Re: If life is a benefit...

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 14:11:46 -0800, "Immortalist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"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? 

    Maybe the Gonad would say that mankind existed before the threat of the
monster became an issue. But that brings us back to whether or not future
humans could also benefit, if they didn't exist at the exact time of the monster's
non-existence. Well what of it Gonad? 

>Or how about "before
>they bawld to make a baby he arranged his economic house in order to benifit
>the one not yet concieved?"

    Oh no, not according to the Gonad method. He doesn't even believe that 
his own son benefits from anything, unless by now he understands the concept:
_________________________________________________________
From: Jonathan Ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Problems for Fuckwit, too
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:11:43 -0700
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  They don't because they can't conceive of the
idea of "benefit"
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

>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.
>>
>