You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Should Trees Have Standing?
Pages 6 (1506 words)
Name: Instructor’s Name: Course: Date of Submission: 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.
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. ...
Not exactly what you need?