Re: "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for livestock
"poster" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"Willie Denson" <678.714.5764@georgia_bell.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 10/24/2021 10:49 AM, poster wrote: >> "678.714.5764" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> Discuss. >> >> If livestock doesn't get to experience life, then no, there wouldn't be >> any >> benefit to it. It does get to experience life, and therein lies the >> benefit >> to it. >> >> > > "Getting to experience life" in the first place, which is Fuckwit's > tortured expression for coming into existence, is not a benefit in any > way. An entity must already exist in order to realize any benefit. Livestock does already exist as a separate entity, as a collection of animals bred for our benefit. An entity doesn't have to realize a benefit to benefit. > A benefit is an improvement in the welfare of an entity. Livestock doesn't have a welfare but it does benefit by growing in size when more animals are bred into it, much like a company might benefit with more floor space, more machinery, more staff. > Coming into existence does not improve the welfare of any entity - it > establishes the entity and its welfare, but it does not improve it. > > "Getting to experience life," i.e. coming into existence, is not a benefit > for livestock or any other welfare-bearing entity. Livestock doesn't have a welfare.