Plants ought to have the right to vote

I will dive right into my arguments. All readers, please be aware that R2 is for my constructive arguments. I will not be refuting my opponent until next round, so please do not mistake any arguments as “dropped. ” Since this is an “ought” debate, it is entirely about the moral and ethical values. I will be looking at two separate morality perspectives, both of which will show why Plants ought to have no rights at all, let alone the right to vote. 1) Utilitarianism For those not familiar Utilitarian Ethics, it is basically that we have a moral duty to do what maximizes utility [1]. From there we must look at if recognizing human rights within plants will increase utility or not. We can see several clear examples of how this can cause negative utility and as such, ought not to be done. a) Extreme manipulation of our current political system. It goes with little saying, that plants, physically, are incapable of voting. However, with the right to vote established, they fall under voter assistance. Essentially, the “guardian” of the plant (since they can no longer be owned) now holds the votes of every plant [2]. This undermines the basic fabric of democracy. Since we already know how democracy positively influences the economy [3], we can conclude that anything that harms democracy ought be avoided. b) Collapsing the economy with minimum wages to plants. With plants obtaining human rights, that would include right to fair wages, for each plant, for the number of hours it works (sun up to sun down, lol). These costs would be incurred by the farmers (and everyone that has a lawn) and would cause food prices to soar at a rate that makes the 1923 German inflation look stable. c) Destroy agriculture and all farming. Farmers will also get to enjoy that every time they cut down a plant to harvest it, they have just committed murder. Every time they pluck a fruit, they have committed rape (since consent is by default, not given until it is [4]). All of these factors show how providing human rights to plants will negatively harm our society and has a negative utility. As such, under utilitarianism, we ought not to do this. 2) Argumentation and the Non-Aggression Principle Given the strong libertarian presence on this board, these are probably also well known. Argumentation is the stance that the very act of engaging in a rational discussion presupposes non-aggression, and so presupposes Natural Rights based around self-ownership and the libertarian non-aggression principle [5]. This is typically the opposite end of the moral spectrum, since it establishes rights as the ultimate form of ethics, regardless to if they cause a detriment to society. If it is not a violation of the NAP, then it is someone’s right to do. It is a simple step to note that plants are not able to engage in argumentation, since they lack cognitive abilities. As such, they do not have Natural Rights. I will end my round with these two arguments and allow my opponent to begin their rebuttals. Thank you. [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.bazelon.org... [3] . https://books.google.com... [4] . http://www.usatoday.com... [5] . https://en.wikipedia.org...