Re: "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit to animals

On 2020-11-04 8:09 a.m., Rupert wrote:
> On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 11:54:47 PM UTC+2, Rat & Swan wrote:
>> Discuss.
> 
> You're wanting to talk about whether existence is a benefit? Well, I quoted you Derek Parfit's discussion in I think it's Appendix G to "Reasons and Persons", and I also cited for you something that was written by Nils Hartog which was available for free on-line at the time (not sure if it still is). And you weren't all that thrilled. I take it you don't want to go to published literature then, you just want to talk about it. So okay.
> 
> So remind me again what your argument is, you can't speak of there being an entity prior to the event of coming into existence so therefore you can't speak of a benefit? Okay, fair enough, that's an argument. Are you familiar with modal logic at all? The way to put pressure on your argument would be to consider whether you'd given the correct analysis of the word "benefit". Which was precisely the point of the Hartog paper I showed you, but you didn't care.
> 
> Do you know possible world semantics for modal logic? In general, I can teach you Kripke semantics for propositional modal logic if you're at all interested, you might find it fun. Or even just classical propositional logic. But anyway.
> 

How's it going Rupert? I'd be interested to hear a brief summary of that 
Hartog argument. Can a *company*, an entity with interests, for example 
be said to benefit by coming into existence? It seems like a misuse of 
the word to me, designed to mount a semantic justification for the 
breeding of livestock as Salt says. Note that Ball, the prime opponent 
of the usage, is a staunch defender of raising livestock.