"If my analysis is right, it voids every argument relying on such evaluative statements to claim animals are included in antinatalism. This doesn't mean animals aren't included in antinatalism. It only means these particular arguments fail. But from what I've seen, every argument in favor of animals being included in antinatalism is based on categorizing these kinds of evaluative statements as antinatalist."
Can any statement ever be used to argue for one thing exclusive of everything else? Even something like "The Bible is true" can't be used exclusively to argue for Christianity. It could be used to argue for gnosticism, satanism, or any of the many denominations of Christianity which have different conclusions. But that doesn't make it wrong to say the Bible is the foundation of Christianity. Though I wouldn't say the Bible could be argued as the foundation for much else. But that's because the Bible being correct is a very specific thing. "suffering is bad" can be the foundation of many different conclusions, correct. But neither does that void all arguments based on broad statements from which many arguments can be derived. If I have the statement "you will get sun burn in the Sahara desert" I can argue multiple things: "you should wear appropriate clothing in the Sahara desert" or "you should avoid the Sahara desert" or "you should fry eggs on rocks in the Sahara desert". These arguments can all be correct, not all null and void. And can all claim the premise as being foundational to the conclusion. Thoughts?
My guess is there aren't any statements that can ever be used to argue for one thing exclusive of everything else.
Your example of "the Bible is true" is useful because people presume it to be a uniquely christian evaluative statement just because it contains the word "bible", much the same as antinatalists presume many statements about suffering and procreation to be a uniquely antinatalist evaluative statements. But as your example shows, this isn't correct.
I think your final point aligns with what I'm saying. I'm not saying different arguments are void because they share evaluative statements. I'm saying evaluative statements aren't domain specific and can be used for different kinds of arguments. Is this what you mean?
Can any statement ever be used to argue for one thing exclusive of everything else? Even something like "The Bible is true" can't be used exclusively to argue for Christianity. It could be used to argue for gnosticism, satanism, or any of the many denominations of Christianity which have different conclusions. But that doesn't make it wrong to say the Bible is the foundation of Christianity. Though I wouldn't say the Bible could be argued as the foundation for much else. But that's because the Bible being correct is a very specific thing. "suffering is bad" can be the foundation of many different conclusions, correct. But neither does that void all arguments based on broad statements from which many arguments can be derived. If I have the statement "you will get sun burn in the Sahara desert" I can argue multiple things: "you should wear appropriate clothing in the Sahara desert" or "you should avoid the Sahara desert" or "you should fry eggs on rocks in the Sahara desert". These arguments can all be correct, not all null and void. And can all claim the premise as being foundational to the conclusion. Thoughts?
My guess is there aren't any statements that can ever be used to argue for one thing exclusive of everything else.
Your example of "the Bible is true" is useful because people presume it to be a uniquely christian evaluative statement just because it contains the word "bible", much the same as antinatalists presume many statements about suffering and procreation to be a uniquely antinatalist evaluative statements. But as your example shows, this isn't correct.
I think your final point aligns with what I'm saying. I'm not saying different arguments are void because they share evaluative statements. I'm saying evaluative statements aren't domain specific and can be used for different kinds of arguments. Is this what you mean?