The dignity of living beings with regard to plants

[Riverwind]

I thought this was a joke but it looks serious: http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-B...flanze-2008.pdf

Arbitrariness:

The Committee members unanimously consider an arbitrary harm caused to plants to be morally impermissible. This kind of treatment would include, e.g. decapitation of

wild flowers at the roadside without rational reason.

...

Ownership of plants:

For the majority here too, plants – as a collective, as a species, or as individuals – are excluded for moral reasons from absolute ownership. By this interpretation no one may

handle plants entirely according to his/her own desires.

...

Proportionality:

A majority considers any action with or towards plants that serves the self-preservation of humans to be morally justified, as long as it is appropriate and follows the principle of precaution.

I can't believe anyone would take this tripe seriously. It is an excellent example of how people can invent "moral" arguments to justify virtually any position - no matter how ridiculous. Edited April 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

I thought this was a joke but it looks serious: http://www.ekah.admin.ch/uploads/media/e-B...flanze-2008.pdf

I can't believe anyone would take this tripe seriously. It is an excellent example of how people can invent "moral" arguments to justify virtually any position - no matter how ridiculous.

Since there are people who will justify just about anything, I suppose it's no surprise that there are people who will express moral outrage at just about anything. Just opposite sides of the coin in many ways.

[jazzer]

It is an excellent example of how people can invent "moral" arguments to justify virtually any position - no matter how ridiculous.

Kind of like Bush.

[capricorn]

Kind of like Bush.

You and other Bush-whackers only have 6 months and 2 weeks left to invoke this politician's name on every thread regardless of the subject of discussion. You had better hope McCain wins the Presidency so you can experience a seamless transition.

[jazzer]

You and other Bush-whackers only have 6 months and 2 weeks left to invoke this politician's name on every thread regardless of the subject of discussion.

Well I can't help it when things like this apply to the man. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

[capricorn]

Well I can't help it when things like this apply to the man. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

I know. You just can't help posting platitudes that add nothing to the discussion. Your main objective of bashing the US government is so transparent that I can't help pointing it out.

[Riverwind]

Since there are people who will justify just about anything, I suppose it's no surprise that there are people who will express moral outrage at just about anything. Just opposite sides of the coin in many ways.

Everyone believes in their own "morals" and frequently forget that others may have different set of "morals". The idea of a pro-plant zealot lambasting a little girl for picking dandylions or gardener pruning her rosebushes so they look better is quite absurd - yet there appear to be some who class this behavoir as immoral. I think everyone needs to step back sometime and ask themselves if the things that they define as "moral" and ask themselves whether they are really beliefs that they can reasonably expect others to share. Edited April 21, 2008 by Riverwind

[capricorn]

From the OP link:

If a pathocentrist position is represented,

the question of whether a plant can

be benefited or harmed is linked to the

question of whether a plant has some

form of internal experience. It must be

able to experience a harm or a benefit

as good or bad. The condition for

an independent positive or negative

experience is sentience. An organism

which satisfies this prerequisite has

its own interests. An act which can be

experienced by the organism as harm

is therefore morally relevant. If, however,

it is unable to experience a harm

as negative, such an act is of no moral

significance.

The question is, how do humans determine whether the plant has "feelings"? This excerpt pretty well says some plants have "feelings" and others don't.

It would be useful to know the difference then we could step on those that don't feel and avoid those that feel.

What a load of crap. I hope no one at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources gets a hold of this. They're busy enough doing environmental assessments of wetlands.

[jazzer]

I know. You just can't help posting platitudes that add nothing to the discussion. Your main objective of bashing the US government is so transparent that I can't help pointing it out.

I'm not doing anything worse than the Martin and Liberal haters did/do.

[DrGreenthumb]

I'm not doing anything worse than the Martin and Liberal haters did/do.

Cannabis definitely has feelings.

[Guest American Woman]

Everyone believes in their own "morals" and frequently forget that others may have different set of "morals". The idea of a pro-plant zealot lambasting a little girl for picking dandylions or gardener pruning her rosebushes so they look better is quite absurd - yet there appear to be some who class this behavoir as immoral. I think everyone needs to step back sometime and ask themselves if the things that they define as "moral" and ask themselves whether they are really beliefs that they can reasonably expect others to share.

I think your "everyone needs to step back sometime and ask themselves if the things that they define as "moral" and ask themselves whether they are really beliefs that they can reasonably expect others to share" comment is one that could apply to a lot of people's beliefs, including some of our nation's leaders' beliefs.

I too find looking out for plants' feelings to be quite absurd, but really, no more absurd than some of the other beliefs out there; and at least this belief is rather harmless.

[eyeball]

Grass apparently likes to be walked on, preferably with bare feet.

I seem to recall reading about a type of tree known for sending nutrients to trees of the same type that are in distress and I don't think this was a case of stressed trees leeching off healthier ones.

In the meantime...

Gardeners believe that some pairs of plants get along better than others, and it now seems there may be scientific evidence to back up the notion. Researchers from McMaster University in Canada have found that plants get fiercely competitive when forced to share their pot with strangers of the same species, but they're accommodating when potted with their siblings. Recognizing and favoring kin is common in animals, but this is the first time such altruistic behavior has been identified in plants.

Link

What a load of crap. I hope no one at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources gets a hold of this. They're busy enough doing environmental assessments of wetlands.

Given the vast numbers of people who are willing to invoke invisible deities to justify their moral outrage...we better hope no governments ever get hold of that notion either. By the way what have you got against wetlands? What did they ever do to you?

[White Doors]

I read this thread yesterday and at supper last night as I bit into a carrot, I was sure I could hear screams...

[DrGreenthumb]

I read this thread yesterday and at supper last night as I bit into a carrot, I was sure I could hear screams...

You should have heard my Cannabis sativa last night when i set it on fire.

[White Doors]

You should have heard my Cannabis sativa last night when i set it on fire.

The horrer.... The Horrer...

[Moonlight Graham]

I know. You just can't help posting platitudes that add nothing to the discussion. Your main objective of bashing the US government is so transparent that I can't help pointing it out.

It was kinda funny though.

[Borg]

You and other Bush-whackers only have 6 months and 2 weeks left to invoke this politician's name on every thread regardless of the subject of discussion. You had better hope McCain wins the Presidency so you can experience a seamless transition.

Not so.

Everything that happens for the next 6 years will be blamed upon President Bush.

Borg

[guyser]

Not so.

Everything that happens for the next 6 years will be blamed upon President Bush.

Borg

Well thats fair since Clinton is still being blamed for much of the ills, and he has been gone longer than 6 years.

[Guest American Woman]

Well thats fair since Clinton is still being blamed for much of the ills, and he has been gone longer than 6 years.

How true.