 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
Initial existence is NOT a benefit
> 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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Initial existence is NOT a benefit
JG wrote:
> > 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. *Continued* life may contingently be a benefit, although it isn't life, but rather the things - benefits - that life brings. Life _per se_ - being born - can never be a benefit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Initial existence is NOT a benefit
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:55:09 -0500, "JG" > wrote:
> 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 Life itself is the benefit which makes all others possible. Nothing can benefit if it's not alive. That doesn't mean that the individual lives of every living thing are a benefit to every individual. Those are two (or billions of) entirely different subjects. We know the word life has more than one meaning, as do many other words. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Initial existence is NOT a benefit
****WIT David Harrison wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:55:09 -0500, "JG" > wrote: > > > 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 > > > Life itself is the benefit which makes all others possible. Life itself is NOT a benefit, ****WIT. It cannot be. > Nothing can benefit if it's not alive. Exactly, ****WIT! Since there was no entity to receive the benefit prior to being alive, and since "benefit" requires a beneficiary, life itself CANNOT be a benefit. > That doesn't mean that the individual > lives of every living thing are a benefit to every individual. The individual lives themselves CANNOT be a benefit, ****WIT. Everyone sees it but you. You are uniquely stupid. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Initial Tasting | Winemaking | |||
| Initial Tasting | Winemaking | |||
| To all atheist:The Existence of God, glorified & exalted is He | General Cooking | |||
| various initial quesions... | Historic | |||
| Low initial SG with white kit: 1.050, not 1.060-1.070 | Winemaking | |||
Hybrid Mode
