JethroUK© wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> news >
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUK©" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
>>>>>>> if animals come into existence?
>>>>
>>>>It would be better for:
>>>>
>>>>1/ That particular animal
>>>>2/ Animal Kind
>>>>3/ My sandwich
>>>>4/ World as a whole
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that's four things.
>>
>>Four unimportant and/or wrong pieces of crap.
>>
>
>
> i can imagine you thinking my sandwich is unimportant (but it is to me) -
> but how can you describe:
>
> An animals life
> Animal Kind
> World
>
> as unimporatant?

It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
"gets to exist".

"animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
entities have interests.

"the world" doesn't have interests.

Your answers are absurd: it can't be "better" for any
of those things that animals are born and "get to
experience life". One thing is for certain: life -
basic existence - is NOT a "benefit" to any animal.