The saying goes that you can’t reason a man out of a position he didn’t reason himself into!
However, reason is what distinguishes man from the animals, so we must try to reason with our opponents even if they lack any natural aptitude for the process.

Those in the village keen on dendrolatry have presented their counter argument against the removal of my Cedar Tree (my position was set out in a poem) in the form of a picture of the Cedar tree partially cut down and captioned with the emotive word “Slaughter”.

As arguments go this is rather terse, but nevertheless we shall try and subject it to the cold light of reason and see where it leads.

The logical structure of the simplest version of their argument is as follows:

1. Slaughter is killing a living thing
2. Slaughter is bad
3. A Tree is a living thing

Therefore, killing a tree is bad.

This is a logically valid argument, i.e. if the premises 1,2 and 3 are true then the conclusion must be true. The problem is with premise 1&2, i.e. that killing a living thing is bad. A moment of reflection shows that this is a position nobody actually believes.

If someone genuinely believed that killing any living thing was bad then to avoid being a hypocrite they would have to be a vegetarian, since all meat eating involves the slaughter of living animals. They would also have to avoid most vegetables as the digging up of a carrot or turnip most surely involves the “slaughter” of a living thing. Their garden would have to be full of weeds, as to pull up a weed would be “slaughter”. They would have no leather shoes. Certainly no logs or wood of any sort in their home for this could only be the result of tree “slaughter”. In fact even the taking of antibiotics would be out of the question as it would “slaughter” the living bacteria causing the illness inside them.

Since I am unaware of any Fruitarians in the village who live in a weed infested garden this cannot be what they mean. (I will give them the benefit of the doubt about being hypocrites)

So let us strengthen their argument for them, to make it more robust.

1. Slaughter is killing living things
2. Slaughter without good justification is bad
3. A Tree is a living thing
   Therefore, killing a tree without good justification is bad.

This argument is logically valid and sound. I would accept the premises and the conclusion as true in a general sense.

The problem however in our specific case is the assertion that there was no good justification for “slaughtering” my Cedar tree.

Here is a logical arguments to show the existence of good justification.

1. Trees subject to a TPO can only be “Slaughtered” with Council Permission
2. Council Tree Officers do not give such permission without good justification
3. The Council Tree Officer gave Permission
   Therefore “Slaughtering” the tree had good justification

Since 1 and 3 are unquestionably true, the only logical riposte to this argument is that premise 2 is false and that the council tree officer erred in her judgement. i.e. That, in their opinion, the justification was in fact not good.

But surely such a position is not tenable?

The Tree Officer is an expert in tree husbandry who has studied arboriculture extensively. The very reason for her role in the council is to protect valuable trees from “slaughter”. She inspected the tree and the site, read reports from others whose life is spent in the world of tree management and made her decision. She had no reason to be anything other than objective and professional.

Those who object have not studied arboriculture and do not work every day with trees. They did not read the reports of those who do, nor did they inspect the tree or the site.

On what possible basis could they feel justified in asserting that they are right and the experts are wrong? (Other than sheer hubris!)

Surely they would have to be virtually certain of their position to feel morally justified in passing judgement on, and vilifying, their neighbours?

For is it not a fundamental principle of justice to establish guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, before rushing to pass sentence?

As far as I can tell this group of “Tree Lovers” has never done a thing to promote trees in the village, at the last count my business has donated £40,000 to the Elmley Castle Parish Council Tree Planting fund and also donates significant amounts every month to the Heart of England Forest Project and the Woodland Trust, strange behaviour indeed for one with no love of trees!