Should Trees Have Standing - Essay Example

Should Trees Have Standing? Gone are the days when there is any kind of debate on the issue whether or not all humans are equal or not. Yet so, it is quite shocking to believe that humans were once categorized on the basis of their race and color to decide whether or not they have a moral and a legal standing. However, there is a unanimous settlement on the presumption that all humans, regardless of their race, color, names, backgrounds, monetary status etc, are equal before law and hold equal moral status no matter what. However, the question here arises that whether or not, nature holds the same status as that of human or not? Taking trees for that matter, as they are living creatures with biological properties, the debate now arises whether or not they have legal or moral rights. In my view, trees do have a legal as well as a moral standing, and their due rights should be protected, however, if humans cut trees for sustenance and not for pleasure, such an act shouldn`t be challenged in any case, as giving the rights is one thing but sacrificing one`s own rights for the sake of nature is another. The presumption can be backed by the works of Stone and Schmitz, both being highly reputable professors of philosophy. Stone here regards that trees, like corporations, should be assigned their due rights. Though trees can`t speak for themselves, so can`t the corporations, thus by virtue of law, trees should be protected from abusive behavior. Similarly, Schmitz talks about social egalitarianism in this regard and argues that it is irrational to presume that all species have equal moral standing as that is to be judged by the self respect principal, i.e. though killing trees without a reason is highly immoral but killing trees for self-survival is completely understandable and doesn’t challenge the ethics and morality for that matter. To defend the legal status of the trees, the propositions from the Stone`s works can be analyzed and studied. He gives the example of a stream which is often quoted in such instances as it gives the most relevant explanation for the legal rights which ought to be presumed by nature. He proposes three basic requirements for the plaintiffs to sue the violators of the stream. When a company sued the industry for polluting the stream, the legal standing was given for the protection on the stream because, firstly, there was a holder to sue the industry, secondly, there must be a competent someone to bear the standing, and thirdly, there must be someone benefitting from the economic compensations. In this regard, the common law would deny any kinds of rights for the natural objects, even trees, on the grounds that trees can`t sue anyone themselves, nor can they reap the financial compensations, thus there is no point in giving them any kinds of rights (Stone and Hardin 2002). However, Stone argues that same is the case with corporations, i.e. corporations are also dead entities, not even living beings like trees, and however they do have a legal status. In this sense, similar to the corporations, whenever anyone would sue the violators destroying the trees, the benefits would still be reaped by the trees and not by the plaintiffs. Thus, trees in any case deserve a legal standing whatsoever, similar to that of humans, as if the corporations can have a standing, so can the trees. Speaking of the moral rights of the trees, the concept can be explained by the principal of social egalitarianism, which regards all species as equal to humans, thus being not inferior or superior in any case. The proponents of social egalitarianism argue that historically when the races were being denied the moral rights, i.e. slaves, blacks etc being considered as inferior, thus once modernization eliminated the discrimination, shouldn’t the same be applied on nature too? The advocates of egalitarianism regard trees as having rights similar to that of humans, thus trees should have a high moral standing in the social spectrum, thus, and it would be highly immoral to cut the trees for self interests of humans (Schmitz and Williot 2002). To explain the point, Schmitz presents following propositions which must be coherent and logical to constitute a valid argument; “The beliefs that form the core of the biocentric outlook are four in number; The belief that humans are members of the Earth`s Community of life in the same sense and on the same terms in which other living things are members of that community, The belief that the human species along with other species are integral elements in a system of interdependence, The belief that all organisms are teleological centres of life in the sense that each is a unique individual pursuing its own good in its own way, The belief that the humans are not inherently superior to other living beings.” (Schmitz 2002) Though based on the above presumptions, it is rational to assume that trees do have a moral standing, considering the superiority or inferiority. The assumptions are true to the extent that trees shouldn`t be eliminated from the list of species having moral standing, however, Schmitz himself disregards the presumption as being extreme on the basis that this model ignores the interdependence of species upon each other where they have to consume each other for sustenance. Thus, here the argument can be defended on the other presumption which Schmitz put forth in this context. He states that superiority should not be the only model which should be applied to defend the fact that trees have a moral standing (Schmitz and Williot 2002). Rather, he states that the principal of self respect and instrumentation of the species should be applied. This implies that trees should not be cut, not because they have equal status as humans or other animals. Rather, in this context, it should be considered that trees have aesthetic and instrumental importance in our lives, thus as humans we should not cut trees or destroy them as in this case, we will be disturbing the ecosystem and the aesthetics of the earth. Thus, as a principal of self respect one should not even think of destroying the trees. However, as a matter of sustenance and living, it is only sane and morally justified to destroy trees. There are however many counter-arguments in this regard, which needs to be addressed. When Stone published his works on the issue, many activists and other opponents criticized the proposition that trees should have any kind of standing. They said things for instance claiming that if trees would get rights, they would sue humans for standing under them, for cutting them for making goods for sustenance, or for doing any activity involving trees. However, these people wrongly perceive the scope of rights which the trees would be acquiring. This implies that the legal status wouldn’t mean that the trees would have indefinite rights. Instead, the trees would have indirect rights and the term stated by Stone, i.e. legally considerate would be more relevant in this context, as the rights would only condemn acts of open violence against the trees. These would include cutting trees for self pleasure, for illegal activities, inflicting dangerous chemical wastes on trees, or harming them when isn’t required. This would also positively affect the environment around us as trees have an important function of keeping the earth safe for humans, thus every human should be sensitive of the fact. Conclusively, the issue of whether the trees should have any kind of standing or not is a complicated one rather if it is understood in essence it is a simple task. The argument which has been addressed throughout the paper regards that the trees have a moral as well a legal standing as they are living species and should be treated with respect, however if the trees are cut or affected for reasons of human sustenance that is only fair as it would be irrational to believe that the humans should sacrifice themselves for nature. For this reasons, accounts from Stone and Schmitz have been used which help in understanding the issue in detail. Stone simply argues that trees should be treated like corporations, i.e. if corporations being dead entities can be regarded as having legal rights so can be the trees. Trees fulfill all the necessary requirements needed for the legal action to be taken. Similarly, Schmitz also takes social egalitarianism and relevant theories into account though do not agree to them absolutely. Rather he states that trees should not be cut, not because of principal of equality, rather for the self respect of humans, which means that if in any case human existence is at stake, it won`t be immoral to cut trees in such a case. Thus, these two accounts have successfully managed to support the thesis of the paper, also addressing any kinds of counterarguments which have been posed by the opponents. For instance, the legal right if replaced by legal considerations does the trick, if not anything else. Work Cited Stone, C. D., & Hardin, G. J. (1973). Should trees have standing?: Toward legal rights for natural objects. Los Altos, Calif: W. Kaufmann. Schmidtz, D., & Willott, E. (2002). Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More