Dietary (and related) ethics [split from Do plants have minds?]

[Laird]

Sorry, @Laird. I did not need to be so severe or harsh in my response.

At that point I felt misunderstood or misrepresented. These things are not necessarily intentional, but to be misunderstood is one of the deepest pains.

I'd like to let this go, it has blown away in the wind and I hope it will be possible for you too.

Sure, no problem, @Typoz. I see it fluttering away already.

I see, so, you propose that to stave off insanity, we make up comforting lies, or, as you put it, we "rationalise what is going on".

I think you are rather missing my point. We are talking about consciousness, and awkward as it seems to be, consciousness seems to present in all life. We sort of agreed this was true of plants, but somehow the fact that eating them might therefore cause suffering of some sort has got lost.
Whatever the differences we may have about the morality of eating meat, surely the problem is that in reality humans, plants, animals span a vast range of degrees of consciousness, and yet I agree, it superficially feels appropriate to respect each form of consciousness equally.

I think that understanding the real nature of consciousness across all life would be a wonderful thing to achieve.

We won't get there by arguing over a bacon sandwich!

David

I think it is counterproductive to get all too bothered about the inherent cruelty involved in meat eating, and either accept the limitations of vegetarian and vegan lifestyles or accept as a workable tradeoff the often uncomfortable cognitive dissonance involved with knowingly continuing meat eating whether for health reasons or enjoyment or both. We can only hope that efforts to commercialize lab-grown meat production will graduate to a practical non-cruel source. As to plant eating and killing and the apparent life force and probably very dim level of consciousness of plants, I would just not worry about it. In our evolution we were evidently intended by the Designers to have the necessity to survive by killing at least plants in order to survive, and animals as part of a primitive hunter-gatherer life style. It is natural and built into us.

[Laird]

[T]he fact that eating [plants] might [...] cause suffering of some sort has got lost.

Lost by whom? Certainly not by me. I've addressed it directly more than once already.

in reality humans, plants, animals span a vast range of degrees of consciousness

That bald assertion simply makes my point: it's your way of "rationalis[ing] what is going on", i.e., of making up comfortable lies to stave off insanity.

It's not even clear what you mean by "degrees" of consciousness and why you think consciousness even comes in "degrees". Would a "low degree" of consciousness be akin to something like the feeling just before fainting, or on the borderline between being asleep and waking up?

We won't get there by arguing over a bacon sandwich!

Trivialising like that the gross cruelty and exploitation that goes into the farming of pigs is an injustice in itself. That you are able to make such a casual statement suggests that you haven't researched in any depth the horrors of the industrial farming and slaughterhouse methods used on these poor beings. Even absent those horrors, these are sentient beings that we don't need to harm let alone brutally murder in the course of staying alive ourselves.

[Laird]

In the past, we've condoned public threads explicitly about dietary ethics. Whether this was a mistake is open to question. I've messaged Ian (@Ninshub) about this to get his view as a fellow admin. Perhaps we should have a general discussion about it, open to everybody, in a separate thread for that purpose. I'm happy for you or anybody else to start it if you think it's worth it. Otherwise, the remaining founders can discuss it amongst themselves and make a decision. If the decision (whether collective or simply by the remaining founders) is to reserve that content for the opt-in forums, then I'll split all of the posts on dietary ethics out of this thread and into a new one there (and potentially move the preexisting threads too).

We've discussed it and decided that it was not a mistake to have condoned public threads explicitly about dietary ethics, and that we will continue to condone them. However, should the discussion veer into the truly political, then that discussion needs to be taken to the opt-in forums.

I'm flagging this as a moderation post because this is a (collective, unanimous) moderation decision (by the remaining currently-active forum founders - just three of us at this point).

Well I have almost given up on this discussion, but is the dimness or brightness a way of discussing the consciousness continuum?

I want to leave the morals of eating different types completely to one side, and try get at the nature of this continuum - after all consciousness has to be at the heart of what PscienceQuest is all about.

Incidentally one of the brighter plants (I guess) must be the Venus Fly Trap - which eats insects!

David

I was thinking about this today. I sometimes feel bad about killing bugs, especially when I was a child and stepped on ants thinking I was doing something good by eliminating pests.

But what [weighs] on my [conscience] far more is the times I've hurt the people I care about, but I didn't kill these people. As such it seems there are definitely interesting aspects of how our morals work in these situations if feelings can outweigh lives?

All to say it seems like there is a scale of how we rate a human versus other creatures.

This is all just an "is" description of my internal states, and not an "ought" regarding whether eating factory farmed animals is okay. 

On that "ought" front:

Regarding the Designers that @nbtruthman mentioned. I lean heavily in agreement that our universe is Designed...however looking at the results of their work I don't trust the Designers' wisdom enough to say that our omnivore status can morally justify eating meat. 

I know of Jains who don't even eat any root vegetables, which includes no garlic. But the thought of killing a garlic plant just doesn't really bother me, and I guess it's the same with animals...though again there's an odd difference between how I'd feel if my friends' pets died versus animals that die to provide meat for us to consume...

What does concern me is suffering. Does garlic or any other plant suffer? We know animals in factory farms can exist in horrid conditions, and it does seem to me they at least are suffering to provide meat for us.

But then the entire global economy seems to be supported by, in some ways, human beings thrust into awful working environments. So what is the moral line that one takes there?

It recalls something Darren Allen said:

"...we cannot see humankind is drowning because we are trained to persuade ourselves that we don’t care whether it does or not."

But could a being of infinite compassion even function in the modern world?
=-=-=
Tried to be as general as reasonably possible to avoid any hard political takes.

I was thinking about this today. I sometimes feel bad about killing bugs, especially when I was a child and stepped on ants thinking I was doing something good by eliminating pests.

But what [weighs] on my [conscience] far more is the times I've hurt the people I care about, but I didn't kill these people. As such it seems there are definitely interesting aspects of how our morals work in these situations if feelings can outweigh lives?

All to say it seems like there is a scale of how we rate a human versus other creatures.

This is all just an "is" description of my internal states, and not an "ought" regarding whether eating factory farmed animals is okay. 

On that "ought" front:

Regarding the Designers that @nbtruthman mentioned. I lean heavily in agreement that our universe is Designed...however looking at the results of their work I don't trust the Designers' wisdom enough to say that our omnivore status can morally justify eating meat. 

I know of Jains who don't even eat any root vegetables, which includes no garlic. But the thought of killing a garlic plant just doesn't really bother me, and I guess it's the same with animals...though again there's an odd difference between how I'd feel if my friends' pets died versus animals that die to provide meat for us to consume...

What does concern me is suffering. Does garlic or any other plant suffer? We know animals in factory farms can exist in horrid conditions, and it does seem to me they at least are suffering to provide meat for us.

But then the entire global economy seems to be supported by, in some ways, human beings thrust into awful working environments. So what is the moral line that one takes there?

It recalls something Darren Allen said:

"...we cannot see humankind is drowning because we are trained to persuade ourselves that we don’t care whether it does or not."

But could a being of infinite compassion even function in the modern world?
=-=-=
Tried to be as general as reasonably possible to avoid any hard political takes.

I agree with just about everything you have written.

Clearly the question of animal suffering is an important issue.

I'd just like to throw in this observation. I spent about 3 months in hospital with polio when I was 6-7 years old. Strangely I don't remember suffering except when it all began and I realised that I was going to be in that hospital environment for as far as I could see in the future. I also remember my huge joy when I came home, More joy when a television arrived, and even more joy when I began to walk again.

Of course, I have obviously forgotten a lot, but the experience of such situations may be quite different from the way others imagine them to be.

I wish I could move this discussion firmly on to discuss what it means for consciousness to be on a sliding scale of some sort. I thought about my tentative explanation in terms of a morphic field for a long time. I really can't think of another explanation.

David

I'd just like to throw in this observation. I spent about 3 months in hospital with polio when I was 6-7 years old. Strangely I don't remember suffering except when it all began and I realised that I was going to be in that hospital environment for as far as I could see in the future. I also remember my huge joy when I came home, More joy when a television arrived, and even more joy when I began to walk again.

Thanks for sharing this memory, for it makes me wonder how we'll feel when we go into the afterlife. Will the experience of this world seem different?

Or were you thinking that animals may find experiences we believe are torturous to be less so or not at all? Some crowded conditions may be overlooked, but I do think the conditions of factory farms are likely quite hard to see as enjoyable or even neutral?

I wish I could move this discussion firmly on to discuss what it means for consciousness to be on a sliding scale of some sort. I thought about my tentative explanation in terms of a morphic field for a long time. I really can't think of another explanation.

David

I'll go back and take a second look at your morphic field explanation and reply to it. IIRC it's in this thread so shouldn't be hard to find!

[Laird]

Sci, in your laudably self-reflective post, there were a couple of occasions on which you acknowledged something like cognitive dissonance:

But what [weighs] on my [conscience] far more [than killing bugs and ants --Laird] is the times I've hurt the people I care about, but I didn't kill these people. As such it seems there are definitely interesting aspects of how our morals work in these situations if feelings can outweigh lives?

But the thought of killing a garlic plant just doesn't really bother me, and I guess it's the same with animals...though again there's an odd difference between how I'd feel if my friends' pets died versus animals that die to provide meat for us to consume...

Making moral choices requires us to transcend our feelings where those feelings are prejudicial, and those two quotes seem to me to highlight cases of exactly that - ones of which you seem to be self-aware, at least to an extent.

Many and maybe most of us for whatever reason are predisposed to preference an in-group over an out-group. That's fine and even necessary to an extent - it's generally good, for example, for us to be able to count on our immediate family for support rather than having to beg it from strangers, and thus to in turn preference helping our immediate family over strangers - but it's not good when it leads us to violate the basic rights of members of an out-group simply because they're not part of our in-group.

Unfortunately, farmed beings are very much an out-group for most modern humans, and that leads to awful consequences for them, via cruelty and exploitation which are perpetrated effectively with impunity. It is up to each of us via our consumptive and political choices to show compassion and respect for that out-group, avert those consequences, and - where possible - hold those responsible to account.

What does concern me is suffering. Does garlic or any other plant suffer? We know animals in factory farms can exist in horrid conditions, and it does seem to me they at least are suffering to provide meat for us.

There is no question that animals in factory farms suffer intensely: that's one of those awful consequences that we have the power collectively as consumers and political agents to avert.

Suffering is the most important consideration, but it's not the only one. The deprivation of a full life which could have been lived pleasurably - or even just satisfactorily - matters too, and so does the relegation of sentient beings to property: commodities and objects instead of persons and subjects.

But then the entire global economy seems to be supported by, in some ways, human beings thrust into awful working environments. So what is the moral line that one takes there?

Of course in general we have to oppose human commodification and exploitation too. How we do that in specifics could be discussed, although this probably isn't the thread in which to do it.

But could a being of infinite compassion even function in the modern world?

A being of infinite compassion would probably make very radical choices in the modern world.

[Laird]

Clearly the question of animal suffering is an important issue.

I'd just like to throw in this observation. I spent about 3 months in hospital with polio when I was 6-7 years old. Strangely I don't remember suffering except when it all began and I realised that I was going to be in that hospital environment for as far as I could see in the future. I also remember my huge joy when I came home, More joy when a television arrived, and even more joy when I began to walk again.

Of course, I have obviously forgotten a lot, but the experience of such situations may be quite different from the way others imagine them to be.

I think your observation for whatever it's worth is misplaced. It seems aimed at downplaying animal suffering. The right approach is to be conservative, because the consequences of being wrong in assuming minimal suffering and acting on that basis are far worse than those of being wrong in assuming maximal suffering and acting on that basis.

This is, really, another rationalisation to add to the list: the sixth so far, that animals possibly-probably don't suffer that much anyway.

To add to my response to Sci above: moral choices require us not just to transcend our prejudices against out-groups, but also our rationalisations of those prejudices.

I wish I could move this discussion firmly on to discuss what it means for consciousness to be on a sliding scale of some sort.

But I've explicitly asked you to clarify that ("what it means"). If you want to progress that discussion, then why ignore my question as framed? Here it is again:

It's not even clear what you mean by "degrees" of consciousness and why you think consciousness even comes in "degrees". Would a "low degree" of consciousness be akin to something like the feeling just before fainting, or on the borderline between being asleep and waking up?