On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:30:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:05:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
>>>
>>>>I believe that existence is a benefit.
>>>
>>>No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an
>>>entity better off; that is, something that improves the
>>>welfare of an entity.
>>>
>>>Prior to existing, the entity DIDN'T HAVE a welfare
>>>that could be improved. Thus, initial existence did
>>>not improve the entity's welfare, and initial existence
>>>therefore CANNOT be a benefit.
>>
>>
>> Life is the benefit which
>
>Life per se is not a benefit at all. Coming into
>existence does not improve the welfare of the entity
>that comes into existence.

[Parfit is concerned with the difficulty we face in finding
a suitable theoretical framework to justify some widely
shared intuitions about what we owe posterity. One of
these intuitions, which we might call the Principle of
Chronological Impartiality, is that the interests of individuals
should not be disregarded, or discounted, on the grounds
of temporal remoteness, any more than they should be on
the grounds of spatial remoteness. To do so would be a
form of chronochauvinism.]
http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/pubs/posspersons.html