XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, misc.rural   
      
   On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:00:38 GMT, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   > wrote   
   >   
   >>    When a being has a life of positive value it is "good" because   
   >> we consider things of positive value to be good, Goo.   
   >   
   >A good life is good *for them*   
      
       Yet when considering them you insanely insist we disregard   
   that very significant aspect of the situation.   
      
   >provided and because they exist,   
      
       Not because they exist but because we consider things of   
   positive value to be good. If they exist and their life is of negative   
   value, people who can make a distinction wouldn't consider the   
   lives of negative value to be good FOR THE ANIMALS. You   
   can NOT make such a distinction because doing so makes you   
   feel dirty, and you think considering the animals themselves is   
   "sick".   
      
   >better than a shit life,   
      
       Since you can't take good lives into consideration, you can't   
   consider the difference between good lives and bad without   
   feeling dirty and sick.   
      
   >you have not shown it to be *just good, per se*,   
      
       A life of positive value is good because we consider things   
   of positive value to be "good". It's fairly simple: good=good   
      
   >you can't.   
      
       The purity of your selfishness prevents you from considering   
   what's good for beings other than yourself, restricting you from   
   being able to appreciate when animals have lives of positive   
   value and from making a distinction between when they do   
   and when they don't. People who aren't so mentally   
   challenged can easily do what is impossible for you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)