User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-22 at 5:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus I'll throw the next punch:
So the only difference is that our way of expressing a response to our environment isn't understood? Where's your positive evidence that our feelings when we are threatened are categorically different than the response of the plant?
We understand very well how organisms respond to pain, and also by what mechanisms they perceive it. Plants don't present any signs that they're in pain, given all the many ways we've thought to measure it. They lack the structures that would enable them to feel pain. It's a well-established distinction between the different orders, or do you have evidence to the contrary?
I don't know that supplementing your argument with a theory of how plants might conceivably feel when we have no evidence that they do helps the claim that we should be eating meat, in any case. -
2018-03-22 at 5:47 AM UTCFurthermore, suppose that you can meet the burden of proof, and I believe you when you say that plants have feelings: that would be fine, my argument doesn't require their exclusion. Fruititarianism would be the next logical position, and we'd still be able to retain essential dietary components like nuts, seeds, legumes, etc. We've managed to fortify a lot of the food we eat with synthetically-derived vitamins and minerals already. It's not ideal from a cultural perspective, I'll agree with you on that, but neither is the needless suffering of all life arbitrarily cast beneath us.
-
2018-03-22 at 5:53 AM UTCYOU HEAR ME? I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PLANTS. LET THEM SUFFER IN MY GULLET AND CRY LITTLE GREEN TEARS.
WHAT ABOUT THE BIVALVES? NOBODY ASKS ABOUT THE BIVALVES!The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-22 at 5:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick We understand very well how organisms respond to pain, and also by what mechanisms they perceive it. Plants don't present any signs that they're in pain, given all the many ways we've thought to measure it. They lack the structures that would enable them to feel pain. It's a well-established distinction between the different orders, or do you have evidence to the contrary?
I don't know that supplementing your argument with a theory of how plants might conceivably feel when we have no evidence that they do helps the claim that we should be eating meat, in any case.
We're talking about that specific plant though. Would you grant that it feels pain? -
2018-03-22 at 6:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus We're talking about that specific plant though. Would you grant that it feels pain?
Oh, I may have wrongly assumed that you had intended to generalize the issue to make a claim about other plants as well. My apologies.
I don't have a spectacular command of biology, but my understanding is that its reaction is purely physical in nature. And furthermore, it's not a plant I would ever consider eating. Why is it being uniquely examined for sentience in this discussion, unless your intent is to perform the aforementioned generalization? -
2018-03-22 at 6:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Oh, I may have wrongly assumed that you had intended to generalize the issue to make a claim about other plants as well. My apologies.
I mean, it's possible. Let's not jump to conclusions.I don't have a spectacular command of biology, but my understanding is that its reaction is purely physical in nature.
That posits that our "feelings" are not purely physical in nature, or that you have some way to note that other things have non-physical response session, even though the only way you can observe or interact with them is purely physical, no?
If you're not claiming to be able to access this qualia, then your argument is essentially unfalsifiable and meaningless. If we found an alien creature and couldn't tell if it was a plant or a fungus or an animal, just some alien life form, how would you determine it could "feel"? How do you know it's not just a very convincing automaton if it expresses what you intuitively recognize to be emotion? What about a dog? When I kick it, it whelps and yelps but how do I know it has a mind? I mean this is Phil 101, my bub.And furthermore, it's not a plant I would ever consider eating.
Why is it being uniquely examined for sentience in this discussion, unless your intent is to perform the aforementioned generalization?
It is intended to test the limits of the premises of your philosophical belief. We don't speak in generalities in philosophy. The exceptions are what shatter theories, because theories are meant to be generalisable models, not special cases.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-22 at 6:52 AM UTCI'll be as specific as I can: I personally can't verify whether or not that particular plant feels what might be described as pain (I lack the equipment!) but I highly doubt it does. In any case, I've said that my argument is not predicated on its exclusion; there's room to make a case for the moral agency of all nonhuman entities which merit advocacy. I don't have a problem with the idea that plants have feelings. It's not supported, to the best of my knowledge, but I'd have no prejudice if the evidence began to mount. I don't need access to the qualia of plants to argue that causing lethal harm to defenseless animals is unconscionable, holy red herring.
-
2018-03-22 at 6:55 AM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 8:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus That posits that our "feelings" are not purely physical in nature, or that you have some way to note that other things have non-physical response session, even though the only way you can observe or interact with them is purely physical, no?
If you're not claiming to be able to access this qualia, then your argument is essentially unfalsifiable and meaningless. If we found an alien creature and couldn't tell if it was a plant or a fungus or an animal, just some alien life form, how would you determine it could "feel"? How do you know it's not just a very convincing automaton if it expresses what you intuitively recognize to be emotion? What about a dog? When I kick it, it whelps and yelps but how do I know it has a mind? I mean this is Phil 101, my bub.
Why do you think humans have qualia like yourself but your shoe doesn't? Of course you have no direct access to the experiential field of either thing, but you don't behave like your shoe has a mind or that other humans don't. The argument for animal ability and plant inability to suffer is not an abstract epistemological position made from first principles, it's an argument by analogy to more obvious, less controversial, cases (other humans, shoes) and motivates a moral position. Yes, it's possible that your shoe has experiences and you exploitation of it is wrong but we have no reason to suppose this is the case and act accordingly.
We assume other things, including people, have similar subjective experiences to ourselves (e.g. can feel something analogous to the qualia we have direct experiential access to) because their observable behaviors are like our own externally observable behaviors (external meaning non-experiential, which would include neurology), because they seem similar to a system we know to be capable of experiencing suffering. We know that reflexive action is neither necessary nor sufficient for the experience of suffering, so its presence or absence in plants doesn't say much. Machines can react in "reflexive" ways too, and in terms of being responsiveness to stimuli computers are more human-like than plants in meaningful ways, having visual systems and an ability to react in human time-scales or faster, and the "neurology" of a computer is structurally probably more similar to our own as our brains are to the information processing systems we see in plants. Yet we don't think our computers can suffer, at least not yet.
We don't need to lay out a specific set of biological or even functional requirements to make the case that plants fall on the inanimate object side of the "does this thing experience suffering" divide. Our criteria for suspecting experience in other things is similarity to ourselves, and since there are more similar thigns which uncontroversially do not have experiences, you would need to refute the status of these things before you could argue the case for plants -
2018-03-22 at 8:27 AM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 8:32 AM UTCIf Lanny got stabbed I would not even be mad.
-
2018-03-22 at 8:50 AM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 8:51 AM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 11:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I don't know, maybe I'm salty about salvaging my own arguments now that they've been drowned in a sea of idiots. I thought I had presented my position clearly, is there a specific criticism you'd like to offer, other than that we just should walk away and agree to believe different things?
I don't believe there is a "more correct" way of behaving. I don't believe there is a universal morality. I don't believe the "right thing to do is what I believe would be good if everyone did it too". I believe right and wrong is relative, from person to person and from person to animal to plant to mushroom. It's all just a bunch of stuff happening. Some people feel eating animals is wrong so they don't do it. But nobody has any obligation to do anything at all. If you can convince me why I should believe you I will.
Originally posted by Zanick You have read the arguments I've offered to you, as far as I can tell, which I appreciate. But, if your replies are any indication, I'm pretty sure that you're here to talk about plants. Please, no more about plants. I realize it's a fascinating subject, and there is an overlap, but you've made a successful thread about them already. This is a thread about whether or not to eat meat.
I already stopped talking about plants. But it appears you have started talking about plants again with other posters. Maybe the plant argument actually has something to it?
Originally posted by Zanick For or against, this debate relies upon friendly disagreement. If you don't take a position and dig your heels in, it's not going to be fun for either of us. IRL I also prefer to 'live-and-let-live' but this is a discussion forum, and we're disagreeing for a reason.
If you dont want to talk a out plants lets focus on the morality aspect. As I've stated before I don't believe not eating meat is "more correct" than eating meat. I believe morality is relative. Unless you can convince me of my so-called moral obligation, I don't believe it actually exists. -
2018-03-22 at 12:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't believe there is a "more correct" way of behaving. I don't believe there is a universal morality. I don't believe the "right thing to do is what I believe would be good if everyone did it too". I believe right and wrong is relative, from person to person and from person to animal to plant to mushroom. It's all just a bunch of stuff happening. Some people feel eating animals is wrong so they don't do it. But nobody has any obligation to do anything at all. If you can convince me why I should believe you I will.
I already stopped talking about plants. But it appears you have started talking about plants again with other posters. Maybe the plant argument actually has something to it?
If you dont want to talk a out plants lets focus on the morality aspect. As I've stated before I don't believe not eating meat is "more correct" than eating meat. I believe morality is relative. Unless you can convince me of my so-called moral obligation, I don't believe it actually exists.
Yeah, I'm starting to realize that plants have found their way in whether I like it or not. In all seriousness, have you read about bivalves? If you want a grey area that my argument can't easily handle, it's not plants, it's fucking bivalves. I have no idea what to do about them, I just don't eat them.
I'll be back on later, guys, I have unfortunate IRL obligations to see to for now. -
2018-03-22 at 1:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Well you certainly treat inanimate objects differently than persons. If not for disperate mental qualities then why?
I interact with every distinct object differently, and I interact with every distinct class of object differently. If they were all the same object or class of object, I would react the same way. But they aren't.
Be honest, how much consideration do you give ants? If you ever leave a donut on the counter and find ants swarming it in the morning, how would you deal with it? Would you carefully remove the donut and then the ants, taking care not to hurt them? Or would you throw away the donut and then commit ant holocaust for convenience's sake? -
2018-03-22 at 2:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jeremus Zanuck, he is really, really smart. He is smarter than you. He has won, it's over. He writes like a moron because you slowly backslide into a corner and don't realize it. It's happening. He's digesting you slowly, like a snake.
youre as retarded as he is...if not more so. he has no clue what hes saying or what hes talking about. -
2018-03-22 at 3:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Yeah, I'm starting to realize that plants have found their way in whether I like it or not. In all seriousness, have you read about bivalves? If you want a grey area that my argument can't easily handle, it's not plants, it's fucking bivalves. I have no idea what to do about them, I just don't eat them.
I'll be back on later, guys, I have unfortunate IRL obligations to see to for now.
You and I don't have to talk about plants. I really don't care, I only brought it up because I was interested in how plant consciousness would affect your decision to opt out of eating other lifeforms.
I would like to hear more about my so-called moral obligation though. -
2018-03-22 at 6:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick That's fascinating, but are you suggesting that movement in plants is indicative of emotion? That would be an absurd leap, considering that the physical process is well understood and doesn't require what we'd consider 'feelings'.
no, i just want to point out that it has the ability to feel, and the difference between the feel of being touch, tickle, itch or pain is intensity of the simulation.
so if it can feel touch, its possible also that it can feel pain, as most other living things that are capable of feeling touches do.If there's one valuable grain of knowledge that would be preserved from our millennia of animal vivisection, it's how to observe every conceivable pain response. Plants don't appear to.
yet.
before the invention of photo plates and geiger counters, none knew of radiation and its assortment of rays. or background radiation before radio telescopes are available.
one day humanity may accidentally discover a tool to detect plant communications.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-03-22 at 6:14 PM UTCWe have an ethical obligation to stop acting like our morals apply to other people.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
