4 ms·

Morally speaking, I don't see a difference between eating plants and animals. Both are alive. Just because plants express their distress in ways that don't trig

by JTon 11y ago

Morally speaking, I don't see a difference between eating plants and animals. Both are alive. Just because plants express their distress in ways that don't trigger an emotional response in humans doesn't make it morally superior. Environmentally speaking, yes I agree, eating plants is a more sustainable practice /rant

_dark_matter_ 11y ago
>Morally speaking, I don't see a difference between eating plants and animals. Both are alive. Really? I mean, people are alive as well. Is that on the same moral level as well? This just seems like a very specious argument...
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  You made it specious, putting words in their mouth. They claim that, of the things they eat, plants and animals are morally equivalent. You added "but People!" There is a HitchHikers Guide restaurant that doesn't server vegetables - because intelligent vegetable people outlawed it. They just eat sentient meat animals that offer themselves to the patrons. They even kill themselves.
  - sooheon 11y ago
    The argument was that because both are alive they are morally equivalent. This is specious because humans are also alive, and are clearly not equivalent to either unless you accept that it would be acceptable to kill and eat humans. It's not as stupid an argument as "but People!", it's pointing out that they are neglecting other variables, such as the capacity for experience.
  - pyre 11y ago
    > They just eat sentient meat animals that offer themselves to the patrons. They even kill themselves. If a human were to do this today, we would question their mental health. If it were a sentient cow, most people would see no problem with it. These views seem at odds with each other, no?
- JTon 11y ago
  That's a good point. Reflecting, my moral compass frowns upon cannibalism, but I haven't fleshed out the reasons why. Hat tip for punching a hole in my argument
coderzach 11y ago
Equivalently moral or immoral? Put another way, do you find both to be wrong, or both to be equally acceptable.
- JTon 11y ago
  Equivalently moral
sooheon 11y ago
Plants are vanishingly unlikely to actually feel distress, so you are wrong to characterise animal and plant "distress" as the same. They may have survival mechanisms and reactions to being harvested, but this is different from having a central nervous system. There's also no way to know for sure that any given animal does feel distress, but we can make educated judgments, the same as we do for other humans.

by JTon 11y ago

_dark_matter_ 11y ago

>Morally speaking, I don't see a difference between eating plants and animals. Both are alive. Really? I mean, people are alive as well. Is that on the same moral level as well? This just seems like a very specious argument...

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
You made it specious, putting words in their mouth. They claim that, of the things they eat, plants and animals are morally equivalent. You added "but People!" There is a HitchHikers Guide restaurant that doesn't server vegetables - because intelligent vegetable people outlawed it. They just eat sentient meat animals that offer themselves to the patrons. They even kill themselves.
- sooheon 11y ago
  The argument was that because both are alive they are morally equivalent. This is specious because humans are also alive, and are clearly not equivalent to either unless you accept that it would be acceptable to kill and eat humans. It's not as stupid an argument as "but People!", it's pointing out that they are neglecting other variables, such as the capacity for experience.
- pyre 11y ago
  > They just eat sentient meat animals that offer themselves to the patrons. They even kill themselves. If a human were to do this today, we would question their mental health. If it were a sentient cow, most people would see no problem with it. These views seem at odds with each other, no?
JTon 11y ago
That's a good point. Reflecting, my moral compass frowns upon cannibalism, but I haven't fleshed out the reasons why. Hat tip for punching a hole in my argument

coderzach 11y ago

Equivalently moral or immoral? Put another way, do you find both to be wrong, or both to be equally acceptable.

JTon 11y ago
Equivalently moral

sooheon 11y ago

Plants are vanishingly unlikely to actually feel distress, so you are wrong to characterise animal and plant "distress" as the same. They may have survival mechanisms and reactions to being harvested, but this is different from having a central nervous system. There's also no way to know for sure that any given animal does feel distress, but we can make educated judgments, the same as we do for other humans.