Dietary ethics
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:10:38 -0700, Goo agreed:
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:10:32 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:52:17 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>*you*, Goo, think of them as existing
>>>"in some sense"
>>
>>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>
>>""Pre-existence": this is Goo's problem, and only Goo's
>>problem." - Goo
>>
>>"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
>>is *NOT* the topic." - Goo
>>
>>"you still cannot demonstrate, ever, why it is "beneficial"
>>for souls to incarnate and experience this meaning." - Goo
>>
>>"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
>>existing entities" - Goo
>>
>>"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
>>its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged." - Goo
>>
>>"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
>>might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
>>"pre-existence" state was" - Goo
>>
>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>not make them better off than before they existed." - Goo
>>
>>"Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
>>improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
>>life we can detect" - Goo
>
>You, Goo, think the animals "pre-exist" - not in dispute.
"we don't know if that move" - Goo
|