Bioethics Discussion Blog: Can a Tree Experience Hurt?: If It Can, Do Ethics and Law Apply?

REMINDER: I AM POSTING A NEW TOPIC ABOUT ONCE A WEEK OR PERHAPS TWICE A WEEK. HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T FIND A NEW TOPIC POSTED, THERE ARE AS OF MARCH 2013 OVER 900 TOPIC THREADS TO WHICH YOU CAN READ AND WRITE COMMENTS. I WILL BE AWARE OF EACH COMMENTARY AND MAY COME BACK WITH A REPLY.

TO FIND A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO YOU ON THIS BLOG, SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OR WORDS RELATED TO THE TOPIC IN THE FIELD IN THE LEFT HAND SIDE AT TOP OF THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK ON “SEARCH BLOG”. WITH WELL OVER 900 TOPICS, MOST ABOUT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ETHICAL ISSUES BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC DATE OR EVENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU DON’T PLEASE WRITE TO ME ON THE FEEDBACK THREAD OR BY E-MAIL DoktorMo@aol.com

IMPORTANT REQUEST TO ALL WHO COMMENT ON THIS BLOG: ALL COMMENTERS WHO WISH TO SIGN ON AS ANONYMOUS NEVERTHELESS PLEASE SIGN OFF AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH A CONSISTENT PSEUDONYM NAME OR SOME INITIALS TO HELP MAINTAIN CONTINUITY AND NOT REQUIRE RESPONDERS TO LOOK UP THE DATE AND TIME OF THE POSTING TO DEFINE WHICH ANONYMOUS SAID WHAT. Thanks. ..Maurice

FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK! WRITE YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS BLOG, WHAT IS GOOD, POOR AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FEEDBACK THREAD

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Can a Tree Experience Hurt?: If It Can, Do Ethics and Law Apply?








I was visiting a well known botanic garden in Southern California today, taking pictures of all the beautiful flowers when I saw this tree shown above in the pictures I took.  Honestly, what I saw, a tree apparently being pulled by straps out of its normal posture, pained me as I projected myself as if I were that tree.  Of course, I am not that tree but then this got me thinking about the bioethics of what had been done to the tree.  (First of all, I want to admit that I have no idea how long the straps were in place or for what future duration and what the gardeners were intending to accomplish with the straps since I haven't talked to the garden management. Finally, I am not sure that trees experience "hurt".)

Bioethics is not just about the ethics of humans and animals, healthy or with disease but it is also about ethics dealing with the plant kingdom. A current example of ethical concern is genetically modifying plants, including those we eat. And the question that came to me was whether what was done to the tree was unethical, that is, failing to meet the ethical standard for the principles of beneficence (to do good) and non-malificence (avoiding causing harm). But, though what I saw "hurt" me, the questions were whether the tree, a living creature of the plant kingdom was, in its own way, appreciating some "hurt" and with some ethical significance. Was the tree recognizing discomfort? Was the purpose of the straps to benefit the tree (which might be considered ethical) or to re-position the tree for its appearance to the benefit of the viewing public?  The latter might be considered unethical if the tree experienced "hurt".

To try to answer my concerns, as I often do, I go to Wikipedia to get a bit of help.  I found the article on Plant Rights which I have, as is permitted, reproduced below.  I would be most interested in the viewpoints of my visitors and perhaps they have found additional information regarding the science answering the question as to whether trees can "feel" or "express distress" to physical discomfort.  If they can, should they have themselves certain "rights" both legally and ethically? The question is either fascinating or just "dumb".  Tell me what you think...Maurice.

Plant rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Plant breeders' rights.
Plant rights are rights to which plants may be entitled. Such issues are often raised in connection with discussions abouthuman 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][3][4][5][6] Philosopher Paul Taylor holds that all life has inherent worth and argues for respect for plants, but does not assign them rights.[7] 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.[8][9]
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.[10] 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.[11] 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."[12]
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".[13][14] 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.[15]
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:
Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes... So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life...The voice of the inanimate object, therefore, should not be stilled.
Samuel Butler's Erewhon contains a chapter, "The Views of an Erewhonian Philosopher Concerning the Rights of Vegetables".[16]
The Swiss Constitution contains a provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms", and the Swiss government has conducted ethical studies pertaining to how the dignity of plants is to be protected.[17]The single-issue Party for Plants entered candidates in the 2010 parliamentary election in the Netherlands.[18] 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".[19]
In 2012 a river in New Zealand was legally declared a person with standing (via guardians) to bring legal actions to protect its interests.[20]
References
References[edit]
1.      Regan, Tom (2003). Animal rights, human wrongs: an introduction to moral philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 101. ISBN 0-7425-3354-9.
3.     Marder, Michael (2013). Plant-Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-16125-1http://www.amazon.com/Plant-Thinking-A-Philosophy-Vegetal-Life/dp/0231161255/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358962348&sr=8-1&keywords=plant+thinking
4.      Marder, Michael (April 28, 2012). "If Peas Can Talk, Should We Eat Them?"The New York Times.
5.      Marder, Michael (May 8, 2012). "Is Plant Liberation on the Menu?"The New York Times.
7.      Vesilind, P. Aarne; Gunn, Alastair S. (1998). Engineering, ethics, and the environment. Cambridge University Press. p. 94. ISBN 0-521-58918-5.
8.      Stone, Christopher D. (2010). Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment (Third ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-973607-3.
9.      Stone, Christopher D. (1972). "Should Trees Have Standing--Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects". Southern California Law Review 45: 450–87.
10.   Hall, Matthew (2011). Plants as Persons: A Philosophical Botany. SUNY Press.ISBN 1-4384-3428-6.
11.   Michael Heidelberger Nature from within: Gustav Theodor Fechner and his psychophysical worldview 2004, p. 54

Graphics: Photographs taken by me  June 12 2014

9 Comments:

At Friday, June 13, 2014 5:41:00 PM, Blogger Hexanchus said...

Uh...you're kidding, right?

Guess I can't mow the lawn anymore because it might cause the grass pain - or use fertilizer with weed killer because the weeds have a right to live too. As John Stossel would say, "Give Me a Break!"

Both plants and animals have been used from time immemorial for food any other purposes. I hardly think the opinions of a few clear outliers is going to influence that.

I do agree that there needs to be close attention and proper regulation of genetically modified crops to protect our natural seed crops. Of course many of the newer designer pharmaceuticals fall sort of into that "genetically engineered" category as well.

As to ALF and their ilk, I don't give much weight to the ramblings of an eco-terrorist organization. And while PETA has never been caught directly participating in eco-terrorist acts, they have directly contributed financially to both the organizations (ELF & ALF) and to individuals arrested for committing eco-terrorist acts.

Come to think of it, I do have a PETA t-shirt which I wear proudly - it reads:
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

Just my $0.02.....

Hex

 
At Friday, June 13, 2014 6:02:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

You know Hex, as we read day after day generation after generation, century after century, in the old books and the news media from today both at home and overseas, there is unrelenting hurt that humans are subjecting other humans so it seems a bit "over the top" to fret about how humans treat animals and the plant kingdom. On the other hand, I felt a bit uncomfortable with what I saw and my blog is a good place for me to ventilate. ..Maurice.

 
At Friday, June 13, 2014 6:45:00 PM, Blogger Hexanchus said...

Dr. B,

I understand and agree with you on that - I too, do not like to see senseless or meaningless destruction or damage to the environment.

It would be interesting to know why they were doing what they were to that tree.

Hex

 
At Friday, June 13, 2014 8:58:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Hex, unfortunately, I can't answer your "why". But, if one assumes that it was for an intended appearance of the tree, one can consider the issue of topiary art.

One can ask whether the art of topiary (crafting the appearance of trees into art objects;example on YouTube) is ethical. Is this what we would consider as a proper way to interact with nature? Is there more value in letting a tree express itself naturally or to recreate the tree's appearance in order to satisfy a person's artful or other self-interest desires?

Weighing these differences in ethical terms (if not from some biologic aspects) is worthy to understand human's relationship with nature. ..Maurice.

 
At Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:21:00 PM, Blogger Munchenkin said...

Hex,

I have never formally studied ethics but I do study plant science so I think I can chip in.

Obviously plant life is of enormous value to humans and thus should be treated with 'respect' insofar as it would be stupid to destroy that which we need, but I don't think that's really an ethical consideration. On the ethical side I think there is a distinction between an ethical consideration for humane treatment, based on the possibility of pain and distress being felt in the recipient, and a general dignity applicable to all 'natural' elements of our environment. This later idea may connect to a sense of property rights - what we do not 'own' is not ours to do with as we please - or it could be more spiritual. I think I can't add anything on the pain front, but not on the dignity issue.

Pain perception has been attributed till now only to animals possessing a sufficiently developed and centrally organised nervous system. This does not include all animals; at least in the UK octopuses are the only non-vertebrates requiring ethical consideration, at least in scientific studies. This is being expanded; at the moment accumulating evidence shows that crustaceans feel pain and recent evidence shows that they even feel anxiety (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27812367). However there are some developmentally simpler animals, such as jellyfish and sponges that are unlikely to ever be considered for this as they lack anything like a centralised nervous system.
How much more so then for plants which don't have neurons at all (the specialised cells that transmit stimuli as electrical impulses). There are a few cases where plants use electric signalling, the venus fly trap being one, but this doesn't involve nerves transmitting signals through the body, it happens in the cells immediately around the touched area. Plants to do of course perceive their envinronment (light, heat, nutrient and water availability, pests and herbivores) but only in the same way as each on of our cells are capable of perceiving many things (chemicals in the blood, the physical stimulus of neighbouring cells etc.). This obviously raises the question of how, when each of our individual cells is incapable of 'sensing' things like pain, can it be that humans, composed of unfeeling cells, can. A simplified version of how consciousness arises. I am totally baffled by this but however it works it seems to be an emergent property depending on specific cells that act as processors. Plants lack anything homologous to the central nervous systems of some animals and so would not be able to feel pain.

A final reason to expect that plants do not feel pain is that there is no reason for a plant to be able to feel pain, from an evolutionary perspective. Pain is incredibly useful to animals as it is a signal to move away from a potentially harmful stimulus (heat, predators claws etc.). Plants are sessile organisms, which means they are stuck in one place. It makes sense for them to be able to sense their environment and produce developmental and physiological reposnses but pain would be useless as they cannot simply 'run away'. Pain only makes sense in the world of fight or flight that plants are not part of.

Whether you personally feel it is wrong to damage the spiritual dignity of a tree is really up to you.

Orlando

 
At Thursday, June 19, 2014 8:26:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

"Whether you personally feel it is wrong to damage the spiritual dignity of a tree is really up to you."

Orlando, ..and I accept that.

A writer's thoughtful discussion of "Why Anthropomorphism is a Good Thing" can be read at this link.

Assuming that trees look at their lives with ones own eyes is a worthy concept and such anthropomorphic projection I think should help temper our unnecessary and maleficent acts to the world around us. ..Maurice.

 
At Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:14:00 AM, Anonymous Colm Barry said...

If we granted plants rights against not being strapped down, as in the tree example in the beginning, then we might certainly not allow lumberjacks to chop trees. And eating many plants, if it were not just the fruits, as fruitarians advocate, would equally be unethical. Soon humans would die or freeze or catch a cold and worse because of such policies. Genetically modifying plants is another matter, but one which would immediately stop if those who released these GMOs were liable and had to get insurance. So that GMOs exist is because of government regulation (i.e. regulating non-insurance).

 
At Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:09:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

I agree that the "ethical" (beneficence and non-maleficence) treatment of plants cannot take precedence over the value of these plants to the lives of our animals and ourselves. However, the value should deal with our health and functioning. I am presenting a consideration that if the goal is to create something artistic for the art value itself and nothing further, that such treatment of plants within their growing environment should not be considered acceptable. ..Maurice.

 
At Tuesday, July 22, 2014 6:43:00 PM, Blogger A. Banterings said...

Let me start with animals: the Torah and the Old Testament talk about the uses, slaughter, and eating of animals in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Leviticus is the big one. It states the rules given by God how to (ethically) use, slaughter, and eat animals.

Growing up in Pennsylvania I learned to hunt and fish (ethically) by age 6. My wife's sons are big time hunters. I go with her sons to be social. I get a license, take a gun, but I am not going to shoot anything. I can and I have already.

A few years ago, one of her grandsons (of one of her daughters) wanted to go hunting. I volunteered to "post" with him so as not to ruin the other boys' hunting.

He asked me what it is like to kill a deer. I told him the truth; there is a rush at first, but then it becomes a horrible experience. But you realize what it takes to keep you alive. You learn to appreciate life more.

By doing it ethically, the experience is hard, but not traumatic ( for most).

Part of ethics is the basis of your ethical decision making. Most people use the Bible, Torah, Quran, the teachings of Buddha, or "The Golden Rule" (do unto others...).

There are other sources of decision making; Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, or The Prince by Machiavelli.

Most of the western world uses the Bible. The Bible addresses plants too:

The LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed there the man whom he had formed.

Out of the ground the LORD God made grow every tree that was delightful to look at and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it. The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.
Expulsion from Eden.

Now the snake was the most cunning* of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?”

The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

Make yourself an ark of gopherwood,* equip the ark with various compartments, and cover it inside and out with pitch.

-Genesis 2:8-9,
-Genesis 15-17
-Genesis 3:1, 6-7
-Genesis 6:14


My point is that (ethically) we are "allowed" to use plants, God even commands us to use them. In relationship to animals, there are much fewer "special considerations" than animals (how to slaughter, what not to eat, Kosher rules, etc.).

Leviticus does have some other rules: cleaning out the crumbs (before Passover); these rules are more for hygiene.

There is Leviticus 19:19; do not mix seeds (genetic engineering maybe?) and Leviticus 19:23; do not pick fruit off trees for three years.

We can use them, but it is not without limitations.

--Banterings

 

Post a Comment

<< Home