The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
Get ready for 'plant rights.'

Quote :

"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."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp

5/6/2008 6:08:45 PM

What exactly is wrong with this?

5/6/2008 6:10:53 PM

Maybe the vegans will starve to death now.

5/6/2008 6:11:19 PM

http://ganzor.com/images/rule 34/1182951700977.jpg

5/6/2008 6:12:00 PM

Arbitrary destruction of plant life is probably a bad thing. Do any of you fucking jokers care to advance an argument as to why that's not the case?

5/6/2008 6:12:03 PM

This reminds me of this chick at State who would get pissed when people stapled leaflets to trees because it infringed on the rights of the tree.

5/6/2008 6:13:39 PM

Haha, I remember Austin in Phi 340 talking about this shit.

5/6/2008 6:13:40 PM

^^^
I would tend to agree

^^
yeah, you shouldn't do that

5/6/2008 6:15:47 PM

This is going to be painted as a "ha ha look at these silly liberals" but really, where the fuck does a serious consideration of the other life forms on the planet go wrong? There are too many humans to really think that we should be allowed to arbitrarily destroy vital members of our environment.

5/6/2008 6:17:54 PM

I'm glad to see the Swiss understand moral equivalence.

This is the reason I've never apologized for eating any food--meat or other. Lettuce, I point out in the grocery store, is perfectly content to remain alive and unmolested until a machine yanks it out of the ground.

I wonder what an ethicist with a moral imperative actually eats.

5/6/2008 6:20:43 PM

Quote :

"Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese!!"

5/6/2008 6:23:37 PM

5/6/2008 6:27:16 PM

5/6/2008 6:45:56 PM

so now if you get caught smoking weed in switzerland, you get a possession ticket and a murder charge

5/6/2008 6:53:56 PM

Harvesting a plant for consumption is hardly an arbitrary destruction of said plant.

5/6/2008 7:07:24 PM

what if its not a necessary consumption? i mean, i'm sure if i harvested some corn to eat it would be ok...because we have to eat to live...but what about tobacco or weed? not necessary like eating

5/6/2008 7:08:49 PM

A lack of necessity does not imply arbitrariness.

5/6/2008 7:11:27 PM

Taken to its extreme, we could say all the murder (plant and animal) must stop once we invent food pellets to sustain ourselves.

5/6/2008 7:13:57 PM

^^if its illegal then it does, so i guess tobacco is out, but it still applies for marijuana

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 7:14 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2008 7:14:06 PM

Quote :

"for the death of your fern by over-watering, I find you guilty of involuntary plantslaughter I am prohibiting you from plant ownership until you successfully complete a course on horticulture"

5/6/2008 7:15:07 PM

Quote :

"^^if its illegal then it does, so i guess tobacco is out, but it still applies for marijuana "

How does illegality make a non-necessary action arbitrary whereas its legality would make it non-arbitrary? Be clear.

5/6/2008 7:16:30 PM

the illegality itself makes it non necessary

the way you're looking at it, anybody could get off any charges for killing plants just by claiming the killing wasnt arbitrary

5/6/2008 7:18:02 PM

Hahaha...this is a joke....

Let me guess what's next. "Don't walk on grass because it could harm a living organism!!"

5/6/2008 7:18:54 PM

What?

That's not true at all. Illegality and arbitrariness aren't linked at all, unless you can advance a position that cogently links them.

I could claim that harvesting a marijuana plant is non-arbitrary because I gain utility from it (by getting high). However, this fact alone doesn't allow me to beat possession charges. It's still illegal, and I'd still be punished.

5/6/2008 7:19:26 PM

like i said, the way you're looking at it, you could say that anything could be non-arbitrary and therefore you could get away with the destruction of any plant, as long as it wasnt illegal to possess in the first place

the farmer in the first post could claim his "decapitating" of wildflowers was necessary for the health of the rest of his crops

this whole topic is a joke anyway though

5/6/2008 7:24:59 PM

How is it a joke to start a discussion of environmental ethics?

Even if one wants to advance a position separate from "plants have inherent right," one might make the same exact policy predictions as one who did take up the "plants have inherent rights" position. The point is, a discussion about the ethics of our interactions with our environment (including other life forms) is far from a joke.

People in this thread who laugh and point at this have done little to explain why they feel the way they do without resorting to straight up histrionics, hyperbole, or straw men. If you feel the way you do, then post a solid argument. Surely you have reasons to back up your position, right?

5/6/2008 7:27:11 PM

before long, we'll be pressing charges against mother nature when lightning strikes a tree

how long til we argue for insects' rights? then how about the rights of plankton and microscopic organisms? when does it stop?

5/6/2008 7:30:39 PM

^
(doesn't get it)

5/6/2008 7:32:33 PM

if we grant rights to plants, and press charges when plants are arbitrarily "murdered", whats the next step? what is the next group that gets rights? when does it stop?

^the fact that i'm even having this conversation on this absurd topic shows i'm making an effort

how far does it go? does a 100 year old tree have more rights than me? do i have more rights than a sapling tree? where does this end?

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 7:36 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2008 7:33:30 PM

Quote :

"how long til we argue for insects' rights? then how about the rights of plankton and microscopic organisms?"

It's a reasonable position to consider insects' rights and the rights of plankton/microscopic organisms on a larger scale. Sure, stepping on a bug shouldn't incur murder charges, but what about the arbitrary destruction of multiple bee hives? Surely the latter would have adverse effects upon our world -- and as such, we should have a discussion of what is morally reprehensible / punishable and what isn't.

Simply opening the topic to discussion is not a bad thing. In fact, it's an important subject with how interconnected everything in our world is. As we approach the absolute maximum population we can support with our resources, tinkering with certain aspects of our environment could cause death or shortages.

Could you imagine supporting a position that allowed somebody to destroy hundreds of bee hives for fun? If not, then this sort of discussion is needed such that there's a principled way of drawing lines that serves our needs and serves a general concern for ethical action.

Quote :

"when does it stop?"

When we get it right. Naturally, whenever facts about ourselves or facts about our environment changes, we have to reopen a lot of discussions about what behaviors should be prohibited and what behaviors shouldn't be. Tearing out a clump of grass might not be considered a punishable behavior because we have so much of it -- but perhaps setting a redwood tree on fire should be considered a punishable behavior just due to the scarcity of the species.

Likewise setting fire to an entire forest might be considered a punishable behavior because it could adversely affect the ability of our planet to sustain life (thus negatively impacting human life). I hope that these concerns at least strike your sensibilities as being reasonable in nature. They should be discussed, unless you can demonstrate why they should not be.

Ethical issues are tricky. They rely not only on what we feel should be right and fair, but also on the contingencies of our environment and the pragmatic considerations we must take into account (human welfare, scarcity, etc). This is precisely why they require discussion, not silence.

5/6/2008 7:40:51 PM

in the United States at least, why wouldn't current laws be sufficient? It's already illegal to burn down or cut down a redwood tree...if a particular animal's population is low enough, that species can be deemed protected or endangered, etc, and its then illegal to kill that animal...plants too...I know when they've proposed new bridges at the coast, native populations have been taken into consideration...in fact, some large projects that would benefit important things like human evacuation during a hurricane have been delayed because of a few flowers that happen to grow in the area...I'd argue that evacuation routes for thousands of people are more important than a few flowers

I don't see what major changes need to be made...even when a timber company clears a forest, they replant trees...most foresters nowadays cut in cycles in an effort of environmental conservation...likewise if a construction project calls for a certain area of wetlands to be destroyed, that area must be mitigated in another area to replace the wetlands they've removed...its not like there aren't any current laws that prevent arbitrary destruction, in fact many laws prevent non-arbitrary destruction like I just mentioned...so what more needs to be done (in the United States at least)?

5/6/2008 7:44:23 PM

First of all this discussion was started in the Swiss government.

But in terms of America, there might not be much to discuss when it comes to certain aspects of environmental ethics. I don't know -- I don't track the specific issues in this country. With changing loads and demands on the environment, however (with rising populations not only here but world-wide), we might have to re-open these issues to discussion.

In these cases, it shouldn't be considered "stupid" to discuss the issues at hand. One issue worth considering here, perhaps, is unchecked urban sprawl and its impact on bird species. Another might be the question of what's causing bee hives to disappear (as that will have an increased adverse effect on us), and if it has to do with our behaviors, what should be done to rectify or deflate the situation. The point is, the discussion itself is never a bad thing -- with skyrocketing worldwide population, this is exactly the type of discussion that needs to be held.

5/6/2008 7:48:13 PM

i dont think discussions are ever really bad, but can you not see why some people would think of this topic as silly? i understand the whole 'everything has rights' perspective...but do you understand the whole 'this is absurdly impractical and infeasible' perspective?

consider my example of bridges being delayed because of a certain species...wouldnt you put a higher priority on the safety of thousands of people in a big hurricane ahead of a few plants? especially when the plants themselves might get washed out to sea and killed during the same storm

i believe it was the seabeach amaranth and the bonner bridge as a recent incident i can think of

and before a project like that can be completed, an EIS is created that analyzes nearly every factor in the area...biological, geological, etc

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 7:53 PM. Reason : environmental impact statements]

5/6/2008 7:49:47 PM

Of course that's a perspective one might have. The point is, the most pragmatic thing eventually will be to prohibit our liberties when it comes to our interactions with our environment. As there are more people and less to go around, it'll become less feasible and practical to allow people the same liberties they used to have. This is the other side of the coin.

The "everything has rights" crowd has some of its loons, but few of them, push-come-to-shove, would ever really allow this view to block general pragmatic concerns. They would likely sacrifice a fox or an owl or something to prevent a family member's death or their own -- and would likely do it even for a stranger's life. I don't think there are many people that would trade a human's life for a wolf's -- despite the extremity of their positions, which sometimes is a rhetorical necessity for drawing out their (justifiable) seriousness about the topic.

The "liberty" crowd has its loons as well, and it's important to note that the interests of liberty sometimes run up against practical concerns. Soon here, it might have to be curtailed quite a lot due to practical, realistic necessities. This is part of why this discussion is an absolute necessity.

5/6/2008 7:54:04 PM

i just think you might be underestimating the current laws and legislation, at least in the US (and yes i know the original article focused on switzerland)

since the 1960s and 1970s there have been a ton of laws passed to help environmental sustainability, enough where i dont think its that big of an issue here in the US...lots of construction projects take a lot longer nowadays in the planning phases because you have to wait to get approval for so many things before you can get started...because of the much more stringent laws i dont think this discussion is all that necessary if we're confining it to plants' rights

and then the other thing that seems silly is the notion of plants' "rights"...plants are living organisms, but they're not thinking organisms...they don't have a nervous system to feel pain...the whole concept of plants' rights seems kind of odd...i mean i realize plants "exhale" O2 which we breathe, so obviously they're valuable...but they're still plants and I don't think we can think of them in the same personified light that we do people or even animals

5/6/2008 7:59:41 PM

It might seem silly to view them as having rights, but it's worth a well-reasoned discussion at the very least. The result of such a view (viewing them as having rights) might ultimately lead to policy positions that are the most justified, even from a pragmatic angle.

Again, with some of your examples for environmental sustainability, it could be argued that while individual constructions require more regulatory red tape and higher standards nowadays, that construction overall is not scrutinized as closely as it should be (in terms of urban sprawl and ITS sustainability, rather than the sustainability of any particular building within it). This is at least worth looking at.

Rights, in general, are synthetic and are cultural constructs. It's not like any of us really have inherent rights -- but rights, as a cultural construct, are a useful fiction. It was a great day in human intellectual history when the idea of rights was conceived -- few things have done more for the cause of societal justice and human well being than this. It might be the case that the creation of rights for other objects will, in the end, provide us with much better results. The fact of the matter is, we need reasons to act in certain ways -- reasons that provide our actions within justification and authority.

This is one of those cases; what's at issue here is whether or not treating our environment in a different way would allow us to be better off as a whole or not.

5/6/2008 8:10:16 PM

Quote :

"And the angel of the Lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber, and took me on high, and higher still until we moved in the spaces betwixt the air itself. and he bore me unto a vast farmland of our own midwest, and as we descended cries of impending doom rose from the soil. one thousand, nay, a million voices full of fear. and terror possessed me then. and I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots. You see, reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one millions terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light, they have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul. damn you! let the rabbits wear glasses, save our brothers...can I get an amen? can I get a hallelujah? thank you, Jesus. this is necessary life feeds on life"

I was trying to post a video... but without html and since there is no official video... Oh well. Good post.

5/6/2008 8:40:16 PM

Flower shops: murdering houses of death!

We should send roses in honor of. . .wait, nevermind.



[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 10:27 PM. Reason : Tears. ]

5/6/2008 10:27:22 PM

Quote :

"Flower shops: murdering houses of death! We should send roses in honor of. . .wait, nevermind. "

You realize nobody is arguing this, right?

5/6/2008 10:29:12 PM

^ Bullshit, you communist fucktard--define "arbitrarily destroy."

5/6/2008 10:33:43 PM

This is part of the point -- there needs to be a discussion of what arbitrary destruction is and what it isn't.

Growing flowers for decorative purposes isn't an arbitrary use of flowers -- rather, it's one of the traditional uses of flowers that have allowed specific species to flourish. Even if you want to argue that it's an arbitrary use, it seems like there's a clear intuitive difference between growing flowers for decoration and cutting down large swaths of wild flowers for fun.

5/6/2008 10:37:05 PM

^^ I don't know about the Swiss, but in America, when it comes to law, something that is arbitrary would have to be decided by a judge or a jury whether it was arbitrary or not.

Quote :

"ARBITRARY. What depends on the will of the judge, not regulated or established by law. Bacon (Aphor. 8) says, Optima lex quae minimum relinquit arbitrio judicis et (Aph. 46) optimus judex, qui mi nimum sibi 2. In all well adjusted systems of law every thing is regulated, and nothing arbitrary can be allowed; but there is a discretion which is sometimes allowed by law which leaves the judge free to act as he pleases to a certain extent. See Discretion "

The law is designed with a certain amount of ambiguity in many cases, for a variety of reasons. It's ridiculous and impractical to assert that every single possible interpretation of a law must be enumerated, especially when a judge and jury system is in place

But, a person generally knows if they are arbitrarily destroying something.


[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 10:47 PM. Reason : ]

5/6/2008 10:46:38 PM

If I stuff a bouquet of hemlock up your butt, will I be charged for both arbitrary use of a flower AND assault?

Supposedly Socrates was killed by this poisonous flower. Hemlock has traditionally been used as a deadly poison. And if it actually hurts you, it did serve it's purpose. Thus, you can't claim arbitrary destruction.

I've eaten a dandelion before. Tastes pretty bitter. I've tried rose leaves as well. Please don't tell the police... or my wife Hahaha!

5/6/2008 10:55:00 PM

^ How does this add anything to the discussion exactly?

5/6/2008 10:57:24 PM

What discussion?

I thought we were all just enlarging our e-penis' by arguing stupid stuff online. Mine looked malnourished at the beginning of the day. I figured a few more posts before I went to bed would get me right up to size.

[Edited on May 6, 2008 at 11:10 PM. Reason : ???]

5/6/2008 11:08:01 PM

So what you're saying is, you didn't read the thread at all.

Hmm...

5/6/2008 11:09:58 PM

If I murder a dandelion while it's got a fuzzy white top...am I guilty of killing its babies too?

5/6/2008 11:23:53 PM

Well this is pretty much hopeless.

5/6/2008 11:29:36 PM

^^ No, liberals just call that arbortion ... conservatives would call it murder. Depends on what trimester. Has it germinated yet?

5/6/2008 11:35:44 PM

^x9 and ^x8 So, how many flowers need to be "arbitrarily" decapitated before one is declared a murderer? One, two, a dozen?

The panel at issue can't even decide what the fuck it means:

Quote :

"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."

[Edited on May 7, 2008 at 5:16 AM. Reason : .]

5/7/2008 5:15:55 AM