"Plant sentience" and veganism

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by psyreporter »

My primary concern is the 'base level of respect' on the basis of which moral consideration of plant well-being is ought to be applicable, despite that one may argue that in your case option b is applicable when it concerns human-plant relations.

Eugenics on Nature or synthetic biology is said to be the greatest thing in science in the 21th century. With Eugenics on Nature, science intends to ‘redesign life’. Thus, without ever having been able to explain why life exists, science believes that it can become master of it.

Plants and animals are to become victim. While vegans and animal rights activists naturally care and protect animals and are with many people and efficient in social organization for a cause, my personal worry is that plants may be excluded from protection when it concerns a potential violation of that which has made it possible for plants to come into existence, and subsequently, that which may be vital for them to prosper into the farther future.

A special on Synthetic Biology in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019) provides perspective:

economist-gmo.jpg
Remaking life means automating biology

Those given to grand statements about the future often proclaim this to be the century of biology in the same way that the 20th century was that of physics and the 19th century was that of chemistry.

Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.
Morality in science

In science the inability to define the meaning of life has resulted in an ideal to abolish morality completely.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

(2019) Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by philosopher David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.
https://sites.duke.edu/behavior/2019/04 ... f-science/

Morality is based on ‘values’ and that logically means that science also wants to get rid of philosophy.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.
It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.

When science is practiced autonomously and intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the ‘knowing’ of a fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it is not.

It means that there is a belief involved (a belief in uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science without thinking about whether it is actually ‘good’ what is being done (i.e. without ‘morality’).

The idea that facts are valid without philosophy results in the natural tendency to completely abolish morality.

When morality is reduced to an empirical property of the social sciences, what theory could possibly prevent the idea that morality is an illusion?

The “why” of morality

When the human intends to prosper not only for the purpose to live another day (which would include 100-200 years, i.e. a ‘short term’ perspective), but for the long term (i.e. millions of years), the path that is chosen today can have a profound impact and it can be an argument that the human should chose wisely by which philosophy would acquire a leading position for humanity, not like a religion with dogma’s, but as a continuous quest to discover the optimal path for humanity.

Growth and progress is exponential by which it is increasingly important to make the right choices.

Morality would be the key for success and modern day morality is based on magical thinking by letting it depend (in general) on the lap part of the human.

🧭 Moral compass

Humans are naturally equipped with a moral compass but when progress is increasingly made outside the direct influence scope of the human being, paired with the modern day dogma that the facts of science are valid without philosophy (a belief in uniformitarianism), which naturally results in a tendency to completely abolish morality, it may be important that that magical ‘moral compass’ aspect of human evolution is provided for by a professional plausible method that can secure long term success on that regard: philosophy.
Morality in science today

A recent article on Phys.org displays the current state of morality in science.

(2020) How we make moral decisions
The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don’t seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-moral-decisions.html

The article shows that in 2020, science has just the “universalization principle” available for moral considerations and for guiding science.

👁️ Meaning beyond what science can “see”

How could the universalisation principle prevent a practice like Eugenics on Nature when faced with a trillion USD synthetic biology revolution that reduces plants and animals to meaningless beyond the empirical value that a company can “see” in them?

When vegans and animal right activists continue to turn a blank eye to plant well-being, a better method for morality may be urgently required to protect Nature.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by LuckyR »

Neil Wallace wrote: September 5th, 2021, 10:57 am At the moment there is more evidence that animal slaughter creates genuine suffering than plant slaughter. There is also a fair amount of scientific evidence that plant slaughter causes a plant no suffering whatsoever. Human beings are now free to adopt the following strategies.
a) Err on the side of caution and not eat anything causing your death from Starvation.
b) Assign a probability heuristic and weigh up the likelihood of harm to plants.
c) Simply ignore the suffering of both animals and plants and just eat them anyway.

I existentially believe b to be the best choice on the basis that I believe no harm is caused to plants. I could be wrong, but as I eat meat at the moment Im already in the wrong along with plenty others.
A couple of things: First it is an error not to acknowledge that practicaly every organism on this planet will be consumed by another organism. Thus being eaten is the norm, not an outlier event to (somehow) be avoided. Second, it is a matter of opinion whether it is "better" to be eaten alive or after death. In the wild both occur frequently, in the agribusiness industry it is almost 100% after death. Of course in the food industry death is brought about by the industry intentionally. It is an open question whether it is "better" to meet death while in the process of being eaten or to meet death at the hands of the agribusiness industry, then be consumed afterwards.

In addition, plants commonly have the option of having their reproductive organs eaten while avoiding death (and likely suffering) altogether.
"As usual... it depends."
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Neil Wallace »

I agree that veganism has the problem that humans not eating animals would not alter the massive suffering caused by other organisms eating other organisms. My omission of this fact was not a denial.

I think if you were given the option of being eaten alive by a lion or after death, your opinion would change about the "better" idea.

I think your logic is avoiding the point that the meat business appears to be entirely unecessary. There are perfectly good alternatives available - artificial meat is almost as tasty as normal. There is ample evidence that the meat business causes untold sadistic cruelty to innocent animals.

The meat business is then a case of causing unecessary suffering to sentient beings, purely because humans like the taste of the meat. It is not even the case that we need the meat for unavailable vitimens. It is purely for our pleasure. This is clearly an evil act.

I eat meat at the moment. I certainly cannot count myself as a moral being as long as I do so. I'm trying to cut it out asap.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by LuckyR »

Neil Wallace wrote: September 6th, 2021, 1:15 pm I agree that veganism has the problem that humans not eating animals would not alter the massive suffering caused by other organisms eating other organisms. My omission of this fact was not a denial.

I think if you were given the option of being eaten alive by a lion or after death, your opinion would change about the "better" idea.

I think your logic is avoiding the point that the meat business appears to be entirely unecessary. There are perfectly good alternatives available - artificial meat is almost as tasty as normal. There is ample evidence that the meat business causes untold sadistic cruelty to innocent animals.

The meat business is then a case of causing unecessary suffering to sentient beings, purely because humans like the taste of the meat. It is not even the case that we need the meat for unavailable vitimens. It is purely for our pleasure. This is clearly an evil act.

I eat meat at the moment. I certainly cannot count myself as a moral being as long as I do so. I'm trying to cut it out asap.
Minimizing suffering (as opposed to minimizing consuming) IMO is where efforts towards change are best spent, since as I mentioned being eaten is not optional, it will happen regardless. A couple of examples: a vegan who owns a cat is supporting the ranching industry, since 30% of the meat produced is for the pet industry. Secondly, the pet food industry participates almost exclusively at the most economical, meaning least humane, portion of the industrial production of meat. A consumer of high end, free range meat products contributes far less to animal suffering than the vegan with a cat.

Glad to hear that you agree that being eaten alive is worse than being eaten after death. Obviously if all farm animals were set free tomorrow because of a lack of demand for meat, a significant portion of them who would ordinarily be eaten after death, would instead end up being eaten alive. Just sayin.
"As usual... it depends."
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Neil Wallace »

Humans don't have to eat other animals. If you eat an animal you contribute to unecessary suffering and hence are unethical
It may come to light that Vegans with cats also cause suffering perhaps more than the meat eater. Then people should stop owning cats.
A cat owning Vegan is also behaving unethically.

Of course all this endeavour is a drop in the ocean to the untold suffering of the animal kingdom.

However, it seems to me that tutqoque arguments , I like burgers but you own cats so lets do nothing and just enjoy our pleasure at the expense of others suffering are indefensible.

Im looking up the Vegan recipes and have no intention of owning a cat.
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Neil Wallace »

LuckyR wrote:Obviously if all farm animals were set free tomorrow because of a lack of demand for meat, a significant portion of them who would ordinarily be eaten after death, would instead end up being eaten alive. Just sayin.
All farm animals would not be set free. What I predict is likely to happen is that Veganism artificial meat etc. will continue to grow and animal farming slowly decrease over time. People will become vegan by sleepwalking slowly into it rather than face tortured moral debates over their conscience.
This will accelerate if artificial meat becomes cheaper , more convenient, and readily available than real meat. a dollar or so will decide the issue not morality.

After this there will be no farm animals - they will not exist. And something that does not exist does not suffer.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by LuckyR »

Neil Wallace wrote: September 7th, 2021, 8:22 am Humans don't have to eat other animals. If you eat an animal you contribute to unecessary suffering and hence are unethical
It may come to light that Vegans with cats also cause suffering perhaps more than the meat eater. Then people should stop owning cats.
A cat owning Vegan is also behaving unethically.

Of course all this endeavour is a drop in the ocean to the untold suffering of the animal kingdom.

However, it seems to me that tutqoque arguments , I like burgers but you own cats so lets do nothing and just enjoy our pleasure at the expense of others suffering are indefensible.

Im looking up the Vegan recipes and have no intention of owning a cat.
Wow, you're all over the place.

The fact that humans don't have to do something is not a restriction on what humans should do. By that score probably what humans "have to" do is probably less than 5% of what is done. The entire premise is silly.

As I already noted just about every organism born will be eaten, one way or another. So if humans don't eat cows, something else will, being eaten is not optional.

In addition we agreed earlier that there is a distinction between being eaten and suffering, thus your red sentance is not accurate as written.

Also, while you may declare the consumption of meat to be immoral, it is definitely not unethical.

We agree that "what-aboutism" gets us nowhere. I only pointed out those factoids to broaden the discussion, but more importantly I stand by my call to lower animal suffering. I do it by avoiding industrial farm products and especially dairy products. I don't apologize for consuming high end meat products.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by LuckyR »

Neil Wallace wrote: September 7th, 2021, 10:45 am
LuckyR wrote:Obviously if all farm animals were set free tomorrow because of a lack of demand for meat, a significant portion of them who would ordinarily be eaten after death, would instead end up being eaten alive. Just sayin.
All farm animals would not be set free. What I predict is likely to happen is that Veganism artificial meat etc. will continue to grow and animal farming slowly decrease over time. People will become vegan by sleepwalking slowly into it rather than face tortured moral debates over their conscience.
This will accelerate if artificial meat becomes cheaper , more convenient, and readily available than real meat. a dollar or so will decide the issue not morality.

After this there will be no farm animals - they will not exist. And something that does not exist does not suffer.
I don't disagree. It's already happening in the dairy industry. Though from a philosophical perspective, once a farm animal is born, it is reasonable to cull that animal for the purpose for which it was created. As you noted, change doesn't happen with that animal, rather future generations of animals that don't get created at all due to a lack of demand.
"As usual... it depends."
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Neil Wallace »

LuckyR wrote: September 8th, 2021, 1:47 am
Neil Wallace wrote: September 7th, 2021, 8:22 am Humans don't have to eat other animals. If you eat an animal you contribute to unecessary suffering and hence are unethical
It may come to light that Vegans with cats also cause suffering perhaps more than the meat eater. Then people should stop owning cats.
A cat owning Vegan is also behaving unethically.

Of course all this endeavour is a drop in the ocean to the untold suffering of the animal kingdom.

However, it seems to me that tutqoque arguments , I like burgers but you own cats so lets do nothing and just enjoy our pleasure at the expense of others suffering are indefensible.

Im looking up the Vegan recipes and have no intention of owning a cat.
Wow, you're all over the place.

The fact that humans don't have to do something is not a restriction on what humans should do. By that score probably what humans "have to" do is probably less than 5% of what is done. The entire premise is silly.

As I already noted just about every organism born will be eaten, one way or another. So if humans don't eat cows, something else will, being eaten is not optional.

In addition we agreed earlier that there is a distinction between being eaten and suffering, thus your red sentance is not accurate as written.

Also, while you may declare the consumption of meat to be immoral, it is definitely not unethical.

We agree that "what-aboutism" gets us nowhere. I only pointed out those factoids to broaden the discussion, but more importantly I stand by my call to lower animal suffering. I do it by avoiding industrial farm products and especially dairy products. I don't apologize for consuming high end meat products.
I'm not following why the statement "If you eat an animal you contribute to unecessary suffering[ is silly". I always hold back on labelling someone elses argument silly due to massive potential for misreading in posts, clarity,ambiguety etc. which I think you have done here.

I guess it comes down to if you regard eating meat as ok or not ok. I think its not ok, you think its ok In plain English. Am I going to go on a crusade to persuade you to stop eating meat? No. I also eat meat at the moment.

The rest we are in agreement on.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by LuckyR »

Neil Wallace wrote: September 8th, 2021, 4:01 am
LuckyR wrote: September 8th, 2021, 1:47 am
Neil Wallace wrote: September 7th, 2021, 8:22 am Humans don't have to eat other animals. If you eat an animal you contribute to unecessary suffering and hence are unethical
It may come to light that Vegans with cats also cause suffering perhaps more than the meat eater. Then people should stop owning cats.
A cat owning Vegan is also behaving unethically.

Of course all this endeavour is a drop in the ocean to the untold suffering of the animal kingdom.

However, it seems to me that tutqoque arguments , I like burgers but you own cats so lets do nothing and just enjoy our pleasure at the expense of others suffering are indefensible.

Im looking up the Vegan recipes and have no intention of owning a cat.
Wow, you're all over the place.

The fact that humans don't have to do something is not a restriction on what humans should do. By that score probably what humans "have to" do is probably less than 5% of what is done. The entire premise is silly.

As I already noted just about every organism born will be eaten, one way or another. So if humans don't eat cows, something else will, being eaten is not optional.

In addition we agreed earlier that there is a distinction between being eaten and suffering, thus your red sentance is not accurate as written.

Also, while you may declare the consumption of meat to be immoral, it is definitely not unethical.

We agree that "what-aboutism" gets us nowhere. I only pointed out those factoids to broaden the discussion, but more importantly I stand by my call to lower animal suffering. I do it by avoiding industrial farm products and especially dairy products. I don't apologize for consuming high end meat products.
I'm not following why the statement "If you eat an animal you contribute to unecessary suffering[ is silly". I always hold back on labelling someone elses argument silly due to massive potential for misreading in posts, clarity,ambiguety etc. which I think you have done here.

I guess it comes down to if you regard eating meat as ok or not ok. I think its not ok, you think its ok In plain English. Am I going to go on a crusade to persuade you to stop eating meat? No. I also eat meat at the moment.

The rest we are in agreement on.
I apologize for being difficult to understand. I do not feel that concern for animal suffering is silly. Rather I was noting that it is unimportant philosophically that meat consumption is a preference instead of a requirement, thus stressing that fact struck me as silly.

I think that abusing animals is not ok and I know you agree with me. I also think that it is possible to raise and consume animals in a humane way, though I am aware that the majority of ranching is not carried out in this manner. I look forward to a future where meat is expensive and rarely consumed, the expense a reflection of the less efficient nature of humane ranching compared to industrial agribusiness.
"As usual... it depends."
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Neil Wallace »

[/quote]

thus stressing that fact struck me as silly. - I think you misunderstood what I was saying due to ambigueties in language.

I think that abusing animals is not ok and I know you agree with me. - are you now equating abusing animals with eating them?

I also think that it is possible to .. consume animals in a humane way, - I disagree - depends on what is meant by "humane"

I look forward to a future where meat is expensive and rarely consumed, - A better solution. In the future only HUMAN meat is allowed to be eaten.
Corpses of the dead, who signed rights to the cadavers to the rich in life. Only the rich will be able to afford this expensive luxury. The poor will eat
artificial meat (that will taste identical).

the expense a reflection of the less efficient nature of humane ranching compared to industrial agribusiness.
Your approach to animal life, the tone . I don't really share.

But I think we fundamentally get the idea. (If I dare to presume what you think). All that really matters to me as said is I just want to eat less meat. I think its an appalling indefensible thing to do. Others can do as they choose, but meat eatings on the way out as I see, for a variety of reasons - few of them to do directly with ethics and morality.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021