A
I'm unable to access the specific article you mentioned, but I can provide a general overview of the common arguments and responses related to the question: "Why are you vegan if plants have feelings just like animals?"
🌱 The Question: Why Vegan if Plants Have Feelings?
This question often arises in discussions about veganism, challenging the ethical consistency of avoiding animal products while still consuming plants. The argument suggests that if plants can feel pain or have consciousness, then consuming them would also be ethically questionable.
🧠 Common Vegan Responses
-
Scientific Uncertainty: Current scientific consensus indicates that plants do not possess a nervous system or consciousness in the way animals do. While plants can respond to stimuli, these reactions are not indicative of pain or suffering.
-
Ethical Prioritization: Veganism primarily aims to reduce harm to sentient beings—those capable of experiencing pain and suffering. Since animals have well-documented capacity for suffering, the ethical focus is on minimizing harm to them.
-
Practical Considerations: The scale of harm caused by plant agriculture is generally lower than that caused by animal agriculture, both in terms of direct suffering and environmental impact.
🧬 Scientific Perspective
While plants can exhibit complex behaviors and responses to their environment, these are typically chemical or mechanical reactions rather than conscious experiences. The absence of a nervous system in plants suggests they do not experience pain in the way animals do.
🌍 Conclusion
The question serves as a philosophical challenge to vegan ethics, but the prevailing scientific and ethical perspectives support veganism as a means to reduce harm to sentient beings. The focus remains on minimizing suffering where it is most likely to occur—among animals capable of experiencing pain.
If you're interested in a more detailed exploration of this topic, I can provide further information or direct you to relevant resources.
A
BAHAMAS
A
It is therefore, really surprising to find that
different followers of sub-commentators, have
internecine wordy war-fare with one another dividing
themselves into conflicting camps of (1) the
avachhinna-viida (theory advocating the limitation of
jivas by the mind), (2) pratibimba-viida (the theory
insisting that jrvas are reflections of Atrnan in avidya),
and (3) iibhiisa-viida (the theory that believes the jlva
is only a semblance of Paramatman). This needless
internal fight has been the result of ignoring that
ancient V edantins GaU(~apada and Sailkara had cited
such illustrations only to clarify the teaching of the
absolute unity of Atrnan, and not to formulate anyone
definition of jtva-nature. This would become evident
to anyone who carefully persues the following
statement of SaIlkara
a
He is verily, unborn both within and without' (Mu. 2-1-2),
'Now this Brahman is without anything antecedent, and
without anything consequent, without anything interior or
without anything exterior ; this Atman intuiting everything, is
Brahman' (Br. 2-5-19) - texts like these mainly purporting to
teach the absolute nature of Brahman without manifoldness,
and nothing else, it has been conclusively shown in the Siitra
'Tat tu samanvayat', 'But it has really the Sastra alone for
its source' (VS. 1-1-4). Therefore in texts of this kind, Brahman
has to be accepted and taken to be, of the very nature as
revealed in these, that is, as being emphatically without
specific features.
a
No comments:
Post a Comment