A voice for the voiceless: the dignity of my hibiscus

Apparently some Swiss ethicists have been watching Veggie Tales.  This morning my research assistant, in the course of collecting potential readings on human dignity, brought me an April 2008 report from the Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology in Switzerland titled, The dignity of living beings with regard to plants: Moral consideration of plants for their own sake.  Looking through the report's conclusions was exhausting, if only because so many snarky comments piled up in my brain.  As an exercise of self-discipline, I'll just give you a sampling of the conclusions:

"Concerning the handling of individual plants, the majority takes the position that we need less strong reasons to justify their use than is required to use (vertebrate) animals . . . A minority is of the opinion that such hierachisation can only be decided on a case-by-case basis."

"The majority of the committee members at least do not rule out the possibility that plants are sentient, and that this is morally relevant.  A minority of these members considers it probable that plants are sentient."

"The Committee members unanimously consider an arbitrary harm caused to plants to be morally impermissible.  This kind of treatment would include, e.g. decapitation of wild flowers by the roadside without rational reason."

"For the majority the complete instrumentalization of plants -- as a collective, as a species, or as individuals -- requires moral justification."

"For the majority . . . plants -- as a collective, as a species, or as individuals -- are excluded for moral reasons from absolute ownership.  By this interpretation no one may handle plants entirely according to his/her own desires."

""[T]here is nothing to contradict the idea of dignity of living beings in the genetic modification of plants, as long as their independence, i.e. reproductive ability and adaptive ability are ensured."