XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com   
      
   Fred C. Dobbs wrote:   
      
   > It can't be.  To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily   
   > to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of   
   > welfare in this putative comparison.  It is abject nonsense to suggest a   
   > person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather   
   > than never existing, because the flip side is that the person would be   
   > "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to   
   > experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.   
   >   
   > This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare   
   > thinking he'd prefer to die.  Even then, it makes no sense for the   
   > person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence, because   
   > again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare.  It   
   > still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to want to   
   > die, if his existence is intolerable to him.   
      
      
   It all makes sense.  It just doesn't make sense to your short-sighted   
   logic which comes from your own way of defining reality.   
      
   Robert   
      
   - - - - - -   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)