What if I force someone into a game that they enjoy? They have a great time and vibe despite the fact I gave them no choice but to play? What would you say then? — Benj96

A good state of affairs, but the result of a bad moral choice. — Tzeentch

This.

But I have some more to add, and I'm wondering what Tzeentch thinks of these ideas.

First off, I think that life is way more nuanced than the binary "Good life, bad life". It is much more analog than digital. The problem is a "gift" as you are implying here about life, is not a gift if it comes with burdens one would have not asked for or wanted. If I gave you a "gift" that lasted a lifetime, you could not get rid of unless you kill yourself, is pervasive, and has many burdensome impositions that you would have not wanted, BUT it comes with some good stuff too.. You have every right to say that this is not a gift, this is an imposition DESPITE any good aspects that go along with it. Again, just because I like a game, doesn't mean OTHERS must play it and like it too. Liking it "enough" isn't an EXCUSE to go ahead and force others to play it. It was NOT NECESSARY to start yet another contestant.

You would only have a point if the life you are starting is perfectly aligned with what the contestant wanted.. it was easy to move to a different option if you didn't like the game, etc. That is not the case.. It is comply with the already set-up universe we have (go to work to survive, go homeless, live off others, consume, find entertainment, find relationships, etc.) or kill yourself.

So my point is saying that the game is "good enough" is not enough reason to go ahead and impose on others because YOU deem it to be good enough. It is the disconnect between what you like and what others SHOULD like. Do not PRESUME for others regarding an inescapable imposition. That is aggressively paternalistic.

If anything about my posts on Pessimism, they are to reveal what are pervasive and intractable negatives that go along with life. You can look back on any of my previous posts on the matter. Overlooking this with a simple line of "But what if they say life is good!" is wishful folly that doesn't take into account the full story. One does not have a right to impose such significant things on another. One is perpetuating suffering needlessly for another. Saying that life is a statistical phenomena of degrees of good and bad doesn't negate that there are negative aspects to life that are not what people would have wanted and are entailed with life. It is not unnecessarily starting THESE negatives for another that is the problem. This is what is being overlooked.

You're quite right, and frankly I have little to add.

I think we have made a clear case that the common logic to justify procreation would not work in any other example of moral human interaction.

It is now up to the "pronatalists" to argue why procreation is a special case that deserves special logic.

It's quite simple really. Nobody in hell would want to have children.

The rest follows. — 180 Proof

It is now up to the "pronatalists" to argue why procreation is a special case that deserves special logic. — Tzeentch

There is no 'special case of logic' involved or required, that's just another fake claim you make.
Life was formed in the universe without intent and without any 'permission' or 'consent.' This was the original natural happenstance. Evolution and natural selection has demonstrated the reproduction system as the means by which a species may continue to exist whether or not that reproduction is asexual or sexual.
These systems were established, regardless of any aspect of human morality. Antinatalists may make as many appeals to their own conflated notions of human morality as they like. You are the ones making special pleads to a logic that is only valid in your own heads.
I am not a pronatalist, I don't think such a term has much important meaning behind it. Any intelligent person understands the danger of over population. I am pro species survival. I am for continuing the human species, as I know that we give a significance and purpose to the universe that it would not have if we (or our like,) did not exist. A significance which is so fundamental to the universe that it would be ever recreated by means of evolution, if events caused a return to a lifeless universal phase.
It is now up to the antinatalists to prove that their suggested solution would work and to also prove that humans are incapable of reducing human suffering to an acceptable level, no matter how much time they have to increase their knowledge of the structure and workings of the universe and their tech.
I don't care about antinatalists who use such words as 'that's not good enough.' My answer to such is the same one as I would give a child, constantly pestering for more candy.
'Well, that's all you're getting for now, you will just have to wait under we have more knowledge and better tech.'

Person B dodged a bullet, because person A took a gamble with B's life and it happened to turn out ok.

A good state of affairs, but the result of a bad moral choice. — Tzeentch

Who says they dodged a bullet? This assumes person B is completely vulnerable and helpless in the world. And person A is equally vulnerable and helpless and inept at parenting.

But actually they have a great father/mother (Person A) one that protects them when they're infants, teaches them to be wise as they grow up, gives them exceptional tools to combat adversity and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer (perhaps those suggesting they ought to die or never have children) and instills in them a sense of pride at being able to fend for themselves, to be independent, masters of navigating a world of suffering without allowing it to impact their happiness, their purpose being a moral one - teach others to do as their own parents did for them.

This person B:
1). Doesn't blame/despise their parents for creating them, doesn't see themselves as the victim of some horrible "forced" thing.
2).Experienced just enough suffering to know what it is and by contrast what happiness is. To learn a valuable lesson.
3). Were given the tools by their parent to maximise the stability of their own happiness/find fulfilment in life.
4). Cannot be made feel ashamed or guilty for living by others because the fulfillment they found was helping others mitigate their own suffering. Their intention is to reduce the suffering of others so they can polite ignore any attempt of someone to punish them for that as that woukd be irrational. Why should someone suffering punish someone who clearly demonstrates the skills to be happy and the willingness to show how its done?

That...... is why Person A didn't gamble with Person Bs life.

They knew they were good people (wise, kind, resourceful etc - many a virtue) , thus knew they would be good parents (applying those virtues/skills) and thus knew they would be able to raise good children (despite experience disagreements, arguments and a bit of suffering in the learning curve of growing up, they turned out as their parents did - grateful, appreciative and accepting of those skills passed down to them).

Life was formed in the universe without intent and without any 'permission' or 'consent.' This was the original natural happenstance. — universeness

These systems were established, regardless of any aspect of human morality. — universeness

This won't do.

There are many behaviors that have existed prior to notions of morality, and many of such behaviors are universally regarded as immoral now, regardless of their prior existence.

You are the ones making special pleads to a logic that is only valid in your own heads. — universeness

"Don't impose (unless there are pressing reasons to do so)," is a common, almost universal moral principle.

You may claim this is not a moral principle, and that imposing is perfectly fine. Probably you realise that would lead you down a slippery slope. So what you have left is explaining why there is a pressing reason to impose in this particular instance - special pleading.

It's the procreators who are behaving inconsistently.

I am pro species survival. — universeness

Why? It's not something you have power over, nor have a stake in. Whether the human race survives for another thousand years or another hundred thousand, you won't be around to witness it.

Besides, do you expect me to believe there is even a single person on this globe that procreates not for the simple reason that they want to have children, but because they so selflessly care about the survival of the human race?

It is now up to the antinatalists to prove that their suggested solution would work ... — universeness

I'm not suggesting any solution. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your behavior and asking for an explanation.

But actually they have a great father/mother (Person A) one that protects them when they're infants, teaches them to be wise as they grow up, gives them exceptional tools to combat adversity and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer (perhaps those suggesting they ought to die or never have children) and instills in them a sense of pride at being able to fend for themselves, to be independent, masters of navigating a world of suffering without allowing it to impact their happiness, their purpose being a moral one - teach others to do as their own parents did for them. — Benj96

Whether someone has a great or terrible life is not solely a product of parenting. It's also a product of the environment, and a good amount of luck. There are many things the parents have no influence over, thus it is still a gamble, no matter how capable and well-intentioned the parents are.

If you believe that's a sufficient justification for procreation, then have at it. — Tzeentch

I do. I believe in myself as a caretaker. I had very good parents to teach me how.

The only possible reason I can imagine for an anitnatalist ideology is that the person who holds it - just hates life. Simple as.

The idealogy is literally about desire to not procreate/self annihilation/end of humanity and everything that comes with it.
Just an abject denial that joy can ever be more suffering in one's life.

And if antinatalist logic is perfectly sound from your point of view and the other is nonsense. And if our (pronatalist) logic is perfectly sound from our point of view and the other is nonsense.

I guess pronatalists still win. Because we have the opportunity to do whatever we want in life, a diversity of things and feel good about it so long as we have the intention to improve things/help sufferers. While antinatalists are reduced to only one thing - begging everyone to stop living because its so pointless and worthless and awful. Torturing themselves and attempting to (and failing) to torture the rest of society which literally would never ever commit a mass suicide or sterilisation.

Ever.

Whether someone has a great or terrible life is not solely a product of parenting. It's also a product of the environment, and a good amount of luck. There are many things the parents have no influence over, thus it is still a gamble, no matter how capable and well-intentioned the parents are — Tzeentch

All down to a lack of potency. Lack of intelligence/wisdom/resourcefulness/lack of initiative/lack of creativity etc etc.

Put a parent and their child in the worst environment you can think of - famine, war, poverty etc and if that parent is extremely strong willed/intelligent/resourceful etc (all part of what it means to be "Good" (virtuous/highly adaptable/skilled etc), all the things opposite of what's outlined above...

... And I guarantee you they will turn a bad situation around. Whether that means escaping it spatially, moving to a better location with better lifestyle (refugees), hitting the problem head on (leadership, local politics, for example ghandi liberating India from oppression), or engineering a solution (all the very resourceful inventors eg.tesla many of which I'm sure were parents also.)

You just don't get it. You don't see the big picture. Luck exists for people who don't now how to make it themselves.

It's not random that some people seem to make the world happen for them.

Its not random that some people start with nothing and become successful and happy and have a family.

Bad environments only exist for those that are complacent and accept it as it is instead of finding a way, any way, to improve it. All of these things are excuses.

Take the excuses away, as a good parent is driven to do in order to protect the ones they love - their children, and you remove the whole basis for this pointless, floundering helpless, victim revolving antinatalist idealogy.

Just get on with it. Every other adult has to roll up their sleeves and work hard to make a good life for their family and friends. No one said combating suffering was a walk in the park but it's certainly worth the effort.

I've said what I have to say on the matter of antinatalism. You're free to disassemble and pick away at any and all parts of my argument if that's what you feel is going to get you places. In the meantime, I'll be vibing, and loving life with my friends and family and colleagues. Let us know if you fancy joining.

Happy to lend a hand if it's accepted (ie if you actually take on board and accept that maybe my points are valid and move away from antinatalism and towards the infinitely more interesting and useful discussions, otherwise, good luck with it I guess).

I won't ever agree with someone that wants me and my family and the rest the world dead. Simples :)

The only possible reason I can imagine for an anitnatalist ideology is that the person who holds it - just hates life. — Benj96

Well, you'd be wrong.

The idealogy is literally about desire to not procreate/self annihilation/end of humanity and everything that comes with it. — Benj96

It's not an ideology - at least not for me. It's about observing an inconsistency in human behavior and asking for an explanation.

Put a parent and their child in the worst environment you can think of - famine, war, poverty etc and if that parent is extremely strong willed/intelligent/resourceful etc (all part of what it means to be "Good" (virtuous/highly adaptable/skilled etc), all the things opposite of what's outlined above...

... And I guarantee you they will turn a bad situation around. — Benj96

You can't make such a guarantee, and while I like the positive outlook, it is not rational.

Well, you'd be wrong. — Tzeentch

Oh good. Finally.

I'm glad I'm wrong then and you finally accept we are on the same side and both don't hate life. You made a good choice to re-evaluate and depart from the extreme.

It's not an ideology - at least not for me. It's about observing an inconsistency in human behavior and asking for an explanation. — Tzeentch

Great again! Glad youre no longer fundamentalist and don't see it as an ideology but rather prefer to be open minded and discuss what issues we ought to, to clear up these inconsistencies. It's prudent to formulate an explanation to navigate such inconsistencies in a productive/constructive manner.

You can't make such a guarantee, and while I like the positive outlook, it is not rational. — Tzeentch

I like my positive outlook too. I believe in it so it's rational for me. Just as everyone's personal concept of rationality is based on the beliefs they hold to be true.
Welcome back Tzeentech :)

Now we are truly making progress.

Glad youre no longer fundamentalist and don't see it as an ideology but rather prefer to be open minded and discuss what issues we ought to discuss to clear up these inconsistencies. — Benj96

I'm not sure what you think I've been doing this whole time.

I'm not sure what you think I've been doing this whole time. — Tzeentch

Looking for an explanation while already having a predefined answer (no procreation for anyone) I suppose.

and feel good about it so long as we have the intention to improve things/help sufferers — Benj96

You cannot just do anything in the name above. Having "good intentions" isn't license to do what you want to someone else. You probably know this though.

Imagine my defense being "good intentions" to do any X act that causes someone else an imposition of harms and limitations.

You cannot just do anything in the name above — schopenhauer1

When did I say do "anything? "
In case you weren't aware, helping someone out of suffering is a mutual effort. It takes both the hand offered and the hand accepted.

It takes agreement. Not force.

If someone decides they don't want anyone's help they just want to be miserable alone. There's not much we can do for them is there?

As I said, helping is a two-person dynamic. I can't help or reason with a wall so there is no imposition of anything. It's either ignored, actively told to go way, or accepted.

So yes "intention" is a license to approach someone you think is in need of assistance. If they tell you to leave them be, you leave them be. If theyre willing to discuss, you discuss, if they're will to agree on a course of action, you agree on a course of action.

That is a harmless process respecting their autonomy. You seem to obsess over the idea of "imposition".

And no you can't "impose" on a non existent potential that currently reside in your left nut. They have no personhood, no human rights, and no say in being born.
None of us ever had a say in being born, some of us were born intentionally and some by accident,
And some of us like the fact that we were.

That's how life works. Don't ask me ask mother nature.

This won't do.
There are many behaviors that have existed prior to notions of morality, and many of such behaviors are universally regarded as immoral now, regardless of their prior existence. — Tzeentch

I have already asked you this before. Do you consider a universe without intent to start life but life started through happenstance to be immoral? If your answer is yes, then you are suggesting the universe had intent, as intent is a fundamental aspect of morality. If your answer is no, then you accept that this happenstance is beyond the jurisdiction of any notion of human morality. It is therefore way beyond YOUR mere opinion that 'this won't do.'

"Don't impose (unless there are pressing reasons to do so)," is a common, almost universal moral principle.
You may claim this is not a moral principle, and that imposing is perfectly fine. Probably you realise that would lead you down a slippery slope. So what you have left is explaining why there is a pressing reason to impose in this particular instance - special pleading.
It's the procreators who are behaving inconsistently. — Tzeentch

A universal 'don't impose' is an illogical and unsustainable edict in human reality. Benevolent imposition is moral in the human world, such as preventing someone from fighting or imposing to break up a fight. If you would stand by and watch then, imo, YOU are immoral.
Imposition, which is immoral, can only be judged based on established moral guidelines, and by those involved on a case-by-case basis. I might impose suffering to remove an impaled limb to free a person, depending on the situation. I may have children to continue the experience of life and living. YOU have no right or power to judge me immoral as such a judgement would itself be immoral as you are not supported by any universal fact, BUT I AM, the fact that life started in this universe WITHOUT ANY PERMISSION OR CONSENT. You are the inconsistent special pleader with no answer to the natural happenstance of life creation. IT ALREADY HAPPENED.

I am pro species survival.
— universeness
Why? It's not something you have power over, nor have a stake in. Whether the human race survives for another thousand years or another hundred thousand, you won't be around to witness it.
Besides, do you expect me to believe there is even a single person on this globe that procreates not for the simple reason that they want to have children, but because they so selflessly care about the survival of the human race? — Tzeentch

I do have power over the survival of my species, we all do, as we can reproduce! That's the whole point!
I don't need to be around to witness it, my like being around to witness it, is absolutely good enough for me. Only a narcissist or sociopath would deny life a future just because they themselves must die and enter oblivion. Yes, everyday people do exactly that, as the 'want to have children' IS an act which results in the survival of the human race, regardless of the fact that you are unable to grasp the connection.

I'm not suggesting any solution. I'm pointing out an inconsistency in your behavior and asking for an explanation — Tzeentch

Why are you preaching antinatalism then? As a solution to what? You claim you have identified a moral crisis and you then suggest that you are not suggesting any solution, so why are you pushing the antinatalist nonsense? I have explained my position to you quite clearly, its simply you who (panto style), claims I have not. So, to reflect back to you in equal panto style, your position on antinatalism is the position that 'just won't do.'

and call out the BS of people trying to make them suffer — Benj96

:lol: Welcome brother, to those of us who will 'call out the BS of people.' :flower: :flower: :flower:

It is therefore way beyond YOUR mere opinion that 'this won't do.' — universeness

It's a matter of rational scrutiny - to demand a consistent argument from someone who chooses to impose on others. You've failed to provide that, and that's why it won't do.

A universal 'don't impose' is an illogical and unsustainable edict in human reality. — universeness

Once again, I don't see any explaining going on here.

Why don't you start with coming up with a logically consistent argument as to why imposing is acceptable in this case?

Yes, everyday people do exactly that as the 'want to have children' IS an act which results in the survival of the human race, regardless of the fact that you are unable to grasp the connection. — universeness

And it's irrational for the reasons I've already given you, and I won't accept irrational reasoning as a moral basis for imposition.

Why are you preaching antinatalism then? — universeness

I'm not preaching anything. I'm pointing out your inconsistency and waiting for an explanation.

It's a matter of rational scrutiny - to demand a consistent argument from someone who chooses to impose on others. You've failed to provide that, and that's why it won't do. — Tzeentch

I accept your opinion that I have failed to provide such for you, and I have so far been unable to wipe the antinatalism fog from your mind. You claim it is due to the fact that my points towards you are inconsistent but you have not demosntrated where that inconsistency exists. I have consistently made the same points to you.
1. The natural imperative of reproduction as a method of species survival.
2. Life started in the universe without intent, consent or permission and therefore is immune to any human constructed moral crisis you may personally be having.
3. Evolution through natural selection is still happening and still has no intent and seeks no permission or consent from humans to do what it does.
4. Humans have intent and intelligence and can alleviate, reduce and possibly even remove all forms of human suffering.
These are some of my consistent points, where is this inconsistency you are complaining about.
I accept you dont find my 4 points above compelling reasons for you to abandon your antinatalist stance but hey ho, such is life. Some folks just prefer their misery to finding the strength to join us optimists.
Or they just can't conquer their pride! They can't admit they have been so wrong for so long.

Once again, I don't see any explaining going on here.
Why don't you start with coming up for a logically consistent argument as to why imposing is acceptable in this case? — Tzeentch

I already have.
1. Life happened (was imposed if you prefer).
2. Some life became intelligent life.
3. Intelligent life is able to ask questions.
4. To understand the what, how and why of the universe, life that is self-aware and has intent and can ask questions is necessary.
5. The survival of such intent and ability to ask questions and discover answers is necessary.
6. A universe with no life has no purpose.
7. IF you accept 1 to 6 then imposing life on the universe is moral, If you don't accept 1 to 6 then you are probably an antinatalist who bizarrely does not wish to be an existent who can choose to label themselves an antinatalist. Antinatalism is self-defeating in every way you posit it.

I'm not preaching anything. I'm pointing out your inconsistency and waiting for an explanation. — Tzeentch

You are not an honest interlocuter. You have preached antinatalism, as you have stated that it's the only logical solution to the 'common moral dilemma,' of immoral imposition through procreation. It's preaching because you have no evidence. My evidence starts with the fact that LIFE HAPPENED in this universe and that happenstance CANNOT be logically judged as immoral. Where is this inconsistency you claim is forcing you to 'wait for an explanation?'
You are simply refusing to accept any explanation you are offered in the same way a convinced theist will never accept there is no god or supernatural woo woo.

Do you think a tsunami, or an earthquake is an immoral imposition?

1. The natural imperative of reproduction as a method of species survival. — universeness

People don't reproduce for the sake of the species' survival. This is just nonsense.

2. Life started in the universe without intent, consent or permission and therefore is immune to any human contracted moral crisis you may personally be having. — universeness

Unless you wish to reject morality altogether, this is more nonsense.

If you do wish to reject morality, then what are you doing in a thread that's unmistakenly about a moral question?

3. Evolution through natural selection is still happening and still has no intent and seeks no permission or consent from humans to do what it does. — universeness

Evolution is irrelevant to this question.

Morality is about individuals, their choices, intentions and actions.

4. Humans have intent and intelligence and can alleviate, reduce and possibly even remove all forms of human suffering. — universeness

Good intentions don't excuse immoral actions.

5. The survival of such intent and ability to ask questions and discover answers in necessary. — universeness

6. A universe with no life has no purpose. — universeness

Necessary, why? To whom?

Sounds like a load of New Age hooey to me.

My evidence starts with the fact that LIFE HAPPENED in this universe and that happenstance CANNOT be logically judged as immoral. — universeness

The choices of moral agents can be judged, which is what we're doing right here.


I'm getting the sense that you have some rather subjective views about man's purpose in the universe, and are willing to resort to imposition to press gang new people into this project - an "ends justify the means" type argument and a common moral pitfall.

Welcome brother, to those of us who will 'call out the BS of people.' :flower: :flower: :flower: — universeness

Oops I used your word. Lol. Touché brother.

People don't reproduce for the sake of the species' survival. This is just nonsense. — Tzeentch

Based on what evidence?

Unless you wish to reject morality altogether, this is more nonsense.
If you do wish to reject morality, then what are you doing in a thread that's unmistakenly about a moral question? — Tzeentch

You think in extremes! Why would I have to reject morality altogether? What utter nonsense!

Good intentions don't excuse immoral actions. — Tzeentch

I typed the word intent YOU decided that was synonomous with the term 'good intentions.' You further evidence your tendency to invent and attempt to misrepresent and misdirect when you are frustrated that you have no valid response.

Necessary, why? To whom?
Sounds like a load of New Age hooey to me. — Tzeentch

Necessary to intelligent lifeforms who value legacy.

The choices of moral agents can be judged, which is what we're doing right here.
I'm getting the sense that you have some rather subjective views about man's purpose in the universe, and are willing to resort to imposition to press gang new people into this project - an "ends justify the means" type argument and a common moral pitfall. — Tzeentch

If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe.

:wink: :up:

People don't reproduce for the sake of the species' survival. This is just nonsense. — Tzeentch

Based on what evidence? — universeness

Based on common understanding of human psychology.

But since you're the one claiming humans reproduce not out of personal motivations but some selfless act for the survival of mankind the burden of proof is on you.

Why would I have to reject morality altogether? — universeness

It's either that or be a hypocrite.

Necessary to intelligent lifeforms who value legacy. — universeness

Because you like "legacy" you get to press gang everybody into your vanity project?

Is that your threshold for imposition then? If you like something you get to force it on others?

If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe. — universeness

A thinly-veiled attempt at a personal attack, and not remotely related to what I said.

Based on common understanding of human psychology.
But since you're the one claiming humans reproduce not out of personal motivations but some selfless act for the survival of mankind the burden of proof is on you. — Tzeentch

You are the one preaching antinatalism as a solution to your conflated moral issue, so the burden of proof is yours. I did not suggest that a couple looks into each other's eyes and discuss having children to ensure that the human race survives but they do exchange such comments as 'It would be great to have something that is of me and you that will carry on the bloodlines.' Especially in amongst the rich dynastic families or in the families of celebrity etc. But it happens in almost every family. It is the concept of legacy which just seems unable to penetrate through your fog. Even though the historical evidence for it is irrefutable. This is synonymous with the idea of reproducing to ensure the survival of the species as the end result of the compulsion to pass on legacy has the exact same result.

Why would I have to reject morality altogether?
— universeness
It's either that or be a hypocrite. — Tzeentch

Based on what logic? Try actually answering a question instead of just responding with obvious and tedious obfuscations.

Because you like "legacy" you get to press gang everybody into your vanity project? — Tzeentch

Your attempt to ignore legacy just because it's an inconvenient fact that defeats your antinatalist viewpoint is pernicious.

If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe.
— universeness

A thinly-veiled attempt at a personal attack, and not remotely related to what I said. — Tzeentch

The truth hurts you?

You are the one preaching antinatalism as a solution to your conflated moral issue, so the burden of proof is yours. — universeness

This is plainly false. I am not preaching or proposing anything.

I'm pointing out an inconsistency in the reasoning of those who choose to reproduce.

'It would be great to have something that is of me and you that will carry on the bloodlines.' — universeness

The offspring shall serve the parents' ego, then?

Why would I have to reject morality altogether? — universeness

It's either that or be a hypocrite. — Tzeentch

Based on what logic? — universeness

You stated:

But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. — universeness

You sought to dismiss my moral dilemma on the basis that the choice is purely a human construct.

All morality is a human construct.

So you're either consistent and dismiss morality altogether, or start cherry-picking (which is what you're doing) and are inconsistent, ergo a hypocrite.

Your attempt to ignore legacy — universeness

No, I call it out for what it is: irrational ego-driven vanity.

You won't have a leg to stand on if your argument doesn't involve the well-being of the person you just forced to participate in your project, so I would suggest starting there.

The offspring shall serve the parents' ego, then? — Tzeentch

No the offspring shall help to continue the species and the parent's legacy.

You sought to dismiss my moral dilemma on the basis that the choice is purely a human construct.
All morality is a human construct.
So you're either consistent and dismiss morality altogether, or start cherry-picking (which is what you're doing) and are inconsistent, ergo a hypocrite. — Tzeentch

Fogged logic. My main point is that life started in the universe without consent or permission and that is the evidence that defeats your moral dilemma. It has no relevance to the existence of life in this universe or its continuation.

No, I call it out for what it is: irrational ego-driven vanity.
You won't have a leg to stand on if your argument doesn't involve the well-being of the person you just forced to participate in your project, so I would suggest starting there. — Tzeentch

So, was the moment life formed in the universe immoral? Is an earthquake or a tsunami or a rainbow immoral according to your logic? I would suggest you start there and then move towards the well-being and sustaining of the life which arrived in the universe regardless of permission or consent from any source.

No, you don't seem to understand at all.

And you don't seem to understand what a proponent of the problem of evil believes either. — Bartricks

You're right, I don't understand much of what you're saying. I'm trying, but there are many things which are not making sense to me.

Let's start with the definition of The Problem of Evil - I'm going to echo back to you in my own words what I think you're saying. You can tell me if I'm understanding you or not.

Here is your original:
Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient, person.

and here is how I would phrase this:
Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. [OOO-Being]

Omnibenevolent was not in your original OP, I think we both agree that your argument requires this - otherwise the "person" could be evil. I also prefer using the word "being" to "person, your use of the word "person" is far afield of any other definition I know of. And I can't imagine any proponent of the problem of evil using the word "person" - they would use the word "God". I don't think this alters what you're saying, but if "person" is essential to your argument, then I need some more details to understand it.

Otherwise, for purposes of this particular discussion I am assuming that the definition/concept of an OOP Being is well formed and makes sense.

Next we have this:
Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.
this sensible world is an incredibly dangerous place, full of all manner of dangers and just about every conceivable harm.
Well said, I'll go with that.

My argument is addressed to those who believe that the evils of the world constitute evidence that God does not exist. — Bartricks

A proponent of the problem of evil [PPE] believes that it would be wrong for God to invest a world such as this one with innocent life. They point to the evils of the world and conclude that God would have prevented those. That's the basis upon which they believe God does not exist. — Bartricks

It seems like you're using the word "God" interchangeably with OOO Being, I'm OK with either, but if there is some specific context in which you use one over the other I'll need some more details.

Otherwise, I agree with this definition of the Problem of Eveil and what a PPE believes. However I want to expand a bit on this, just to make sure that my understanding is correct. Let's convert this into Ps & Qs.

Let P be the statement "God (an OOP Being) exists."
For purposes of this particular discussion I am assuming that this sentence makes sense and is either true or false.
Let Q be the sentence "The sensible world is free from all evil & violence"

So a PPE says this:
IF P THEN NECESSARILY Q.
NOT Q
Therefore NOT P
Here I'm assuming that P means the same thing as P IS TRUE

This could also be expressed as
IF NOT Q THEN NOT P
NOT Q
Therefore NOT P

Furthermore, there are countless numbers of religious people who acknowledge the evils of the world but still believe in God. These folks have numerous "hacks" to work around this contradiction, e.g., "We cannot understand the workings of God, what appears to be evil is just our mis-understanding the nature of God's goodness", etc, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Before I move on, have I so far described your thinking with reasonable accuracy?

No, you stumbled right at the first hurdle.

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.

Do you think you can understand me by deciding to change what I said rather than trying to understand why I said it?

If you want to understand someone, do not assume they don't know what they are saying. I mean, you'll never understand anyone if you do that.

I am not you. I do not think like you do. So try and understand why I left off omnibenevolent. Don't assume it was a mistake. Assume I knew exactly what I was doing

If an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being exists then we live in a utopia correct? (because they have all the knowledge and all the power to be good/establish goodness.)

But that is temporal in dynamic. No? So in theory such a being could exist in a world lacking knowledge (ignorance) therefore lacking potency (power) and therfore lacking benevolence (the choice to use knowledge and power for Good).

If this omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being just discovered their power, or was just born today, would it not take time for them to convince others (omniscience and omnipotence) to choose good (omnibenevolece).

As any good argument relies on omnipotency (irrefutable ethical imperative - no one can/ought to deny what's in their own best interests) and omniscience (irréfutable logic/reason- no one can/ought to deny what makes sense/is rational).

So really omnipotence and omniscience can be synthesised with one another into the statement "what's good for you to believe (ethics) and what's logical/rational for you to believe (reason) is harmless to you (benevolent).

That would satisfy all three conditions.