Is it morally right to use trees? Watch

AvatarMew
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
We cut down millions of trees a year for paper and wood, these trees were once alive and we ended their lives tor our own desires is it right that we do this? Don't the trees have a right to life?
0
reply
carlisomes
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
yes it is right.

who determines what species has a right to life? is it wrong to kill ants, even if they don't threaten property or healthy? worms? beetles? Who determines what?
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
why would a plant have a right to life when it isn't even a conscious being with capabilities to suffer and think?
0
reply
interstitial
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Yes. Trees are alive, but they don't possess a brain or CNS so AFAIK they are incapable of feeling pain.

What would you suggest we use if all animals and plants are ruled out?
0
reply
455409
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
Who cares?
0
reply
Squaresquirrel
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Arithmeticae)
Yes. Trees are alive, but they don't possess a brain or CNS so AFAIK they are incapable of feeling pain.

What would you suggest we use if all animals and plants are ruled out?
I can't remember where but I read somewhere that plant life has a hormone system that seems to react in a similar way to our CNS, letting the plant know it has been attacked and warning nearby other plants (of the same species I think?) of the threat.


I know I can't back it up 'cause I read it ages ago but just food for thought.
0
reply
interstitial
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Squaresquirrel)
I can't remember where but I read somewhere that plant life has a hormone system that seems to react in a similar way to our CNS, letting the plant know it has been attacked and warning nearby other plants (of the same species I think?) of the threat.


I know I can't back it up 'cause I read it ages ago but just food for thought.
Never heard this before. Is this what you mean?

I know they can respond to stimuli, but this is not the same as being able to consciously respond to external factors and experience emotion.
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
We should only eat maple syrup. Because it can be harvested without killing anything.
0
reply
Squaresquirrel
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Arithmeticae)
Never heard this before. Is this what you mean?

I know they can respond to stimuli, but this is not the same as being able to consciously respond to external factors and experience emotion.
No, although that was an interesting article.

I'll try and find where I read it and will post it up here if I find it :P
0
reply
Greenlaner
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by AvatarMew)
We cut down millions of trees a year for paper and wood, these trees were once alive and we ended their lives tor our own desires is it right that we do this? Don't the trees have a right to life?
All lifeforms take the lives of other lifeforms for their own survival. That is how life works.

But if it really bothers you, I suppose you could try living in a desert, eating only sand and living under stones. You won't be allowed to drink water as it's full of microbial life you would be killing whenever you take a sip. Sure you will have a rotten, short life, but that is the sacrifice you must make to ensure you never disturb another lifeform.
2
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
why would a plant have a right to life when it isn't even a conscious being with capabilities to suffer and think?
Why not? Surely the burden of proof lies on those who think it morally acceptable to kill these beings? Using the abstract (and undefinable) notion of consciousness – or the lack thereof – seems a shaky ground on which to base such a claim. Does it follow that an unconscious being's life is worthless? Conversely, are all lives which exhibit a level of consciousness valuable, and equally so?
0
reply
Solarburst
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
r u srs
0
reply
TheMoho
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
yes


bye
0
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by AvatarMew)
Is it morally right to use trees?
What makes me mad is when people think they have the right to use trees for oxygen. Utterly disgusting.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Rinsed)
Why not? Surely the burden of proof lies on those who think it morally acceptable to kill these beings? Using the abstract (and undefinable) notion of consciousness – or the lack thereof – seems a shaky ground on which to base such a claim. Does it follow that an unconscious being's life is worthless? Conversely, are all lives which exhibit a level of consciousness valuable, and equally so?
trees, like other plants, are basically items; sure they grow and respire etc but they are not moral creatures - they have no rights and they have no moral relevance. other "non-living" biological beings do exactly as they do (e.g. germs) but we don't convey rights upon them, do we? why doesn't a germ have a right to life? they reproduce much more than trees do, right? so surely that's a sign of "mother nature's blessing"?
0
reply
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by zippity.doodah)
trees, like other plants, are basically items; sure they grow and respire etc but they are not moral creatures - they have no rights and they have no moral relevance. other "non-living" biological beings do exactly as they do (e.g. germs) but we don't convey rights upon them, do we? why doesn't a germ have a right to life? they reproduce much more than trees do, right? so surely that's a sign of "mother nature's blessing"?
Yea I mean, I agree, I'm not a complete fool. In all honesty I was bored and thought I'd see you justify it. This topic obviously lends itself to the discussion of killing animals and the question of where you draw a line is contentious.
0
reply
Exon
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Greenlaner)
All lifeforms take the lives of other lifeforms for their own survival. That is how life works.

But if it really bothers you, I suppose you could try living in a desert, eating only sand and living under stones. You won't be allowed to drink water as it's full of microbial life you would be killing whenever you take a sip. Sure you will have a rotten, short life, but that is the sacrifice you must make to ensure you never disturb another lifeform.
I don't think your gut flora would appreciate that.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (267)
60.96%
Yes- I don't like it (21)
4.79%
No- I want it (117)
26.71%
No- I don't want it (33)
7.53%

Watched Threads

View All