Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
If you are arguing that them existing in their current state is a problem than you have to compare it to non-existence. I’m not arguing that unborn dogs suffer. Not-existing would be a neutral state. Existing could be better or worse then not existing. By saying non-existence would be better you need to be advocating that the overall suffering of dogs is greater than the joy of dogs being dogs.
So if the world does go vegetarian for ethical reasons then the non-existence of a cow should be compared to its existence and to the existence of whatever takes its place. If you don’t compare to non-existence why don’t we nuke the world to eliminate human suffering.
|
This is a nonsense argument. You can’t compare to the absence of existence because everything you’re weighing and placing value on is strictly concerned with existence, coming from someone whose value and weight on these issues comes solely from the fact that they exist. There’s nothing to measure against. What you’d actually be measuring is as you said: whether existing is better than death. That’s a different thing entirely.
For something that doesn’t exist, nothing has value. “Well, would a dog like to play fetch? Or would a dog prefer to not exist in the first place?” Spoiler: nothing prefers to not exist in the first place that doesn’t already exist, because preference is a condition of existence!
Bumface is right. You’re basically advocating a hardcore pro-life argument. Can’t allow abortions or birth control if the potential value of life is always better than not existing.
Plus dogs are gross, to reiterate.