> wrote in message ...
> 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.


Life is only a benefit if actual benefits follow from its existence. If
only harm (or even net harm) is a consequence of the existence of a life,
how is it a benefit? Life is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
either benefit or harm, but is neither in itself.

JA Golczewski, Ph.D.
http://users.rcn.com/jigo/jg.HTM
Updates, free book on health and life-extension