Re: If life is a benefit...

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:36:29 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:30:54 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:55:26 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:14:26 -0500, "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Life is not a benefit. Life is not an argument. Logical
certainty
> >and
> >> >> >loss
> >> >> >> >are meaningless, unthinkable, and impossible without the
existence
> >of
> >> >> >some
> >> >> >> >being capable of  harboring them. To the best of our knowledge
> >humans
> >> >are
> >> >> >> >the only beings capable of  logical certainty. Other (some)
> >critters
> >> >are,
> >> >> >I
> >> >> >> >believe, capable of a sense of loss. Both cases require life;
> >> >> >specifically
> >> >> >> >animal life.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>     Life is the benefit which makes all others possible. If it
were
> >> >not,
> >> >> >then
> >> >> >> things which are not alive would be able to benefit.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Benefits and deficits are value judgements. One needs to be alive
to
> >make
> >> >> >them. Yes it is a benefit to be alive if one wants to make value
> >> >judgements.
> >> >> >But wait - one needs to be alive to want!. Life is not a benefit.
> >Please:
> >> >> >how exacty do none living things benefit?
> >> >>
> >> >>     That's the point. Life is the benefit which makes all others
> >possible.
> >> >> The matter which composes all life forms existed in other forms
before
> >> >> composing the present being. Did it benefit then? Does it benefit
now?
> >> >> Can matter benefit? Maybe not only is life the benefit which makes
all
> >> >> others possible, but it may be that whatever "life" is, is the only
> >thing
> >> >> capable of benefitting.
> >> >>
> >> >> >That doesn't mean
> >> >> >> that the individual lives of all creatures are a benefit--some
are
> >and
> >> >> >some
> >> >> >> are not. But there is a big difference between life itself, and
the
> >> >> >individual
> >> >> >> life an animal experiences. It's rather hard to believe, but it
> >appears
> >> >> >that
> >> >> >> some people can't understand the difference between the two,
> >probably
> >> >> >> because the same word is being used to denote two different
ideas.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I fail to see were that double meaning pertains in the original
post.
> >Yes
> >> >> >there is Life; yes there are individual lives. So what?
> >> >>
> >> >>     It has been suggested (stupidly imo) that if life is a benefit,
> >then
> >> >alll
> >> >> lives must be a benefit regardless of their quality.
> >> >
> >> >So you think that life is a benefit and that the suggestion that life
is
> >a
> >> >benefit is stupid. That's an interesting point of view.
> >>
> >>     Life itself and individual lives are entirely different things. You
> >acted
> >> like you understood that, and now you act as if you feel they're the
> >> same thing. Just because life is a benefit, it doesn't mean that every
> >> indivual life is a benefit.
> >
> >What is your point? Where in my post are you getting this from? Where
> >exactly do I equate life in general with individual lives? So what if I
do -
> >again What is your point? The debate is this. Life (be it in general or
be
> >it in a specific instance) is not a benefit or it is.
>
>     It is the benefit which makes all others possible.
>
> >Webster's: ben*e*fit 1. anything that is advantageous or for the good of
a
> >person or thing.
>
>     How can non-living things benefit?

They can't.

>
> >> >> >> >If life never existed it could not possibly be a loss. We can
> >> >> >> >contemplate the extinction of all life and make value judgments
as
> >to
> >> >> >> >whether or not it is a loss (noting that the extinction is, in
one
> >> >sense,
> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> >definite loss. Extinction = all life - all life. - as
subtraction
> >is a
> >> >> >> >lessing or loss), but never existing at all prohibits the
> >possibility
> >> >of
> >> >> >> >loss - one needs something to loose.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>