Re:Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
by tome on Thursday September 16, 2010 @03:16PM
(#1698796)
The issue is of sentience in humans and non-sentience in trees -- not of developed sentience in adults and yet-to-be-developed sentience in babies.
Re:Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
by TheAmazingIdiot on Thursday September 16, 2010 @04:42PM
(#1699082)
I wouldn't argue that if I were you. Who says trees aren't sentient? They may be made of fibers of cellulose, but plants and trees both respond to stimulus. Perhaps they think "slower" and of a different way.
Re:Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
by potatolicious on Thursday September 16, 2010 @05:05PM
(#1699138)
The general consensus is that trees aren't sentient. They may very well be - but that's beyond the scope of this particular argument.
The original assertion is that people are being logically inconsistent by wanting to sacrifice the young tree, yet reluctant to sacrifice the young child. Based on the premise of tree non-sentience, it is entirely logically consistent that the two cases be decided differently.
The problem with tree sentience in general is that we have yet to define "think" in the context you are using it.
However, some studies show that, depending on your definition of sentience, a baby might not fit into the category. There are many things (from memory: seeing moral consequences; some kinds of what if processes; understanding analogies) that aren't available to a person until 5-6 years old. Even trivial concepts such as the idea that an object still exists even when it's out of sight are not in the toolbox of a baby.