Meat Plant Paradox!

TheMadFool

Carnivorous plants are plants that derive some or most of their nutrients from trapping and consuming animals or protozoans, typically insects and other arthropods. — Wikipedia

Veganism

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. — Wikipedia

Now that I've clarified the situation to myself, I feel it's ok to eat plants. They eat us and so why not eat them. Fair and square! No?

If the above makes sense then this too should make sense: Animals eat humans. So, why should humans not eat animals?

If you think eating plants is acceptable because we have carnivorous plants then, you shouldn't have any qualms about being nonvegetarian for there are carnivorous animals.

Please note, I'm deliberately ignoring the real justification for veganism which is that plants can't feel pain.

I want the discussion, if one unfolds, to be on veganism and/or the tit-for-tat principle - if I can do something to you, you can do the same to me. Pay somebody back in the same coin OR give somebody a taste of faer own medicine - these codes of conduct being considered legit.

Addendum

1. Plants eat animals (carnivorous plants).

2. Tit-for-tat is a good strategy (game-theoretically and morally).

3. If tit-for-tat is a good strategy and if plants eat animals then it's justified to eat plants.

4. Tit-for-tat is a good strategy and plants eat animals. (1 & 2 Conjunction)

5. It's justified to eat plants. (3 & 4 Modus ponens)

6. If it's justified to eat plants then Veganism is justified.

7. Veganism is justified. (5, 6 Modus ponens)

8. Animals eat animals

9. If Veganism is justified and animals eat animals then nonvegetarianism is justified.

10. Veganism is justified & animals eat animals. (7, 8 Conjunction)

11. Nonvegetarianism is justified. (9, 10 Modus ponens)

12. If Veganism is justified then nonvegetarianism is justified. (7 - 11 Conditional proof)

13. Veganism is justified.

14. Nonvegetarianism is justified. (12 ,13 Modus ponens)

15. Veganism is justified and nonvegetarianism is justified. (13, 14 Conjunction)

Paradox!

Shawn

Eating a pig is atrocious.

Heracloitus

I wouldn't say it's tit-for-tat. Humans have the capacity to reason about their diet. Plants do not. Nor animals.

180 Proof

↪Shawn

I miss bacon though. Lots of bacon. :yum:

Apollodorus

I want the discussion, if one unfolds, to be on veganism and/or the tit-for-tat principle - — TheMadFool

Well, lefties always insists on "equality" so ....

But I'm not entirely sure about the pain-based argument for veganism. Do eggs experience pain when eaten by humans?

The other thing is that plant cultivation like soy beans can be detrimental for the environment:

Huge tracts of the forests in South America have been lost at the hands of the expanding soya industry. People protecting the forest, including Indigenous Peoples and local activists, have been intimidated, attacked and even killed.

Palm-oil cultivation is another craze that destroys natural habitats.

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/soya/

And does the whole world need to do what Greta says?

TheMadFool

Eating a pig is atrocious. — Shawn

And?

I wouldn't say it's tit-for-tat. Humans have the capacity to reason about their diet. Plants do not. Nor animals. — emancipate

Tit-for-tat is a strategy in game theory and while non-humans may exhibit that behavior e.g. herbivores eating plants and then plants evolving toxins/thorns/etc., strategies fall in the domain of reason i.e. humans would/have approve/approved it as a legitimate way of dealing with each other and with the world at large.

I miss bacon though. Lots of bacon. — 180 Proof

And?

Well, lefties always insists on "equality" so .... — Apollodorus

Marx & Engels (leftists) were right-handed. Go figure!

But I'm not entirely sure about the pain-based argument for veganism. Do eggs experience pain when eaten by humans? — Apollodorus

Thanks for pointing that out but then if it isn't about pain then what is it about? An egg is very similar, too similar in my opinion, to plants for Veganism to make sense. My logic would be that if you can't eat eggs, you can't eat plants too. Interesting!

plant cultivation like soy beans can be detrimental for the environment: — Apollodorus

That's not something the plants are doing, humans are to blame.

180 Proof

And? — TheMadFool

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/346811 :smirk:

TheMadFool

↪180 Proof

5.2k

Can you ethically justify eating meat?— Kaz1983

Why bother? Besides, it's the wrong question.

Plants are nourished by photosynthesis; animals, however, survive by devouring plants or devouring other animals or even by cannibalizing their own kind. So, except plants, the living devour the dead - carcasses (& organic detritus), raw or cooked - which belongs to the background, or embodiment, of all ethical concern and therefore itself cannot be an ethical concern; thus, how (or whom!), rather than what, we eat is a matter of ethics (e g. the industrialized meat & dairy industry and, thereby, its meat & dairy products).

Eventually, vat-grown meat (not just 'plant-based meat' substitutes) will moot the question because its process (A) will not torture and kill any animals and (b) will not degrade the environment remotely on the scale of animal (over)farming. (Also, plant-based diary and @home DIY hydro- & aqua- ponics kits are becoming more widely available ...)

Until then, however, my industrial meat products diet will remain "unjustified" because veganism, etc I find undernourishing and makes me miserable. Life's a grind enough and way too short to be withered away by any arbitrary ascesis ... :death: :flower: — 180 Proof

:fire: :fire: :fire: Excellent point! Eating each other to the point of even cannibalism is a fact of life that we, as of now, can't do anything about. Ergo, let's not get bogged down in what is an unsolvable problem (what we eat?) and instead focus on the doable (how we eat?).

Nevertheless, you do concede that what some of us are worried about - what we eat? - will become moot one day, with the widespread availability of cultured/synthetic meat. Sooner the better.

However, this isn't the issue I'm interested in. What I want an opinion on is how eating animals seem justified because given that plants eat animals, it seems only fair that we eat plants. Despite the logic (tit-for-tat strategy) being more game-theoretic than moral, clearly there's an ethical dimension to it.

Apollodorus pointed out that humans can reason and tit for tat either isn't reasonable or is in conflict with morality. At least that's what I think he meant. Yet, as I see it, giving somene (plants & animals) a taste of their own medicine (eating them as they eat us) seems to be a fully legit protocol in a moral sense.

I was trying so hard, too hard perhaps, to discover the paradox and I just had an eureka moment as I was writing this post. Here's the paradox

1. Vegans don't want to eat meat. They advice that we eat plants.

2. A justification for eating plants is tit for tat: plants eat animals and so why not eat them too?

3. If all of the above is true then we're justified in eating animals because they too eat us.

The paradox: Veganism justifies non-vegetarianism!

khaled

They eat us and so why not eat them. — TheMadFool

Venus fly traps don't eat us. The plants we eat never eat us.

If the above makes sense then this too should make sense: Animals eat humans. — TheMadFool

Not the ones we eat. We eat herbavoirs. Who would not eat humans.

We explicitly avoid eating carnivoirs because supposedly they taste like shit.

If you think eating plants is acceptable because we have carnivorous plants then, you shouldn't have any qualms about being nonvegetarian for there are carnivorous animals. — TheMadFool

Imagine someone says this: You shouldn't have any qualms about being racist towards black people for there is a minority of racist people who are black. (except said minority doesn't even exist in your examples)

2. A justification for eating plants is tit for tat: plants eat animals and so why not eat them too? — TheMadFool

No it isn't. Not remotely. The justification is that plants supposedly don't feel pain. Again, the plants we eat and that animals eat never harm us or the animals.

But even if they do, going vegan globally will reduce the number of plants eaten anyways because we wouldn't be feeding cattle anymore.

TheMadFool

Venus fly traps don't eat us. The plants we eat never eat us. — khaled

Excellent point! Could you kindly unpack this point further. There's something going on here which I can't quite put a finger on.

Heracloitus

Tit-for-tat is a strategy in game theory and while non-humans may exhibit that behavior e.g. herbivores eating plants and then plants evolving toxins/thorns/etc., strategies fall in the domain of reason i.e. humans would/have approve/approved it as a legitimate way of dealing with each other and with the world at large. — TheMadFool

Is photosynthesis also a form of reason? Stretching the definition of reason thin here. Plants do not make a conscious decision about what to eat. Or so it seems.

khaled

↪TheMadFool

Imagine someone says this: You shouldn't have any qualms about being racist towards black people for there is a minority of racist people who are black — khaled

You would (hopefully) tell that person they’re wrong. What would you say to them if they asked you to unpack?

That’s what I would say to you.

Apollodorus

That's not something the plants are doing, humans are to blame. — TheMadFool

True. But it shows that veganism can be bad for the environment and the animals (and humans) inhabiting it.

TheMadFool

Tit-for-tat is a strategy in game theory and while non-humans may exhibit that behavior e.g. herbivores eating plants and then plants evolving toxins/thorns/etc., strategies fall in the domain of reason i.e. humans would/have approve/approved it as a legitimate way of dealing with each other and with the world at large.
— TheMadFool

Is photosynthesis also a form of reason? Stretching the definition of reason thin here. Plants do not make a conscious decision about what to eat. Or so it seems. — emancipate

So, you mean to say that if plants could think like humans and they eat animals, we should give the nod of approval to the tit-for-tat strategy and eat them?

That means animals can be eaten because they can reason better than plants and they eat us. Tit for tat!

If you disagree, then for the tit-for-tat tactic to be used, both plants and animals need to have human-like cognition but then that means we can neither eat plants nor animals.

You would (hopefully) tell that person they’re wrong. What would you say to them if they asked you to unpack?

That’s what I would say to you. — khaled

Kindly tend to my original request.

That's not something the plants are doing, humans are to blame.
— TheMadFool

True. But it shows that veganism can be bad for the environment and the animals (and humans) inhabiting it. — Apollodorus

Yes but that doesn't seem to bear on the tit-for-tat strategy and how it relates to the kind of diet we advocate.

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

Nonsense. We eat meat for the same reason we use petrolium in combustion engines – much higher energy density than plant-matter and wood/coal, respectively. No other reason, Fool. Vegan / vegetarian diet is, however, healthier than carnivorous (or pescatarian) diet and more suitable for us now that we're anatomically on this side of 'the large forebrain explosion' facilitated, maybe even caused, by our h. sapien ancestors 'adopting' a significant meat-based diet (much more cooked than raw) hundreds of millennia ago.

khaled

↪TheMadFool

Kindly tend to my original request. — TheMadFool

You should at least attempt to figure it out yourself, but if you want me to spell it out for you:

Discriminating against a group for the actions of individuals makes no sense.

"That black guy just shot a man. This justifies shooting all black people"

This is the logic you're employing for animals and plants

TheMadFool

You should at least attempt to figure it out yourself, but if you want me to spell it out for you:

Discriminating against a group for the actions of individuals makes no sense.

"That black guy just shot a man. This justifies shooting all black people"

This is the logic you're employing for animals and plants — khaled

This is not my logic but could you tell me more about groups and indivduals with respect to plants and animals.

TheMadFool

Nonsense. We eat meat for the same reason we use petrolium in combustion engines – much higher energy density than plant-matter and wood/coal, respectively. No other reason, Fool. Vegan / vegitarian diet is, however, healthier than carnivorous (or pescatarian) diet and more suitable for us now that we're anatomically on this side of 'the large forebrain explosion' facilitated, maybe even caused, by our h. sapiens ancestors 'adopting' a significant meat-based diet (much more cooked than raw) hundreds of millennia ago. — 180 Proof

I understand where you're coming from 180 Proof but my question is about the tit-for-tat strategy, its moral aspects, our dietary recommendations, and how it all hangs together. Care to take a stab at that, please!

Apollodorus

"That black guy just shot a man. This justifies shooting all black people"

This is the logic you're employing for animals and plants — khaled

Not really, though. No one advocates eating all animals and plants. Some may be poisonous or otherwise unsuitable for human consumption, anyway.

Besides, eating is a necessity. Shooting anyone doesn't seem to be.

Heracloitus

So, you mean to say that if plants could think like humans and they eat animals, we should give the nod of approval to the tit-for-tat strategy and eat them? — TheMadFool

I already said that tit-for-tat doesn't apply in this situation because humans tend to operate on a higher level of cognition than our vegetative friends (although maybe that's debatable).

What you're describing is akin to taking anger out on an inanimate object. "That curb stubbed my toe so I'm going to destroy it. Tit-for-tat!". More like twit-for-twat.

khaled

↪Apollodorus

No one advocates eating all animals and plants. — Apollodorus

No, what’s being advocated for is eating animals that don’t harm us because there exist animals that do.

More like “That Asian just shot a man so this justifies shooting black people”

Besides, eating is a necessity. — Apollodorus

Not eating animals. At least not for anyone here. Where it is a necessity, sure.

khaled

↪TheMadFool

This is not my logic — TheMadFool

Yes it is. Your argument is that since some animals eat us, this justifies us eating all animals. Makes no sense.

Animals eat humans. So, why should humans not eat animals? — TheMadFool

No. Some animals eat humans. This doesn’t justify eating all animals.

Lions eat us, this doesn’t justify eating cows.

TheMadFool

Yes it is. Your argument is that since some animals eat us, this justifies us eating all animals. Makes no sense. — khaled

I repeat, this is not my logic.

No. Some animals eat humans. This doesn’t justify eating all animals.

Lions eat us, this doesn’t justify eating cows. — khaled

Yes, groups vs individuals logic which you kindly brought to my attention. Given that you seem to be in the know, how might this affect the morality of our diet?

TheMadFool

I already said that tit-for-tat doesn't apply in this situation because humans tend to operate on a higher level of cognition than our vegetative friends (although maybe that's debatable).

What you're describing is akin to taking anger out on an inanimate object. "That curb stubbed my toe so I'm going to destroy it. Tit-for-tat!". More like twit-for-twat. — emancipate

Yes, yes, we see eye to eye, on the same page we are. So, by your logic, tit-for-tat strategy given its due, it's not permissible to eat either plants or animals, right?

khaled

↪TheMadFool

I repeat, this is not my logic. — TheMadFool

Ok.

TheMadFool

I repeat, this is not my logic.
— TheMadFool

Ok. — khaled

And...???

180 Proof

Care to take a stab at that, please! — TheMadFool

I have by rejecting the "tit-for-tat strategy" premise as nonsense or, at best, a non sequitur with respect to why humans eat meat.

TheMadFool

I have by rejecting the "tit-for-tat strategy" premise as nonsense or, at best, a non sequitur with respect to why humans eat meat. — 180 Proof

It maybe so but here's the deal. Assuming I fall within the category normal human beings, I began with a sense of guilt for eating plants, they are after all living organisms. Then I recalled, thanks to a random magazine thrown carelessly on a table, that there are carnivorous plants. I suddenly felt as if a great weight was lifted off of my shoulder - I stopped feeling as bad as I used to biting down on veggies.

Explain that.

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

I'm not a therapist. :sweat:

TheMadFool

I'm not a therapist. :sweat: — 180 Proof

So, you're saying I'm abnormal, cuckoo?

What then of the tit-for-tat strategy? Is it too something only a deranged person would use?

180 Proof

↪TheMadFool

It's just your latest non sequitur-fixation, Fool. Like so many so-called "paradoxes", under scrutiny at least one premise doesn't hold up. You're not deranged, just not reflective enough.

Meat Plant Paradox!

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions