Re: If life is a benefit...

Immortalist 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?

No, stupid:  mankind exists.

What the hell is wrong with you?

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

Nope.

> 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.