Then the ability to reason is actually not your basis for assigning worth.

Luckily that's satire.

"...haven't met a plant that can object to their actions." - gloaming

Hi everyone, I would like to share a thought to this conversation. I think plants have been objecting our human actions, and even animals actions by growing thorns, releasing foul odors, poisoning our immune systems such as some chile peppers are spicy to us as a defense mechanism. Most of all of our seeds that grow into plants, contain fibers with developed chemicals similar to our brain. Which is probaly why we improve our health when we consume some natural plants in moderation. They may not have pain receptors as humans do but they are trying to defend their chance for survival by learning to improve their immune systems to fight off microbes, parasites, diseases, and the ones that eat them. They release oxygen for the air we breathe and some can only be grown in certain locations. Plants may be more useful than we might think such as the Greek etymology neuron is anything of a fibrous nature.

Thank you, I believe it is immoral to eat plants if they can feel pain which they do if it is risking their chance for survival shown in their defense against us and nature.

You're entirely ignoring the fact that the total sum of suffering is less if you don't kill animals for food. — NKBJ

If we follow your assumption that the more animals live the more plants die, then if you wanted to reduce the total sum of suffering over time you could kill all animals once and for all. Why don't you do that? Being a vegan makes little difference.

We can locate where in the brain pain is processed. We know the biological function and process of pain. It's not some huge mystery. — NKBJ

What you don't get, is that "plants do not feel pain" is not a logical consequence of "an animal's apparent experience of pain is correlated with the detection with some instrument of some activity in some area of its brain"

Vegans try. It's the stubborn omnis who want to posit that plants have feelings to and therefore lets slit pig's necks who don't want to change a darn thing about the status quo. — NKBJ

Why do you assume people who wonder whether plants feel pain are barbarians who enjoy slitting pig's throats?

If we follow your assumption that the more animals live the more plants die, then if you wanted to reduce the total sum of suffering over time you could kill all animals once and for all. Why don't you do that? Being a vegan makes little difference. — leo

You're misunderstanding the entire concept. We have to eat. Some things will have to die in order to fulfill that need. Veganism is the choice to reduce the suffering caused by that need.

Also, if we killed all animals, the ecosystem would go totally out of wack and we'd likely hurt such a great number of plants in the process so as to make the whole thing cause more suffering than just leaving it be.

What you don't get, is that "plants do not feel pain" is not a logical consequence of "an animal's apparent experience of pain is correlated with the detection with some instrument of some activity in some area of its brain" — leo

We can only act on the basis of things we know or can be relatively certain of. We KNOW that animals feel pain. We don't know that plants do, and we have no good evidence to suggest that they might.

Just like why I don't go to church on Sunday: I know I can spend that time productively elsewhere, and I'm pretty certain that church is a waste of time, even though I don't have hard evidence I won't be going to hell, the lack of evidence in favor of that conclusion is enough.

Why do you assume people who wonder whether plants feel pain are barbarians who enjoy slitting pig's throats? — leo

I don't. I do assume omnis who want to say "but plants though" really do just want to barbarically enjoy the result of slitting a pig's throat though.
It's a fun thought experiment, but it's fairly obvious that no one seriously thinks eating a carrot is the moral equivalent of beheading a kitten.

For your entertainment:
https://yourveganfallacyis.com/files/fallacy/media/tumblr_n7j4mxj7jj1tzue9go1_1280.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e9/a1/d0/e9a1d0e7ee88baa6ba7f18e149d34ea1.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/78/00/33/780033d484a24cc54cf24daa80ad9fce.jpg

We KNOW that animals feel pain. We don't know that plants do, and we have no good evidence to suggest that they might. — NKBJ

They are using defense mechanisms to protect their existence, they do not have pain receptors to have them learn their environment but they are trying to send foul odors, poisonous toxins and developing spines to avoid us and nature. It is immoral to abuse the consumption of plants as it is immoral to abuse the consumption of animals. We know animals feel pain from their reactions, and behaviors of vocalizing or trying to clean or hide injuries, while plants are under attack of microbes, parasites, and being somewhat defenseless in the food chain for our ecosystem. They are adapting to learn how to defend and survive.

as long as you have fat you dont need to eat to live. You need fluids.

However, I think meat has certain enzymes we have adapted to utilize in our bodies throughout history and I give people support that want to improve their health but that requires conditioning and practicing to change their sensitivity to certain resources of food. It is not immediate. Thank you.

They are using defense mechanisms to protect their existence, they do not have pain receptors to have them learn their environment but they are trying to send foul odors, poisonous toxins and developing spines to avoid us and nature. — Closed-openmindedness

They're not consciously doing any of that. You can't describe the chemical reactions of a plant, or the physical attributes thereof as a plant "trying" to do anything. Anymore than water "tries" to become ice with certain temperatures.

They're not consciously doing any of that. You can't describe the chemical reactions of a plant, or the physical attributes thereof as a plant "trying" to do anything. — NKBJ

Excellent point I agree that can never be proven but their existence is seen as they have adapted through harsh environments, teaming up with fungi and using our carbon dioxide for their chemical processes. When we eat meat we are consuming the plant properties that has allowed that animal to live so the source the plants always has been. To me that's a conscious effort for survival.

Then the ability to reason is actually not your basis for assigning worth. — NKBJ

Yes it is. Humans have the potential for reason and use reason. Therefore, humans deal with each other according to individual rights. We respect each other's property. We respect each other's lives. Humans who don't, are considered criminals and are thrown in jail. Animals and plants don't have the capacity to understand or value individual rights, which means we are allowed to eat them.

Yes it is. Humans have the potential for reason and use reason. — AppLeo

Not all humans do though.
So either you need to assert that there is something besides reason to which we tie worth, or that we are allowed to eat those non-reasoning humans.

Yeah, that's why we throw them in jail or they become homeless.

they have adapted — Closed-openmindedness

What's conscious about it?
Evolution is a process of trial and error. Mutations happen by accident and some mutations happen to be helpful in procreation, while others are not. Someday a plant accidentally grew thorn-like things, it happened to survive because it didn't get eaten, and so it reproduced more, and so on.

We throw people with severe mental disabilities in jail?
Zika babies all go to jail now?

I didn't say that.

Those are people who are unable to reason. So on what basis do you assign them worth?

The potential for reason.

Mentally disabled people don't have that either.

We don't eat them though because they are human and have human rights.

So you're not actually assigning worth on the basis of reason, but on the basis of the arbitrary distinction of species. Human chauvinism is what that's called.

So that means you're also against abortions in all cases.

I'll explain to you through formal logic where your reasoning falls flat.

Your argument is:
If you have the potential to reason then you deserve rights.
Some humans have the potential to reason.
Therefore all humans deserve rights.

If your argument is valid, then we should be able to replace those terms with others.
The standard form looks like this:
If P then R.
Some H have P.
Therefore all H have R.

Let's see:
If you are a cat then you are a feline.
Some mammals are cats.
Therefore all mammals are felines.

Or:
If you are a thief then you are a criminal.
Some black people are thieves.
Therefore all black people are criminals.

With any luck, this should show you that you need to rethink your position/argument.

I know I'm wrong; I just couldn't think of an argument to justify eating plants. I guess there is no logical reason to eat or not eat plants. You can eat them or not eat them. It really doesn't matter. Especially since we already eat animals and they feel pain, there shouldn't be a problem with eating plants if they feel pain.

I don't really find this question interesting or really matters all that much anyway, so I won't be commenting in this discussion anymore.

Mutations happen by accident and some mutations happen to be helpful in procreation, while others are not. Someday a plant accidentally grew thorn-like things, it happened to survive because it didn't get eaten, and so it reproduced more, and so on. — NKBJ

Mutations is a good word to describe how our immune systems identify different virus and bacteria to help our survival. I think it happened to survive from what the species has learned which allows more reproduction. I'm not understanding where an accident has helped us survive more than plants? I see where our subconscious involves bodies are exposed to the environment and we I.d. threats, plants are exposed to the environment and i.d. threats so we are not as conscious as I might even think.

I guess there is no logical reason to eat or not eat plants. You can eat them or not eat them. It really doesn't matter. Especially since we already eat animals and they feel pain, there shouldn't be a problem with eating plants if they feel pain — AppLeo

Two things:
Animals feel pain and plants don't.
We have to eat plants and we don't have to eat animals.

If, in addition to animals, plants felt pain and one was to conclude that it was immoral to eat them for this reason, then it would follow that all eating was immoral. If one also concluded that we should not do immoral things, then it would either follow that we should not eat and therefore die or that it was less immoral to eat to survive than to cause the suffering entailed in getting the food we need to eat to survive.

This suggests that whilst it may be immoral to cause suffering unnecessarily, causing suffering necessarily is not immoral when the result of that suffering obtains our own continued existence.

If the suffering entailed by providing human food is not morally bad and plants suffer, then it shouldn't really matter what I eat, plants or animals since suffering entails in all cases. Put this way, ethical veganism sounds like the logical terminus of a reductio ad absurdum instead of a reasoned position.

If the suffering entailed by providing human food is not morally bad and plants suffer, then it shouldn't really matter what I eat, plants or animals since suffering entails in all cases. Put this way, ethical veganism sounds like the logical terminus of a reductio ad absurdum instead of a reasoned position — Txastopher

Except that, once again, you can't just say "some suffering is involved in my diet" and conclude that "therefore it doesn't matter how much suffering is involved in my diet."

That logical leap is the real reductio ad absurdum, and it's not the vegans making it.

I agree that the 'ethical' vegan suffering argument is valid, but the fact that it could lead to the absurd conclusion that it is wrong to eat any living thing shows that despite its validity, it is unsound. My suggestion is that the premise, "causing suffering is wrong" is where the problem lies.

Of course, it's easy to get people to agree that causing suffering is wrong, and most ethical vegan arguments slip this in at the top as an unchallengeable premise, but upon examination it's not true in this absolute formulation. What we should be saying is that causing suffering may be wrong.

If we accept that causing suffering may be wrong then arguments turn on the degree of suffering, its qualitative and comparative nature in different living organisms and its effect on the agent of the suffering. Thus, we can still minimise suffering and condemn sadism, but accept that some is the inevitable corollary of existence.

Unfortunately, no non-anthropocentric ranking of suffering exists. The claim that one kingdom suffers more that another is merely vegan doctrine. All anyone can confidently claim is that eating entails suffering. Also, their dogmatic devotion to an anthropocentric hierarchy of suffering and their childish assumption that all suffering must be wrong calls into question the right of vegans to use the term 'ethical' to describe themselves since it would more truthful for adherents to describe themselves as 'faith' vegans.

Regardless of my alimentary preferences, it seems quite likely that the suffering entailed in keeping me fed is far greater than the suffering that would be caused by me starving to death. However, since I don't believe that causing suffering is wrong per se. I can forgive myself for not being able to photosynthesise and find no need to reject entire taxa as potential sustenance.

What we should be saying is that causing suffering may be wrong. — Txastopher

Causing unnecessary suffering is wrong.
Killing animals is unnecessary and does cause suffering.
Killing plants might cause suffering, but is necessary.

Unfortunately, no non-anthropocentric ranking of suffering exists. — Txastopher

We must of course evaluate everything from a human perspective. That does not mean, however, that our conclusions are wrong. Scientific inquiry, evolutionary theory, and just being an observer of animal behavior lead to the conclusion that animals can suffer.

Science: we know what mechanisms in the human body cause suffering and pleasure. We know that animals like mammals, birds, and reptiles share these same mechanisms.

Evolutionary theory: traits found in one species will exist in other species, especially if they have evolutionary advantages. The advantages of feeling pain and pleasure are pretty obvious.

Observation: if I kick my dog (Hypothetical. I would never actually kick my dog. She's a sweetums.) she will yelp and cower and run away. If I kick a pig, it will squeal and try to either get away or might try to bite back.

All this taken together leads to the pretty darn obvious conclusion that animals suffer. We have no such comprehensive evidence available where plants are concerned.
I would like to add, that it is only when veganism is brought up that anyone ever doubts kicking a dog or other animal is worse than picking a daisy.

I can forgive myself for not being able to photosynthesise and find no need to reject entire taxa as potential sustenance. — Txastopher

Vegans photosynthesize? What? OMG, what is this amazing superpower I've suddenly acquired without even noticing?!
(Fun fact, we do actually photosynthesize vitamin D.)

You're misunderstanding the entire concept. We have to eat. Some things will have to die in order to fulfill that need. Veganism is the choice to reduce the suffering caused by that need.

Also, if we killed all animals, the ecosystem would go totally out of wack and we'd likely hurt such a great number of plants in the process so as to make the whole thing cause more suffering than just leaving it be.

We can only act on the basis of things we know or can be relatively certain of. We KNOW that animals feel pain. We don't know that plants do, and we have no good evidence to suggest that they might. — NKBJ

The thing is, you can't prove being a vegan causes less suffering, whatever proof you come up with will be based on some untestable belief. Sure most people react more strongly to an animal being killed than a plant, and animals resemble us more than plants, but that's no proof. You don't know how much each being suffers, you just speculate based on your own beliefs and experience of the world. You're just trying to push your untestable beliefs, someone with different untestable beliefs would reach a different conclusion. Your own beliefs lead you to assume that we have no 'good' evidence plants feel pain, pick different beliefs and there's a lot you might interpret as evidence.

What it all boils down to is that seeing animals apparently suffer makes you suffer, but you get no such reaction with plants, so you feel better about yourself by killing only plants, and you want to force others to do the same as you. This way you have of categorizing people as 'vegans' or 'omnis' as if what they eat was their whole defining feature, and attempting to convert the latter into the former.

There is a lot we used to 'know' in the past, and today we 'know' things totally different that have replaced what we used to 'know'. What we 'know' is in great part a product of the shared beliefs of the time we live in. I'm sure there is a lot we 'know' now that will be replaced by something very different in the future.

You believe you cause less suffering by eating only plants, but really you don't know. We just shape the world based on what we believe, maybe we commit atrocities on a daily basis and we don't notice it, because to see them as atrocities we would need to have different beliefs.

Myself I don't enjoy suffering, I don't enjoy seeing others suffer, so the uncertainty about what other beings feel is a bit unsettling. If I really convinced myself that plants do feel it wouldn't take much for me to react as strongly to plants being killed than animals. People who have zero empathy towards animals often simply believe that they feel nothing. If you believe some human is going to kill you, you wouldn't care about his feelings and would probably kill him first if you believed that was the way to save yourself. We have empathy to others as long as we don't see them as a threat, or as long as we see them as being alike to us. But in the end it's really a competition for survival. We pick what we want to live and what we want to kill, and then the world gets shaped accordingly. When I focus on the suffering of others, I find it hard to find any comforting thought in all this, unless one turns to spirituality.

All this taken together leads to the pretty darn obvious conclusion that animals suffer. — NKBJ

Look, if you want to base your diet on an intuitive anthropomorphic ranking of suffering, go ahead. However, you are presenting 'ethical' veganism as a rigorous philosophy, which, as has been shown, it definitely is not. the adjective 'ethical' in 'ethical' veganism affirms moral superiority based on logic and evidence and implies a normativism that proceeds directly from the canon of western thought. A more correct term would be 'faith' vegan since such a large part of vegan morality is based on speciesist intuitions about the subjective experience of living things.

In short:

• Vegans = no problem
• Proselytising 'ethical' vegans on philosophy forums = Mormon missionaries

Vegans = no problem
Proselytising 'ethical' vegans on philosophy forums = Mormon missionaries — Txastopher

And here we see your inability to think clearly about the issue. This whole forum is designed to discuss ideas. This thread is discussing ideas related to diet and morality. Saying that my position is any more proselytizing than yours or any other position about morality on this entire forum is just stupid and biased.

It's just a way to dismiss the argument out of hand. And this stubborn attitude can be shown here:

Look, if you want to base your diet on an intuitive anthropomorphic ranking of suffering, go ahead — Txastopher

I listed much more than intuition as evidence.

But I'm afraid it's clear you don't WANT the conclusion to be true, so you'll say just about anything to make yourself believe that it isn't.