As part of Theoritical Framework and Philosophy at KABK. I presented starting points to invistigate this question. In Addition, I produced a VR drawn plant questioning if plants have eyes would that make a difference?

“

“Your presentation reconsidered the value attributed to plants. Your goal was clear: how can we change the way we value plants? I feared that your vast array of references and interests might be an issue for your presentation. You proved me wrong. All the theories you introduced reinforced the idea that there are many alternative perspectives than the normative one when it comes to valuation of plants...”
~Ellen van den Assem - Theoritical Framework Instructor  






Arguments presented: 

The goal is to call for reconsidering how we think about plants, and their relationship to the world, and ourselves, to try to break away from an anthropocentric point of view, and seek to discover plants through other lenses. At the end, we should think deeply about the environmental problems caused by human practices and how to move forward.

Hypothesis (a): There are three trains heading towards three tracks. The first track has a human, the second is a cat, and the third is a plant.
The trains will either go towards all of them, or one of them, which tack would you choose? and why?

Argument (1); Plants, humans and Value:
Intrinsic value means it holds value “for its own sake”. The opposite is eccentric or instrumental value. If you are a believer of intrinsic value, then Plants hold a higher intrinsic value because they are the source of life sustainability. Plants do not rely on humans or animals to live and flourish, while both animals and humans cannot continue life on their own without plants. I believe, whether you consider plants to have a an intrinsic or instrumental value in relation to itself or humans, to have the highest intrinsic value.

However, I am leaning more towards believing that a thing on its own, in isolation, cannot be ultimately intrinsically good or bad, it is relational, connected in its part to each others’ value, a duality for things, a contrast to see the value, as you need white to recognize black, and vice versa.

I also agree with G. E. Moore, an english philosopher, “ that any such analysis is to be rejected, since it will always be intelligible to ask whether (and, presumably, to deny that) it is good that something be A, B, C,…, which would not be the case if the analysis were accurate (Moore 1903, pp. 15–16). However, whether you believe in intrinsic value or not, I believe that plants still prove their high value that is proximate to the value of Humans; for themselves, the ecosystem around them, and for humans.

Argument (2): Plants, humans, dignity and usage: I believe that all living things have dignity and should be treated on that basis. I also recognize that since plants are the source of life, and cannot feel pain, that this difference in the species of plants should be considered when talking about moral standing in situations where interests conflict amongst different species. However, it should not be taken lightly or with dismissiveness.

Philosophies like Ecocentrism (“understanding ecological groups such as ecosystems, habitats, species, and populations are part of environmental concern.”), & deep ecology (“by Arne ness, the mistaken view of our nature is the fundamental cause of eco problem; considering that we are distinct, and isolated from others. Deep ecology explores the metaphysical relationship with nature, and calls for a radical change of how we understand that nature”), believe that the survival of species and populations trump the dignity of plants in those instances, because it preserves the system, community, and stability; therefore, it should be used for vital needs, and not arbitrarily.

The philosopher Leopard and the founder of the land ethic, believes that morality functions to cause cooperation, therefore, the moral biotic community should cooperate with each other.

Professor Satis Kumar calls for reverential ecology; he considered nature to be divine as it sustains life. From that notion, I think that such divinity of nature, and the specific unique power it has, gives it a higher position of being able to give, and reproduce, hence why other beings can call for assistance by it to satisfy for their vital needs.

Perhaps like kindergarten teachers, which are in a stronger power to teach, and pass on life principals to the children to grow, but their skills are not to be exploited or the structure of education will weaken and fall.

I am intrigued by a notion suggested by Michael Marder; he says that if it is impossible to live on something other than plants, then it is impossible to not live with them. He proposes the styles of existence; for example cutting the the sunflower and juicing it for oil, humans still live with that plant or dying with it.

Argument (3): Plants, humans, personhood and rights: Many of the definitions of personhood take a spaciest and anthropocentric stance such as one which attributes personhood to creatures which can feel pain. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of person as “An individual human being: a man, woman, or child”.

The question is what categories get to judge personhood. If we follow a critic where self-consciousness is a factor, then do babies count as persons, and what are the moral ramifications of that? Mathew Hall argues for the criteria of personhood being based on relationships to move away from a human-centric bias because moral status is relational.

According to Detwiler (1992, p. 239) “The category person applies to anything that has being, and who is therefore capable of relating. Another notion in the nature of a genealogy; individuals cannot appear in it without thereby assuming relational ties to all others within the genealogy.” The genealogical kinship between plants, animals, humans, rocks, etc., forms the basis of what Salmón calls a “kincentric ecology” (Salmón 2000) in which other-than-humans are brought into relationships of care and respect. Persons are also recognised as living beings, with “their own perspective, and with the ability to communicate in their own way” (Hall 2011, pp. 105–106)

in conclusion, Personhood helps in relating beings of the world. The reason I talk about personhood in regard of plants and humans, is that it is a perspective that is unique to consider when looking at the moral standing of plants.

At the end, I want to go to back to hypothesis (a).., but this time, there is an alteration..
Hypothesis (b); There are three trains heading towards three tracks. The first track has a human, the second is an alive octopus , and the third is an extremely endangered plant family that is essential for life.

The trains will either go towards all of them, or one of them, which tack would you choose? and why?

Questions:

I have questions to propose and discover in relation to this topic: Should a person arbitrary killing plants be held to law?

Should the companies that cause irreversible damage on the ecosystem be chartered with attempt of murder of earth and future generations of humans?