If we don't have free will, we still have the illusion of free will, and so basically everything works out the same in the end. — VagabondSpectre

Or to put it another way, 'free-will' is the term we use for the sense that we have control over our own actions. The fact that we have this sensation demonstrates that we have 'free-will'.

Picking up from this now closed thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3355/is-it-rational-to-have-children/latest/comment

Forgive me, but I'm no longer a student, and I'm not going to read the entire forum before participating on the off-chance that there is a similar discussion. If the moderators wished, the two threads could have been merged with very little effort instead of being silently deleted or locked.

schopenhauer1: "Often I see these newer posters start a thread and then never participate in the actual conversation. I don't get it."

Maybe it's because their threads get locked and/or deleted.

schopenhauer1:"The general position is that life has too much suffering and therefore not worth starting for another."

The state of non-existance prior to conception means that by not conceiving one is not alleviating the suffering of an extant being. The affected party in non-conception is the parent and to a diminishing extent the parents' social group, whereas only conception can affect the child. Consequently, the decision to have a child seems to be selfish by definition.

Regarding suffering, the answer to the question, "Is it better to have lived than have never existed?", at least in my case, is a resounding 'yes'. Suffering is part of the human experience, and no doubt I have plenty in store. Maybe I should take Croesus' advice who claimed that one could not evaluate one's life until its end. Nevertheless, I suspect I'm not alone in being fiercely protective of my existence.

Regarding 'antenatalism', It's too nihilistic for my tastes and I don't consider nihilism to be a logical outcome of philosophical enquiry, rather I consider that the purpose of philosophical enquiry to find a way out the clearly paradoxical reductio ad absurdum that is nihilism.

Post McPostface: "I feel as though, there's a dichotomy being drawn between 'rationality' and 'human nature' here. Seems fallacious to me, as if one can speak about 'rationality' while excluding 'human nature' from the discussion."

Reason is supposed to transcend human nature. Conception, like smoking and obesity is usually a result of non-rational impulses. Rationality, in the sense of positive freedom, is the control of these aspects of human nature; my reason is the master of me (or at least I'd like it to be). In this sense, the problem is not succumbing to our human nature, but the reasons we have for doing so. Ergo, "Is there a rational basis upon which to bring children into the world (I'm thinking developed countries with some kind of welfare system)?"

Actually, I'm going to modify what I said. I think this is better:

The 'we were here before you' argument doesn't work in most cases.

The 'we were here first' argument doesn't work.
— jastopher

What specific quote of mine is this supposed to connect to? — Baden

It may come as a surprise, but this thread is not all about you.

This is a summary of my position for anyone who might wish to engage.

Your position, far from being 'crystal clear', strikes me as being elusive to the point of insignificance.

What arguments?
— Baden

Is it even possible to 'own' land in any but the legal sense[?] If we agree that it is, when do we draw the line on original ownership? Do we start with the labour-mixing of the agricultural revolution as Locke does or do hunter-gatherers also have a claim to land?

If we go down the first come-first served route, then the vast majority of land is unethically held. If we agree that unethically held land should be returned, then it follows that the vast majority of land should be returned. — jastopher

Perhaps, we can test the current population for Viking gene-markers and return the land to its prior owners, or should we delve deeper into human history and find the autochthonous settlers and give everything to them? Or is, as you suggest, the right to land ownership only proportional to the clamour made by those demanding reparations? — jastopher

The 'we were here first' argument doesn't work.

Thanks for the maps. It would great if you could engage with the arguments, though.

Er, no.

We bite the bullet; accept that land-ownership is unethical, and think about how to move forward given that it is impossible to right this wrong in every case.

Re: Northern Ireland, I was unaware that this was a land-rights issue. However, it's certainly the case that Viking invaders stole significant territory from the previous population. Perhaps, we can test the current population for Viking gene-markers and return the land to its prior owners, or should we delve deeper into human history and find the autochthonous settlers and give everything to them? Or is, as you suggest, the right to land ownership only proportional to the clamour made by those demanding reparations?

There has already been a political-philosophical proposal to solve this problem. Remember, "Property is theft!"? Not terribly successful.

Is it even possible to 'own' land in any but the legal sense. If we agree that it is, when do we draw the line on original ownership? Do we start with the labour-mixing of the agricultural revolution as Locke does or do hunter-gatherers also have a claim to land?

If we go down the first come-first served route, then the vast majority of land is unethically held. If we agree that unethically held land should be returned, then it follows that the vast majority of land should be returned.

Seems like a good case for status quo bias, given the complexity of the alternatives.

But as a teacher it ought to be your duty to nod sagely and ignore those bastards that are clueless and get on with your job for the sake of the next generation.
Box tickers make bad teachers.
Those who can, teach. Those that cannot, lead. — charleton

So what's your point?

Sounds a bit like word salad to me. At best weasel words. — charleton

I take it you're not familiar with Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty.

you ask the person to only pick a single purpose — LD Saunders

I think you're reading this into my initial post. I'm not demanding a singular answer or a dissertation, I'm just asking them, conversationally, amongst many other questions, what they think that the purpose of education is. As I've already said, I like to hear a reasoned reply, but not necessarily a prescriptive one. I mean, do you or anyone else think that having chosen to be a teacher, having undergone the necessary training required, and in many cases having years of experience it is reasonable not to have, at least, considered at some point this seemingly relevant question?

I, clearly, do think it's important, and I also think an inability to even attempt an answer, says something about the depth of commitment to a profession that really does require commitment over and above the merely transactional. No less important is that having a global vision of why you do what you provides an axiomatic basis for developing a pedagogy. In order to achieve x,I first need to know what x is before I can approach x.

Imagine two Spanish teachers. One believes that the purpose of his subject is to allow his students to become expert in Spanish linguistics, whilst the other believes that the purpose is to allow allow her students to gain access to other cultures and be at home in a distinct language context. You would expect these two to have wildly differing methodologies since the outcomes they desire are wildly differing.

If there were no intelligent beings, then the very concept of a phenomenon would not exist. There would be no such thing as phenomenon. — Purple Pond

Doesn't follow. Right about the 'concept of phenomenon'. Wrong about 'phenomenon'. What would remain would be the material stimulus that gave rise to the concept in the first place.

It's the kind of thing that parents, politicians and school administrators watch and then think that they understand what goes on in schools without having to go to the trouble of doing any real research. It has set up a straw man with the teaching profession as the enemy of the student that has been almost impossible to eradicate. Its success has prompted a sect-like army of management consultants masquerading as education gurus to descend upon insecure management teams and feast upon their limited budgets. It is to education what cosmeceuticals are to science. It is fucking dire because its message is so infantile and easy to understand that it is immensely more attractive than reality.

This video is just about the worst thing ever to have happened to pedagogy. It's total nonsense.

You ought to know. Let's hear it! — charleton

I don't know anything, but I have my preferences.

Short answer; the purpose of school education is about providing the wherewithal to optimise both positive and negative liberty according to the ability and needs of the student within a framework of societal norms.

Such a question cannot be answered in a short interview (1). Given that teacher training is little more than a box ticking exercise (2) I imagine you'd be happy with a rehearsed stock answer (3).
Do you really think that ANY candidate had no answer, or have you not taken the trouble is assess the power of your position, in intimidating candidates with such a question (4), and failed to notice several potentially excellent teachers along the way (5) ? — charleton

So many assertions, so little time.

You seem to be assuming that for something to exist it requires a perceiver, but what stimuli does the perceiver require in order to perceive existence of something?

Subjective idealism, which appears to be what you are proposing, is refutable on a number of levels. Personally, I prefer the evolutionary approach. If you accept that evolution is driven by adaptation to environment, then you must accept that the environment exists independently of the being that evolves. The fact that some beings have evolved to name elements of their environment doesn't mean that they have conjured these elements into existence, but only that they have conceptualised them. When we speak of the 'the universe' we speak of our concept of an independently existing phenomenon. If the concept disappears because there are no beings around to conceptualise it, it doesn't follow the phenomenon ceases to exist also.

I try to give my students basic knowledge that will be useful in everyday life. And a lot of them think that it is too much because "the information is available on google, so why should I learn it". — Sir2u

Indeed. Knowing 'how' or 'why' is not the same as knowing where to look for information.

Are you intentionally assuming that there is only one purpose for education as opposed to a variety of different purposes? — LD Saunders

No, but my hope is that a teacher would at least have thought about the question and would thus have at least one answer.

What I'd like to hear from a candidate is a very simple statement of what he or she intends to teach, thinks important to teach, and why. — tim wood

I was assuming that a candidate would have the necessary technical knowledge to teach their subject. Also, the core curriculum is usually decided by government policy so regarding intention, there's not a great deal of room for manoeuvre.

To modify the behavior of those being educated. — Sir2u

This is true, but so general as to be useless.

Taming Mind and Body, nothing more. — Pacem

I agree that formal education has a civilising mission, but civilising for whom? Is 'taming' merely the imposition of majority societal norms upon the individual being educated?

The effort required by any of the alternatives.

Scientism is the optimistic belief that everything will eventually be explained by science, and thus leaves no room for the ineffable. It is usually held by non-scientists who who wish to attack metaphysical beliefs. It is based on induction:

In the past many things were not understood.
Science has explained many of these things.
Therefore, in the future science will explain things that are currently not understood.

Scientism is problematic in two main areas: Firstly, It doesn't take account of the fact the scientific theory is 'best' explanation rather than 'definitive' explanation. Most scientists accept the heuristic aspect of their work and proceed from ignorance. Exponents of scientism focus on the achievements of science instead of its limited nature.

Secondly, it doesn't take account of the human limitation for understanding and is thus absurdly anthropocentric. Most scientists are acutely aware that scientific knowledge is theoretically limited by the questions that be formulated about it. What can ultimately be known by humans is not the same as complete knowledge of the universe.