Re: If life is a benefit...

"Jonathan Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>

But some genetic freaks are to far gone to be born or I mean they wouldn't
survive after being born.

> 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.
>

When a bird begins to nest and trys to attract breeding partners is the
benifit of it's unconcieved in the equation?

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