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.
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.
There was a chapter in his book "Starry Messenger" dedicated to this subject. I unfortunately cannot reproduce the entire chapter here. However, here is a video essay on it that you can watch if you're interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbXw13Npvlg (25min)
One of his dumbest argument imho was trying to claim that vegans were specist towards plants, even though no scientific existence of sentience in plants exist which is the moral criteria used in most anti-specist philosophy. I will add that even if plants were all found to be sentient, we'd still kill less sentient beings by eating them directly rather than feeding them to non-human animals and then killing them.
Here is another video of him talking about this very chapter for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9HrMdNEKPA (6min). I think this shows a complete misunderstanding of what veganism and anti-specism is about. To me it seems like he does not even consider the sentience of the animals and considers them as machines. He also seems to straw man the position to "vegans want to protect life".
As long as he sticks to subjects he clearly understands. Everytime I've read or watched one of his take on veganism/anti-specism I was left dumbfounded and ashamed for him.
Yep that's what I was alluding to :). Unfortunately the first DOI did not return a result. I'll probably email the contact author. They usually are quite willing to send the PDF.
Thanks, that's really interesting. I'll try to find the opened paper somewhere else, but the abstract already gives a lot of interesting informations :)
As I've stated above, even if we found plants to be sentient, you'd be killing less sentient beings by eating them directly rather than feeding them to other animals and eating these animals. Just because lives must end for us to live does not mean you have to maximize the suffering caused.
I'm clearly making a judgement on which life is more important, because something non sentient literally cannot have a judgement on life and thus cannot miss its life or be wronged when its life is taken.
I mean plants to our knowledge are not sentient, so no harm done to "someone" when killing them, in the same way as there are no harm done to the rock when you throw it on the ground. Animals we eat on the other hand are sentient so there is clearly someone that is harmed. I really think non-human animals should be included in our sphere of moral consideration.
Even if plants were somehow found to all be sentient, by eating them directly instead of feeding them to animals then eat the animals you would minimize the harm done.
I guess words can't be used in different context, especially when the plant-based alternatives are drop-in replacement for animal milks and the term has been used for hundreds of year to describe both plant-based milky substances and animal secretions.
Hey thanks for the precision. The frustration was not directed at you directly, moreso at the argument I thought you were making, I apologize for that. I have just heard this fallacious argument so many time in real life used seriously that I react strongly to it.
It clearly has nothing to do with the dairy lobby pushing hard everywhere to prevent people from switching to ecologically and humanely better alternative because they don't want to lose the fat subsidies they get from the government.
They try to push these legislations under the guise that it could induce the consumer in error, my ass.
Let's blame fun cartoons instead.
Let's not forget the cost with their lives the cows have to bear for us to get milk.
Forcefully impregnated, their babies taken away to be slaughtered as veal or to become milk cows. And all that for a fraction of their lifespan only to be slaughtered when their milk production starts to decline...
I think video documentaries provide the same if not better benefits without having to imprison animals. You can even show directly how their habitats are endangered (see Our Planet documentary series).
This isn't true anymore in Switzerland. Since January 2023 you just go to your civil office state you want to change your gender and pay the administrative fee and you're good.
Just as it still makes it not right for cows and chickens it makes it not right for monkeys. Or would you be OK if I was breeding humans for slavery purposes?
Ok let me unpack your two points: