Re: If life is a benefit...

"Jonathan Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Immortalist wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
> >>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
> >
> >
> > What is a benifit?
>
> Something that makes an EXISTING entity better off than
> he was before receiving the something.
>

Then a sentence like, "it was a benifit to mankind that the genetic monster
wasn't born" is not allowable in your language law? Or how about "before
they bawld to make a baby he arranged his economic house in order to benifit
the one not yet concieved?"

What is the opposite of benifit or something that makes worse?

Better yet please use it in a couple of sentences that make it as clearly
absurd as you are claiming.

> That is why life _per se_ cannot be a benefit:  there
> was no existing entity prior to being alive.
>