12 May 08
1 edit
At the request of the Swiss government, an ethical panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. What is now being considered by the Swiss government is a plant bill of rights of sorts.
htpp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp
12 May 08
Originally posted by whodeyNo. Plants have no minds, feelings or anything of the sort. Therefore they have no rights.
At the request of the Swiss government, an ethical panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. What is now being considered by the Swiss government is a plant bill of rights of sorts.
htpp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp
12 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree. But your rationale is somewhat tangential.
No. Plants have no minds, feelings or anything of the sort. Therefore they have no rights.
Plants are incapable of assuming responsibilities; therefore they are cannot be afforded rights.
12 May 08
Originally posted by whodeyI, unlike whodey or Wesley Smith, actually bothered to look at the Report. One of its conclusions is:
At the request of the Swiss government, an ethical panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. What is now being considered by the Swiss government is a plant bill of rights of sorts.
htpp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp
A clear majority understands treating
plants with restraint to mean not damaging
or destroying plants for no rational
reason.
Given that plants are living things after all, is that really so ridiculous?
There is an interesting "decision tree" on page 6 giving the process by which the Committee addressed this issue. It seems quite logical to me.
The report is at: http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-Broschure-Wurde-Pflanze-2008.pdf
If nothing else, it has a lot of very pretty pictures of plants.
12 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWe assume "Plants have no minds, feelings or anything of the sort."
No. Plants have no minds, feelings or anything of the sort. Therefore they have no rights.
The bottom line is they are living organisms. That we know. They might have feelings, they might feel distress, pain, etc.
O forest of pine trees were attacked by some sort of cockroaches. The outer trees sustained the most damage but somehow the inner trees started producing a resin indigestible by those bugs. Could they have communicated?
It is common knowledge plants grow better if they listen to Beethoven and grow worse than normal if heavy metal is played in their vicinity.
So before you forward statements as indisputable facts, do try to think for a sec and put a "It is thought" or "maybe" in front of those statements.
12 May 08
Originally posted by FMFPlants are incapable of assuming responsibilities; therefore they are cannot be afforded rights.
I agree. But your rationale is somewhat tangential.
Plants are incapable of assuming responsibilities; therefore they are cannot be afforded rights.
please explain that. because as it is it sounds too stupid; i am sure you meant something else
12 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSo what would constitute having a rational reason for destroying plants? Is weeding your garden a good enough rational reason? Is the fact that I no longer care to have a large tree beside my home a good enough rational reason etc.
[ A clear majority understands treating
plants with restraint to mean not damaging
or destroying plants for no rational
reason.
Given that plants are living things after all, is that really so ridiculous?
Come to think of it, what constitutes destroying plants? Is cutting the grass destroying plants or is it destroying the root system that prevents them from reproducing?
12 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziYour telling me. I saw Lord of the Rings. If I learned anything from the movie, it was don't make the trees mad. Once you do its curtains for ya!!
O forest of pine trees were attacked by some sort of cockroaches. The outer trees sustained the most damage but somehow the inner trees started producing a resin indigestible by those bugs. Could they have communicated?
It is common knowledge plants grow better if they listen to Beethoven and grow worse than normal if heavy metal is played in their vicinity. ...[text shortened]... do try to think for a sec and put a "It is thought" or "maybe" in front of those statements.[/b]
12 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziOf course this begs the quesiton of how we value other living things. How do you do so? For example, are humans to be valued more than an animal? If so, why? If not, why not?
[b]We assume "Plants have no minds, feelings or anything of the sort."
From what I gather so far, to be at the top of that list one must have a "mind" and must have "feelings" etc.
12 May 08
Originally posted by whodeyTry reading the report since you brought the subject up. Weeding a garden presumably to protect the other plants would surely pass muster; chopping down a healthy tree because you don't like it probably not.
So what would constitute having a rational reason for destroying plants? Is weeding your garden a good enough rational reason? Is the fact that I no longer care to have a large tree beside my home a good enough rational reason etc.
Come to think of it, what constitutes destroying plants? Is cutting the grass destroying plants or is it destroying the root system that prevents them from reproducing?
12 May 08
Originally posted by no1marauderIt then begs the question as to why? Are weeds of less value than the other plants? Perhaps to us, but then again, if that is the case then people should be allowed to value plants individually based upon their own whims and desires.
Try reading the report since you brought the subject up. Weeding a garden presumably to protect the other plants would surely pass muster; chopping down a healthy tree because you don't like it probably not.