Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robaggio
"Indeed a line must be drawn somewhere. What I am challenging is where the line currently rests. My proposed criteria is that we should minimise the sufferring in the world. Many animals show obvious signs of sufferring, so we should avoid eating them. Plants do not suffer so there is no reason not to eat them.
There will always be borderline cases. I accept that. (e.g. is killing insects ok? maybe, maybe not). But the point is that cows, chickens, pigs and sheep are not borderline cases."
I believe there is a classification error here though. You're assuming that the only manifestation of "suffering" is that of pain. However, the term "suffer" is also used to describe a sustained loss or injury. Plants do get injured, plants do suffer- but only to the point where they are forced to endure a situation that they have no control over. Eating plants causes them to suffer, as they have sustained a physical loss, which by definition, is suffering.
Why do you consider plants incapable of suffering? Or is it that plants don't suffer in a conventional way? Is it suffer the verb or suffer the noun?
|
We would feel no guilt at smashing up rocks or concrete with a sledge hammer (yet this could be considered 'a sustained loss or injury'). This is because rocks and concrete are not sentient and cannot feel pain. Feeling pain (either physical or psychological) is how I would describe suffering in this situation.
The word 'suffer' can be used in another manner as you point out: E.g. an economy can "suffer". This is however not the manner in which I use the word. Plants 'suffer' in the same way that an economy 'suffers'. Animals suffer in the same way that humans suffer.
(see
the fallacy of equivocation)