Veganism isn’t about not eating what was or is “alive”. It’s about “suffering” (and avoiding it as much as possible).
You can find that fundamental belief in Buddhism or Jainism too. If you think about it, you can probably find it in you. Why would anybody want to make any other sentient body suffer?
Veganism can also be about environmental impact. I’m vegetarian mostly because a meat based diet isn’t sustainable on a global scale. While I’m obviously happy about the reduced suffering, it’s importance is only in second place for me.
Tho maybe veganism is pretty much entirely for reducing animals suffering, I’m only a vegetarian and won’t pretend to know for sure.
It’s about the fact that the environment cannot be sustained while everyone eats meat. So it is about the suffering it will cause for me primarily, but to humans and not animals
It’s a widespread misunderstanding but adopting a plant based diet for some reason other than avoiding the exploitation of animals isn’t veganism. Praying five times a day isn’t Islam unless you’re praying to Allah.
they have pain rezeptors they have a basic neural net.
To assume a plant would not suffer is a little outdated.
Even 20 Yeats ago it was already known that plants do feel pain.
I said: they suffer if you hurt them. Not more not less.
“Not more not less”? This is the definition of suffering:
Experiencing pain; characterized by suffering.
The condition of someone who suffers; a state of pain or distress.
as you can, maybe… hopefully… understand, all of those things you wrote above implies sentience. Here, this is from a miracle called wikipedia ☞
Sentience is the ability to experience feelings and sensations. Some theorists define sentience exclusively as the capacity for valenced (positive or negative) mental experiences, such as pain and pleasure.
While plants, as living beings, can perceive and communicate physical stimuli and damage, they do not feel pain simply because of the lack of any pain receptors, nerves, or a brain, and, by extension, a lack of consciousness. Many plants are known to perceive and respond to mechanical stimuli at a cellular level, and some plants such as the venus flytrap or touch-me-not, are known for their “obvious sensory abilities”. Nevertheless, no member of the plant kingdom feels pain, not withstanding its abilitiy to respond to sunlight, gravity, wind, and any external stimuli such as insect bites since they lack any nervous system. The primary reason for this is that, unlike the members of the animal kingdom whose evolutionary successes and failures are shaped by suffering, the evolution of plants is simply shaped by life and death.
To be clear, they don’t sense “pain”. Virtually every organism has receptor proteins that mediate molecular responses to stimuli. In plants, this might be a molecule from a pathogen, a mechanical thing (like an insect biting a leaf), or a molecule associated with damage (cell wall components or energy molecules being found outside where they’re meant to be). Bacteria might excite their flagella to move away from danger, plants might isolate their cytoplasm to restrict pathogens, but these are well-documented physiological pathways only. Nobody is arguing that bacteria are capable of pain.
Only animals with a nervous system have a sense of “suffering” or “pain”, and sure enough they behave a lot like humans in that respect too (by reacting with a response such as fleeing, fighting, screaming, etc). We have physiological responses too, but plants are a lot more like bacteria than animals in that sense. Having receptors and hormones is quite different to having a complex nervous system.
Even if that’s true that plants are conscious and can experience subjective pain (doubt), then it just means we live on a world where it’s really hard to avoid doing harm and that would suck for us as sapient creatures with the knowledge that inflicting pain is wrong, but the end goal would still be to reduce harm to feeling beings as much as practicable.
It sure does, it’s a moral statement. But let me speak them then:
pain is unpleasant and should be avoided as much as practicable
If you care about reducing the pain in others then you should act accordingly
the vegan perspective is to reduce our exploitation of animals as much as practicable
the pain and suffering of animals at the hands of humans matters
we should try to limit the unnecessary pain we cause
there are actions humans can take to lower the amount of pain and suffering in the world
a world with less pain and suffering is preferable to one with more
But seriously, what would you do with the information that plants felt suffering on the level of animals and humans? Would you do nothing with this shocking new evidence?
it also assumes that you can know what will decrease suffering in the future. you can’t.
further, it assumes that inflicting or avoiding suffering is either immoral or moral. only one system I’m aware of states this outright and it’s utilitarianism, which can be summed up " the ends justify the means" which most people think is pretty abhorrent.
Yes and that holds true for all actions—we can never know how our behavior will “sum out” in the future, especially the far far future.
We still make moral decisions based on the imperfect information we have. In fact we have to, because merely existing in the status quo is a moral decision. Even choosing to remove ourselves from existence is a moral decision. On a long enough horizon we can’t tell how anything will play out.
So while can’t know what any of our decisions or lack of decisions will amount to in the future, we still try, and update our assumptions as time goes on.
But there’s no point in arguing whether reducing suffering is moral or not if you’re not even going to grant that attempting to reduce suffering is a worthy goal.
On a long enough horizon we can’t tell how anything will play out.
which is why consequentialism can’t actually tell us the right thing to do. it’s a fatally flawed ethical approach.
since ethics can’t be derived from possible future outcomes, they must come from somewhere else. kant proposes it’s the categorical imperative. divine command theorists propose from God or a holy text.
neither of those systems axiomatically say to reduce suffering.
I feel like you’re getting lost in the world of abstracts. I’m talking subjective, fallible, imperfect, morality—not objective ethics.
There is a concrete instance of a chicken that is being tortured for profit currently. If you’re against that, it’s morally self-consistent to avoid contributing to the system which is torturing the chicken.
Veganism isn’t about not eating what was or is “alive”. It’s about “suffering” (and avoiding it as much as possible).
You can find that fundamental belief in Buddhism or Jainism too. If you think about it, you can probably find it in you. Why would anybody want to make any other sentient body suffer?
Veganism can also be about environmental impact. I’m vegetarian mostly because a meat based diet isn’t sustainable on a global scale. While I’m obviously happy about the reduced suffering, it’s importance is only in second place for me.
Tho maybe veganism is pretty much entirely for reducing animals suffering, I’m only a vegetarian and won’t pretend to know for sure.
that’s confusing. I don’t know how to reply.
why is “environmental impact” concerning you if it’s not for the suffering it causes and will cause?
It’s about the fact that the environment cannot be sustained while everyone eats meat. So it is about the suffering it will cause for me primarily, but to humans and not animals
It’s a widespread misunderstanding but adopting a plant based diet for some reason other than avoiding the exploitation of animals isn’t veganism. Praying five times a day isn’t Islam unless you’re praying to Allah.
Vegan is just not eating stuff from animal, someone’s reasoning for that varies.
We are only just beginnig to understand what plants feel. They have hormons they have pain rezeptors they have a basic neural net.
To assume a plant would not suffer is a little outdated.
Even 20 Yeats ago it was already known that plants do feel pain. they inform surrounding plants about pain and they react to it.
Even if we took that as true, directly eating plants still kills fewer plants than feeding them to animals and then eating those animals.
100% true. Mine was not an anti-vegan comment just a pro-plant comment. I guess many didnt get that.
to assume plants are sentient is a charognard propaganda
outdated? pfff… Receptors doesn’t mean “pain rezeptors”. Don’t seed confusion.
Sentient who said sentient? I said: they suffer if you hurt them. Not more not less.
“Not more not less”? This is the definition of suffering:
as you can, maybe… hopefully… understand, all of those things you wrote above implies sentience. Here, this is from a miracle called wikipedia ☞
this too is from wikipedia ☞
ALL organisms can sense and respond to their environments or else they will be easily killed. Bacterial signalling molecules and receptors exist too.
This is very different to the concept of pain or suffering.
Would you care to elaborate?
Whats is the difference between “sensing pain and reacting to it” to “the concept of pain” you mentioned?
To be clear, they don’t sense “pain”. Virtually every organism has receptor proteins that mediate molecular responses to stimuli. In plants, this might be a molecule from a pathogen, a mechanical thing (like an insect biting a leaf), or a molecule associated with damage (cell wall components or energy molecules being found outside where they’re meant to be). Bacteria might excite their flagella to move away from danger, plants might isolate their cytoplasm to restrict pathogens, but these are well-documented physiological pathways only. Nobody is arguing that bacteria are capable of pain.
Only animals with a nervous system have a sense of “suffering” or “pain”, and sure enough they behave a lot like humans in that respect too (by reacting with a response such as fleeing, fighting, screaming, etc). We have physiological responses too, but plants are a lot more like bacteria than animals in that sense. Having receptors and hormones is quite different to having a complex nervous system.
thank you for patiently explaining
Even if that’s true that plants are conscious and can experience subjective pain (doubt), then it just means we live on a world where it’s really hard to avoid doing harm and that would suck for us as sapient creatures with the knowledge that inflicting pain is wrong, but the end goal would still be to reduce harm to feeling beings as much as practicable.
Concious? Who said that? Thats a little far fetched dont you think? An other comment also, started talking about “sentient plants”
Whats going on with you guys? XD
You dont need to be concious or sentient to feel pain and suffer.
My point still stands exactly as stated doesn’t it? Suffering bad, more suffering worse; reducing suffering better.
this has a lot of unspoken moral assumptions in it
It sure does, it’s a moral statement. But let me speak them then:
pain is unpleasant and should be avoided as much as practicable
If you care about reducing the pain in others then you should act accordingly
the vegan perspective is to reduce our exploitation of animals as much as practicable
the pain and suffering of animals at the hands of humans matters
we should try to limit the unnecessary pain we cause
there are actions humans can take to lower the amount of pain and suffering in the world
a world with less pain and suffering is preferable to one with more
But seriously, what would you do with the information that plants felt suffering on the level of animals and humans? Would you do nothing with this shocking new evidence?
it also assumes that you can know what will decrease suffering in the future. you can’t.
further, it assumes that inflicting or avoiding suffering is either immoral or moral. only one system I’m aware of states this outright and it’s utilitarianism, which can be summed up " the ends justify the means" which most people think is pretty abhorrent.
Yes and that holds true for all actions—we can never know how our behavior will “sum out” in the future, especially the far far future.
We still make moral decisions based on the imperfect information we have. In fact we have to, because merely existing in the status quo is a moral decision. Even choosing to remove ourselves from existence is a moral decision. On a long enough horizon we can’t tell how anything will play out.
So while can’t know what any of our decisions or lack of decisions will amount to in the future, we still try, and update our assumptions as time goes on.
But there’s no point in arguing whether reducing suffering is moral or not if you’re not even going to grant that attempting to reduce suffering is a worthy goal.
which is why consequentialism can’t actually tell us the right thing to do. it’s a fatally flawed ethical approach.
since ethics can’t be derived from possible future outcomes, they must come from somewhere else. kant proposes it’s the categorical imperative. divine command theorists propose from God or a holy text.
neither of those systems axiomatically say to reduce suffering.
I feel like you’re getting lost in the world of abstracts. I’m talking subjective, fallible, imperfect, morality—not objective ethics.
There is a concrete instance of a chicken that is being tortured for profit currently. If you’re against that, it’s morally self-consistent to avoid contributing to the system which is torturing the chicken.
Is it not?