Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Thinking more about this topic, plants do have, to some extent, their own kind of moral status. As with animals, a plant's status are largely dependent on whether any humans value it or not. While sentience is a major factor in human interest, there are other points that impact both plants and animals:

- human ownership
- ecological importance
- utility to humans
- harm caused to humans or ecosystems
- cultural heritage.

Pest animals like flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, mice, rats and destructive feral animals are the lowest status organisms, along with problematic weeds such as lantana and asparagus ferns.

[LuckyR]

As we both agree there should be limits on the amount of resource control, not based on hard work, but based on cleverness and luck.

You believe success (in accumulating wealth) is justified by cleverness and luck, but not by "hard work"? Is that what you're saying?

No, the opposite, hard work gets one several times more wealth (which I respect). Gaming of systems and luck can get one several orders of magnitude more wealth (which doesn't deserve respect, IMO).

[Pattern-chaser]

Ah, OK. We pretty much agree, then.

[psyreporter]

Thinking more about this topic, plants do have, to some extent, their own kind of moral status. As with animals, a plant's status are largely dependent on whether any humans value it or not. While sentience is a major factor in human interest, there are other points that impact both plants and animals:

- human ownership
- ecological importance
- utility to humans
- harm caused to humans or ecosystems
- cultural heritage.

Pest animals like flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, mice, rats and destructive feral animals are the lowest status organisms, along with problematic weeds such as lantana and asparagus ferns.

Some of the vital purposes that a plant, animal or insect fulfills in Nature may be hidden for hundreds or thousands of years.

Mosquitoes are the world’s deadliest animal and cause immense human suffering. Despite this, mosquitoes may fulfill vital purposes in Nature's bigger whole that are unknown or difficult to comprehend from the human perspective.

The bizarre and ecologically important hidden lives of mosquitoes
Mosquitoes have many functions in the ecosystem that are overlooked. Indiscriminate mass elimination of mosquitoes would impact everything from pollination to biomass transfer to food webs.

https://theconversation.com/the-bizarre ... oes-127599

Mosquitoes are critical to the perpetuation of diverse microbes. Some (such as the agents of malaria, filariasis, and arboviruses as dengue) infect and burden human beings and other vertebrates but there are also many good microbes.

6 great things microbes do for us

The word ‘microbe’ sounds scary — we associate them with the flu, ebola, flesh-eating disease, you name it. But microbiologist Dr. Jonathan Eisen has given an illuminating TEDTalk that will make you put down the hand sanitizer. As Eisen explains, “We are covered in a cloud of microbes and these microbes actually do us good much of the time rather than killing us.”

https://blog.ted.com/6-great-things-microbes-do-for-us/

The human perspective on its environment may be very limited.

At question would be: Is the value that the human can 'see', all there is to be considered when it concerns a plant, insect or animal? Can empirical science be a guiding principle for life (human progress), i.e. would it be valid to blindly follow the scientific method?

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 - We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.

The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime - which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all masters!" and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master" - what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

According to him, when practicing science independently, scientists are essentially fulfilling the role of a philosopher. Logically, that would be based on a belief or dogma (uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science (i.e. without further thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done).

A belief in uniformitarianism may not be justified. Therefor, it may not be valid to consider that the value of a plant is limited to what a human can 'see' in it.

My concerns are:

1) science is looking back in time. The outcome of science is history.
2) if Nature potentially changes in time, that would imply that empirical science is an invalid guiding principle.

A basis of respect or moral consideration by humans may be vital for plants to prosper.

Vitality of nature - the foundation of human life - would be the motive from the human perspective to formulate ethics on behalf of human-plant interaction, i.e. to provide plants with a 'moral status'. A purposeful food source may be a stronger foundation for humanity.

[Sy Borg]

My concerns are:

1) science is looking back in time. The outcome of science is history.
2) if Nature potentially changes in time, that would imply that empirical science is an invalid guiding principle.

As things stand, the only high ranking people trying to preserve the environment are scientists. Ecologists, zoologists, botanists and the like are amongst the environment's best human friends.

It's not businessmen who are calling to preserve nature, quite the contrary. It's certainly not religious leaders, many of whom still have a Descartes-like belief about other species. Certainly right wing politicians are not nature's friend, and the anthropcentric, politically correct factions of the left are only a little better in that regard.

It's primarily just scientists fighting a rearguard action to save what little is left of other animals' and plants' homes. I trust science over all but select philosophers and thinkers who are not restricted by science's avoidance of the subjective.

[psyreporter]

My concerns are:

1) science is looking back in time. The outcome of science is history.
2) if Nature potentially changes in time, that would imply that empirical science is an invalid guiding principle.

As things stand, the only high ranking people trying to preserve the environment are scientists. Ecologists, zoologists, botanists and the like are amongst the environment's best human friends.

It's not businessmen who are calling to preserve nature, quite the contrary. It's certainly not religious leaders, many of whom still have a Descartes-like belief about other species. Certainly right wing politicians are not nature's friend, and the anthropcentric, politically correct factions of the left are only a little better in that regard.

It's primarily just scientists fighting a rearguard action to save what little is left of other animals' and plants' homes. I trust science over all but select philosophers and thinkers who are not restricted by science's avoidance of the subjective.

At question would be: is it empirical science that fuels their their commitment to protect the environment? How can empirical science possibly formulate a reason for morality?

A scientist with a heart is respected by many people in society and can have an effect on culture, but why? Does empirical science support her efficiency for cultural change? Where does 'heart' originate from?

The core method is at question. If it cannot defend plants, a scientist with heart will have a hard time to protect the environment when confronted with a potential trillion dollar industry.

The multi-trillion USD synthetic biology revolution, primarily driven by the empirical essence of science, reduces plants to meaningless humps of matter that can be 'done better' by a company.

How can empirical science possibly provide argumentative resistance for the claim that plant life is meaningless?

Can a plant be 'done'? Can empirical science answer that question? Can empirical science study the essence of a plant?

As it appears to me, philosophy may be the only 'science' (i.e. plausible method) that can foster a cultural change that improves human interaction with plants with regard to morality.

Like animal ethics, plant ethics may be a field that is required to secure prosperous human-plant interaction into the far future.

[Sy Borg]

As things stand, the only high ranking people trying to preserve the environment are scientists. Ecologists, zoologists, botanists and the like are amongst the environment's best human friends.

It's not businessmen who are calling to preserve nature, quite the contrary. It's certainly not religious leaders, many of whom still have a Descartes-like belief about other species. Certainly right wing politicians are not nature's friend, and the anthropcentric, politically correct factions of the left are only a little better in that regard.

It's primarily just scientists fighting a rearguard action to save what little is left of other animals' and plants' homes. I trust science over all but select philosophers and thinkers who are not restricted by science's avoidance of the subjective.

At question would be: is it empirical science that fuels their their commitment to protect the environment? How can empirical science possibly formulate a reason for morality?

...
As it appears to me, philosophy may be the only 'science' (i.e. plausible method) that can foster a cultural change that improves human interaction with plants with regard to morality.

Religion and philosophy worked together to create this situation, it wasn't science. It was the religious philosopher Descartes and those like him who helped promote the ungrounded view that only humans could truly feel. From there, the discovery that plants have no nervous system ensured that plants would be treated as just resources.

but how do you deal with the fact that we must kill to live, and the choices are microbes, plants, simple animals and sentient animals? Which provide the most nourishment with the least suffering?

[psyreporter]

While it may be true that religion and philosophy have been the cause of animal cruelty in the past centuries, that would not imply that (blindly evolving or unguided) empirical science could not be the culprit in the next century.

At question would be: can empirical science possibly formulate a reason for morality? If not, it could mean that, despite that human compassion has reached new boundaries through the internet and social media, a multi-trillion USD synthetic biology revolution that reduces animal and plant life to meaningless beyond the value that a company can 'see' in it, cannot be prevented, thus, ultimately logically overturning any human compassion for animal and plant welfare.

With regard to the notion that humans need to kill to eat. Plant ethics or moral consideration for plants would not prevent the eating of plants. It would pose questions about how humans should interact with plants, i.e. how or when to eat a (specific) plant. Plant ethics could serve interests that span thousands of years but that none-the less, could indirectly be essential for humans to prosper on the semi-long term.

Besides interests related to human-Nature prosperity on earth, plant ethics may also be of interest to enhance the human potential to understand and forge friendly relationships with alien organisms. From that perspective, plant ethics may be deservant of a priority and urgency.

The book The Philosophers Plant and Plant-Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life from philosopher Michael Marder examines some of the questions:

(2014) Is It Ethical to Eat Plants?
Plants are ‘intelligent’, says philosopher Michael Marder, which is why we need to eat them with respect. Philosopher Michael Marder, a research professor at the University of the Basque Country, has called for “more respectful treatment of the flora” through his books Plant-Thinking and the forthcoming The Philosopher’s Plant.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980

My main concern is that the logical outcome of empirical science would reduce a plant to what a human can see in it. My footnote provides an explanation of why that may be bad.

[Sy Borg]

While it may be true that religion and philosophy have been the cause of animal cruelty in the past centuries, that would not imply that (blindly evolving or unguided) empirical science could not be the culprit in the next century.

At question would be: can empirical science possibly formulate a reason for morality?

Empirical science is exactly the reason why animal cruelty has reduced. Once we realised that other animals' brains and nervous systems are very similar to our own, that opened the way for empathising with them. That is also why we are less careful with plants. Aside from them showing no precious little overt response to poor treatment in real time, they have no nervous system. Time will well whether something equivalent exists in them. I see little evolutionary advantage to a plant experiencing pain because they cannot respond.

However, there is also an instinctive sense - beyond modern and ancient sciences (aka religions) - that it is better not to unnecessarily inflict entropy on other ordered things. Why cause damage, if not necessary to do so?

If not, it could mean that, despite that human compassion has reached new boundaries through the internet and social media, a multi-trillion USD synthetic biology revolution that reduces animal and plant life to meaningless beyond the value that a company can 'see' in it, cannot be prevented, thus, ultimately logically overturning any human compassion for animal and plant welfare.

That seems likely.

With regard to the notion that humans need to kill to eat. Plant ethics or moral consideration for plants would not prevent the eating of plants. It would pose questions about how humans should interact with plants, i.e. how or when to eat a (specific) plant. Plant ethics could serve interests that span thousands of years but that none-the less, could indirectly be essential for humans to prosper on the semi-long term.

Besides interests related to human-Nature prosperity on earth, plant ethics may also be of interest to enhance the human potential to understand and forge friendly relationships with alien organisms. From that perspective, plant ethics may be deservant of a priority and urgency.

The book The Philosophers Plant and Plant-Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life from philosopher Michael Marder examines some of the questions:

(2014) Is It Ethical to Eat Plants?
Plants are ‘intelligent’, says philosopher Michael Marder, which is why we need to eat them with respect. Philosopher Michael Marder, a research professor at the University of the Basque Country, has called for “more respectful treatment of the flora” through his books Plant-Thinking and the forthcoming The Philosopher’s Plant.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980

My main concern is that the logical outcome of empirical science would reduce a plant to what a human can see in it. My footnote provides an explanation of why that may be bad.

I agree but, given how difficult it is to prevent torturous treatment of other animal species (let alone our own), we might need to look very far in the future for a greater general appreciation of plants.

[Pattern-chaser]

I trust science over all but select philosophers and thinkers who are not restricted by science's avoidance of the subjective.

Now there's a worthy attitude!

[Pattern-chaser]

That is also why we are less careful with plants. Aside from them showing no precious little overt response to poor treatment in real time, they have no nervous system. Time will well whether something equivalent exists in them. I see little evolutionary advantage to a plant experiencing pain because they cannot respond.

Plants can't respond? They can't do so with the same rapidity as you and I can, but they can and do respond to 'painful' stimuli.

[Sy Borg]

That is also why we are less careful with plants. Aside from them showing no precious little overt response to poor treatment in real time, they have no nervous system. Time will well whether something equivalent exists in them. I see little evolutionary advantage to a plant experiencing pain because they cannot respond.

Plants can't respond? They can't do so with the same rapidity as you and I can, but they can and do respond to 'painful' stimuli.

Did I say "overt response" above?

[Pattern-chaser]

Plants can't respond? They can't do so with the same rapidity as you and I can, but they can and do respond to 'painful' stimuli.

Did I say "overt response" above?

Indeed you did, but you also referred to plants responding "in real time", and that "they cannot respond":

That is also why we are less careful with plants. Aside from them showing no precious little overt response to poor treatment in real time, they have no nervous system. Time will well whether something equivalent exists in them. I see little evolutionary advantage to a plant experiencing pain because they cannot respond.

[Sy Borg]

Plants can't respond? They can't do so with the same rapidity as you and I can, but they can and do respond to 'painful' stimuli.

Did I say "overt response" above?

Indeed you did, but you also referred to plants responding "in real time", and that "they cannot respond":

That is also why we are less careful with plants. Aside from them showing no precious little overt response to poor treatment in real time, they have no nervous system. Time will well whether something equivalent exists in them. I see little evolutionary advantage to a plant experiencing pain because they cannot respond.

Fair call, that was a loose statement in context. I'll explain my thoughts further.

What plants can't do is move. You will find that sessile organisms generally don't have nervous systems - neither plants nor animals, eg. sea sponges. That is because, if you are a sessile being, chances are that someone else is going to take a bite of you. If every bite is agony (as it is for brained animals), we must consider the common plant strategy of attracting animals to eat them so as to disperse their seed.

You may remember my huge debate with Consul, where he insisted that an organism must have a brain to experience their existence at all, and I still wondered if there was another very basic layer to being that lies beneath emotions and sensations. In the end, we agreed to disagree.

Thing is, if very basic organisms have some vague sense of being, it's hard to see how that could include suffering. Consider the sensation you have when a doctor cuts you under local anaesthetic, especially if it's twilight surgery. You do feel something going on, but it's not suffering. That would seem closer to what simple organisms experience when a piece is cut off, as opposed to the overwhelming shock and pain that complex animals feel.

[Pattern-chaser]

What plants can't do is move. You will find that sessile organisms generally don't have nervous systems - neither plants nor animals, eg. sea sponges. That is because, if you are a sessile being, chances are that someone else is going to take a bite of you. If every bite is agony (as it is for brained animals), we must consider the common plant strategy of attracting animals to eat them so as to disperse their seed.

Plants do move, of course, but again, they do it much more slowly than we do. And they can't pick up their roots and walk, of course. But I think your focus on nervous systems is not quite right. We shouldn't be looking for an equivalent to a nervous system, but rather something equivalent to experiencing pain. As Mr Nagel says, we have no idea what it's like to be a bat, and rather less idea what it's like to be a plant. I don't think we should look for equivalents to human faculties, but for things that could function for plants like human skills do for us. Does that make sense?