Some years ago, Christopher Stone gave an affirmative answer to his own question, "Should Trees Have Standing?" He was independently supported in this conclusion by Laurence Tribe. I must, however, disagree with him. I reject his claim that non-animal and perhaps non-living objects ought to have legal standing. The only stone which could be of moral concern and hence deserving of legal rights, is one like Christopher. This may tell today's "deep ecologist" that "anthropocentric" thinkers such as myself, are "shallow"; but epithets do not replace analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
P. S. Elder (1984) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: