Plant rights? Worldviews!

JP: If plants have rights, Kathee is a murderer! And the image below is a carrot torture device!

When Plants Have Rights . . . An Idea Gone to Seed


For a carrot, is there a more mortifying fate than being peeled, chopped and dropped into boiling water?

In the most important part of the report, the committee identified four alternative worldviews that would lead to very different conclusions. These are:

Theocentrism — “The basis for this position is the idea of a God who is creator, and therefore the creative ground of all living organisms. What counts for its own sake is God. All organisms count because of their relationship to God.”

Ratiocentrism — “In this position the issue of whether beings count for their own sake depends on their (potential) capacity for reason and their capacity for abstract speech.”

Pathocentrism — This position is based in the sentience of living organisms. They count morally for their own sake if they are sentient and are therefore able to experience something, in some way, as good or bad.”

Biocentrism — “Living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive.”

Respect for creation is, for Christians, based in the worship of the Creator. Despoilers of nature are unfaithful stewards of creation. We are to treat all creation — and all creatures — with respect and thankfulness. But, we are not to confuse plants and animals with humans. Humans have rights because human beings are made in the image of God. Plants do not have rights.

When the Christian worldview is abandoned, there is no adequate replacement — nothing that can ground human dignity in anything other than philosophical quicksand. When plants are said to have rights, human rights are automatically undermined. A biocentric worldview is a recipe for disaster, but it is a logical alternative once the Christian worldview is rejected.

%d bloggers like this: