FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

PLANTS HAVE SOULS?

   Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science
 


supernova1987a
I saw one of the frihost members with signature: Plants have souls

Even if plants have souls they do not have nervous system and brain to feel any pain if we hurt them or kill them.

--
Prediction:ddpmtsedd
ocalhoun
Okay... I'll take the bait.

supernova1987a wrote:

Even if plants have souls they do not have nervous system and brain to feel any pain if we hurt them or kill them.


Does one need an animal's nervous system and brain in order to feel pain?

Many plants, though they do so slowly, do react to stimulus, and though they don't have an electro-chemical nervous system, they do have a more primitive, slower, chemical system that enables communication from one part to another.

Besides that, you have the problem of harming a living being... There are humans who cannot feel pain at all, but it would still be quite immoral to wantonly cut off an arm, justifying it in that they don't feel the pain of it.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Besides that, you have the problem of harming a living being... There are humans who cannot feel pain at all, but it would still be quite immoral to wantonly cut off an arm, justifying it in that they don't feel the pain of it.
Hmmm...but what ethic(s) is in play here? Do as you would be done by?
Are humans a separate category of life which require a separate morality/ethics?
Is (for example) a brain damaged human 'deserving' of different/better treatment than a high primate (say a chimp)?
This is a very difficult moral area and many commentators and critics don't really examine it - they rely on the 'sanctity of human life' argument which I feel is deeply unsatisfying, being based on a spiritual notion with no empirical basis....
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
- they rely on the 'sanctity of human life' argument which I feel is deeply unsatisfying, being based on a spiritual notion with no empirical basis....

Which I, quite neatly, replace with the 'sanctity of all life' argument.

The only real problem with that system is that it implies cannibalism to be moral. Additional 'rules' might have to be put in place for that exception.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
- they rely on the 'sanctity of human life' argument which I feel is deeply unsatisfying, being based on a spiritual notion with no empirical basis....

Which I, quite neatly, replace with the 'sanctity of all life' argument.

The only real problem with that system is that it implies cannibalism to be moral. Additional 'rules' might have to be put in place for that exception.

Ermm...so what does one eat under this system of ethics? Do you distinguish between plant and animal life? Presumably no life form has any innate 'superiority' if all life is sacred?
xalophus
supernova1987a wrote:
PLANTS HAVE SOULS?

I agree - plants do have souls.

With the exception of Cacti - they have flamgarbs.



How is this a science discussion, again ?
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
- they rely on the 'sanctity of human life' argument which I feel is deeply unsatisfying, being based on a spiritual notion with no empirical basis....

Which I, quite neatly, replace with the 'sanctity of all life' argument.

The only real problem with that system is that it implies cannibalism to be moral. Additional 'rules' might have to be put in place for that exception.

Ermm...so what does one eat under this system of ethics? Do you distinguish between plant and animal life? Presumably no life form has any innate 'superiority' if all life is sacred?

No distinguishing: that's why I'm not a vegetarian. It's also why my particular moral system states that it is acceptable to kill for food (and other necessities of life).
Though I wouldn't expect it of anyone else, I've adapted the Christian habit of saying grace before eating, but instead of thanking God for my food, I thank the animals and plants that died to provide me with food.

Personally, the only thing I wouldn't eat on moral grounds would be horseflesh. Not because I think it would be more immoral to kill a horse than any other living thing, it's just my personal preference not to.

xalophus wrote:


How is this a science discussion, again ?

I think the OP intended it to be, using an argument about the lack of nervous systems. But who says a nervous system is a requirement for a soul?

... It has gotten a bit sidetracked since then.
chatrack
I beleave any living beaing have soule no matter it have nerve or not.
ocalhoun
chatrack wrote:
I beleave any living beaing have soule no matter it have nerve or not.

Also non-living things... though non-living things are different in that they suffer no harm from being destroyed (one larger 'soul' becomes many smaller 'souls'). But, really, the word 'soul' isn't quite as applicable once you get down to that level. It is essentially the same thing, but the word 'soul' has connotations not appropriate for non-living things.
Related topics

Paranormal phenomenon
clip of me & mates getting stung by plants
"Buddha knows all answers!"
Poem Inner Woods
Animals
Plants... (legal plants)
I'll change the world, and so will you.
Plants can make a call now!
Carnivorous Plants
A question for all you monotheists.
Do you have a soul?
Community wholesale order in Portland OR for edible plants
Dream in the Machine - Short Story (unpublished)
Talk between Muslim and Atheist.
Why do people say that we're separate from animals?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.