Newly Developing Philosophy

[Malintent]

Well in all fairness, I admit this is not science... it is philosophy. My arguments need only be logical (as others pointed out to me here), not necessarily objectively true.

While that's somewhat the case, when you take the next step and say that people should change their actions based on your philosophy (as you are doing when you say that this is a reason for people to stop eating plants) you need to also take the additional step of showing that there's an objective basis to the premises of your philosophy.

As I read it, your philosophy is basically this:

P1) Plants have feelings
P2) Plants did not "choose" to evolve into a food source for humans
P3) It is wrong to eat something with feelings if they did not choose to allow this
C) Therefore, eating plants is wrong

You're correct that the internal logic of the philosophy is perfectly valid. If you want to apply it to the real world, however, as opposed to it simply being an isolated piece of navel gazing, then the external validity of those premises is important. Your first premise is invalid, so while the philosophy has an internal validity, it doesn't have an external validity and it's therefore invalid to use it as a basis for anyone's actions.

Yes, I agree that is a challenge... The best I can offer is that it is no less valid than the Vegan philosophy, and plenty of people subscribe to that. however the really challenging part is figuring out how to live without wood and paper... and the countless other common basic necessities that are plant-derived.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes, I agree that is a challenge... The best I can offer is that it is no less valid than the Vegan philosophy, and plenty of people subscribe to that. however the really challenging part is figuring out how to live without wood and paper... and the countless other common basic necessities that are plant-derived.

Rather than appealing to authority (plenty of people subscribe) how about producing some evidence, yano, that little thing that requires manipulation of variables, gathering and analyzing results, and linking to other experimentally derived literature? I think its called science, part of the name of this thread.

 

[ryan]

Okay, then I will assume that you are serious about all of this.

I ask myself why there is still a part of me that believes in the God of the Christian faith. My answer is that the first thing I was taught was that there is a God, and God will test my faith. Then science came into my life. Also, it actually makes just as much sense to me as an existence with God than an existence without God.

Now, why do you believe that plants have feelings? I am not trying to be facetious; I really want to know.

I don't have a very good answer for you.

I admit that my position is equally as good as the god-believing position.

You must have reasons why you believe this. It doesn't seem like you randomly picked A and B for the sentence A has B. Just try and see what happens.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, I agree that is a challenge... The best I can offer is that it is no less valid than the Vegan philosophy, and plenty of people subscribe to that. however the really challenging part is figuring out how to live without wood and paper... and the countless other common basic necessities that are plant-derived.

But it IS less valid than the vegan philosophy. Animals have the internal apparatus to allow them to experience pain, feel fear, and all that. When you treat them badly or kill them, they suffer. Therefore, by eating meat, you help contribute to an increase in suffering. Whether or not you think that suffering is relevant is another matter (I personally do not and I assume that you do not either), but it objectively occurs.

Plants lack the ability to experience any of those, so there is no difference in suffering between treating them nicely and treating them poorly. That makes it much less valid than the vegan philosophy because they have an actual basis to their position and you do not.

 

[Malintent]

Yes, I agree that is a challenge... The best I can offer is that it is no less valid than the Vegan philosophy, and plenty of people subscribe to that. however the really challenging part is figuring out how to live without wood and paper... and the countless other common basic necessities that are plant-derived.

But it IS less valid than the vegan philosophy. Animals have the internal apparatus to allow them to experience pain, feel fear, and all that. When you treat them badly or kill them, they suffer. Therefore, by eating meat, you help contribute to an increase in suffering. Whether or not you think that suffering is relevant is another matter (I personally do not and I assume that you do not either), but it objectively occurs.

Plants lack the ability to experience any of those, so there is no difference in suffering between treating them nicely and treating them poorly. That makes it much less valid than the vegan philosophy because they have an actual basis to their position and you do not.

I asked my pet cat what she thinks about all of this. her answer was exactly the same as my pet cactus.
If I wanted to cook my cat for dinner (horror!), she would put up quite the fight. My poor defenseless cactus... not able to at all.

It is the duty of all humane people to protect the defenseless plants from murder.. .the animals know how to run away.. don't worry about them too much.

 

[ryan]

If there is no reason for you to believe this, then wouldn't it be equally likely, from the perspective of total uncertainty, that plants are in constant pain and that we are doing them a favor by killing them?