On Mar 23, 6:15*pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Mar 23, 1:13*pm, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
> > >On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
> > >> >Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
> > >> >include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
> > >> >"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
> > >> >addressing your points.
>
> > >> * * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
> > >> the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
> > >> birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
> > >> with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
> > >> mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
> > >> no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
> > >> comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.
>
> > >> >Your question about whether speciesism can be
> > >> >"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.
>
> > >> * * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
> > >> other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
> > >> very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
> > >> doing it anyway.
>
> > >> >There will
> > >> >probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.
>
> > >> * * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
> > >> we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
> > >> haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
> > >> fact?
>
> > >> >I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
> > >> >will arrive at.
>
> > >> * * My guess is that you want to support the elimination
> > >> objective.
>
> > >> >It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
> > >> >chapter before we discuss the matter further.
>
> > >> * * That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
> > >> If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
> > >> probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
> > >> any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
> > >> get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
> > >> thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
> > >> who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
> > >> AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
> > >> minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
> > >> to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.
>
> > >We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen.
>
> > * * Wow. Have there really been two other people who can
> > appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of
> > possitive value?
>
> Carl Cohen has not commented on the issue of whether it is a "good
> thing" to bring animals into existence so that they can have lives of
> "positive value". In his essay "Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian", R.
> M. Hare takes a position similar to yours. You might like to have a
> look. The essay appears in the anthology "Singer and his Critics". I
> can find the original reference for you one of these days.
>

You might find it profitable to look at Part IV of Derek Parfit's
"Reasons and Persons". That is an exploration of some issues about the
ethics of decisions which involve bringing individuals into existence
who would not otherwise have existed. Parfit explores theses issues
and discusses some paradoxes which he does not know how to solve. Also
of interest might be Appendix G to that book, "Whether Causing Someone
to Exist Can Benefit This Person". That might give you ammunition in
your debate with Jonathan Ball.

I would suggest that reading these parts of Parfit's book, and maybe
some of the literature which that part of the book has generated,
would help you to think more clearly about these issues and strengthen
your arguments for your views (assuming you still retain them, another
possibility is that exploring the literature might lead you to change
your views).

The objection I usually raise against your views is "Do you
distinguish between the human and nonhuman cases, and if so on what
grounds?" I have never really managed to get clear on what your answer
to this one is. I think you need to do more to clarify this issue.