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

[Sy Borg]

And that is what this topic is seeking, a get-out-of-Hell-free card. It's seeking an argument with a convincing conclusion, and that conclusion must be that we cannot be blamed for anything. Thus, like those early Christians, we become pure, innocent and blameless by the use of this magical remedy.

I do not think such an argument exists. We can take a pragmatic and open-eyed view of the world, wherein creatures kill and eat other creatures, and we can look at how we behave in that context/environment. And we can look within ourselves, and inspect our own feelings and beliefs regarding such things. And from this information, we can speculate, and we can construct a moral code that we find acceptable for use. There are no concrete conclusions to be reached, I don't think. But that doesn't mean we can't consider these things, and come to conclusions that are honest enough that we can live with them. Is that enough? Does it tell us what moral status plants should be given, and thereby satisfy the OP?

I think it's a question worth asking. I say "no" because, unlike a 1980s school, not everyone gets a prize. Not all are equal - not in abilities and not in depth of sentience either.

In the end, as you say, no matter what we do, most life must kill to live. Still, life is not easy so there's no sense making it unnecessarily hard for other creatures IMO.

[psyreporter]

I've been looking at this topic, and participating in it, for some time now. And I only just saw it clearly. It is about rationalisation - justification of our actions after the fact. We seek an argument that will assure us that what we have done, and continue to do, is the (morally) right thing. No, it isn't even that; it's an attempt to avoid (moral) blame.

No. The intent of this topic was to question whether 'moral consideration' for plants is applicable on a similar level as the moral consideration for animals that humans already adapted in their culture, i.e. the moral status "animal".

The question was partly based on recent news items in which professors were arguing that plants are essentially 'slow animals', 'social creatures' and 'conscious beings capable of forging meaningful relationships with animals'.

Morality for plant life would entail asking the question "what is good?" for a plant. For example, one could consider the concept "plant happiness".

An example: when one learns that plants form a mycelium communication network and participate in active social lives, is it morally right to keep plants in pots?

You don't need to be a philosopher to realise that, if you harm or kill another living thing, you might be behaving wrongly. So you (we) consider what we do in these "moral" terms, looking for a way out. It's like indulgences in historic Christian practice, where those who could afford it were granted absolution for past (and future?) sins. An indulgence is a sort of get-out-of-Hell-free card!

And that is what this topic is seeking, a get-out-of-Hell-free card. It's seeking an argument with a convincing conclusion, and that conclusion must be that we cannot be blamed for anything. Thus, like those early Christians, we become pure, innocent and blameless by the use of this magical remedy.

No. The topic is based on the consideration that a basis of respect or morality may be vital for plants to prosper.

Vitality of nature - the foundation of human life - is the motive for this topic.

The consideration of the potential plausibility of Gaia philosophy is an example of why (the exploration of) moral consideration for plants may be important.

I do not think such an argument exists. We can take a pragmatic and open-eyed view of the world, wherein creatures kill and eat other creatures, and we can look at how we behave in that context/environment. And we can look within ourselves, and inspect our own feelings and beliefs regarding such things. And from this information, we can speculate, and we can construct a moral code that we find acceptable for use. There are no concrete conclusions to be reached, I don't think. But that doesn't mean we can't consider these things, and come to conclusions that are honest enough that we can live with them. Is that enough? Does it tell us what moral status plants should be given, and thereby satisfy the OP?

The mere consideration that humans can consider morality on behalf of plants, is evidence that morality is applicable.

[Pattern-chaser]

My previous post should've looked like this. I even previewed it, and still got it wrong. Sorry.

Morality for plant life would entail asking the question "what is good?" for a plant.

Important clarification, please - who or what would ask this question? A human?

The consideration of the potential plausibility of Gaia philosophy is an example of why (the exploration of) moral consideration for plants may be important.

I don't go on about it (I hope ), but when I'm asked, I state my religion to be Gaian Daoism. I offer this to illustrate where I am coming from, in return for the same compliment from you, in the above post.

[psyreporter]

Morality for plant life would entail asking the question "what is good?" for a plant.

Important clarification, please - who or what would ask this question? A human?

Yes, the human as being with the intent to serve the purpose of life.

Since the value of another person, animal or plant relative to the purpose of life cannot be known beforehand, a base level of respect for others (Nature) is required to serve the purpose of life, which naturally results in the consideration of what is "good" for an other (animal or plant) and thus the natural consideration of the essentiality of the potential for their happiness (moral consideration).

My argument is that you cannot stand above life as being life and that you can only serve life. A basis of respect for Nature (plants and animals) may be essential for Nature to prosper.

I don't go on about it (I hope ), but when I'm asked, I state my religion to be Gaian Daoism. I offer this to illustrate where I am coming from, in return for the same compliment from you, in the above post.

Would Gaian Daoism be applicable on a Universe level or merely earth level? If earth level, would what is indicated have a different name for an alien planet? What is the goal or 'higher purpose' of Gaian Daoism?

Would Gaian Daoism be applicable to space exploration?

I didn't find any results for "Gaian Daoism". The first search result is named Gaia and Taoism.

https://gaiascompany.jimdofree.com/gaia ... nd-taoism/
http://gaianism.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaianism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/daoism/

[Pattern-chaser]

Morality for plant life would entail asking the question "what is good?" for a plant.

Important clarification, please - who or what would ask this question? A human?

Yes, the human as being with the intent to serve the purpose of life.

Yes, well, the intent is worthy ... but how do we know what the "purpose of life" is? After all, if we don't know that purpose, how can we "serve" it?

I don't go on about it (I hope ), but when I'm asked, I state my religion to be Gaian Daoism.

I didn't find any results for "Gaian Daoism".

That's probably because I have conflated the two myself. Together, they describe admirably my spiritual/religious path.

Would Gaian Daoism be applicable on a Universe level or merely earth level? If earth level, would what is indicated have a different name for an alien planet? What is the goal or 'higher purpose' of Gaian Daoism? Would Gaian Daoism be applicable to space exploration?

I would apply Gaianism (if that's a word?) to the universe, extending it beyond the original description, that applies only to Earth, I think.

Higher purpose? Well the Gaian part gives me an ecologically-oriented perspective, while the Daoism is more like tactics, as the Gaia part is strategic, if you see what I mean? I see Gaia as the spirit/soul of the universe, and the physical space-time universe as Her 'body'. Thus, for me, God (Gaia) is not a creator-God, but an emergent thing, in the same sense as our personal human mind/spirit/soul/consciousness is an emergent thing.

I do not assert that any of this is true; I assert only that these are my beliefs.

P.S. I would see space exploration as incompatible with my beliefs, but only because of the resources (torn from our Earth) it would require.

[Sy Borg]

Re: Gaia. Anyone who is not impressed to the point of gobsmacked awe by the Earth is clearly focused on its minutiae (as we must).

The Earth contains us. As parts of the Earth, I don't think we are destroying it. Rather, we are agents of change, just as the first chemical-munching microbes were agents of change. All of this activity stems from the planet very slowly toing-and-froing towards eventual relative equilibrium.

So the planet doesn't care what we kill or eat. Correction: only the part of the planet that we kill and eat cares (aside from friends and family, noting that cattle, pigs, chooks and fish are all social animals that form bonds).

[Pattern-chaser]

The Earth contains us. As parts of the Earth, I don't think we are destroying it. [...] the planet doesn't care what we kill or eat.

Gaia is a non-literal conception of the planet as a living thing. It is reasonably convincing, to the point where some fools (like me) actually treat the planet as though it were a living thing. [N.B. the "planet" includes all surviving living things, as well as the physical fabric of our world.] Oh, and by many standards of assessment, we are destroying the world, and the life it still sustains. The temperature is rising...?

[Sy Borg]

The Earth contains us. As parts of the Earth, I don't think we are destroying it. [...] the planet doesn't care what we kill or eat.

Gaia is a non-literal conception of the planet as a living thing. It is reasonably convincing, to the point where some fools (like me) actually treat the planet as though it were a living thing. [N.B. the "planet" includes all surviving living things, as well as the physical fabric of our world.] Oh, and by many standards of assessment, we are destroying the world, and the life it still sustains. The temperature is rising...?

I should correct the claim that the planet doesn't care. Many human-shaped portions of the Earth appear to care, but most of the world does not.

In the past I have tried to imagine a realistic alternate history that did not create global warming, taking into account social dynamics, eg. if fossil fuel companies emerge to power societies, it's inevitable that 1) they would become amongst the most powerful entities that ever existed and 2) they would inevitably defend their commercial stakes against the competition of sustainable energy. It's like trying to imagine an advanced society that does not pool into giant, chaotic cities, and remain competitive with societies that congregate. As we know, native Americans and indigenous Australians and Africans found that compressed societies are dangerous, not least because they harbour the most dangerous infectious diseases.

So all this was inevitable. The path may have been different had different variables been in place but, in hindsight, the human journey has been rather predictable. Big societies form and take over smaller ones. Over and over, until the qualities needed to be a big society become predominant.

So I think the planet's environments are guiding our hand as surely as they guide the paths of other species. We like to think that we have transcended the planet, that we can act outside of and beyond its dynamics. In truth, we are its dynamics.

In terms of the thread, if humans behave harshly towards plants, it's because everyone else in nature is doing so, including other plants.

[Pattern-chaser]

Amid the chaos of being, Nietzsche believed that plants offer us inspiration for living

Aristotle thought that plants possess what he called a ‘vegetative soul’. Centred on growing and reproducing, this primordial, unthinking state of being was encompassed and far surpassed by the ‘rational soul’ of humans. Friedrich Nietzsche, however, believed that, in the overwhelming confusion of considering how we might live, there was much we could learn from plants – deeply rooted in the ground and yet limitlessly expressive as they are. Borrowing from some of Nietzsche’s lesser-known writings, this short video essay might just inspire you to look at a plant growing through a crack in the ‘inhospitable ground’ – and perhaps even Nietzsche himself – in a new light.

I just found this, and posted it here for obvious reasons. Link to original article. There's a video to watch too, if you're that way inclined?

[popeye1945]

Anything conscious is entitled to a catagory in which it will be protected as a creature capable of suffering. I believe it has been adequately shown that the most successful life form on the planet is conscious.

[Pattern-chaser]

Anything conscious is entitled to a category in which it will be protected as a creature capable of suffering.

So all this topic is about is to decide the degree to which humans might 'hurt' or 'harm' some other sort of living thing, is that it? Those living things which are deemed to exhibit consciousness are somehow entitled to better treatment by humans? Is this nothing more than a charter for abuse? Is there nothing more to this question than this?

I believe it has been adequately shown that the most successful life form on the planet is conscious.

Yes, but the dolphins don't post here, so we must content ourselves with semi-conscious or unconscious humans to talk to.

[popeye1945]

Animals deserve a moral status simply because they have the ability to suffer. All I am saying is plant life also being conscious has the ability to suffer, if they wish to post, that's up to them---lol!

[Pattern-chaser]

Animals deserve a moral status simply because they have the ability to suffer.

"Deserve" is somewhat clinical, and not as informative as it could be. It disguises the fact that humans, individually or collectively, set themselves up as judges, capable of determining which living things are due a scintilla of consideration, and which are due none at all. So my question is: who do we think we are? Are we Gods who bestride the world, assigning the fate that other creatures and species deserve? Apparently so. Shameful (IMO).

In my view, animals "deserve" to be treated as creatures with whom we share this world and its eco-net, because that's what they are. Nothing more; nothing less. The rest of this discussion concerns the ways in which we can disguise our arbitrary, savage and predatory ways as something more ... civilised.

[popeye1945]

I don't disagree with what you've said, but all life is conscious I believe. There is the harsh reality that life lives upon life, but we could do it more humanely. Animals I don't think worry about the suffering they inflict, in that way they are innocent by instinct. Humanity has the ability and knowledge of the suffering he creates, and still, we have factory farming in conditions that would violate most anyone's sensibilities.

[Sy Borg]

Humanity has the ability and knowledge of the suffering he creates, and still, we have factory farming in conditions that would violate most anyone's sensibilities.

Which is why plants haven't got a snowflake's hope in hell of being treated empathetically. If people cannot muster empathy for intelligent and sensitive animals like pigs and cows, there is surely no way that they will care about being kind to plants.

In that, humans are at least somewhat innocent. Many people know of the suffering of commercially-raised animals intellectually but they don't comprehend it in depth any more than a crocodile comprehends the pain of its prey when those jaws latch on. Digging deeper, we arrive at Nagle and the problem of other minds.