Apparently, no response does. — Vera Mont

No, responses that don't don't.

I mark lots of essays. And a common mistake - by far the most common - is not to address the question but simply to blurt all that one knows about the subject instead.

That's what is happening here.

So, do you agree that if Susan wants to invite James over, but also wants to cook a meal James dislikes, then she ought to satisfy one or other of her desires, not both. That is, she should not invite James over and cook him the meal he dislikes (but that she wants to cook)?

And if you agree - and surely you will - do you also agree that if you only have the ability to cook James a meal he dislikes, then you shouldn't invite him over to dinner?

Morality is built around the needs and desire of a society, — Sir2u

No it isn't. — Bartricks

So explain to me, how is morality formed. I will even give you a basic definition of the word morality.
"Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"

If society does not decide what is good or bad for its population, where does it come from?

But anyway, that's an absurd 'metaethical' claim, whereas my question is a normative one. — Bartricks

First of all, please tell us what YOU mean by 'metaethical' and explain why what I said comes under the heading of absurd.

Rookie mistake. — Bartricks

You should know I suppose, as they say "takes one to know one".
One of the worst rookie mistakes is having to give several different examples so that others can get an idea of what you are blathering about and then insinuating that they are the ones that are lacking in brains.

Morally what ought they to do? — Bartricks — Sir2u

You asked a question, I explained why the question is irrelevant. If you cannot see the pointlessness of your own question, I cannot help you to understand.

Me: "which way to the city centre?"
You: "A city centre is a collection of trees" — Bartricks

You must live in a nice place, do the Ewoks live around there.

I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. — Bartricks

That's the spirit, you are no use to the cause if you get shot down every time you open your mouth.

Another "so what?" thread. :meh: — 180 Proof

Coming up like weeds in a rose garden, and there are too many thorns to be able to get too them.

o explain to me, how is morality formed. I will even give you a basic definition of the word morality.
"Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"

If society does not decide what is good or bad for its population, where does it come from? — Sir2u

Focus! This thread is not about metaethics.

Here's how our exchange is going:

Me "which way to the centre of town?"
You: "the centre of a town is the centre of a clump of trees
Me: "er, no it isn't. But anyway, my question is about the centre of town's location, not its composition"
You: "If the centre of a town is not a clump of trees, then what is it? Where does it come from? And what is composition? Explain what a composition is"

You should know I suppose, as they say "takes one to know one". — Sir2u

No it doesn't. I am not a rookie. Yet I can tell a rookie. See? I know that the object to my left is a loaf of bread. Does that mean I am a loaf of bread?

Focussing then: if you want to cook a very hot curry tonight, but you also want to invite James over - someone who really dislikes hot curry - then do you agree that you ought to thwart one of your desires? That is, you ought either to cook the very hot curry, but not inflict it on James, or you ought to invite James over but cook him something else?

I gave your OP all the due consideration it warrants; you must've missed it –
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/750919

:up:

That's question begging. The OP contains a highly original argument for antinatalism (or conversely, a highly original way of dealing with the problem of evil). May I suggest you reply with an emoticon. Perhaps a yawning one.
You know what would really rile me? A refutation.

Help the suffering and those that need it. That was easy.

I do not follow you.

Do you agree that the omnipotent, omniscient person ought to frustrate one of their desires? That is, do you agree that they ought either to frustrate their desire not to interfere with how the sensible world operates, or they ought to frustrate their desire to invest it with sentient life?

They obviously should not introduce sentient life into the world. And if they do, then they should help the suffering and those that need help. It is easy.

Luckily you can work from home in crusty Chester Cheetah pajamas now and still make 100k.

Why do you associate "work" with NEETING or slaving up a mountain? Work is healthy and doesn't have to be hard.

Self-refuted re: (the usual) fatous premises. Thus, dismissed as per @Sir2u. :yawn:

:100:

Perhaps they don't want you to wake them up to this fact. Perhaps they liked their ignorance. — schopenhauer1

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

Do you agree that we ought not do so either, then?

That is, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to invest the sensible world with life if, that is, they are not going to change how it operates, then we ought not either, given we are unable to change how it operates?

Here's how our exchange is going: — Bartricks

No, that is what you are doing because you failed to understand what I said. A rookie mistake.

Focussing then: if you want to cook a very hot curry tonight, but you also want to invite James over - someone who really dislikes hot curry - then do you agree that you ought to thwart one of your desires? That is, you ought either to cook the very hot curry, but not inflict it on James, or you ought to invite James over but cook him something else? — Bartricks

I have no opinion about the futility of you trying to prove a pointless, no correct answer question. It makes no difference to an "omnipotent, omniscient person" because those same qualities give him/her/it the ability to do both things at the same time or or fail to be an "omnipotent, omniscient person". This is just another "rock to heavy to lift" theory and comes to the same end. But only a rookie would not be able to see that.


All I did was answer your question about the morality of your "introduce life or not question". I don't give a hoot about the rest of the claptrap.

You don't have an argument, do you? You would fail a philosophy course.

:up:

An answer worthy of 180 Proof. Tell you what, tell me what my argument is. See if you can.

Tell you what, tell me what my argument is. — Bartricks

It's invalid & trivial. That's what your "argument" is.

Again, you would fail a philosophy course with answers like that.

:ok: :rofl:

Do you agree that we ought not do so either, then? — Bartricks

It's literally in your own post. That is the first question you asked is basically: "Should he introduce sentient life if he has the power to do so or not?"

Obviously he should not. What do you mean by "ought to do neither"? How do you not do nothing when you are doing nothing? LOL.

There we go. That's more like it. Little pictures. Them's funny.

Wow, nice contribution. Really making strides. Glad you shared your precious thoughts. Glad you made time to respond.

It's literally in your own post. That is the first question you asked is basically: "Should he introduce sentient life if he has the power to do so or not?"

Obviously he should not. What do you mean by "ought to do neither"? How do you not do nothing when you are doing nothing? LOL. — Cobra

Er, what? I am arguing that we ought not procreate. And I am showing how that is implied by the fact that an omnipotent, omniscient person who does not want to change how the world is operating ought to thwart their desire to invest the world with life. You understand that, right?

You agree that hte omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to invest the world with life. So, do you also agree that we ought not procreate too, then? That's a perfectly reasonable question to ask someone on a philosophy thread who is otherwise making comments that seem a little random.

So, do you also agree that we ought not procreate too, then? — Bartricks

Who cares? Humans are GOING TO PROCREATE because that's what humans do. Who cares if we "should or shouldn't". This is completely unrelated to your original OP that asks:

Should some all-powerful non-human reptilian with all the power and knowledge in the world put SENTIENT life on the planet, and the answer is no, and if it DOES because of the crazy comparison you're making with humans because "THIS IS WHAT HUMANS DO" .. then it should help the suffering and those that need help.

Glad to have been of help. :wink:

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.

Satisfaction can only truly happen by transcending one's nature of willing. According to him [Schopenhauer], this requires denying the Will and becoming an ascetic along the lines of a Jainist or something of that nature. The ultimate fate would be to starve oneself to death peacefully. — schopenhauer1

At the behest of the likes of Nagel and Rawls, I'll mention here the Archimedian point which argues that there is indeed a rational observer whose standpoint can provide an objective account of what's happening in the world.

Example? Schopenhauer himself. He was making an observation as a rational individual, using the archimedian point, while denying the will. Is this an oversight on his part?

That he was able to make a declaration, such as the reality of suffering, is a testament to his own will.

Who cares? — Cobra

You can't answer a question with a question. Jeez. You're fired.

Tell you what, tell me what my argument is. — Bartricks

It is a confused mess. Your are trying to build an argument about man doing something because a god would do it (or not do it). Not going to work.

And do not tell me that I would not pass a philosophy course with that answer. I don't need to pass anymore course than those I passed long ago. :rofl: :cool: