The Sanctity of Plant Life
by Motte Brown on 05/08/2008 at 11:13 AM
A few years ago the Swiss government asked an ethics panel to consider "plant dignity." So the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology got together and produced the "Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants" report.
Here's the gist of the report from The Weekly Standard's "The Silent Scream of the Asparagus":
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."
There's a lot to unpack here. But my mind immediately went to the issue of abortion. Consider the implication of language like, "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake" and "individual plants have an inherent worth" and "we may not use them as we please." It appears the Swiss want to assign more value to plants than Americans currently give pre-born babies.
It shows you just how distorted human reason can become with an ever declining Judeo-Christian influence.
1. Allison said the following at 11:29 AM on May 8:
Very good point. We do seem to have our priorities out of whack, don't we?
2. kaj said the following at 11:41 AM on May 8:
What's next? Those who live in the southern United States will be banned from clearing out kudzu, because it's "immoral" to do so? Poison ivy will enjoy the same "rights" as a California redwood? It will become a crime to apply Roundup to the dandelions growing in sidewalk cracks?
3. Matt from DC said the following at 12:11 PM on May 8:
A side effect is that _if_ their "biocentril moral view" was true than it would be immoral to be a vegeterian - funny stuff. Aren't you grossed out at the grocery store when you walk through the produce section and see all of those plant corpses laying around. Then some people pick up a dead grape, strawberry, or apple and - horror - eat it!
Moehler discussed this on this blog at http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php
Here's a quote from his personal experience with someone who accepts lies like this: "Several years ago now, I was appearing on a national network interview program and found myself discussing capital punishment with a woman who, during a commercial break, indicated that she had recently seen a combine going through a wheat field. She was horrified. The wheat was being cut down by thousands of stalks a second. She felt grief for the wheat, she revealed."
4. Jacob said the following at 12:24 PM on May 8:
It brings to mind this passage:
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. . . they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. - Romans 1:22,24
5. Cascus said the following at 12:52 PM on May 8:
Does this make Roundup a weapon of mass destruction?
6. Alex C. said the following at 1:20 PM on May 8:
This is one of the craziest things I've ever heard. What sane person could honestly believe this? And Matt has a very good point, if this were really true, then what could we eat, AT ALL? If every entity on earth has a right as a living "being" to not be harmed by us, how could we even keep living? Seems like the only thing we could possibly do is just drink water and milk and eat cheese for the rest of our lives (but then what about all the microscopic bacteria in the water that we'd be drinking up?) And don't we, as living beings, have a right to protect our own survival, even if that means "exploiting" other animals or plants? Everything else on the planet does it all the time, and I've never heard any complaing about, for example, a deer violating the "rights" of the grass its eating, or a mountain lion violating the "rights" of the deer by eating it in turn.
I also agree thats its pretty hypocritical to start talking about the rights of grass and flowers as living beings, but still deny the rights of a baby growing inside a person.
7. Kate said the following at 1:55 PM on May 8:
I'd be interested to read the actual report minus the sensationalized hype, and learn more about which purposes they considered morally acceptable and which are not, and what penalties they propose for immoral use of plant life. Google did not give me this report :( The cited article does point out that mowing a wheat field for food is considered acceptable.
I guess that I have always been a bit of a "tree-hugger" but I believe being a good steward of God's creation does not include arbitrarily whacking wildflowers or killing weeds for aesthetic pleasure... and that the balance of cutting down forests for human development is delicate. How much is for promoting sustainable, balanced human life and how much is for excess and materialism?
Humans can waste plant life, animal life or other human life because of carelessness, ignorance, foolishness or selfishness, etc. In my view, all of this is violation of God's creation.
(I'm not at all saying I believe wasted plant life is more important than wasted human life via practices like abortion or genocide, etc).
8. alex said the following at 2:25 PM on May 8:
Wow. That's impressive. I don't think I've even met Christians recently with that kind of stewardship. These people should have an award!
9. Matt from DC said the following at 2:50 PM on May 8:
Kate,
Do you think that I am stepping on my grass' rights when I cut it?
Do plants have rights or does what God created need to be cared for?
Are those two the same thing?
Since I agree that rocks are part of God's creation I think that they should be cared for? Would you go as far as to say that they have rights? Can I melt rock and make them into iron?
Where does stewardship end and dominion/rule begin? Do they work together?
Backing up a little more, would you go fishing? If not, why?
10. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:43 PM on May 8:
Alex C. (#6)
We could make like Jonathan Swift and eat the babies.
That way, cows and corn can live in peace.
11. Kristen said the following at 3:47 PM on May 8:
And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." Genesis 1:29
There may be an argument for Christian vegetarianism, since it wasn't part of the original diet God gave to us. But to say that it is unethical to "kill" plants is outright crazy and unbiblical. Sadly, this is the world we live in...
12. BDB said the following at 6:09 PM on May 8:
That reminds me...time to mow the lawn.
13. Andrew said the following at 6:12 PM on May 8:
Are you sure this is not from The Onion?
14. Robin Munn said the following at 6:42 PM on May 8:
I can't let this one go without pointing people to the music video for "Carrot Juice Is Murder", by the Arrogant Worms. It's a spot-on pastiche of 70's-style protest songs, and all too relevant to the current discussion.
Note: the people in the video are not serious -- unlike the Swiss ethics panel.
15. John S. said the following at 10:30 PM on May 8:
(#14) Robin, I was just about to post about "Carrot Juice is Murder", but you beat me to it. =]
Personally, I think vegetables are delicious. I don't think that should be a horrible thing to say.
16. Jethro said the following at 3:43 AM on May 9:
Hmmm, this does seem patently ridiculous, but to be fair Motte, for your abortion analogy to be accurate the rights would have to extend to the seeds, not just the plants themselves.
17. CrochetDiva said the following at 7:46 AM on May 9:
Makes me want to go chomp on some good carrot and celery sticks and nosh on some sunflower seeds!! *tents the hands while planning a Sherman's march through the salad bar!*
And for the final piece de resistance of my "dastardly" plan, I think I shall also have a burger for lunch!! *cue
evilsinister laughter*Christina (in green) [#10], you rock. I lurv me some Jonathan Swift!
Jacob (#4), no doubt, bro. No doubt.
18. Jonathan said the following at 10:33 AM on May 9:
Heh, this reminds me of the movie Notting Hill when Hugh Grant's character is being forced to meet new women by his family. One of the women his family chooses for him is a gal who will only eat plants that have died a 'natural' death... i.e. only grapes that have fallen off the vine, not ones that are picked.
19. Kate said the following at 10:42 AM on May 9:
In response to #9 Matt from DC
The questions you ask are either meant to be clarifying questions alone, or they are loaded arguments against what I wrote. If they are clarifying, I would be surprised to learn my comment was that unclear (do other people think so?), or I would suggest you re-read what I wrote.
If your questions are your form of a discourse you wish to continue, I'm not sure from what you wrote what the basis of your disagreement is or what exactly it is you disagree with about what I wrote. Otherwise you were just doing something like "comment warfare" which is irrelevant and unfounded, and apparently unwelcome in this blog.
So to clarify or to point out that your arguments do not flow from what I wrote...
I wrote nothing about "rights." Talking about "inherent rights" and stewardship of what's in God's creation are different things, and I was talking about the latter.
I could have been more clear before in saying I am skeptical of the articles' reports of the report that are available by google and how they spun the Swiss document with "rights" language. Saying a plant life has inherent value and should be dealt with in an appropriate way is not the same as saying it has "rights." (well at least not my view of what rights are) That is why I'd rather see the actual document than sensationalized reports, which may not be nearly so absurd.
So, though it seems an irrelevent question, since you asked... of course I would not consider it some kind of violation of plant rights to mow your lawn. I might question the actual importance, value or motivation for mowing a lawn in the grand scheme of Christian purpose in life on earth, or question if it's truly "caring" for grass to cut it periodically... but those seem to be tangents from the topic at hand.
There is a difference between balanced, sustainable, informed "dominion" which I would say is good stewardship so I guess that is how they'd work together... and "dominion" that is based on greed, vanity, power hunger, or ignorance or selfishness or hedonism in some other form (it is this form of "dominion" that I am proposing is wrong).
I have no idea why based on my comments you would reasonably question my views on fishing. But, again since you asked I will tell you all I think of on the subject. I like to eat fish. Still I would consider it wrong to pig out and eat more fish (or other foods, and in balance with other foods) than I need. It would be fine for me to feed it to someone else who needs it. It would be wrong to catch a fish and kill it for no reason. I would feel wrong about fishing to stuff them to proudly hang on my wall. I would feel like it was beneficial to preserve or dissect a fish for educational purposes for a classroom or museum, or for research to learn about how they work or what damages them, etc. I think it's great if other beneficial uses are found for fish (not sure?) other than eating, but for example, it would be wasteful to kill a bunch of fish for their eyes and do nothing with the rest of their bodies. Obviously this description has gone on forever and could go on more.
Obviously I am not suggesting rigid rules that must be applied in the exact same way to all circumstances. Hopefully some pattern is evident in what I described though.
20. Matt from DC said the following at 1:05 PM on May 9:
Kate,
The purpose of my post was to draw out more of your belief and I was not trying to present arguments against or accuse you of believing some crazy idea.
As well, you are correct when you 'I wrote nothing about "rights."' You wrote all about stewardship. What I was trying to do was see if you equated stewardship with the respecting rights of plants. Further, the thing about rocks was an extension of that just for fun. Even if you answered those questions well I still wondered how much of a cultural tree hugger you are. When you said "killing weeds for aesthetic pleasure" my curiosity was piqued. That's why I asked questions about mowing the lawn and fishing. Usually when I run into tree huggers they are squeamish around verses like Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 9:2. IMO, you responded well.
Do you think that moving your yard is being a bad steward?
Do you think going on fishing trips to catch fish that are large or fun to catch and then freezing the meat to eat later is bad stewardship?
I'm just curious.
Tip: I assume you're a Christian so I relate to you as your brother, not your accuser.
Matt
21. Marcella said the following at 6:03 PM on May 10:
This report creates quite a quandary for those on the top of the food chain! Wouldn't it seem to affect animals as well?
Although I was amazed to read this information, it makes me wonder what precipitated this ethics panel investigation. Although it is tempting to dismiss it as completely ludicrous, it made me consider what scripture says.
It is true that humans cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plant life, as Psalm 24:1 states: "The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it."
However, those with a biblical world view recognize that in Genesis 2:15, Adam was placed in the garden of Eden "to take care of it" (NIV), with the understanding that plants were provided as food. A good farmer takes care of crops and livestock, as it is both morally right and in his own best interest. We city folks, who are often out of touch with the cycle of life and our dependence upon agriculture, can benefit from reminders of our responsibility toward the proper care of life on earth.
It's interesting to note that in Genesis, dominion is given to mankind over creatures that move -- not plant life -- and that Adam was told to care for the garden. At any rate, it all involves responsible stewardship.
Additionally, the report brought to mind the land Sabbath, which may have been put in place to safeguard plants used in agriculture. In Leviticus 25:1-22, instructions on how to implement the land Sabbath was given to the Israelites. Every seventh year, fields were to be left to grow untended "for it is a year of rest for the land." I wonder if this resulted in healthier soil and crops in the long run.
Of course, it's a bit sobering to think about how environmental activists may use this report. I dread to think that this kind of thinking could jump the pond and infest the thinking of people in our great land of abundant natural resources.
22. Kate said the following at 5:46 AM on May 14:
Hi Matt of #20 again. I meant to respond to your comment sooner and was pleased to see that you were serious and respectful about it.
Moving your yard? Well, if by this you mean cutting down forest or mowing a field more to get a larger yard, I don't see a problem with it if you're going to use it beneficially. Or you meant mowing, in which case I guess my answer is the same. It's one thing to mow a giant field (while it may not be harming the plants at all) for looks, which I would be less supportive of than mowing a yard/field to use for sports, for kids to play in or to cultivate for a garden, or for people to use as a park, etc. since I see those as beneficial uses (I guess as long as this is not done in excess of what is needed!) If you are mowing a big yard just for looks, that seems more like vanity to me (even if it is a common practice and some neighborhoods require it!)
No I don't think catching a big fish and saving some for later is bad stewardship. In fact, I think it's a smart solution because it prevents wasteful results of fishing for fun. I think it's fine and good to have fun at the sport/work of fishing and hunting, as long as you are not taking more than you will use (personally or by giving it to others) which would then be wasteful and destructive.