Intrinsic good

[Tarvaa]

I don't know where I should be asking this question...so maybe it needs moving?

I was sitting around waiting for something and I got stuck thinking about what good actually is? It is probably an age old question, and I am sure everyone has there own answer.

Is there something that is intinsically good? Good in itself, rather than good for something else?

The only thing I could think of that has inherent good is the birth of a child. Of course, some will argue that even this is not inherently good, but serves some other people.

I don't want to get into a discussion about whether or not a baby has intrinsic value exclusively. I would like to hear what people think about "good" and "intrinsic good".

thanks
:biggrinjester:

[minstrelbard]

I think this depends on where, in our hierarchy of things-that-are-necessary, we start making value judgments. We can say the universe is intrinsically good; existence is intrinsically good; time and space are intrinsically good, etc., but it may be more convenient (and more valuable for the purposes of discussion) to simply consider these things as "givens", in that we have to have them before any discussion of value can take place.

Life, as a general concept, is good (IMO), but an individual life may not be. This calls into question whether the birth of a child is intrinsically good. I think in the vast majority of cases the birth of a child is good, but in general, the "intrinsic" part doesn't really hold up for me.

Love is probably intrinsically good, though I'm open to persuasion on that one.

How about justice? Or mercy? Can't have both - is either intrinsically good?

Peace is probably intrinsically good. I don't mean peace in the sense of absence of war; I mean peace in the sense of tranquility.

[Dodo25]

I think nothing is intrinsically good. What would there be good about forces and laws of physics acting the way they act?

On a relative scale however, when we treat human beings as agents with free will in the morally relevant, non-supernatural sense, we can certainly classify actions, or even states like 'happiness' or 'love' as 'good' or 'bad'. Yet we need to keep in mind that this is our subjective viewpoint, not some absolute property of the universe.

Additionally, in order to do so, we need a frame of reference, an ethical system. People do have an inchoate 'moral compass', shaped by evolution (cooperation in groups etc.) and society. Yet the values of people differ greatly, so only by intution, no persuasive justification of 'good' or 'bad' can be arrived at.

I personally favor a form of utilitarianism, where 'avoiding suffering' (of course with an elaborate definition of 'suffering' related to consciousness and all vital interests of a being) is the frame of reference, and the consequences of an action are what matters. This sounds reasonable, yet the results can be very counterintuitive. Love is not always good, it can be destructive. Also killing, even killing 'innocent' beings, is not always wrong. And of course, this system of ethics reaches not only humans, but also other animals with conscious interests.

This again shows how morality is relative. While many rational and secular people might find my ethics reasonable, others, holding a religiously influenced view, or a Kantian one, would immediately attack utilitarianism for 'not valuing human life enough'..

[Kyriakos]

My own view is that good can be defined as that which supports and generally has the tendancy to allow the development of a pleasant state in an individual, or more people, or an entire society.

Already with Nietzsche it has been argued that the formation of a notion of good should not be the product of a weakness, that is one shouldnt value an ethic that was born out of decadence. His main example was that of the christian ethics, and he claimed that it was the revenge of the weak against the strong.

As for intrinsic good, again i think that it exists, since, to rpodive a very basic example, it is intrinsically good to feed yourself, otherwise you will die. Likewise other, more complex acts of self-preservation are good, since they provide the basis for a healthy life. :)

[andrewoberg]

As for intrinsic good, again i think that it exists, since, to rpodive a very basic example, it is intrinsically good to feed yourself, otherwise you will die. Likewise other, more complex acts of self-preservation are good, since they provide the basis for a healthy life. :)

Good point, and I think this can be expanded to the level of general society. It is logical to behave in ways that your society defines as "good" because that will cause one to benefit most from what society has to offer. I think further that this tendency is reinforced by natural selection, and an argument could probably be made that we as a species are also evolving morally.

[whathappened]

Kyriakos: "My own view is that good can be defined as that which supports and generally has the tendancy to allow the development of a pleasant state in an individual, or more people, or an entire society."

Is Socrates good or bad... I find this tough.

andrewoberg: "It is logical to behave in ways that your society defines as "good" because that will cause one to benefit most from what society has to offer."

And what would Athens offer Socrates had he helped the authorities to maintain a city of the mind-dead?

[Dodo25]

Good point, and I think this can be expanded to the level of general society. It is logical to behave in ways that your society defines as "good" because that will cause one to benefit most from what society has to offer. I think further that this tendency is reinforced by natural selection, and an argument could probably be made that we as a species are also evolving morally.

No, it doesn't work like this. Except if 'being moral' is accompagnied by having lots of offspring, but that's generally not the case..

There are only two ways in which altruism benefits one's own genes, and thus becomes favored by natural selection: Kin selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection and reciprocal altruism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism.

Edit: Very good points about Socrates @whathappened

[Lionheart]

If one looks at a baby is it good or bad? One could argue that in its helplessness that it is good due to it needing something from others to help it along its way. However another could argue that it has this vulnerable stasis of life, that furthers its ego to live, grow and compete. It doesn't take long to see related children at a checkout line exhibit very possessive, animalistic fury at whom will be first to unload the cart. Is this an expression of their parents' ego at home or a dormant controlling rage that negates the idea of an intrinsic good?

From what I have seen, babies are pretty self-centered without the forethought that they are just a part of this world, instead of the whole thing. How could being inherently selfish be good? To think the first words from a baby's mouth isn't God, but mamma and dadda, which reflects how their parents build the good or the bad into the children.

I believe it was Locke that said something like this, just not sure, so don't quote me on it.

[Dodo25]

Yes, it was Locke who stated that babies / children are 'tabulae rasae' Latin for 'empty black boards' or 'empty sheets of paper', and content is written on / in them by the environment, which to a great extent consists of the parents.

Now we know that genes determine the personality of a person to a great extent. Studies on identical twins raised seperately (to eliminate the environment component) have shown that they end up as having a remarkable similar character as adults. Both environment and genes are important.

I think it is wrong to call a baby 'selfish'. Or more precisely, you can call it selfish, but it's wrong to judge the baby based on this. It's the same thing as calling a lion cruel for killing a gazelle. I think the subjective terms 'good' and 'bad' only enter the scene once an agent's consciousness is developed enough so he/she/it has free will in the morally relevant sense.

[Kyriakos]

I agree, babies cannot be judged in such a way. They have to be like this, it seems that it is very crucial for their development.

Moreover from what i've read of modern psychology it appears that the ethical self is formed in the third year of life, so before that the child has no notion of ethics, not even a primitive one.

By the way if anyone has some reading to suggest on this i am very interested to see it :)

[Dodo25]

By the way if anyone has some reading to suggest on this i am very interested to see it :)

I don't know any texts about the development of morality in babies. Yet if you're interested in ethics in general, here is some cool material:

A talk by Sam Harris arguing against cultural relativism, he states that there are objective criteria to base an ethical system on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

Then there is the highly controversial approach of the utilitarianist philosopher Peter Singer. He also argues that there is an objective morality, yet the 'rules' he proposes severely clash with most people's moral intuitions:

Singer on 'how to solve the hunger problem' and why we are morally obliged to do something against it:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

On Abortion and Infanticide:
http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp17_crome.pdf

On Speciesism and other subjects:
http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~pillow/gradforum/materials/DangerousPhilosopher.pdf

And of course, a book I recommend on almost every subject:
'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins
It explains, among many other things, where our innate, inchoate 'moral compass' comes from.

[mal4mac]

If the baby grows up to be Adolf Hitler I don't think you can call that baby an intrinsic good (for you, or anyone else!) So all babies are not an intrinsic good. Are you arguing that some babies are intrinsic goods? If so, which ones?

The Greeks are very interesting on "intrinsic goods" - try reading "What is Ancient Philosophy?" by Pierre Hadot.

Epicurus suggested the only intrinsic good was pleasure, or freedom from pain.

The Stoics suggested the only intrinsic good was virtue (= courage, temperance, wisdom...)

For Aristotle the highest intrinsic good was contemplation, agreeing with the stoics here (contemplation = wisdom.) As this is also a pleasure (at least for me!) then you can see some agreement between the different Ancient schools (at least in my mind!)

The stoics thought that external goods are unnecessary and a hindrance to the pursuit of virtue (or pleasure) - as babies are very irritating to the philosopher trying to contemplate they are definitely not an intrinsic good to the philosopher.

One's own existence, obviously, is an intrinsic good, otherwise you could not partake of "ultimate" intrinsic goods (pleasure, virtue, ?,...) So a babies' existence *for itself* is an intrinsic good.

But babies can be very irritating to others (crying when you are trying to read Plato!) so they are definitely not intrinsic goods, as they interfere with the pursuit of ultimate intrinsic goods.

If you have a good nanny and thick walls then babies might fall into the category of "unnecessary but natural" goods, which the stoics did not ban, but suggest you try to minimize.

[Kyriakos]

I agree that contemplation seems to be the highest intrinsic good, although it should be meant as positive contemplation (i dont know what original word Aristotle used, but i suspect it was one with a clearly positive connotation) :)

Also it is a pleasure, and everything intrinsically good seems to be pleasurable, since it is rellevant to that which develops positively oneself.

There is also the notion of "neccessary evil", which is something that by itself is evil, but in time develops something good. For example hurting from problems is an evil, but it can lead to one forming a more stable psyche, which in turn will provide more options for pleasure.
Another example, from the material plane, is a medicine which tastes bad but will help one heal :)

[Cunninglinguist]

I understand your question not to be "is there anything intrinsically" good but "is there anything good for everything," because there are certain things that can be intrinsically good to one but not to another.

The only thing I can fathom that is good for everyone is good itself, yet this Epicurian veiwpoint is a blatant tautology.

I cannot think of a single action or type of action that would not have adverse effects on something. The baby will grow up to kill plants and animals in order to survive, therefore the baby is not good for these plants and animals. I challenge anyone who reads this to give me an example of something that does not cause adverse effects.

[Kyriakos]

I understand your question not to be "is there anything intrinsically" good but "is there anything good for everything," because there are certain things that can be intrinsically good to one but not to another.

The only thing I can fathom that is good for everyone is good itself, yet this Epicurian veiwpoint is a blatant tautology.

I cannot think of a single action or type of action that would not have adverse effects on something. The baby will grow up to kill plants and animals in order to survive, therefore the baby is not good for these plants and animals. I challenge anyone who reads this to give me an example of something that does not cause adverse effects.

What about pleasant and constructive thoughts?

To me at least it seems that they do not prodice anything negative, since most people have noticed that they can trust one if he is generally happy with himself and content, since he would try to maintain this, and one plane where he may be trying to maintain it would be in his relationships with other people.

[Cunninglinguist]

What about pleasant and constructive thoughts?

To me at least it seems that they do not prodice anything negative, since most people have noticed that they can trust one if he is generally happy with himself and content, since he would try to maintain this, and one plane where he may be trying to maintain it would be in his relationships with other people.

To think requires energy, to gain energy we must kill something. It seems like almost everything needs to kill to survive. And even those organisms that dont are bad to the other ones they outsource.

[Kyriakos]

To think requires energy, to gain energy we must kill something. It seems like almost everything needs to kill to survive. And even those organisms that dont are bad to the other ones they outsource.

I think that you are taking this a bit too far :) Personally i do not consider it wrong or evil or anything negative to kill animals or plants so as to eat. I think that all people at some time have enjoyed a nice meal with meat, and therefore it was a pleasant experience for them. Now later on they may have come to think of the poor animal which was murdered so as to provide for this meal, but the two experiences (the enjoyment of the meal, and the thoughts of the animal) are quite distinct from each other.
Therefore i do not agree that we should feel guilty for the animal's death, since if animals like these were not domesticated then they would still be killed, by other predators. Man should be seen as the center of life in the world, at least that is how i view it, although of course i do not agree with an excessive manipulation of nature :)

[Cunninglinguist]

I think that you are taking this a bit too far :) Personally i do not consider it wrong or evil or anything negative to kill animals or plants so as to eat. I think that all people at some time have enjoyed a nice meal with meat, and therefore it was a pleasant experience for them. Now later on they may have come to think of the poor animal which was murdered so as to provide for this meal, but the two experiences (the enjoyment of the meal, and the thoughts of the animal) are quite distinct from each other.
Therefore i do not agree that we should feel guilty for the animal's death, since if animals like these were not domesticated then they would still be killed, by other predators. Man should be seen as the center of life in the world, at least that is how i view it, although of course i do not agree with an excessive manipulation of nature :)

That's the thing though. If we're asking about what is "intrinsically good" or "good for everything," and we want to infer a valid conclusion, one has to be fastidious in every aspect of the matter.

It is good for us to to eat, yet, as it requires their destruction, it is clearly bad for plants and animals. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for intrinsic goodness.

"all people at some time have enjoyed a nice meal with meat, and therefore it was a pleasant experience for them. Now later on they may have come to think of the poor animal which was murdered so as to provide for this meal, but the two experiences (the enjoyment of the meal, and the thoughts of the animal) are quite distinct from each other." I did not think we were discussing the intrinsic goodness of the experience of eating, but the fact that humans need to eat. For, if we were discussing the former, I would have clarified that it is a tautological fallacy; i.e. you cannot argue that the feeling of good is intrinsically good because there is no argument to be made. As we are discussing, I think, the latter, I still hold that the fact that we need to eat is bad for some things.

I'm not suggesting implicitly nor have I said explicitly we ought to feel guilty for killing animals. That's quite a different subject that ought to be reserved for a different forum.

[Kyriakos]

My point of view is that of the human, not of nature in its entirety :) Which is why i claimed that an intrinsic good should be understood as one which is good for man. We are not one with nature, or any animals or plants, why should we take them into consideration when examining what is good for us?

Also i think that the ancient greek point of view was analogous to this, but perhaps i can be firther enlightened about that, if there were thinkers who defined the intrinsic good in a manner that takes the rest of nature into consideration?

[Cunninglinguist]

My point of view is that of the human, not of nature in its entirety :) Which is why i claimed that an intrinsic good should be understood as one which is good for man. We are not one with nature, or any animals or plants, why should we take them into consideration when examining what is good for us?

Also i think that the ancient greek point of view was analogous to this, but perhaps i can be firther enlightened about that, if there were thinkers who defined the intrinsic good in a manner that takes the rest of nature into consideration?

Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Maybe it's good for us to take them into consideration?

[Dodo25]

Why would anyone think animal suffering can be left out of the equation? I think killing an adult, healthy chimpanzee is more 'wrong' than killing a human being in the late stages of Alzheimer's disease.

If there is anything 'intrinsically good', then it's the state of contentness. And if there is something 'intrinsically bad', it's suffering. And if an organism can suffer, it deserves moral consideration.

This doesn't mean that causing suffering is always bad of course. That's the relative part about it. Torture is sometimes necessary, if the consequences prevent suffering (and death).

[mal4mac]

The only thing I can fathom that is good for everyone is good itself, yet this Epicurian viewpoint is a blatant tautology.



I've never seen this put forward as a correct Epicurean viewpoint. Where did you get it from?

Stoics and Christians were always attributing false views to Epicurus, because his philosophy is (or seems to me and Montaigne!) to be the most sensible philosophy of life anyone ever came up with - it was famous in the Ancient World for being the last step on the philosophical journey.

One ancient source (it might have been Diogenes Laertius?) pointed out that many converted from Stoicism and Christianity to Epicureanism. Few went the other way. It's major flaw was not being a philosophy followed by military types, so it got, literally, wiped out by militant stoics and Christians.

So, *really*, according to Epicurus:

The good for everyone is their own pleasure or freedom from suffering.

Nothing tautological about that!

[mal4mac]

It is good for us to to eat, yet, as it requires their destruction, it is clearly bad for plants... Therefore it does not meet the criteria for intrinsic goodness.


If you are the kind of plant that requires birds/animals to spread its seed then, surely, it is better for that plant to have its fruits eaten. (i) that's what fruits are designed for (ii) with apples etc. the fruits are often no longer part of the plant anyway (iii) isn't it better for the plant to have offspring than not. So eating (at least some parts) of plants is better than not eating plants.

Herbivores evolved to live/die in the world with carnivores. Killing off all carnivores might be good for some particular antelopes, but it would be bad for the ecosystem. Surely protecting, or not damaging, the ecosystem is a higher good that pandering to the whims of some bleating gnus?

[Dodo25]

I don't think plants deserve direct ethical consideration. There is no evidence that they can suffer, so why care about them? Of course, indirectly, the destruction of the rain forest hurts a lot of animals that do feel pain, and even us ourselves (CO2 shield), thus it is important that we protect 'plants', but only because of indirect reasons.

[mal4mac]

I don't think plants deserve direct ethical consideration. There is no evidence that they can suffer, so why care about them? Of course, indirectly, the destruction of the rain forest hurts a lot of animals that do feel pain, and even us ourselves (CO2 shield), thus it is important that we protect 'plants', but only because of indirect reasons.

Plant's are alive, don't they deserve some ethical consideration because of that? Even taking 'life' out of it, they are incredibly beautiful and diverse objects, like, say, works of art. Aren't these aspects worthy of ethical consideration?

Imagine a human being who has a stroke that totally removes his capacity to suffer. Would you say he was not worthy of ethical consideration? Buddhas are beyond suffering (they say!) Are they not worthy of ethical consideration?

Imagine you could press a button that removes all human and animal life from the world. You can press that or another button that removes *all* life, including plants. You are given a choice to press one button, or the other. By your argument, you would flip a coin. But I'd want to retain a world with plants.

[blazeofglory]

I don't think plants deserve direct ethical consideration. There is no evidence that they can suffer, so why care about them? Of course, indirectly, the destruction of the rain forest hurts a lot of animals that do feel pain, and even us ourselves (CO2 shield), thus it is important that we protect 'plants', but only because of indirect reasons.

Evidence that they suffer? This is drive. The idea is unfounded. We have no evidence for everything. Scientific observations or our reasoning capacities suffer their own limitations. Plants are living beings and both animals and plants share most characteristics, speaking scientifically too. It is unresponsiveness that makes us feel like that. I always love plants and when I see a tree felled I feel sad. They are living beings as much as we are

[Dodo25]

Plant's are alive, don't they deserve some ethical consideration because of that? Even taking 'life' out of it, they are incredibly beautiful and diverse objects, like, say, works of art. Aren't these aspects worthy of ethical consideration?

Life is not a magic property that deserves protection in its own right. Plants can't suffer and they don't have feelings. Ethics is always a matter of priorities. If we give 'value' to plants, the value of beings capable of suffering is diminished.

Indeed, many plants are like works of art. But that again doesn't give them any intrinsic value, what is art good for if nobody is there to appreciate it? Again, the value is indirect, we shouldn't kill plants because they provide 02 for us and because they're pretty and keep the ecosystem balanced etc.



Imagine a human being who has a stroke that totally removes his capacity to suffer. Would you say he was not worthy of ethical consideration? Buddhas are beyond suffering (they say!) Are they not worthy of ethical consideration?

Good question. Well there are people who are born normally, yet they can't suffer (something with their nerves or brain is wrong). This sounds like a good thing at first sight, yet its terrible. These people don't realize when they destroy their body. For instance, they don't turn themselves over in sleep when they lay in an 'uncomfortable' thus unhealthy position. This leads to a damaged back. They don't realize when they're sick etc and thus have a much shorter life expectancy. Obviously I'm not talking about such people, they still have consciousness, hopes, plans for the future; they want to life. So this is actually more preference utilitarianism than classic one..
The same of course applies for Buddha.

Yet I think what you mean is say an elderly person suffering of the late stages of Alzheimer. This is not a 'person' (in Kant's sense) anymore, because the brain is pretty much dead already. Suffering is still possible (and likely), yet nothing else that makes up a good human life is. Should euthanasia be allowed? I actually think you're morally obliged to 'kill' someone in such a condition. The only cases I think it's wrong to do so, is when the Alzheimer patient has friends and family who are against it (for whatever reasons, i.e. religious ones), so when you would relieve the patient from suffering, you would cause a lot of suffering to the friends and relatives.



Imagine you could press a button that removes all human and animal life from the world. You can press that or another button that removes *all* life, including plants. You are given a choice to press one button, or the other. By your argument, you would flip a coin. But I'd want to retain a world with plants.

Amazing question again. I'm not sure many plants survive without animals (there is so much symbiosis in nature), yet let's assume they could. Again, what use is beauty, or 'life', if nobody is there to appreciate it? The only ethical reasons FOR plants in this case would be 'maybe, in the far future, something on this planet, coming from plants, evolves a nerve system and consciousness, and then is able to appreciate nice plants'. The other reason would be 'maybe aliens will visit the earth in the far future'. Both reasons seem very far fetched. Yet they are reasons, so this would tip the balance. If however I'm assured that no such thing is going to happen before the sun blows up (which is very likely), I would see nothing wrong with flipping a coin to make the decision, it simply doesn't matter.

My views by the way are a variant of preference utilitarianism, similar to what Peter Singer put down in his book 'Practical Ethics'. It is a very radical view and it upsets many traditions. Yet I think it is the justified view, altough I differ with Singer in some regards.

[Dodo25]

Evidence that they suffer? This is drive. The idea is unfounded. We have no evidence for everything. Scientific observations or our reasoning capacities suffer their own limitations. Plants are living beings and both animals and plants share most characteristics, speaking scientifically too. It is unresponsiveness that makes us feel like that. I always love plants and when I see a tree felled I feel sad. They are living beings as much as we are

What's up with this whole 'science can't tell us anything' nonsense. You're using a computer so if you keep posting such views you just appear like a hypocrite.

I too feel sad when I see big parts of the rainforest felled, yet these are MY feelings and not feelings of plants.

Plants don't have a nervous system, they don't have a brain, they can't suffer. They show no behavior that suggests suffering. There is no evolutionary reason for suffering to evolve in plants. Unless evidence to the contrary shows up, plants do not suffer.

Science can't tell us everything, yet there are many things it can, and it would be a waste to ignore them.

[Kyriakos]

:grouphug:

I still do not see why an intrinsic good, some propery theorised about clearly only by humans in this planet at least, should have to take into consideration the good of other lifeforms in the planet in any manner which would be independant of the good of humans :)

Of course you can do that, but in my view you alter the basis of the question drammatically. In my own mind i do not bother with this at any rate, maybe i am wrong, but it is the way it is ;)

[blazeofglory]

Stop this whole 'science can't tell us anything' nonsense. You're using a computer so if you keep posting such views you just appear like a hypocrite. I too feel sad when I see big parts of the rainforest felled, yet these are MY feelings and not feelings of plants.

Plants don't have a nervous system, they don't have a brain, they can't suffer. They show no behavior that suggests suffering. There is no evolutionary reason for suffering to evolve in plants.

You have not studied enough and what you do is take prejudices and no research. Jagadish Chandra Bose, a veteran biologist has already discovered that plants too are sensitive beings and your premature analyses or conclusions make you superstitious. You said I am just a hypocrite, and since you stick to an unproven idea or you draw a conclusion based on what others have come upon, this is sheer idiotic judgment. Are you really a biologist and have researched for decades or so on issue? When you inanely I am a hypocrite, you are swayed by irrationality and since you have nothing to prove you could use such words.

[Dodo25]

I still do not see why an intrinsic good, some propery theorised about clearly only by humans in this planet at least, should have to take into consideration the good of other lifeforms in the planet in any manner which would be independant of the good of humans :)

Of course you can do that, but in my view you alter the basis of the question drammatically. In my own mind i do not bother with this at any rate, maybe i am wrong, but it is the way it is ;)

Because everything else would be speciesist (the equivalent of racism applied to species). We perform cruel experiments on healthy adult chimpanzees, yet many people think the same experiments done with mentally disabled people are horribly wrong, even though the experiments are of more use when done to humans, and secondly, certain mentally disabled people have less emotions, hopes and conscious interests than chimpanzees. This strikes me as incredibly unjust. Why should we attribute value to something only because it has human DNA? It's the actual properties that count, and chimpanzees are remarkably developed in this regard, they even have basic 'moral codes' themself!

Additionally, it is only an accident of history that there is a relatively big gap between humans and our closest relatives, the chimps, in regard of intelligence and consciousness (and culture!). If neanderthal man had survived only 40'000 years longer (until now), we would be in a very different situation. Homo neanderthalensis is a different species than Homo sapiens. And they actually had religious burial ceremonies!


You have not studied enough and what you do is take prejudices and no research. Jagadish Chandra Bose, a veteran biologist has already discovered that plants too are sensitive beings and your premature analyses or conclusions make you superstitious. You said I am just a hypocrite, and since you stick to an unproven idea or you draw a conclusion based on what others have come upon, this is sheer idiotic judgment. Are you really a biologist and have researched for decades or so on issue? When you inanely I am a hypocrite, you are swayed by irrationality and since you have nothing to prove you could use such words.

I'm not sticking to an unproven idea. If things are capable of suffering, we should see hints and evidence for this. I don't see any hints for suffering in rocks, and I don't see any reason why they should suffer. So I'm assuming they don't. Same with plants, how can one suffer without a brain or complex nervous system? The burden of proof (evidence) rests on you.

I'm not a biologist, yet I have researched enough to know that no accredited scientist thinks that plants have feelings. I also made my own conclusions based on plant physiology.

[Kyriakos]

Because everything else would be speciesist (the equivalent of racism applied to species). We perform cruel experiments on healthy adult chimpanzees, yet many people think the same experiments done with mentally disabled people are horribly wrong, even though the experiments are of more use when done to humans, and secondly, certain mentally disabled people have less emotions, hopes and conscious interests than chimpanzees. This strikes me as incredibly unjust. Why should we attribute value to something only because it has human DNA? It's the actual properties that count, and chimpanzees are remarkably developed in this regard, they even have basic 'moral codes' themself!

Additionally, it is only an accident of history that there is a relatively big gap between humans and our closest relatives, the chimps, in regard of intelligence and consciousness (and culture!). If neanderthal man had survived only 40'000 years longer (until now), we would be in a very different situation. Homo neanderthalensis is a different species than Homo sapiens. And they actually had religious burial ceremonies!


I am not doubting that some of the more developed animals show signs of intelligence, but the gap between them and us is really vast. In my view it is fine to perform experiments on developed and bright (for their species) apes, if these experiments can help us gain something. But to start having experiments on retarded people would be opening the Pandora's box, and it should never happen. All human life should have the same basic rights, nomatter the gap between a human and another, otherwise society can suffer and finally collapse. Already elitism is very much real, to enable it with law would mean very dangerous outcomes :)

I view, in general, animals as entities which can be (and should be) exploited, to a degree, for our benefit. The line being that we shouldnt mess with the ecosystem since that again will harm us. I only view animals as important in regards to humans though...

[Dodo25]

I am not doubting that some of the more developed animals show signs of intelligence, but the gap between them and us is really vast. In my view it is fine to perform experiments on developed and bright (for their species) apes, if these experiments can help us gain something. But to start having experiments on retarded people would be opening the Pandora's box, and it should never happen. All human life should have the same basic rights, nomatter the gap between a human and another, otherwise society can suffer and finally collapse. Already elitism is very much real, to enable it with law would mean very dangerous outcomes :)

I view, in general, animals as entities which can be (and should be) exploited, to a degree, for our benefit. The line being that we shouldnt mess with the ecosystem since that again will harm us. I only view animals as important in regards to humans though...

Your having a double standart that is inconsistent. If 'torturing' sentient apes for a good purpose is okay, how come torturing less sentient humans for an even better purpose is not? (The medicine is for humans after all, so testing it on humans would give more accurate results). You're presenting a slippery slope argument here, basically 'if we abolish unconditional 'human rights', this will lead to Nazi stuff'. I'm not at all convinced that this is the case. There would of course have to be clear restrictions, it should only be allowed if it has great potential for saving lifes.

Another thing to think about: Often, animals are used in cruel experiments not for medicine, but for cosmetics. Is our decadent appreciation of artificial beauty really worth more than the lifes and suffering of animals? For us, it's merely about 'looking better', yet for the animals involved in such tests, it is a life full of suffering until their relieved by death. Why do our low-priority interests top the high-priority interests of animals in this case?

Of course I'm not saying animals should be treated like humans. I see nothing wrong with eating animals as long as they don't suffer too much in the process of becoming a meal. I wouldn't eat chimpanzees though, because they have a self-concept that involves plans for the future and recollections of the past. Cows don't seem to have that, so killing them is okay if they don't suffer too much.

[Kyriakos]

To me it just seems that animals cannot be protected essentially if we are to continue the way of life that we have. And i do not view their lives as important enough so as to actively force a change in out way of life.
Sure, cosmetics can be argued to be of lesser importance than an animal life, but in my opinnion this is arguable: i do not view a woman who only cares about how she looks as something exceptionally positive, but she is still a human being, and that makes her more important in my eyes than an animal.
I can only accept some value in animals in regards to their relationship to humans. For example if you owned an ape, and you loved him, then it follows that if someone harmed him he should be penalised by law, but not because he harmed the ape; he should be penalised because indirrectly he harmed you, another human.

Can you elaborate a bit on your view that animals should be valued, apart from their place in the ecosystem?

Even a less sentient human is still a human. Children with mental deficiencies, for example, can be very primitive intellectually, but they are still part of humanity, and this makes them in my opinnion distinctly superior to any animal, nomatter how healthy and relatively intelligent it is :)

[Dodo25]

Can you elaborate a bit on your view that animals should be valued, apart from their place in the ecosystem?

Even a less sentient human is still a human. Children with mental deficiencies, for example, can be very primitive intellectually, but they are still part of humanity, and this makes them in my opinnion distinctly superior to any animal, nomatter how healthy and relatively intelligent it is :)

I agree with you 100% when it comes to the treatment of plants. I think plants are only of value when it indirectly affects humans (or animals, and here we differ).

You assert that belonging to 'humanity' is sufficient to have 'more value than non-human animals', and this as if it was completely obvious. Of course, it has seemed obvious to us for millennia, but then, so has slavery. I think Christianity still has a huge cultural influence on how we think about humans. Many people think that there is an unbridgeable gap between us and other animals, and they think we're holy and chosen by God.

If you don't hold this view, then what exactly justifies the difference? How do you define 'human being'? If you define it as rationality and consciousness, then I agree, those attributes are different from animals and thus justify attributing them more value, but then again, infants and mentally handicapped people don't have them.

If you just attribute value to everything that has human DNA, to me this seems completely arbitrary. It is exactly the same thing a racist does if he says only white people deserve moral rights. The argument against racism is that it is unjustified, all races share rationality and consciousness. Even if some races were intellectually inferior to others (which is possible I suppose), there would still be individuals that overlap. Men are faster than women (look at the world record times for 100m sprints). Yet some women run faster than most men. Hence it is unjustified to discriminate on terms of gener, race, AND species. It's the very same argument, it just strikes us as odd because we have learned to think of animals as our slaves.

[blazeofglory]

Because everything else would be speciesist (the equivalent of racism applied to species). We perform cruel experiments on healthy adult chimpanzees, yet many people think the same experiments done with mentally disabled people are horribly wrong, even though the experiments are of more use when done to humans, and secondly, certain mentally disabled people have less emotions, hopes and conscious interests than chimpanzees. This strikes me as incredibly unjust. Why should we attribute value to something only because it has human DNA? It's the actual properties that count, and chimpanzees are remarkably developed in this regard, they even have basic 'moral codes' themself!

Additionally, it is only an accident of history that there is a relatively big gap between humans and our closest relatives, the chimps, in regard of intelligence and consciousness (and culture!). If neanderthal man had survived only 40'000 years longer (until now), we would be in a very different situation. Homo neanderthalensis is a different species than Homo sapiens. And they actually had religious burial ceremonies!



I'm not sticking to an unproven idea. If things are capable of suffering, we should see hints and evidence for this. I don't see any hints for suffering in rocks, and I don't see any reason why they should suffer. So I'm assuming they don't. Same with plants, how can one suffer without a brain or complex nervous system? The burden of proof (evidence) rests on you.

I'm not a biologist, yet I have researched enough to know that no accredited scientist thinks that plants have feelings. I also made my own conclusions based on plant physiology.

This is absolutely ludicrous to compare plants with rocks. Jumping into a conclusion based on hypothetical ideas is a dogma. Science is still at its fancy in many cases even if there are unprecedented heights scientists have scaled in so many other disciplines. Plants drink, eat, breathe, breed, grow, age and die. They respond to environments the way we do. Some plants are locomotives and eat insects too. There are some animals and plants we cannot say whether they are plants or animals. Just because you cannot see a sophisticated nervous system you think they cannot feel. You do not want to agree that your study is incomplete and ignore the fact that plants having so many features similar to animals are insensitive or have no feelings!!!

You can imagine things and to claim conclusively that plants do not feel is totally a ridiculous idea, immature. Have not seen the shoot of a plant going towards the sunlight at your window? Is it not responsiveness. Even a baby can figure this out. You researcher of physiology cannot comprehend this simple truth.

[Dodo25]

This is absolutely ludicrous to compare plants with rocks. Jumping into a conclusion based on hypothetical ideas is a dogma. Science is still at its fancy in many cases even if there are unprecedented heights scientists have scaled in so many other disciplines.


And what if someone comes up and claims stones have feelings as well? Am I being dogmatic by assuming that they don't? My point is simply that you need to present positive evidence for feelings. And your use of the word dogma is weird.



Plants drink, eat, breathe, breed, grow, age and die. They respond to environments the way we do. Some plants are locomotives and eat insects too. There are some animals and plants we cannot say whether they are plants or animals.


True.



Just because you cannot see a sophisticated nervous system you think they cannot feel. You do not want to agree that your study is incomplete and ignore the fact that plants having so many features similar to animals are insensitive or have no feelings!!!


How can something feel without a nervous system? Many similar features doesn't justify anything if the crucial feature for feeling is lacking.



You can imagine things and to claim conclusively that plants do not feel is totally a ridiculous idea, immature. Have not seen the shoot of a plant going towards the sunlight at your window? Is it not responsiveness. Even a baby can figure this out. You researcher of physiology cannot comprehend this simple truth.

What does a plant going for light have to do with feelings? Of course plants are pretty sophisticated things, after all, they're the product of more than 3.5 billion years of evolution. However, plants are stationary, they don't move at higher speeds, they don't need to react to dangers quickly and in complex ways. In the cases where plants do move (i.e. venus flytrap catching a fly), it is a mechanical reaction, not something planned. The plant can't decided whether to snap or not, if you touch two of its tiny hair-sensors within 20 seconds, it will just snap and that's it.

A plant doesn't need to prioritize consciously about what it should do. There is no need for feelings.

Actually, some plants even 'communicate' with (related) others to warn them from vermins. Yet here the term 'communicate' is of course the result of anthropomorphic personification, what is really going on is just a cascade of chemicals through root systems or through the air.

And ad hominems really aren't helping your point.

[blazeofglory]

And what if someone comes up and claims stones have feelings as well? Am I being dogmatic by assuming that they don't? My point is simply that you need to present positive evidence for feelings. And your use of the word dogma is weird. [QUOTE]



In fact both of us have no verifiable or demonstrable ideas. You are not a biologist and you had studied physiology, how much? When you categorically said they have no feelings you allude to the sets of ideas that have no methodical or observable base. What is a feeling? It is a response to an external stimulus. And plants do respond to any external or environmental as you do. If you liken rocks to plants I have nothing to argue with you. I call this bizarre. There is no difference between plants animals in the same degree as between plants and rocks and ask any baby he can answer with full evidence. Nervous systems of highly developed mammals may be discernible and there are unicellular beings and amoebas for instance have indiscernible nervous systems. I will give you some from research papers:
The question of the moment in this emerging field of plant neurobiology is whether plants are “self-conscious” or not. On one hand is Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh who stated, “We now know there’s an ability of self recognition in plants, which is highly unusual and quite extraordinary that it’s actually there.” Trewavas presented a paper on “The Green Plant as an Intelligent Organism,” in mid-May at the first Symposium of Plant Neurobiology held in Florence, Italy. The meeting was dedicated to the memory of Charles Darwin, the father of the evolution theory of creation, who in 1880 proposed that the root apex represents a diffuse plant brain. The meeting was organized by the universities of Bonn, Germany, and Florence, Italy

Some scientists say plants are smart enough to “consider their environment, speculate on the future, conquer territory and enemies and are capable of forethought,” according to Patrik Jonsson writing for the Christian Science Monitor (March 3, 2005, “New Research Opens a Window on the Minds of Plants”).

A different view is offered by Heike Winter Sederoff, a plant biologist at North Carolina State University who reported, “There is still much that we do not know about how plants work, but a big part of intelligence is self-consciousness and plants do not have that.”
Recent research at the University of British Columbia (UBC) Botanical Gardens reveals that plants have neurotransmitters much like those in humans. Plant neurobiology attempts to find out how plants devise plans to bloom and produce spores. It studies the chemical mechanisms behind the growth of plants and their responses to the environment

Is not this enough for evidence that animals have nervous systems too. This is the inconsiderateness or narrow-mindedness or limited knowledge or our incapacity for comprehending intricate facts. We simply jump to conclusion based on our preconceived notions about the universe.
More bluntly, you can not exactly sense whether another creature feels pains or not and you can sense it when the other respond to you. This presupposes the fact that you cannot sense what plants feel





How can something feel without a nervous system? Many similar features doesn't justify anything if the crucial feature for feeling is lacking.


This is sheer your imagination, un-backed by any credible points




What does a plant going for light have to do with feelings? Of course plants are pretty sophisticated things, after all, they're the product of more than 3.5 billion years of evolution. However, plants are stationary, they don't move at higher speeds, they don't need to react to dangers quickly and in complex ways. In the cases where plants do move (i.e. venus flytrap catching a fly)


What you said afroe is self-contradictory.


A plant doesn't need to prioritize consciously about what it should do. There is no need for feelings.


This is a hypothetical proposition


Actually, some plants even 'communicate' with (related) others to warn them from vermins.


Does not quash your own statement?

[Dodo25]

In fact both of us have no verifiable or demonstrable ideas.


Exactly - and mine is default while the burden of proof rests on you. You can't prove a negative, I can't even proof that stones don't have feelings, so unless conclusive evidence shows up, the rational position is to assume that plants don't have feelings. You've now presented some claims of evidence (in that rather muddled post), I'll go over it briefly.



You are not a biologist and you had studied physiology, how much?


About one or two afternoons. Enough to learn that there are some significant differences between 'higher' animals and plants.



When you categorically said they have no feelings you allude to the sets of ideas that have no methodical or observable base. What is a feeling?


I didn't categoricaly state that. All I'm saying is that as long as there's no evidence for it, there's absolutely no reason to assume it. Feelings are conscious states that govern the attention of an agent and prioritize its energy and resources.



It is a response to an external stimulus.


That's an awful definition. When I light a torch right into your eyes, your pupils become smaller. That's a response to an external stimulus as well. Additionally, in animals capable of reflecting, the stimulus can also be internal.



The question of the moment in this emerging field of plant neurobiology is whether plants are “self-conscious” or not. On one hand is Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh who stated, “We now know there’s an ability of self recognition in plants, which is highly unusual and quite extraordinary that it’s actually there.” Trewavas presented a paper on “The Green Plant as an Intelligent Organism,” in mid-May at the first Symposium of Plant Neurobiology held in Florence, Italy. The meeting was dedicated to the memory of Charles Darwin, the father of the evolution theory of creation, who in 1880 proposed that the root apex represents a diffuse plant brain. The meeting was organized by the universities of Bonn, Germany, and Florence, Italy


I've googled the site where this stands. Mr. Trewavas' statement comes up very randomly and he gives no reason whatsoever for why this would be the case. I'm not attacking the view that plants are 'intelligent', even though I think a wrong definition of intelligence is used here (more to this in the next paragraph). And Darwin's theory has nothing to do with creation by the way.



Some scientists say plants are smart enough to “consider their environment, speculate on the future, conquer territory and enemies and are capable of forethought,” according to Patrik Jonsson writing for the Christian Science Monitor (March 3, 2005, “New Research Opens a Window on the Minds of Plants”).

That's not 'being smart' in the sense we used it. If I toss a ball into your direction so it would hit you in the face, you put the arms before your head or you automatically dodge the ball. Is that intelligence? You don't consciously calculate the trajectory the ball is going to make. You don't even decide whether to protect yourself, it's an instinct. 'Speculating on the future' is ill chosen terminology if all we're talking about are sphexish behavior loops and molecular cascades.



A different view is offered by Heike Winter Sederoff, a plant biologist at North Carolina State University who reported, “There is still much that we do not know about how plants work, but a big part of intelligence is self-consciousness and plants do not have that.”
Recent research at the University of British Columbia (UBC) Botanical Gardens reveals that plants have neurotransmitters much like those in humans. Plant neurobiology attempts to find out how plants devise plans to bloom and produce spores. It studies the chemical mechanisms behind the growth of plants and their responses to the environment

Thanks for having the decency to also present a view that opposes your point.

Dodo25: "How can something feel without a nervous system? Many similar features doesn't justify anything if the crucial feature for feeling is lacking."



This is sheer your imagination, un-backed by any credible points


We haven't found evidence of feelings in things without nervous systems, so how is this sheer imagination? I've actually researched the issue of consciousness, the most helpful book I've read on it was 'Consciousness Explained' by Daniel Dennett. If Dennett is right with his sketch, and I assume he is, because some of his views actually offer predictions which have been confirmed by experiments, then consciousness depends on the parallel processing of information (mostly from sensory organs). Emotions then serve for 'directing mental attention' to important and urgent issues. Plants have no need for this, because they can't direct attention to anything without sensory organs under discretionary control.

Dodo25: "Actually, some plants even 'communicate' with (related) others to warn them from vermins."



Does not quash your own statement?

Well yeah, this tends to happen when one is quoted completely out of context. I elaborated in my previous post that the word 'communicate' is used in an anthropomorphic way that can be misleading. This is the 'intelligence' confusion again which fools some people into believing that its evidence for consciousness.

[African_Love]

There are only two things that I am absolutely certain of, one is that happiness is the only intrinsic good and distress is the only intrinsic bad. In a universe without sentient beings, nothing would matter because nobody could be emotionally affected by anything.

[Silas Thorne]

If I toss a ball into your direction so it would hit you in the face, you put the arms before your head or you automatically dodge the ball. Is that intelligence? You don't consciously calculate the trajectory the ball is going to make. You don't even decide whether to protect yourself, it's an instinct. 'Speculating on the future' is ill chosen terminology if all we're talking about are sphexish behavior loops and molecular cascades.


Not sure if I'm not arguing on any particular topic here, just pointing out that the ball example you are using seems to be a trained thing, and that it is conscious on the 'I recognize a ball is coming towards me and may hurt me if it hits me in the head and can predict its path somewhat so that I know it is travelling towards my head' kind of way, which seems definitely conscious on one level. With more training, you can also consciously catch and pass a ball thrown at your head back at the person who threw it, or duck it while diving at the thrower's legs. :) You could even draw a katana and cut the ball in half in flight, or quickly pull a gun out of a holster and shoot it. I just mean the level of 'think about it' consciousness seems to be dependant on level of training. If skilled enough you can instantly pick strategies, whether to move away, let it hit you, catch it, block it, or even utilise other options.
I'm not a biologist, I've just done a little martial arts training. I can't catch worth a bag of salt, or use a sword.

[YesNo]

Plants don't have a nervous system, they don't have a brain, they can't suffer. They show no behavior that suggests suffering. There is no evolutionary reason for suffering to evolve in plants. Unless evidence to the contrary shows up, plants do not suffer.

I've been reading Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird's The Secret Life of Plants recently. This was written in 1972, so it may be out of date, but it suggests that plants are capable of both suffering and consciousness even though they don't have a nervous system or a brain.

The subtitle is: "A fascinating account of the physical, emotional, and spiritual relations between plants and man."

That subtitle may be enough to drive most people away, but it was all I needed to start reading it.

[Dodo25]

@Silas Thorne, protecting one's face from fast moving things that come towards you is an inborn instinct. Of course, it can be trained to become faster and more specific (i.e. shooting the thing with a handgun), but it's definitely an instinct. Just like eyes automatically blink when something quickly approaches them.


I've been reading Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird's The Secret Life of Plants recently. This was written in 1972, so it may be out of date, but it suggests that plants are capable of both suffering and consciousness even though they don't have a nervous system or a brain.

The subtitle is: "A fascinating account of the physical, emotional, and spiritual relations between plants and man."

That subtitle may be enough to drive most people away, but it was all I needed to start reading it.

Yup, the subtitle would indeed drive me away, especially the 'spiritual relations between plants and man' makes me cringe innerly. There are so many books on biology that are complete rubbish. Of course, one shouldn't judge books without having read them, but still it's definitely rubbish. I know a lot about biology and will be studying it soon too. As I think I've said in this thread before, the crucial point is that plants don't need consciousness, and that it doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary perspective (which is EVERYTHING in biology).

[OrphanPip]

Ha, well my botany isn't top notch, as it's limited to the developmental biology of plant embryos and basic plant physiology, but it is ridiculous to say plants have spiritual and emotional lives.

And which plants are we talking about here, are we speaking of gymnosperms, angiosperms, bryophytes or sporophytes? There are entire groups of plants that don't even have vascular structures, let alone consciousness.

Consciousness makes no sense for stationary land organisms, and it is physiologically impossible without bringing in quantum new age magical explanations of consciousness.

[YesNo]

There are so many books on biology that are complete rubbish. Of course, one shouldn't judge books without having read them, but still it's definitely rubbish. I know a lot about biology and will be studying it soon too. As I think I've said in this thread before, the crucial point is that plants don't need consciousness, and that it doesn't make any sense from an evolutionary perspective (which is EVERYTHING in biology).

Let me recommend the book as entertaining reading about the history of science. :)

You asked for evidence, remember? The book provides it.

However, I wouldn't have believed it either.

[OrphanPip]

Let me recommend the book as entertaining reading about the history of science. :)

You asked for evidence, remember? The book provides it.

However, I wouldn't have believed it either.

Ha, well honestly from what I was able to look up the book is filled with new age pseudoscience. I.e. misrepresentations of scientific evidence padded with unverifiable speculation.

Edit: It may be entertaining though.

[YesNo]

And which plants are we talking about here, are we speaking of gymnosperms, angiosperms, bryophytes or sporophytes? There are entire groups of plants that don't even have vascular structures, let alone consciousness.


All of them. :)

If I understood the book correctly.

What the book did for me was break me out of a mental cage. Previously, I assumed, as I suspect you do now, that consciousness and suffering (and joy?) required a nervous system and some sort of brain. I don't think it even requires a vascular structure at the moment.

Edit: I just saw your post. The book is entertaining.

[JuniperWoolf]

There's been a lot of study on the idea that plants have emotions or conciousness. The only one that's come close is the one where one group of lab techs were given a group of plants to take care of which they were instructed to have conversations with (group A), and another group was given a group of plants to take care of which they were instructed not to talk to (group B). Every other condition of care (including lighting and humidity) was kept constant. In the end, group A's plants were bigger and overall more healthy than group B's. They repeated the experiment a couple of times, and the results are more or less consistant.

On the surface, it would seem that group B isn't growing as well because the plants are more lonely. However, most people believe that the people who were raising the plants, the humans, were the ones who were more affected by the conversations. Group A grew emotionally attached to their plants, so they provided better care than group B in small ways that weren't specified in the experiment's instructions. They wiped bits of dirt off of their leaves so that the plants could get more light, they buried exposed roots, and they just generally were more careful in following instructions than group B in subtle little ways which would account for the better growth patterns. Every other study of plant emotions or conciousness yeilded no results (including the one where they studied plant temperature when it was being yelled at, haha).

Anyway, enough about studies on plant conciousness.

I've always thought that one example of a natural-born human trait that could be thought of as "morally good" by today's standars is maternal instinct (which you could argue isn't really even inborn, but it probably is, being cross-cultural and all).