[Jacob :)]

I was thinking about why some people think it's ok to eat plants but not animals. I don't see how morally a plants life is any less valuable than an animals. Obviously most animals feel pain but does that give additional value to the organisms life? Does it make it superior?

Therefore I decided people who are vegetarians on moral grounds are probably so because of an emotional connection with animals that they lack with plants as of course it is far easy for humans to project their emotions on to animals than plants and is therefore not based on morals but emotions.

So what are your thoughts on the equality of life between plants and animals? And whether it's possible to logically be a vegetarian on moral grounds?

[Steevee]

I imagine it's the sentience issue that is the problem for vegetarians.

[Jacob :)]

So is it morally worse to kill a sentinent (which in itself is debateable that many animals are) being than a non sentinent? If so why?

[kikukaede]

Morals are closely connected with emotions though. If you can thoroughly explain to me what 'morality' is without any references to emotion or feeling then I will be very impressed.

Also, as for humans projecting their emotions onto animals thus deciding not to eat them, although this is true in many cases, it has also been proven that animals DO feel a range of emotions, some species almost as complex as we do.
example
example, not as credible a source but they cite studies
just a few, there are also various studies carried out on primates, other marine mammals and also other species (but in these cases less successful at comparisons to human experience).

Just because an animal does not appear to display what humans know as 'intelligence' does not mean that it is not intelligent. To measure the merit of every other creatures' right to live a safe life free from harm on a scale of 'how much are they like humans' is ridiculous and arrogant.

and imo, if something does feel the pain, terror and suffering a pig feels when it is forced screaming into the abattoir queue, then yes, it does have more of a right to life than a strawberry.

[Jacob :)]

I know morality is practically subjective but I think it should be the logically right action regardless of emotion.

So do you say strawberry < pig because you find it more sad emotionally when the pig dies than the strawberry or do you fundamentally believe the pigs life is more valuable?

[Madmachine]

We all gotta eat something.

[kikukaede]

But coming to a logically right action completely separate of emotion is an entirely different from morality. Morality (basically) is whether something is right or wrong. You are contradicting yourself. It morality is subjective that means it is based on the individuals own viewpoints and EMOTIONS regarding a certain proposal. Also, as emotional creatures it is extremely difficult for humans to separate all feeling from any moral decision and view it completely 'logically'. Morality and logic are different things I'm afraid.

Also, fundamentally the pigs life is more valuable because it is able to interact in an active way with its environment, can clearly feel elements of emotions and sentience.

And I don't see why if I do happen to find it sad when the pig dies that it totally makes any argument I may make for vegetarianism invalid.

It seems like you've been told you are immoral for eating meat and tried to think up a convoluted and contradicting argument so that you can feel less guilty. Take heart; I don't think it is immoral to eat meat, but it is the big scale animal processing industry which is immoral.

[Pindar]

Plants are living organic matter. Animals are living sentient beings which can experience, have conciousness, form memories, form relationships, can conceive themselves as a separate personhood existing over time and have a desire for life.

Killing a plant does not seem immoral, because a plant cannot know whether it is dead or alive. It does not have a conciousness which was aware that it was alive in the first place. It cannot experience and is not self-aware. You are not taking a life but merely terminating living processes which do not involve conciousness.

I have no emotional attachment to animals whatsoever. However I can logically perceive the immorality when breaking the harm principle towards animals. There is no rational difference between harming non-human animals and harming human animals, to make a distinction would be based solely on prejudice and speceism. That would make me no better than claiming its okay to hurt black people and enslave them in favour of whites.

[SacredPhoenix]

Morality is a construct of social convention. Following a basic moral guideline is generally beneficial to most in society, mostly because going against that moral guideline has various repercussions--then again going against it has its odd rewards too and that's why you see that happen.

I think our moral fabric just tends to change over time and to accommodate various needs that reflect the way society is now. In warfare it becomes okay to kill men, as it becomes more acceptable to kill animals when you don't have easy access to food goods. We have a pretty good way as humans at rationalizing a way to justify each of these actions, but the more our society changes and eliminates the real base need for that action, the less able we are to rationalize it as needed.

[Dukeofwembley]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Plants are living organic matter. Animals are living sentient beings which can experience, have conciousness, form memories, form relationships, can conceive themselves as a separate personhood existing over time and have a desire for life.

Killing a plant does not seem immoral, because a plant cannot know whether it is dead or alive. It does not have a conciousness which was aware that it was alive in the first place. It cannot experience and is not self-aware. You are not taking a life but merely terminating living processes which do not involve conciousness.

I have no emotional attachment to animals whatsoever. However I can logically perceive the immorality when breaking the harm principle towards animals. There is no rational difference between harming non-human animals and harming human animals, to make a distinction would be based solely on prejudice and speceism. That would make me no better than claiming its okay to hurt black people and enslave them in favour of whites.

do u have a phd in this topic

Opinions are not of equal strength, facts are what count

[No Man]

(Original post by Dukeofwembley)
do u have a phd in this topic

Opinions are not of equal strength, facts are what count

I think it's more common sense than an opinion tbh.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

(Original post by Jacob :))
I was thinking about why some people think it's ok to eat plants but not animals. I don't see how morally a plants life is any less valuable than an animals. Obviously most animals feel pain but does that give additional value to the organisms life? Does it make it superior?

Therefore I decided people who are vegetarians on moral grounds are probably so because of an emotional connection with animals that they lack with plants as of course it is far easy for humans to project their emotions on to animals than plants and is therefore not based on morals but emotions.

So what are your thoughts on the equality of life between plants and animals? And whether it's possible to logically be a vegetarian on moral grounds?

this will doubtless get negs, but I think if you leave all the emotional knee-jerk stuff at the door, there isn't really any intrinsic value in anything's "life", whether that's a potato or a fish or a human. I mean, life is amazing in its complexity and the way it all just works so perfectly, but we're all just collections of inanimate matter when you really get down to it. I don't really think there is such a thing as "life" really, it's all just a ridiculously complicated bit of chemistry. I don't see where you'd draw the line at where stuff stops being just inanimate particles just doing their thing the only way they can, and starts being a "living entity" once it's structure/behaviour becomes sufficiently "complicated" enough - any choice seems arbitrary.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Dukeofwembley)
do u have a phd in this topic

Opinions are not of equal strength, facts are what count

Read the work of Peter Singer. Start with Animal Liberation (1975).

[rmhumphries]

(Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
this will doubtless get negs, but I think if you leave all the emotional knee-jerk stuff at the door, there isn't really any intrinsic value in anything's "life", whether that's a potato or a fish or a human. I mean, life is amazing in its complexity and the way it all just works so perfectly, but we're all just collections of inanimate matter when you really get down to it. I don't really think there is such a thing as "life" really, it's all just a ridiculously complicated bit of chemistry. I don't see where you'd draw the line at where stuff stops being just inanimate particles just doing their thing the only way they can, and starts being a "living entity" once it's structure/behaviour becomes sufficiently "complicated" enough - any choice seems arbitrary.

So by that logic, then it is perfectly fine for someone to be raped, or tortured, because they are just a collection of matter?

The difference here is that you have an effect on another being. In some cases, such as the one above, a long term effect on the person in question, in the case of say fox hunting, a short, but very negative effect on the fox itself, a longer term effect on the mate of said fox for instance, and so on. We believe that animals can feel pain, and certainly some have packs or families such as our own social groups.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

(Original post by rmhumphries)
So by that logic, then it is perfectly fine for someone to be raped, or tortured, because they are just a collection of matter?

The difference here is that you have an effect on another being. In some cases, such as the one above, a long term effect on the person in question, in the case of say fox hunting, a short, but very negative effect on the fox itself, a longer term effect on the mate of said fox for instance, and so on. We believe that animals can feel pain, and certainly some have packs or families such as our own social groups.

well experiences, suffering etc. is a separate thing isn't it. It's obviously bad to make stuff suffer, but you can kill and eat an animal with as little suffering as it takes to kill and eat a plant if you do it right.

[rmhumphries]

(Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
well experiences, suffering etc. is a separate thing isn't it. It's obviously bad to make stuff suffer, but you can kill and eat an animal with as little suffering as it takes to kill and eat a plant if you do it right.

While true, then very rarely is that done, animals suffer a lot more than plants do when they are killed in most, if not all, commercial slaughterhouses/etc. Not to mention the issue with the life they have beforehand in many cases.

[ClaraJayne]

(Original post by Jacob :))
I was thinking about why some people think it's ok to eat plants but not animals. I don't see how morally a plants life is any less valuable than an animals. Obviously most animals feel pain but does that give additional value to the organisms life? Does it make it superior?

Therefore I decided people who are vegetarians on moral grounds are probably so because of an emotional connection with animals that they lack with plants as of course it is far easy for humans to project their emotions on to animals than plants and is therefore not based on morals but emotions.

So what are your thoughts on the equality of life between plants and animals? And whether it's possible to logically be a vegetarian on moral grounds?

Have to eat something. Out of plants and animals I would rather eat plants. I hate it when people say "why do you eat plants and take away animals food". Have to eat something! Otherwise I would starve.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[ClaraJayne]

Also. I'm not a vegetarian to try and "save all the animals" either. I do it for myself. So as I have no part in it what so ever. It's like smoking in a sense. If more people do it now than don't does that make it right? Just disconnect yourself from it all.
I don't know why people have to think something is logical or "normal" because they've had it hammered into their skull that it's a normal thing to do and people that don't eat meat are "weird"
Just think if no one ever ate meat until now and it was suddenly brought in how weird would that seem? That would be considered more strange than the other way around


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[miser]

I'm a vegetarian so I'll answer your question as best I can based on the reasoning I use. Morality only matters in a universe in which beings are capable of suffering. If nothing can suffer, then there is no reason to afford beings rights - the purpose of which are to avoid beings' mistreatment. A plant is essentially no different ethically speaking to a rock in my mind because neither have a capacity to suffer, and therefore neither need to be afforded consideration in how we treat them. A rock is simply a rock, and a plant a plant - the difference is that a plant is the product of a very complex process, which we call life. 'Life' itself isn't in my opinion something that should be respected for its own sake - HIV should have as much rights as algae, and algae should have as much rights as sand. HIV and algae are both alive and the sand is not, but this doesn't add any ethical dimension to them.

Now if we take a dog, almost everyone today agrees that we should afford it certain rights to avoid its mistreatment. A dog has sentience and the capacity to suffer, and this creates a certain responsibility on the part of others to avoid inflicting any unnecessary pain or torment upon it. Now take a human, and almost everyone agrees that we should afford them more rights than we afford a dog, and this is because humans are believed to hold a greater capacity to suffer than dogs, and so humans must be treated with even greater care and respect for their well-being.

This line of thinking produces a scale that can be used for all objects that exist - the degree to which an entity can experience suffering should correlate with the degree to which we afford it ethical consideration. On the one side, a plant can't suffer no matter how we treat it - it makes no difference to the plant - whereas a human can suffer greatly and it makes a huge difference how we treat him or her.

To the second part of your post, I wouldn't really say that I'm a vegetarian because of emotional reasons, except insofar as I could say that I support human rights for emotional reasons.

The real reason I'm a vegetarian though is very simple. Most humans don't have to eat meat, and eating meat causes the suffering of animals. These two claims I expect are relatively undisputed. If living ethically means to avoid the infliction of unnecessary suffering, then it is ethical to be a vegetarian for these reasons.

[sarahthegemini]

"It's a ****ing plant"

Hoping somebody gets this reference.