Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
So you're arguing one of two things.
Most likely you're arguing that we should eat plants instead of animals, but then your logic breaks down because we are now putting plants in the "out-group." After your passioned argument about how animals can feel pain (I agree, they can), you surely aren't going to sit there and tell me that plants absolutely cannot feel pain even though you have no evidence to back up that proposition. Therefore, if you're willing to put plants in the out-group, you're no better than the rest of us.
|
Very little philosophical work can be conducted via absolutely certain propositions. (I cannot be absolutely certain that the table in front of me exists, for instance).
Instead we must work from what can reasonably be believed, due to an evaluation of the evidence. (e.g. that the table in front of me
does in fact exist).
There is plenty of evidence that animals feel pain.
I do not see any evidence that plants feel pain. The arguments presented seem to show the possibility of 'pain' in a very abstract and loosely defined manner.
Let me ask you a straight question:
Do you
honestly believe that every time you mow your lawn, your grass spends the entire ordeal in excruciating agony?