[Ea]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

If you see humans as another animal species, and killing an animal of a 'higher order' is no worse than killing something of a 'lower' order - it seems to suggest that killing a human is no worse morally than killing a daisy.

Personally I think Peter Singer's approach that takes suffering into account is quite logical, because suffering is so signicant to creatures that can experience it:
"If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering—insofar as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being."

Good point! Okay, I think it's wrong to kill a member of my own species (but why - as in an explanation that makes rational sense - I haven't worked out yet - perhaps I can't).

But what I was trying to address is: why is it, for example, generally considered worse to kill a monkey than a mouse, worse to kill a mouse than a fish, and worse to kill a fish than an apple tree?

Someone (and you, Sparrow) offered up "suffering" - but then I ask, what does it mean? What does "suffering" mean? Who is to determine the level of suffering of other living things? I don't think we can and that makes the term "suffering" meaningless. I don't think it's "logical" to take suffering into account - perhaps it would be better to call it "sensible", but I would still ask, what "sense"?

I also don't 'like' the term "suffering". In my western-european ears, with 1000 years of christian, cultural baggage, it comes with a number of associations and connotations, and I suspect it does to most of you here.

While I've written this, my mind keeps returning to the christian idea of man as care-taker of nature, and an implicit understanding that humans are somehow above all other animals. And I think that idea may lie behind the understanding of "suffering".

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'd go along with the 'complex nervous system' idea - it's hard to see why plants would evolve to experience pain, as it wouldn't benefit them - given their inability to avoid the source of suffering.

But here again, you have an implicit understanding of "pain" and "suffering" - you seem to think that you can determine what it is and whether a plant can experience it or not. That's what I question.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Also, even if plants were able to experience suffering, and it became practically impossible for us to avoid causing pain to them and go on living ourselves - should we not minimise the amount of suffering we cause?
A lot of meat eaters berate vegetarians with the 'how do you know the carrot doesn't suffer?' argument. But even if that were true, there would still be much less suffering in a nut cutlet than in a steak - which comes from far more plants, as well as the cow.

Actually, why should we minimise suffering? I'm asking in a "devil's advocate" sense, but really, why should we? Because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling? Is it advantageous for us as a species?

My gut feeling towards both suffering and causing it, is to avoid it if I can, but I really don't see a good explanation for why, and I don't understand why I should feel like this. I happen to do so, but I'm not sure at all whether it's right. It's certainly not rational, and I think that bothers me.