Philosophy Discussion Forums

Greta wrote: ↑December 27th, 2020, 6:32 pm So I think that to be a plant or microbe probably feels like something, but not very much by our lofty mammalian standards. Ultimately, when we decide what to kill to survive, vastly less suffering will be perpetrated by killing plants rather than animals. A being that does not have a head full of strategies probably does not need searing agony to get their attention and spur them into protective action; mild irritation would be enough to trigger responses.

I think the moral acceptance of killing and eating other living creatures to survive is a pointless consideration. Most living creatures do it; even some plants are carniverous. It's our rationalisations that I challenge. We offer speculations that imply our actions are without moral blame, and we don't look too closely at them, in case we realise it's all BS to make us feel better. This kind of self-deception annoys me, which might be a bit of an autistic thing....

arjand wrote: ↑December 28th, 2020, 9:27 am The simple theory that, since the value of another person, animal or plant in relation to the purpose of life cannot be known beforehand, it by definition requires a base level of respect for others (Nature) to serve the purpose of life, would naturally result in the consideration of what is "good" for a being (animal or plant) and thus the natural consideration of the essentiality of their happiness.

One can then argue that humans should choose wisely when they have the capacity to do so. A greater capacity in intelligence and empathy for animals may come with new responsibilities.

I detect the ethic "the freedom conferred by increase of knowledge inevitably involves proportional increase in responsibility".

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 28th, 2020, 12:26 pm

Greta wrote: ↑December 27th, 2020, 6:32 pm So I think that to be a plant or microbe probably feels like something, but not very much by our lofty mammalian standards. Ultimately, when we decide what to kill to survive, vastly less suffering will be perpetrated by killing plants rather than animals. A being that does not have a head full of strategies probably does not need searing agony to get their attention and spur them into protective action; mild irritation would be enough to trigger responses.

I think the moral acceptance of killing and eating other living creatures to survive is a pointless consideration. Most living creatures do it; even some plants are carniverous. It's our rationalisations that I challenge. We offer speculations that imply our actions are without moral blame, and we don't look too closely at them, in case we realise it's all BS to make us feel better. This kind of self-deception annoys me, which might be a bit of an autistic thing.... 🙃

No rationalisations or BS at all. It's just plain old logic. Check again - what did I say that was not simply logical. Being solidly on the spectrum myself, I know that that should appeal to you once you see my angle.

Of course, if you don't want to deceive yourself, you have the option to show solidarity with your vegetative brethren and decline to eat them, although your friends and family may worry. Or, you can look at the most obvious signs of animal abuse, such as the factory farming of highly intelligent animals, and decline to eat them.

There is no plant with which I would consider for even a second to have a moral value equivalent to any dogs, cats, pigs, sheep, cows, chickens, fish or cephalopods. If plants do feel anything, they surely do not feel as intensely and clearly as animals. In the end, the question emerges: why do animals have brains and nervous systems if they don't intensify an entity's experience of its reality?

Belindi wrote: ↑December 28th, 2020, 2:13 pm

arjand wrote: ↑December 28th, 2020, 9:27 am The simple theory that, since the value of another person, animal or plant in relation to the purpose of life cannot be known beforehand, it by definition requires a base level of respect for others (Nature) to serve the purpose of life, would naturally result in the consideration of what is "good" for a being (animal or plant) and thus the natural consideration of the essentiality of their happiness.

One can then argue that humans should choose wisely when they have the capacity to do so. A greater capacity in intelligence and empathy for animals may come with new responsibilities.

I detect the ethic "the freedom conferred by increase of knowledge inevitably involves proportional increase in responsibility".

Why would freedom be a motive or reason for responsibility to arise?

My argument is based on the value of 'wisdom' (i.e. to make a wise choice) and how it - in general - relates to human prosperity and survival, which would be a basis to consider that responsibility is applicable.

arjand wrote: ↑December 29th, 2020, 3:20 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑December 28th, 2020, 2:13 pm

I detect the ethic "the freedom conferred by increase of knowledge inevitably involves proportional increase in responsibility".

Why would freedom be a motive or reason for responsibility to arise?

My argument is based on the value of 'wisdom' (i.e. to make a wise choice) and how it - in general - relates to human prosperity and survival, which would be a basis to consider that responsibility is applicable.

Freedom motivates more than freedom's absence which is poverty and ignorance: this by way of definition.
Freedom motivates because decent housing, prevention of diseases, decent food, and proper rest and recreation, together with knowledge and wisdom, in concert or even separately allow a man more and better choices.

Regarding 'wisdom', I usually call this "sound critical judgement". As such it can be taught . The alleviation of poverty and consequent affluence that builds and maintains schools and universities for all will increase sound critical judgement in any academic and practical areas one can name.

Responsibility attaches to freedom because no man exists alone , unsupported by society and viable ecology.

Greta wrote: ↑December 28th, 2020, 3:12 pm Of course, if you don't want to deceive yourself, you have the option to show solidarity with your vegetative brethren and decline to eat them, although your friends and family may worry. Or, you can look at the most obvious signs of animal abuse, such as the factory farming of highly intelligent animals, and decline to eat them.

There is no plant with which I would consider for even a second to have a moral value equivalent to any dogs, cats, pigs, sheep, cows, chickens, fish or cephalopods. If plants do feel anything, they surely do not feel as intensely and clearly as animals. In the end, the question emerges: why do animals have brains and nervous systems if they don't intensify an entity's experience of its reality?

I shall continue to eat living things, to survive, as many creatures do. As I said, it's rather pointless to debate the moral issues of eating other living things when we can't avoid it without dying ourselves. But I still think we should respect our food, as the native americans did. [No, I know they were not fairy-tale druids, but a bunch of feckin' savages, as all humans are.] Their beliefs lead them to a mindset that preserved and sustained the other creatures they shared their world with. And why should plants be treated any differently from animals? I can see no reason.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 30th, 2020, 7:08 am

Greta wrote: ↑December 28th, 2020, 3:12 pm Of course, if you don't want to deceive yourself, you have the option to show solidarity with your vegetative brethren and decline to eat them, although your friends and family may worry. Or, you can look at the most obvious signs of animal abuse, such as the factory farming of highly intelligent animals, and decline to eat them.

There is no plant with which I would consider for even a second to have a moral value equivalent to any dogs, cats, pigs, sheep, cows, chickens, fish or cephalopods. If plants do feel anything, they surely do not feel as intensely and clearly as animals. In the end, the question emerges: why do animals have brains and nervous systems if they don't intensify an entity's experience of its reality?

I shall continue to eat living things, to survive, as many creatures do. As I said, it's rather pointless to debate the moral issues of eating other living things when we can't avoid it without dying ourselves. But I still think we should respect our food, as the native americans did. [No, I know they were not fairy-tale druids, but a bunch of feckin' savages, as all humans are.] Their beliefs lead them to a mindset that preserved and sustained the other creatures they shared their world with. And why should plants be treated any differently from animals? I can see no reason.

I agree. Objectification, not money, is the root of evil.

Belindi wrote: ↑December 30th, 2020, 6:19 amRegarding 'wisdom', I usually call this "sound critical judgement". As such it can be taught . The alleviation of poverty and consequent affluence that builds and maintains schools and universities for all will increase sound critical judgement in any academic and practical areas one can name.

In my opinion wisdom is not the same as sound critical judgement. Wisdom involves a vision component, "making chocolate" out of it all and applicability of knowledge for a perceiver. Wisdom can be found in how a parent amazes a child with insights that can guide someones life for eternity, or a professor that inspires a student with insights beyond imaginable.

When the concept wisdom is viewed from the perspective of the individual, e.g. as 'humanity' or 'group of people' (politics), then the concept wisdom can become a virtue of which it can be said that it is essential if the goal is for humans to prosper and survive, thus, a reason to consider the applicability of responsibility in light of what wisdom (e.g. to make a wise choice) may entail.

arjand wrote: ↑December 30th, 2020, 7:40 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑December 30th, 2020, 6:19 amRegarding 'wisdom', I usually call this "sound critical judgement". As such it can be taught . The alleviation of poverty and consequent affluence that builds and maintains schools and universities for all will increase sound critical judgement in any academic and practical areas one can name.

In my opinion wisdom is not the same as sound critical judgement. Wisdom involves a vision component, "making chocolate" out of it all and applicability of knowledge for a perceiver. Wisdom can be found in how a parent amazes a child with insights that can guide someones life for eternity, or a professor that inspires a student with insights beyond imaginable.

When the concept wisdom is viewed from the perspective of the individual, e.g. as 'humanity' or 'group of people' (politics), then the concept wisdom can become a virtue of which it can be said that it is essential if the goal is for humans to prosper and survive, thus, a reason to consider the applicability of responsibility in light of what wisdom (e.g. to make a wise choice) may entail.

I agree and hope you agree that what you call "a vision component" excludes the visions of dreamers, fantasists, drug addicts, and mad people.
You are talking about the value of expressing ideas so as to inspire others. I agree but only if you were to add that the intention of the artist or entertainer is ultimately benevolent and aims at truth.

Your inspiring professor or your charming parent may be a liar or a fool . The student of life needs sound critical judgement which overrides what you have said in praise of "wisdom". Indeed the significant other who is devoid of personal charisma or power may (often !) be the wisest choice of political leader, guru, priest, parent, or teacher.

I am not certain if principled exclusion is applicable when it concerns humanity's pursuit of a state of fulfillment of ultimate wisdom.

Albert Einstein was a presumed 'dreamer'. His teachers described him as not social, mentally slow and always away in his own stupid dreams. He didn't speak a word until he was 4 years old and couldn't read until he was 7 years old. In children with Dyslexia it is named "Einstein syndrome".

Professor Monica Gagliano (Do Plants Have Something To Say?, New York Times) connects with plants by use of psychoactive plants. According to some (e.g. consul in this topic), she can be considered a drug addict that produces a bunch of unscientific baloney (i.e. her vision should be excluded because of the 'drug user' aspect that you mentioned)

What is wise? If wisdom cannot be defined, then, perhaps principled exclusion (i.e. based on definitions) should not be an option when the intention is to serve the potential to achieve a state of wisdom.

With regard to the criteria for an artist or entertainer to have an aim at truth. Would that be wise? To serve the purpose of wisdom, one should be able to make a case. It may seem evident that an aim at truth should be a core quality of wisdom, however, to actually serve wisdom, one should be able to provide an argumentative foundation.

What is truth? How can one aim at it without knowing?

The following article shows how low developed mankind is in 2020 with regard to morality.

(2020) How we make moral decisions
The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don't seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change. One possible explanation is that people don't have enough information about the potential harm that can result from certain actions, Levine says.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-moral-decisions.html

The scientists write that they "hope" that humanity / science will investigate the reasons why people sometimes do not use the "universalization principle" for moral considerations and decisions.

In 2020, the universalization principle appears to be the only method that is considered available for guiding human action and science.

How could the universalisation principle protect Nature when faced with a potential trillion USD synthetic biology revolution that reduces plants and animals to meaningless beyond the value that a company can "see" in them?

What other method would be possible for moral consideration in the interest of Nature?

Humans seem to be so low developed with regard to morality in 2020 that they don't even know where to start searching. Scientists can only "hope" that humans will start searching soon.

In my opinion, philosophy and morality may play a vital role in the next 100 years to allow humans to evolve into a 'moral being' to secure longer term prosperity and survival.

With regard to the criteria for an artist or entertainer to have an aim at truth. Would that be wise? To serve the purpose of wisdom, one should be able to make a case. It may seem evident that an aim at truth should be a core quality of wisdom, however, to actually serve wisdom, one should be able to provide an argumentative foundation.

But most people cannot provide a proper "argumentative foundation" . A proper "argumentative foundation " is the result of studying critical judgement. Modern educationists can provide details of curriculums and teaching methods that promote critical judgement in the young in their care.

The best artists and entertainers are highly intelligent . They intuit the feelings, aspiration, and fears of their audiences.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 1st, 2021, 5:42 am But most people cannot provide a proper "argumentative foundation" . A proper "argumentative foundation " is the result of studying critical judgement. Modern educationists can provide details of curriculums and teaching methods that promote critical judgement in the young in their care.

The best artists and entertainers are highly intelligent . They intuit the feelings, aspiration, and fears of their audiences.

It is why I advocate that philosophy may be essential to secure longer term survival and prosperity for humanity.

It appears that there is a general and established resistance to philosophy in science in which philosophy is placed on a level comparable with that of religions.

As an example, it is a generic complaint that cosmology operates more like a philosophy than a science.

Some perspectives on philosophy by scientists on a forum from a University in Britain (Cambridge):

Philosophy is bunk.

...

You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of "truth", preferring "repeatability" as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.

...

Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.

...

Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.

...

Philosophy a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think - scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we "do" science, nobody "does" philosophy.

...

Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.

...

Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?

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

When it concerns morality (e.g. the question "what is 'good'?"), the scientific method may not be capable of guiding humanity in an optimal way.

My argument for philosophy:

Philosophy can test whether scientific beliefs / ideas or methodologies are plausible, and/or if they remain so upon new developments / discoveries. Philosophy can investigate questions that span multiple fields and connect the dots to find valuable insights that could be essential for determining what is "good" for the future of humans.

In the same time philosophy can be responsible. It will listen to scientists and anything that they pose can be challenged with no sort of dogmatic resistance. The rickety nature of philosophy could be a quality for flexibility and the prevention of dogma's. Instead of holding on to ideas, ideas can be changed if you can convince that it should.

My personal perspective/idea is that philosophy could be vital for humanity in the (near) future. To facilitate and structurize a return to the human wisdom "think before you act". With modern day risks such as exponential growth, putting intelligence before practice may become increasingly essential.

The statements by the scientists above were naive and hypocritical. These are the "shut up and calculate" types, that is, the kinds of people who cannot see the forest for the trees.

Such people will claim that it's still unproven that other animals are sentient.

Or that evolution has no direction, ignoring the evidence of the last few billion years.

Or they speak as if life is not part of the planet, but some additional feature.

For years such people insisted that asking what happened before the Big Bang was meaningless.

Many claim that consciousness is an illusion, a fluke or a freak occurrence.

And they insisted that black holes were fantasy, ditto quantum mechanics.

And so on.

Meanwhile, many scientists are becoming ever more philosophical. The fact is that it's necessary for at least someone to strive for an overview of any given topic. That's all philosophy is, an attempt to understand. Shutting up and calculating does not bring understanding, it provides information for those who attempt to understand nature.

arjand wrote: ↑January 1st, 2021, 2:38 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑January 1st, 2021, 5:42 am But most people cannot provide a proper "argumentative foundation" . A proper "argumentative foundation " is the result of studying critical judgement. Modern educationists can provide details of curriculums and teaching methods that promote critical judgement in the young in their care.

The best artists and entertainers are highly intelligent . They intuit the feelings, aspiration, and fears of their audiences.

It is why I advocate that philosophy may be essential to secure longer term survival and prosperity for humanity.

It appears that there is a general and established resistance to philosophy in science in which philosophy is placed on a level comparable with that of religions.

As an example, it is a generic complaint that cosmology operates more like a philosophy than a science.

Some perspectives on philosophy by scientists on a forum from a University in Britain (Cambridge):

Philosophy is bunk.

...

You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of "truth", preferring "repeatability" as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.

...

Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.

...

Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.

...

Philosophy a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think - scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we "do" science, nobody "does" philosophy.

...

Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.

...

Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?

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

When it concerns morality (e.g. the question "what is 'good'?"), the scientific method may not be capable of guiding humanity in an optimal way.

My argument for philosophy:

Philosophy can test whether scientific beliefs / ideas or methodologies are plausible, and/or if they remain so upon new developments / discoveries. Philosophy can investigate questions that span multiple fields and connect the dots to find valuable insights that could be essential for determining what is "good" for the future of humans.

In the same time philosophy can be responsible. It will listen to scientists and anything that they pose can be challenged with no sort of dogmatic resistance. The rickety nature of philosophy could be a quality for flexibility and the prevention of dogma's. Instead of holding on to ideas, ideas can be changed if you can convince that it should.

My personal perspective/idea is that philosophy could be vital for humanity in the (near) future. To facilitate and structurize a return to the human wisdom "think before you act". With modern day risks such as exponential growth, putting intelligence before practice may become increasingly essential.

I agree with your last paragraph. That is why it's important to teach philosophy in schools in an age related curriculum and method. For instance critical judgement is needed by diplomats, medical ethicists, scientists, artists, soldiers, and those politicians who try to resolve conflicts before they become lethal.
Philosophy is a skill. Even the much maligned metaphysics is now recognised as leading the history of ideas , e.g. neuroscientists have joined forces with psychiatrists to contend against the suffering of psychoses.

A plant is a social being, part of something larger than itself. It is amerced in living soil, interconnected, interdependent it becomes both earth and sky. As legion, it becomes forest, woods, meadows, and tundra. Its complexity has largely been a source of ignorance to humanity. This is to say nothing of its elemental value to our own existence. Is an atrocity, truely an atrocity if it is out of ignorance?