Re: If life is a benefit...

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:09:07 -0800, "Immortalist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
><[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 

    I don't believe that's how it works.

>forsaw in
>some way or another its prospects and makes choices that influence the
>freaque, 

    I don't believe that one either.

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