Posted on 05/03/2008 4:50:51 AM PDT by rhema
You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.
A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."
The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why. The report states, opaquely:
At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward other organisms or because something bad is being done to the flowers themselves.
What is clear, however, is that Switzerland's enshrining of "plant dignity" is a symptom of a cultural disease that has infected Western civilization, causing us to lose the ability to think critically and distinguish serious from frivolous ethical concerns. It also reflects the triumph of a radical anthropomorphism that views elements of the natural world as morally equivalent to people.
Why is this happening? Our accelerating rejection of the Judeo-Christian world view, which upholds the unique dignity and moral worth of human beings, is driving us crazy. Once we knocked our species off its pedestal, it was only logical that we would come to see fauna and flora as entitled to rights.
The intellectual elites were the first to accept the notion of "species-ism," which condemns as invidious discrimination treating people differently from animals simply because they are human beings. Then ethical criteria were needed for assigning moral worth to individuals, be they human, animal, or now vegetable.
Rising to the task, leading bioethicists argue that for a human, value comes from possessing sufficient cognitive abilities to be deemed a "person." This excludes the unborn, the newborn, and those with significant cognitive impairments, who, personhood theorists believe, do not possess the right to life or bodily integrity. This thinking has led to the advocacy in prestigious medical and bioethical journals of using profoundly brain impaired patients in medical experimentation or as sources of organs.
The animal rights movement grew out of the same poisonous soil. Animal rights ideology holds that moral worth comes with sentience or the ability to suffer. Thus, since both animals and humans feel pain, animal rights advocates believe that what is done to an animal should be judged morally as if it were done to a human being. Some ideologues even compare the Nazi death camps to normal practices of animal husbandry. For example, Charles Patterson wrote in Eternal Treblinka--a book specifically endorsed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--that "the road to Auschwitz begins at the slaughterhouse."
Eschewing humans as the pinnacle of "creation" (to borrow the term used in the Swiss constitution) has caused environmentalism to mutate from conservationism--a concern to properly steward resources and protect pristine environs and endangered species--into a willingness to thwart human flourishing to "save the planet." Indeed, the most radical "deep ecologists" have grown so virulently misanthropic that Paul Watson, the head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, called humans "the AIDS of the earth," requiring "radical invasive therapy" in order to reduce the population of the earth to under a billion.
As for "plant rights," if the Swiss model spreads, it may hobble biotechnology and experimentation to improve crop yields. As an editorial in Nature News put it:
The [Swiss] committee has come up with few concrete examples of what type of experiment might be considered an unacceptable insult to plant dignity. The committee does not consider that genetic engineering of plants automatically falls into this category, but its majority view holds that it would if the genetic modification caused plants to "lose their independence"--for example by interfering with their capacity to reproduce.
One Swiss scientist quoted in the editorial worried that "plant dignity" provides "another tool for opponents to argue against any form of plant biotechnology" despite the hope it offers to improve crop yields and plant nutrition.
What folly. We live in a time of cornucopian abundance and plenty, yet countless human beings are malnourished, even starving. In the face of this cruel paradox, worry about the purported rights of plants is the true immorality.
bookmark for later
“Personally, I’m off to KILL some plants known as weeds. (Sure hope I didn’t hurt their feelings calling them “weeds”...LOL)”
Ditto, it’s Saturday morning and I’m off to commit a plant holocaust on the Chinese Elm in my front yard. There must be at least 1.3Billion leaves that are going to die as a part of my clipper-led final solution...I’m taking no prisoners. I’ll “leave” this world having forever been cast as “Towed_Jumper Eichmann.”
sheesh.../s
I was headed out to do some “honey do” projects in the yard myself. As I read this, I kept thinking ok, where is the punch line, surly its around here somewhere. I honestly am speechless. I swear, my self esteem is taking a huge hit. I won’t be able to even walk on my grass without feeling guilt.
My morality paradigm is shifting drastically.
I’ve been waiting for this, I”m frankly surprised it took em this long.. I don’t know how buddhists survive frankly, when every breath and every step murders a ‘living’ being.. and the vegans? OMG think of the slaughter... don’t they think that vegetables have feelings too?
I think the Breatharians have it right... you remember them, they are the ones that are convinced that humans weren’t meant to subsist on food at all..
This gives a whole new meaning to the term “dead-heading”. I see they left lawn mowing out of this story. Typical nutty libs, some vegetation is “more equal” than other vegetation.
The Federal Constitution requires "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms". The ECNH’s key tasks include putting this concept into concrete terms.So it's not merely a useless exercise. If Pro-Life folks are arguing for an American Constitutional amendment to respect life, we might want to take this seriously and not mock it so. After all, as the article points out, there are those who would ignore or deny the "Würde der Kreatur" in cases of those who have lesser cognitive abilities.
While it's important we recognize the lines between "Würde der Kreatur" and full-fledged "animal rights" or "plant rights," the report does address these, and does not require a signed contract before picking an apple, or a living will before harvesting wheat! :-)
Also, note that the committee addresses some of the positions implied on this thread...
That plants should in some circumstances be protected in the interest of a third party, e.g. because they are useful to humans, is undisputed. Independent of the term dignity of living beings, then, the central question therefore remains: whether plants have an inherent worth, and should therefore be protected for their own sake. For some people, the question of whether the treatment or handling of plants requires moral justification is a meaningless one. The moral consideration of plants is considered to be senseless. Some people have warned that simply having this discussion at all is risible. In their view, the human treatment of plants is on morally neutral ground and therefore requires no justification.I'm curious how many FReepers actually looked at the document itself before criticizing it. Other than a rush to read it now, has anyone here besides me actually read it?
It is obvious to those who have read the report that this Weekly Standard piece presents a rather misleading picture. For example, it might interest FReepers to know that the report contains such points as the following:
A clear majority of the members takes the position that plant collectives have no inherent worth.
For Great Juicetice!
On the flip side, though, most FReepers would cringe from a true Christian world view. In a true Judeo-Christian world view, the earth is NOT man's (see Psalms 24:1), and to follow Jesus is to give up all material wealth and family (Luke 12:33 and Matthew 8:19-22). And the plant life is not for humanity alone, either (Gen 1:30).
It would also seem that God has His focus on sustainability (Psalms 119:90). Those who feel that "dominion=exploitation" should read more deeply, and realize that ethics apply even where responsibility has been given over.
I think one appropriate questioning of the report is why none of the committee members chose the Theocentric nature of the moral object, but most felt that the reason for considering moral issues with plants is that "Living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." (the biocentrist view that the Weekly Standard article decries).
But is that view anti-theological, or merely encompassing?
As long as it isn't an unborn baby, that is....
There is a term for this “bio-centrist” view. It is called “deep ecology”. It is actually a cult, a cult of the environment. I have read that Nancy Pelosi is a “deep ecologist”.
chuckle...really true...the PETA people say we shouldn't eat animals. Now this group says we shouldn't eat plants. What is mankind supposed to do? The last time I checked (when I was about four-years old), eating dirt was neither particularly tasty nor nutritious.
I'm convinced that ALL of these types of groups have a visceral hatred of mankind and wish we would all die off so that “Mother Earth” would be in harmony without us. ...very scary.
Who crys for the krill?
I am Cow
Hear me moo!
I weigh twice as much as you
And I look good on the barbecue
The Earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof.
Glad to see others asking questions that should be raised.
Exactly. Those babies have no legal existence until suddenly they are old enough for use as pawns in UN initiatives and ACLU ‘child rights’ suits against schools and parents.
What view do you take? That there's no moral question to even be considered, or that there's a different basis for it?
They're Plants, Sir......Plants!...PLANTS!...
When I first heard about animals rights activists, I said it’s only a matter of time before vegetable and mineral rights activists come along.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.