I have found that practical solutions are rarely all or nothing, personally.
Are you against eating meat from a consequentialist perspective, or a deontological one? In my opinion, less meat eaten is better - better for the environment, and less money going into cruel practices around slaughtering animals, etc - even if the reasons for it are varied and not strictly from a standard of moral duty.
A reminder to be(e) nice; we all come from different backgrounds, and launching ad hominem attacks is ineffective in getting people to consider your arguments.
It doesn’t have to be cruel. I grew up on a sustainable farm. I agree with you however, it’s the culture that has decided meat or nothing and that’s why it’s cruel.
Plants probably also feel pain then, considering that they modify their behavior after injury, seek to avoid them, and chemically communicate with other plants to protect themselves. Life is life, no matter if it’s speaking, clucking, mooing, or photosynthesizing, it’s just a matter of where you draw the line.
Not at all; as stated in my comment, the debate is not about whether a given creature experiences pain and works to avoid suffering, but rather where you draw the line on what level of suffering is acceptable. I personally avoid buying meat products from the store because I feel that factory farms are inhumane and unsustainable, but I’m willing to and do raise and harvest meat birds for my own consumption.
Judging by your comment history, you do eat plant-based, and that’s pretty cool. I encourage you to share some of your favourite plant-based recipes in this community :)
It sounds like you are basing how fine it is to hurt someone for pleasure (and that is all it is at this point) on how similar they look to you rather than any principled understanding of behaviour and neurology.
This is called speciesism and is just another manifestation of the cognitive failures that lead to most evil in the world.
It is absurd to equate grass releasing hormones that cause the production of bitter compounds with electrocuting a chicken. That is like saying steel feels pain because because it emits sparks when ground or that an amputated foot feels pain because nerves send signals for a while. Pain requires perception, we obviously have no test for an inner listener but we can compare behaviour.
This is after all why you believe I am a real person and not a sophisticated automaton.
The only real behavioural difference we can find between us and birds for example is possibly language. Parrots and corvids there is some evidence they can do language, rather than communication. Even so it’s absurd to use this as a line for acceptable suffering as you would essentially be arguing that human infants and humans with certain cognitive differences were acceptable to kill for meat.
The problem with isms is that you can’t draw meaningful lines around the world if you start from a conclusion and work backwards (in this case, animals other than humans are sometimes ok to eat). The moment you start trying to defend it you are forced to confront that the position isn’t reasonable but rationalised.
I suspect you know this, because you feel some degree of guilt and are throwing out statements like “plants feel pain” which have the objective of winning an argument rather than finding truth.
I appreciate your engagement in this discussion, but I’d like to address your points as I feel like I didn’t make my first point about plants feeling pain as well as I could:
Firstly, it’s important to clarify that the argument I presented isn’t about how similar creatures look to us, but rather about the ethical framework we use to assess suffering. The term “speciesism” is often used to criticize differential treatment based on species, and it’s a valid concern. However, drawing a moral line isn’t necessarily about appearance; it’s about recognizing the capacity for suffering and the moral responsibility that comes with it.
You mentioned that pain requires perception, and we lack a definitive test for an inner listener. This is a valid point, and it’s why the debate surrounding the sentience of plants is ongoing. While we don’t have concrete evidence of plant consciousness as we do for animals, it’s also worth acknowledging that our understanding of consciousness is still evolving.
Regarding behavior, you rightly point out that some birds exhibit complex behaviors, including language. This complexity raises important questions about the moral implications of causing harm to such creatures. The issue at hand is complex and nuanced; we can differentiate between beings with different cognitive capacities and still recognize the moral imperative to minimize suffering across the board.
The point of discussing plants in this context is not to “win an argument” but to emphasize that the question of suffering is multifaceted. It’s a way to provoke thought about where we draw the line and whether our current practices align with our moral values. While we may not have all the answers, it’s important to engage in these discussions to encourage more ethical and sustainable choices.
The intention here is not to rationalize cruelty but to foster a deeper understanding of the complex ethical considerations surrounding our treatment of all living beings. These discussions can help us evolve our practices and make more informed choices about our impact on the world around us.
According to one estimate, Europe’s farm animals have a bigger carbon footprint than its cars.
According to another estimate, leisure cruise ships had a 10x bigger footprint than all Europe’s cars…
But still, it’s great news to reduce farm animal carbon footprint. Not sure whether feeding larvae to piglets will achieve that though (they provide “stimulation”? ugh…), there seem to be better —direct— uses like insect flour, no need to even chew on them whole, although that’s also an option.
Add comment