tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post2683638766444418786..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: Better to have existed than not at all?Jean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-66343033079963363332012-09-21T07:02:31.367-05:002012-09-21T07:02:31.367-05:00I think there really is a major difference here th...I think there really is a major difference here that he's trying to flag. Take "helping" first. If someone's in a bad situation--trapped in a closet for example--you help them by getting them out. "Harming" or "victimizing" is just the opposite--you force them from freedom into the closet. Helping or harming in this sense are clearly things you can only do Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-64105209407203167982012-09-21T00:49:12.708-05:002012-09-21T00:49:12.708-05:00Hi Jean,
You say that on McMahan's view, &quo...Hi Jean,<br /><br />You say that on McMahan's view, "we can't harm someone by creating her--she doesn't go from better to worse by coming into existence (even if her life will be full of pain)." <br /><br />But I wonder if there is a conception of "harm" that might be consistent with McMahan's view that creating Betty would be bad for her. For McMahan, if BettySpencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01066089293772059329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-33942065261735972112012-09-20T19:51:11.518-05:002012-09-20T19:51:11.518-05:00I added some thoughts to the post, but I should sa...I added some thoughts to the post, but I should say-- I haven't had time to study the entire paper closely. <br /><br />Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-46231139776061054902012-09-20T19:38:14.094-05:002012-09-20T19:38:14.094-05:00In case anyone is interested, I blog about McMahan...In case anyone is interested, I blog about McMahan's article here: http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/whats-wrong-with-happy-meat/Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01066089293772059329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-27743739567479391742012-09-20T19:35:57.051-05:002012-09-20T19:35:57.051-05:00Ultimately, in the article, McMahan comes down aga...Ultimately, in the article, McMahan comes down against "benign carnivorism". He says, "The animals’ interest in continuing to live outweighs the human interest in eating them. That those who now want to kill the animals had earlier caused them to exist-–an act that was good for them-–is, at this point, irrelevant. One cannot plausibly claim that in killing them one would be Aeolushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15772583359516799143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-33706685703134467342012-09-20T06:18:39.382-05:002012-09-20T06:18:39.382-05:00I replied to an analogous argument just recently.<a href="http://tom.bradschetl.de/blog/2012/08/02/answering-will-crouch-an-argument-in-favour-of-eating-meat/" rel="nofollow">I replied</a> to an analogous argument just recently. Tomhttp://tom.bradschetl.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-76377457994413818182012-09-19T19:58:47.815-05:002012-09-19T19:58:47.815-05:00Wayne,
Yes, I think that's what McMahan is sa...Wayne,<br /><br />Yes, I think that's what McMahan is saying: the terms "better" and "worse" are comparative, so (1) implicitly involves comparing the well-being of an existing cow to one who never existed. But it doesn't make sense to talk about the well-being of someone who never existed.Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01066089293772059329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-81941333256155266042012-09-19T11:16:06.590-05:002012-09-19T11:16:06.590-05:00Is 1 incoherent because there is no cow to compare...Is 1 incoherent because there is no cow to compare to? If so than 3 could be coherent.... Unless he doesn't like talking about possible worlds. <br />Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-56951953909066898572012-09-17T14:51:13.463-05:002012-09-17T14:51:13.463-05:00I blogged about Jeff McMahan's paper in which ...I blogged about Jeff McMahan's paper in which he made the claim: http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/whats-wrong-with-happy-meat/<br /><br />Wayne,<br /><br />I think McMahan would say we need to distinguish two claims:<br /><br />1) It is better or worse for an individual cow to exist than to never have existed. <br /><br />2) It is good or bad for an individual cow to exist than to Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01066089293772059329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-11943180019580719312012-09-17T11:14:46.202-05:002012-09-17T11:14:46.202-05:00It depends how you set up your measure of "go...It depends how you set up your measure of "good" and "better". It seems to me that A is better than B if A is "more good" than B, and makes sense if we can measure the "goodness" of both A and B. If the individual doesn't not exist, I don't think we can say that anything is good (or bad) for him. Thus, nothing can be better for him. So, existence isAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-11234235137472246632012-09-17T10:45:02.860-05:002012-09-17T10:45:02.860-05:00No need to assume impossible cows here (existing n...No need to assume impossible cows here (existing non-existent cows are impossible cows). The comparison is either between utility states, or subjective states.<br /><br />If its utility states, then we're comparing the world with the cow, vs without the cow, and how much utility is in that world. We're supposed to come to the conclusion that we need THINGS (not necessarily cows) to be Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.com