![]() Indeed, it is common to hear environmentalists talk about our responsibly managing our natural resources and including nonhuman animals as a “resource” to be managed. Talking about the “rights” of trees, as some do, is to invite equating trees and nonhuman animals and that can only work to the detriment of the animals. It may be wrong morally to chop down a tree wantonly but that is a qualitatively different act from shooting a deer. The tree is an “it.” The squirrel and the birds who live in the tree certainly have an interest in our not chopping down the tree, but the tree does not. The tree is not the sort of entity that cares about what we do to it. There is nothing that the tree prefers, wants, or desires. But we cannot have any moral obligations to the tree we can only have moral obligations to sentient beings and the tree is not sentient and has no interests. We can have moral obligations to other humans and nonhuman animals who inhabit the planet not to destroy trees wantonly. We can have an obligation that we owe to all of the sentient creatures who live in the tree or who depend on it for their survival. The tree is not the sort of entity to which we can have moral obligations. That is, we may have a moral obligation not to cut down a tree, but that is not an obligation that we owe to the tree. I am not suggesting that we cannot have moral obligations that concern plants, but I am saying that we cannot have moral obligations that we owe to plants. ![]() Sentience would serve no purpose for a plant plants cannot “escape.” Sentience is a characteristic that has evolved in certain beings to enable them to survive by escaping from a noxious stimulus. If you touch a flame to a dog, the dog does exactly what you would do-cries in pain and tries to get away from the flame. Why would plants evolve the ability to be sentient when they cannot do anything in reaction to an act that damages them? If you touch a flame to a plant, the plant cannot run away it stays right where it is and burns. Plants do not have nervous systems, benzodiazepine receptors, or any of the characteristics that we identify with sentience. But that does not mean that the bell is sentient. If I run an electrical current through a wire attached to a bell, the bell rings. But it is not in my car’s interest my car has no interests.Ī plant may react to sunlight and other stimuli but that does not mean the plant is sentient. It may be in my interest to put oil in my car. When we say that a plant “needs” or “wants” water, we are no more making a statement about the mental status of the plant than we are when we say that a car engine “needs” or “wants” oil. There is nothing that a plant desires, or wants, or prefers because there is no mind there to engage in these cognitive activities. Plants are qualitatively different from humans and sentient nonhumans in that plants are certainly alive but they are not sentient. The human and the bat may think differently about those interests, but there can be no serious doubt that both have interests, including an interest in avoiding pain and suffering and an interest in continued existence. They are both the sorts of beings who have interests they both have preferences, desires, or wants. But it is irrelevant the human and the bat are both sentient. For example, the minds of humans, who use symbolic language to navigate their world, may be very different from the minds of bats, who use echolocation to navigate theirs. This is not to say that animal minds are like human minds. Sentient beings have minds they have preferences, desires, or wants. That is, nonhumans-or at least the ones we routinely exploit-are clearly conscious of sense perceptions. The difference between the animal and the plant involves sentience. Everyone recognizes that there is an important difference between the plant and the dog that make kicking the dog a morally more serious act than stepping on a flower. No one really thinks of these as equivalent acts. If, while walking in your garden, I step on a flower intentionally, you may quite correctly be annoyed with me, but if I intentionally kicked your dog, you would be upset with me in a different way. That is, if, at your next dinner party, you chop a head of lettuce in front of your guests, you will get a different reaction than if you were to carve a live chicken. Of course, no one who asks this question really thinks that we cannot distinguish between, say, a chicken and a head of lettuce. ![]() Indeed, I do not know any vegan who has not gotten that question at least once and most of us have heard it many times. ![]() One of the questions most frequently asked of any vegan is: “what about plants?” ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |