Meat Plant Paradox!
Carnivorous plants
[quote=Wikipedia]Carnivorous plants are plants that derive some or most of their nutrients from trapping and consuming animals or protozoans, typically insects and other arthropods.[/quote]
Veganism
[quote=Wikipedia]Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.[/quote]
Now that I've clarified the situation to myself, I feel it's ok to eat plants. They eat us and so why not eat them. Fair and square! No?
If the above makes sense then this too should make sense: Animals eat humans. So, why should humans not eat animals?
If you think eating plants is acceptable because we have carnivorous plants then, you shouldn't have any qualms about being nonvegetarian for there are carnivorous animals.
Please note, I'm deliberately ignoring the real justification for veganism which is that plants can't feel pain.
I want the discussion, if one unfolds, to be on veganism and/or the tit-for-tat principle - if I can do something to you, you can do the same to me. Pay somebody back in the same coin OR give somebody a taste of faer own medicine - these codes of conduct being considered legit.
Addendum
1. Plants eat animals (carnivorous plants).
2. Tit-for-tat is a good strategy (game-theoretically and morally).
3. If tit-for-tat is a good strategy and if plants eat animals then it's justified to eat plants.
4. Tit-for-tat is a good strategy and plants eat animals. (1 & 2 Conjunction)
5. It's justified to eat plants. (3 & 4 Modus ponens)
6. If it's justified to eat plants then Veganism is justified.
7. Veganism is justified. (5, 6 Modus ponens)
8. Animals eat animals
9. If Veganism is justified and animals eat animals then nonvegetarianism is justified.
10. Veganism is justified & animals eat animals. (7, 8 Conjunction)
11. Nonvegetarianism is justified. (9, 10 Modus ponens)
12. If Veganism is justified then nonvegetarianism is justified. (7 - 11 Conditional proof)
13. Veganism is justified.
14. Nonvegetarianism is justified. (12 ,13 Modus ponens)
15. Veganism is justified and nonvegetarianism is justified. (13, 14 Conjunction)
Paradox!
[quote=Wikipedia]Carnivorous plants are plants that derive some or most of their nutrients from trapping and consuming animals or protozoans, typically insects and other arthropods.[/quote]
Veganism
[quote=Wikipedia]Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.[/quote]
Now that I've clarified the situation to myself, I feel it's ok to eat plants. They eat us and so why not eat them. Fair and square! No?
If the above makes sense then this too should make sense: Animals eat humans. So, why should humans not eat animals?
If you think eating plants is acceptable because we have carnivorous plants then, you shouldn't have any qualms about being nonvegetarian for there are carnivorous animals.
Please note, I'm deliberately ignoring the real justification for veganism which is that plants can't feel pain.
I want the discussion, if one unfolds, to be on veganism and/or the tit-for-tat principle - if I can do something to you, you can do the same to me. Pay somebody back in the same coin OR give somebody a taste of faer own medicine - these codes of conduct being considered legit.
Addendum
1. Plants eat animals (carnivorous plants).
2. Tit-for-tat is a good strategy (game-theoretically and morally).
3. If tit-for-tat is a good strategy and if plants eat animals then it's justified to eat plants.
4. Tit-for-tat is a good strategy and plants eat animals. (1 & 2 Conjunction)
5. It's justified to eat plants. (3 & 4 Modus ponens)
6. If it's justified to eat plants then Veganism is justified.
7. Veganism is justified. (5, 6 Modus ponens)
8. Animals eat animals
9. If Veganism is justified and animals eat animals then nonvegetarianism is justified.
10. Veganism is justified & animals eat animals. (7, 8 Conjunction)
11. Nonvegetarianism is justified. (9, 10 Modus ponens)
12. If Veganism is justified then nonvegetarianism is justified. (7 - 11 Conditional proof)
13. Veganism is justified.
14. Nonvegetarianism is justified. (12 ,13 Modus ponens)
15. Veganism is justified and nonvegetarianism is justified. (13, 14 Conjunction)
Paradox!
Comments (40)
Well, lefties always insists on "equality" so ....
But I'm not entirely sure about the pain-based argument for veganism. Do eggs experience pain when eaten by humans?
The other thing is that plant cultivation like soy beans can be detrimental for the environment:
Palm-oil cultivation is another craze that destroys natural habitats.
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/challenges/soya/
And does the whole world need to do what Greta says?
And?
Quoting emancipate
Tit-for-tat is a strategy in game theory and while non-humans may exhibit that behavior e.g. herbivores eating plants and then plants evolving toxins/thorns/etc., strategies fall in the domain of reason i.e. humans would/have approve/approved it as a legitimate way of dealing with each other and with the world at large.
Quoting 180 Proof
And?
Quoting Apollodorus
Marx & Engels (leftists) were right-handed. Go figure!
Quoting Apollodorus
Thanks for pointing that out but then if it isn't about pain then what is it about? An egg is very similar, too similar in my opinion, to plants for Veganism to make sense. My logic would be that if you can't eat eggs, you can't eat plants too. Interesting!
Quoting Apollodorus
That's not something the plants are doing, humans are to blame.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/346811 :smirk:
Can you ethically justify eating meat?— Kaz1983
[quote=180 Proof]Why bother? Besides, it's the wrong question.
Plants are nourished by photosynthesis; animals, however, survive by devouring plants or devouring other animals or even by cannibalizing their own kind. So, except plants, the living devour the dead - carcasses (& organic detritus), raw or cooked - which belongs to the background, or embodiment, of all ethical concern and therefore itself cannot be an ethical concern; thus, how (or whom!), rather than what, we eat is a matter of ethics (e g. the industrialized meat & dairy industry and, thereby, its meat & dairy products).
Eventually, vat-grown meat (not just 'plant-based meat' substitutes) will moot the question because its process (A) will not torture and kill any animals and (b) will not degrade the environment remotely on the scale of animal (over)farming. (Also, plant-based diary and @home DIY hydro- & aqua- ponics kits are becoming more widely available ...)
Until then, however, my industrial meat products diet will remain "unjustified" because veganism, etc I find undernourishing and makes me miserable. Life's a grind enough and way too short to be withered away by any arbitrary ascesis ... :death: :flower:[/quote]
:fire: :fire: :fire: Excellent point! Eating each other to the point of even cannibalism is a fact of life that we, as of now, can't do anything about. Ergo, let's not get bogged down in what is an unsolvable problem (what we eat?) and instead focus on the doable (how we eat?).
Nevertheless, you do concede that what some of us are worried about - what we eat? - will become moot one day, with the widespread availability of cultured/synthetic meat. Sooner the better.
However, this isn't the issue I'm interested in. What I want an opinion on is how eating animals seem justified because given that plants eat animals, it seems only fair that we eat plants. Despite the logic (tit-for-tat strategy) being more game-theoretic than moral, clearly there's an ethical dimension to it.
Apollodorus pointed out that humans can reason and tit for tat either isn't reasonable or is in conflict with morality. At least that's what I think he meant. Yet, as I see it, giving somene (plants & animals) a taste of their own medicine (eating them as they eat us) seems to be a fully legit protocol in a moral sense.
I was trying so hard, too hard perhaps, to discover the paradox and I just had an eureka moment as I was writing this post. Here's the paradox
1. Vegans don't want to eat meat. They advice that we eat plants.
2. A justification for eating plants is tit for tat: plants eat animals and so why not eat them too?
3. If all of the above is true then we're justified in eating animals because they too eat us.
The paradox: Veganism justifies non-vegetarianism!
Venus fly traps don't eat us. The plants we eat never eat us.
Quoting TheMadFool
Not the ones we eat. We eat herbavoirs. Who would not eat humans.
We explicitly avoid eating carnivoirs because supposedly they taste like shit.
Quoting TheMadFool
Imagine someone says this: You shouldn't have any qualms about being racist towards black people for there is a minority of racist people who are black. (except said minority doesn't even exist in your examples)
Quoting TheMadFool
No it isn't. Not remotely. The justification is that plants supposedly don't feel pain. Again, the plants we eat and that animals eat never harm us or the animals.
But even if they do, going vegan globally will reduce the number of plants eaten anyways because we wouldn't be feeding cattle anymore.
Excellent point! Could you kindly unpack this point further. There's something going on here which I can't quite put a finger on.
Is photosynthesis also a form of reason? Stretching the definition of reason thin here. Plants do not make a conscious decision about what to eat. Or so it seems.
You would (hopefully) tell that person they’re wrong. What would you say to them if they asked you to unpack?
That’s what I would say to you.
True. But it shows that veganism can be bad for the environment and the animals (and humans) inhabiting it.
So, you mean to say that if plants could think like humans and they eat animals, we should give the nod of approval to the tit-for-tat strategy and eat them?
That means animals can be eaten because they can reason better than plants and they eat us. Tit for tat!
If you disagree, then for the tit-for-tat tactic to be used, both plants and animals need to have human-like cognition but then that means we can neither eat plants nor animals.
Quoting khaled
Kindly tend to my original request.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yes but that doesn't seem to bear on the tit-for-tat strategy and how it relates to the kind of diet we advocate.
You should at least attempt to figure it out yourself, but if you want me to spell it out for you:
Discriminating against a group for the actions of individuals makes no sense.
"That black guy just shot a man. This justifies shooting all black people"
This is the logic you're employing for animals and plants
This is not my logic but could you tell me more about groups and indivduals with respect to plants and animals.
I understand where you're coming from 180 Proof but my question is about the tit-for-tat strategy, its moral aspects, our dietary recommendations, and how it all hangs together. Care to take a stab at that, please!
Not really, though. No one advocates eating all animals and plants. Some may be poisonous or otherwise unsuitable for human consumption, anyway.
Besides, eating is a necessity. Shooting anyone doesn't seem to be.
I already said that tit-for-tat doesn't apply in this situation because humans tend to operate on a higher level of cognition than our vegetative friends (although maybe that's debatable).
What you're describing is akin to taking anger out on an inanimate object. "That curb stubbed my toe so I'm going to destroy it. Tit-for-tat!". More like twit-for-twat.
No, what’s being advocated for is eating animals that don’t harm us because there exist animals that do.
More like “That Asian just shot a man so this justifies shooting black people”
Quoting Apollodorus
Not eating animals. At least not for anyone here. Where it is a necessity, sure.
Yes it is. Your argument is that since some animals eat us, this justifies us eating all animals. Makes no sense.
Quoting TheMadFool
No. Some animals eat humans. This doesn’t justify eating all animals.
Lions eat us, this doesn’t justify eating cows.
I repeat, this is not my logic.
Quoting khaled
Yes, groups vs individuals logic which you kindly brought to my attention. Given that you seem to be in the know, how might this affect the morality of our diet?
Yes, yes, we see eye to eye, on the same page we are. So, by your logic, tit-for-tat strategy given its due, it's not permissible to eat either plants or animals, right?
Ok.
And...???
I have by rejecting the "tit-for-tat strategy" premise as nonsense or, at best, a non sequitur with respect to why humans eat meat.
It maybe so but here's the deal. Assuming I fall within the category normal human beings, I began with a sense of guilt for eating plants, they are after all living organisms. Then I recalled, thanks to a random magazine thrown carelessly on a table, that there are carnivorous plants. I suddenly felt as if a great weight was lifted off of my shoulder - I stopped feeling as bad as I used to biting down on veggies.
Explain that.
So, you're saying I'm abnormal, cuckoo?
What then of the tit-for-tat strategy? Is it too something only a deranged person would use?
:ok: :up:
:point: Tit for tat
The whole human shit show is absolutely reducible to tit for tat (or reciprocity variants). Treat others the way you think you ought to be treated. Live by fire, die by fire. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Plants are innocent because of their relative weaknesses (or strengths). It stems (pun) from the fact that they are immobile and slow, thus evadible. They don't stalk (pun) you. The worst of it comes by bicycling into cactus or hogweed or ingesting their poison, or losing a prized sheep to a brambles trap. The accidents are comparable to drowning or falling off a cliff, attributable to human error.
It is other minds that have done us wrong we would take revenge against in this endless saga. Even animals, by comparison to man, are innocent/amoral.
If you feel guilty for eating plants then the source of that guilt is misplaced or fanciful. You should feel guilty for eating plants because of the human labor of the harvest and what that kind of tit for tat (or causes and effects) that might entail.
It's come to my notice that the moral universe has been expanding, it seems to mirror the Big Bang cosmology ( :chin: ) ever since people began thinking about right and wrong: First, morality was only about humans, then we included animals, now, with ecological sciences in full gear, morality isn't just about self-awareness or pain, it's about life itself.
Given this is so, plants and animals (humans included) and what they do to each other acquire moral significance i.e. they can be classified as either good or bad. This the key premise, it seems, in my argument.
To that add the tit-for-tat strategy and what it means to morality and we have a situation: it's alright to eat plants because they eat us but then if that's how we're going to come at the issue, eating animals is also permissible.
In short, is the tit-for-tat strategy moral/immoral?
Two wrongs don't make a right? :chin:
At a solary system level, it's gravity that keeps the planets in orbit
At an atomic level, it's electrical charge that keeps the electrons in orbit.
Are the two, gravity and electrical charge, the same or different?
Action, according to Newton, has an equal and opposite reaction.
They are as different as 'spacetime curved by mass' and 'chemical interactions', the latter 10³? times stronger than the former. Not the same at all.
Is it any more useful to get specific about the tit-for-tat in question.
Folks drink ground water laced with hexavalent chromium for years from a leeching local chemical plant and suffer all kinds of health consequences unknowingly.
Class action lawsuit forms to explicate cause and effect in a court of law and obtain monetary compensation for harm done.
A true tit-for-tat might require that we force all those guilty (responsible) to drink a certain quantity of hexavalent chromium for a time. Folks would say this is immoral. Why? Because we do not want to perpetuate harm in an endless cycle that brings down everyone and undermines the institution of law and order (society), which imposes itself between our natural response of justice (an eye for an eye). But there are probably lots of cases in which a tit-for-tat response is moral, depending on how contextually strict you are with whatever tit-for-tat means, and how innocent the reprisal is.
It reminds me of Rene Girard's crazy theory of what enabled culture to begin in the first place, by using a religious scapegoat (magic) to absorb and diffuse the apocalyptic escalation of tit-for-tat violence. It kept us stable enough to bring in a formal process of justice. Though if you look at some of those jungle hunter gatherer cultures the bad juju of tit-for-tat black magic accusation is alive and well in a terrifying way. Thus begins the chain reaction of an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye... until we're all blind. Hopefully the scapegoat or scapeplant can't retaliate...
___
We charge Yew (pun), to be guilty of murder, for poisoning the children of the community with your sweet poison seeds. For every man, woman and child poisoned by Yew so in turn a Yew should be poisoned.
Yew are sentenced to death by our poison. God bless.
[quote=Wikipedia]Death Spiral
In a tit for tat strategy, once an opponent defects, the tit for tat player immediately responds by defecting on the next move. This has the unfortunate consequence of causing two retaliatory strategies to continuously defect against each other resulting in a poor outcome for both players.[/quote]