Do trees have feelings?

This week I rationalize the idea that plants have a capacity to suffer and what that means in terms of how we treat them....among other things

It's official, I'm a tree hugger.

Summary Week 5 & 6

The question of decisions in regard to environmental policy seems to be a matter of degrees. The degree in which the environment can be cared for can be anything from zero to all encompassing. I’m learning to recognize this, and recognize under what parameters these questions under debate are being asked. The parameters that presented themselves in chapter 5 of DesJardins’ textbook were broadly covered under the topic of moral standing. More specifically the question presents itself first of whether or not environmental ethics, in any degree, should be based on anthropocentric ethics. The first step to determining this is to determine if animals, the most cognitive creature second to humans, possess moral standing and to what extent. A positive response to this then opens the door to analyzing the potential for moral standing in plants. And then of course, to what extent do plants have moral standing? Assuming then that we do show that animals and plants hold moral standing that still leaves us with the question of whether or not anthropocentric ethics is a justifiable approach to any environmental topic. I think this can be answered to varying degrees of certainty and circumstance.

Looking more at the question of whether animals have moral standing. I think that they do. First and foremost I hold a strong conviction that human instinct and natural compassion holds a strong weight, although it is hard to use in argument, in regards to the "proper" treatment of living things and our environment. So if you see something that makes you feel bad, it probably is. But, like I said, it can be difficult for one person to fight against something that they feel bad about but can’t determine the source of that feeling. This would make it important to intelligently argue in favor of nonanthropocentric ethics. I find it easy to associate with Peter Singer and Tom Regan’s philosophies because of the shortfalls of previous philosopher’s arguments against animal moral standing. The anthropocentric musings of Aristotle and Aquinas are the foundations for the inaccuracy of subsequent anthropocentric philosophers in that they express a fundamental example of relativity. What I’m saying is that as developed as many arguments are, that doesn’t excuse the fact that we as humans are making a value judgment based on the fact that something is not like us, therefore does not possess an equal moral standing or standing at all. This is an arrogant presumption based on an inability to communicate with and previous ignorance in regard to the nature of other species. Some arguments that would otherwise successfully exempt animals from our little club of moral standings overstep their bounds by also exempting certain humans from this privilege of life. Immanuel Kant’s view says “only autonomous beings, capable of free and rational action, are moral beings” (DesJardins 97). If in fact animals did not possess this capacity, this view can be heavily and successfully debated on the grounds that certain human beings do not fit this qualification. So we would then be forced to hold this “rule” for them as well. An example would be a mentally handicapped child. We would not disregard the value of that child’s life, so this argument is unjust. A similar argument is given by Cartesian ethics in that the “criterion for moral standing is consciousness. Anything not conscious is a mere physical thing and can be treated without concern for its well-being” (DesJardins 97). This again opens an opportunity for inclusion of animals, but barbarically excludes anyone that, for example, has fallen into a coma or is cognitively impaired. In this sense Descartes might as well just say “kick ‘em while he’s down.”

Philosopher Jeremy Bentham gets things going in the right direction by stating “the question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer?” (DesJardins qtd. 97). To answer this in discussion of animals it is much easier to say yes, and therefore conclude that animals possess moral standing. But then we have to ask- what degree of moral standing? To say that other animals possess a higher moral standing than humans would be a difficult debate to win. We may hold a particular animal (our pet) in higher regards than a stranger, but to find a human that holds any animal higher than themselves would be rare. Equal moral standing would be more rationally debated, although I think again if it came down to mortal consequences that the animal would lose. After that however I think that animals can justly be held, and should be held, in the highest regard feasible without putting humans in direct mortal harm. One example would be, if you are being charged by a bear you would shoot it if it were clear you were in mortal danger. But that bear can be held with higher regard if we recognize its territory and avoid it in the first place, or protect both of you by properly managing your trash receptacle. While either of you can impose mortal harm to the other, there is no reason both cannot live in harmonious proximity of each other. I posted a direct question to my classmates seeking anyone who did not feel that animals possessed moral standing. Unfortunately (or fortunately), no one disagreed. A consistent notion that our needs came first did present itself in my classmates’ responses, but all agreed that animals are qualified.

Two new debates of degree now arise out of accepting animals into our realm of moral standing. The first is whether there is a balance between our need for cheap and abundant food supply and the treatment of our livestock. Concentrated Animal Feed Operations are the means to providing us with the meat that we demand. Much of our society is unfortunately greatly disconnected with the sources of their food. It doesn’t take much however to alter ones perception when presented with the realities of CAFO’s. The introduction to this chapter which presents us with the story behind our veal cutlet had a resounding effect on the opinions of my classmates. Unfortunately it sometimes takes a violent and disturbing reality check to derail our comfortable disregard of the realities of how our food gets to our mouth.

This shock therapy often leads us to the second debate of degree. That is whether or not animals should have equal status to humans and therefore should not be a source of food in any form. The result is veganism. Peter Singer and Tom Regan support this end in their philosophies, and no matter how arguable their ideas may be I cannot deny our human nature to live as omnivores. Humans killing for food is no more immoral than a predator killing its prey. It probably is necessary for all of us to cut back on our consumption of livestock in light of our population, and it may even be necessary to live a nearly herbivorous existence in order to sustain our current population. But I don’t feel there are moral grounds to completely deny the ability of humans to consume other animals.

So if we are to eat less meat, what are we to eat? Plants! But what about moral standing for plants? Before this week I would have run into this conversation with my hands tied behind my back knowing that there are no grounds to deny our right to eat vegetables. Not especially on moral grounds. In fact when Patrick B. asked this very question on our discussion board that response is exactly what I was prepared to give. But his comment, “Does the sun give [plants] pleasure?” made me think first. What is pleasure? From a human perspective isn't our desire for pleasure more simply put as our desire to be removed from pain? And then we can ask is pain anything more than an evolved response relating to our instinct to preserve our own life? It's kind of like how our body reacts instinctively to extreme heat, we pull our hand away. So let’s say that our reaction away from pain is a reaction to a potential threat to our life. From that example you could say that our "desire" for pleasure is because it inversely relates to pain. We feel good when taking a warm bath because it promotes life and doesn't resemble something that could cause us pain, just the opposite of suffering.

So, if you still follow me, then what we call pleasure is our natural response to something that promotes life, or simply does not resemble a threat against us. Then you could argue that plants do react to positive stimulation as we humans do. And now that we show plants have a capacity for pleasure, than they must possess a capacity to suffering. So under the grounds of Singer's argument, plants do show a "capacity to suffering" (DesJardins p.110) and therefore possess moral standing. That puts us in an awkward predicament. But I would revert back to what I said about eating animals and now feel morally obligated to abstain from eating plants, but now we may just have to reconsider how we treat them while they are alive.

So now if we agree that we can show that animals and plants have moral standing is there a need for anthropocentric ethics at all? The heart of anthropocentric ethics comes from the fact that to think anthropocentrically is to think centrally of oneself and one’s species. This point of view is reinforced by a divine scripture telling us it is so. I think that we can stop here and say that the idea of anthropocentric ethics is not without reason and basis for these two reasons alone. But it is within our human cognitive ability to debate what this implies as far as our rights to treat other lives with respect and much deeper and far reaching topics. The idea of anthropocentric ethics can have its negative effects on our ecology, as we see with greenhouse gas emissions and global climate. Also if taken in its literal mistranslation the anthropocentric divine right bestowed upon us in the Bible in the story of Creation can serve to mislead the principles of our heavily religion based culture (Gen 1:28). I had previously formulated my own opinion of how our modern religious society has grossly misinterpreted the words "subdue" and "dominion" in the ancient religious text of the Bible (Gen 1:28). My interpretation is that God blessed us with our cognitive ability and morals and we have the responsibility to care for the other creatures on the earth and in turn we have the privilege to reap benefits from those creatures. But for those who choose to misuse and abuse these creatures with disregard because they feel that holy text (that has been translated into hundreds of languages and by many individuals) says that is how we should act, obviously didn't pay attention to the rest of the message in the Bible. I was pleased to read that Lynn White Jr. shared a similar sentiment in regards to how western religious beliefs can be tied to the cause of our current environmental dilemmas (DesJardins 98-99).

Although there are problems with anthropocentric ethics in some regards, I feel that this mind set is deeply rooted in our subconscious. Because of this a rather large degree of consideration should be given to this mindset when addressing environmental debates. Even if an underlying motivator for change is based on nonanthropocentric ideas, which I have supported in the previous paragraphs, it may be necessary to formulate an argument that is based on positive anthropocentric outcomes. I don’t see that there is anything wrong with that. If some interpret this as promoting a hidden agenda that would be irrelevant because the outcomes were based on anthropocentric discourse which ensures that the action was in the interest of humans. So if we justify preserving the spotted owl’s habitat through argument favoring human standing, there is no harm done- only positive progress.

So now in our current understanding of the world we can show that animals have moral standing, plants have moral standing, and anthropocentric ethics have their place in our environmental decisions. Despite what I hope I have been able to clarify in regards to these topics the questions will always remain, to what degree do these ethics get applied? Perhaps it can be through Aristotle’s principle of virtuous means that we are able to balance through rational thought the best mix of these ethics for the health of our planet.