Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

No Rights for Plants – a necessary factor for the holocaust


As the prior article here talks about some moonbats in the Swiss government have concocted a set of rights for living things that even includes plants’ rights.

This appears to be relevant to some other hot-button topics here in recent days.

First of all it occurs to me that for the holocaust to happen it was a necessary factor for plants to have their right to life stripped from them. It’s really the first step down a slippery slope that ends with people having the right to life stripped from them. David Berlinski take note. We don’t want to overlook this in the future when we round up the usual suspects for holocaust scapegoating.

The second thing that comes to mind is that this appears to be natural law – even plants have a right to a life unmolested by human bullies thugs. It appears universal and transcendent. I think the Swiss did what C.S. Lewis only tried to do – found the one true universal transcendent moral law. The mother of all moral laws, so to speak.

I was reading something recently about Hitler's vegetarianism and it occurred to me that vegetarianism is perfectly consistent with at least one stream of Darwinian philosophy, that of animal rights activism. Plant rights would also fit into this stream quite handily. Darwinian reasoning does not really recognize any special categories of "human", "dog", "rose", "amoeba", or even "matter". According to evolutionary theory what we call "life" is only matter that at some unspecified point in time developed the peculiar ability to reproduce itself. The particular configurations of matter that we call "human", "dog", "rose", "amoeba" are nothing more than an arbitrary points on a continuum from "matter" to "living matter" to "pre-human" to "post-human" - a continuum that includes all matter, living or inert. Any "ethic" I might have is a subjective preference that is as arbitrary as the definition of "human". Is it right to kill and eat pre-human life such as cattle (or plants)? or should I defend pre-human life and kill people to save cattle (or plants)? The environmental movement invokes a "web of life" or "living earth" philosophy that attributes moral purpose to the planet and may (but not necessarily) entail an antipathy to those humans who cause any perceived harm to our "brothers and sisters" of the planetary ecosystem. Hence the rise of eco-terrorism directed at those who "harm" the environment or animals (loggers, fisherman, farmers, hunters, researchers, manufacturers, etc.) and the call for animal (and now plant) "rights". Since there is no distinction between matter and life nor is there an particular heirarchy of life, the ideas of philosophical vegetarianism, animal and plant rights, environmental (material) rights can be fit into this philosophy. If we include a goal to "nature and nature's god" that the "evolution" of this living planet is proceeding to a more definite end then the use of eugenics and euthanasia for people, animals, plants could be conceived of aiding nature in the pursuit of this end. Ultimately, there is no difference between the forester removing diseased trees to preserve th forest, the ranger removing diseased wildlife to protect the herd, or the government removing diseased people to protect society. We are all just cogs in the universal machine. When we add to this the often expressed idea that people are a "plague on the earth" then the use of mass murder to further the ends of "nature and nature's god" makes the mass murder of humans no different than "mowing the grass." dgosse
Please drop this already. Brent
Eric Anderson : As much as I like Daves threads here I have to agree with you. The implied question here is, "What gives one life form greater value than another?" Under Darwinism, there is no solid answer, strangely only double talk about greater intelligence (?) being equal to higher or superior. Indeed? Upon what basis? In a purely material existence intelligence means nothing at all more than that atoms in a "brain" move differently than those in a rock. Go figure. Borne
DaveScot, looks like since you weren't able to adequately support your position on the other threads you've resorted to parody? Oh, well. Certainly don't want to spoil your fun . . . Eric Anderson
russ: "If Darwin, Dennet, Dawkins and the rest are right, then we diminish our race by allowing the devolution that results from preserving the weak and inferior" This is exaclty how the Waorani indians lived before missionaries arrived at their jungle. Thier culture was one of killing, destroying and stealing from the weak and inferior which produced one of the highest, if not the highest, homicide rates in the world. But when these indians saw and heard the Gospel in action, after a respite of a few months, their murder rate dropped about 90 percent according to anthropologists Carole and Clay Robarchek. By the way, the movie End of the Spear was also heavily criticized by the materialists. JPCollado
Yes, I'm sure that comparing cultivation to mass genocide is a reasonable analogy. Global warming is, in in this same sense, no different than Christianity because they both are about salvation. What you have done is made a ridiculous analogy that does not constitute a cogent argument. Comparing plants and people is like comparing apples and oranges. Actually it's worse than that! :) Comparing the purification of the human race via synthetic selection to Darwin's theory of fitness via natural selection "is" cogent. The reason is that Darwinism just like Nazism are both world views based on "beliefs"-(key word here) motives, and inextricably linked with real actions and agendas. Plants with rights? Now who's being the silly one? Frost122585
We don’t want to overlook this in the future when we round up the usual suspects for holocaust scapegoating.
But doesn't the Nazi propaganda film in Expelled make perfect sense if Darwinism is true? If everything that makes human life worthwhile is the product of an unguided Darwinian process, then doesn't the perpetuation of less advanced members of society make human life less worthwhile? Darwinists may cling to a morality that has no foundation, but they do so in spite of Darwinism, not as part of the package. If Darwin, Dennet, Dawkins and the rest are right, then we diminish our race by allowing the devolution that results from preserving the weak and inferior. russ
Leo Just keepin' it real, homey. Pete I hadn't thought about it that way but you're right. The FSM is composed of unborn wheat plants dried, crushed, formed, and cooked. Pro-wheaters can't care for that one little bit. DaveScot
"Except for one. Doh!"
:lol: LOL yeah, oops! Q: What did Lot say to his wife when they were fleeing Sodom? A: "Who's that following us?" Apollos
DaveScot say what? Leo Hales
Ah yes - the one "ism" I left out. Wheat would naturally be highly offended by this depraved depiction of disfigured, processed plant matter. Smithers! Release the Hounds! selectedpete
pete now all they need to do is inform us which model of transcendant being or source allowed them to conclude that plants have rights Almost certainly that would be His Whole Wheat Goodness: DaveScot
sagebrush every tree that has fruit with seed in it. Except for one. Doh! DaveScot
Indeed , and now all they need to do is inform us which model of transcendant being or source allowed them to conclude that plants have rights. Then we could place everything against Darwin's nifty-difty nobil-i-tizer module letting us know exactly how much nobility might be applied to an asparagus, a squash, the downtrodden common moss etc. My best guess would be that the Swiss are leaning toward one or more of the millions of gods revered in the Hindu worldview. They can't be Buddhist because then they would have no way of knowing for sure if the plant truly existed (or in what dimension) in the first place. We can also strike Allah from the list because Muslims clearly place the male human at the apex, and then women, then creepy crawly things. It would be nothing for them to destroy a lowly plant. The Christian Golden Rule tells us that we are to treat other (people) like ourselves, and clearly says it is ok to eat things like animals and plants, so that's out. That leaves - hm, oh yes. "Dave Scot-ism" which draws its morality from deep within. (Suspiciously close to Oprah Winfrey-ites if you ask me.) selectedpete
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. Genesis 1:29 sagebrush gardener
:) Great post! EJ Klone
I think we have it on good authority that life is a gift which we do not deserve and will someday relinquish. That appeals to the broad swath of the big top and with careful parsing even atheists may agree with this definition. And if we continue to take the good authority that somewhere along the line (we have it on good authority when and where) that the free will of some living things began to diverge from the good authority, then we can understand how what the Swiss are doing is Biblical and we can see the further evidence of the Good Authority in the lower abortion rates in that country. But that doesn't mean your reductio ad absurdum is valid Dave, I think you are being facetious about the slippery slope of plants to nazi. irreducible_complacency

Leave a Reply