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

We evolved to do all sorts of things, but it does not follow from this that we should do them. Indeed, we evolved to be able to consciously evaluate our actions and thus ascribe a moral value to them so it's entirely reasonable to claim that killing animals for food is wrong. However, what makes an action morally 'wrong' or 'right' is the consistency of the arguments put forward for not doing so in accordance with the presuppositions on which these arguments are based. What makes an action ethical is the strength of the arguments and the presuppositions. Vegan arguments proceed logically from their presuppositions, and thus are internally consistent. However, vegan presuppositions are extremely flimsy.

Whilst is certainly true that, with care, a human can survive on an exclusively plant based diet, it does not follow that we should follow a plant based diet. Animal flesh may not be 'necessary' for survival, but since survival is not the sole goal of most humans, vegans must provide other arguments for not killing and eating animals. Indeed, humans can also survive exclusively on animal produce, so we could argue that plant based foods are not 'necessary' either.

So why not animal flesh? Vegans claim that meat eating causes suffering. This is an intuitive claim based on an analogy between humans and animals. Since we generally accept that it is wrong to cause suffering to other humans, it appears to follow, by analogy, that if animals can suffer, it must be wrong to cause suffering to them also. There are all sorts of problems with this; qualitative and quantitative aspects of suffering for example. We know that humans suffer differently between individuals, so how can we even begin to quantify animal suffering? At best, all we can say is that animals experience something analogous to human suffering. We cannot begin to ascribe it quantities and qualities. Nevertheless, let's concede this to the vegans: It is wrong to cause suffering.

However, it is conceivable that suffering could be eliminated from the supply chain. If I were to die instantly in the next few minutes, it's hard to see how I would suffer. Likewise, a quick and painless death for an animal is not in itself 'suffering'. Going even further, a mutation could conceivably result in an animal that 'wants' to be eaten so not only would it not suffer, it would actually benefit from being eaten.

If we can remove suffering from the equation, what other reasons are there to not consume animals? The environmental argument proposes that animal production is inefficient since it involves a seemingly disproportionate ratio of biomass vs nutrition. Whilst this is true, it is only 'wrong' if we accept the unstated premise that 'we should always minimise biomass'. Animals' consumption of plant biomass is an inevitable part of the trophic web. If it we could fine tune it so that it was not environmentally damaging, this objection to meat consumption dissolves. Indeed, meat consumption may even be an environmental boon; take the European peasant's pig which consumed organic waste including human faeces and was then killed for food. Surely, this pig is the opposite of environmentally damaging and should be encouraged? An animal like this could thrive in a vegan household since vegans defecate up to twenty times more than normal people and this huge amount of vegan faeces places a great deal of strain on sewage services and scarce water supplies.

Vegans are also frustratingly inconsistent in their approach to plant suffering. It does not follow that since it is seemingly impossible to empathise with plant life due to its difference to us that it is therefore acceptable to eat it. Humans do not provide the benchmark of suffering by which all other life forms may be measured. It may be that plant suffering is greater than animal suffering precisely because they don't possess animal sensory apparatus; who knows? But in order to be consistent regarding their desire to prevent suffering, vegans should accept their ignorance, err on the side of caution and avoid eating plants altogether. Of course, they do not do this, instead they make hasty presuppositions of convenience that allow them to do continue to do what they want and to retain their purported moral superiority.

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.

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? 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?

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.

I just read your argument after typing mine. XD Apologizes if I echoed the last part of your comment. I agree with with your points though! : )

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.

It's pretty telling that you're getting so defensive in a theoretical argument about ethics. — NKBJ

What does this even mean?

Exactly what it says-- you're getting defensive about an online discussion with strangers that is entirely theoretical and only can have an impact on your actual life if you personally choose to let it...AND you willingly, of your own accord decided to participate in this conversation--and yet you choose to go on the attack "vegans this, vegans that, why won't those evil vegans just leave me aloooooone."

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Plants are not rocks though. They reproduce. They function in all of the same ways as a meat based organism does, but without the nervous system. And judging by your response to my lab meat question, you think the same? To me avoiding harm is just avoiding the unnecessary end of your existence ( or genealogy). You move away from being butchered because you want to continue on living and reproduce. 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.

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

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. You are promoting their reproduction. Nuts, seeds are actually considered fruits so you would be fine on that end. If you don't consider them fruits then you will have a hard time meeting the nutritional needs otherwise (especially if you are younger). But I wasn't really arguing about the pragmatics of eating only fruits. I was just trying to follow the argument to its conclusion. The fruit is the only part of any organism that we can eat that won't interfere with their reproduction directly. Which I previously established as my basis for being. Since both plants and animals reproduce they are living and therefore should be treated the same, regardless of their nervous systems. : )

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

:up:

There are still three ethical claims which remain un-addressed and until they are further discussion is pointless.

1. The claim that we must base our ethical decisions on a consensus or majority scientific position. This is simply asserted without any philosophical argument as to why. There is active debate in the philosophy of science as to methodology and what scientific studies can actually be said to show, and there is 2000 years of unresolved debate in epistemology as to what it is to 'know' anything to be the case. You have both ridden roughshod over all this debate to simply assert that whatever the current scientific consensus is must be used to guide ethical choices.

2. The claim that the life of a thing which can feel pain is worth more than the life of a thing which cannot feel pain. I think everyone is a greed that we should minimise animal suffering, but you maintain that to kill an animal before it's natural death (whatever that is) is worse than killing a plant before it's natural death simply because an animal has a degree of conciousness that plants lack. Again, you have not philosophically supported the argument that conciousness is equal to value, nor that value automatically precludes killing for meat.

3. 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. We don't farm tigers.

4. 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).

I'll remind you again this is a philosophy forum, not a science forum. It is not the place for a discussion of scientific articles. If you can't get your head around the concept that some things which a culture at one time declares "scientifically proven" is at some later date shown to be entirely wrong, then you're on the wrong forum. Try reading Kuhn.

Please provide a philosophical argument to justify the assertions I've listed above, and then we can perhaps continue this debate within the context of this forum.

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

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.

If you want to take the general stance of "everything wants to continue living and reproducing", then the fruitarians shouldn't eat fruit either. Because then, mold wouldn't be able to consume it, correct? Doesn't mold want to live just as much as plants or viruses do? This is the problem with your objection to my ethics, as you seem to be stating that all life wants to continue living and we shouldn't stop it from doing so.

You draw a line at "all forms of life want to live, therefore we shouldn't harm it". While I draw a line at "all sentient life wants to live, therefore we shouldn't harm it." - And i wouldn't call my line arbitrary, because I can use reason and evidence to support my ethical position.

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

As I already stated above, you're harming the mold or bacteria that wants to consume it to survive.

Since both plants and animals reproduce they are living and therefore should be treated the same, regardless of their nervous systems. : ) — yatagarasu

Bacterium, virus, and fungus are also living. Should we treat bacteria the same as animals too?

There are still three ethical claims which remain un-addressed and until they are further discussion is pointless. — Pseudonym

And you still haven't address that your linked 2002 Study [by Steven Davis] was refuted by Gaverick Matheny in 2003.

Again, you have not philosophically supported the argument that conciousness is equal to value — Pseudonym

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.

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

You're speaking in the general, by stating "we". Everybody has a different perspective on why they do not kill or eat other humans. Maybe someone doesn't kill other humans because they do not want to go to jail, not necessarily because they care about causing harm to the human. Maybe their entire reason for not killing a human is fear of punishment and incarceration. You'd have to ask them. I've never asserted that other people don't kill humans because they assign value to their sentience. I've actually done the opposite, which is me asking people WHY they would be okay with killing animals, but not okay with killing humans. So far, the only answers I've received are flawed and superfluous.

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

I never claimed that one ethical value outweighs another value. I have simply stated, ethical consistency leads to Veganism. And I still stand by that. The only way to be ethically consistent without being a Vegan, is to treat animals and humans the same, in a negative sense. Meaning, you wouldn't care if you harmed a human, just as you wouldn't care if you harmed an cow. These people tend to be sociopaths.

Also, I created a new Google Doc today that portrays my ethical consistency test a bit better. See below:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1157oWUs6KYeRAKATUEKisl6LsGvEATYfc_OQeZN87vE/edit?usp=sharing

And you still haven't address that your linked 2002 Study [by Steven Davis] was refuted by Gaverick Matheny in 2003. — 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'.

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 tigers aren't sentient then? Because they seem to do an awful lot of killing other species and not a lot of saving them. This is patent nonsense. Animals kill other animals, they rape other animals, they injure them, ostracise them, terrorise them, and we're no exception. All animals have just as much capacity to cause misery and harm to others as they do to cause pleasure. Also, plants can cause pleasure, simply by their beauty. So are you going to make an argument that they must 'intend' to cause pleasure in order to be of value? I'd like to see you try to support a theory that you have any idea what a cow 'intends' to do, let alone produce a philosophical argument that this has any correlation with value.

So far, the only answers I've received are flawed and superfluous. — chatterbears

No, you have simply asserted that they are. That's the point. You say that you're not arguing about why humans don't kill other humans, but your entire argument as to why you find their answers flawed rely on your assertions in this regard.

I never claimed that one ethical value outweighs another value. — chatterbears

Yes, you are consistently claiming it. You are, for example, consistently claiming that if the current scientific consensus say something causes more harm, we must all believe it and act on that thing. That is attaching an ethical value to avoiding harm over and above, say instinct (as Sapienta argued), or naturalness or moderation.

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.

I don't care to discuss things with you any longer. I'll let NKBJ take over.

Tag, you're it.

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

You seem incapable of following a logical argument,so I will try to make it simple for you.

I argued, from a position of epistemic uncertainty, that if there existed at least one expert who considered my belief to be sound then it is reasonable for me to hold that belief (for whatever reason). In order to prove this I needed to present such an expert, which I did. The fact that other experts disagree with him has no bearing on the argument because its not making the claim that his position goes un-opposed, simply that because it exists, it is reasonable for me to believe it.

Your position is that the current scientific consensus is the veganism, in all forms, does less harm (according to a specific definition of harm) than all forms of meat-eating. In order to support this claim you would be required to do two things.

1. Provide evidence that the scientific consensus is that veganism is less harmful (by their definition of harm) .

And

2. Provide a philosophical argument to support your assertion that whatever the scientific consensus is about what constitutes 'harm' and which diet causes least, is what we should base our ethical choices on, over and above any other considerations.

You have done 1.,but not 2.

Simple.

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

Utter bollocks.

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

Same goes for several species of animals.
You haven't adressed this fact, wich is an obvious flaw in your argument. Resulting from conflating three different questions and trying to answer them in one go. I understand it's easier to ignore my remarks and pretend I didn't make them to continue your preaching of veganism, but then I'll point out again, this is a philosophy forum, not a platform to preach your dogma's.

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.

xD I gave up talking to Pseudonym a while ago--when it became clear that he would happily negate anything and everything he said, go in endless circles of the argument just in order to avoid giving even an inch. Your current conversation is a prime example. This whole thread he kept insisting "but where's the science?!" and now he's all "this is philosophy and science is worthless"....as if it wasn't clear to anyone with a brain that he's just sore that the science doesn't work out in favor of his own argument.

Ah, but we are the cult-like ones unable to conceive of a moral position other than our own...

:rofl:

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.
If you're stuck on the phrase "all animals feel pain," because grubs are animals too and you're not convinced that they should be given ethical consideration...well, have fun with your grub sandwich. We're obviously talking about cows, pigs, chickens and other animals that are most commonly eaten--animals which have been proven to be highly intelligent and capable of feeling physical and emotional pain.

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.

As @Tomseltje, mentioned above, many animals don't "want" either or have the ability to do any of the things you mentioned. 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.

I don't put it on bacteria or mold because it is utterly impossible to avoid harming those organisms. Many are microscopic and their destruction cannot be avoided. Not just in eating, but in doing anything we normally do. That is why I don't include them. Many Jains try and include them as well but I find that impractical and very very limiting to human life. I would include them in my philosophy if I could but it is impossible to do so ( as of now ) . We don't base philosophies around completely impractical modes of acting. (or at least we shouldn't, in my opinion)

EDIT: 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.

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

Pain, suffering, happiness etc. are all learnt conceptual terms associated with subjective human experience. We make an inference by analogy that since animals are anatomically similar then they are likely to have similarly subjective experiences given similar stimuli. That, my friend, is the sum total of what can be said about animal experience either by science or by philosophy.

Plants have been around a lot longer than animals and have followed a different evolutionary path. Consequently, animals and plants have radically different anatomies. You want to say that this difference results in plants being unable to suffer, but how do you get from being different to not suffering? For all you or anyone else knows, it could be that plants are far more capable of suffering. It simply does not follow that structural differences of living things implies sentient difference, and so it does not follow that sentience diminishes the further we get from human anatomy.

However, vegans make this very unphilosophical assumption that a plant's difference to us must equate to insentience, and then construct a sentience hierarchy based on this in order to justify their worldview. It seems likely that alien life would be very anatomically different also, so in the vegan dietary hierarchy alien life would need make itself understood using human conceptual language very quickly or risk being consumed by rapacious vegans.

The philosophical critique of vegan thinking is that since it's impossible to access another human's subjective experiences, it's also impossible to give an account for animal minds, especially given that we must consider not only animal anatomical similarities, but also the huge differences between humans and other animals. As far as plants are concerned, we lack even the ability to make this inference from analogy. Consequently, it would appear that sentience is not the way to go when deciding what to eat, but then I'm an omnivore and I never thought it was. For vegans, it's far more damaging because shows that the conceptual hierarchy of sentience they use in order to move from a mere dietary fad to a full-blown crusading morality is based on a thoroughly shoddy presupposition.

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

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.

Ummmm, it's like you can't process what I said. It's NOT a problem for vegans, because even IF we cared about plants, a vegan diet would be reducing the number of plant and animal deaths.

Ought implies can. We CAN'T survive without eating anything. But we CAN survive, as well as thrive, while reducing the total amount of harm done.

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 never claimed that all animals can feel pain. I stated that all sentient animals can feel pain, which is what the science supports. And the science all supports the idea that a life-form such as a plant or microorganism [such as bacteria], does not have a central-nervous system or a brain to process pain. If you want to state that you don't need a brain or a nervous system to process pain, then you need to provide scientific evidence to support that ridiculous claim.

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

Did you ignore my entire post/response to you?

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

Again, as I said to Tomseltje, if you believe that plants can feel pain, please provide the scientific research to support that.

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

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.

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

You're trying to inject pseudoscience into the discussion by telling us that plants deserve the same moral consideration as sentient creatures. You want to talk about dogmatic assertions, that's ironic.

If you can prove that plants can suffer and can perceive pain without a brain or nervous system, you'd probably win a Nobel prize for discovering something that ground breaking. But before you can prove your non-evidenced based pseudoscience, can you provide ANY scientific peer reviewed journal that is currently out right now, that suggests plants can feel and perceive pain?

But as pointed out, even if we did have evidence that plants can feel pain to the same extent as cows/chickens/pigs/turkeys, Vegans would STILL be causing less harm.

Meat eaters:

1. Eats sentient and non-sentient animals. [Majority of our plants/crops that we grow in the world are fed to factory farmed animals.]
2. Also eats plants.

Vegan:

1. Only eats plants.

So not only are you cause plants a ridiculous amount of more harm than vegans [by also feeding plants to every factory farmed animal], but you are also cause harm to the animals that eat those plants. And on top of that, you are also eating the plants themselves.

Two things you forgot to mention. 1. Veganism also causes less environmental harm. - 2. Veganism also causes less self-harm, as it is more healthy for your body. Both of these facts have scientific consensus supporting them. Where's your scientific consensus for plants being able to feel pain?

[Smh. I don't understand how this thread even got here. Where people are saying that Vegans are dogmatic because they cannot prove plants don't feel pain. Well, you can't prove that a rock doesn't feel pain, so maybe we should be more morally considerate to rocks too, right?]

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

But you already know the answer.

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

Again, surely you know the answer. So, is this just rhetoric?

Animal slaughter is not necessary when we have a better alternative. — chatterbears

Yes, it seems it is just rhetoric. You just want to push the alternative that you judge as better.

So why is it okay for a pig to be slaughtered unnecessarily, but not a dog? — chatterbears

Why do you think? It's no coincidence that there's a much bigger market for dogs as pets, and pigs as livestock.

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

Alternatively, just continue to eat what you feel you should be eating, and let others do the same.

The problem here is not the vegan diet, the problem is vegan self-righteousness. At some point, a vegan on this thread claimed that veganism is the sole logical conclusion of ethical thinking on diet. Well, it's been shown in multiple ways that this is a false claim. This doesn't entail that vegans should start eating meat or starve to death. Vegans can eat whatever they damn well please. The only thing they can't do is make claims regarding the ethical exclusivity of their choice.

I'm going to duck out of this thread now. I don't think I have anything more to say on the subject.

But you already know the answer. — Sapientia

That comment was directly toward Baden, not you. So I am not sure why you're responding to a statement I made toward someone else.

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

Why do you think? It's no coincidence that there's a much bigger market for dogs as pets, and pigs as livestock. — 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.

Also, to address your last comment. Just because there is a bigger market for something, based on the cultural/societal norm, doesn't mean that the market demand is morally acceptable. There was a bigger market for slave trading 300 years ago, but it would be ignorant to say "It's no coincidence that there's a much bigger market for blacks as slaves, and whites as friendly neighbors."

Btw. The last time I responded to you was on page 32, about a week ago. And then you randomly come in, and respond to something I said to other people.

This is what I last said to you:

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

You then reply with:

Lol, no thanks. I don't do voice chat. Here's good enough. — Sapientia

As I said to you before, it's pointless to talk to someone like you and Txastopher, because you ignore questions and comments made by the opposition. I asked you multiple times to clarify your position, in which you never did. I asked you to clarify how I was using a fallacy, in which you never did. All you said was something like, "I can only lead a bear to water." - It's not productive to converse with you. So I'd suggest you stop responding to me, unless you're actually willing to answer questions I have asked you over a week ago.