oxtail wrote:

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:


A benefit is something that improves the welfare of an entity. Prior to
its existence, there is no entity and thus no welfare, so coming into
existence cannot improve an entity's welfare.

We do not "give the gift of life" to livestock animals by breeding them
into existence; we do not do them any "favor". We facilitate their
existence, but that existence is not a gift or benefit to them. No
matter how pleasant their lives might be once they do exist, existence
itself is not a benefit to them.

No harm would be inflicted on any animals if, suddenly and for whatever
reason, we were to stop breeding livestock animals into existence. The
fact that "billions of farm animals" would thereby never exist would
have no moral meaning to any animals. There would not be any lack of
consideration shown.



If you are not smart enough
to be concerned about the welfare
of sentient beings to be born in the future,
you have no business to worry
about what other people do or think.


You are confusing categories again. One can be concerned about future
animals' welfare because one anticipates that they *will* exist. One
can prepare for their welfare in advance to be ready for when they *do*
exist. This does not mean that coming into existence itself is part of
their welfare. Once a calf, for instance, is in gestation, it already
exists as an embryo or fetus. One can then be concerned with its
welfare, even before it is born, because it is an actual entity of some
kind. Prior to that preparation requires imagination because there is
no entity yet to deal with in any way.

Robert

= = = = = = = =