3 ms·

So you flippantly kill plants?

bumby 5y ago
I do. I was just weeding my yard yesterday. To the same point, we generally don't have reservations about that because we don't ascribe them moral value. As I understand it, even the environmental protections for endangered plants are based in the plant's potential utility for humans, not their inherent moral value.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  Life has no value for you? Plants aren't inert and defend themselves from harm. Given enough reason it's legal to kill humans too. Sometimes it's mandatory, e.g. at war, when utility of murder is more important than their inherent moral value.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >Life has no value for you? Sure. And, while I know you're just trying to communicate a different stance it borders on straw-manning. It's not that life has no value. I know there are some ideologies that don't think any life (including plants) should be harmed [1], most forms of animal life (including humans) are predicated on other life forms dying for them to continue. To me, the more relevant concern regarding this conversation is 'suffering' not 'life'. To that end, if we can define consciousness and use that to defend the position that plants have subjective experience and suffer, I would probably stop weeding my yard. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa_in_Jainism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa_in_Jainism
    - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
      Your inability to understand murder is relevant. Law imposes punishment even when one didn't harm anyone, and you happily kill living beings.
      - bumby 5y ago
        I can’t tell if you’re trolling or playing devils advocate. Murder, by definition, is the act of killing another human being. So it comes across as if you don’t understand the term. Law makes distinctions in this regard, as well as intent, as law is a reflection of our ethics and morals. In your eyes, is intent all that matters? Your life results in the death of other living beings; how should you be held accountable for that fact?

I do. I was just weeding my yard yesterday. To the same point, we generally don't have reservations about that because we don't ascribe them moral value. As I understand it, even the environmental protections for endangered plants are based in the plant's potential utility for humans, not their inherent moral value.

GoblinSlayer 5y ago
Life has no value for you? Plants aren't inert and defend themselves from harm. Given enough reason it's legal to kill humans too. Sometimes it's mandatory, e.g. at war, when utility of murder is more important than their inherent moral value.
- bumby 5y ago
  >Life has no value for you? Sure. And, while I know you're just trying to communicate a different stance it borders on straw-manning. It's not that life has no value. I know there are some ideologies that don't think any life (including plants) should be harmed [1], most forms of animal life (including humans) are predicated on other life forms dying for them to continue. To me, the more relevant concern regarding this conversation is 'suffering' not 'life'. To that end, if we can define consciousness and use that to defend the position that plants have subjective experience and suffer, I would probably stop weeding my yard. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa_in_Jainism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa_in_Jainism
  - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
    Your inability to understand murder is relevant. Law imposes punishment even when one didn't harm anyone, and you happily kill living beings.
    - bumby 5y ago
      I can’t tell if you’re trolling or playing devils advocate. Murder, by definition, is the act of killing another human being. So it comes across as if you don’t understand the term. Law makes distinctions in this regard, as well as intent, as law is a reflection of our ethics and morals. In your eyes, is intent all that matters? Your life results in the death of other living beings; how should you be held accountable for that fact?