Vegetarian Discussion: Harrison's Definition Of "life Of Positive Value"

Harrison's Definition Of "life Of Positive Value"
Posts: 27

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2010-03-04 16:35:20 EST
You define a "life of positive value" to be one that is on the whole
better than experiencing nothing, right? How am I supposed to go about
working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing? It is
not as though I can imagine what it is like to experience nothing.

D*@.
2010-03-07 12:30:51 EST
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
<*m@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You define a "life of positive value" to be one that is on the whole
>better than experiencing nothing, right?

No. If the experience itself is worth having. If it's not,
then it's of negative value.

>How am I supposed to go about
>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?

The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.

>It is
>not as though I can imagine what it is like to experience nothing.

You can imagine what it's like to experience what you do. The
value of life can and does change frequently in our lives too.
Say for example you don't have a broken rib, so you're not living
a life of agony with extra stabs every time you cough, or
laugh...and sneezing it hell. Then you do get one, and all the
pain that goes with it. During the time before you heal, life may
very well be of negative value, and if you would have to be that
way for the rest of your life you might want it to end fairly
soon.
There are countless examples. One more thing to think about
though, if you're actually trying....and something else to reject
if you're not....is the fact that animals raised for food don't
usually ever come in contact with death until it's their time, so
they don't have the mental burden of knowing they will die as
humans do. Also they die swiftly and unless it's a terrible
situation with little or no real agony. Humans on the other hand
often suffer for years, knowing the only end to the suffering is
death.

All of it needs to be taken into consideration. The bad as
well as the good. The good as well as the bad.

Dutch
2010-03-07 13:52:27 EST
<*h@.> wrote
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>How am I supposed to go about
>>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?
>
> The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
> especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
> would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.

That comparison is between two states where *something* is experienced, How
does that tell him what "experiencing nothing" is like?

The answer, and the fact that you seem unable to grasp, is that there is no
such thing as "experiencing nothing", therefore any statement that claims
that something is better than "experiencing nothing" is meaningless. I am
specifically referring to the statement, "A life of positive value is better
than no life."

Of course I understand that cognitive interference makes this sound like
gibberish to you, but it is true


D*@.
2010-03-08 16:06:47 EST
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:52:27 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>How am I supposed to go about
>>>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?
>>
>> The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
>> especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
>> would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.
>
>That comparison is between two states where *something* is experienced, How
>does that tell him what "experiencing nothing" is like?

It doesn't have to. If what he's experiencing is of negative
value then it is, regardless of anything to do with your
obsession with nonexistence. And if what livestock experience is
of negative value then it is, regardless of anything to do with
your obsession with nonexistence.

>The answer, and the fact that you seem unable to grasp, is that there is no
>such thing as "experiencing nothing", therefore any statement that claims
>that something is better than "experiencing nothing" is meaningless. I am
>specifically referring to the statement, "A life of positive value is better
>than no life."
>
>Of course I understand that cognitive interference makes this sound like
>gibberish to you, but it is true

The fact that you can't explain what you want people to think
nonexistence has to do with the value of life to existing beings,
is what makes your insistence that something does sound like
gibberish to me.

Rupert
2010-03-08 16:15:32 EST
On Mar 9, 8:06 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:52:27 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> >> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>How am I supposed to go about
> >>>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?
>
> >>    The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
> >> especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
> >> would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.
>
> >That comparison is between two states where *something* is experienced, How
> >does that tell him what "experiencing nothing" is like?
>
>     It doesn't have to. If what he's experiencing is of negative
> value then it is, regardless of anything to do with your
> obsession with nonexistence. And if what livestock experience is
> of negative value then it is, regardless of anything to do with
> your obsession with nonexistence.
>

How do I figure out whether what I am experiencing right now is of
positive or negative value?


Dutch
2010-03-08 23:22:30 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:smpap5lrh5nvaet72n7q6fpf8tpquhaud1@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:52:27 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>How am I supposed to go about
>>>>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?
>>>
>>> The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
>>> especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
>>> would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.
>>
>>That comparison is between two states where *something* is experienced,
>>How
>>does that tell him what "experiencing nothing" is like?
>
> It doesn't have to.

It absolutely does, it goes directly to the heart of why The Logic of the
Larder is senseless gibberish, and why calling life a benefit is illogical.

It you believe, state, or imply that experiencing life is better than
experiencing nothing then you need to have a concept of what "experiencing
nothing" is, and you don't, nobody does. You don't think about what your
words mean, I don't believe you have the intellect to do so.



D*@.
2010-03-10 11:45:39 EST
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:22:30 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:smpap5lrh5nvaet72n7q6fpf8tpquhaud1@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:52:27 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>>> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>How am I supposed to go about
>>>>>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?
>>>>
>>>> The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
>>>> especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
>>>> would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.
>>>
>>>That comparison is between two states where *something* is experienced,
>>>How
>>>does that tell him what "experiencing nothing" is like?
>>
>> It doesn't have to.
>
>It absolutely does,

It does not. It doesn't matter at all.

>it goes directly to the heart of why The Logic of the
>Larder is senseless gibberish, and why calling life a benefit is illogical.
>
>It you believe, state, or imply that experiencing life is better than
>experiencing nothing then you need to have a concept of what "experiencing
>nothing" is, and you don't, nobody does. You don't think about what your
>words mean, I don't believe you have the intellect to do so.

As long as life is of positive value it doesn't matter in the
least how it compares to nothing, it is still of positive value.


D*@.
2010-03-10 11:48:07 EST
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:15:32 -0800 (PST), Rupert
<*m@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mar 9, 8:06 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:52:27 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> ><dh@.> wrote
>> >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>> >> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>How am I supposed to go about
>> >>>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?
>>
>> >>    The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
>> >> especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
>> >> would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.
>>
>> >That comparison is between two states where *something* is experienced, How
>> >does that tell him what "experiencing nothing" is like?
>>
>>     It doesn't have to. If what he's experiencing is of negative
>> value then it is, regardless of anything to do with your
>> obsession with nonexistence. And if what livestock experience is
>> of negative value then it is, regardless of anything to do with
>> your obsession with nonexistence.
>>
>
>How do I figure out whether what I am experiencing right now is of
>positive or negative value?

Hmmm, if you can't figure that much out you are even more
clueless than I had thought. If you can't figure that one out on
your own it is definitely a question you should ask someone you
respect, and damn I wish I could see and hear how they respond if
you ever do ask someone.

If it's not so full of negative things that you wish you had
never been born, then it's of positive value. But if things
bother you to the point that you wish you did not exist, or that
you can not enjoy life overall, then it's of negative value.

Rupert
2010-03-10 12:56:12 EST
On Mar 11, 3:48 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 13:15:32 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
>
>
>
>
> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 9, 8:06 am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:52:27 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> >> >> <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>How am I supposed to go about
> >> >>>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?
>
> >> >> The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
> >> >> especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
> >> >> would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.
>
> >> >That comparison is between two states where *something* is experienced, How
> >> >does that tell him what "experiencing nothing" is like?
>
> >> It doesn't have to. If what he's experiencing is of negative
> >> value then it is, regardless of anything to do with your
> >> obsession with nonexistence. And if what livestock experience is
> >> of negative value then it is, regardless of anything to do with
> >> your obsession with nonexistence.
>
> >How do I figure out whether what I am experiencing right now is of
> >positive or negative value?
>
>     Hmmm, if you can't figure that much out you are even more
> clueless than I had thought. If you can't figure that one out on
> your own it is definitely a question you should ask someone you
> respect, and damn I wish I could see and hear how they respond if
> you ever do ask someone.
>
>     If it's not so full of negative things that you wish you had
> never been born, then it's of positive value. But if things
> bother you to the point that you wish you did not exist, or that
> you can not enjoy life overall, then it's of negative value.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If you gave me a choice between living the rest of my life with the
experiences of a broiler chicken and dying, I'd prefer to die. But
that may be in part due to my own personal preferences. I've come to
be highly attached to being a creature who is able to do sophisticated
mathematics.

See, what bothers me about this account you give is that it makes it
all too relative to personal preferences. If you would be content with
the life of a broiler chicken then that's great. But not everyone
would be. And it is entirely possible that the broiler chicken himself
or herself can't even formulate the question of whether he or she
would prefer to die.

Dutch
2010-03-10 15:02:39 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:43jfp5h11e6qqt1f0gb96607msg2sbc0mv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:22:30 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:smpap5lrh5nvaet72n7q6fpf8tpquhaud1@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 10:52:27 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 13:35:20 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>>>> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>How am I supposed to go about
>>>>>>working out what is better or worse than experiencing nothing?
>>>>>
>>>>> The next time you're in a very unpleasant situation,
>>>>> especially if it involves considerable pain, think about what it
>>>>> would be like to be that way your whole life. That's a start.
>>>>
>>>>That comparison is between two states where *something* is experienced,
>>>>How
>>>>does that tell him what "experiencing nothing" is like?
>>>
>>> It doesn't have to.
>>
>>It absolutely does,
>
> It does not. It doesn't matter at all.

It matters if you continue to believe that to experience life is better than
"experiencing nothing". If you continue to make that argument and imply it,
and you do, then it matters.

>>it goes directly to the heart of why The Logic of the
>>Larder is senseless gibberish, and why calling life a benefit is
>>illogical.
>>
>>It you believe, state, or imply that experiencing life is better than
>>experiencing nothing then you need to have a concept of what "experiencing
>>nothing" is, and you don't, nobody does. You don't think about what your
>>words mean, I don't believe you have the intellect to do so.
>
> As long as life is of positive value it doesn't matter in the
> least how it compares to nothing, it is still of positive value.

Compared to what? I'll tell you, compared to a life of suffering, not
compared to nothing. "A life of positive value" is better than a life of
suffering, NOT better than nothing. The Logic of the Larder is irrational
nonsense, and you're pushing it.


Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron