Re: If life is a benefit...

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
>

If evolution is true and the first monkee to have a freaky human forsaw in
some way or another its prospects and makes choices that influence the
freaque, did it happen before or after mankind?

> >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"
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>
> >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.
> >>
> >
>