Can you morally justify killing animals for food when it’s not a necessity?

whiteflame

@Dee

I said I was not interested in continuing our discussion and I meant it. You keep either distorting, misrepresenting, or outright fabricating my argument, as you’ve done here. There is one sentence in here that somewhat accurately reflects my position, and the rest is pure fantasy. So, thank you for affirming my choice to disengage with you.

Dee

@whiteflame

I know you’ve no defence your cognitive dissonance has been exposed,  your hypocrisy and double standards demand you dis-engage as at this stage as you continue to embrace absurdity 

Ampersand

@whiteflame

Reading through more of the replies, it seems suffering was never explicitly mentioned as the core part of the argument and was something you read into it although this was in large part to it being vague soundbite rather than a laid out position.

Now you say suffering shouldn't determine the value of an organism.

Let's flip that on its head, once you've established the value of an organism through whatever moral, emotional or logical method you choose - is it then valid to let animals and/or plants suffer? That's the real question after all, isn't it?

Let me run an axiom past you:

"We should treat others as we wish to be treated."

This is the golden rule, often considered the cornerstone moral belief of humanity that is found in almost every mainstream religious and philosophical system: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Based on this we should try not to cause suffering to others or to at least reduce it as much as we can.

If I were a dog I would not want to be stabbed to death, as I'd be a sentient pain feeling being. If I were a carrot I would not mind being stabbed to death as I'd be a non sentient vegetable with no ability to feel pain and which can only be semantically argued to suffer in a way with no real relation to the topic at hand. Based on the golden rule, the latter is therefore permissable but not the former.

Regardless of how we decide worth, we have to make a choice about what we eat. You have focused on saying that you don't want to judge organisms based on their capacity to suffer, but that's not really relevant as it turned out no-one was pushing that as their argument anyway. More than that, as far as I can see you haven't provided an alternative for how you would make judgement on what should be eaten.

In the above argument as long as you value animals even as an "other", just recognising them as something that feels pain and exists, you should not eat animals but can eat vegetables. Do you have an alternative moral framework you'd like to present?

WinstonC

@MayCaesar "However much anyone suffers, we all die in the end, and at that point the amount of suffering we have undertaken is irrelevant."

Does this mean that if we're going to kill someone, it doesn't matter if we torture them to death rather than using humane methods?

WinstonC

Double post.

Plaffelvohfen

WinstonC said:

@MayCaesar "However much anyone suffers, we all die in the end, and at that point the amount of suffering we have undertaken is irrelevant."

Does this mean that if we're going to kill someone, it doesn't matter if we torture them to death rather than using humane methods?

In and of itself, it ultimately doesn't matter, yes...

WinstonC

@Plaffelvohfen Does this mean that we shouldn't bother trying to treat people humanely then?

Plaffelvohfen

@WinstonC

No, it doesn't mean that... But I'd like to point out that we're talking about eating animals, you are taking us into another debate imo...

whiteflame

@Ampersand

I don't have an alternative framework. I do, however, contest one facet of your scenario regarding stabbing, though. 

You state precisely how a carrot would feel (or, in this case, not feel) the effects of physical harm on itself. You state that a carrot is clearly non-sentient because it does not have a nervous system, and therefore cannot respond to pain in the same way that we do. To that extent, I would agree - a carrot would experience the world, including pain, very differently than we do. However, I don't think that that means the carrot is not, in any way, sentient or capable of suffering. I don't think this argument is semantic; I'm arguing that our inability to perceive what makes a carrot sentient or capable of suffering does not obviate any possibility of the carrot's sentience or capacity to suffer. As others have mentioned, we could, in the face of this uncertainty, consider this possibility as a reason to afford a lesser status to the carrot. I'm fine with that reasoning - certain and clear suffering outweigh uncertain and unclear suffering. What I've been taking issue with is the notion that there is no uncertainty, i.e. that we know for certain that plants have no form of sentience and no capacity for suffering. That was actually the argument that Dee was ascribing to, hence it was the response I gave. 

In a way, you're right that I haven't provided an alternative to decide what we eat (though I have explained why eating humans creates moral problems). The reason for that is because I don't think we can adequately subdivide food sources into what's moral and not moral to eat without imposing our biases regarding what suffering should look like into the equation. That being said, I have argued that it is worthwhile to take it out of the realm of which organisms can suffer and just focus on reducing suffering in general.

I think if the question is "is it alright to eat animals if we know that, by doing so, we are forcing them to suffer in large numbers?" then to a degree, I would agree that it's problematic (insofar as we weigh animal suffering higher by virtue of our ability to perceive and comprehend it). I think this has also been addressed at a few points throughout, but even if we agreed that it was immoral, I think we would also agree that it's impossible to reasonably enforce. We can agree it's a moral problem and find no meaningful way to address it that does not, itself, cause a great deal of harm. In an idealized world, we would aim to reduce suffering and see no repercussions. In this one, we can only argue morality in the abstract.

WinstonC

@Plaffelvohfen I was replying to what MayCaesar was saying about people's suffering not mattering ultimately.

You and I are probably on the same side of this debate, as I originally posted in support of eating meat for health reasons.

Dee

@whiteflame

You say ........That we know for certain that plants have no form of sentience and no capacity for suffering. That was actually the argument that Dee was ascribing to, hence it was the response I gave. 

My reply ......

I’ve explained this over 20 times and in 20 different ways , because you hold an opinion to what is accepted as fact you seem to think that’s that something is true merely because you deem it so .......

Plants are qualitatively different from humans and sentient non humans in that plants are certainly alive but they are not sentient. Plants do not have interests. ... Plants do not have nervous systems, benzodiazepine receptors, or any of the characteristics that we identify with sentience.

Plaffelvohfen

@WinstonC

We may well be on the same side, but maybe for different reasons...  

As I mentioned in my first post, when it comes to animal rights, I'm a speciesist, not everyone agrees with my position...

whiteflame

@Dee

Alright, you want to come back to this? Fine. You’ve made this claim several times, yes, and you’ve never supported it. Where’s your evidence? Show me a scientific source that states, unequivocally, that plants have absolutely no form of sentience and cannot feel anything even akin to pain. I accept as fact that plants do not experience the world as we or any other animal does. However, the lack of similar experience is not equivalent to the lack of any experience.

Dee

@whiteflame

Oh dear , Plants do not have interests. ... Plants do not have nervous systems, benzodiazepine receptors, or any of the characteristics that we identify with sentience.

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively

whiteflame

@Dee

You aren’t responding to my request or my point. Again, show me scientific evidence that states unequivocally that plants have no form of sentience and feel no form of pain. Again, I agree that plants do not experience the world as we do. That does not mean that they do not experience the world in a very different way using very different receptors and a variant of the nervous system we have. I’m challenging your fundamental notion of what sentience is and how it can be expressed.

Plaffelvohfen

@whiteflame

It seems you only assert that "there might be" other types of sentience that we currently do not know about, yet you offer no evidence... We can only ever act on what we know, and what we know so far is that plant do not have the basic biological structure allowing for what we know as sentience. 

We could push your argument further and plead that rocks and mineral too could have sentience in a yet to be discovered way on some unknown metaphysical level... Is that remote possibility justification to avoid hurting rocks?  It's nonsensical...

Dee

@whiteflame

Your appeal to fallacious arguments persists ......immune defenses are capable of doing incredible things, however, no individual is ever conscious of their own immune defenses. No animal (including humans) has ever consciously chased down and killed a pathogen when they were sick.No animal has ever consciously heated their own body in an attempt to kill a virus, no animal has ever consciously calculated which kind of cell to bring in to respond to a virus, no human has ever consciously chosen to chatter their teeth when they became cold, and we can all agree that these immune defenses occur whether an individual is intelligent or not.Thus, it wouldn’t be sensible to assume consciousness to plants exhibiting akin immune defenses.

whiteflame

@Plaffelvohfen

You may not know this, but this little discussion has been going on for quite a while. I did actually offer evidence of plant intelligence, though Dee summarily dismissed it.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

And I’ve got more.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-green-mind/201412/are-plants-entering-the-realm-the-sentient
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-and-smell-and-respond
https://allthatsinteresting.com/plants-defense-mechanism

I disagree that rocks and minerals could get the same attribution. They have no electrical pathways, no responses to external stimuli, and certainly no ability to perceive their environment.

whiteflame

@Dee

Still not responsive to my point. I never said their capacity for immune response makes them sentient.

Plaffelvohfen

@whiteflame

I disagree that rocks and minerals could get the same attribution. They have no electrical pathways, no responses to external stimuli, and certainly no ability to perceive their environment.

That we know of... I could use your own objection : Can you show me scientific evidence that states unequivocally that minerals have no form of sentience and feel no form of pain?

Even your articles take care not to imply a definite answer, they all use "may be" in their assumptions, it's still just hypothesis... Until new information is provided there is no justifications to assume that they actually do...

Dee

You say ....... Again, show me scientific evidence that states unequivocally that plants have no form of sentience and feel no form of pain. 

My reply ....You admitted plants do not feel pain this is a scientific fact , your constant use of the term “ form of pain “ is ludicrous, what exactly is a “ form of pain “?




 

whiteflame

@Plaffelvohfen

If you give me enough time, sure. I could present you with geologic evidence showing that rocks don’t conduct electricity or send signals, and that they have no living cells to sense their environment. I suppose you could argue that there’s still some uncertainty involved there, though to do that, you’d have to tug at the question of what life is, and that’s another can of worms.

And, again, this argument has been going on for a while so you may not have noticed, but I’m not arguing that plants are sentient. I’m arguing that they may be sentient. It’s Dee’s position that they unequivocally are not sentient. That’s what I’m challenging.

Dee

@whiteflame

@Plaffelvohfen 

You say........You may not know this, but this little discussion has been going on for quite a while. I did actually offer evidence of plant intelligence, though Dee summarily dismissed it.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants

My reply .....

Oh dear what an unfortunate choice ......This is a disturbing story about the abuse of the power of journalism and the trust of the public by one of the most, if not the most, influential food writers in the world.

Michael Pollan is a big deal, arguably more influential on agriculture policy than the Secretary of Agriculture. He is the author of five books, all best sellers, professor of journalism at the University of California-Berkeley and one of the most cited commentators on food related issues in the world, with more than 330,000 followers on Twitter, many of whom consider him a hero. Although the public perception of him is just the opposite, he is not a reputable science journalist or—by his own admission—an objective reporter—on organics or agriculture. Even more startling, Pollan admits—brags even—that he manipulates high profile stories on organics and crop biotechnology, particularly at the New York Times—and that the papers editors are willing dupes.

How embarrassing for you

You say ......

And I’ve got more.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-green-mind/201412/are-plants-entering-the-realm-the-sentient

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-and-smell-and-respond

https://allthatsinteresting.com/plants-defense-mechanism

My reply ......An opinion piece by a psychologist oh dear , did you even read it?

You say ......I disagree that rocks and minerals could get the same attribution. They have no electrical pathways, no responses to external stimuli, and certainly no ability to perceive their environment.

My reply ......

You’re wrong yet again .........

http://www.pravdareport.com/science/83225-stones/

whiteflame

@Dee

I conceded that plants do not feel pain in the same way that we and other animals do. The way they send electrical signals is very different than ours. If you want to read about it, I just posted a set of links for you to peruse. I’ll quote one:

”A study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison published on September 14 in Science revealed that when a plant is injured, they release a nervous system-like signal throughout their body, similar to the pain response found in humans and other animals.”

whiteflame

@Dee

Dismissing the sources without addressing their contents or the veracity of their claims is a common tactic that in no way addresses the evidence they’re providing. Example: that psychology paper you derided cites several plant science papers, all of which you ignored. If you disagree with the conclusions of those papers, please, examine them and tell me what you take from them and where you think the authors took liberties with their conclusions.

As for the rock paper, can’t help but notice that it didn’t actually counter anything I’ve been saying. There’s no talk of sentience or electrical signaling. It doesn’t even cite a scientific paper, instead talking about two geologists who provide their insights (apparently based on personal preference) followed by a series of claims without any support whatsoever. It’s a nice appeal to authority, but it lacks anything meaningful to anyone who isn’t them or those who already agree with them.

Plaffelvohfen

@whiteflame

If you give me enough time, sure. I could present you with geologic evidence showing that rocks don’t conduct electricity or send signals, and that they have no living cells to sense their environment.

But you're assuming that these (electricity, living cells, etc) are the only possible method through which to sense one's environment... Granted, they are indeed the only means we know of at the moment, but I could also say (I'm not holding this view obviously but for argument sake) : I'm not arguing that minerals are sentient, I'm arguing that they could be and that we just do not know yet... It's not really helpful right? Same can be said about plants or anything else really, no? 

And anyhow, in the end even if plants actually are sentient and feel pain and all, it doesn't affect my primary position regarding the morality of eating meat or not, my position is speciesism...  To me, arguing if plants are sentient or that non-human animals are, is irrelevant...

whiteflame

@Plaffelvohfen

Point taken: we can’t function in absolutes. I grant that that argument by itself is not convincing, though I stand by the other points I’ve made.

It’s fine if those points (and for that matter this argument) is irrelevant to you. I have entirely separate reasons myself for how I view the inherent morality/immorality of eating plants and animals as well. I’m not using these as my basis for doing so, simply to address an argument that Dee is using in support of his stance.

Dee

@whiteflame

You say .......Dismissing the sources without addressing their contents or the veracity of their claims is a common tactic that in no way addresses the evidence they’re providing. 

My reply .....Your poster boy admitted himself he was a bullshitter ..... he is not a reputable science journalist or—by his own admission—an objective reporter—on organics or agriculture. Even more startling, Pollan admits—brags even—that he manipulates high profile stories on organics and crop biotechnology, particularly at the New York Times—and that the papers editors are willing

What? You’re wecome

You say......Example: that psychology paper you derided cites several plant science papers, all of which you ignored. If you disagree with the conclusions of those papers, please, examine them and tell me what you take from them and where you think the authors took liberties with their conclusions.

My reply .....The conclusions , oh dear .......

The lack of obvious centres of sensory input makes it harder to understand plant senses. It is not always the case – the photoreceptors that plants use to "see", for example, are fairly well-studied– but it is certainly an area that merits further investigation.

For their part, Appel and Cocroft are hoping to track down the part or parts of a plant that respond to sound.

An area that merits “further investigation “ do you even read what you post?

You say .....As for the rock paper, can’t help but notice that it didn’t actually counter anything I’ve been saying. There’s no talk of sentience or electrical signaling. It doesn’t even cite a scientific paper, instead talking about two geologists who provide their insights (apparently based on personal preference) followed by a series of claims without any support whatsoever. 

My reply .....Exactly what you posted to me two unfounded opinion pieces 

It’s a nice appeal to authority, but it lacks anything meaningful to anyone who isn’t them or those who already agree with them.

whiteflame

@Dee

Yes, because sources that come with specific, primary evidence from scientific studies are clearly the same as sources that make nothing but assertions. Clearly, all scientific evidence is just a large appeal to authority, right?

It’s clear to me that you don’t care to read my actual sources, and instead just disparage the authors. You’re more interested in pointing out information they don’t have yet than you are in recognizing what they do have, which clearly runs contrary to your own arguments. Remember, it’s your point that plants are not, at all, sentient. It is not my argument that every facet of sentience has been thoroughly proven in plants, only that there is sufficient evidence to believe that they may be sentient. Clearly, you disagree so completely that any evidence to the contrary is anathema. 

If you want to actually address the assembled evidence in those points and state how your view of plants possessing nothing even akin to sentience still works despite them, I’d be happy to hear you out. If you’re going to keep dancing around the evidence in an attempt to introduce doubt that has no bearing on my point, then we’ll just call it here. I’m not interested in having my points ignored over and over.

Dee

@whiteflame

Your continued use of Deepak Chopra language  as in “plant pain  “ ,”plant sentience “ and “ plant intelligence” promises a decent future for you in the pseudoscientific field , give my regards to Deepak 

Your poster boy admitted himself he was a bullshitter ..... he is not a reputable science journalist or—by his own admission—an objective reporter—on organics or agriculture. Even more startling, Pollan admits—brags even—that he manipulates high profile stories on organics and crop biotechnology, particularly at the New York Times—and that the papers editors are willing

What? You’re welcome

My reply .....The conclusions , oh dear .......

The lack of obvious centres of sensory input makes it harder to understand plant senses. It is not always the case – the photoreceptors that plants use to "see", for example, are fairly well-studied– but it is certainly an area that merits further investigation.

For their part, Appel and Cocroft are hoping to track down the part or parts of a plant that respond to sound.

An area that merits “further investigation “ do you even read what you post you posted to me two unfounded opinion pieces 

What you posted to me is a nice appeal to authority, but it lacks anything meaningful to anyone who isn’t them or those who already agree with them.

Ampersand

@whiteflame

So what exactly is your argument that "Our inability to perceive what makes a carrot sentient or capable of suffering does not obviate any possibility of the carrot's sentience or capacity to suffer."?

Technically in any situation, even an infinite amount of evidence in favour of something does not totally close the possibility that it could turn out to be wrong. That all our knowledge could be flawed is only relevant if that's a notable possibility rather than the most minute of all conceivable chances.

Are you arguing there is something specific to our knowledge of vegetable biology that I'm perhaps not aware of which would leave this an open question?  What level of understanding of the biology of vegetables do you think we would need to reach before we can be certain in our conclusion before we can rule out some mystery mechanism for suffering despite their being no evidence that such a thing exists and our knowledge of this area being comprehensive?

Or if not specific to vegetables, are you simply arguing that in any situation where we don't have absolutely perfect knowledge (which is to say every situation) we should refrain from making judgement? This seems unworkable and I'm sure if I took a look at your previous posts I could find plenty of examples where you act counter to the reasoning you're now advocating.

I also have to say that I completely reject the basis of your argument where you say "The reason for that is because I don't think we can adequately subdivide food sources into what's moral and not moral to eat without imposing our biases regarding what suffering should look like into the equation."

Our own subjective opinion is a cornerstone of human society. Everything from our social mores to our laws to our language is based upon us deciding things because they work and seem right. That we would be imposing our subjective opinion on a subject could never be a rationale for not taking a stance in a debate like this.  Not only that but you are alive, so you obviously eat. It's not something you can opt out of until better evidence is available so I know for a fact you are making choices to consume plants and animals.

Lastly the although a couple of people have said arguments along the lines of "it's impossible to reasonably enforce" I haven't seen any actual explanation for why that's the case. Meat eating is almost entirely a result of commercial farming - businesses which are structured into the institutions of a state and can be effected using various channels. If there was the political will to outlaw livestock farming and pay farmers subsidies to cover the cost of switching over to crop farming - I can't see any insurmountable issues. 

whiteflame

@Ampersand

My position is that there is sufficient evidence to believe that plants have a sort of sentience, albeit one that is based on a different signaling system, and I provided sources in support of that in response to others. I can grab them for your convenience and post them here, if you’d like. Without that information, I wouldn’t be making this argument, so no, my position is not that we need absolutely perfect knowledge to refrain from judging the situation. I think if we have knowledge that runs counter to our expectations, we should reconsider the conclusions built from those expectations. I’m not sure what specific findings we would have to make in order to determine that they have bonafide sentience, but then, that’s neither my field nor my expertise. 

I disagree with your assessment of my argument on subdivision for 2 reasons. One, I didn’t say I can’t take any subjective stance on this issue as a whole, I said I’m unwilling to take one on this specific question (regarding what is capable of suffering and guiding my decisions as such). I take plenty of subjective stances on several facets of this issue, just not on the capacity for suffering. Two, I don’t think anyone is required to take a stance on this in order to decide what they’re going to eat. We all have to find our peace with regards to those living organisms we choose to consume, but that can be achieved by any number of means. We can take a stance without having to choose what suffering we’re willing to accept, and a lot of people do just that. 

As for difficulty involved, I think there are a number of problems, though I’d rather not argue them, as they expand the bounds of this conversation to a point I’m not that interested in debating.