What's that got to do with anything? — Bartricks

I cited 2 things that would make producing art obligatory:

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

In an attempt to refute 1 you say:

First, you clearly know nothing about art or artists if you think any of those artists I mentioned didn't know they were creating era defining work. Believe me, most great artists - most great anything - knew full well they were great at the time. — Bartricks

I pointed out that knowing one is a great artist does not give one good reason to think his next painting will bring much good (it does not satisfy 1). Picasso might have known he was a great artist, but he could not have known his next paintings would ever bring much good. Similar to how a gold medalist could not know that he will get another gold medal on the next Olympics, or even a bronze. Thus, Picasso was under no obligation to create art despite satisfying 2 (again, due to not satisfying 1).

You have provided no evidence to the contrary. — Bartricks

Except I have, and you continuously ignore it:

it is not morally required. Why? Because omitting to create such works does not show disrespect to any person or to any object. — Bartricks

There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatory. — khaled

Those were the only falsehoods in your reply that are correctable. The rest show a confusion so profound I wouldn't know where to begin. You have shown that there is no merit in debating you, so I will take my leave now.

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.

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. — Bartricks

Has TPF fallen to this level of intellectual discourse? :roll:

Just the threads by Bart. And they haven’t fallen anywhere, they were always like this.

What do you mean?

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. — Bartricks

No. I’m saying what I find to be intuitively true. Which is that when 1 and 2 are met, artists have an obligation to create art. And now you will just say “Ah, you disagree with my premises therefore you are too far gone” as usual. It’s like a script with you.

Again, why do you post here if you don’t want your premises to be doubted? You keep harping about self evident truths but cannot conceive that what is self evident for one is not self evident for another.

But even when not doubting your premises, I already said why your explanation is bad. Why have you not addressed this? If you don’t again, I can only assume it’s because you cannot.

There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatory — khaled

Maybe the reason you (and I) cannot find a good explanation for both statements to be true is that they’re not both true.

No. I’m saying what I find to be intuitively true. Which is that when 1 and 2 are met, — khaled

1 and 2 are refuted by this argument:

1. If one is obliged to do that which would promote good when doing so is easy, then someone possessed of talent who can exercise it with ease would be obliged to exercise it, other things being equal.
2. Those possessed of talent are not obliged to exercise it, even if they can do so with ease
3. Therefore one is not obliged to do that which would promote good when doing so is easy.

Now, this thread isn't actually about whether 2 is true or not. It is intuitively clear that it is. This thread is about how best to explain this, given that we are obliged not to destroy anything that is beautiful and already in existence.

Again, why do you post here if you don’t want your premises to be doubted? — khaled

One wants intelligent criticism, not mindless naysaying. That's not intellectually challenging. It's just tedious.

Maybe the reason you (and I) cannot find a good explanation for both statements to be true is that they’re not both true. — khaled

Er, I can explain it and did. Jesus. Read the OP.

Ok Bart.