XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.zen, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: epsteinrob@yahoo.com   
      
   DT wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
   >   
   > OK, how about this:  everybody...and I mean *EVERYBODY*... admit, right   
   > here, right now, that Fred is right.   
   >   
   > Then maybe he'll shut up...   
   >   
   > DT   
      
      
   ha ha   
      
      
   I wish I could stop...   
      
   Robert   
      
      
   = = = = = = =   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)