What Does it Mean For Ecocentrists to Regard a Tree As a Moral Patient?
What does it mean for ecocentrists, and other environmentalists, to regard a tree as a morally-equivalent patient? In a recent essay, environmental philosopher and poet Michael Rolston challenged this anthropocentrist claim. He argued that trees are not merely objects of pleasure; they are also morally-equivalent patients.
| What Does it Mean For Ecocentrists to Regard a Tree As a Moral Patient?
What does it mean for ecocentrists, and other environmentalists, to regard a tree as a morally-equivalent patient? In a recent essay, environmental philosopher and poet Michael Rolston challenged this anthropocentrist claim. He argued that trees are not merely objects of pleasure; they are also morally-equivalent patients.
}
The ethical considerations behind the argument that ecocentrists should regard trees as moral patients are not confined to the ecological realm. For example, if a doctor was to mistreat her patients, it would be wrong. For that reason, the patient has a moral status. If a farmer tries to kill his cows, he will have to deal with the consequences.
The question arises: what does it mean for ecocentrist to regard a tree as a morally-equivalent patient? Aside from the fact that trees are essentially “living things,” it also raises other moral questions. Does a tree have any intrinsic value? Does it have a social life? Do we owe it to our children to protect it? How do we protect it?
What does it mean for ecocentrists and other environmentalists to regard a tree as’moral patients’? By using this definition, they argue that trees are moral agents, and therefore deserve to be treated like humans. After all, human beings are the only ones who can make moral decisions, and they are not obligated to treat other beings.
Goodpaster invokes the concern for the environment and urges us to regard all living beings as moral patients. However, he also argues for the need to protect the integrity of ecosystems and biotic communities. This is a paradox of a similar kind. As an example, he equates ecological values with the welfare of animals.
While environmental ethicists have argued that trees are moral patients, they are not anthropocentric. Rather, they are nonhuman agents. Moreover, they have emphasized that they believe that the interests of animals are not just the interests of human beings. By contrast, a tree’s interests are incompatible with its owners. (Modafinil) In this regard, a tree’s ethical status is irrelevant.
The concept of moral patient is controversial, as ecocentrists have argued that animals are not moral patients. They have a primary intrinsic value. This value is akin to that of a person. A human being has a greater worth than an animal. The same can be said for a tree. For instance, a deer has a higher value than an animal, so why shouldn’t it be treated differently?
For ecocentrists, a tree is a moral patient. As a moral patient, a tree has the same rights and obligations as a human. A deer has the same rights as a human, and he has the same interest as a dog. If a tree has feelings, it is a patient. If a tree doesn’t feel the same emotions, it can’t be a moral subject.
For ecocentrists, the tree is a moral patient. By virtue of its intrinsic value, it has intrinsic value and an intrinsic value for humans. For biocentrists, a tree has a different value than a person. The latter view is based on the assumption that humans have more than one self. A human’s soul is a spiritual person.
In a sense, an ecocentrist is a moral patient. But, it’s not a moral patient. The tree, in fact, is a human’s soul. But an animal’s body is not a human. But a tree is a “moral” subject. Hence, an ecocentrist has a right to treat a tree as a patient.