Denial of rights of inanimate objects
Other Names: Inadequate legal rights of natural objects
Inadequate legal rights of trees
Claim: Pieces of art, natural wonders and unusual objects have a right to existence in and of themselves. The wanton destruction of inanimate objects by human beings is one more example of the human species' need to control existence rather than be a part of creation. It is no answer to claim that streams and forests cannot have legal standing because they cannot speak. Corporations cannot speak, nor can states, estates, infants, incompetents, municipalities or universities. It is lawyers that speak for them.
Counter Claim: At present there does not seem to be accepted minimum values that can keep the world straight and protect human rights, let alone rights for animals and trees.
Problem Type: F: Fuzzy exceptional problems
Date of last update 15.03.1997 – 00:00 CET