We evolved as omnivores, requiring meat as well as plant matter to survive, regardless of if t is humane or not. Therefore, "wrong" is a relative thing. — Life101
My problem with vegans is not what they eat; I don't care, but I don't think they should care what I eat either since they are incapable of convincing anyone but themselves that the underlying assumptions of their morality stand up to ethical scrutiny. — Txastopher
It's pretty telling that you're getting so defensive in a theoretical argument about ethics. — NKBJ
Because this is what immoral actions are based upon. Causing unnecessary harm. Causing harm to life implies that the life has the capability to perceive harm. If it cannot perceive harm, such as a plant or a rock, we do not have an obligation to it in the same way we would toward a sentient being that CAN perceive harm.First of all, why does it matter that plants can't suffer? Why does that entail the forfeiture of their existence to us or other organisms? — yatagarasu
Many fruits still grow on trees, in which you still have the same affect on plants that Vegans would have. But again, you'd have to provide some data that Fruitarians cause less harm than Vegans. But even so, I don't think you can sufficiently benefit from a diet consisting entirely of fruits. You would need to include nuts, seeds and vegetables with every meal because they will provide the fat and protein you need. They will also help slow down any blood sugar spikes that come from eating only fruit.A few out there, mostly those that follow Jainism practice Fruitarianism. That seems to be the most rational form of following through any argument that pushes for avoiding destroying living organisms. Veganism seems to be not specific enough. Oh, meat producing organisms are protected, but not ones that produce plants for us to eat? — yatagarasu
Such as lab meat? Yeah, I don't see a problem with that. Since no pain, suffering or killing was involved, I don't find it wrong.Second, if we were able to create an organism that had no nervous system and did not suffer but was made of meat. Would it be okay to eat that meat? Just wanted to see what others thought. — yatagarasu
Because this is what immoral actions are based upon. Causing unnecessary harm. Causing harm to life implies that the life has the capability to perceive harm. If it cannot perceive harm, such as a plant or a rock, we do not have an obligation to it in the same way we would toward a sentient being that CAN perceive harm. — chatterbears
Many fruits still grow on trees, in which you still have the same affect on plants that Vegans would have. But again, you'd have to provide some data that Fruitarians cause less harm than Vegans. But even so, I don't think you can sufficiently benefit from a diet consisting entirely of fruits. You would need to include nuts, seeds and vegetables with every meal because they will provide the fat and protein you need. They will also help slow down any blood sugar spikes that come from eating only fruit. — chatterbears
Such as lab meat? Yeah, I don't see a problem with that. Since no pain, suffering or killing was involved, I don't find it wrong. — chatterbears
The plant wants the same as it is a living organism, except it can't moved (in most cases) . It may not scream in pain, but it presumably wants to avoid the same fate. Why do some living organisms get that benefit while others do not? A nervous system seems to be an arbitrary way to measure their right to life. — yatagarasu
Many Fruitatarians only eat fruit that has fallen naturally. From a scientific perspective fruits are allowed because you are benefiting the plant by eating the endosperm and not harming the plant at all. — yatagarasu
Since both plants and animals reproduce they are living and therefore should be treated the same, regardless of their nervous systems. : ) — yatagarasu
There are still three ethical claims which remain un-addressed and until they are further discussion is pointless. — Pseudonym
Again, you have not philosophically supported the argument that conciousness is equal to value — Pseudonym
You have not substantiated your claim that the reason we do not kill and eat other humans (or pets for that matter) is because of the value we assign to their level of conciousness or sentience, you have merely asserted it. It's perfectly reasonable that we do not kill other humans(or pets) in order to minimise the pain caused to their communities (or owners) at their loss. It may simply be a taboo designed to avoid recriminations - we don't kill other humans (or their beloved pets) because they are capable of killing us in turn. — Pseudonym
Finally, you have not provided any argument to support the claim that these ethical considerations (harm, the intrinsic value of sentience, internal moral consistency) outweigh other ethical values - Naturalness or moderation and tolerance (both of which incidentally are listed as universal human virtues). — Pseudonym
And you still haven't address that your linked 2002 Study [by Steven Davis] was refuted by Gaverick Matheny in 2003. — chatterbears
A sentient being of higher consciousness can improve the lives of other sentient beings. They also have the capability to improve the lives of members from a different species. Therefore, a sentient being has more value, because it can provide benefits to other species, as well as members within its own species. We see this in nature, where one species will save and protect the babies of a different species from outside predators. Non-sentient life, such as plants, does not have this value of being able to protect other life. — chatterbears
So far, the only answers I've received are flawed and superfluous. — chatterbears
I never claimed that one ethical value outweighs another value. — chatterbears
For goodness sake this is not a science forum. We are not here to discuss the technicalities of scientific papers. Have a look at the title bar of the page and tell me what it says just before the word 'Forum'. — Pseudonym
Funny that you were okay posting scientific references and articles when it fit your agenda, but then when I refuted it with an article from Gaverick Matheny, you suddenly state that this is not a science forum. The dishonesty is transparent here. — chatterbears
A sentient being of higher consciousness can improve the lives of other sentient beings. They also have the capability to improve the lives of members from a different species. Therefore, a sentient being has more value, because it can provide benefits to other species, as well as members within its own species. We see this in nature, where one species will save and protect the babies of a different species from outside predators. Non-sentient life, such as plants, does not have this value of being able to protect other life. — chatterbears
A plant cannot "want", as it doesn't have a brain to perceive anything. A plant "wants" to survive in the same way bacteria "wants" to survive, yet neither of them have a brain or central nervous system. Neither can feel pain, produce thoughts, have emotions, etc... A nervous system is only one part of the equation, as something also needs a brain to perceive pain or have thoughts and emotions. — chatterbears
You keep pretending that all animals can feel pain, while plants can not and thus it's unethical to grow and kill animals for food but it's ok to do the same with plants and bacteria without providing any argument for this assumption. The biological evidence is clear and contradicting your assumptions on this — Tomseltje
What exactly does the science show? It shows that plants have chemical reactions, and there is no evidence that they feel pain or can suffer. — NKBJ
Besides which, as has been repeatedly explained here (not that it seems you have bothered to read the whole thread), even IF it were true that plants deserve near or equal consideration to animals, veganism would STILL be better, because fewer plants need to be used for a vegan diet than an omnivorous one. — NKBJ
Besides which, as has been repeatedly explained here (not that it seems you have bothered to read the whole thread), even IF it were true that plants deserve near or equal consideration to animals, veganism would STILL be better, because fewer plants need to be used for a vegan diet than an omnivorous one. — NKBJ
You keep pretending that all animals can feel pain, while plants can not and thus it's unethical to grow and kill animals for food but it's ok to do the same with plants and bacteria without providing any argument for this assumption. The biological evidence is clear and contradicting your assumptions on this, sure keep ignoring facts and pushing your dogmatic virtues, but please go to a preachers platform for that, If you want to make a philosophical argument, you ought to adress the objections I made rather than ignore them. — Tomseltje
I want to know why you put the line at sentient beings rather than further down the line at plants. I assume most don't because 1) they haven't even considered plants and and/or 2) if they have they find it completely impractical and a cognitive dissonance forms in order to feel fine with eating plant life. — yatagarasu
A plant cannot "want", as it doesn't have a brain to perceive anything. A plant "wants" to survive in the same way bacteria "wants" to survive, yet neither of them have a brain or central nervous system. Neither can feel pain, produce thoughts, have emotions, etc... A nervous system is only one part of the equation, as something also needs a brain to perceive pain or have thoughts and emotions. — chatterbears
I mainly want to know because I feel like "sentient beings are a no-no line of argument" to be very exclusive and does not respect life as much as it should. We are the arbiters of who lives and who dies. The plant says, "I'm alive too!" and gets shut down because it isn't "sentient" enough. Why does sentience only give you the right to live? Many philosophies saw this as a hypocrisy and choose not to ignore those organisms as well. — yatagarasu
As has repeatedly been explained here, this is a problem for vegans, not for me. I don't claim that sentience is the guiding principle of a dietary morality The ongoing plant holocaust lies solely on the conscience of the vegans. — Txastopher
So the same argument applies to farm animals, which is, why would we kill them when it is not necessary? We have other plant-based foods that cause much less harm, and are healthier for you and the environment. — chatterbears
Why would you feel the need to unnecessarily kill an animal? And by unnecessary, I am referring to plant-based products that we have as alternatives. — chatterbears
Animal slaughter is not necessary when we have a better alternative. — chatterbears
So why is it okay for a pig to be slaughtered unnecessarily, but not a dog? — chatterbears
So are you saying we should eat nothing and just die? Since plants apparently need the same moral consideration as sentient animals, we shouldn't eat plants either, correct? Therefore, we would be left with eating nothing; in which we would starve, then die. — chatterbears
But you already know the answer. — Sapientia
Again, surely you know the answer. So, is this just rhetoric? — Sapientia
Yes, it seems it is just rhetoric. You just want to push the alternative that you judge as better. — Sapientia
All my statements were direct to Regi, not you. So again, I am not sure why you're responding to a statement I made toward someone else, as our conversation is not related to things you and I have talked about. If you want to have a discussion with me, respond to statements I have directly made toward you.Why do you think? It's no coincidence that there's a much bigger market for dogs as pets, and pigs as livestock. — Sapientia
To both of you, since you're so humored by how unreasonable Vegans are; how about you debate me, live on stream. You can show thousands of people how flawed and fallacious my argumentation is, since it is apparently equivalent to that of a Jehovah Witness. It should be easy for both of you, right? And we can let the audience be the judge. And if either of you respond with some excuse, such as "It would be a waste of time.", then you're full of hot air.
This thread is for people who actually care to discuss and explain their positions, not ignore all opposing positions without proper rebuttal. I'd love to talk to either of you, or both at once, over voice chat. That way, you can't constantly ignore questions and comments without proper responses, followed by ad hominem. And if you're not willing to debate me over voice chat, get off this thread and go spout your nonproductive comments elsewhere. — chatterbears
Lol, no thanks. I don't do voice chat. Here's good enough. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.