dh@. wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
>>>>>>right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.
>>>>>
>>>>> But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?
>>>>
>>>>No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
>>>>consumer.
>>>
>>>
>>> So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to experience
>>>a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it to
>>>happen?
>>
>>You can feel good about a "decent" life as opposed to a
>>painful life. You may not legitimately feel good about
>>the animal living versus never living, which is what's
>>always lurking behind your nonsense about "decent
>>life".
>
>
> That's all there is. An animal that would be born as a grass raised
> steer isn't going to be born as a different kind of animal if it's not born
> as a grass raised steer, for example.

There is no moral good *to the animal* that results
from it being born at all.