Philosophical Vegan Forum

Firstly, I'd like to make very clear that I am, in no way, asking this in any aggressive or "gotcha!" way. I have absolutely no issue with people being vegan, though I am not. Also, if this sounds like a stupid question to anyone, there's no reason to throw any insults, maybe I'm just missing the correct angle when thinking about this question. I'm just legitimately curious, not trying to start a debate.

So my question is: What would you do if we somehow, sometime in the future, discovered that plants are undeniably sentient? Maybe it's a dumb thing to think, but to me it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility is it? I mean they clearly make "choices" (such as the way roots search for water, growing toward light, carnivorous plants etc.) whether they're conscious decisions or not. So to me, it's not that far of a leap to think that they might also feel pain/suffering. Just because we don't know how it could think and feel, doesn't mean that it absolutely can't. Ya know? The same way most people would think you need oxygen to have life, while oxygen will kill some bacteria.

Just thought I'd throw this hypothetical out there that I've been thinking about to see how other people think about it. I guess it's pretty much just a thought experiment type question really. I'd suggest reading the other replies before replying, your answer may have already been used.


EDIT: If you plan on accusing me of being some closet anti-vegan, here to underhandedly try to attack veganism, don't waste your time. Just go to page 3 and read my too-long reply to Twizelby. I'm not going to take the time to reiterate all that again. It took long enough the first time.

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?"

Every article you read about "plant pain" uses pain to make the topic anthropomorphic. Why would plants develop the ability to feel pain if they can't avoid it? The answer is they didn't. they developed chemical signals to communicate when to draw in nutrients that may possible be eaten by an animal
.
Although I hate to entertain the hypothetical, you have to use more plants to feed cattle and the environmental aspect of veganism would still make it more ethical to eat vegan. less habitat destruction etc.

Unwittingly everyday people are okay with this distinction between sentience and non-sentience every-time they choose to become an organ donor. The brain dead don't miss the kidney, the tree doesn't miss the apple.
Does that help? Twiz

Twizelby wrote:snip

I know it's a hypothetical. If you ask me hypothetical questions are not useless. For example, asking "If you are in a coma, do you want to pull the plug?" is a hypothetical, but it's still useful to ponder and have some sort of "plan of action" if that hypothetical becomes reality. Plus, as my name suggests, I just enjoy thinking about ideas and potential cause and effect situations that may or may not ever come up etc. Even if it's just for the sake of "intellectual exploration" (can't think of another term for it). I think it's a bit of a strawman to compare my hypothetical with the ones you used as examples though.

Also, I don't know why they would develop that, or even that they did, I'm just saying that it isn't an impossibility that they did. Especially when I see things like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGLABm7jJ-Y.
Then you just assert that they didn't.

Yes your insight does help, I appreciate your input. I kinda guessed around that area.

The simple answer to this is that we need to eat/kill plants in order to survive. We do not need to eat/kill other animals to survive. If plants do feel pain but I need to eat them to survive, then I hope a more ethical way for ending their lives pops up when we find the evidence supporting the claim.

dan1073 wrote:If plants do feel pain but I need to eat them to survive, then I hope a more ethical way for ending their lives pops up when we find the evidence supporting the claim.

Exactly, my point though, is if that were the case then what would be the reason to not eat animals? If we discovered that plants also feel pain, then would animals still be less ethical than plants? Seeing as any "more ethical way for ending their lives" could just as well be used for the animals, right?

Strictly from an ethics standpoint, of course. Health reasons aside.

Again, just to make it abundantly clear: I'm not at all trying to start any arguments or justify eating meat. I'm just trying to get other perspectives and people to share their thoughts. Plus I figured it might be nice to at least start off these forums with some not-so-argumentative threads of discussion.

I believe I answered your questions on hypotheticals as best I can. let me ask you... is there a reason we need to maximize suffering?

Exactly, my point though, is if that were the case then what would be the reason to not eat animals? If we discovered that plants also feel pain, then would animals still be less ethical than plants? Seeing as any "more ethical way for ending their lives" could just as well be used for the animals, right?

Strictly from an ethics standpoint, of course. Health reasons aside.

If/when we discovered plants feel pain then no it would not be less ethical than killing animals, this is the way how I see it at least not trying to answer for everyone else.

I try not to dwell on "what if" topics but I gave this one a chance since it's a very interesting question.

dan1073 wrote:I try not to dwell on "what if" topics but I gave this one a chance since it's a very interesting question.

Thanks for your input! I just wanted to get some other people's thoughts. Especially from vegans, given the subject.

Twizelby wrote:I believe I answered your questions on hypotheticals as best I can. let me ask you... is there a reason we need to maximize suffering?

Assuming that wasn't a typo and you did mean "maximize", then I'm gonna go with no.

TheThinkingThinker wrote: So my question is: What would you do if we somehow, sometime in the future, discovered that plants are undeniably sentient? Maybe it's a dumb thing to think, but to me it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility is it? I mean they clearly make "choices" (such as the way roots search for water, growing toward light, carnivorous plants etc.) whether they're conscious decisions or not. So to me, it's not that far of a leap to think that they might also feel pain/suffering. Just because we don't know how it could think and feel, doesn't mean that it absolutely can't. Ya know? The same way most people would think you need oxygen to have life, while oxygen will kill some bacteria.

If plants are one day determined to be sentient, then at that time we will have to evaluate our options. With our current understanding of sentience, plants are devoid of it. I do not blame the lion for eating a gazelle, because I realize that the lion has every right to life as the gazelle, and it has a need to eat meat to survive. It also does not have any non-animal alternatives, and so it does what it needs to do to survive. Humans need to eat to survive as well, and we have every right to live, and if it could be determined that plants are in some way sentient, and we had no other alternatives, then killing plants for survive would be a necessary "evil".

My interest is in what we now know. Animals are clearly sentient (especially the animals we regularly eat), while plants do not have any evident ability to be sentient. My focus is on what we know, not what may or may not happen in the future.

Are we justified to believe in god now even though there is no evidence of his existence... even if in the future perhaps we will finally find proof of a god's existence? id say no. Until such time we have adequate evidence, we would be wrong to believe as if it were true now.