On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:

>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>
>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>creature.

Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
possible.