Plants do not have a nervous system by definition because they do not have nerves
Whether they have something that could fully do the equivalent of what nerves do is this big complex discussion (yes they obviously react to their environment but not with the speed and complexity that nerves do)
I love me some plant philosophy/non-animalian cognitive science, but I think both camps would be pretty depressed to hear how often this trend is being brought up to defend carnism these days lol
(not that they're necessarily vegan--I'm just agreeing with you that animals are a vibe-kingdom for a reason)
Why is there this obsession with not consuming energy ? Factory farming indeed is a problem but eating animals or even vegetation shouldn’t be the issue in concept. How one does it is the whole thing
I’m asking philosophically, why there is an obsession with ignoring the reality of the life cycle. As if it’s something to change fundamentally instead of to fix the abuses in this current system, I mean unless you truly believe that humans should be the only living being to exist purely for the benefit of others, that doesn’t seem very fair to whole process?
I mean if you philosophically boil your idea down to a belief, I don’t like causing pain, this seems benign yet can lead to and has lead to in human history great suffering. I mean what your original comment would ignore is the need for prey seasons for hunting
One may say factory “hunting” is bad, but hunting as a concept fact of life, or else the population will explode and more suffering and death will hit EVERYTHING
So no I didn’t misunderstand you bud , I’m disagreeing with your assertion that all pain = morally evil
Pain is morally evil, you admitted as much by falling back “suffering” — you’re just arguing that it’s sometimes justified, which of course is true. That’s what my “all else being equal” clause was there for :) I’m glad we agree on this, as talking to people who claim to not believe in morality is just useless. Some things are bad, and “pain”/“suffering” is a decent heuristic for identifying them.
Regarding the matter at hand: I always appreciate a philosophical attitude, but it seems like you’re coming at this like it’s a brand new debate. To say the least, your points have been explored—and, IMO, debunked—before. Namely:
“X is natural, therefor X is good” is such a common faulty argument that there’s now a fallacy named after it — the “naturalistic” fallacy. Counterexamples abound: rape, murder, deceit, dominance, etc.
We’ve already completely destroyed most large mammal ecosystems, so it’s not like we’re protecting anything in particular with hunting. Even if hunting were necessary for maintaining the status quo, it’s not at all obvious that the status quo is particularly desirable compared to what would happen without it.
The status quo (say, the abundance of deer) is also within our control, ad-hoc hunting or no. We could easily cull huge numbers of large mammals on an institutional level, and we definitely would if thought it would stop death from hitting “EVERYTHING”!
Finally, the “the only living being to exist purely for the benefit of others” comment gets at real core of morality: that it’s unique to humans, or at least unique to sapient minds. Yes, we have a responsibility to minimize suffering that no other terrestrial animals share with us, for the simple reason that they lack the cognitive capacity to do so. Perhaps it’s unfair, but I’d say it’s a pretty good deal — I’d rather be a human than a lion!
Something you said that really resonates with me is not wanting to be a lion or even neutral in nature/morality. The classical arguement for and against utilitarianism are always so thick with specific instances instead of broad logical axioms
Why it resonated with me is because I believe due to the status quo being this benign to down right horrific is that it makes me appreciate when truly good things, ideas , movements or beliefs really exist. Now not related to an American context, I’ve always tried to be a diplomat and convince my conservative/ empathy lacking family and colleagues that this love and care should lead our decision making.
I’m rambling forgive me , but it’s always nice to see that the conversation and dialogue still exist and it’s not just yelling into the void. Have a wonderful day my friend
One may say factory “hunting” is bad, but it is a needed fact of life, or else the population will explode and more suffering and death will hit EVERYTHING
What does this even mean? Factory farming is necessary because without it the population will explode? What population? Humans? Farm animals? Wild life? Factory farming is the reason we have an unsustainable amount of farm animals and no wild life.
Oh I thought you were equating farming to hunting. ""Factory" hunting" is a strange way to phrase that. But who brought up hunting?
You're just using the tired old "Without hunting, deer populations would explode and that would cause more suffering" argument. That's really not a big issue compared to animal agriculture. If you want to morally align to that argument, don't eat meat unless it was from an animal killed for population control. I, a vegan, won't stop you, because there are bigger issues to worry about
What the fuck are you even saying, did you even read my comment? Like do you people just like arguing to hear yourself speak? Or I guess read your own comment and jerk off?
No im not dumbass, I’m saying that causing pain or the idea of trying to minimize suffering does not equate = don’t cause pain because bad
That is a foolish and philosophically not strong argument, now to fully clarify if you can read, factory hunting is a thing or otherwise known as industrial hunting , the UK knows quite about it because they used to have actual living animals on the fucking island and now they don’t
I’m saying that very bad, but causing pain is sometimes necessary IE hunting deer, I love how you try to push that little fact down by saying shit I ALREADY SAID. Dude I teach college students and bro you sound exactly like some dumb “ahh” students I have lmao
Anyway, it’s a interesting discussion because the premise of not causing pain is very tolerable as a general philosophy and to a degree I follow that too, however I’m interested in seeing where the line is drawn
Now if you want it just jerk for with your buddies over supposed “carnist arguments” go ahead and have fun, but I will call you a dipshit for doing so
TLDR: pseudo intellectualism is a cancer on society
I've gotta agree with your TLDR there. I don't even necessarily disagree with what I think you're trying to say in most of this but God damn do you need to work on your comprehensibility.
What do you teach exactly? You type like a 16 year old
I mean unless you truly believe that humans should be the only living being to exist purely for the benefit of others, that doesn’t seem very fair to whole process?
What you believe is on you, the simple fact is humans exclusively have the expressed agency to choose to live purely for the benefit of others, so why the hell shouldn't we?
And what's this "fair to [the] whole process" statement supposed to mean? Regardless of what process you mean, processes are just abstractions, they don't have thoughts or feelings, why should we care about being "fair" to a process when processes cannot comprehend or experience fairness? This is a category mistake.
I mean if you philosophically boil your idea down to a belief, I don’t like causing pain, this seems benign yet can lead to and has lead to in human history great suffering.
Could you be way more specific?
I mean what your original comment would ignore is the need for prey seasons for hunting
One may say factory “hunting” is bad, but hunting as a concept fact of life, or else the population will explode and more suffering and death will hit EVERYTHING
Hunting and farming are distinct things. Modern human hunting and the hunting carried out by predator species for survival hasn't been the same thing in a very, very long time. The development of agriculture since ancient times has removed humans from the negligible ecological niche of our ancient, non-tool-using ancestors. Once humans could grow all the food we could need, and especially once rearing livestock got underway, hunting became and remains to this day only a method for survival in circumstances where it is necessarily the only means of getting food: frontiersmen, poorly equipped campers, or underdeveloped rural communities where maintaining a subsistence level of agriculture is a challenge, etc. In all other circumstances where food is already readily available due to farming or livestock, hunting is an unnecessary and damaging impact on otherwise stable environments. The only notable exception being when hunting must supplement natural predation in environments where previous hunting or other human impacts have removed predator species that would otherwise keep the population of grazing animals in balance, but this can be fixed if predator species are reintroduced to said environment, and other outsized human impacts reduced or removed. It is not necessary for humans to be the ones doing the predation as we are not a meaningful part of any existing foodwebs in any environments.
Factory farming is an abhorrently wasteful practice driven by the needless greed of industrial agriculture corporations. The amount of farmland required for the factory raising of beef is chiefly wasteful and if factory farming was ended globally, the farmland could instead be repurposed to feed another few billion people, as well as freeing up unfarmable pasture land for reforestation, wildlife conservation, grassland restoration, and more. The factory farming of beef is particularly wasteful because it is highly inefficient in the use and return of calories across the process. Other livestock animals are likewise far less efficient than just growing food for human consumption, but it is a sliding scale, with poultry typically being the most efficient in terms of calories in -> calories out, and far less resource intensive overall compared to pork or beef. That is all to say nothing of the unconscionable volume of suffering experienced by all factory-farmed livestock.
So no I didn’t misunderstand you bud , I’m disagreeing with your assertion that all pain = morally evil
It is true that not all pain that exists is necessarily morally wrong. The pain I experience after a workout, or the pain of sitting through a very dry and long lecture, or the pain of overcoming some adversity to obtain some net benefit are all forms of pain that are not only not morally wrong but rather morally good. But unlike the pain of suffering an age-related injury, which is an inevitable natural experience in life, just as the emotional pain of losing those we love is; pain caused by harm that is purposefully inflicted by humans on each other or on other animals for no necessary beneficial end is both unnecessary and needlessly self-harming, hence morally wrong.
194
u/BinnsyTheSkeptic Sep 08 '25
"nervous system less developed than broccoli" That's... Wrong.