XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen   
   XPost: rec.boats   
   From: oxtail@nowhere.org   
      
   Fred C. Dobbs wrote:   
      
   > On 6/24/2010 8:58 AM, oxtail wrote:   
   >> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> All it means is wanting the animals to exist.  If someone wants the   
   >>> animals that Fuckwit wishes to eat to exist, then Fuckwit says the   
   >>> person has "consideration for their lives".  If someone doesn't want   
   >>> those animals to exist, then Fuckwit shrieks they have "no   
   >>> consideration for their lives", and he berates them for not wanting   
   >>> the animals to exist.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> He might not be expressing it convincingly,   
   >   
   > You can say that again.  Never mind, I will:  He isn't presenting it   
   > convincingly.   
   >   
   >   
   >> but he appears to be sincere   
   >   
   > I think not.  He blabbers quite often about animal welfare, but he has   
   > written numerous things over the years indicating he doesn't really care   
   > about animal welfare.  I'll post those separately.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> the gist of what he is trying say is LoL that has support of several   
   >> philosophers.   
   >>   
   >>    "The Logic of the Larder""(LL): We do animals a favor by purchasing   
   >>    meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not purchase these products,   
   >>    fewer animals would exist (Stephen, 1896). LL results from the   
   >>    common notion that the supply of farm animals roughly follows the   
   >>    demand for their products; and the less common notion that the world   
   >>    is made better off by having more animals in existence.   
   >>    Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2005) 18: GAVERICK   
   >>    MATHENY and KAI M. A. CHAN   
   >>    HUMAN DIETS AND ANIMAL WELFARE: THE ILLOGIC OF THE LARDER   
   >   
   > Matheny is *disputing* the LoL, you idiot.   
   >   
   >   
   >> It can be wrong,   
   >> but it does not appear to be nonsensical to me.   
   >   
   > It is nonsensical.  Coming into existence is not a benefit.  The   
   > fundamental premise of LoL is that coming into existence *is* a benefit,   
   > and clearly it is not.  A benefit is something that improves the welfare   
   > of the beneficiary, and clearly existence does not improve an entity's   
   > welfare - it establishes it.  If I take some wood and build a table, I   
   > have not "improved" a table.  It is immaterial if you think I have   
   > "improved" the wood; the entity that has come into existence is the   
   > table, and it was not improved upon by being built.   
   >   
   > LoL is nonsense.   
      
      
   That's just your opinion.   
   Actually the "coming into existence" part is   
   most interesting to me.   
   I don't care about your clueless opinion.   
   I don't think even the authors of the article are   
   fully qualified for the task at hand.   
   Do you know of any famous thinker who thinks   
   that "the world is" NOT "made better off   
   by having more animals in existence"?   
      
   Is the world better off for having more animals?   
      
   First thing first:   
   what kind of question is this?   
   Factual?   
   Legal?   
   Ethical?   
   Ontological?   
   Religious?   
   Buddhist?   
   Zen?   
      
   --   
   Oxtail is not doing what he thinks he is doing here.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)