|
|
|
|
|
by c22
1717 days ago
|
|
I agree that a plant's lived experience is likely somewhat alien to our own, but why do we have a "responsibility" to reduce suffering only for living things closer to us? And where do you draw the line? Is it okay to squash bugs I don't like? Would it be a ridiculous waste of our time to develop farming and harvesting techniques that reduce the suffering of plants? If we deploy such solutions for animals does that make eating meat better? If not having meat available causes humans to suffer is that worse? It all just seems so arbitrary. Personally I eat all sorts of things and try to source what I consume from the most conscientious suppliers I can find, but I'm not convinced going full vegan would make me a better person. |
|
Plants, bacteria, etc don't feel pain, although they might have preferences for food, etc. Those beings, then, are not especially relevant to our ethical obligations viz a viz the experience of suffering.
A fish feels pain and exhibits distinct preferences. Therefore, we are obligated to respect its life by virtue of the inherent good of painlessness and autonomy. It is immoral to kill any living creature that fits that framework.
Finally, this does not mean that our moral obligations are cemented here. We may eventually learn that other living things have properties that require us to expand the scope of our ethical duties.