View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2008, 10:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,,misc.rural
Dutch Dutch is offline
external usenet poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default Goo can't do the math

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:00:38 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote

When a being has a life of positive value it is "good" because
we consider things of positive value to be good, Goo.

A good life is good *for them*

Yet when considering them you insanely insist we disregard
that very significant aspect of the situation.

Not at all.

provided and because they exist,

Not because they exist

Yes, only because they exist.

but because we consider things of
positive value to be good.

Good *for them* only if they exist.

If they exist and their life is of negative
value, people who can make a distinction wouldn't consider the
lives of negative value to be good FOR THE ANIMALS.

Right, for them, always *for them*, it has nothing to do with us.

can NOT make such a distinction because doing so makes you
feel dirty, and you think considering the animals themselves is

No, you don't have it yet.

better than a shit life,

Since you can't take good lives into consideration, you can't
consider the difference between good lives and bad without
feeling dirty and sick.

No, you still aren't getting it.

you have not shown it to be *just good, per se*,

A life of positive value is good because we consider things
of positive value to be "good". It's fairly simple: good=good

you can't.

The purity of your selfishness

Nope, you don't have it yet.