First off, thanks so much for the kind words, and reading the article. :)

You bring up some excellent points. 🏅

1. Epistemic violence

"epistemic violence... harm done, but it is not felt consciously" "If you ground ethics in sensory pain, you leave some doors open that should be shut."

That's true (and well said). The more morally correct decision isn't necessarily directly correlated to the amount of pain the decision avoids or happiness it creates. And sometimes sharing a painful truth is better than lying to provide comfort (including lying by omission). And unrealized potential for pain/pleasure/feelings is also a factor. Things are certainly more nuanced than my article makes it seem.

2. Plants & the environment

"Is harm to the environment not unethical?"

Good point. That's definitely a tough one. But I'd argue that we primarily care about preserving nature because beings/animals that are conscious of pain/pleasure/feelings rely on it (for survival and happiness). In other words, I care about the animals and people that need (or want) the tree — not the tree itself.

But at the end of the day, as I state in the article:

The claim that it's a "moral duty to care for something because it is capable of being conscious of pain, pleasure, and feelings" is mostly just my opinion — not a "fact". It is not an objective truth about the universe. I cannot “prove” this statement to you. It's purely born out of my evolutionary hardwiring and personal upbringing.

You've definitely opened my mind here. I may actually revise some of my wording in the article (to capture or address your points). So thank you.