I am only saying these things to work within Bartrick's conceptual definitions. I don't take any of this seriously.

ah okay my apologies.

I get your intent now. Carry on haha my bad.

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. — Bartricks

OK, maybe I made a false assumption there.

But without omnibenevolence there is no Problem of Evil. It could simply be that your your omniscient omnipotent person allows evil to exist for her own reasons which are beyond our powers of comprehension.

Look, this isn't hard. Ought an omnipotent, omniscient person do X?

if the answer is 'no'. then that means that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person wouldn't do it.

See?

Now, this is so basic - so simple - that I think you are just willfully misunderstanding as you find it amusing or something.

This is a valid argument form:

1. Either p or q
2. Not p
3. Therefore q

1. Either change the world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on innocents, or do not introduce innocent life into it.

Do you see how that says 'either p or q'?

do you also see how a proponent (that means defender) of the problem of evil must endorse it?

And do you see how this premise is true in respect of us:

2. We are not going to change the world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on innocents?

And do you see how it now follows that

3. Therefore, do not introduce innocent life into it?

3 is antinatalism.

So, to deny 3 you need to deny 2 or 1.

2 is obviously undeniable

So you have to deny 1.

If you deny 1, then there's no problem of evil. For there would be nothing wrong in introducing life into the world as it is. There would be no obligation on God to change it.

So, if - if - there is a problem of evil for belief in God, then there is also a problem of evil for the belief that procreation is morally persmissible.

On the other hand, if procreation is morally permissible, then there is no problem of evil for GOd.

Now, if at this point you still do not understand me - if the above just sounds like gibberish - then I'm afraid you need to work with your hands for a living and stop trying to do this thinking business: it's not for you.

If you deny 1, then there's no problem of evil. — Bartricks

And right here is where you are going astray. Here is your "p"

change the world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on innocents — Bartricks

Mr. X is a proponent of the Problem of Evil. Mr X is a person who says that an OOO Being (God) does not exist. But there is nothing inherit in The Problem of Evil that states (or even implies) that Mr X should or must have certain moral beliefs. Mr. X has no opinion as to how this imaginary creature should behave.

Now this is not to say that Mr X is not an anti-natalist. He may or may not be. But his being a proponent of the Problem of Evil has no bearing on his decision.

In other words, your "p" above is false/wrong/incorrect before you even plug it into your equation. You are saying either p must be true or q must be true. And this is simply not the case. As several other people have already noted, both your p and your q are false.

Now, if at this point you still do not understand me - if the above just sounds like gibberish - then I'm afraid you need to work with your hands for a living and stop trying to do this thinking business: it's not for you.

And I also give you the last word in this particular discussion - should you want it.

If Mr X denies premise 1, then how the bloody hell is he a proponent of the problem of evil?

Do you know what a proponent of the problem of evil is? Do you actually know what you're talking about?

So, was the moment life formed in the universe immoral? Is an earthquake or a tsunami or a rainbow immoral according to your logic? — universeness

Only individuals are moral agents. Life starting in the universe is not a moral question. The individual choosing to perpetuate it is.

Violence and many other "natural" tendencies have been around long before humans evolved. Does that mean that humans perpetrating violent acts are beyond moral scrutiny? I think not.

Life starting in the universe is not a moral question. — Tzeentch

So, by what logic do you suggest that an antinatalist viewpoint, that would have the final effect of ending all life in the universe (as you claim all reproduction is immoral without consent, which must include asexual reproduction) is warranted, based on a human constructed morality issue, when you have just accepted that the origin of life, is not a moral issue of consent?

Violence and many other "natural" tendencies have been around long before humans evolved. Does that mean that humans perpetrating violent acts are beyond moral scrutiny? I think not. — Tzeentch

Such issues are within the jurisdiction of 'human morality.' The existence of human life in the universe is not within the jurisdiction of human morality. That is the natural imperative you cannot reconcile with your fogged antinatalist thinking.
Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer?

you claim all reproduction is immoral without consent, which must include asexual reproduction — universeness

That is not something I claim.

So, by what logic do you suggest that an antinatalist viewpoint, that would have the final effect of ending all life in the universe is warranted, based on a human constructed morality issue, when you have just accepted that the origin of life, is not a moral issue of consent? — universeness

I'm a supporter of "ending all life in the universe" now? You're starting to sound a bit like a clown.

The origin of life is not a moral issue. It's not even related to this discussion.

When individuals (in this case parents) make choices that have major consequences for other individuals (in this case children) that becomes a moral question.

I'm discussing that moral question.

Maybe you need to calm down a little.

The existence of human life in the universe is not within the jurisdiction of human morality. — universeness

Nor is it the object of my argument.

Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer? — universeness

No.

Do I think it's immoral for a human to kill and eat a baby human?

Yes.

Apparently we hold humans and animals to different standards. Shocking, I know.

That is not something I claim. — Tzeentch

Try to be clearer than mud in what you are claiming then.
Which forms of reproduction do you think are moral without the consent of the life which is created?

I'm a supporter of "ending all life in the universe" now? You're starting to sound a bit like a clown.
The origin of life is not a moral issue. It's not even related to this discussion.
When individuals (in this case parents) make choices that have major consequences for other individuals (in this case children) that becomes a moral question.
I'm discussing that moral question.
Maybe you need to calm down a little. — Tzeentch

Typed by the person who uses clown logic regularly. If no life reproduces then the universe would have no life. YOU stated that newlife must be consulted before being born. You further stated that such consent is not possible, so, by default human morality, human reproduction is immoral. BUT this must also refer to all unconsulted life Sherlock, or else YOU are cherry-picking, and you have already stated that you disapprove of cherry-picking.
The origin of life is very much related to this discussion as you wish to terminate it, although you seem to not understand that would be the final result of your antinatalist stance.
The moral question you wish to discuss does not exist in the small bubble you are trying to push it into. Antinatalism in all of it's unpalatable flavours, has many implications for all life in this universe. Try to travel outside of your bubble musings now and again. You will encounter much more depth of thought if you do.
You have not typed anything exciting yet, so I remain perfectly calm. Don't confuse my incredulity at your logic with any kind of emotive turbulence you imagine you are causing.

Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer?
— universeness

No. — Tzeentch

Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to reproduce?
If your answer is no, then what intelligence rating would you apply before your antinatalist radar/morality issue kicks in and you ban a particular lifeform from reproduction and cause it to go extinct in time?
Are dolphins safe from your antinatalism proclamations? How about chimpanzees or dogs or cats?

YOU stated that newlife must be consulted before being born. — universeness

You further stated that such consent is not possible, so, by default human morality, human reproduction is immoral. — universeness

I never stated that. You need to read more carefully, and stop the great strawman game.

The origin of life is very much related to this discussion as you wish to terminate it, ... — universeness

I can do no such thing, nor do I wish it.

Also, how does one terminate something which has already taken place?

Got any more strawmans for us?

Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to reproduce?
If your answer is no, then what intelligence rating would you apply before your antinatalist radar/morality issue kicks in and you ban a particular lifeform from reproduction and cause it to go extinct in time?
Are dolphins safe from your antinatalism proclamations? How about chimpanzees or dogs or cats? — universeness

Humans are the only moral actors.

This is starting to sound a lot like that rejection of morality that I predicted.

You have not typed anything exciting yet, so I remain perfectly calm. — universeness

Then why are you capitalizing every other word, resorting to constant strawmanning, personal attacks and pseudo-psychoanalyzing?

Those are not the actions of a calm person.

I never stated that. You need to read more carefully, and stop the great strawman game. — Tzeentch

Ok then state your position, clearly, now. You can't get the consent of a life not born yet, to be born. You have therefore suggested that the act of having a child is an unacceptable, immoral imposition on the child. You have proclaimed antinatalism as your imperative for solving this terrible injustice.

Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.
Does it matter whether the imposition is made with the individual's best interest at heart? I don't think so. — Tzeentch

I'm talking about the act of creating a child, which is an imposition upon the child. — Tzeentch

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma. — Tzeentch

Now you refuse to admit to, take responsibility for, and follow the logic of your own argument. If this imposition is fully founded on the fact that you cannot get consent from that which is to be born, then this must apply to all life. No lifeform can obtain such consent, so, your 'no consent, so unacceptable imposition,' morality issue must apply to all life, Including the original appearance of life in this universe.
All you are doing now is trying to squirm away from following your own logic.

Humans are the only moral actors.
This is starting to sound a lot like that rejection of morality that I predicted. — Tzeentch

How shallow of you. Again, I recommend you read Carl Sagan's words about the great demotions.

Then why are you capitalizing every other word, — Tzeentch

How surprising? YOU, EXAGGERATING!

resorting to constant strawmanning, personal attacks and pseuo-psychoanalyzing?
Those are not the actions of a calm person. — Tzeentch

I am responding to your illogical typings. You assign yourself too much personal significance.

Ok then state your position, ... — universeness

I've stated that impositions - 'to force one's will upon another' - are generally regarded as immoral, following common moral principles. Procreation is an imposition.

Procreation seems to be at odds with this principle, and over the last couple of pages I have patiently waited for an logically coherent explanation as to why this should be ok.

So far you have tried:
- It is not a moral question, to which I replied: it certainly is. I don't see how individuals acting in ways that significantly impact other individuals is not a moral question.

- It is moral because if man would not procreate, man would go exitinct - an 'ends justify the means'-type argument.
- It is moral because the individual cares about their "legacy" and "bloodline" - in this argument new humans are instrumentalized to suit individuals' ego-driven vanity projects.

Neither of these mention the well-being of said new humans, which is odd to say the least.

Both arguments instrumentalize the individual for ulterior goals.

Both the second and third arguments are irrational.

The second argument is a moot point, since no human reproduces "for the survival of the species", and even if people did, they have no control over whether the species survives nor do they have a stake in what happens to the species in X years from now since they won't be around to witness it, ergo their preoccupation with the "survival of the species" is irrational. Additionally, it excuses imposition based solely on the idea that the outcome is desirable, which, without any type of explanation, implies that imposition can be excused whenever the imposer considers it would lead to a desirable outcome - 'the ends justify the means' is a notoriously slippery and hypocritical slope.

The third argument about legacy and bloodlines is similarly an 'ends justify the means'-type argument, but in this case the ends are completely selfish - vain ego fantasy. A preoccupation with illusory things like "legacies" and "bloodlines" as though they have some objective value is similarly irrational. Needless to say, that will not do as a basis to attempt to justify imposition.

If this imposition is fully founded on the fact that you cannot get consent from that which is to be born, then this must apply to all life. — universeness

Only human beings are moral actors.

I hope that clears things up.

Procreation is an imposition. — Tzeentch

You get that I totally disagree with this, yes?

I have patiently waited for an logically coherent explanation as to why this should be ok. — Tzeentch

Do you not see how arrogant your words here are? You are not waiting for a logically coherent argument as to why this should be ok, as posters, including me, have already given you many. How about something like 'You have not found any of the logically coherent arguments presented to you so far, on this issue, compelling.' That would make you appear much less arrogant.

- It is not a moral question, to which I replied: it certainly is. I don't see how individuals acting in ways that significantly impact other individuals is not a moral question.
- It is moral because if man would not procreate, man would go exitinct - an 'ends justify the means'-type argument.
- It is moral because the individual cares about their "legacy" and "bloodline" - in this argument new humans are instrumentalized to suit individuals' ego-driven vanity projects. — Tzeentch

You removed the issue of human suffering from your flavour of antinatalism, so what is the imposition you are concerned about?
Your 'end justifies the means complaint,' suggests that the means is something bad and immoral, which is what we are debating, so you are merely attempting to label the process of human procreation as immoral from the outset, which reveals that your approach is bias from the outset.
You are judging every human couple who decides to have children as ego driven and vain and you want others to consider such an argument as rational and I don't think such a position is in any way rational or logical.
You are trying to give precedence to YOUR interpretation of human morality over billions of years of happenstance since the big bang. Which leads to what is, imo, an irrational antinatalist viewpoint.
Human reproduction has a natural imperative which is NOT ONLY to do with mere ego or personal vanity but is more importantly to continue a species and prevent it going extinct.
You can try to handwave that away as much as you like, but you will be, as you have been, unsuccessful.

Neither of these mention the well-being of said new humans, which is odd to say the least. — Tzeentch

Neither do you, you removed human suffering from your argument so the issue of individual well-being is not under consideration in your antinatalism flavour. YOU took it out. Your concern is about CONSENT (I capitalise here for the value of emphasis rather than as a rebellious act against common netiquette, so try not to feel attacked again, I know that can be a tender spot for you.)

The second argument is a moot point, since no human reproduces "for the survival of the species", and even if people did, they have no control over whether the species survives nor do they have a stake in what happens to the species in X years from now since they won't be around to witness it, ergo their preoccupation with the "survival of the species" is irrational. — Tzeentch

This comes across as a cold almost narcissistic viewpoint which I think very few human beings agree with. Most people do care about the future of their own species, regardless of their own oblivion.
This is not a logical argument, it is just a manifestation of your personal misanthropy.
(Btw: Analysis of the psychology of an interlocuter is common in probably all examples of human discourse.)

Additionally, it excuses imposition based solely on the idea that the outcome is desirable, which, without any type of explanation, implies that imposition can be excused whenever the imposer considers it would lead to a desirable outcome - 'the ends justify the means' is a notoriously slippery and hypocritical slope. — Tzeentch

You are just repeating the same arguments over and over again and they dont get any better each time you repeat them. I can do that to, as you have probably noticed. Anyone can do that.
Evolution through natural selection established the 'survival of a species imperative' and there is no intent behind it. Humans did not establish the natural imperative of species survival; they are simply compelled to comply with it. They can overrule it, yes, but there will be prices to pay, including extinction, if they employ something as destructive as antinatalism to their entire species.

The third argument about legacy and bloodlines is similarly an 'ends justify the means'-type argument, but in this case the ends are completely selfish - vain ego fantasy. A preoccupation with illusory things like "legacies" and "bloodlines" as though they have some objective value is similarly irrational. Needless to say, that will not do as a basis to attempt to justify imposition. — Tzeentch

Again, you just repeat, and I have already responded to the content of the quote above, many times. Others have even offered other varied logical angles against the logic you are employing, but you only respond by repeating your arguments and making very poor attempts to dispel the counter points put to you. That is irrational.

Only human beings are moral actors.

I hope that clears things up. — Tzeentch

Another restatement, which I have already given my opinion on. Shallow and arrogant!
No, but it has helped confirm and further exemplify your irrationality (not a personal insult, just an opinion on your brain fog regarding antinatalism).

Hey universeness, I've been censored again. :( Baden had my last topic of discussion removed a second time because I didn't ask him if it was okay to repost.

What do you make of the situation? Any more insights on offer brother?

Best to have a chat by PM with Baden and see if you can understand his reasons. Overall, I have found the Moderators/administrator's very reasonable people. An administrator such as @jamal can talk to a moderator, if you are not happy with a decision they have made, but if the administrator backs the moderator, then there is nothing you can do except to accept their decision. But you can still moan at them a little.

I'm going to ignore my own advice and continue on here.

Do you know what a proponent of the problem of evil is? — Bartricks

The standard definition of the Problem of Evil requires omnibenevolence. Here is from Wikipedia:
The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God

And here is from Stanford:
God must be a person who, at the very least, is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and morally very good
Stanford is using "morally very good" instead of omnibenevolent, but this does not alter the definition of The Problem of Evil. So starting with this definition, Stanford continues thusly:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
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 morally perfect, 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.

This is my understanding of what a proponent of The Problem of Evil believes. And as far as I can tell step #4 requires omnibenevolence (or some equivalent) - and step #4 is essential to the arguement.

But you are asserting that your person/being is NOT omnibenevolent.

Why do you think I asked about an omnipotent and omniscient person and left off omnibenevolent?

Do you think it was a mistake? It wasn't. — Bartricks

I have been trying to work within your conceptual framework - to figure out what exactly you are saying. Up to now I have not succeeded at this task.

So before going any further, you have to explain how The Problem of Evil works when your person/being is NOT omnibenevolent. It would be helpful if you could supply any references or links.

Best to have a chat by PM with Baden and see if you can understand his reasons. Overall, I have found the Moderators/administrator's very reasonable people. An administrator such as jamal can talk to a moderator, if you are not happy with a decision they have made, but if the administrator backs the moderator, then there is nothing you can do except to accept their decision. But you can still moan at them a little. — universeness

Thanks Universeness. You're precious. That's exactly what I did and exactly what happened. Oh well, it seems some questions are un-questionable.
I guess we just have to live in a world where all questions are not permissible.
Who knew!?

Onwards with hope I say. There's many ways to "skin a cat" so to speak.

Thanks for your support and suggestions

:up: Nae bother. I'm not sure I am comparable with Gollum's ring of power and its evil source, Sauron. :joke: and you type too many balanced words obout life and living to be going around skinning cats by various methods! :scream:
If I don't agree with the mods, I sometimes send their favourite song lyrics to them along with a related picture:

We arra mods
We arra mods
We are, We are, We arra mods!

:P omfg dead. Haha. Go you
!

What's life without whimsy?
Without a wee giggle now and again, we could all turn antinatalist :scream:
Live, Love, Laugh Brother Ben!

Btw, I stole the combination of those three words 'Live, Love, Laugh, from a line in an Al Jolson song from 1926! This song was part of the legacy his life left to people alive almost a hundred years after he recorded this. A great wee song.

Do you not see how arrogant your words here are? — universeness

Oh, that's rich.

Maybe you should take a look in the mirror sometime.

Evolution through natural selection established the 'survival of a species imperative' and there is no intent behind it. — universeness

It's irrelevant. Individuals have intentions, and individuals aren't subjected to evolution, natural selection or any "natural imperatives". Your issue is that you're attempting to have a moral discussion about "the human species", but the "human species" as a whole is not a moral agent, and not part of a moral discussion.

Oh, that's rich.
Maybe you should take a look in the mirror sometime. — Tzeentch

I would, if I could get past you hogging all the available space in front of it, admiring yourself.

It's irrelevant. Individuals have intentions, and individuals aren't subjected to evolution, natural selection or any "natural imperatives". — Tzeentch

Yes, they do, and they can, and do, use that intent to reproduce for many reasons, all of which serve the natural imperative of the survival of species. Your moral objection and the consent reason you give for it are not compelling. How many support your position on this thread so far? Maybe you should take a poll.

Your issue is that you're attempting to have a moral discussion about "the human species", but the "human species" as a whole is not a moral agent, and not part of a moral discussion. — Tzeentch

Perhaps you should make yourself clearer here. The human species is made up of individual humans who are moral agents, but you now suggest that they have no moral agency as a totality.
The universe applied no discernible morality or intent towards creating humans. It is from that angle that I refer to the immorality you assign to your lineage of immoral parents, all the way back to the point where life formed in this universe. The logic of your 'blame game' fails miserably as you journey back along that path. In what way does this also suggest that the human species as a totality, has no moral agency?

How many support your position on this thread so far? — universeness

What makes you think I care? :chin:

I'm not here to convince anyone.

The human species is made up of individual humans who are moral agents, but you now suggest that they have no moral agency as a totality. — universeness

Precisely so. Since "the human species" cannot act, intend, etc.; it is not a moral agent. To claim as much is to personify an abstract representation of what is actually a conglomerate of individuals.

The universe applied no discernible morality or intent towards creating humans. — universeness

But individuals do.

In what way does this also suggest that the human species as a totality, has no moral agency? — universeness

That's just dictated by logic.

What makes you think I care? :chin:
I'm not here to convince anyone. — Tzeentch

Then you admit you just enjoy preaching; you don't accept the burden of trying to convince others of viewpoints that you think will help them in their lives?

That's just dictated by logic. — Tzeentch

No, it's interpreted by YOUR logic. National and International laws are informed by human past and present political debate, which certainly includes morality issues. If we ever unite as a single global species and establish a world government, then planetary law will be informed by human morality.
This would then represent the agency of the entire species. I agree that there would be very few, if any, global laws or moral standpoints which would be fully accepted by every human alive but I think we can still label the likes of a global human law, as having human species agency.
I also think the national or international laws we have now, hold up as examples of the representation of the morality of our species as a totality. 'It is immoral to rape,' for example or 'child abuse is unacceptable and immoral.' These are pretty close to being aspects of the current moral agency of our entire species.

Then you admit you just enjoy preaching; — universeness

I enjoy testing my ideas. That's the only reason I am here.

you don't accept the burden of trying to convince others of viewpoints that you think will help them in their lives? — universeness

No, and especially not on a forum filled with strangers. I know nothing of their lives. Imagine the hubris.

No, it's interpreted by YOUR logic. National and International laws are informed by human past and present political debate, which certainly includes morality issues. If we ever unite as a single global species and establish a world government, then planetary law will be informed by human morality.
This would then represent the agency of the entire species. I agree that there would be very few, if any, global laws or moral standpoints which would be fully accepted by every human alive but I think we can still label the likes of a global human law, as having human species agency.
I also think the national or international laws we have now, hold up as examples of the representation of the morality of our species as a totality. 'It is immoral to rape,' for example or 'child abuse is unacceptable and immoral.' These are pretty close to being aspects of the current moral agency of our entire species. — universeness

In philosophy it is of great importance to use accurate language.

All of what you just wrote is generalized (inaccurate) language - shortcuts to convey practical ideas. Useful as practical tools for every day conversation, but not for philosophy.

"The human species" does not think with one mind or acts with one body. It is never a moral agent. Speaking of what "the human species" does or thinks is a gross oversimplification of the huge variety of thoughts and actions by individuals.

I enjoy testing my ideas. That's the only reason I am here. — Tzeentch

Ok, enjoy analysing the feedback.

No, and especially not on a forum filled with strangers. — Tzeentch

Your choice.

In philosophy it is of great importance to use accurate language.

All of what you just wrote is generalized (inaccurate) language - shortcuts to convey practical ideas. Useful as practical tools for everyday conversation, but not for philosophy. — Tzeentch

I agree with your comments about the importance of the accuracy of language and I have the language skills I have. I have not found your use of language, demonstrates a higher skill level in accuracy that I have. I was a teacher of Computing Science for 30+ years. Philosophy has been around since we came out of the wilds, people philosophise in pubs, clubs and taxis as well as the Egyptian or Greek philosophers every did. I think you might gain more access to the thinking of a wider range of humans, if you stopped trying to paint such an aloof portrait of YOUR interpretation of what philosophy is and who is qualified to engage in it.

"The human species" does not think with one mind or acts with one body. It is never a moral agent. Speaking of what "the human species" does or thinks is a gross oversimplification of the huge variety of thoughts and actions by individuals. — Tzeentch

I think this example of your philosophy is shallow and rather misanthropic. Humans are quite capable of networking and thinking as one, close enough to act as one, in mimicry, of how a single mind might think and act and who knows what future networking level humans might achieve, as we enhance longevity and ability through transhuman technologies.

Some human efforts to improve the human experience and reduce human suffering.
Posted by another member in the shoutbox, copied and pasted here by me, as I thought they were good examples, relevant to this thread.

In Utero Enzyme-Replacement Therapy for Infantile-Onset Pompe’s Disease
— New England Journal of Medicine; Nov 9, 2022

Rare, deadly genetic disease successfully treated in utero for first time
— Avis Favaro; CTV; Nov 9, 2022

In a First, Doctors Treat a Fatal Genetic Disease Before Birth
— Jonel Aleccia; Time; Nov 10, 2022

Another one

Some human efforts to improve the human experience and reduce human suffering.
Posted by another member in the shoutbox, copied and pasted here by me, as I thought they were good examples, relevant to this thread. — universeness

I will always be in awe of such people: applying their intelligence and talents to revolutionising our fight against suffering. I will always commend them, their courage and persistence. Long live the good amongst us.