Comment on More than 15% of teens say they’re on YouTube or TikTok ‘almost constantly’
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months agovegans were specist towards plants
they are. they’ve identified a whole group of species and decided to treat them differently.
tekila@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Again that’s a misunderstanding of the position. The discriminatory criteria is sentience. If a plant was found to be sentient, this plant would be included in the moral circle. You can make the same argument for things we consider animals but lack all of what we currently consider needed for sentience. An example would be a sea sponge. I personally do not include a sea sponge in my moral circle and I do not think they have any sentience even though they are considered animals. I would also consider someone that says sea sponge should be included in our moral circle just because they are part of the animal kingdom to be quite dogmatic.
And even if we want to debate on whether a sea sponge is sentient, there is absolutely no debate on most animals we currently kill for food or exploit for entertainment. They are clearly sentient.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
that’s as arbitrary as any other criteria. and you’re still treating all members of a class differently because of their membership in that class. it’s discrimination. discrimination based on species is speciesism. it’s just a speciesism you agree with.
tekila@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Ok let me unpack your two points:
The difference with the sentience criteria is that a non-sentient being by definition cannot be hurt by actions taken against their being as there is quite literally no subject, no one, to experience anything. Would you say that someones that likes smashing rocks is discriminating against rocks? Of course not because it makes no sense to speak about discrimination for a non sentient being/object. The only time where you can make an argument that doing something to a non sentient being is an issue is when it affects a sentient being.
Again as I’ve literally stated in my earlier comment the discrimination is not based on species but on sentience. If you want a more concrete example, let’s imagine a philosophical zombie or in other terms a non-sentient human. I would not include such a being in my moral circle by itself as it would lack sentience.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
you don’t seem to understand that you have decided, for instance, oak trees do not have sentience, and you treat all oak trees as though they are the same due to their membership in the class “oak tree” instead of treating them as individuals. it’s speciesism. and, in fact, you do this to sentient animals too, classing them all together and setting a standard to treat them based on their class membership. it’s speciesism. it’s just speciesism you agree with.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
consequentialism is fraught with epistemic problems. how can you know what might effect a sentient being at some point in the future?
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
we discriminate between cars and motorcycles.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
i wouldn’t say they’re are discriminating against rocks. i’d say they are using discrimination and allowing themselves to smash objects they class as “rocks”