Life Loving - What is that you say ???

[VGnizm]

The topic that was opened a few days back about whether vegans don't eat meat because of Life Loving reasons or cruelty free reasons has attracted much discussion and argumentation and therefore it seems useful to develop it further. The main issue has become defining life so as to better understand what loving it requires. As such i will highlight quickly the issue and open this discussion for any and all to share.

It all started to become complicated when the discussion touched on if the important aspect of preserving life is the degree of sentience or life itself. Is life in itself important or is it rather the quality and importance of that life ( defined by its capacity to experience, learn and appreciate ) that makes it important or not. A plant is a living organism and yet ending its life process is not philosophically subject to any moral or ethical standard(s). This type of reasoning obviously does not clearly end the subject because what does one do with a person who is in a coma? Is that life suddenly worthless if we establish it has lost sentience? Again more questions.

It seems easier to start with trying first to agree to a definition of life and then try to see how well that definition fits into our common understanding of 'life' . I say that because some think life is a biological process only, others add consciousness, others consider it an energy and yet again others..... At the basic level when you say to someone Life Loving it seems they feel the meaning and do not ask questions about it. Love being the most wonderful feeling and life the most valuable resource makes us not need to inquire further into details to feel the meaning and to appreciate it.

The backlog to this discussion can be found on the different threads below in English and French and the longest one being the first one ( philosophicalvegan.com ).

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3048

https://vegeweb.org/post575129.html#p575129

https://veganforum.org/threads/veganism-life-loving-or-cruelty-free.1426/#post-5698

http://vgnizm.com/veganisme-life-loving-ou-sans-cruaute/

http://vgnizm.com/veganism-life-loving-or-cruelty-free/

So i suggest we start with trying to debate a very common belief such as ' green fingers ' which holds many elements that could at once touch on defining life as well as sentience in that why would plants be receptive to ' natural abilities' if they lack a nervous system? And in that case how do we understand life? Is it the sum of very complex bio-mechanical processes or does it actually extend them? Why is it that it is just as impossible to restore the ' life element ' to an ant as it is to a human being if the organism is much simpler?

So if plants only need certain elements to grow can it be assumed that those elements being applied by a human or a machine would have any differing impact? And if yes then what? and if no then why is there such a common belief? Again there is a saying ' there is no smoke without a fire ' so lets be open minded and curious and inquisitive

From Google:

green fingers
noun
British informal
plural noun: green fingers; plural noun: greenfingers
natural ability in growing plants.
"you really do have green fingers"

[brimstoneSalad]

As I mentioned in the other thread, it's sentience itself, not life at all, that's important.
There are non-living things that are sentient, like advanced computer programs, that have some value (right now, more like bugs). And as they become more sophisticated, we may really need to start worrying about the suffering of AI.
You may have seen the show "Westworld", which bring up this topic a bit.

We could also potentially talk about non-living supernatural beings, if they existed. Ghosts, if they were aware and had interests and feelings, should be considered. If something hurts them or makes them happy (like honoring ancestors) it should be considered.

The reason it's wrong to kill is because living sentient beings don't usually want to die.
For a computer that was sentient, it may be wrong then to turn it off or delete the program.

This type of reasoning obviously does not clearly end the subject because what does one do with a person who is in a coma?

What would that person have wanted before entering the coma?

A coma is somewhat like sleep. You don't kill a sleeping person, because the waking person didn't want to be killed when sleeping.
Even for a dead person, we can respect his or her wishes. Because we would want ours respected.
Our interests can extend beyond our lives.

The important thing is that there were interests there. A plant never had interests, living or dead.

Is that life suddenly worthless if we establish it has lost sentience? Again more questions.

The life has no value in itself, it is valuable if it is valued. If the interests of the sentient being persist beyond its sentience, they should be respected if we can.
It's particularly pressing if the person may wake up and become sentient again.

If it's impossible for the person to ever wake, and the person is brain dead, then we should respect the body in the same way we should respect the bodies of the dead; we should try to follow the person's last wishes if we can.

Of course, that doesn't mean spending millions of dollars keeping a brain dead body alive. There are other people who have wishes -- like medical care of housing or food -- who need that money more. In this case, it's an issue of weighing resource use based on parsimony.

So i suggest we start with trying to debate a very common belief such as ' green fingers ' which holds many elements that could at once touch on defining life as well as sentience in that why would plants be receptive to ' natural abilities' if they lack a nervous system?

They don't, the green thumb thing is a myth.

Why is it that it is just as impossible to restore the ' life element ' to an ant as it is to a human being if the organism is much simpler?

The organism is simpler, but the cells aren't really simpler. There are just fewer of them.
The issue is bringing cells back to life.

If a book has been fully burned, it's no more possible to restore a single page than an entire library. Once ash, we can not bring it back, even though a page is much simpler than a library. If we gain the ability to restore a single page from ash, then we can restore a library (it would just take longer and be proportionally more expensive).

So if plants only need certain elements to grow can it be assumed that those elements being applied by a human or a machine would have any differing impact?

They have the same impact. Machines are actually very good at tending plants. There are many agricultural operations that use mechanized watering.

And if yes then what? and if no then why is there such a common belief? Again there is a saying ' there is no smoke without a fire ' so lets be open minded and curious and inquisitive

It comes from people being non-rigorous.
A person without a "green thumb" is really just inattentive, or just had some bad luck with plants (such as purchased a diseased one) and assumed he or she was bad at it.
We may think we're doing the same thing, but human memory and perception is very flawed and biased. Watering every day isn't always that simple.
A person with a green thumb is better at recognizing dry soil, and more attentive at watering, for example. A person without one may be bad at recognizing when soil is dry, or be forgetful or inattentive, missing waterings, watering late, watering too much.
A machine can actually test the soil moisture perfectly then water just the right amount at just the right time. It's the ultimate "green thumb".

[VGnizm]

-If only it can always be so simple

-I am getting some things out of the way, will sharpen my wits and then come back to this ASAP

[DarlBundren]

Brimstone wrote: Even for a dead person, we can respect his or her wishes. Because we would want ours respected.
Our interests can extend beyond our lives.

The important thing is that there were interests there.

Wouldn't we be talking about the interests of the living in that case? I mean, I know that Derek Parfit argued that unborn children can be regarded as moral agents, but is there the same relationship between the living and the dead? Or are we simply taking into consideration the interests of those who loved the dead person?

[VGnizm]

-So there is nothing to love about life. What we should be loving is the memories (experiences) of an organism? Is that right?

-It is morally wrong to go against the wishes of sentient organisms = It is morally required to do as per the wishes of sentient organisms?

-The memories and wishes organisms develop are static and have a static value? So even if they part their memories remain behind? Kind of like ROM not RAM?

-Here i see a simplification that does not take into account the absolute value of life itself. Life be it whatever it is has a particularity that it has never to our knowledge been produced. I say to our knowledge. Observational understanding establishes that life is something that persists only through living beings and once lost cannot be regenerated. That same life apparently can take various forms but in the end whether simple or complex it needs a living environment to persist. So without life there cannot be sentience nor this discussion even. Being the required element for sentience it's importance transcends sentience.

-We still need to work on a definition for life that can fit our observations and experiences as to it's nature.

-I can only agree with the logic concerning the 'green digit ' whatever it be And good that it is so otherwise agriculture would become a nightmare and even veganism would become unsustainable

[brimstoneSalad]

Wouldn't we be talking about the interests of the living in that case?

No, we're talking about the residual interests of the dead.

I mean, I know that Derek Parfit argued that unborn children can be regarded as moral agents,

That makes much less sense, since they never had interests (yet), and if they never come into the world, have no future interests to consider.
We could say that creating interests and then fulfilling them is good in some sense, but that's a little more complicated.

[brimstoneSalad]

-So there is nothing to love about life. What we should be loving is the memories (experiences) of an organism? Is that right?

Or, you could say we should love "living", in the sense of experiencing life, yes. Not all living things "live" in that way. There's being merely alive, and then there's having the experience of living.

But there's also more to love than just living; our interests go beyond our own lives.
Think about art; an artist may suffer and die for art. So that shows us that art had great value to him or her. We can choose to respect that value too, and not destroy his or her artwork that he or she suffered and died for.

The root of value is value. We should share other's values and empathize with them, at least a little. Remember the golden rule.

-It is morally wrong to go against the wishes of sentient organisms = It is morally required to do as per the wishes of sentient organisms?

Within reason.

There's a lot of conflict in the world.
We should not help a rapist find a victim, for example, because that violates the interests of the victim.
Instead, we should focus on those interests which are compatible and help everybody.

It's kind of a mathematical consideration. How do we work in the way that the most people can be fulfilled, and fewest injured?

Things like veganism are win-win for most of the world. It helps animals. It helps the environment. It even helps our health.

The only harm is very small: it could wound the pride of somebody who is stubborn in the desire to eat meat out of habit.
If we regard it as bad to eat meat, that person's feelings could be hurt.

But when we consider feelings of one person, vs. the person's health, the animals suffering, and the world... it's a better choice to offer some criticism. Although we should try to be kind and gentle in our approach. If we can avoid hurting that person's feelings too much, maybe we can persuade him or her gently. It may always take a little tough criticism to motivate stubborn people into change, though.

-The memories and wishes organisms develop are static and have a static value? So even if they part their memories remain behind? Kind of like ROM not RAM?

The memories don't stay, but the interests are there, because the interests are abstract.
You can be interested in what happens in the future, even after you die. Because you have that interest now, it will always have been so.

Because we would like our interests respected even after we're gone, so we should try to respect the interests of others.

-Here i see a simplification that does not take into account the absolute value of life itself. Life be it whatever it is has a particularity that it has never to our knowledge been produced.

We can now print DNA and insert it into a blank (technically-non-living, because it can not replicate now) cell, and bring it to life with a new genetic code.

There are also chemicals that self-replicate in certain environments that we can form from non-living material.

Life is nebulously defined, but life isn't magic. The real wonder comes from sentience and intelligence, and that's something special that not all life has.

So without life there cannot be sentience nor this discussion even. Being the required element for sentience it's importance transcends sentience.

Usually only living things can be sentient, but that has recently changed with the development of adaptive neural networks on computers.

Computers can be sentient too. They are not alive. Of course, computers were made by us (who are alive). But even if everybody died, a sentient computer could still exist.

[DarlBundren]

Brimstone wrote: But there's also more to love than just living; our interests go beyond our own lives.
Think about art; an artist may suffer and die for art. So that shows us that art had great value to him or her. We can choose to respect that value too, and not destroy his or her artwork that he or she suffered and died for. The root of value is value.

This is what I was trying to say. It seems to me that our interests don't necessarily go beyond our own lives. If they do, it's because there's someone who wants to fulfill them. As you say, the root of value, is value. A tree has not value in itself, but that doesn't mean that it is not valuable. It's on us whether to value it or not. A person, of course, used to have interests, but once that person is dead those interests can only live if they are carried in another body. It's a matter of psychological continuity. If the artist dies and there's no one around (let's say they had no friends, or nobody knew about their desires), their interests die with them. Don't they?

[VGnizm]

Can you please confirm that the following definition is conclusive for you so that i may better interpolate the different examples of sentience that have been mentioned?

---
Coogle :

sentient
ˈsɛntɪənt,ˈsɛnʃ(ə)nt/
adjective
adjective: sentient

able to perceive or feel things.
"she had been instructed from birth in the equality of all sentient life forms"
synonyms: feeling, capable of feeling, living, live; conscious, aware, responsive, reactive
"I fail to see any sound moral justification for treating sentient creatures as mere commodities"
antonyms: insentient

[brimstoneSalad]

If the artist dies and there's no one around (let's say they had no friends, or nobody knew about their desires), their interests die with them. Don't they?

The interests do not, because they were in the past interests in what happens in the future. They project themselves in time.
If the painting was very important to somebody, you should try to preserve it if it's convenient to do so.
The dead need not rule our lives, but respect when convenient is something else.

We should respect the interests of the dead, because we would want our interests to be respected after we die. Or when in another state of consciousness.

There is no such thing as true continuity. When you're asleep or otherwise unconscious, you had (before entering that state) an interest in not being killed while in that state when in the future it would occur, mainly because you wished to return to consciousness... but while unconscious, you don't necessarily have any such interest. The lack of family and friends to be wakefully interested in your waking up doesn't mean there's no interest there.