arjand wrote: ↑May 18th, 2021, 8:34 am
I recently registered as 'plant' on veganforum.org to ask a philosophical question and was quickly banned. I learned that the subject "plant sentience" is one of the most sensitive topics within the vegan community. Plant sentience appears to be seen as one of the main anti-veganism arguments, or at least as an argument that is used by 'anti-vegans' to attack vegans.
Subsequently on the forum philosophicalvegan.com I was promised that no user was ever banned on that forum, and that I would be safe, but in the topic the subject was quickly turned into argumentum ad hominem attempts to discredit my motive to start the topic, and the shared information. The accusations included the suggestion that I was deceiving users by posting as a philosophy professor with the motive of self-promotion, which was disallowed on the forum. The topic ended with the accusation that I was ignoring questions, which from my view, was untrue. My posts then were being edited and information was deleted, which ended the discussion.
https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7298
I understand that the question is sensitive for vegans but it may also be important that the question is addressed.
The ban on veganforum.org for asking a honest philosophical question does not appear to be an incident. Academic philosophers are reporting about the occurrence of the issue in which vegans and animal right activists actually become aggressive against people who intend to argue on behalf of plant well being.
Philosopher Michael Marder, a research professor at the University of the Basque Country, mentioned the following response from animal rights activists to his argument that plants are sentient beings.
Philosopher: Plants are sentient beings that should be eaten with respect
His claim that a plant is an “intelligent, social, complex being” (i.e. sentient) has been contested by some biologists, but a stronger reaction has come from animal-rights activists and vegans who fear their cause is undermined by extending a duty of respect to plants.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980
When one wants to protect animal well being, how can one feel the urge to agitate against someone who intends to protect the well being of other types of creatures? How can there be a distinction?
Vegans are seen as a group of humans that have attention for ethics, more so than others. In essence, they fulfill a certain guiding role for humanity as a whole. Therefor, if for some reason attention for the well-being of plants is excluded with vegans and animal rights activists, who will be capable of taking it up for plants?
Protection would need to come from a lower level, e.g. philosophers and people with a generic perspective on ethics / protection of the environment. Lacking an ideological motive, what could make them results-oriented?
When one learns that vegans and animal-rights activists may be ignoring the well being of plants, one wonders: who remains that could potentially protect plants if that would ultimately prove to have been essential?
Quesiton 1: What is the origin of the motive to become a vegan (in general)? Is it primarily emotional or is there a sound theoretical basis?
Philosopher Henry David Thoreau once said the following about the enhancement of human ethical practice in general in relation to eating animals:
"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."
It appears that he was right. Millennials (Gen Y) have been driving a global shift away from eating animals and Gen Z is accelerating that shift to veganism.
(2018) Millennials Are Driving The Worldwide Shift Away From Meat
A global reduction in meat consumption between 2016 and 2050 could save up to eight million lives per year and $31 trillion in reduced costs from health care and climate change. (National Academy of Sciences).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpel ... from-meat/
This may be indicative that there is a sound ethical foundation for reducing violence towards animals.
Question 2: How can there be a distinction between animal life and plant life when it concerns attention for their 'well-being'?
arjand wrote: ↑May 18th, 2021, 8:34 am
I recently registered as 'plant' on veganforum.org to ask a philosophical question and was quickly banned. I learned that the subject "plant sentience" is one of the most sensitive topics within the vegan community. Plant sentience appears to be seen as one of the main anti-veganism arguments, or at least as an argument that is used by 'anti-vegans' to attack vegans.
Subsequently on the forum philosophicalvegan.com I was promised that no user was ever banned on that forum, and that I would be safe, but in the topic the subject was quickly turned into argumentum ad hominem attempts to discredit my motive to start the topic, and the shared information. The accusations included the suggestion that I was deceiving users by posting as a philosophy professor with the motive of self-promotion, which was disallowed on the forum. The topic ended with the accusation that I was ignoring questions, which from my view, was untrue. My posts then were being edited and information was deleted, which ended the discussion.
https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7298
I understand that the question is sensitive for vegans but it may also be important that the question is addressed.
The ban on veganforum.org for asking a honest philosophical question does not appear to be an incident. Academic philosophers are reporting about the occurrence of the issue in which vegans and animal right activists actually become aggressive against people who intend to argue on behalf of plant well being.
Philosopher Michael Marder, a research professor at the University of the Basque Country, mentioned the following response from animal rights activists to his argument that plants are sentient beings.
Philosopher: Plants are sentient beings that should be eaten with respect
His claim that a plant is an “intelligent, social, complex being” (i.e. sentient) has been contested by some biologists, but a stronger reaction has come from animal-rights activists and vegans who fear their cause is undermined by extending a duty of respect to plants.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980
When one wants to protect animal well being, how can one feel the urge to agitate against someone who intends to protect the well being of other types of creatures? How can there be a distinction?
Vegans are seen as a group of humans that have attention for ethics, more so than others. In essence, they fulfill a certain guiding role for humanity as a whole. Therefor, if for some reason attention for the well-being of plants is excluded with vegans and animal rights activists, who will be capable of taking it up for plants?
Protection would need to come from a lower level, e.g. philosophers and people with a generic perspective on ethics / protection of the environment. Lacking an ideological motive, what could make them results-oriented?
When one learns that vegans and animal-rights activists may be ignoring the well being of plants, one wonders: who remains that could potentially protect plants if that would ultimately prove to have been essential?
Quesiton 1: What is the origin of the motive to become a vegan (in general)? Is it primarily emotional or is there a sound theoretical basis?
Philosopher Henry David Thoreau once said the following about the enhancement of human ethical practice in general in relation to eating animals:
"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."
It appears that he was right. Millennials (Gen Y) have been driving a global shift away from eating animals and Gen Z is accelerating that shift to veganism.
(2018) Millennials Are Driving The Worldwide Shift Away From Meat
A global reduction in meat consumption between 2016 and 2050 could save up to eight million lives per year and $31 trillion in reduced costs from health care and climate change. (National Academy of Sciences).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpel ... from-meat/
This may be indicative that there is a sound ethical foundation for reducing violence towards animals.
Question 2: How can there be a distinction between animal life and plant life when it concerns attention for their 'well-being'?
This OP is one more great example on why philosophy is useless without science (and the other way around).
First of all Plants are not sentient organisms. They do not function based on emotions so they are not aware of feelings and sensations.
Their interactions are pure chemically and mechanically(resulting to chemical responses).
Coursera has a two part course on Plants (Understanding Plants:What a Plant Knows and Understanding Plants - Part II: Fundamentals of Plant Biology).
Of course our current conclusion on plants is based on our Current Epistemology on their biology, but
Now before I address the rest of your points we need share the same definition on veganism.
So according to the Vegan Society Veganism is: "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
So based on our current scientific knowledge the argument on"Plant sentience" is a poisoning the well and a begging the question fallacy. This assumption needs to be demonstrated objectively and empirically before it can be used in an argument.
I do not necessarily agree with "philosophicalvegan.com" practices but if your arguments are based on common fallacies, banning would be one of the way to avoid having a meaningless conversation.
In my opinion, you should provide scientific evidence for plant sentience and you should avoid all "philosophical" assumptions of false authority figures. This is a biological claim and the evidence should originate from the field of Biology. The role of philosophy in this is not to promote subjective opinions but to expand our understanding on available facts.
Lets see your points one by one.
-"I understand that the question is sensitive for vegans but it may also be important that the question is addressed."
-Again the question is not just "sensitive" for a specific group. The question is nonsensical and fallacious based on what we define and know from science about sentience.
-"When one wants to protect animal well being, how can one feel the urge to agitate against someone who intends to protect the well being of other types of creatures? How can there be a distinction? "
-To many problems in that statement of yours.
1st Plants are not creatures, you are introducing a non common usage of this term. Animals and Plants are Organisms but only animals are defined as creatures.
2nd you are avoiding to define the term "well being". For the sake of argument I will assume that by "well being" you are referring to the physical not emotional well being of "those" organisms(plants). If not then you have the burden to prove that plants have emotional states and a specific state can be defined as "well being".
The distinction between animals and plants is based on the fact that animals have a nervous system and a brain that allows them be aware of their environment and emotions while the plants do not. Plants interact chemically and mechanically with their environment without a central process unit processing their feelings or addressing their intentions and needs.
-"Vegans are seen as a group of humans that have attention for ethics, more so than others. In essence, they fulfill a certain guiding role for humanity as a whole. Therefor, if for some reason attention for the well-being of plants is excluded with vegans and animal rights activists, who will be capable of taking it up for plants?"
-So what about the well being of rocks, minerals and crystals. Just because we can put two words together in a phrase (well being of plants) that doesn't make that phrase meaningful. There are important and meaningful aspects of plants that we should be concerned. Mental and emotional suffering is not a "thing" for plants.
-"Protection would need to come from a lower level, e.g. philosophers and people with a generic perspective on ethics / protection of the environment. Lacking an ideological motive, what could make them results-oriented?"
-Veganism is the best way to keep human alive and fed and protect the environment from the huge negative footprints of meat production.
You need to understand that in order to have people advocating in favor of the environment.....they need to be alive and fed.
Plant based diets are the only diets that avoid unnecessary pain and suffering of sentient beings and allow people to ...survive.
-"When one learns that vegans and animal-rights activists may be ignoring the well being of plants, one wonders: who remains that could potentially protect plants if that would ultimately prove to have been essential?"
-You are keep making the same nonsensical statement. You need to define the phrase "well being of plants" and how do you quantify them. i.e. do we have painkillers or psychoactive drugs for plants...like we have on animals? What are you even talking about!
I guess both of your questions have being addressed.