Do plants deserve a moral status as "animal"?

[Belindi]

Plants do not learn much from experience; plants can take no responsibility for what they do.
Wild and domesticated animals,like plants ,have little if any choice.

Men have a lot of choices by contrast with other animals and plants. Moral status is power of choice. Moral status is the measure of moral responsibility.

[Pattern-chaser]

Plants do not learn much from experience; plants can take no responsibility for what they do.

Plants attacked by leaf-eaters (such as sheep) have learned to increase the tannin in their leaves, to make them taste bad. They learn from experience, and react accordingly. I think perhaps 'taking responsibility' is a human thing, don't you?

[Belindi]

Plants do not learn much from experience; plants can take no responsibility for what they do.

Plants attacked by leaf-eaters (such as sheep) have learned to increase the tannin in their leaves, to make them taste bad. They learn from experience, and react accordingly. I think perhaps 'taking responsibility' is a human thing, don't you?

Responsibility for actions pertains to power of choice. Plants have no power of choice;they react leafeaters and so forth; reaction excludes choice.

Only humans as far as we know reflect on choices. Some humans are more reactive other humans are more reasoned. The law does not give in very much to extenuating circumstances such as that some criminal individual has lacked education that would have enabled her to be reasonable.

You will see that when the criminals who violently broke into the seat of US government are brought to justice little account will be taken of the fact they are educationally deprived individuals who reacted to Trump's hunting horn.

The law is a blunt instrument of social control. Moral responsibility comes from 'self discipline' i.e learned ability to reflect and apply reason. To universally roll this ability out needs the abolition of comparative poverty , and then tertiary education for all.

[Sy Borg]

Plants do not learn much from experience; plants can take no responsibility for what they do.
Wild and domesticated animals,like plants ,have little if any choice.

Men have a lot of choices by contrast with other animals and plants. Moral status is power of choice. Moral status is the measure of moral responsibility.

I don't think humans have nearly as many choices as you suggest. Just because we can imagine many choices, doesn't mean they are viable. While we may see many possibilities, usually we follow our instincts or are pressured or coerced like any other animal.

[popeye1945]

The same mindset is now being attributed to plants, which animals have for most of recorded history been subject to. It should be kept in mind that they are the most successful life form on the planet. Let's not make the same arrogant mistakes we've made in the past, for it greatly limits imagination and investigations. We are all reactive creatures. There is no such thing as human action, there is but reaction. We are functioning parts of something larger than ourselves. This area of study is just opening out, and what we might learn from these creatures is potentially mind-blowing. Greta, I second your notion, we follow our instincts and of necessity react to our environment. It is quite impossible not to react to our environment, for even a decided lack of reaction in one direction, is still a reaction to our environment. Our biology is of the nature of a reactive creature, in sink with a slowly changing world.

[Belindi]

Greta, and Popeye, in view of (what you say about) the power of reaction among humans I will have to think again about humans' relative powers of choice.

For at least twenty years I've believed on the power of reason as a way to a better world, despite that the world necessarily is as it is. Now , I have no well- thought idea. I will have to rely on intuitions I learned as a child.

[popeye1945]

Greta, and Popeye, in view of (what you say about) the power of reaction among humans I will have to think again about humans' relative powers of choice.

For at least twenty years I've believed on the power of reason as a way to a better world, despite that the world necessarily is as it is. Now , I have no well- thought idea. I will have to rely on intuitions I learned as a child.

Belindi, Because we are re-active creatures does not mean one must abandon reason, quite the contrary, one needs reason to judge what is the best re=action to the given circumstance. Some reactions are automatically expressed on an unconscious level or by instinct, elemental breathing, digestion, fear reaction etc..,. Evolutionary development is in reaction to an ever changing physical world, here reason seems to re-act in a hit and miss fashion, but enough to carry the species along. If one must be motivated to action, it isn't really an action, its a reaction to the physical world. Sure kicks the hell out of the sin thing don't you think?

[Pattern-chaser]

For at least twenty years I've believed on the power of reason as a way to a better world, despite that the world necessarily is as it is. Now , I have no well- thought idea. I will have to rely on intuitions I learned as a child.

Belindi, Because we are re-active creatures does not mean one must abandon reason, quite the contrary, one needs reason to judge what is the best re-action to the given circumstance.

Yes, indeed! When we move out of those areas where science and logic can give us pretty solid guidance on how the universe might behave, we get a bit shaky. We love certainty, where and when we can find it. But the world is an uncertain place. Having said that, our reaction to uncertainty should not be to abandon all that has served us well in other areas, but to see how the tools we have can be adapted, or added-to, to meet the new need.

So no, there is no need to abandon reason, but only to realise that our more certainty-based tools are less relevant than they are when applied to other problems. Reason and structured thought are appropriate for this need, I think, although intuition (and the like) are also tools that have proven useful and valuable in the past. I think we have the tools we need, and I think reason continues to play its part.

[popeye1945]

Pattern Chaser, I don't disagree with anything you have stated, but my point has been that regardless of the power of reason, we are reactionary creatures. I have pressed this point in the past. No one could give me an example of a circumstance, or example of a statement that couldn't be defined as a reaction instead of human action. It makes it seems to me, a profound influence on one's outlook. or worldview.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern Chaser, I don't disagree with anything you have stated, but my point has been that regardless of the power of reason, we are reactionary creatures. I have pressed this point in the past. No one could give me an example of a circumstance, or example of a statement that couldn't be defined as a reaction instead of human action. It makes it seems to me, a profound influence on one's outlook, or worldview.

That's a thoughtful and thought-provoking post; thank you.

I see your point about reactions, but I am loath to accept it, even though it appears correct. Hmmm. I wonder if a change of perspective would make my concerns clearer?

There are no individual humans, there are only localised parts of life the universe and everything. And when I say "parts", I do not mean components of which 'X' is composed - and could be decomposed, if we chose to - for the universe is not intrinsically divided or divisible. Although the universe contains matter, and that matter is not uniformly distributed within the space the universe occupies, there is no logical reason to identify 'individual' humans as distinct things. This reasoning applies as easily and as well to rocks as it does to humans.

Human beings split big things up into smaller parts, to aid their own understanding. But, apart from easing our thinking, there is no reason to consider humans distinct from the rest of the universe. This places your observation into a very different context. A human is just a (non-divisible) part of life, the universe and everything, so when you say humans are reactive, this translates into the holistic-universe context as the universe reacting to itself. And that's what worried me about your statement.

Does the universe react to itself? Can the universe react to itself? I think the universe is, and that it does what it does because it is what it is. I don't think there is a deeper reason than that. Just as most animals cannot help but follow the Tao, so humans cannot help but participate in the life of the universe of which they are a non-divisible part. So I would say that we don't react, and we aren't proactive either; we just live our lives by participating in the life of the universe of which we are non-divisible parts, and what you observe is a simple consequence of that.

[popeye1945]

Pattern Chaser. a most impressive post. "One cannot pluck a flower from one's garden without troubling a star." Wheeler I will reread your post to be sure I've gotten the gest of it. However, as my understand stands now, I don't think there is any reason that being a reactionary creature violets the universal balance. Think about it for a moment, subject and object can never be separated, object being the fuel of the mind, and in order to move without, one must be moved within. One must be motivated, which makes it reaction. Evolutionary biology works because organisms react to the changing physical world. Reaction is how we participate in the indivisable world/universe.The minds object is the body, the bodies object is the physical world as object, reaction is the process.

[Belindi]

Greta, and Popeye, in view of (what you say about) the power of reaction among humans I will have to think again about humans' relative powers of choice.

For at least twenty years I've believed on the power of reason as a way to a better world, despite that the world necessarily is as it is. Now , I have no well- thought idea. I will have to rely on intuitions I learned as a child.

Belindi, Because we are re-active creatures does not mean one must abandon reason, quite the contrary, one needs reason to judge what is the best re=action to the given circumstance. Some reactions are automatically expressed on an unconscious level or by instinct, elemental breathing, digestion, fear reaction etc..,. Evolutionary development is in reaction to an ever changing physical world, here reason seems to re-act in a hit and miss fashion, but enough to carry the species along. If one must be motivated to action, it isn't really an action, its a reaction to the physical world. Sure kicks the hell out of the sin thing don't you think?

Yes, sin is a yesterday idea whether it applies to reactions or reflected-on decisions.

By the way, when I say "reason" I don't mean reason like a computer does reason. I mean reason like a human with insight, empathy , and sympathy. These can be taught to humans during a liberal education , and are indissolubly attached to the human reasoning faculty.

[popeye1945]

Belindi, I am puzzled as to where you are going with this? I have no problem with the above-mentioned qualities being part of human nature. I am just trying to establish that all organisms are re-active creatures, including plant life. As Carl Sagan said once, "We are cousins to the trees, made of the same stuff, arranged into a different order." I believe that what should be happening is that we should be endeavoring to spiritualize the world and its content organisms. So yes, plants deserve to be revered as fantastic creatures/organisms, no they are not animals, but they are not lesser than animals. Their organization is marvelous, there is so much to be learned from them.

[Belindi]

Belindi, I am puzzled as to where you are going with this? I have no problem with the above-mentioned qualities being part of human nature. I am just trying to establish that all organisms are re-active creatures, including plant life. As Carl Sagan said once, "We are cousins to the trees, made of the same stuff, arranged into a different order." I believe that what should be happening is that we should be endeavoring to spiritualize the world and its content organisms. So yes, plants deserve to be revered as fantastic creatures/organisms, no they are not animals, but they are not lesser than animals. Their organization is marvelous, there is so much to be learned from them.

Pattern Chaser wrote at the end of his excellent post:

So I would say that we don't react, and we aren't proactive either; we just live our lives by participating in the life of the universe of which we are non-divisible parts, and what you observe is a simple consequence of that.

But there is a significant difference of degree between a man, for instance Pattern Chaser, who can look at himself in the mirror of reality , and a dog who cannot. This difference allows men to observe reflections of ourselves in reality's hall of mirrors.

The ethic I attach to that fact is that the whole human individual possesses affection and empathy towards the other and the other may be a plant, an ocean current, or an animal.I can view this ethic better by viewing its converse which is narrowing of the range of vision.

[popeye1945]

Belindi, This is not at all a good argument against organisms being re-active creatures. The fact that humanity has the above qualities is not in dispute. If one is to move without, one must be moved within first, be motivated, to be motivated is to define the movement re-action.