28 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrFirst, there is simply no reason to think that plants (or thermometers, for that matter) have mental states. Sure, this is a logical possibility, but it's also a logical possibility that other human beings don't have minds (all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding). We need to make moral decisions based on considerations that are empirically plausible, not merely logically possible.
Flowers get and sustain the most impressive erections. I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of all things to utterly dismiss all possibility that the flower feels something during copulation.
On the other side of things, I accept that my need for sustenance requires that I kill living things. My hands are bloody.
Second, even if plants did have minds, that still wouldn't entail that it is morally wrong to eat them. Vegans could argue as follows: It is morally permissible for me to harm something in order to survive. It is morally obligatory for me to guide decisions about what I eat by some minimal harm principle. Plants are harmed less by being eaten than animals. Hence, it is morally permissible for me to eat plants, but not animals. If you take the extent to which a thing is harmed to be at least partly a function of the extent to which its interests are frustrated, then it is very plausible that animals are harmed more by death than plants, because animals are capable of all sorts of interests that plants are not capable of.
Third, unless you have some special physiology, it is simply false that you need to eat animals to be adequately nourished.
28 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrAs far as I can see, he never said you needed to eat animals. He only said "I accept that my need for sustenance requires that I kill living things" (and that bit about his bloody hands, but I would interpret that as a metaphor). Plants are living things, too. Of course in many cases you can eat parts of them without killing the whole plant. I guess you could do that with animals too...
Third, unless you have some special physiology, it is simply false that you need to eat animals to be adequately nourished.
28 May 06
Originally posted by corp1131Computer simulation is all well and good, but there is no substitute for a real test on a real living organism to make the final tests (you don't do these tests until you're as sure as possible it ain't going to harm the animal).
Depends how you define need. Animal tests are needed to develop new drugs, but are new drugs needed? Do we have a right to kill animals in the hope we may find cures for diseases? Or should we halt animal testing until the alternatives (computer modelling) become viable in 30, 50 100 or 200 years time?
28 May 06
Originally posted by NordlysWell then how is that claim relevant to the establishment of the moral perversity of veganism? Unless you interpret him as both speaking metaphorically and presupposing that there is some moral equivalence between eating plant and eating animals. But if that is the correct interpretation, then he need to show more than that it is merely logically possible for plants to have mental states.
As far as I can see, he never said you needed to eat animals. He only said "I accept that my need for sustenance requires that I kill living things" (and that bit about his bloody hands, but I would interpret that as a metaphor). Plants are living things, too. Of course in many cases you can eat parts of them without killing the whole plant. I guess you could do that with animals too...
28 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrSome questions:
Well then how is that claim relevant to the establishment of the moral perversity of veganism? Unless you interpret him as both speaking metaphorically and presupposing that there is some moral equivalence between eating plant and eating animals. But if that is the correct interpretation, then he need to show more than that it is merely logically possible for plants to have mental states.
What about all the animals killed by cropping?
Can a comparision between mammals and insects truly be made without entering energy efficiency?
If not, would it still be a moral justification?
28 May 06
Originally posted by PalynkaSome answers:
Some questions:
What about all the animals killed by cropping?
Can a comparision between mammals and insects truly be made without entering energy efficiency?
If not, would it still be a moral justification?
What about them?
I have no idea what you're asking.
Ditto.
Look, if you want to talk about vegetarianism and our obligations towards animals, then please spend a modicum of energy on being clear in your questions or claims.
28 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrI was interested in listening and learning, not really debating.
Some answers:
What about them?
I have no idea what you're asking.
Ditto.
Look, if you want to talk about vegetarianism and our obligations towards animals, then please spend a modicum of energy on being clear in your questions or claims.
I don't really know how to make my questions clearer. Probably because veganism is something that I was never interested in and, therefore, is a subject that I'm quite ignorant about.
29 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrWell said. However, I'm not clear why we must presuppose "mental states" as the necessary condition for pleasure and pain. Plants clearly have some sensation even if it is not a mental one.
First, there is simply no reason to think that plants (or thermometers, for that matter) have mental states. Sure, this is a logical possibility, but it's also a logical possibility that other human beings don't have minds (all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding). We need to make moral decisions based on considerations that are empirically plausible ...[text shortened]... ecial physiology, it is simply false that you need to eat animals to be adequately nourished.
I find it perfectly reasonable and ethical to kill animals in order to eat. Your appeal to reasonableness over logical rigidity is less hard-line than the approach in Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement by Gary L. Francione. It was this text that provoked my foray on behalf of the rights of lettuce as satire and critique. The author is a lawyer, not a philosopher.
"Location : Hiding from Wulebgr"
Don't worry, I don't eat philosophers.
29 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrPleasure and pain, like all sensations, are conscious states. Conscious states, by definition, are mental states. I thought all this was untendentious. Apparently you have some different conception of sensation? Do you think that rocks can have sensations? Thermometers?
Well said. However, I'm not clear why we must presuppose "mental states" as the necessary condition for pleasure and pain. Plants clearly have some sensation even if it is not a mental one.
I find it perfectly reasonable and ethical to kill animals in order to eat. Your appeal to reasonableness over logical rigidity is less hard-line than the approach in ...[text shortened]... losopher.
"Location : Hiding from Wulebgr"
Don't worry, I don't eat philosophers.
Sure, I find it perfectly reasonable to kill non-human animals if doing so is necessary to sustain my life (and perhaps, under certain conditions, my health). But the point is you don't need to kill animals in order to eat, nor to be more than adequately nourished. I'm the first to admit that some proponents of animal rights are straight-up nuts, and that some arguments for veganism are absurd.
I'm curious about the moral perversity you attribute to veganism. What this bombast and satire, or do you think that there is some moral problem with being a vegan?
EDIT: My cat Gabriel was hiding from you. He came out from under the bed only on the condition that I would never take him to Eastern Washington.
29 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrA recent poll taken in the UK, and reported in today's Telegraph, shows that 70% now support animal testing for medical purposes.
Pleasure and pain, like all sensations, are conscious states. Conscious states, by definition, are mental states. I thought all this was untendentious. Apparently you have some different conception of sensation? Do you think that rocks can have sensations? Thermometers?
Sure, I find it perfectly reasonable to kill non-human animals if doing so is neces ...[text shortened]... t from under the bed only on the condition that I would never take him to Eastern Washington.
The 20% rise in support since the last poll was taken is apparently largely due to public outrage at the terrorist activities of a section of the 'animal rights' protestors.
29 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by NargagunaWhat sort of terrorist attacks?
A recent poll taken in the UK, and reported in today's Telegraph, shows that 70% now support animal testing for medical purposes.
The 20% rise in support since the last poll was taken is apparently largely due to public outrage at the terrorist activities of a section of the 'animal rights' protestors.