Re: Existence - not "better" than never existing

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:55:54 -0700
Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 21:12:08 +0100, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> <[email protected]>:
>=20
> >On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 12:34:23 -0700
> >Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:31:04 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Ron Hamilton
> >> <[email protected]>:
> >>=20
> >> >On 1/21/2011 10:18 AM, T. Howard Pines, Jr. wrote:
> >> >> Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not bett=
er than never=20
> >> >> existing.=A0 It can't be, because no such comparison can be made.=
=A0 Nor can=20
> >> >> existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
> >> >
> >> >Correct.
> >> >
> >> Agreed. While the stated comparison isn't, strictly speaking
> >> and AFAIK, a logical fallacy, it *is* an error in logic.
> >> >>=20
> >> >> In order to say that anything is better or worse for an entity, one=
 necessarily=20
> >> >> is talking about two different states of welfare or well-being for =
the entity. =20
> >> >> But an entity must exist in order to have a welfare state of well-b=
eing.=A0 Thus,=20
> >> >> the comparison between existence and non-existence, from the perspe=
ctive of the=20
> >> >> entity, cannot be made.=A0 It is absurd.
> >> >
> >> >Also correct.
> >
> >I think "David" no longer posts to Usenet.
> >
> >It's been 14 years since this "discussion"
> >
> "David"? I only see Ron and T. Howard.
>=20
He was a constant poster back then, with this very bee (about existence) in
his bonnet, Vegetarians were denying animals the right to be born and
experience life before being eaten.

> That aside, I didn't notice the age; thanks for the
> heads-up.
> >
OK.

--=20
Bah, and indeed Humbug.