coginawheel

As a sidepoint, I'm going to have to argue that while a soul can be considered a rational concept, it is by know means scientific. I have not aware of any peer reviewed research utilizing the scientific method to show that a soul exists.

But to get to your main point, my question again is why are plants excluded from this state? I really don't get it. You call out that animals are different because they aren't inanimate beings, but neither are plants. Plants are complex, highly evolved multi cellular organisms that are certainly not inanimate.

If the argument is that animals are a life form that are closer form of life to humans so that's why you shouldn't eat them, I can buy that argument. It's a similar moral argument for why you shouldn't eat humans.

But that's a lot different from claiming that animals have souls/spirit/animus and plants don't. From any biological perspective plants are just as alive as animals. Plants communicate, respond to touch, many even actively kill other organisms (venus fly traps, bird catcher trees, etc.), they've been experimentally verified to exhibit some type of memory, and they respond to all sorts of stimuli (for example, turning towards the sun). Rationally, isn't that pretty darn alive? It seems shortsighted to think that plants lack a spirit/soul.

Yes, I've had similar viewpoints.

I personally think tying of the soul to intelligence seems a weird distinction. Does that mean that if person goes into a vegetative state, they have lost their soul? Do animals that are less intelligent have a less likelihood of a soul? If you can breed animals without mental faculties are they soul-less? Does the fact that we can't understand if plants are intelligent meant they lack souls? These seem like petty distinctions.

To me there is a notion that life has some intrinsic value to it. In parallel there is a notion that to exist as life, humans have to rely on destroying life. To me these are equally important, recognizing that life has worth but also to exist you must end life. I find this paradoxical duality to be beautiful.

Now from a practical point of view there are social rules for how you end life. So some cultures thought it was ok to eat all forms of life as long as that life wasn't part of your tribe (societies with cannibalism), other societies thought it was ok to eat all forms of life except for your pets (most Americans), some exclude animals based on religious beliefs (pork in Islam and judaism, meat and beef in Hinduism), and some think it is ok to eat all forms of life that are non-animals (vegetarians).

I think its hard for any of these groups to claim moral superiority. The truth is in order to exist we need to destroy life, but at the same time, most can see that life is precious.

I don't understand your comment. Can you explain further?

Do you believe all other forms of life have souls?

I'm curious because you made the vegetarian and vegan argument which I always find interesting. I was raised Hindu (now atheist) and the religion has a belief that all forms of life have a soul and have consciousness. As a consequence of this you accept that in order to live, your life relies on extinguishing other forms of life. I always find it weird that when people talk about diet, animal rights, and souls, there is an arbitrary distinction between animals and the rest of organism (plants, fungi, bacteria, etc.). The concept of a soul is an abstract non-scientific belief, so given its an abstract concept with no scientific basis, why do we make a distinction between one form of life and another?