On 6/30/2010 1:18 PM, oxtail wrote:
Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

On 6/30/2010 10:56 AM, 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,

I am more than smart enough for that, but that isn't the issue. The
issue is whether or not those beings "benefit" from coming into
existence, and they do not.


Did you "benefit from coming into existence"?

Of course not - no living entity does. I benefit from things that
happen within my existence, because those things improve my welfare; but
coming into existence /per se/ did not improve my welfare, so by
definition it was not a benefit.

I know you get this. We all know you do. We all know you're just
****ing around wasting time playing a ****witted, ****-4-braincell "zen
game". This is not in rational dispute.