/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>2375

The definition of life is philosophically meaningless. Peter Watts once made a case for earworms (the songs you can't get out of your head) fitting the definition of life to a T. Shows you how useless it actually.

>>2390

Yep, eating abortions should be fully compatible with his views, insofar as he doesn't regard eating humans as a moral evil in itself.

>>2387

Hegel's definition of life is pretty specific. Other than that, a lot of common terms are pretty vague upon analysis. Evolution is another term that can seriously be used to describe the way even atoms exist.

>>2387

>>2395

so we agree that the notion of not eating meat because it was once alive is irrational?

>>2391

But the reason pro-abortion guys says it is ok to abort, because it's not a human yet.

>>2400

Good point. In that case, the vegan is a baby-eating abomination and you should kill him with a crossbow immediately.

1. Plants aren't sentient. It has yet to be proven that they can feel pain.

2. Most plants aren't killed for consumption. We harvest the fruit from trees, but don't cut down the tree itself.

3. More plants are "killed" by consuming meat, dairy and egg products since the animal has been eating plants their whole life just for that little piece of meat.

Anything else you want to know?

>>2517

>Plants aren't sentient. It has yet to be proven that they can feel pain.

There are some animals that don't have a nervous system. Also, is an ant really sentient? If they do, how about something much smaller?

>Most plants aren't killed for consumption. We harvest the fruit from trees, but don't cut down the tree itself.

But we still eat salad, potatoes, cabbage, and we eat crops before they've grown. Crops alone are a way more important part of our diet that fruit.

>More plants are "killed" by consuming meat, dairy and egg products since the animal has been eating plants their whole life just for that little piece of meat.

Tropical forests are being cut down to make place for soi plantations, and shrews and mice are killed while taking the crops. Also, if a plant's life was relevant to vegetarians, none of them would be overweight.

In conclusion - kill yourself, tripfag.

>>2589

> We harvest the fruit from trees, but don't cut down the tree itself.

a plant baby is still a plant baby.

>>2589

Maybe something much smaller than an ant would be edible for vegetarians because non-sentient, but they're not offered to consumption anyway, so it doesn't change much in practice. Because it would be okay to eat some animals doesn't mean it would be okay to eat them all. It's just more convenient in the end to just say "I don't eat animals", even though it might be slightly incorrect.

As for the plant-killing part, like the tripfag said meat consumption is much more harmful to plants that vegetarian diets. Shrews and mice might be killed while taking the crops, but since you harvest more crops when you have to feed millions of cows, you still kill less being vegetarian. And tropical forests are being cut down to make place for plantations in general, the vast majority of which are bound to feed animals, bound to feed ourselves. Any possible moral argument against the eating of plants is actually a moral argument against the eating of meat, since the latter implies the former as a consequence in much greater dimensions than the former alone.

Eitehr you don't value a plant's life, and you can eat as much of them as you wish, or you do, and even eating as much of them as you wish will never have a bigger impact than eating meat anyway.

>>2591

A fruit is merely a potential plant, it's comparable to the abortion issue.

>>2618

> "I don't eat animals", even though it might be slightly incorrect.

it is incorrect. its not a technicality

> Any possible moral argument against the eating of plants is actually a moral argument against the eating of meat, since the latter implies the former as a consequence in much greater dimensions than the former alone.

that is a rationalization of what would be wrongdoing in this particular line of reasoning. you are still harming a living creature.

> A fruit is merely a potential plant, it's comparable to the abortion issue.

that is true. at what point is there a difference between the seed and the plant? especially with potatos

at the very least its benefiting from the labor of a living creature, so vegans are fucked.

>>2624

Seriously, whatever. Let's just say "I don't eat mammals, birds, fish and most insects". Why does it have to be all-or-nothing? Or should we now accuse non-vegetarians to be hypocrite because when they say they do eat animals, they in fact don't include other human beings? Debating on whether a vegetarian diet is able or not to include bacteria or ant larvae is completely pointless, and just distracting us from addressing the actual question: should we eat or not animals that we know for sure are sentient such as sheep, pigs, dogs, cows, and so on.

>that is a rationalization of what would be wrongdoing in this particular line of reasoning. you are still harming a living creature.

But much less so. Like I said, if you value "sentient" life, it just makes more sense to be vegetarian, if you don't, it doesn't make any difference. And if you even value a plant's life, it still makes more sense to be vegetarian, and if you don't, still no difference.

You can really see it as a Pascal's Wager in fact: vegetarianism can at worst only be indifferent, whatever your stances are on the value of life, since it's always less destructive.

>>2630

> Debating on whether a vegetarian diet is able or not to include bacteria or ant larvae is completely pointless, and just distracting us from addressing the actual question: should we eat or not animals that we know for sure are sentient such as sheep, pigs, dogs, cows, and so on.

where do you think we are? this is a philosophy board, its all about hair splitting.

> Or should we now accuse non-vegetarians to be hypocrite because when they say they do eat animals, they in fact don't include other human beings?

you could, but that is implicit in any society that sees cannibalism as taboo. a better example would be dogs, cats, and other pets, but thats also implicit in any society that sees eating pets as taboo.

> if you value "sentient" life, it just makes more sense to be vegetarian, if you don't, it doesn't make any difference.

thats steering away from the reasoning i poised in the OP, which is the peta logic of meat being murder, it doesnt differentiate between sentience and non sentience.

> it just makes more sense to be vegetarian, if you don't, it doesn't make any difference. And if you even value a plant's life, it still makes more sense to be vegetarian, and if you don't, still no difference.

the lesser of two evils is still an evil though, correct? choosing something that harms thm less is still harming them.

>You can really see it as a Pascal's Wager

i was about to say he stole the concept from marcus aurelius, but i havent finished reading the meditiations and i just found a thing saying he never said it.

>>2390

Scientists have made burgers from stem cells before, so yeah.

>>2636

Ok, then we can say that this peta logic is flawed or incomplete, which doesn't make "unsentientism" any less valid. Because our dictionary only provide us with one official term for "vegetarianism" doesn't mean that on a philosophical level we couldn't realise that it encompasses different stances on the matter, whose approaches aren't similar enough to be debunked all at once.

And isn't it implicit in our society that we don't eat insects anyway so we can claim to be vegetarians without this question having to be raised?

As for harming or not, I'd say you still have to live anyway, so eating is a requirement (we could of course debate on that though). Probably vegetarians still haven't achieved a moral absolute on dietary issues and could improve their behaviour even further, but instead of seeing it as the lesser of two evils, you could consider it to be a step towards good. It doesn't help in understanding the question, but at least shows, and I'm sorry if it's a bit trivial when you put it that way, that "it's better than nothing".

I read your OP again and you're right though, the initial debate WAS about at what point stuff would become fit for consumption. Well, I'd say sentiency is a pretty good start, since it eliminates almost everything we think of when imagining "animals", while leaving plants open for being eaten; it also isn't completely arbitrary, and probably is the implicit being meat being murder. As for organisms that lie kind of in-between, such as insects or larvae and such, it seems a bit stupid to edict scientific lists of species one could or couldn't eat based on how sentient they are, and there are different ways to solve the problem. The easiest is to draw an arbitrary line, arguing that it's like debating on how much hair is needed to make a beard, grains of sand required for a pile, or new planks to make the Ship of Theseus not the Ship of Theseus anymore: the argument is pointless, there always will be room for nitpicking, so everyone just decide for themselves and we go along. If you don't like that because it's down-to-earth only to be rather arbitrary, I'd reply that I agree with you, but unfortunately the objective solution is unavailable to us since we just can't decide on the fate of the grey area. Maybe one day, though, science could provide us with a clear-cut answer.

>>2375

Animals are chill, they just want to hang out and do animal stuff like we do. For me not eating meat is pretty easy (can't say the same for other people), it's not that I think by giving up meat I am going to directly save the lives of lots of animals I just don't really want to have anything to do with a food source that comes directly from death and suffering.

Not just that but the meat industry is really bad for the environment and it makes no sense to me that we dedicate huge sections of land to grow food to feed animals that we then kill and eat when we could just use that land to grow food to feed us directly which would be much, much less wasteful.

As for the whole "plants are alive too" thing, unless you can photosynthesise you're going to have to eat something that is alive.