UPB and animal rights

[AncapFTW]

AncapFTW

I'm not trying to restrict what you are doing. I am pointing out that you have no ethical reason to do so. What irony. You are paying others to imprison sentient creatures but are concerned with "being restricted". Telling you, that your action of killing and torturing (which is 99% of all meat sold today as it is factory farmed) animals is violence on my part? I don't know if people think about how ridiculous they sound. Animals don't have to be our equals. You still have no right to kill and eat them. You are allowed to by law - but you aren't a philosopher with any kind of moral code if the best you can come up with is animals aren't moral agents. It is the most circular and ridiculous notion.

I know right from wrong so I don't have to act right and should be allowed to kill things that don't think like me and do not cause me any harm, because I know right from wrong. Lunacy. Most people just say I don't care I like how they taste. This moral agency, philosophical rationale to do it is 100 times more offensive.

 

1) What part of "factory farming" is torture? 

tor·ture

ˈtôrCHər/  

noun

noun: torture

1. 1.

   the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.

   synonyms: infliction of pain, abuse, ill-treatment, maltreatment, persecution;

   sadism

   "acts of torture"

   • great physical or mental suffering or anxiety.

     "the torture I've gone through because of loving you so"

     synonyms: torment, agony, suffering, pain, anguish, misery, distress, heartbreak, affliction, scourge, trauma, wretchedness; More

     hell, purgatory

     "the torture of losing a loved one"
   • a cause of suffering or anxiety.

     plural noun: tortures

     "dances were absolute torture because I was so small"

verb

verb: torture; 3rd person present: tortures; past tense: tortured; past participle: tortured; gerund or present participle: torturing

1. 1.

   inflict severe pain on.

   "most of the victims had been brutally tortured"

   synonyms: inflict pain on, ill-treat, abuse, mistreat, maltreat, persecute

   "they have tortured suspects in order to extract confessions"

   • cause great mental suffering or anxiety to.

Yes, they are raised in a relatively small area, but they aren't having pain inflicted upon them on purpose.

 

2) So, I don't have an ethical reason to kill animals.  I don't have an ethical reason NOT to kill and eat animal either.  That makes it a matter of personal preference, not morality.  I don't have to have a moral reason to wear a certain t-shirt either.  Does that mean that wearing the t-shirt is immoral?

 

3) That's not my argument, so nice job creating a straw man.

 

Tell me the truth, are you a troll or a PETA plant or something?  You certainly aren't a philosopher yourself, as you can't seem to come up with a reason WHY we shouldn't do something, but insist on telling us we shouldn't do it.  Saying "you have no right to do this" is a meaningless statement as well.

[J. D. Stembal]

I'm not trying to restrict what you are doing.

 

You still have no right to kill and eat them.

 

Are you a troll?

[labmath2]

 

Yes it does need rational actors, which animals don't fall under (in UPB terms). APA would be the approach I would take towards ethical preferences. Albeit different preferences may have different consequences of course. It's probably the more useful part to understand in the book in this regard, if UPB isn't your main sticking point.

This is where i think i fail to understand the criteria, which was what i was trying to understand during the conversation. What is the "rational" test? Stef suggests conceptual language is the rational test, if i understood him correctly. But isn't that just saying humans. Which is why the second question is necessary, to see if humans who do not pass this test also get human rights.

[bradlbauer]

Mr. E. also has an interesting go at this topic.

 

 

Thanks for turning me on to Mr. E.  He seems like a cool guy,  I subscribed to his channel.

 

I listed to the podcast about animal rights. The thing Stephan said that struck me wrong is that animals arent covered under the NAP because they dont understand it.... Well... Babies. Babies cannot understand NAP. So what about them? Given a baby shouldn't be held morally responsible for not dialing 911 if its mother was choking to death... but the converse it true.

Dont get me wrong... I am a hunter and a ravenous meat eater.... but i dont think that argument can jive.

 

I believe human larvae occupy their own category.  You know that animals will never learn to communicate in concepts, but if a baby is not mutilated through neglect and abuse they will surely become moral agents.  Would you not say this difference deserves it's own categorization?  Possibly a "Pre-MoralAgent"?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

What's wrong with killing a cow? What difference can it ever make to the cow? If you can prove the cow is being tortured then that's another matter. 

[guitarstring87]

I believe human larvae occupy their own category.  You know that animals will never learn to communicate in concepts, but if a baby is not mutilated through neglect and abuse they will surely become moral agents.  Would you not say this difference deserves it's own categorization?  Possibly a "Pre-MoralAgent"?

 

That negates the entire principle of moral universality and the fundamentals of UPB. That is like saying "the government should have its own special category for the initiation of force".

[Justin K.]

What part of factory farming is torture?

Well,

Pulling teeth out with pliers and without anesthetic. Being deprived of the ability to turn around. Having your beak or tail cut off. Having your children stolen at birth and then starving them in a veal crate. Force feeding ducks until their liver explodes (which is the definition of foie gras) sending cows down a conveyor belt to have their flesh ripped off while still conscious. Being hooked up to a milking machine & raped with metal rods until you've given birth so many times your hips give out. Keeping chicks in darkness for months on end and then blinding light to simulate spring. The actions of "moral agents". This is all quite routine in industrial agriculture. Educate yourself. What is the point of philosophy if doesn't cause you to even consider that supporting this is wrong. Impotent. What hope is there for anarchy and the idea that without law we would treat each other with dignity if we can't wrap our minds around the obvious & irrefutable truth that this is wrong. There is no chance. This is why it is so disappointing that people who claim reason, empathy, philosophy, can't be just so selectively deluded where mozzarella is concerned. Please.

 

Everyone continues to argue that animals aren't moral agents. No one can give a reason why this means the they deserve the above living conditions.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

What part of factory farming is torture?

Well,

Pulling teeth out with pliers and without anesthetic. Being deprived of the ability to turn around. Having your beak or tail cut off. Having your children stolen at birth and then starving them in a veal crate. Force feeding ducks until their liver explodes (which is the definition of foie gras) sending cows down a conveyor belt to have their flesh ripped off while still conscious. Being hooked up to a milking machine & raped with metal rods until you've given birth so many times your hips give out. Keeping chicks in darkness for months on end and then blinding light to simulate spring. The actions of "moral agents". This is all quite routine in industrial agriculture. Educate yourself. What is the point of philosophy if doesn't cause you to even consider that supporting this is wrong. Impotent. What hope is there for anarchy and the idea that without law we would treat each other with dignity if we can't wrap our minds around the obvious & irrefutable truth that this is wrong. There is no chance. This is why it is so disappointing that people who claim reason, empathy, philosophy, can't be just so selectively deluded where mozzarella is concerned. Please.

 

Everyone continues to argue that animals aren't moral agents. No one can give a reason why this means the they deserve the above living conditions.

Is this a response to ME. Because if it is you've made a mistake. I did not ask about factory farming. I asked what was wrong with killing a cow. 

[guitarstring87]

What part of factory farming is torture?

Well,

Pulling teeth out with pliers and without anesthetic. Being deprived of the ability to turn around. Having your beak or tail cut off. Having your children stolen at birth and then starving them in a veal crate. Force feeding ducks until their liver explodes (which is the definition of foie gras) sending cows down a conveyor belt to have their flesh ripped off while still conscious. Being hooked up to a milking machine & raped with metal rods until you've given birth so many times your hips give out. Keeping chicks in darkness for months on end and then blinding light to simulate spring. The actions of "moral agents". This is all quite routine in industrial agriculture. Educate yourself. What is the point of philosophy if doesn't cause you to even consider that supporting this is wrong. Impotent. What hope is there for anarchy and the idea that without law we would treat each other with dignity if we can't wrap our minds around the obvious & irrefutable truth that this is wrong. There is no chance. This is why it is so disappointing that people who claim reason, empathy, philosophy, can't be just so selectively deluded where mozzarella is concerned. Please.

 

Everyone continues to argue that animals aren't moral agents. No one can give a reason why this means the they deserve the above living conditions.

You know... I have to agree. I definitely think Stephan's argument has some holes. That is why I gave the example of a baby. They do not comprehend the non aggression principle, but it is not ok to boil them alive and eat them. So i will give arguments for and against.

 

Personally, I can't stand animal activism as a whole. Most "animal lovers" are actually just "human haters" filled with venom and disdain for human existence. But I dont think the point has been logically made yet as to why we shouldn't eat other animals.

 

I think there is something to be said for genetics. It is in our make up to like meat. We are built to digest and gain nutrition from BOTH meat and fruits/vegetables. It is part of nature and maintenance of human existence. As part of our genetic make up, and being physical beings that require maintenance to survive, I dont think you can make the moral argument as to why eating is immoral. It is just nessary. You wouldn't call me immoral for taking a poo... because our body has to poop or it will get sick and die. There fore taking a poop must necessarily be a-moral at worst. It is in our genes. It is just part of being human and living.

 

You will probably argue that "science has advanced to where we no longer need to eat meat"... Well... I am sure science will advance to the point SOMEDAY that we will learn that plants have a preference NOT to be chopped down and eaten. In which case, if we have decided that eating something that doesn't want to be eaten is bad.... what are we going to eat the buddy? I think it is safe to say that most things don't want to be cut up into pieces and eaten, plant or animal.

 

If you believe eating is evil, and we need to eat to live, that must necessarily mean you believe LIFE is evil. Ayn Rand talks about this very thing in "The Virtue of Selfishness".

So if you maintain the stance that eating, or specifically eating certain foods, is immoral, the burden of proof falls on you as to why it must be so.

If you take up that position then you must explain how a starving man in africa should mortally choose to die before eating a rabbit because soy beans exist somewhere in the world. And that is a helluva task.

Whether eating meat is immoral is an interesting question. I dont think stephans explanation of NAP and moral agency is acceptable or satisfactory with the given the necessary exclusion of a human baby.

[AncapFTW]

No one said they deserve the above conditions.  Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

 

Also, I seriously doubt most of that is even true, other than a few rare cases.

[fulop78]

No one said they deserve the above conditions.  Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

 

Also, I seriously doubt most of that is even true, other than a few rare cases.

 

You seriously doubt the following is true (standard factory farming)?

"Pulling teeth out with pliers and without anesthetic. Being deprived of the ability to turn around. Having your beak or tail cut off. Having your children stolen at birth and then starving them in a veal crate. Force feeding ducks until their liver explodes (which is the definition of foie gras) sending cows down a conveyor belt to have their flesh ripped off while still conscious. Being hooked up to a milking machine & raped with metal rods until you've given birth so many times your hips give out. Keeping chicks in darkness for months on end and then blinding light to simulate spring."

Where is that doubt coming from? I mean it is a little bit hard to get the information because milk and meat industry does not want you to know it, but you really did not try hard, did you?

[AncapFTW]

You seriously doubt the following is true (standard factory farming)?

"Pulling teeth out with pliers and without anesthetic. Being deprived of the ability to turn around. Having your beak or tail cut off. Having your children stolen at birth and then starving them in a veal crate. Force feeding ducks until their liver explodes (which is the definition of foie gras) sending cows down a conveyor belt to have their flesh ripped off while still conscious. Being hooked up to a milking machine & raped with metal rods until you've given birth so many times your hips give out. Keeping chicks in darkness for months on end and then blinding light to simulate spring."

Where is that doubt coming from? I mean it is a little bit hard to get the information because milk and meat industry does not want you to know it, but you really did not try hard, did you?

I'm sorry if the fact that I actually know farmers and have even been in chicken plants puts a damper on your "Animals are skinned alive" idea.

 

I guess the reason I don't believe it is because I go to actual farmers and food factory workers, not PETA websites where they bring in videos from third world countries to try and prove that certain things are happening..

 

I'm sorry, but if the closest thing to evidence you can come up with is "why don't you believe me", you either don't care about the truth or you're trolling.

[Justin K.]

Oh the plants argument. Sure never heard this before. Well for one plants don't have things like brains, offspring to care for. They don't need things like excercise. It's not even remotely comparable.

 

Also, plants aren't being tortured before they are killed & have no awareness that it is about to happen.

 

Third, you don't actually have to kill a plant to eat it. You can trim a plant and it will regenerate, unlike say, a leg. Eating fruit, like say an apple, kills not the tree nor even explicitly prevents the seeds from being planted. In the wild they are excreted & the feces acts as fertilizer.

 

Fourth, when people say this they are being disengenuous in the first place as it isn't coming from a concern for plants. I'll watch a strawberry harvest if you watch factory farm footage.

 

The idea that what I posted isn't common in factory farming is ludicrous. There is more testimony, video evidence from AMERICAN farms readily available to anyone who cares to look.

 

To AncapFTW, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm saying they don't deserve it. If you don't feel they deserve it, but continue to support it, and argue against that it is wrong, that is your hypocrisy. I'm just pointing it out.

 

Lastly, to whoever said about the guy in Africa, it is worth noting that modern agriculture & fishing is the leading cause of hunger and malnutrition worldwide. We take their grain to feed our cattle & ship Africa aide in the most ridiculously inefficient means of producing feed possible. 1 sonar fishing vessel of the coast of Africa catches in 2 weeks what it takes 7000 local fisherman a year. We steal their livelihood & food swallowing up all other forms of sea life they could eat & then that is thrown back over as "by catch" making it useless, all so westerners can eat prawns. It is well established & widely known in ecology that agriculture is the leading cause of environmental destruction, topsoil loss, water shortage, deforestation, hunger, disease, pollution, loss of biodiversity, carbon emissions, you name it, every major obstacle facing humanity can be layed at the foot of our appetite for flesh and in amounts that are absurdly unhealthy. For all these reasons, on top of being horrifically cruel to both animals and HUMANS, vegans and animal advocates aren't the "human haters", our actions benefit humans also. Unlike omnivores.

Man it must suck being on the wrong side of such an obvious argument. Try thinking for yourselves, instead of acting like it is blasphemy to disagree with Stef on anything. No one is perfect. But you guys, and he, clearly haven't thought it through.

Here is the real question. Is it ethical to support the leading cause of almost every major problem facing humanity? Peaceful parenting is fantastic. I'm a proponent. How about peaceful living, peaceful eating? It's hard to preach one without the other and expect to be taken seriously. It I as equally absurd as giving Hitler props for being a vegeterian. Selective compassion without logical consistency.

 

 

Plus, on YouTube they say Stefan is a vegetarian, but not a vegan. I think vegetarians share far more in common with omnivores than vegans but I tend to associate with vegetarians because most vegans started out vegetarian and just hadn't made the connection yet that dairy supports the same industry - (Milk = Veal). But is this true? Does anyone know, & if he is, why? Is it for ethical or dietary reasons? (Dairy is actually far worse for you than meat in most cases.)

Oh, & you put no "damper on my animals skinned alive" argument. A, I didn't say that but skinning animals alive is how almost ALL furs, like minks and rabbit is made. That is the least likely to be uncommon as anything suggested here. I just didn't bring it up because I was talking about eating animals. It does show however, just how little some know about animal welfare before they opine.

[guitarstring87]

Oh the plants argument. Never heard that before. Well for one plants don't have things like brains, offspring to care for. They don't need things like excercise. It's not even remotely comparable.

 

Also, plants are being tortured before they are killed & how no awareness that it is about to happen.

 

Third, you don't actually have to kill a plant to eat it. You can trim a plant and it will regenerate, unlike say, a leg. Eating fruit, like say an apple. Kills not the tree nor even explicitly prevents the seeds from being planted. It the wild they are excreted & the feces acts as fertilizer.

 

Fourth, when people say this hey are being disengenuous in the first place as it isn't coming from a concern for plants. I'll watch a strawberry harvest if you watch factory farm footage.

 

The idea that what I posted isn't common in factory farming is ludicrous. There is more testimony, video evidence from AMERICAN farms readily available to anyone who cares to look.

 

To AncapFTW, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm saying they don't deserve it. If you don't feel they deserve it, but continue to support it, and argue against that it is wrong, that is your hypocrisy. I'm just pointing it out.

 

Lastly, to whoever said about the guy in Africa, it is worth noting that modern agriculture & fishing is the leading cause of hunger and malnutrition worldwide. We take their grain to feed our cattle & ship Africa aide in the most ridiculously inefficient means of producing feed possible. 1 sonar fishing vessel catches in 2 weeks what it takes 7000 local fisherman a year. We steal their livelihood & food swallowing up all other forms of sea life that is thrown back over as "by catch" making it useless so westerners can eat prawns. Agriculture is the leading cause of environmental destruction, topsoil loss, deforestation, hunger, disease, pollution, loss of biodiversity, carbon emissions, you name it, every major obstacle facing humanity can be layed at the foot of our appetite for flesh and in amounts that are absurdly unhealthy. For all these reasons, on top of being horrifically cruel to both animals and HUMANS, vegans and animal advocates aren't the "human haters", our actions benefit humans also. It must suck being on the wrong side of such an obvious argument. Try thinking for yourselves, instead of acting like it is blasphemy to disagree with Stef on anything. No one is perfect. But you guys clearly haven't thought it through.

Listen Factoid... You are in a philosophy forum. Instead of blurting out "facts" about how humans are ruining everything, maybe devote some time and energy to actually refuting an argument with logic instead of overly emotional digital vomit. I was trying to guide you back to first principles by use of Socratic Reasoning. I gave an example of a man in Africa eating a rabbit to sustain his life and supported it with a logic chain (quite politely i might add) that justified WHY it is moral to eat and even gave you a resource (The virtue of selfishness by Ayn Rand) for further study. In order for you to say "eating animals is immoral" you are tasked to logically refute my argument.

So quick recap of my basic argument goes like this: Man is alive> Man must eat to stay living> Animals are suitable for human consumption> Man can choose to eat animal OR man can die. So your argument requires that eating and animal is immoral. If there is no other available food source for a man, and he must eat to live, then you are saying that-> Living is immoral<-. Which is the EXACT principle that Ayn Rand refuted extensively in her book "the virtue of selfishness".

 

Your comment was abrasive and condescending to say the least. This is nothing new to animal activism. I watched a YouTube video recently of two guys capturing and relocating a badger NOT KILLING it as CLEARLY stated in the video description. I started reading the comments and noticed a couple trends about the Animal Rights activist comments (of where there is an overabundance). 1. They thought the people were killing the badger which means they didn't bother to read the video description. 2. They spewed a nonstop stream of hateful bile about humanity. 3. Many of them recommended twisted killings of the men who were trying to relocate the badger. One such example sticks out in my mind where the commenter said something to the effect “you should be cut 1000 times and chained to the bottom of a pool full of lemon juice till you drown”.

It occurred to me that these people don't want to think... The process goes like this: Feel>Rant>Repeat. Logic, or even READING is nowhere to be found. All they want to do is speak. If you prefer a cleche, "Those who know the least, know it the loudest"

 

Take a deep breath and relax. Instead of looking down your nose thinking you are the only one in the world who "gets it"... Try closing your mouth and opening your ears. Read some books. Talk to experts. Use logic.

 

Lastly, no one is worshiping Stephan. But considering this is HIS FORUM... you ought to check the tude bro.

 

The link to the badger video if you want to post self-righteous comments there too.

[James Dean]

I'd like Justin to actually make an argument and not just use buzz words like "torture" or "factory farm" which is just rediculous FUD tactics clear to anyone who knows farmers or have been to a farm. Are there extreme cases? Absolutely but it's just prejudice to assume all farmers are animal sadists because they own and tend livestock. I would honestly teak a break from this thread if I were you and introspect as to why this gets you so upset... It seems like you're assigning emotional states to animals that they are just not capable of experiencing.

 

If this is a topic about UPB, why has no one proposed a UPB compliant statement? I think that if you try, the problems become quite clear.

 

Lets look at the base assumption, "it is universally preferable to not murder humans." this is logically consistent, because everyone can maintain this at the same time. It applies at all times in all places (passes the coma test,mthe two men in a room, etc.) . It is a universal statement. It ends with humans because there is a clear and biological divider between humans and all other living things. Humans have higher cognitive function than all other life forms. Yes dolphins have rudimentary language and chimpanzees have complex social structures... But they don't have the ability to rationally conceptualise. When a dolphin composes a symphony, or when a parrot raised away from all human contact can reason "cogito ergo sum" all by its self, then things would be different. However this is not the case.

 

Now move on to what it would be if animals were included in this proposition. "it is universally preferable to not kill animals." there are several things wrong with this statement. The first I see is that we are making an arbitrary destination called "animals" which ranges from dogs and cats to the bacteria in your gut. This is such a wide classification of things that you can hardly say anything of value about them in aggregate, least of all universal prescriptions of ethical behavior. A more appropriate phrasing would be "it is universally preferable for a living things to never end the life of another living thing." which fails all the upb tests as a man who is in a coma is killing all kinds of bacteria, two men in a room are themselves killing bacteria just by existing, theyre killing dust mites by walking, sleeping etc... I think you see the point.

 

The second thing that jumps out at me is that statement is not universal because it prescribes preferable actions to one group but not to the other. I think we can all agree that an animal has no moral responsibility for killing people or other animals, therefor we can not make statements of universal behavior around them! I think we're just stepping over this point but if you can't hold a cow morally responsible for killing me, I can't be held morally responsible for killing a cow. Breaks universality. End of story. I've said this before, but this is the exact same thing as saying the government has the right to tax but you don't have the right to steal.

 

Any statement that includes animals in UPB extends moral responsibility to animals. Since animals have no free will and thus no moral responsibility for their actions, they cannot be shoehorned in to UPB. I know it feels like its right, but it's literally like arguing that animals should have the right to free speech, or that animals have property rights. These concepts simply don't apply to creatures of such low cognitive ability.

[Justin K.]

Your misrepresentation/biased caricature of animal activism was the last thing from polite. & no, sorry, it's not "man can choose to eat animal or die" (quick basic recap of your non-argument) in reality it is man can choose to eat vegetable & live or man can choose to be a selfish glutton & eat animal while destroying both man, animal & vegetable in most cowardly fashion. That's reality. The idea that somehow my being in a "philosophy forum" in any way negates this fact is laughable. Wrong dude. Dress it up how you want. You aren't making any sense.

[Justin K.]

& your YouTube video with random comments from whoever about whatever is hardly a relevant rebuttal to my argument, "Professor Philosophy" OMFG

So your non argument is "man can eat animal or die"? No, Son. It's man can eat vegetable & live or man can eat animal and die along with destroying animal, vegetable, & man - case u missed it the first time.

Nothing but a false dichotomy fallacy. Man neither needs to eat animal to live & is actually causing misery to both man & animal by doing so.

BTW, you know why they killed Socrates? Because proving that a premise isn't inherently true just because you can find any instance where it isn't true doesn't mean you can't find ten thousand places where it is. Ultimate sophistry. "If I throw a brick at a window & the glass doesn't break, it proves bricks don't break windows." That's all the Socratic method is. So now, as the window repair man, I' get to run around town all day throwing bricks through windows & should anyone call me on it, I'll lightly toss a piece of a brick off a thickest pane of window to prove my innocence. It's nonsense. Oh, because in some alternate universe in no way relevant to the billions of animals who suffer daily, I may be able to come up with some scenario why I can eat meat, I'll do it everyday under whatever circumstance.

 

I don't care whose forum it is.

 

NONSENSE GETS IT RAW.

[AncapFTW]

"To AncapFTW, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm saying they don't deserve it. If you don't feel they deserve it, but continue to support it, and argue against that it is wrong, that is your hypocrisy. I'm just pointing it out."

 

So it's hypocrisy to say you don't believe something is happening, and to therefore not try to stop it?  Gotcha. 

Aliens are attacking New York right now, and throwing people into woodchippers.  Now, help me fight against it or you're a hypocrite.

 

I'm just going to start assuming you are a troll and start ignoring you now.
 

[fulop78]

I'm sorry if the fact that I actually know farmers and have even been in chicken plants puts a damper on your "Animals are skinned alive" idea.

 

I guess the reason I don't believe it is because I go to actual farmers and food factory workers, not PETA websites where they bring in videos from third world countries to try and prove that certain things are happening..

 

I'm sorry, but if the closest thing to evidence you can come up with is "why don't you believe me", you either don't care about the truth or you're trolling.

 

So PETA videos are not facts and evidence because ...? Are they staged? Third world? Most of what I've seen starred english speaking people. They do not reflect industry standards because you know some half decent chicken farmers? And you are criticizing me for having a "why don't you believe me" argument?

Listen Factoid... You are in a philosophy forum. Instead of blurting out "facts" about how humans are ruining everything, maybe devote some time and energy to actually refuting an argument with logic instead of overly emotional digital vomit. I was trying to guide you back to first principles by use of Socratic Reasoning. I gave an example of a man in Africa eating a rabbit to sustain his life and supported it with a logic chain (quite politely i might add) that justified WHY it is moral to eat and even gave you a resource (The virtue of selfishness by Ayn Rand) for further study. In order for you to say "eating animals is immoral" you are tasked to logically refute my argument.

So quick recap of my basic argument goes like this: Man is alive> Man must eat to stay living> Animals are suitable for human consumption> Man can choose to eat animal OR man can die. So your argument requires that eating and animal is immoral. If there is no other available food source for a man, and he must eat to live, then you are saying that-> Living is immoral<-. Which is the EXACT principle that Ayn Rand refuted extensively in her book "the virtue of selfishness".

 

Your comment was abrasive and condescending to say the least. This is nothing new to animal activism. I watched a YouTube video recently of two guys capturing and relocating a badger NOT KILLING it as CLEARLY stated in the video description. I started reading the comments and noticed a couple trends about the Animal Rights activist comments (of where there is an overabundance). 1. They thought the people were killing the badger which means they didn't bother to read the video description. 2. They spewed a nonstop stream of hateful bile about humanity. 3. Many of them recommended twisted killings of the men who were trying to relocate the badger. One such example sticks out in my mind where the commenter said something to the effect “you should be cut 1000 times and chained to the bottom of a pool full of lemon juice till you drown”.

It occurred to me that these people don't want to think... The process goes like this: Feel>Rant>Repeat. Logic, or even READING is nowhere to be found. All they want to do is speak. If you prefer a cleche, "Those who know the least, know it the loudest"

 

Take a deep breath and relax. Instead of looking down your nose thinking you are the only one in the world who "gets it"... Try closing your mouth and opening your ears. Read some books. Talk to experts. Use logic.

 

Lastly, no one is worshiping Stephan. But considering this is HIS FORUM... you ought to check the tude bro.

 

The link to the badger video if you want to post self-righteous comments there too.

 

If there is no other available food source for a man ... other then your purpose-built hypothetical situation, can you tell me when this is true? Isn't you 'argument' akin to a life-boat scenario? Let's take it a step further then, what if there were no animals around would it then be alright to eat humans?

[Justin K.]

Ok, fine. Because idk where my other comments went anyway, I'll try to be more polite. I'll endure all the caricatures of animal advocacy & pretend no one else has been condescending or obnoxious.

 

Because you want to bring it back to Socratic reasoning...

Even if I were to grant that should a man be starving in Africa with no vegetation available, that his eating a rabbit would be acceptable, how does that argue that it is a moral thing to do when vegetation is readily available. This is why people had a serious problem with Socrates: proving that a premise isn't inherently true because you can find an instance where it isn't true doesn't mean you can't find ten thousand places where it is. Ultimate sophistry. "If I throw a brick at a window & the glass doesn't break, it doesn't prove bricks don't break windows." That's all the Socratic method is. So now, as the window repair man I'll run around town throwing bricks through windows & should anyone call me on it, I'll lightly toss a piece of a brick off a thick paned window to prove my innocence. It's silly. Because in some alternate universe in no way relevant to the billions of animals who suffer daily, I may be able to come up with some scenario why I can eat meat, I'll do it everyday under whatever circumstance I feel like. Reductio ad absurdum isn't a substitute for tangible, real life choices.

Guitar strings:

You said your argument is

"Man is alive> Man must eat to stay living> Animals are suitable for human consumption> Man can choose to eat animal OR man can die"

In reality, it is man has a choice to eat plant or animal. Man's insistence upon eating an ungodly amount of animals is leading to the destruction of all plant and animal life in a completely unsustainable manner. ( ie, Man has eliminated 85% of all the large fish in the seas of the world since commercial fishing began in 1954)

 

What is the moral choice man should be making?

 

Your argument amounts to a false dilemma. The prospect of starving versus eating a rabbit we can easily move beyond. We have more more relevant and pertinent things to consider. This is what the animal rights issue is actually about, best practices. Just because if I were being chased by a deranged lunatic with a knife I may in an extreme circumstance drive on flat tires, doesn't mean that I do so in my daily commute.

[James Dean]

So PETA videos are not facts and evidence because ...? Are they staged? Third world? Most of what I've seen starred english speaking people. They do not reflect industry standards because you know some half decent chicken farmers? And you are criticizing me for having a "why don't you believe me" argument?

 

PETA is an unreliable source because they have a huge financial incentive to maintain the source of the outrage that fuels their funding. If they exaggerate the conditions that animals experience, people feel guilty, people donate more money. If PETA cared about the welfare of animals over the welfare of their bank account, they wouldn't be euthanizing 90% of the animals they intake (https://www.petakillsanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf), most of which are healthy and adoptable, because they have a personal belief that no one should have companion animals. It would be more apt to call these shelters slaughterhouses, and are much more sickening to me. Cows that are killed for meat serve some net benefit, cats and dogs that are killed for ideological reasons could have brought so much joy to people as companions but instead were stuffed in trash bags and thrown in a freezer (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html)

 

So it's a good idea to be skepticl of PETA sources as well as other "animals advocacy" groups that engage in similar practices like the HSUS or the ASPCA. I would be equally as skeptical of a video made and paid for by a meat farm that showed how good and happy all the animals were. Follow the money.

 

But again, no one has made any argument or theory that could be evaluated by the UPB framework. No one has addressed my or others arguments with anything other than emotion and ad homs (hint: because it's not about the animals it's about your childhood) so I think it's safe to say animals cannot be covered under UPB because then it ceases to be universal. If anyone has any counter arguments using the UPB framework, please speak up.

[guitarstring87]

If there is no other available food source for a man ... other then your purpose-built hypothetical situation, can you tell me when this is true? Isn't you 'argument' akin to a life-boat scenario? Let's take it a step further then, what if there were no animals around would it then be alright to eat humans?

 

Well I wasn't trying to set up a lifeboat scenario. I was just trying to keep the example situation as simple as possible so as to avoid tangents and still show the VERY real struggle for food.

 

The fact is animals are a valuable food source and a wealth of hard to come by nutrients and other products. The human body requires fats and proteins to survive and those nutrients are not easily found outside the animal kingdom. For example you can and will quickly die in the wilderness without an extremely high caloric intake. Animals, and especially animal fat has an EXTREMELY high caloric value. Even today a man can seriously injure himself or die on a vegetable diet if he does not carefully study and understand complex nutritional factors. Sure... maybe no big deal today when we understand nutrition and you can drive to the grocery store and buy an avocado from California for your fats, and some rice from Taiwan and beans from Mexico for your protein... but supermarkets have only VERY recently become available and still, for only a small portion of the world population. The point I was making about the man in Africa was that many of the people living in the 3rd world are barely living AT ALL. But you would call them immoral for sustaining their lives. 

 

Speaking on the note of universality your moral framework not only has to extend to ALL humans, but to all humans throughout ALL TIME. So for you to tell a man in 2015 that he cant eat an animal because it is immoral, then you must be able to tell a man living in 800BC the same thing. To tell a man even 100 years ago living in america that he can't eat meat or use animal products would have been a death sentence. That is why I made reference to Rand's argument.

 

I think the concept of scarcity has been nearly entirely lost on our current generation. People seem to be of the opinion that nature just a wonderful abundance of fruits and berries that it is just crazy that people would EVER consider eating a cute little cow. To those people... Come on out here and join me in the mountain deserts of Afghanistan. Come tell this goat herder that the goats he is raising for food is an immoral act. Spit on him. Call him a murderer. But here is the thing about animals... They take something that humans cant eat, and turn it into something humans CAN eat. So seeing as this Afghan goat herder can't eat sagebrush and thistles... and that is pretty much ALL there is in this god awful place.... but goats CAN eat sagebrush and thistles.... Can you see where I am going with this?

 

It is not just some BS life boat scenario.... When it comes to food... LIFE IS a lifeboat scenario for the vast majority of the earths population today, and throughout the entirety of human history. The concept that animals are an immoral food source is anti-life... not for animals... but for humans. If you understand this concept and still hold to your pro animal opinion, then you are a “human hater”.

 

Go out into nature for a bit. Go on. Don't take any food or water. Don't bring any sort of animal product at all. Go out into nature and see how long you last. You will quickly find out scarcity is real. Animal activists are disconnected from reality.

[Justin K.]

Guitarstring87

Sorry, but you are wildly misinformed. Now we are on to nutrition instead of morality, however u want it. The fact is there is not a single nutrient in meat not better supplied by vegetables. Every nutrient in meat started out in a vegetable and are hand me downs. 4 ounces of black beans has the same amount of protein as red meat with a third of the calories, minus the cholesterol & saturated fat while packed with fiber. B12 is neither present in meat nor vegetables but is a bacteria. Meat I a reliable source as it is "reliably contaminated with fecal matter". I'll stick nature made. There's big many myths invented by the meat industry, such as "complete protein", amino acids, B12, but none have any truth to them. All the strongest mammals are herbivores. Horses, elephants, gorillas, rhinos, hippos, and yes man. The Guinness book record holding strong man is vegan. Google "comparative anatomy chart" (vegan soul fest) homo Sapien sapiens share almost everything with fruit eating (frugivorous) animals, plenty with herbivores, very very little with omnivores, and zilch with carnivores. Even the carnivores, like lions, eat the guts first when they attack a gazelle going for the plant flora, then the fatty acids, and lastly they move to the muscle, if they eat it at all. Nature knows better. Meat is poison. They now know why. Red meat in particular they have now identified the sugar that is indigestible leading to an auto immune response that treats lamb, beef, bison, & pork as a foreign invader creating inflammation that causes cancer. We just didn't use to lie Lon enough. But meat has been linked to Alzheimer's, mad cow, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, & is the Genesis of AIDS. Humans are herbivores and every disease we die from is in direct proportion to the degree we ignore this fact.

Our teeth and the length as well as the chemical

Make up of our digestive systems are dead give aways

[fulop78]

So PETA videos are not facts and evidence because ...? Are they staged? Third world? Most of what I've seen starred english speaking people. They do not reflect industry standards because you know some half decent chicken farmers? And you are criticizing me for having a "why don't you believe me" argument?

 

PETA is an unreliable source because they have a huge financial incentive to maintain the source of the outrage that fuels their funding. If they exaggerate the conditions that animals experience, people feel guilty, people donate more money. If PETA cared about the welfare of animals over the welfare of their bank account, they wouldn't be euthanizing 90% of the animals they intake (https://www.petakillsanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf), most of which are healthy and adoptable, because they have a personal belief that no one should have companion animals. It would be more apt to call these shelters slaughterhouses, and are much more sickening to me. Cows that are killed for meat serve some net benefit, cats and dogs that are killed for ideological reasons could have brought so much joy to people as companions but instead were stuffed in trash bags and thrown in a freezer (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html)

 

So it's a good idea to be skepticl of PETA sources as well as other "animals advocacy" groups that engage in similar practices like the HSUS or the ASPCA. I would be equally as skeptical of a video made and paid for by a meat farm that showed how good and happy all the animals were. Follow the money.

 

But again, no one has made any argument or theory that could be evaluated by the UPB framework. No one has addressed my or others arguments with anything other than emotion and ad homs (hint: because it's not about the animals it's about your childhood) so I think it's safe to say animals cannot be covered under UPB because then it ceases to be universal. If anyone has any counter arguments using the UPB framework, please speak up.

I agree with you that there is monetary incentive for PETA and perhaps other groups too. Still, those videos are not staged. What happened in those pictures happened and you can not deny it. You can not deny that milk cows get their babies taken away from them and thereafter they mourn for weeks.

 

To UPB animals are things - not a moral agent that you can do anything to without any consequences. No argument for animals can be made with such premises. I will have to dig deeper into UPB to find where exactly it goes wrong if anywhere. Though I'm afraid I will not find much about animals. In a way I agree that human to human interaction is much more important (from human perspective).

 

Also can anyone explain how does self ownership argument not work for animals?

 

Yes, it may be about my childhood. It may be about yours too. I'm not sure where that leads us.

 

Also I appreciate your very civil answer.

[fulop78]

Well I wasn't trying to set up a lifeboat scenario. I was just trying to keep the example situation as simple as possible so as to avoid tangents and still show the VERY real struggle for food.

 

The fact is animals are a valuable food source and a wealth of hard to come by nutrients and other products. The human body requires fats and proteins to survive and those nutrients are not easily found outside the animal kingdom. For example you can and will quickly die in the wilderness without an extremely high caloric intake. Animals, and especially animal fat has an EXTREMELY high caloric value. Even today a man can seriously injure himself or die on a vegetable diet if he does not carefully study and understand complex nutritional factors. Sure... maybe no big deal today when we understand nutrition and you can drive to the grocery store and buy an avocado from California for your fats, and some rice from Taiwan and beans from Mexico for your protein... but supermarkets have only VERY recently become available and still, for only a small portion of the world population. The point I was making about the man in Africa was that many of the people living in the 3rd world are barely living AT ALL. But you would call them immoral for sustaining their lives.

 

I am a vegan. I am comfortably surviving on the plant products of local farmers. Nuts, seeds, grains, legumes, potatoes, fruit and vegetables are all anyone needs. You can grow a lot in a lot of places. I eat rice and avocado too, only because I like to not because I need to.

I don't call desperate people in desperate conditions immoral. I call you or anyone with a fat veal steak on their plate immoral. Because you have a choice.

It takes about 7kg of grain to get 1 kg of beef. If feeding people is our concern, the solution seems obvious.

 

Speaking on the note of universality your moral framework not only has to extend to ALL humans, but to all humans throughout ALL TIME. So for you to tell a man in 2015 that he cant eat an animal because it is immoral, then you must be able to tell a man living in 800BC the same thing. To tell a man even 100 years ago living in america that he can't eat meat or use animal products would have been a death sentence. That is why I made reference to Rand's argument.

 

As I said above, I don't call desperate people in desperate conditions immoral. I don't have an argument for animals that can be evaluated by UPB. I don't think UPB allows such argument to be made.

 

I think the concept of scarcity has been nearly entirely lost on our current generation. People seem to be of the opinion that nature just a wonderful abundance of fruits and berries that it is just crazy that people would EVER consider eating a cute little cow. To those people... Come on out here and join me in the mountain deserts of Afghanistan. Come tell this goat herder that the goats he is raising for food is an immoral act. Spit on him. Call him a murderer. But here is the thing about animals... They take something that humans cant eat, and turn it into something humans CAN eat. So seeing as this Afghan goat herder can't eat sagebrush and thistles... and that is pretty much ALL there is in this god awful place.... but goats CAN eat sagebrush and thistles.... Can you see where I am going with this?

It is not just some BS life boat scenario.... When it comes to food... LIFE IS a lifeboat scenario for the vast majority of the earths population today, and throughout the entirety of human history. The concept that animals are an immoral food source is anti-life... not for animals... but for humans. If you understand this concept and still hold to your pro animal opinion, then you are a “human hater”.

 

Go out into nature for a bit. Go on. Don't take any food or water. Don't bring any sort of animal product at all. Go out into nature and see how long you last. You will quickly find out scarcity is real. Animal activists are disconnected from reality.

 

 

I don't quite see where you are going. Can this poor afghan goat herder change his conditions? Do you survive there also by eating his goats? Does he eat goat products only? Things can grow in a lot of places, but its is easier to run away and survive with a herd of oats than with a field of half grown crops. Just an idea.

 

'Go out into nature for a bit. Go on. Don't take any food or water.' - there. How would it make it anything but a constructed scarcity. Is a local farm nature enough for you? Can I work in the farm for food? Do you need to cut a wast amount of choices to prove your point?  In future would you please refrain from calling people you don't agree with disconnected from reality?

[Justin K.]

I actually live on a farm, off the grid, out in the woods. I have propane heat, wood burning stove, barn, tractor, septic, well water, you can see it in my profile pic. I'm the last thing from disconnected with nature. But here was that comparative anatomy chart to show how "natural" eating meat is for humans.

 

http://www.vegansoulfest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Comparative-Anatomy-of-Eating-Chart-Dr.-Milton-R.-Mills.jpg

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 I've been a vegetarian for 3-4 years. After listening to Justin K's insufferable sanctimony and inability to answer a simple question I am considering eating meat. If I can find some beef that's been farmed humanly I might indulge. Right now I'm only vegetarian because I'm mindlessly committed to it. I'm pretty sure now that, in and of itself, eating meat is not immoral. 

[fulop78]

PETA is an unreliable source because they have a huge financial incentive to maintain the source of the outrage that fuels their funding. If they exaggerate the conditions that animals experience, people feel guilty, people donate more money. If PETA cared about the welfare of animals over the welfare of their bank account, they wouldn't be euthanizing 90% of the animals they intake (https://www.petakillsanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf), most of which are healthy and adoptable, because they have a personal belief that no one should have companion animals. It would be more apt to call these shelters slaughterhouses, and are much more sickening to me. Cows that are killed for meat serve some net benefit, cats and dogs that are killed for ideological reasons could have brought so much joy to people as companions but instead were stuffed in trash bags and thrown in a freezer (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html)

 

So it's a good idea to be skepticl of PETA sources as well as other "animals advocacy" groups that engage in similar practices like the HSUS or the ASPCA. I would be equally as skeptical of a video made and paid for by a meat farm that showed how good and happy all the animals were. Follow the money.

 

But again, no one has made any argument or theory that could be evaluated by the UPB framework. No one has addressed my or others arguments with anything other than emotion and ad homs (hint: because it's not about the animals it's about your childhood) so I think it's safe to say animals cannot be covered under UPB because then it ceases to be universal. If anyone has any counter arguments using the UPB framework, please speak up.

(I already replied to this, not sure why it is not showing)

I am not a PETA advocate, there may be financial incentive. But huge? In comparison with what? Surely not milk and meat industry financial incentive.

Still, those videos show what they show. That is the reality of what happened then and there. Is it not an industry standard for milk cows to be separated from their child right after birth? Do they not mourn for weeks thereafter? How is one quite skeptical about that? What does it even mean?

 

For UPB an animal is a thing, not a moral agent. Therefore no argument can be made for animals within that framework. You can do whatever to animals and there can not be anything morally wrong with it. I can not accept that. I have to check the premises UPB is based on.

[Justin K.]

Fantastic teabagger. That added so much to the dialogue. You are fairly certain it isn't immoral - because you are. Wow, what lucid & persuasive rhetoric. I've answered all questions. The omnivores are the ones who can't argue why given a choice, choosing to cause more harm than less is a moral thing to do. & so you are a vegetarian, just don't have any idea why? It would be expected then that you haven't thought it through.

[AncapFTW]

 

 

I am a vegan. I am comfortably surviving on the plant products of local farmers. Nuts, seeds, grains, legumes, potatoes, fruit and vegetables are all anyone needs. You can grow a lot in a lot of places. I eat rice and avocado too, only because I like to not because I need to.

I don't call desperate people in desperate conditions immoral. I call you or anyone with a fat veal steak on their plate immoral. Because you have a choice.

It takes about 7kg of grain to get 1 kg of beef. If feeding people is our concern, the solution seems obvious.

 

 

As I said above, I don't call desperate people in desperate conditions immoral. I don't have an argument for animals that can be evaluated by UPB. I don't think UPB allows such argument to be made.

 

 

 

I don't quite see where you are going. Can this poor afghan goat herder change his conditions? Do you survive there also by eating his goats? Does he eat goat products only? Things can grow in a lot of places, but its is easier to run away and survive with a herd of oats than with a field of half grown crops. Just an idea.

 

'Go out into nature for a bit. Go on. Don't take any food or water.' - there. How would it make it anything but a constructed scarcity. Is a local farm nature enough for you? Can I work in the farm for food? Do you need to cut a wast amount of choices to prove your point?  In future would you please refrain from calling people you don't agree with disconnected from reality?

 

1)first highlighted section: You don't feed cows grain all of the time, so this is meaningless.  Cows eat grass and hay, which is grown in a field where they live.  Even if that hay/feed plant is harvested and taken to another place, it isn't about weight, it's about nutritional value.  Beef is about 26% protein if I remember properly.  Oats are 16.89% protein.  The plants they grow on have very little protein.

 

2) Yes, you might be able to farm the area (maybe not as crop plants are much pickier than weeds for their growing conditions), but that would require more workers, which means more food is needed.  One person can manage a herd of hundreds.

[fulop78]

1)first highlighted section: You don't feed cows grain all of the time, so this is meaningless.  Cows eat grass and hay, which is grown in a field where they live.  Even if that hay/feed plant is harvested and taken to another place, it isn't about weight, it's about nutritional value.  Beef is about 26% protein if I remember properly.  Oats are 16.89% protein.  The plants they grow on have very little protein.

 

2) Yes, you might be able to farm the area (maybe not as crop plants are much pickier than weeds for their growing conditions), but that would require more workers, which means more food is needed.  One person can manage a herd of hundreds.

 

1) That is a conservative estimated average for US&EU cow factories. Why is it meaningless? That is how much grain we currently feed them. They eat hay and grass in addition to that. Water consumption is huge too. And the overuse of antibiotics is outright dangerous.

[J. D. Stembal]

I am a vegan. I am comfortably surviving on the plant products of local farmers. Nuts, seeds, grains, legumes, potatoes, fruit and vegetables are all anyone needs. You can grow a lot in a lot of places. I eat rice and avocado too, only because I like to not because I need to.

I don't call desperate people in desperate conditions immoral. I call you or anyone with a fat veal steak on their plate immoral. Because you have a choice.

It takes about 7kg of grain to get 1 kg of beef. If feeding people is our concern, the solution seems obvious.

 

 

Why isn't the killing, torturing and farming of plants considered immoral?

 

Cows don't eat grain (a highly genetically modified grass), they eat natural grasses. Buy only grass-fed, pasture-raised beef and you don't have to worry about sustainability. Feeding people is not a concern in the free market.

 

The high water consumption of beef production comes from agriculture, and the growing of the grains. Stop feeding cows grain, and the problem solves itself.

 

Next, are you are going to tell us that cow farts are causing global warming? Stop buying into leftist propaganda, and think for yourself.

[Justin K.]

I answered the plant question above. Plants aren't being tortured. You need a brain for that. You also do not have to kill a plant to eat it or it's fruit. But to add a 5th reason. Even if it was the same thing, farming animals kills far more plants than farming plants does, and more suffering in general as first we feed way more plants to the animals we kill than would be required to feed us. 2 is larger number than 1, so even just from a utilitarian standpoint it makes no sense.

 

But even worse...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fda-finally-admits-chicken-meat-contains-cancer-causing-arsenic/5353189

 

After 60 years of denial the FDA now admits that Pfizer has been putting cancer causing arsenic in chicken feed which ends up in chicken meat for decades. Big pharma is a huge cancer causing, chemo pushing, Hegellian Dialectic. You don't want to eat it. The animals get the last laugh. The wages of sin is death indeed.

But again, since I guess you didnt read the thread but brought it up, animal agriculture, cow farts included is the leading cause of CO2 emmisions, water shortage, topsoil loss, biodiversity loss, pollution, hunger and malnutrition in the 3rd world, disease, among other things, the world over. This isn't even disputed.

[fulop78]

Why isn't the killing, torturing and farming of plants considered immoral?

 

Cows don't eat grain (a highly genetically modified grass), they eat natural grasses. Buy only grass-fed, pasture-raised beef and you don't have to worry about sustainability. Feeding people is not a concern in the free market.

 

The high water consumption of beef production comes from agriculture, and the growing of the grains. Stop feeding cows grain, and the problem solves itself.

 

Next, are you are going to tell us that cow farts are causing global warming? Stop buying into leftist propaganda, and think for yourself.

 

Show me a central nervous system in a plant. Show me it's brain and how the pain centers light up on emr scan.

 

Cows don't eat grain ... right, so where does 40-50% grain production goes to? What exactly are you suggesting here?

 

For every litre of milk produced a cow needs to drink at least three litres of water. For high performing cows that’s 150 litres of water every day – if you reduce the amount of water you reduce the amount of milk a cow produces. http://www.delaval.com/en/-/Dairy-knowledge-and-advice/Cow-comfort/Drinking-areas/

Sure it is a lot less than is used to grow grain (they don't eat) to feed them. If you stop feeding them grain ... well, there is not enough pastures for all of them.

 

In future, would you please refrain from mockingly speculating what I am going to tell you next?

[AncapFTW]

"Show me a central nervous system in a plant. Show me it's brain and how the pain centers light up on emr scan."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?list_uids=16843034&cmd=Retrieve&indexed=google

 

Long story short: They respond to sound, rain, sunlight, injury.  Some can respond to other external stimuli like touch in the Venus Fly Trap.  They even send electrical signals through their "bodies" and produce Serotonin and Dopamine.

 

Not exactly pain response, but they definitely are just mindless growing things either.