• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Is “more ethical” really enough if you accept that plants can suffer? You’re still essentially saying one group of living things’ suffering is acceptable to you. Isn’t that like saying the holocaust of the Jews was bad, but the holocaust of the Roma at the same time was fine because there were fewer Roma than Jews? Does “less” matter when we’re talking quantities so massive?

    I don’t think there are easy answers to any of these questions. Not if you want to approach them from an honest philosophical level.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Is “more ethical” really enough if you accept that plants can suffer

      I don’t accept that, but even if I did, you should still act to minimize suffering as much as possible.

      Do you really believe that killing a plant is the same as killing an animal?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I literally wrote this:

        Do I think plants have the same sort of sentience as animals and will I stop eating broccoli? Of course not.

        I guess you didn’t actually read my entire post before you responded.

        • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Honestly it just seems like you’re trying to contort yourself into a knot that allows you to eat meat without feeling bad?

    • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If our ability to modify ourselves reaches sci fi levels, allowing us to photosynthesize and fix amino acids from nitrogen in the atmosphere (or if there’s any hope of making that happen), then that likely will be the new vegan position.