deserves to be carefully examined and refuted. Its fallacy arises from a confusion of ideas about “life,” as compared with previous existence or non-existence.
Now, animals either exist or do not exist before the commencement of “ life." If they do exist, this ante-natal condition may, for all we know, be a happier state than “life,” and it is therefore absurd to assert that we do animals a kindness in breeding them. On the other hand, if we assume, as seems most probable, that they do not exist before birth, how can the transition from non-existence to existence be shown to be an advantage? That which is non-existent is alike beyond the reach of pleasure or pain, and the terms “good” “bad,” “better,” “worse,” can only apply to that which is already existent. Of the non-existent we can predicate just this—nothing. To say, therefore. that we have done a kindness to our born flocks in giving them life, is as sheer and utter nonsense as to say that we have done an unkindness to our unborn flocks, in not making Special arrangements for their birth! Or, in other words, a man brings more happiness into the world, in exact proportion as he eats more flesh-meat and enlarges
