Philosophical Vegan Forum

Did I unintentionally offend you guys or something? That's 2 people now whose reply only had one out of several sentences actually answering my question. With the rest of it either basically saying hypothetical questions are pointless, or throwing out other hypotheticals about god and superstition in an attempt to make my question look equally stupid.

It was just a simple "thought experiment" type question. I didn't say that plants are sentient, or that we will discover that they are, or that we should act like they are, or pretend they are etc. I wasn't trying to justify or promote eating meat, or saying anything anti-vegan in any way, or anything else like that either. It's just a simple, completely benign question to discuss and share ideas about a hypothetical situation.

You guys sound real fun to hang around with "Hey what would you say if your boyfriend/girlfriend proposed?"

Twizelby wrote:Hypotheticals, "What if stepping on a crack does not break your mothers back, but actually breaks some other mothers back?" "what if God exists and he wants you to wear a pope hat or eat koala diarrhea every morning?"
Although I hate to entertain the hypothetical...

TheVeganAtheist wrote:If she/he were to one day propose, then at that time I will have to evaluate my options. My focus is on what we know, not what may or may not happen in the future.

I mean really?

TheThinkingThinker wrote:Did I unintentionally offend you guys or something? That's 2 people now whose reply only had one out of several sentences actually answering my question. With the rest of it either basically saying hypothetical questions are pointless, or throwing out other hypotheticals about god and superstition in an attempt to make my question look equally stupid.

I did not take anything you said as offensive. I thought I answered your question given the available information. Hypotheticals will only take you so far. I hear the religious often say "if god exists, then miracles are to be expected and should be believed". If plants are sentient, and we discover as much later, then the future human race will need to evaluate our options and proceed with the most moral course of action.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:
If she/he were to one day propose, then at that time I will have to evaluate my options. My focus is on what we know, not what may or may not happen in the future.

when did I say this? I can't find it in this thread. Am i missing some point?

TheVeganAtheist wrote:when did I say this? I can't find it in this thread. Am i missing some point?

I just changed the words from "plants" and "sentient" to "she/he" and "propose" to fit the context. It was just to make my point about what, to me, came across as your guys' attitudes.

I apologize for being rude, maybe I just made a mistake about your attitude.

Ignoring a lot of what just happened, I'm going to put my own two cents into this "what if plants do feel pain" question.

I would still eat plants, because I need to survive. As a vegan, my philosophy has to do with causing as little harm to other beings (which essentially plays into caring about the environment in general) as I possibly can. There is no perfection in this. I'm sure I step on insects and other tiny creatures without knowing it, and there is no way all of my vegan foods didn't contribute to a being getting injured or dying in one way or another (on a farm, in a factory). I still stick with veganism because I am causing less harm over all.

Since the animals we use as food consume more plants than I would by myself, I would still be causing less harm altogether, assuming that we're talking about while factory farms are still in business. If I ate both, I feel like I would be causing insult to injury for these pain feeling plants (assuming they are also sentient) to be both eating them directly and letting the rest of my "food" consume even more of them before I eat meat.

I know Twizelby said something very similar to this in the beginning, but I wanted to point out that it would still be more than environmental to me (though it would obviously still stand). I would still be adhering to the lifestyle in proper form.

itsund3rmykilt wrote:snip

Yeah, It seems I left out the "indirect" effects as a reason while thinking about my hypothetical. Thanks for your input!

I know it may come off as harsh, but it is really how I feel about the topic. Hypotheticals are just so tainted. I honestly never thought I would go vegan, even as a vegetarian I didn't think I would. So I have a degree of understanding of where you are coming from. when it comes down to it the hypothetical argument is really just an attempt to negate the vegan argument without providing facts. Facts are what I try to base all of my arguments on. To date there is some pretty good science that make plants look really impressive but nothing points to sentience. I see a reaction to stimuli but not actual thought. While I realize that sounds like Descartes, I would rather make the distinction based on what I know rather than what is proposed. We can map animal brains and see what parts light up. we can test hormonal levels and see that the same parts of their brains light up in response to situations that happen to us, with plants there is none of that. Plants react to stimuli based on chemicals, not a nervous system.
The principal of least harm is what veganism is all about. so even if plants were proven to be sentient I would remain vegan in order to kill less plants as well as reduce environmental impact.

Twizelby wrote:I know it may come off as harsh, but it is really how I feel about the topic. Hypotheticals are just so tainted. I honestly never thought I would go vegan, even as a vegetarian I didn't think I would. So I have a degree of understanding of where you are coming from. when it comes down to it the hypothetical argument is really just an attempt to negate the vegan argument without providing facts.

See, then your hostility comes from ignorance and assumptions that fly in the face of my post in the first place. I made it very clear that this was, in no way, an argument for or against anything. There was absolutely 0 intention of any "negation" of viewpoints. I never said that plants are sentient, or that we one day will discover that they are, or even that there is any solid evidence that says they are. I only brought it up to say that it isn't entirely impossible. Basically, to keep people from thinking my hypothetical is just based on magic, or that my reasoning for the idea is on par with something like "What if the universe like.... is like just our thoughts... projected through like computers myan. like wooooahh right....?". (myan = "man" with a stoner-hippie accent lol)

I'm not even here to be pro or anti vegan. I'm not here to say "This is why I'm not vegan, and won't be.". Personally I think it's great if you want to go vegan/vegetarian, and hold absolutely nothing against anyone for doing so. But the question has nothing to do with the question "is veganism right?". I'm not trying to justify eating meat or anything else of the sort either. I can't think of any way I could have possibly made it any clearer that this was simply, and only, a hypothetical situation that I had thought of, and wanted to have a discussion to get input from vegans on the potential affects of idea if it came to be reality. I figured this would be a good place to find vegans who would be willing to have a civilized discussion about it. Seeing as this is The Vegan Atheist forum, as opposed to something like The Hippie Vegans Who Heal Medical Problems With Magic Crystals forum. Completely free of taint. If anything it's covered in anti-taint, because I asked here specifically because I figured that the people of this community are more "thoughtful", open-minded, and rational than probably many other places I could have asked. So the fact that I asked here is actually more complimentary than anything else.

I'm sorry you feel that way. : ( not trying to drive you away, just giving my honest opinion. my responses are tainted with past experience with people addressing this topic.

I wouldn't even honor this question with the label "hypothetical." Hypotheses have to be based on evidence, and there is no evidence that plants are sentient and feel pain. Evolutionarily speaking, it would make no sense for them to do so, and at the biochemical level, their cellular communication pathways are far too slow to have the processing power of even the simplest animal.

I consider all such (non-)"hypotheticals" to just be diversionary tactics on the part of the questioner, hoping to give themselves an "out" that will allow them to not have to face the real issue, which is:

Right now, in the real world, as you sit here reading this, billions of sentient beings are being tortured and slaughtered to provide you with food you do not need. It's not hypothetical, it's real. The question that ought to be foremost in your ethical calculus is, what are you going to do about this real problem that exists right now in the real world?

Humane Hominid wrote:snip

Holy shit, I rest my case...

Also, I'll just leave this here for you:

hypothesis
Syllabification: hy·poth·e·sis
Pronunciation: /hīˈpäTHəsis/
noun (plural hypotheses /-ˌsēz/)

1A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation:
'professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis'
-1.1 Philosophy - A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
-Oxford Dictionary