Analysis Of Thomas Hill's Ideals Of Human Excellence And Preserving Natural Environments

In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,” Thomas Hill tries to explain why destroying nature is morally inappropriate. His main argument is that rather than asking whether this action is wrong or right, we should ask what kind of person would destroy nature. Beforehand, one view is that since plants have right or interests, one should not violate their interest by destroying them. But Hill’s view is that we cannot address the interests of plants in order to criticize those who destroy the nature, because this approach is good for sentient beings. In this essay I am going to examine whether sentient is a necessary condition for interests to be counted? My upshot is that Hill’s view is correct.

One view is that, having sophisticated cognitive capacities, or having the capability to develop these capacities is necessary for a being to have moral status. Since individuals can engage in certain cognitively sophisticated acts, either intellectually or emotionally, they have moral status. But according to scientific facts, redwood trees not only have cognitive susceptibility, but also lack the potentials to develop one. If trees lack the capability to experience

Consequently, in the case of non-sentient organism, both i and ii must be applicable in order that their biological functionality lead to interests. So let’s consider the case of taking nutrition in humans and plants. For humans, receiving adequate nutrition makes them strong and this prevents diseases. This process results in a better qualitative life for individuals. But can one argue that providing nutrition to a tree can lead to a better qualitative life for it? No, because a tree lack the capacity for “subjective mental life. So biological function in the case of non-sentient species does not provide interests for