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

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:03:58=E2=80=AFAM UTC+2, Rat & Swan wrote:
> Discuss.

Pretty fair to ask, really, what do you mean by saying that?

So okay sure we get your main point, that if you're considering a situation=
 where no actual animal exists and we merely have at most a "potential anim=
al", then there is no entity there that stands to "enjoy a benefit" if the =
"coming into existence" happens.

Then, on the other hand, if we contemplate an animal leading a completely m=
iserable existence, we may be tempted to think "Isn't it true to say that i=
s was a misfortune for that being to come into existence, and other things =
equal those who were able to prevent it from happening if they had known sh=
ould have done so", then having gone that far, maybe we're tempted to also =
say "So it is at least somewhat reasonable to speak of happy beings being f=
ortunate to have come into existence, whether or you not you talk about it =
being in some way morally obligatory to bring such beings into existence if=
 you can, which is a separate issue". So you have that thought as well.

And of course I've shown you articles written by professional philosophers =
on this topic in the past, on which you've poured unmeasured scorn. But sti=
ll, above I have outlined two thoughts that might be had on the topic, one =
of which you probably endorse, and the other of which has at least some ini=
tial plausibility about it.

And is there really anything more to be said? Do you think this is in some =
way a question with an objective answer, perhaps an answer that is immediat=
ely obvious to everyone more intelligent than David Harrison, and that you =
know this and you're doing a good public service by repeatedly pointing thi=
s out?

Anyway. Your goal in writing this post is whatever it was, and you did say =
"Discuss"... so... I've discussed a bit.