Argument number one is that growing animals costs us more plants than growing plants for ourselves. Meaning that even if we wanted to assume that plants have feelings and can feel pain, the best way to make sure the least amount of plants and animals feel pain is to eat plants ourselves.
if we believe plants suffer, then how can we quantify their suffering against another things suffering? and should we? it seems, if we could establish that plants do suffer, then we must resign ourselves to the fact that some suffering is necessary to eat, and there is no reason, in my mind, to make a million stalks of wheat suffer, but not make a cow suffer for food.
The decision is not between killing a million stalks of wheat or a cow, but between a million stalks of wheat or a cow AND a million stalks of wheat, it’s just that in the latter case the wheat was fed to the cow instead.
there are other differences, like vitamin a, b12, cholesterol, and macro ratios. and why should we disregard the (in this hypothetical) known suffering of the wheat but spare the cow? that’s speciesism.
edit: i think it’s important to point out that most ethical systems don’t attempt to simply weigh suffering, and i don’t personally subscribe to one that does, so i’m arguing at the edge of my personal belief here.
if we believe plants suffer, then how can we quantify their suffering against another things suffering? and should we? it seems, if we could establish that plants do suffer, then we must resign ourselves to the fact that some suffering is necessary to eat, and there is no reason, in my mind, to make a million stalks of wheat suffer, but not make a cow suffer for food.
What does the cow eat?
i don’t care for your socratic interrogation. if you have something to say, say it.
The decision is not between killing a million stalks of wheat or a cow, but between a million stalks of wheat or a cow AND a million stalks of wheat, it’s just that in the latter case the wheat was fed to the cow instead.
there are other differences, like vitamin a, b12, cholesterol, and macro ratios. and why should we disregard the (in this hypothetical) known suffering of the wheat but spare the cow? that’s speciesism.
edit: i think it’s important to point out that most ethical systems don’t attempt to simply weigh suffering, and i don’t personally subscribe to one that does, so i’m arguing at the edge of my personal belief here.
Speciesism? I can’t tell if you’re just a troll at this point so I’m not going to continue this discussion, sorry.
have a nice day.