Philosophical Vegan Forum

Apparently sentience seems to be your go to argument here.
Are plants not sentient as well, seeing how they can respond to trauma?
What if (when) robots/AI acquire sentient features? Are they to be untouchable?
What makes your case (sentient beings off limit) more right than that of others (self aware beings off limit)?

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Are plants not sentient as well, seeing how they can respond to trauma?

No. That is reflexive. Like how baking soda fizzes when you pour vinegar on it; it's a simple cause and effect reaction, with no intelligent information processing, thought, or feeling involved.

Biologically, the same is the case when your skin tans when exposed to light (or burns and becomes red).
Although incidentally you might feel these things too, while you have a functioning brain, the same responses are true of somebody who is brain dead, and in a persistent and irreversible vegetative state.

Likewise, reflexes don't qualify.
There are a lot of seemingly advanced action-reaction behaviors which are not indicative of sentience.

E.g. it is also not clear if all worms are sentient (some seem to be, some are not). Oysters are probably not sentient. likewise jellyfish, and a lot of things that twitch or respond to nerve stimulation. It's automatic; they aren't actually feeling it, because there's no mind or intelligence there to register the sensation, it just returns a reflex.

To understand what sentience is, you need to understand what intelligence is, how it works, and how we can test for it.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:What if (when) robots/AI acquire sentient features? Are they to be untouchable?

Sentience comes in degrees. There are beings that are only marginally sentient, and thus would be understood to only have marginal moral value. Other beings are highly sentient, and have high moral value.

Currently, there ARE sentient robots. Their sentience is roughly comparable to simple insects.

What do you mean by "untouchable"? That's absurd. Nothing is untouchable, you sound like you're talking about some religious dogma.

But we do need to ask, what harm is it doing, and what benefit is gained from that harm.

In terms of animal testing for medicine, there are advantages and disadvantages -- people are helped by medicine, and animals are harmed. There's a balance.
In terms of animal agriculture, there are no meaningful advantages. It's harmful to health, the environment, and animals. It's completely irrational (in the first world, anyway).

HeightenedIntellect wrote:What makes your case (sentient beings off limit) more right than that of others (self aware beings off limit)?

Sentience is a measurable, testable concept that is internally consistent. Self-awareness is not properly defined. If you did define self-awareness scientifically, you would probably arrive at a definition comparable to sentience.

But go ahead, try to define self-awareness if you think that's a valid metric. We can discuss that.

I updated my post a little to add a couple examples.

brimstoneSalad wrote:No. That is reflexive

I believe you underestimate the ability of plants.
They are aware of trauma, and actively (not passively, like your skin tan example) try to mitigate or repair themselves.

Animals feelings are supposedly also only reactionary in that case. They aren't actually aware of what they are doing.
They avoid pain because of the way their body responds to it.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Sentience comes in degrees. There are beings that are only marginally sentient, and thus would be understood to only have marginal moral value. Other beings are highly sentient, and have high moral value.

But most animals are not even moral agents, why would they have a moral value?
The moral of most people does not give any significant moral value to being that doesn't show self awareness or ability to comprehend (self) ownership.
Take the christian moral values for example, which is arguably the most prominent moral in the western world. Christianity has given man dominion over all animals.

brimstoneSalad wrote:What do you mean by "untouchable"? That's absurd. Nothing is untouchable, you sound like you're talking about some religious dogma.

Untouchable as in they have the right not to be killed (or made to suffer).

brimstoneSalad wrote:In terms of animal agriculture, there are no meaningful advantages. It's harmful to health, the environment, and animals. It's completely irrational (in the first world, anyway).

But there is. Eating meat (and other exploitative uses of animals) gives people joy.
If happiness is not good enough in itself to be sought, I think it would be a quite gloomy existance.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Sentience is a measurable, testable concept that is internally consistent. Self-awareness is not properly defined. If you did define self-awareness scientifically, you would probably arrive at a definition comparable to sentience.

But go ahead, try to define self-awareness if you think that's a valid metric. We can discuss that.

If they can grasp the concept of self-ownership, pass the mirror test, they could (and should) be assumed to be self aware.

HeightenedIntellect wrote: I believe you underestimate the ability of plants.
They are aware of trauma, and actively (not passively, like your skin tan example) try to mitigate or repair themselves.

That's pseudoscience. You have been misled by bad pop-science.
http://skepdic.com/plants.html

Your skin engages, on its own, in complicated mitigation and repair mechanisms too. These are simply evolved, reflexive, responses to chemical commands.
They aren't aware of trauma, or anything. Categorically, they don't do anything non-sentient cells can't do, or that brain-dead humans can't do.

Plants do not possess true learning, they are merely sensitized. It's a very different thing.

Do you accept evolution? I won't assume that you do, but you certainly don't understand it. You may have a lot to learn on this topic.

Organisms do not evolve the capacity for complex thought that they do not need or that is not useful to survive.
Plants are stationary, like oysters. They only have need for reflex.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Animals feelings are supposedly also only reactionary in that case.

There's a difference between a learned reaction, which has been conditioned, and a reflex, which is automatic.
Plants are purely reflexive based on simple chemical cause and effect. No learning, no thought, no feeling.

You will need to understand the difference between these things before you're capable of engaging in this discussion.

Look into something called "operant conditioning", and "associative learning".

For your convenience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning
This article explains the difference between non-associative learning (not "true" learning in the philosophical sense), and associative learning.

Sensitization is not indicative of sentience.
Response to conditioning through associative learning is -- the presence of mind, feeling, and wants are the means by which associative learning functions.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:They aren't actually aware of what they are doing.
They avoid pain because of the way their body responds to it.

What you're saying is incoherent, and indicates you don't understand anything about how learning works.

"Awareness" is inherent in associative learning. All conditioned responses (not sensitized ones, which is different), are predicated on awareness.

There's a quote I think kind of highlights things, that has been floating around in cognitive science:

"The primitive sign of wanting is trying to get"

If you're trying to get something, you want it by definition. That's the root of feeling, of desire.
However, merely moving toward or away from something is not "trying to get". That would be like saying objects want to fall. In order to prove you're trying to get it, you need to modify your behavior to get it when conditioned by environments or situations that are different to what you would have evolved to live in.

Like, if you move toward the food, I take it away. If you move away from the food, I give it to you.
If you learn to move away from the food instead of toward it based on that experience, then you legitimately want the food because you have proven your behavior to be molded after obtaining it, and not merely mindless reflex.

If you reject that concept:
1. You're an idiot who obviously cares nothing about science or reason.
2. I could just as easily assert that you aren't aware of what you're doing, and you only avoid pain or seek pleasure because the way your body responds to it. So, by your own reasoning, you're on the menu, right?

I'm hoping you won't reflexively reject science and reason, though, just because it goes against what you assumed to be true, or wanted to be true about the world.

In my experience, people who deny the sentience of animals, or promote the sentience of plants, are about as reasonable and open to legitimate science as creationists.

We'll see. I'm not holding my breath, but you might surprise me so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:But most animals are not even moral agents, why would they have a moral value?

All this "plants are sentient and/or animals aren't" stuff is idiotic and just ignorance of science. If you don't want to understand the science for yourself, all you need to do is look at scientific consensus.

But THAT is a good question. I will address that in a few minutes, as I have something to do.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:I believe you underestimate the ability of plants.

Plants cannot be sentient.
They don't have a neurological network and a nervous system, which means that it's impossible for them to feel pain, have emotions and be aware of their surroundings.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:I believe you underestimate the ability of plants.
They are aware of trauma, and actively (not passively, like your skin tan example) try to mitigate or repair themselves.

It's not underestimating, it's looking at what evolution, biology, neuroscience and self-evidence tell us.
They don't have the capaility of being aware of their surroundings, so they can't 'choose' to do anything. They don't even have the cognitive capabilities to choose - they don't even have cognitive capabilities to begin with.
When you hurt yourself and the wound is covered by crust, it's an automatic mechanism to repair the damage.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Animals feelings are supposedly also only reactionary in that case.

Every sentient being's feelings are reactionary.
You feel something, because something happened before that made you feel that way. Neurons need something to happen before sending signals.
Plants don't have feeling in the first place.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:They aren't actually aware of what they are doing.

That is far from true. Most animals are aware of what they're doing - and there's not a single doubt that all farmed animals are (since they're among the most cognitive capable animals). They can choose/decide what to and what not to do.
They might not be self-aware, but that's another thing.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:They avoid pain because of the way their body responds to it.

I'm not sure what you mean here..
You mean, like humans too?
Because it's an instinctive reaction for us: when something's hurting, we immediately try to stop that from happening.
However, plants don't avoid pain.
Animals avoid pain, and if they have the foreknowledge something's going to hurt, they'll try to avid it beforehand, because they have the desire not to suffer.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:But most animals are not even moral agents, why would they have a moral value?
The moral of most people does not give any significant moral value to being that doesn't show self awareness or ability to comprehend (self) ownership.
Take the christian moral values for example, which is arguably the most prominent moral in the western world. Christianity has given man dominion over all animals.

Why would you take into consideration Christian morality, and use it as an example of a valid moral system?
Why would you care about what most people do/think?
That's a bandwagon logical fallacy.
It doesn't matter what most people morals are; do you think that at the time when slavery was considered OK, it was OK because most people tought so? If people started saying that plants had feelings and it was be wrong for us to cut them down, would it make it so?

And that morality is fallacious in many ways - and hypocritical as well.
Human babies are not self-aware, do you not give any moral value to them?
Dogs/cats and other pets are not self-aware, do you not give any moral value to them?

Sentience is what matters. It's an axiom.
Sentience gives room for feelings and desires/wants, where the being wants them to happen.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:But there is. Eating meat (and other exploitative uses of animals) gives people joy.
If happiness is not good enough in itself to be sought, I think it would be a quite gloomy existance.

That's called hedonistic pleasure. Do you think it's OK to seek pleasure, harming others so much?
You can find foods you like and enjoy being veg*n too.
Looking at it objectively, eating animal products is a lose-lose scenario.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:If they can grasp the concept of self-ownership, pass the mirror test, they could (and should) be assumed to be self aware.

That doesn't explain what self-awareness is, that only tells how it's recognizable.

I'll get the easy/fast stuff out of the way first.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Untouchable as in they have the right not to be killed (or made to suffer).

That's absurd. Rights are a legal concept, and when people try to put them forward as a moral concept they're generally based on dogma.

Look into the difference between deontology (irrational, rights based morality) and consequentialism (rational, consequence based morality).

Here's a thread you should read. My response is part of the way down the page:
http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... ?f=7&t=785

TLDR: In veganism, there are consequentialists, and deontologists. The deontologists are the ones ranting about rights, and the whole dogma. They are crazy people. Consequentialists don't do that; they compare harm to good, and try to advocate the least of evils. It's impossible to do no harm in the world, but we should all strive to do less of it.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:If they can grasp the concept of self-ownership, pass the mirror test, they could (and should) be assumed to be self aware.

Blind people can't pass the mirror test. So, we should eat them, right?

The mirror test is not an adequate test of self-awareness. You would know if you had actually studied it. There are numerous tests, none of them very good.
The term "self" itself is something of a nebulous metaphysical construct on its own.
But in terms of the most reasonable definition, ALL sentient beings are inherently self-aware to the extent they are sentient, because they have to be in order to respond properly to the environment. A sense of selfish want is inherent to a sense of self -- you don't have one without the other. You can't be selfish without a sense of self, and selfishness is the only thing that has been proved.

Plants lack a sense of self, because they are not sentient. They have no wants. There are things that are beneficial to their grown, but they do not want to grow; they just do it.

Anything that demonstrates associative learning has a sense of self-awareness. Simple.
Associative learning => Wants => Sense of self.
Associative learning => Wants => Sentience.

Like I said, if one creates a coherent definition of self-awareness, it becomes comparable to sentience. And we know how to test for that.
It's not dolphins we're scratching our heads over and testing for sentience, it's worms and tiny insects. Anything higher than that is so obviously sentient it's not even necessary to test.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:But there is. Eating meat (and other exploitative uses of animals) gives people joy.
If happiness is not good enough in itself to be sought, I think it would be a quite gloomy existance.

Pedophilia gives pedophiles joy, doesn't it? Do you agree that practice should be encouraged?

I'd really like to get a sense of whether you have any notion of moral values at all.

However, neither eating meat, nor pedophilia, give people joy in themselves.
Eating delicious food, and having sex give people joy.

There are many delicious foods, many of which are not meat. A person has many options, in terms of what to eat to enjoy his or herself. Meat doesn't provide pleasure that would otherwise be denied to people if they didn't have it; they'd just eat something else that's yummy.

Likewise, pedophilia isn't the only sex there is to be had. There's consenting sex between adults, which provides the pleasure without the harm.

Unlike carnists, however, pedophiles have a mental disorder that makes it difficult or impossible to get their rocks off without little children. Carnists have no such excuse -- they can enjoy vegetarian foods just as easily as meat. There are even plant based meats that, when seasoned, are indistinguishable to most people.

Take some time to think about that. If you doubt that there are suitably delicious vegetarian foods and insist that your life would be a gloomy existence without animal suffering, you're just ignorant. Go to some vegan restaurants, buy some mock-meats, learn to cook. Any half-competent chef can make delicious vegan food.


And now, to the only good question you asked:

HeightenedIntellect wrote:But most animals are not even moral agents, why would they have a moral value?

A child isn't a moral agent, does a child have any moral value?
How about an adult who doesn't believe in morality, and lives a completely amoral life? Does such a person have moral value?
How about an adult, like yourself, who may think he or she believes in morality, but is so delusional as to its rational meaning that he or she is in effect practicing Blue and Orange morality? Does such a person have moral value?

If the only beings in the world that have moral value are the ones that correctly understand and practice morality, then morality is really just a secret club of psychopaths who justify harming any being that isn't in their club.

If morality is about anything -- if it is to have any meaning at all -- it is about extending concern beyond your own selfish interests, and giving consideration to the interests of other beings as well. It is about altruism, and it is about the golden rule.

If you define morality in any other way, it is ultimately arbitrary, incoherent, or self-defeating.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:The moral of most people does not give any significant moral value to being that doesn't show self awareness or ability to comprehend (self) ownership.

There's no reason to show consideration for the "wants" of non-sentient beings, like plants, because they have no wants to consider. The only "wants" are the ones we make up and pretend they have.

For sentient beings, on the other hand, like the vast majority of non-microscopic motile animals, those wants - and thus sentience and self awareness by any meaningful definition - are proved matters of scientific fact.

To deny that is just to be wantonly ignorant.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Take the christian moral values for example, which is arguably the most prominent moral in the western world. Christianity has given man dominion over all animals.

As has it given whites dominion over blacks, because the Africans are descendants of Cain, who was marked by god for killing his brother Abel.
Or whatever other bullshit you want to make up.

Religion is false. Any morality it dictates based on those false beliefs is unsubstantiated. If ever religion is right about morality, it is accidental (a stopped clock is right twice a day).
In order to derive a legitimate morality, you need to use science and reason. That may not be something you're interested in, but it's important to us.

That said, it's important to mention that there are some Christians who are not complete monsters, and even scriptural basis for it. Generalize at your own peril.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Your skin engages, on its own, in complicated mitigation and repair mechanisms too. These are simply evolved, reflexive, responses to chemical commands.
They aren't aware of trauma, or anything. Categorically, they don't do anything non-sentient cells can't do, or that brain-dead humans can't do.

Plants do not possess true learning, they are merely sensitized. It's a very different thing.

Must one be able to learn to be sentient? Then yes it would be hard to argue that plants are sentient.
However if non-reactionary response to negative stimuli (pain) is sufficient perhaps plants could be argued to be (somewhat) sentient.
I'll not explore this option much further here, before gathering some more information/knowledge about it though.

brimstoneSalad wrote:In my experience, people who deny the sentience of animals, or promote the sentience of plants, are about as reasonable and open to legitimate science as creationists.

I'm not really trying to argue that's it wrong to eat plants, but simply to illustrate how absurd the idea of of not being able to eats plants is to you in contrast how absurd the idea of not eating meat simply because animals are sentient are to meat eaters.

thebestofenergy wrote:That is far from true. Most animals are aware of what they're doing - and there's not a single doubt that all farmed animals are (since they're among the most cognitive capable animals). They can choose/decide what to and what not to do.
They might not be self-aware, but that's another thing.

Their free will is arguably severely limited however.

thebestofenergy wrote:Why would you take into consideration Christian morality, and use it as an example of a valid moral system?

Are you not abstaining from meat because it is morally wrong to eat sentient beings? Most people do not think it is morally wrong so it's a hard case for you to argue it's morally wrong.

thebestofenergy wrote:Why would you care about what most people do/think?

Then there is literally no reason to care what vegans think, or?

thebestofenergy wrote:Human babies are not self-aware, do you not give any moral value to them?

I think it's easier if we just talking about beings that have reached maturity, don't you think?

thebestofenergy wrote:Dogs/cats and other pets are not self-aware, do you not give any moral value to them?

No, of course not.

thebestofenergy wrote:Sentience is what matters. It's an axiom.

Not according to me (and most of the population). It seems like and arbitrary limit.

thebestofenergy wrote:That's called hedonistic pleasure. Do you think it's OK to seek pleasure, harming others so much?

As long as you don't harm humans (or perhaps self aware beings), I do think it is OK.

thebestofenergy wrote:That doesn't explain what self-awareness is, that only tells how it's recognizable.

Would it not be enough to recognize it to assume an animal unfit for human consumption for reasons of being self aware.



brimstoneSalad, I saw your latest response. Unfortunately I will not have time to read and respond to it today, but I'll see to it tomorrow if you will.

thebestofenergy wrote: Plants cannot be sentient.
They don't have a neurological network and a nervous system, which means that it's impossible for them to feel pain, have emotions and be aware of their surroundings.

You're assuming he accepts science here.
I prefer to outline the science, and show how IF you accept evolution (or scientific naturalism for that matter), plants aren't sentient.

For all we know, he may believe plants have magical souls, or fairies or something in them that make them sentient. Some people believe that.
At which point, you have the task of trying to explain why making up bullshit is less useful to understanding the world than science. It's an uphill battle.

I haven't gotten the impression that this guy has any particular respect for or interest in science. I could be wrong, maybe he'll totally change his mind on this issue and then I'll have my foot in my mouth.

thebestofenergy wrote: They might not be self-aware, but that's another thing.

"Self awareness" is a kind of woo/metaphysical concept in popular usage, like "free will" (what's it supposed to be free from?). To any extent that it's coherent, and scientifically or philosophically meaningful, all sentient beings are self aware, generally to the degree that they are sentient.

HeightenedIntellect wrote: Must one be able to learn to be sentient?

Yes.

HeightenedIntellect wrote: However if non-reactionary response to negative stimuli (pain) is sufficient perhaps plants could be argued to be (somewhat) sentient.

No, because without sentience, there's no such thing as "negative" or "positive" stimuli. Plants do not perceive pain, because they are not sentient.

They can be structurally damaged, but that's a different thing entirely.
A car can be damaged, and its maintenance light can go off. Is a car sentient? Did you cause it pain?

Plants are in no useful or rigorous sense of the word "sentient". Neither are cars... yet. Although the Google self-driving cars may be (I don't know enough about how they work to asset that one way or another).

HeightenedIntellect wrote: I'll not explore this option much further here, before gathering some more information/knowledge about it though.

Read those Wiki links, they are good summaries.
Also, look into "Dennett's creatures". Bear in mind that those aren't fundamental types of beings with hard lines between them, but more of a continuum of ability. It may help you reflect on what thought and mind is, though.

HeightenedIntellect wrote: I'm not really trying to argue that's it wrong to eat plants, but simply to illustrate how absurd the idea of of not being able to eats plants is to you in contrast how absurd the idea of not eating meat simply because animals are sentient are to meat eaters.

I can't parse what you just said.

Anyway, read my later reply; it may answer some of your questions regarding morality.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Their free will is arguably severely limited however.

Using words like that, you're not helping your case. You really sound like a woo.

I didn't read your post before I wrote this to thebestofenergy:

brimstoneSalad wrote:"Self awareness" is a kind of woo/metaphysical concept in popular usage, like "free will" (what's it supposed to be free from?).

Prophetic.
These are woo terms, which are poorly defined, and really have no place in scientific topics. You might as well talk about their souls, or the fairies inside them for as reasonable as that is.

What exactly do you think free will is?

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Are you not abstaining from meat because it is morally wrong to eat sentient beings? Most people do not think it is morally wrong so it's a hard case for you to argue it's morally wrong.

He already countered your point.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
Please read that link.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Then there is literally no reason to care what vegans think, or?

Correct, there's no reason to care about people's random unsubstantiated "opinions", no matter how many people hold them.

There IS reason to care about the arguments, which are completely aside from that point.
If a million people believe something, but make no good argument for it, ignore it.
If only one person believes something AND makes a good argument for it, it has more weight than the rest of the world's 'opinions' combined.

That's how logic and reason work. It's all about the argument.

Vegans and non-vegans BOTH make arguments against the morality of eating meat.
Schopenhauer is a good example. Dawkins, too, recognizes that eating meat is immoral. It's hard to find a rational omnivore who doesn't recognize meat eating as immoral and feel uncomfortable about it. As Dawkins put it, he thinks he eats meat in the way the Thomas Jefferson owned slaves (despite being fiercely against slavery). That's not entirely accurate, and I'll address that in the future, but it gives you a sense of how well accepted the ethics of animal treatment is becoming within rational circles.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:I think it's easier if we just talking about beings that have reached maturity, don't you think?

Easier for you, but completely irrelevant to the point. So no, that would be irrational to exclude the immature.
If they are not magically "self aware" at the time they are harmed, then in your view, it should be OK to harm them -- and certainly to kill them.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:Not according to me (and most of the population). It seems like and arbitrary limit.

You propose no coherent alternative. It's not arbitrary, it's the only game in town. Other interpretations of morality are arbitrary and subjective, and usually supernatural to boot. As I said, self-defeating.

HeightenedIntellect wrote:

thebestofenergy wrote:That doesn't explain what self-awareness is, that only tells how it's recognizable.

Would it not be enough to recognize it to assume an animal unfit for human consumption for reasons of being self aware.

Thebestofenergy is wrong here. Self-awareness as you want it to be is incoherent, like "free will". Self-awareness by any coherent definition is actually comparable to sentience, and it is not measured by the mirror test; it can be tested by conditioning (responsiveness, or lack thereof).