1- Have very good reason to think that his art will bring about much good before they produe it.
2- Be able to produce it relatively easily. — khaled
It is self-evident that those who are able to produce beautiful things are not obliged to do so.
if 1 is true - that is, if people are obliged to create something that will bring about a lot of good, other things being equal - then that self-evident truth would be false. But it's true, or at least we are default justified in believing it to be. So 1 is false until or unless you provide some evidence in support of it.
When it comes to 2, that too is clearly false. For Picasso could produce art with ease whereas Leonardo could not, but neither of them had any obligation to produce any art.
So, again, you are just making counterintuitive claims, not providing any kind of case against what I have argued.
To argue well you need to appeal to self-evident truths of reason and derive from them interesting conclusions (that do no themselves contradict self-evident truths of reason that we have no independent reason to think are false, or that are as strong or stronger than those from which your conclusion was derived).
You don't understand this. You think that any premise in any argument is as good as any other, yes? If I present an argument of this form:
1. 1+ 1 = 2
2. If A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C
3. Therefore 1 + 1 = 2 and if A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C.
All you are going to do is make the following argument:
1. 1+ 1 does not = 2
2. If A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then A is not bigger than C.
3. Therefore 1 + 1 does not = 2 and if A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, then A is not bigger than C.
And you think your argument is as good as mine, yes? Even though it's not - it's stupid.
Why is it stupid? Because this claim - 1 + 1 = 2 - is powerfully self-evident. By contrast, the claim that 1 + 1 does not = 2 is self-evidently false.
Notice that my arguments appeal to self-evident truths. All you do is think "Bartricks is wrong......therefore those premises are false, and if I say that, then my claim that those premises are false is just as justified as Bartricks's claim that they are true".
Your claims contradict mine. But all you are doing is assuming that artists are obliged to produce art and taking that for granted, even though that's intuitively false.
Counterintuitive claims need support. That is, they need to be 'conclusions' of arguments, not premises.
So stop thinking that if you think something then that's evidence it is true. Try supporting your claims with arguments that have self-evidently true premises.
Now try and focus on the OP and the relevant issue.
Here are two self-evident truths: those who are able to produce beautiful things are under no obligation to do so, other things being equal.
Don't question that.
Here's the other self-evident truth: we are obliged not to destroy any beautiful things taht are in existence, other things being equal.
Don't question that either.
The issue is why that would be the case.