atheist

No, I said imagine a sensible world exactly like this one. Minds are not sensible objects.

Anyway, as you'd know if you were able to recognize what is and isn't relevant, it makes no difference to my case for if necessary I could simply ask one to imagine a sensible world devoid of life (if, that is, minds turn out to be sensible things in a guise). The important point is that if the omnipotent, omniscient person is not going to make any changes to the sensible world, then she ought to refrain from investing it with life. And so if we ourselves are unable to make changes to how the sensible world operates, we too should refrain from creating new life.

So, do try and focus on what is and isn't relevant to the case.

The curry case might be easier for you, although one imagines that you might start asking questions about the precise ingredients of the curry or insisting that curry is a social construct.

If Jennifer wants to invite James over for dinner, but also wants to cook a hot curry (a dish James dislikes), then Jennifer ought to do one or the other, not both - yes? (Again, note that my question is not about curries. So, insisting that curries are not possible, or that no one called Jennifer is capable of cooking a curry, or that no one dislikes curries - these are all irrelevant, as well as obviously false).

The answer is obvious: yes. She ought either to invite James over and cook something other than a hot curry, or she ought to cook a hot curry but not invite James over to eat it.

Now imagine that you want to invite James over for dinner, but you are incapable of cooking anything other than a very hot curry. (Do not say 'but that is not possible - I am capable of cooking other things'....that would miss the point once more.....resist the temptation). Well, clearly you ought not to invite James over.

Yes, but your students are in your imagination. — Bartricks

No, they're just middle-aged.

Maybe a change in career is needed but don't try comedy, you would fail at that as well. — Sir2u

Brilliant. I am good at comedy. Here is joke. Why chicken cross road? Tell me! You not know? I tell you. It is because road cross chicken's father and chicken must avenge father. And road's children will avenge road by crossing chicken's children and chicken's children will cross road's children.

And there you go right back to what I have already explained. If there is only one of these "omnipotent persons" how could something be judged as right or wrong. He/she/it is the judge and jury as well as the witnesses and victims. — Sir2u

You answered your own question. The omnipotent person is the source of morality. It's like asking 'how can a person make themselves a cup of tea?' They make themselves a cup of tea. Nothing stops the maker and consumer of tea from being one and the same person. Likewise, for morality to exist there needs to be some moral directives - and thus there needs to be a director - and there needs to be someone who is the object of these directives. Well, there can be one person who can occupy both roles, just as the consumer and maker of tea can be one and the same.

Just focus on Jennifer and the curry. If it is wrong for Jennifer to invite James over if she plans on cooking curry - a dish he dislikes - then if all you can offer James is curry, you ought not to invite James over for dinner either, yes?

No, it doesn't. You're being far too generous.

A parent ought want the best for their child. It follows that one ought improve the way things are. It does not follow that one ought not have kids. — Banno

You know what Banno I think you're right. Perhaps I'm being too generous. The only place an anti-natalist view has validity is well... A permanent Hell - a place where any new child would be certain to exclusively suffer/come to harm.

However this disregards as you quite correctly pointed out the existence and role of a parent. We have the parental power, the paternal/maternal instincts available to us to protect our children. To protect the vulnerable in general as those who are vulnerable/powerless are innocent - by that I mean they neither know of their own inherent power nor then can they practice it. Children must be educated first. They therefore cannot choose a side and are subject to being preyed upon or being protected.

The shepard leads the sheep, they don't slaughter them because the sheep might come to harm if they exist. It's a clear contradiction. The shepard knows who and what the big bad wolf is, and how to fend it off. Both within themselves (their own potential to be the wolf) plus those beyond themselves - external threats.

The three little pigs knew they had the strongest defence against the wolf when they cooperated, when they recognised the strong/wisest of them from the weakest and most vulnerable and gravitated towards the protection offered by the strong/wise.

Its ironic that we tell this story to our children and yet forget that the underlying message is always applicable throughout life, even as adults - such as when being challenged by anti-natalist idealogies in philosophy and society. A classic example is the cold, empathiless sentiment that "the poor shouldn't exist because they are useless and cannot help themselves. Dead weight to society". What person in their right mind would wish such sentiments on others and call themselves just?

Existing trumps not existing because it offers more, you can always choose to die but you cannot choose to be born. As a living thing you have two options - continue to struggle for a better life, or give up and succumb to oblivion, as a dead thing you have no such options.

Therefore not existing is impotent in the face of life with hope (someone who is not themselves severely depressed, severely full of negativity and lack of love for life, suicidal).

Suicide is the moment when the conscious mind has lost the very last shred of hope it had, and thus mind becomes incompatible with the body and they annihilate one another.

How is this alone not reason to not willingly produce more beings into that situation? The inevitability of X suffering, doesn't mean that one thus has to willingly allow to continue X suffering because X suffering already exists in some form or another. Lions kill, therefore humans can kill for example is a really simplistic form of this argument. It is the naturalistic fallacy of course. — schopenhauer1

I was simply outlining the dynamic, the game, not suggesting we shouldn't exist or reproduce. One exists to use their intelligence and ability to adapt and fend off adversaries (a hostile environment) and improve their living standards and those of their community.

Is this not the basis for evolution and natural selection?

Genes/collections of genes that are protective and co-operative with one another are shared/reproduced through natural selection amongst the gene pool because they allow the collective to gain the upper hand and prolong survival.

Genes/collections of genes that are selfish and detrimental on the other hand (viruses) go about via infection, trying to parasitise the rest to create more of themselves instead.

People do the same thing. Some would have you believe you are always in debt to them and ought to serve them and relinquish your resources, usually through manipulating you into a sustained feeling of guilt or shame. They make you feel ill/unwell.

Others teach you to be your own person, know yourself, to have self esteem and confidence and the ability to argue rationally and justly enough to thwart the agenda of the selfish. These people confer immunity through wisdom and intelligence.

Such is the game of life.

Cheers. I had, in my incipient senility, supposed that the comment you made had been made by @180 Proof, and had to check back on the context. But I more or less concur with your summation of the arguments from the more miserable folk hereabouts, although I would phrase it in terms of being given the opportunity of fulfilling one's capabilities more than just hope.

I would phrase it in terms of being given the opportunity of fulfilling one's capabilities more than just hope. — Banno

Yes quite right. I think your phrasing is valid also.

given the opportunity of fulfilling one's capabilities — Banno

Ever the quote if managers giving more work to their subordinates. You can quit a job but not life itself though, lest death. Cold comfort. Paternalistic thinking. Another person’s suffering started for them and here’s why I’m so justified. But I’m not.

The problem of evil is a problem for theists. Use it as anecdotal evidence for the non-existence of the omnis and gods then the problem of evil becomes a problem of behaviour when sentients interrelate.
It has no connection to the issue of reproduction, which is an evolved natural means to combat the threat of extinction. We should all have pity for the anti-life people, just be thankful that such is not part of your daily life.
Anti-natalism has as much chance of becoming the accepted way forward as the square wheel!

Damn your own parents for YOUR existence and you damn all natural events, as it was those events that are the historical source of all life in the universe.
It's illogical to crave nothingness for everyone, because your own awareness frightens you.
Imo, we need to see living creatures who are anti-living as just scared wretches who are not coping very well.

Hey B - it's been a while so welcome back. I have two questions

- In the past you have included omnibenevolent as one of the properties your imaginary person could have. I'm curious why this was not included in this particular thought experiment.

- Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in in the past your omniscient omnipotent person was not constrained by LNC. Is that the case for this particular conversation?

Ever the quote if managers giving more work to their subordinates. — schopenhauer1

Thats a rather pessimistic view. Not all managers are bad ones. Is it not exactly that "given the opportunity to fulfill one's capabilities" that itself begets a good manager? As far as I know managers/leaders etc are needed. And a good one surely empowers and extends that privilege to those they manage to self actualize their own set of personal capabilities. Good management is about recognising talent in the pool of employees and rewarding/promoting them accordingly.. If not even to hand the torch over happily if they are even better management material.

I did not include omnibenevolence simply because the question was about how this person ought to behave. But I could have included it, it just would have meant rephrasing things. The important point is that, as proponents of the problem of evil must agree, such a person ought not satisfy both their desire not to alter the operations of the sensible world and their desire to introduce life into it. And once that is conceded, it should also be conceded that our inability to change how the sensible world operates now implies we ought not to introduce new life into it either (as my dinner invite cases show).

And yes, an omnipotent person is not bound by the lnc as she makes it true. But that's irrelevant for two reasons. First, the lnc is nevertheless true and I am assuming it to be here. Second, even though she has the ability to make it false, we do not. And my whole point is that if we are unable to do something that, were God not to do it would make procreation wrong for her, then it is wrong for us too.

The problem of evil implies the immorality of procreation. See op for details.

Good management is about recognising talent in the pool of employees and rewarding/promoting them accordingly.. If not even to hand the torch over happily if they are even better management material. — Benj96

A manager would say that yes. But this is the kind of manipulation slogan a manager might use to justify their subordinates to do more work.

The pessimistic fact is we have to do any of this and we are self aware of this. We can think of other ways but we are entrenched in a managerial system whereby it gets perpetuated. Group think reinforces it. We aren’t very creative except within our self defined ways.