The problem is that this is a valid argument, a lot of morality ultimately comes down to drawing the line on what you think its ok to kill in order to maintain your survival and comfort.
Yes. Vegans draw the line at sentience, non-vegans have some arbitrary line based on what is culturally acceptable where they live. Which, in many places, is about the cuteness of the animal.
what I mean is it’s an arbitrary line to draw. you might choose to draw the line at living things, or terrestrial life, or terrestrial and ocean life. but, arbitrarily, some people choose to draw the line at sentience. the vegan society definition arbitrarily draws the line at animal life.
But sentience itself is a rather hazy definition, while it works from a perspective of minimizing suffering there are still potential concerns with the concept of just deciding some types of life are worth more than others.
Yes, but with our current knowledge, we can only do our best at drawing the line of sentience. With what we know of plants, we can safely conclude they are not.
If that knowledge changes someday to point at plants being sentient, then we can redefine what is ethical.
There is no such thing, with our current knowledge, as plant suffering. And that’s all we can base our opinion and ethics on. The hypothetical that plants may suffer is irrelevant in ethics discussions until we have any evidence that they do.
Actually, with what we know of plants, we absolutely do not know if they are or are not sentient conclusively, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they do in fact possess the potential capacity to suffer in as much capacity that animals do, just in ways that would be entirely alien to us due to how different a plant’s experience of reality is compared to an animal’s. Yet, just because their experience is alien to us doesn’t mean they do not have those experiences and the evidence suggests that they do have them.
Plants have complex sensory systems that allow them to communicate, learn, remember, and respond dynamically to external stimuli. They have been found to exhibit Pavlovian responses and collectively manage resources between each other through their root structures and mycorrhizal network.
I have read through the two articles that you linked as sources. Neither is a credible source, as neither points at any point to a scientific study that comes close to recognizing sentience in plants. It’s once again anthropomorphism. At best, drawing wrong conclusions from real studies, at worst, fiction.
I have an open mind, but I’m only interested in scientific studies, not unproven hypotheticals or personal interpretations of plant behaviors.
If you do have credible studies (by that, I mean peer reviewed and published) on plant sentience, then by all means, please share them.
These sources have as much value to me as some random article on the memory of water.
I have. None of them claim plants are sentient or are capable to feel suffering. Or any other indication that points to sentience rather than (complex) response to stimuli.
That is because while you and others might associate these responses to indications of sentience, scientists do not.
Only talking about credible secondary sources, of course.
We have proven plants scream when cut and warn oþer plants about danger. Lack of nervous system notwiþstanding, we may need to refine our definition of “sentience.”
No, we have not. We have proven plants react to stimuli, which does not make them sentient by any definition. Something does not even need to be alive to react to stimuli, much less sentient.
Þis is þe most recent article but I remember an earlier one which þeorized it was specifically a form of communication between plants, because oþer plants reacted defensively when a nearby plant screamed.
How do you define sentience? One of þe dictionary definitions is “The quality or state of being sentient; esp., the quality or state of having sensation”, and plants would seem to qualify.
I know this study. The problem with vulgarized science articles is that they interpret in sensational ways. Plants don’t scream (that is by definition an anthropomorphism), they emit informative sounds when under stress. The use of the word “scream” implies pain, which plants do not feel.
Pain, as far as we know, requires a nervous system to be felt. No study disproves that.
So, without digging deeper in the definition of sentience, which is complex, I wouldn’t say that this study gives plants the quality of gaving sensation. It just says that when you cut a plant, the plant emits sounds.
Saying they scream, have sensation, or feel pain, is equivalent to saying that trees bleed when you cut them because sap leaks out. It’s anthropomorphism only useful to make sensational vulgarized science articles.
Which suggests emitting a sound is not a good way of distinguishing between them. No one is defining sentience as the ability to emit sound, and no one is saying vegans use sound to determine what they eat. It’s really not relevant to the discussion.
The vegan’s argument isn’t valid, but it’s on the way to it. If the carnivore does believe that life isn’t sacred, that does not imply they would condone eating all types of meat. It sort of leads into the “name the trait” argument that vegans use to have carnivores identify what makes certain foods morally permissible to eat, but not others. If such a trait is chosen, you can have a valid argument that it is morally acceptable to eat a dog/cat/human that lacks said trait.
The carnivore’s argument seems to just be a strawman. I have never heard a vegan say all life is equally valuable. Typically vegans oppose the unnecessary exploitation of animals on the basis of the suffering inflicted and lack of ability to consent. This has some edge cases for life that we classify as animals but may not be capable of suffering, but a person committed to the idea that plants and fungi cannot be eaten either will obviously not be able to argue their position for long.
Many vegans would eat lab grown meat. Some may even eat meat that was harvested ethically, such as an animal that died in an accident, as that would not reasonably lead to encouraging any future suffering. And in an emergency situation, almost everyone would eat meat that they would need to survive. None of this contradicts the principle that preventable suffering should be minimized.
The problem is that this is a valid argument, a lot of morality ultimately comes down to drawing the line on what you think its ok to kill in order to maintain your survival and comfort.
Yes. Vegans draw the line at sentience, non-vegans have some arbitrary line based on what is culturally acceptable where they live. Which, in many places, is about the cuteness of the animal.
sentience is arbitrary, too.
No. Hard to define, sure, but definitely not arbitrary. Plenty of research on the topic of sentience.
what I mean is it’s an arbitrary line to draw. you might choose to draw the line at living things, or terrestrial life, or terrestrial and ocean life. but, arbitrarily, some people choose to draw the line at sentience. the vegan society definition arbitrarily draws the line at animal life.
Again, it is not arbitrary, it is based on what we understand of sentience. Nothing arbitrary about it.
it is arbitrary, since you can choose to draw the line in many places.
That is not what arbitrary means.
It is a rational decision grounded in scientific research. That is by definition not arbitrary.
many people choose other lines, and their decisions are equally as arbitrary as someone who draws the line at sentience.
But sentience itself is a rather hazy definition, while it works from a perspective of minimizing suffering there are still potential concerns with the concept of just deciding some types of life are worth more than others.
Yes, but with our current knowledge, we can only do our best at drawing the line of sentience. With what we know of plants, we can safely conclude they are not.
If that knowledge changes someday to point at plants being sentient, then we can redefine what is ethical.
There is no such thing, with our current knowledge, as plant suffering. And that’s all we can base our opinion and ethics on. The hypothetical that plants may suffer is irrelevant in ethics discussions until we have any evidence that they do.
Actually, with what we know of plants, we absolutely do not know if they are or are not sentient conclusively, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they do in fact possess the potential capacity to suffer in as much capacity that animals do, just in ways that would be entirely alien to us due to how different a plant’s experience of reality is compared to an animal’s. Yet, just because their experience is alien to us doesn’t mean they do not have those experiences and the evidence suggests that they do have them.
Plants have complex sensory systems that allow them to communicate, learn, remember, and respond dynamically to external stimuli. They have been found to exhibit Pavlovian responses and collectively manage resources between each other through their root structures and mycorrhizal network.
https://www.nathab.com/blog/research-shows-plants-are-sentient-will-we-act-accordingly
https://regenerationinternational.org/2025/04/20/plant-sentience-changes-everything/
We don’t even know if other people are sentient conclusively, so I see possible sentience as a non-factor when it comes to edibility.
I have read through the two articles that you linked as sources. Neither is a credible source, as neither points at any point to a scientific study that comes close to recognizing sentience in plants. It’s once again anthropomorphism. At best, drawing wrong conclusions from real studies, at worst, fiction.
I have an open mind, but I’m only interested in scientific studies, not unproven hypotheticals or personal interpretations of plant behaviors.
If you do have credible studies (by that, I mean peer reviewed and published) on plant sentience, then by all means, please share them.
These sources have as much value to me as some random article on the memory of water.
Try clicking links in the listed sources provided and maybe learn about what a secondary source is. Secondary sources ARE credible sources.
I have. None of them claim plants are sentient or are capable to feel suffering. Or any other indication that points to sentience rather than (complex) response to stimuli.
That is because while you and others might associate these responses to indications of sentience, scientists do not.
Only talking about credible secondary sources, of course.
We have proven plants scream when cut and warn oþer plants about danger. Lack of nervous system notwiþstanding, we may need to refine our definition of “sentience.”
I fucking called it.
No, we have not. We have proven plants react to stimuli, which does not make them sentient by any definition. Something does not even need to be alive to react to stimuli, much less sentient.
Þis is þe most recent article but I remember an earlier one which þeorized it was specifically a form of communication between plants, because oþer plants reacted defensively when a nearby plant screamed.
How do you define sentience? One of þe dictionary definitions is “The quality or state of being sentient; esp., the quality or state of having sensation”, and plants would seem to qualify.
I know this study. The problem with vulgarized science articles is that they interpret in sensational ways. Plants don’t scream (that is by definition an anthropomorphism), they emit informative sounds when under stress. The use of the word “scream” implies pain, which plants do not feel.
Pain, as far as we know, requires a nervous system to be felt. No study disproves that.
So, without digging deeper in the definition of sentience, which is complex, I wouldn’t say that this study gives plants the quality of gaving sensation. It just says that when you cut a plant, the plant emits sounds.
Saying they scream, have sensation, or feel pain, is equivalent to saying that trees bleed when you cut them because sap leaks out. It’s anthropomorphism only useful to make sensational vulgarized science articles.
That’s quite like most of animals we eat - you cut them, they emit sounds.
Which suggests emitting a sound is not a good way of distinguishing between them. No one is defining sentience as the ability to emit sound, and no one is saying vegans use sound to determine what they eat. It’s really not relevant to the discussion.
It is very relevant - it shows plants reactions are not much different to these of animals.
And a whole more stuff happens that doesn’t happen with a plant.
Stupid analogy. But what else do I expect on the internet?
It is not an “analogy”. Plants scream just as much as animals do, but since they are less cute than animals you prefer to claim they have no feelings.
if, hypothetically, i punched you hard as fuck in the balls, there would be two emissions of noise
i hope this has been an illustrative example
And? How do you know that plants are not screaming from pain of being cut?
The reality is we don’t know. We don’t even really know how other humans perceive pain (as it is highly subjective), nevermind mind other species.
What the fuck
In the context of animals I rather leave this bit to you 😁
The vegan’s argument isn’t valid, but it’s on the way to it. If the carnivore does believe that life isn’t sacred, that does not imply they would condone eating all types of meat. It sort of leads into the “name the trait” argument that vegans use to have carnivores identify what makes certain foods morally permissible to eat, but not others. If such a trait is chosen, you can have a valid argument that it is morally acceptable to eat a dog/cat/human that lacks said trait.
The carnivore’s argument seems to just be a strawman. I have never heard a vegan say all life is equally valuable. Typically vegans oppose the unnecessary exploitation of animals on the basis of the suffering inflicted and lack of ability to consent. This has some edge cases for life that we classify as animals but may not be capable of suffering, but a person committed to the idea that plants and fungi cannot be eaten either will obviously not be able to argue their position for long.
Many vegans would eat lab grown meat. Some may even eat meat that was harvested ethically, such as an animal that died in an accident, as that would not reasonably lead to encouraging any future suffering. And in an emergency situation, almost everyone would eat meat that they would need to survive. None of this contradicts the principle that preventable suffering should be minimized.