World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Plant rights

Article Id: WHEBN0028271176
Reproduction Date:

Title: Plant rights  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Economic, social and cultural rights, Human rights, List of linguistic rights in European constitutions, Nursing home residents' rights, Petitioning (China)
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Plant rights

Plant rights are rights to which plants may be entitled. Such issues are often raised in connection with discussions about human rights, animal rights, biocentrism, or sentiocentrism.

Philosophy

On the question of whether animal rights can be extended to plants, philosopher Tom Regan argues that animals acquire rights due to being aware, what he calls "subjects-of-a-life". He argues that this does not apply to plants, and that even if plants did have rights, abstaining from eating meat would still be moral due to the use of plants to rear animals.[1] According to philosopher Michael Marder, the idea that plants should have rights derives from "plant subjectivity", which is distinct from human personhood.[2] Philosopher Paul Taylor holds that all life has inherent worth and argues for respect for plants, but does not assign them rights.[3] Christopher D. Stone, the son of investigative journalist I. F. Stone, proposed in a 1972 paper titled "Should Trees Have Standing?" that if corporations are assigned rights, so should natural objects such as trees.[4][5]

Whilst not appealing directly to "rights", Matthew Hall has argued that plants should be included within the realm of human moral consideration. His "Plants as Persons: A Philosophical Botany" discusses the moral background of plants in western philosophy and contrasts this with other traditions, including indigenous cultures, which recognise plants as persons—active, intelligent beings that are appropriate recipients of respect and care.[6] Hall backs up his call for the ethical consideration of plants with arguments based on plant neurobiology, which says that plants are autonomous, perceptive organisms capable of complex, adaptive behaviours, including the recognition of self/non-self.

Scientific arguments

In the study of plant physiology, plants are understood to have mechanisms by which they recognize environmental changes. This definition of plant perception differs from the notion that plants are capable of feeling emotions, an idea also called plant perception. The latter concept, along with plant intelligence, can be traced to 1848, when Gustav Theodor Fechner, a German experimental psychologist, suggested that plants are capable of emotions, and that one could promote healthy growth with talk, attention, and affection.[7] The Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology analyzed scientific data on plants, and concluded in 2009 that plants are entitled to a certain amount of "dignity", but "dignity of plants is not an absolute value."[8]

Legal arguments

When challenged by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to become vegetarian, Timothy McVeigh argued that "plants are alive too, they react to stimuli (including pain); have circulation systems, etc".[9][10] The Animal Liberation Front argues that there is no evidence that plants can experience pain, and that to the extent they respond to stimuli, it is like a device such as a thermostat responding to sensors.[11]

Justice William O. Douglas, author of a noted dissent about the legal standing of plants
In his dissent to the 1972 Sierra Club v. Morton decision by the United States Supreme Court, Justice William O. Douglas wrote about whether plants might have legal standing:

Samuel Butler's Erewhon contains a chapter, "The Views of an Erewhonian Philosopher Concerning the Rights of Vegetables".[12]

The Swiss government has conducted ethical studies pertaining to how the dignity of plants is to be protected.[13] The single-issue Party for Plants entered candidates in the 2010 parliamentary election in the Netherlands.[14] Such concerns have been criticized as evidence that modern culture is "causing us to lose the ability to think critically and distinguish serious from frivolous ethical concerns".[15]

In 2012, a river in New Zealand, including the plants and other organisms contained within its boundaries, was legally declared a person with standing (via guardians) to bring legal actions to protect its interests.[16]

References

  1. ^ Regan, Tom (2003). Animal rights, human wrongs: an introduction to moral philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 101.  
  2. ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013120141156284755.html
  3. ^ Vesilind, P. Aarne; Gunn, Alastair S. (1998). Engineering, ethics, and the environment. Cambridge University Press. p. 94.  
  4. ^ Stone, Christopher D. (2010). Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment (Third ed.). Oxford University Press.  
  5. ^ Stone, Christopher D. (1972). "Should Trees Have Standing--Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects". Southern California Law Review 45: 450–87. 
  6. ^ Hall, Matthew (2011). Plants as Persons: A Philosophical Botany. SUNY Press.  
  7. ^ Michael Heidelberger Nature from within: Gustav Theodor Fechner and his psychophysical worldview 2004, p. 54
  8. ^ Koechlin, Florianne (January 2009). "The dignity of plants". Plant Signaling & Behavior 4 (1): 78–79.  
  9. ^ McVeigh to PeTA: "Where Do You Draw the Line?", Fur Commission, May 7, 2001 
  10. ^  
  11. ^ "Isn't it hypocritical to kill and eat plants?", FAQs Insects, Plants, Animal Liberation Front 
  12. ^ Butler, Samuel, "The Views of an Erewhonian Philosopher Concerning the Rights of Vegetables", Erewhon 
  13. ^ Florianne Koechlin (January 2009), The dignity of plants 4 (1), Plant Signal Behav., pp. 78–79,  
  14. ^ Berkowitz, Ben (March 29, 2010). "Plant rights party to contest next Dutch election". Reuters. Retrieved August 7, 2010. 
  15. ^ Smith, Wesley J. (May 12, 2008), The Silent Scream of the Asparagus 13 (33), Weekly Standard 
  16. ^ Vines T, Bruce A Faunce TA. 'Planetary Medicine and the Waitangi Tribunal Whanganui River Report.' Journal of Law and Medicine 2013; 20: 528 available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2235935 (accessed 28 March 2013)

External links

  • Animal liberation and plant liberation
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.