The Inconstant Gardener

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. You have clearly missed the point. I would like you to prove that carrots have no valid reason for being upset. Should the carrots come alive in a Disney movie, I want to you explain why they would dance around singing 'eat me now'.

Here is a more realistic scenario:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7fP9q_LyDc

If the carrots came alive, we would then be obliged to treat them differently.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I can understand that response.

But to me it misses the point of the analogy.

The analogy it seemed to me was not about the nature of the plants, but the nature of the gardener.

If we are applying this analogy to the behaviour of a god then we are talking about a god who created
the universe [and possibly seeded life in it] and then 'sat back ...[text shortened]... jective right or wrong about precisely what the op means, the argument seems fairly
pointless.

Actually I think you and TW misunderstand me.

When I first read Dive's response, I also struggled to understand it and I expect I initially reacted to in much the same way as you and TW. However, as the thread progressed, it seemed to me that all Dive was doing was objecting to the analogy on the basis that it is legitimate to treat unsentient things differently to sentient ones. Therefore an analogy which draws a comparison between the treatment of plants and humans is not valid.

He did it in his usual oblique, quirky and offhand manner. TW is now proceeding on the basis that Dive accepted the original analogy and is arguing from there. Which I believe is a mistake.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
If the carrots came alive, we would then be obliged to treat them differently.

Why?
That is the topic I would really want to discuss, but everyone seems to think that the matter is settled and obvious (and then fails to give any further explanation).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. Div and others have attempted to suggest that because plants are known not to be sentient the response was really saying 'plants cannot be upset because they are not sentient'. But that is clearly not a valid reading of divs response. His post clearly says the plants SHOULD NOT BE upset. He is saying that regardless of their sentience they hav ...[text shortened]... am still not satisfied that anyone has given good justification for why we should not be upset.

That interpretation matches mine, and I agree that if that is how you are reading things
that you are right.

However the person who wrote the op seems to be saying that this is not how they
intended the op. And while I can agree that the suggest alternate meaning doesn't
make a whole lot of sense. I can't tell the writer of the OP that they are wrong to say
that is what they intended.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why?
That is the topic I would really want to discuss, but everyone seems to think that the matter is settled and obvious (and then fails to give any further explanation).

Let me ask you a question. Let's imagine that God created a universe consisting only of:

1 Rocks; or

2 Plants; or

3 Human beings

Do you think God would be entitled to destroy any of these?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
A while back now, on a whim, i did some planting in my back garden. My intention from the outset though was for it to be self sufficient and i didn't want to be out there every Sunday dead heading or cutting grass. It was more a case of creating something lovely, standing back and then admiring my work, before letting the plants get on with the job ...[text shortened]... ionship with us that i have with my hydrangeas. He created life, and then let us get on with it.

Unlike your plants we will be here forever, something that is going to be around that long
should be looked after.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
However, as the thread progressed, it seemed to me that all Dive was doing was objecting to the analogy on the basis that it is legitimate to treat unsentient things differently to sentient ones.

And why is it legitimate to treat unsentient things differently? I say it is not. You and div seem to be saying "it is legitimate, end of discussion and anyone who says otherwise is just being difficult."

Originally posted by googlefudge
That interpretation matches mine, and I agree that if that is how you are reading things
that you are right.

However the person who wrote the op seems to be saying that this is not how they
intended the op. And while I can agree that the suggest alternate meaning doesn't
make a whole lot of sense. I can't tell the writer of the OP that they are wrong to say
that is what they intended.

I am really confused now. The writer of the OP is Goad, and we are discussing Dive's response to this.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Unlike your plants we will be here forever, something that is going to be around that long
should be looked after.

Why? Surely the fact that you will be there forever is proof that you do not require looking after?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And why is it legitimate to treat unsentient things differently? I say it is not. You and div seem to be saying "it is legitimate, end of discussion and anyone who says otherwise is just being difficult."

So you don't think it is morally acceptable to eat carrots?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Let me ask you a question. Let's imagine that God created a universe consisting only of:

1 Rocks; or

2 Plants; or

3 Human beings

Do you think God would be entitled to destroy any of these?

That depends on what you mean by 'entitled'. I would say that from the rocks perspective, no, he would not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why?
That is the topic I would really want to discuss, but everyone seems to think that the matter is settled and obvious (and then fails to give any further explanation).

Because what we do to them would have a meaningful impact on their well-being and could create suffering etc. Unlike a rock which, as far as we know, doesn't care about (or even know) whether it is one rock or two rocks.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on what you mean by 'entitled'. I would say that from the rocks perspective, no, he would not.

The rock does not have a perspective.

Originally posted by twhitehead
anyone who says otherwise is just being difficult.

I never said anything of the sort.

You often complain about other people making claims like this, but you are pretty adept at it yourself.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I am really confused now. The writer of the OP is Goad, and we are discussing Dive's response to this.

Heh, GoaD chimed in earlier apparently on Dive's side.

I suspect what you are saying is correct.

TW took the analogy the same way I did.
Dive read it differently, focussing on different elements of the OP analogy.

And the two have been arguing from different premises ever since.