Do plants deserve a moral status as "animal"?

[Sy Borg]

Sadly, if you suggest that an intelligent mammal with a complex nervous system has any emotions or displays any creative intelligence, there will always be someone to claim anthropomorphism, as if humans were the only beings ever to experience their lives.

Humans are of course not the only beings to experience their lives, but I think instances of inapplicable anthropomorphism still do exist. I think this from personal experience of my own attitudes, apart from anything else. I think empathy is a mixed blessing. On the plus side, I believe it's the key emotion that we use in creating the moral codes that we believe in and aspire to live by. Without it, we're psychopaths. On the downside, as with any analogy, it can be overstretched. I've definitely found myself overstretching it when trying to assess the wellbeing of family pets (goldish, rabbit, cat). It's particularly difficult to use empathy to figure out whether a goldfish is living a fulfilling life, I've found.


But I accept the points you make in the rest of the post about those "gestation crates".

I would suggest that anthropomorphism tends to be closer to the truth than those who deem animals as "biological machines" (unless they include humans, in which case at least their mistake is consistent).

There's a few factors involved. The obvious baseline is to observe how animals life in the wild and then compare how they are living in farms or homes. However, empathy helps out here, because most urban people don't want to live a tribal life in the wild. Ultimately, we all seek a certain balance of stimulation and safety.

Cat emotions are easy enough to read between eyes, body language and tail movement. Rabbits would seem more difficult, and I expect you'd be looking for a healthy appearance, sprightliness and appetite.

As for goldfish, maybe this would be useful: https://aquagoodness.com/keep-goldfish-happy/ . Generally speaking, fish experts (as my father was) can tell if captive fish are happy through movement and, mainly, because they breed. Dad was quite proud when he managed to breed fish that are notoriously fussy. His was the art of making fish happy. The factors in the article touch on all the factors I remember Dad talking about.

[Sy Borg]

If you are going to eat meat you should regard it as an occasional luxury and if possible insist it is outdoor bred, reared, and naturally fattened, and killed within twelve miles of its field.

What went wrong with communism that was supposed to distribute luxuries equally?

Agreed, although some can't afford meat from adequately cared for animals.

Communism proved to be impossible to implement. As with perhaps any political system (or religion) the moment of its inception is the moment it starts being corrupted as those at the top create a gap between themselves and the rest. Just as humans created a gap between themselves and other species.

[Belindi]

If you are going to eat meat you should regard it as an occasional luxury and if possible insist it is outdoor bred, reared, and naturally fattened, and killed within twelve miles of its field.

What went wrong with communism that was supposed to distribute luxuries equally?

Agreed, although some can't afford meat from adequately cared for animals.

Communism proved to be impossible to implement. As with perhaps any political system (or religion) the moment of its inception is the moment it starts being corrupted as those at the top create a gap between themselves and the rest. Just as humans created a gap between themselves and other species.

Of course I agree with Sy Borg. This is a relative world. All life originates in the relative world and can't be otherwise, so total communism was impossible. Socialism however aims at equality. In order to achieve equality men have to face up to the universal connections between things including other animals, and plants.


Profits are usually supposed to be power and wealth. Power and wealth are unsustainable except when they are devoted to the common good.For the common good ,plants should be accorded rights.

[Belindi]

What went wrong with communism?

What went wrong with communism that was supposed to distribute luxuries equally?

Sounds like a queue for a new topic.

But all philosophical discussions have natural ends with are moral and political.

The fact is humans are intelligent concerning the other to an extent that blades of grass or even pigs don't have. This super intelligence carries with it the moral responsibility to sustain others. You ask "what is my criterion for that claim?"

Answer: like climbing the hardest rock face in the world the only available moral criterion is "Because indubitably it is there".

[Pattern-chaser]

Socialism however aims at equality. In order to achieve equality, men have to face up to the universal connections between things including other animals, and plants.

• Profits are usually supposed to be power and wealth.
• Power and wealth are unsustainable except when they are devoted to the common good.
• For the common good, plants should be accorded rights.

[Original layout (above) edited by me.]

That's an interesting chain of reasoning...?

[CIN]

The idea that (human) consciousness originates in the brain is not likely to be valid since there are humans who live a normal life (with job, marriage and children) with merely 5-10% brain tissue. A student with merely 5% brain tissue completed an academic degree in mathematics.

How do you know those people are conscious? They may be zombies.

[psyreporter]

The idea that (human) consciousness originates in the brain is not likely to be valid since there are humans who live a normal life (with job, marriage and children) with merely 5-10% brain tissue. A student with merely 5% brain tissue completed an academic degree in mathematics.

How do you know those people are conscious? They may be zombies.

Did you view the topic Consciousness without a brain?

In one case a man was missing 90% of his brain and managed to live a normal life.

"Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who's missing 90 percent of his neurons, still exhibits normal behaviour," Axel Cleeremans, a professor of cognitive philosophy from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"

A student with an IQ of 126 managed to receive an academic degree in mathematics with merely 5% brain tissue.

"I can't say whether the mathematics student with an IQ of 126 had a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear it is nowhere near the normal 1.5kg and much of the brain he does have is in the more primitive deep structures that are relatively spared in hydrochephalus", said professor Lorber.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarka ... -1.1026845

[CIN]

The idea that (human) consciousness originates in the brain is not likely to be valid since there are humans who live a normal life (with job, marriage and children) with merely 5-10% brain tissue. A student with merely 5% brain tissue completed an academic degree in mathematics.

How do you know those people are conscious? They may be zombies.

Did you view the topic Consciousness without a brain?

In one case a man was missing 90% of his brain and managed to live a normal life.

"Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who's missing 90 percent of his neurons, still exhibits normal behaviour," Axel Cleeremans, a professor of cognitive philosophy from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"

A student with an IQ of 126 managed to receive an academic degree in mathematics with merely 5% brain tissue.

"I can't say whether the mathematics student with an IQ of 126 had a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear it is nowhere near the normal 1.5kg and much of the brain he does have is in the more primitive deep structures that are relatively spared in hydrochephalus", said professor Lorber.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarka ... -1.1026845

You didn't answer my question, so I'll repeat it: how do you know the people with very little brain are not zombies?

All debates about consciousness are in the end quite futile, because we cannot tell when a being is conscious and when it is not. What is actually surprising about these people with very little brain is not that they are conscious - we have not way of knowing whether they are or not - but that they can function as people. That is a puzzle for cognitive scientists, not for philosophers.

[psyreporter]

Did you view the topic Consciousness without a brain?

In one case a man was missing 90% of his brain and managed to live a normal life.

"Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who's missing 90 percent of his neurons, still exhibits normal behaviour," Axel Cleeremans, a professor of cognitive philosophy from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"

A student with an IQ of 126 managed to receive an academic degree in mathematics with merely 5% brain tissue.

"I can't say whether the mathematics student with an IQ of 126 had a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear it is nowhere near the normal 1.5kg and much of the brain he does have is in the more primitive deep structures that are relatively spared in hydrochephalus", said professor Lorber.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarka ... -1.1026845

You didn't answer my question, so I'll repeat it: how do you know the people with very little brain are not zombies?

The specific case is about a man that lived normally until 44 years of age. His condition was only discovered at a random hospital check. He worked as a civil servant, had a wife and children, performed in life as a loving father and a husband, managed to maintain a job and he has managed to live independently without any suspicion until 44 years of age after which was discovered that 90% of his brain was missing.

100%: ####################
10%: ##

The case has been published in The Lancet, one of the most prestigious journals. The cited article is from 10 years later and therefor provides a sound perspective on the case.

All debates about consciousness are in the end quite futile, because we cannot tell when a being is conscious and when it is not. What is actually surprising about these people with very little brain is not that they are conscious - we have not way of knowing whether they are or not - but that they can function as people. That is a puzzle for cognitive scientists, not for philosophers.

Do you mean that it is possible that the man in question functions as a machine like automata, merely because he has just 10% brain tissue?

When it concerns empirical evidence, then perhaps the information that is available, such as the capacity to find a life partner (wife), raising children, maintaining a regular job etc, all without suspicion, until 44 years of age, is perhaps profound evidence for consciousness.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is an article I just stumbled across. It isn't directly about plants or their possible consciousness. But I thought it might help to illuminate this discussion?

Nonhuman Persons - Gerard Elfstrom asks what such creatures, if they exist, would be like and how much it matters morally.

This discussion is roughly what we've been doing here, I think.

[Pattern-chaser]

Here's a quote that we have discussed here not long ago, I think, although we didn't focus specifically on "flies and cockroaches".

[W]e have no clear, accepted definition of consciousness, nor any clear criteria for determining when consciousness is present. Given the present state of our understanding, it is possible that both flies and cockroaches possess some level of consciousness.

[Steve3007]

Cat emotions are easy enough to read between eyes, body language and tail movement. Rabbits would seem more difficult, and I expect you'd be looking for a healthy appearance, sprightliness and appetite.

Yes, in rabbits sprightliness comes in the form of the "rabbit binky": jumping and sometimes twisting in the air, just for joie de vivre. We had two rabbits. One still does binkies and gets to run around the garden trying to have sex with the cat during the day having a pretty good life, so I assume he's happy. The other got his head bitten off by a fox some time ago (he went missing from the garden and his headless corpse was found a few hundred yards down the road by a neighbour) so no more binkies for him. He lived fast and died young. Possibly the surviving rabbit saw it as a wake up call to make the most of this brief candle that we call life and binky like it's 1999, while he still can. Or possibly not.

As for goldfish, maybe this would be useful: https://aquagoodness.com/keep-goldfish-happy/ . Generally speaking, fish experts (as my father was) can tell if captive fish are happy through movement and, mainly, because they breed. Dad was quite proud when he managed to breed fish that are notoriously fussy. His was the art of making fish happy. The factors in the article touch on all the factors I remember Dad talking about.

Thanks for that. I had a quick look and I think the fish's living conditions tick most of those boxes.

(Late reply because I was off work last week and it was sunny.)

[Belindi]

Not only plants should be accorded rights, but so should the soil and the oceans,out of enlightened self interest .
Religions embody rights and responsibilities. To date, most religious moralities reflect the needs of the human societies within which they exist. I think quite a lot of religious people now understand the value of respect for the natural environment.

[Sculptor1]

Not only plants should be accorded rights, but so should the soil and the oceans,out of enlightened self interest .
Religions embody rights and responsibilities. To date, most religious moralities reflect the needs of the human societies within which they exist. I think quite a lot of religious people now understand the value of respect for the natural environment.

This is not the case. Far from it.

Religions do not respect the environment except the most primitve forms of animism. IN these cases abuse of the environment has a direct and immediate impact on the people's welfare. IN many so-called primitive societies human empathy has often been extended to encompass the animals they hunt. All this is thoroughly lost.

The Abrahamic religions overturned all hint of care for the earth and the biome. With the promise of future reward this earth is nothing more than a temporary holding cells where humans are scrutinised for their adherence to the worship of god.

It's bad news from beginning to end:

There are many examples of utter disregard and destruction of the environment and animals, from Brimstone, plague, and live sacrifice.

GENESIS 7
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
GENESIS 1
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

And then, of course the whole bang shoot is going up in flames of destruction. SO why worry about Green issues?

REVELATION 15
1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think quite a lot of religious people now understand the value of respect for the natural environment.

I hope so. Historically, many problems have been based on sacred texts to the effect that God gave us the Earth as our plaything, to do with as we wish. Worse than that: God made the Earth specifically for us, to do with as we wish. I wish the compilers of these sacred texts had kept their own wishes and opinions away from the "Word of God". It would've saved a lot of time and trouble.