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

On 6/4/2023 9:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 4:03:58 AM 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 animal", 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 miserable existence, we may be tempted to think "Isn't it true to say that is 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 should 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 fortunate 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 still, 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 initial 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 immediately obvious to everyone more intelligent than David Harrison, and that you know this and you're doing a good public service by repeatedly pointing this out?
> 
> Anyway. Your goal in writing this post is whatever it was, and you did say "Discuss"... so... I've discussed a bit.

I guess the mathematics thing didn't work out too well for you, eh?