Replaceability argument

[1] In 1895, David George Ritchie used the argument in response to the assertions advanced for vegetarianism by Henry S. Salt in Animals' Rights (1892).

[6] In 1914, Salt published The Humanities of Diet, again engaging with the argument, which he termed the "logic of the larder".

A person who is already in existence may feel that he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the non-existent, he talks nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of which we can predicate nothing.In Animal Liberation, published in 1975, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer agreed with Salt's view.

Singer later changed his view while writing Practical Ethics, after being influenced by Derek Parfit's engagement with "impersonal wrongs" and the nonidentity problem.

[1] In her 2013 book Killing Happy Animals, Tatjana Višak engages with the argument within the context of utilitarianism.