plants also have life

[Freiza]

If all living beings are God’s children, then isn’t killing plants but not animals like killing the handicapped child of a parent while sparing the healthy child?


Listen to the link provided below:

http://www.thespiritualscientist.com/au ... ild%3f.mp3

[Lightningman_42]

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Are you saying that killing plants is just as ethically problematic as animals? Or that it's comparable to killing handicapped children?

More importantly, what do you think that humans ought to do for plants if killing them is ethically problematic? Not eat them? If we avoid harming plants like we do with animals, then we wouldn't have any food and we'd starve to death. It's not really useful to criticize harmful actions if there is no relatively more ethical alternative.

If you think that harm towards any living being is ethically problematic, then I don't see how you could possibly live in a perfect manner. It's problematic to value all living beings equally, because we do need to consume the parts of other living beings to survive. It's better to strive to reduce and minimize harm towards living beings than to achieve the unrealistic ideal of causing zero harm. If morality is a matter of respecting the will of other beings while minimizing violation of it, then it's important to prioritize living beings by their capacity to have will. Essentially meaning that more highly sentient beings are more important than less sentient beings. Plants are nonsentient; they have no capacity to experience their own lives or perceive the world around them. They don't have any will that can be respected or violated. Handicapped children do value their own lives and well-being, and we don't need to kill them to survive. Plants don't value their own lives, and we do need to kill them (or at least cut off parts of them) to survive. How are these two forms of harm comparable?

Don't forget that a vegan lifestyle (or in your case vegetarian lifestyle consuming only animal products that cause no harm to those who produced them) is far less harmful to plants than one with a significant amount of animal products. So even if you do value plant lives, it's far better to eat plants but not animals, than to eat both. You can't be perfect.

If you can safely go beyond merely being vegan, and avoid other harmful actions (not using palm oil, minimizing fuel usage, etc.) then that's even better. It's great to strive to reduce harm towards living beings to the point that you practicably can, but I think it's a bad idea to condemn harmful actions for which there is no better alternative.

[Freiza]

Surely you have not listened to the link I gave.

[miniboes]

I think he did not listen because you cannot directly copy the link from your post because of the way you formatted it. I listened, here's my thoughts:

Firstly, it's not that plants feel way less pain than humans, they feel no pain. Or anything for that matter. Therefore, in a consequentialist word view, there is nothing wrong with harvesting plants.

Also, he talks about the early death of plants being natural and the death of animals not being natural, this is a useless argument. We cannot base morality on nature, as many atrocious acts like rape, murder, cannibalism, etc. are perfectly natural.

He talks about the mood of a slaughterhouse versus a field of crops, this is completely arbitrary as the mood we perceive is not objective.

This person is clearly religious, as he talks about the children of god. I do not share that belief and therefore this is invalid to me, or anybody that does not share his religion.

This man comes to a correct conclusion: it's better to kill plants than to kill animals. His reasoning to arrive at that point, however, is completely wrong.

I see you are a hindu, Freiza, but most of us are not; we do not believe in a god and most of us beleive that ethics should be based on the interests/well-being of sentient creatures. This is called consequentialism, and in consequentialism all the arguments made by this man are invalid.

[Freiza]

Firstly, it's not that plants feel way less pain than humans, they feel no pain. Or anything for that matter. Therefore, in a consequentialist word view, there is nothing wrong with harvesting plants.

He was trying to say the same.

Also, he talks about the early death of plants being natural and the death of animals not being natural, this is a useless argument. We cannot base morality on nature, as many atrocious acts like rape, murder, cannibalism, etc. are perfectly natural.

You completely misunderstood him here, maybe because of his dialect or tone. Please re-listen. If still your opinion is the same, I will try to clarify.

He talks about the mood of a slaughterhouse versus a field of crops, this is completely arbitrary as the mood we perceive is not objective.

Here you are being biased. He is right. Most sane people can't stand butchery environment.

This person is clearly religious, as he talks about the children of god. I do not share that belief and therefore this is invalid to me, or anybody that does not share his religion.

This man comes to a correct conclusion: it's better to kill plants than to kill animals. His reasoning to arrive at that point, however, is completely wrong.

I see you are a hindu, Freiza, but most of us are not; we do not believe in a god and most of us beleive that ethics should be based on the interests/well-being of sentient creatures. This is called consequentialism, and in consequentialism all the arguments made by this man are invalid..

Yes he is religious. But my intent was not to make you or anyone else a believer. Just take good part from it, if it is acceptable.

And now I also see, why most non-vegetarian can't be convinced. Despite taking good teachings, all we do is to criticize and find points to belittle others. He clearly meant hurting other for pleasure is not good. And try to minimize harm as much possible.

I

[Lightningman_42]

I didn't listen to the audio because I couldn't find it, but I would like to listen to it if I can.

Firstly, it's not that plants feel way less pain than humans, they feel no pain. Or anything for that matter. Therefore, in a consequentialist word view, there is nothing wrong with harvesting plants.

He was trying to say the same.

So then what could possibly be morally problematic about killing plants if they have no interests that can be respected or violated, and we do need to feed on them to survive (unlike eating animals)?

And now I also see, why most non-vegetarian can't be convinced. Despite taking good teachings, all we do is to criticize and find points to belittle others.

Who is belittling who? I didn't see Miniboes belittling anyone.

He clearly meant hurting other for pleasure is not good. And try to minimize harm as much as possible.

By this reasoning (which I agree with), eating plants but not animals is certainly better than eating both, although eating neither is not a realistic option.

[Freiza]

http://www.thespiritualscientist.com/au ... 20God's%20

children,%20then%20isn't%20killing%20plants%20but%20not%20

animals%20like%20killing%20the%20handicapped%20child%20of%20a%20

parent%20while%20sparing%20the%20healthy%20child%3f.mp3


concatenate these strings and paste it in the browser. Alternatively, you can double click the original link and copy it then paste it in the browser

[miniboes]

Here's a short link: http://bit.ly/1JYc7lK

You completely misunderstood him here, maybe because of his dialect or tone. Please re-listen. If still your opinion is the same, I will try to clarify.

I already listened twice. Could you elaborate?

Here you are being biased. He is right. Most sane people can't stand butchery environment.

Biased? Perhaps I interpreted what he was trying to say wrong. I assume there is some context I am missing.

Yes he is religious. But my intent was not to make you or anyone else a believer. Just take good part from it, if it is acceptable.
And now I also see, why most non-vegetarian can't be convinced. Despite taking good teachings, all we do is to criticize and find points to belittle others. He clearly meant hurting other for pleasure is not good. And try to minimize harm as much possible.

As I said, his conclusion is completely correct. However, as a community we need to strive towards using the most efficient and effective arguments possible, and I find his to be neither effective or efficient. Perhaps I am wrong. I do not know Indian (which I presume he is from?) culture, so I would not know what appeals to people there.

Most of the time someone posts something on this forum it's to discuss it. Did you not want us to discuss it, and instead just listen and move on?

[miniboes]

By this reasoning (which I agree with), eating plants but not animals is certainly better than eating both, although eating neither is not a realistic option.

I understand that you might expect this to be his argument from the name of this thread, but the guy in the file just presents some arguments for vegetarianism being better than eating meat.