Re: If life is a benefit...

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:55:26 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:14:26 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> >> >
> >> >Life is not a benefit. Life is not an argument. Logical certainty and
> >loss
> >> >are meaningless, unthinkable, and impossible without the existence of
> >some
> >> >being capable of  harboring them. To the best of our knowledge humans
are
> >> >the only beings capable of  logical certainty. Other (some) critters
are,
> >I
> >> >believe, capable of a sense of loss. Both cases require life;
> >specifically
> >> >animal life.
> >>
> >>     Life is the benefit which makes all others possible. If it were
not,
> >then
> >> things which are not alive would be able to benefit.
> >
> >Benefits and deficits are value judgements. One needs to be alive to make
> >them. Yes it is a benefit to be alive if one wants to make value
judgements.
> >But wait - one needs to be alive to want!. Life is not a benefit. Please:
> >how exacty do none living things benefit?
>
>     That's the point. Life is the benefit which makes all others possible.
> The matter which composes all life forms existed in other forms before
> composing the present being. Did it benefit then? Does it benefit now?
> Can matter benefit? Maybe not only is life the benefit which makes all
> others possible, but it may be that whatever "life" is, is the only thing
> capable of benefitting.
>
> >That doesn't mean
> >> that the individual lives of all creatures are a benefit--some are and
> >some
> >> are not. But there is a big difference between life itself, and the
> >individual
> >> life an animal experiences. It's rather hard to believe, but it appears
> >that
> >> some people can't understand the difference between the two, probably
> >> because the same word is being used to denote two different ideas.
> >
> >I fail to see were that double meaning pertains in the original post. Yes
> >there is Life; yes there are individual lives. So what?
>
>     It has been suggested (stupidly imo) that if life is a benefit, then
alll
> lives must be a benefit regardless of their quality.

So you think that life is a benefit and that the suggestion that life is a
benefit is stupid. That's an interesting point of view.

>
> >> >If life never existed it could not possibly be a loss. We can
> >> >contemplate the extinction of all life and make value judgments as to
> >> >whether or not it is a loss (noting that the extinction is, in one
sense,
> >a
> >> >definite loss. Extinction = all life - all life. - as subtraction is a
> >> >lessing or loss), but never existing at all prohibits the possibility
of
> >> >loss - one needs something to loose.
> >> >
> >>
> >
>