Plant rights refer to the rights that some plants might have. These topics are often discussed along with human rights, animal rights, biocentrism, and sentientism.

Philosophy

Samuel Butler’s book Erewhon includes a chapter titled "The Views of an Erewhonian Philosopher Concerning the Rights of Vegetables."

Tom Regan, a philosopher who studies animal rights, believes animals have rights because they are aware, which he describes as being "subjects-of-a-life." He says this awareness does not apply to plants. Even if plants had rights, Regan argues that avoiding meat is still moral because plants are used to raise animals for food.

Michael Marder, another philosopher, says the idea that plants should have rights comes from "plant subjectivity," which is different from how humans are seen as people. Paul W. Taylor believes all living things have natural value and should be respected, but he does not say plants have rights. Christopher D. Stone, the son of journalist I. F. Stone, wrote a 1972 paper titled "Should Trees Have Standing?" In it, he suggests that if corporations can have rights, then natural objects like trees should too. Stone points out that over time, societies have given rights to groups like Black people, Jews, women, and fetuses, even when those rights seemed impossible before.

Matthew Hall does not use the word "rights" but argues that plants should be considered in human moral decisions. His book Plants as Persons: A Philosophical Botany explains how Western philosophy has viewed plants, compared to other traditions, such as those of Indigenous cultures, which see plants as living beings with intelligence and worth. Hall supports his argument by referring to plant neurobiology, the study of how plants act on their own and respond to their environment, including recognizing themselves and others.

Scientific perspective

In the study of plant physiology, scientists understand that plants have ways to notice changes in their environment. This idea of plants sensing their surroundings is different from the belief that plants can feel emotions, a concept sometimes called plant perception. This belief, along with the idea of plant intelligence, began in 1848 when Gustav Theodor Fechner, a German psychologist, proposed that plants might experience emotions and that speaking to them, showing them care, and giving them attention could help them grow better.

Although plants, as living things, can detect and react to physical changes and injuries, most scientists agree they cannot feel pain. This is because plants do not have pain receptors, nerves, or a brain, which are needed for feeling pain or having consciousness. Many plants can sense and respond to physical touch at the cell level. Some plants, like the Venus flytrap or the touch-me-not, are known for their clear ability to react to physical contact. Even though scientists are still unsure about what causes consciousness, especially as shown by the hard problem of consciousness, it is widely believed that plants cannot feel pain because they lack a nervous system. This is true even though plants can respond to sunlight, gravity, wind, and other outside influences like insect bites.

In 2009, the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology studied scientific information about plants and concluded that plants deserve some level of "dignity," but that this dignity is not an absolute value.

In 2010, a political group in the Netherlands called the Single-Issue Party for Plants ran candidates in the parliamentary election. This group focuses on issues like climate change, biodiversity, and sustainability. These concerns have been criticized as signs that modern society may be struggling to think critically and to tell serious ethical issues from less important ones.

Legal arguments

In his disagreement with the 1972 Sierra Club v. Morton decision by the United States Supreme Court, Justice William O. Douglas discussed whether plants could have the right to take part in legal cases.

The Swiss Constitution includes a rule that requires the dignity of creation to be considered when dealing with animals, plants, and other living things. The Swiss government has also performed research on how to protect the dignity of plants.

In 2012, a river in New Zealand, along with the plants and other living things within it, was given the legal rights of a person. This means the river can have guardians who can act on its behalf to protect its interests in legal matters.