Re: If life is a benefit...

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:30:54 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
><[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.

    Life itself and individual lives are entirely different things. You acted
like you understood that, and now you act as if you feel they're the
same thing. Just because life is a benefit, it doesn't mean that every
indivual life is a benefit.

>> >> >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.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>