1 20 90 https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/1a6f9df968598ef8d62edae0aa4919b3.pdf 14219e5a05ca328939e6d5788eb441bf PDF Text Text IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW, AN ENVIRONMENTAL, ETHIC? Richard Routley (Australia) § 1. It is increasingly said that civilization, Western civilization at least, stands in need of a new ethic (and derivatively of a new economics) setting out people's relations to the natural environ­ ment, in Leopold’s words ‘an ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it' (| 1], p. 238). It is not of course that old and prevaling ethics do not deal with man’s relation to nature: they do, and on the prevailing view man is free to deal with nature as he pleases, i.e. his relations with nature, insofar at least as they do not affect others, are not subject to moral censure. Thus assertions such as ‘Crusoe ought not to be mutilating those trees’ are significant and morally determinate but, inasmuch at least as Crusoe's actions do not interfere with others, they are false or do not hold - and trees are not, in a good sense, moral objects.1 It is to this, to the values and evaluations of the prevailing ethics, that Leopold and others in fact take ex­ ception. Leopold regards as subject to moral criticism, as wrong, behaviour that on prevailing views is morally permissible. But it is not, as Leopold seems to think, that such behaviour is beyond the scope of the prevailing ethics and that an extension of traditional morality is required to cover such cases, to fill a moral void. If Leopold is right in his criticism of prevailing conduct what is required is a change in the ethics, in attitudes, values and evaluations. For as matters stand, as he himself-explains, men do not feel morally ashamed if they interfere with a wilderness, if they maltreat the land, extract from it whatever it will yield, and then move on; and such conduct is not taken to interfere with and does not rouse the moral indignation of others. ‘A farmer who clears the woods ofTa 75% slope, turns his cows into the clearing, and dumps its rainfall, rocks, and soil into the community creek, is still (if otherwise decent) a respected member of society.’ (UJ), p.245) Under what we shall call an environmental ethic such traditionally permissible conduct would be accounted morally wrong, and the farmer subject to proper moral criticism. Let us grant such evaluations for the purpose of the argument. What is not so clear is that a new ethic is required even for such radical judgements. For one thing it is none too clear what is going to count as a new ethic, much as it is often unclear whether a new development in physics counts as a new physics or just as a modification or extension of the old. For, notoriosly, ethics are not clearly articulated or at all well worked out, so that the application of identity criteria for ethics may remain obscure.2 Furthermore we tend to cluster a family of ethical systems which do not differ on core or fundamental principles together as the one ethic; e.g. the Christain ethic, which is an umbrella notion covering a cluster of differing and even competing systems. In fact then there are two other possibilities, apart from a new environmental ethic, which might cater for the evaluations, namely that of an extension of modification of the prevailing ethics or that of the development of principles that are already encompassed or latent within the prevailing ethic. The second possibility, that environmental evaluations can be incorporated within (and ecological problems solved within) the framework of prevailing Western ethics, is open because there isn’t a 1 A view occasionally tempered by the idea that trees house spirits 2 To the consternation nodoubt of Quineans But the fact is that we can talk perfectly well about inchoate and fragmentary systems the identity of which may be indeterminate 205 �single ethical system uniquely assumed in Western civilisation: on many issues, and especially on controversial issues such as infanticide, women’s rights and drugs, there are competing sets of prin­ ciples. Talk of a new ethic and prevailing ethics tends to suggest a sort of monolithic structure, a uniformity, that prevailing ethics, and even a single ethic, need not have. Indeed Passmore (in [21) has mapped out three important traditions in Western ethical views concerning man’s relation to nature; a dominant tradition, the despotic position, with man as despot (or tyrant), and two lesser traditions, the stewardship position, with man as custodian, and the co-operative position with man as perfcctor. Nor are these the only traditions; primitivism is another, and both romanticism and mysticism have influenced Western views. The dominant Western view is simply inconsistent with an environmental ethic; for according to it nature is the dominion of man and he is free to deal with it as he pleases (since - at least on the mainstream Stoic - Augustine view - it exists only for his sake), whereas on an environmental ethic man is not so free to do as he pleases. But it is not quite so obvious that an environmental ethic cannot be coupled with one of the lesser traditions. Part of the problem is that the lesser traditions are by no means adequately characterised anywhere, especially when the religious backdrop is removed, e.g. who is man steward for and responsible to? However both traditions are inconsistent with an environmental ethic because they imply policies of complete interference, whereas on an environmental ethic some worthwhile parts of the earth’s surface should be preserv­ ed from substantial human interference, whether of the “improving” sort or not. Both traditions would in fact prefer to see the earth’s land surfaces reshaped along the lines of the tame and com­ fortable north-European small farm and village landscape. According to the co-operative position man’s proper role is todevelop, cultivate and perfect nature — all nature eventually - by bringing out its potentialities, the test of perfection being primarily usefulness for human purposes; while on the stewardship view man’s role, like that of a farm manager, is to make nature productive by his efforts though not by means that will deliberately degrade its resources. Although these positions both depart from the dominant position in a way which enables the incorporation of some evaluations of an environmental ethic, e.g. some of those concerning the irresponsible farmer, they do not go far enough: for in the present situation of expanding populations confined to finite natural areas, they will lead to, and enjoin, the perfecting, farming and utilizing of all natural areas. Indeed these lesser traditions lead to, what a thoroughgoing environmental ethic would reject, a principle of total use,implying that every natural area should be cultivated or otherwise used3 for human ends, “humanized”. As the important Western traditions exclude an environmental ethic, it would appear that such an ethic, not primitive, mystical or romantic, would be new alright. The matter is not so straightforward; for the dominant ethic has been substantially qualified by the rider that one is not always entitled to do as one pleases where this physically interferes with others. Maybe some such proviso was implicit all along (despite evidence to the contrary), and it was simply assumed that doing what one pleased with natural items would not affect others (the non-interference assump­ tion). Be this as it may, the modified dominant position appears, at least for many thinkers, to have supplanted the dominant position; and the modified position can undoubtedly go much further towards an environmental ethic. For example, the farmer’s polluting of a community stream may be ruled immoral on the grounds that it physically interferes with others who use or would use the stream. Likewise business enterprises which destroy the natural environment for no satisfactory returns or which cause pollution deleterious to the health of future humans, can be criticised on the sort of welfare basis (e.g. that of [3]) that blends with the modified position; and so on. The posi­ tion may even serve to restrict the sort of family size one is entitled to have since in a finite situa­ tion excessive population levels will interfere with future people. Nontheless neither the modified dominant position nor its Western variants, obtained by combining it with the lesser traditions, is adequate as an environmental ethic, as I shall try to show. A new ethic is wanted. 2. -A^ we noticed-(an) ethic is ambiguous, as between a specific ethical system, a specific ethic, and a more generic notion, a super ethic, under which specific ethics cluster.4 An ethical system S 3 If ‘use’ is extended, somewhat illicitly, to include use for preservation, this total use principle is rendered inocuous at least as regards its actual effects. Note that the total use principle is tied to the resource view of nature 4 A meta-ethic is, as usual, a theory about ethics, super ethics, their features and fundamental notions 206 �'^"es - a( SeS’a,Pr0pos^r th«>ry whlch in. is, near enough, a proposit1or ., ~"f'm (1.e. a structured set of propositions) or theory which in--.:ludes ( like individuals of a th• . a set of values and (like postulates of a theory) a set ° of general or to‘other he^er conduct. to verselytypically to its of thers obligatory, or isonf ? applypermissible n’ untableand wrong, what concern,n~ evaluativeOnjudgements of what are rights, what is valued, and !>O forth. A general or lawlike proposition of a system is a principle; and certainly if systems S, and S2 contain _different principles, then they are different systems. It follows that any en\llnnmental ethic differs from the important traditional ethics outlined. Moreover if environmental ethic5 lifTer from Western ethical systems on some core principle embedded in Western systems, then ,hese systems differ from the Western super ethic (assurring, what seems to be so, that it can be uniquely characterised) - in which case if an environmental ethic is needed t!ien a new ethic is wanted It suffices then to locate a core principle and to provide environmental count,·r examples to 1t. It 1s commonly assumed that there are, what amount to, core principles of Western ethical systems. principles that will accordingly belong to the super ethic. The fairness principle inscribed in the Golden Ruk I w ,des one example. Directly relevant here. as a good stab at a core principle. is the com111unli, formulated liberal principle 0f the moqified flominan"-,~siti on..A recent for-""•..._ ,/c,.,.M,....,,, ~ lo/,'/ mulation~ runs a, follows ( 131, p. 58}: 'The liberal philosophy of the Western world holds that one should be able to do what he wishes, providing ( I) that he does not harm others and (2) that he is not hkel 1 to harm himself irreparably.' Let us call this prmciple basic (/Funan) chauvinism - because under it humans, or people, come fir~t and everything else a bad last - though sometimes the principle is hailed as a freedom principle because it gives perm1ss10n to perform a wide range of actions (including actions which mess up the environment and natural things) providing they do not harm others. In fact it tends to cunningly shift the onus of proof to others. It is wortti remarking that harming others in the restriction is narrower than a rc,tnction tu the I usual) interests of others; it is not enough that 1t is in my interests, because I detest you, that you stop breathing; you are free to breathe, for the time being anywa~ because 1t does not harm me. There remains a problem however as to e~actly what counts as harm or interference. Moreover the width of the pnnciple is so far obscure because 'other' ma~ be filled out in significantly diffen:nt 11, ays. it makes a difference to the e,itent, and pri, ilege, of the chauvinism whether 'other' expands to ·other human' - which is too restrictive - or to 'other'peradequacy toCthe a ^t being'; and fnd uture k to 'other'sentient s^ed other as well thaut^ atter s it wmakes °u'd o nn re °difference "°w and^t °mpletel y “n-of the principle, and inson'it or versely to its economic applicability, to which class of others it is intended to apply, whether to Wor kable, Th^ atake future "ymakethe as count t0 others, Co m°St whether to P to remote future others or only to non-discountable present aspato asis well future e. whether to possible others. The latter would make the principle completely unand others, future It ysK" ^nled in des<gning anaJ ). "ple ™' last m,„ « u,,, ,k 1 -1/.'l;· nr semantical workable, and it is generally assumed that it applies at most to present and future others. ,( ., ■ „di examples to basic chauvinist principles, that a It is taken for granted in designing counter ·~ .....-<;,_ semantical analysis of permissibility and obligation statements stretches out over ideal situations , ... ~#... ideal some in (which may be incomplete or even inconsistent), so that what is permissible holds situation, what is obligatory in every id.:al situation, and what is wrong is excluded in every ideal situation. But the mam point to grasp for the counter example\ that follow, is that ethical principles if correct are universal and are assessed over the class of ideal situations. -(i) The last man example. The last man (or person) surviving the collapse of the world system lays about him, eliminating, as far as he can, every living thing, animal or plant (but painlessly if you like, as a• the best abattoirs). What he doc~ 1s quite permissible according to ba 1c chauvinism, but on environmental ground~ what he does is wrong. Moreover one does not have to be committed to esoteric values to regard Mr Last Man as behaving badly (the reason being perhaps that raof corresponding in' advance dical thinking and values have shifted in an environmental usurne direction ’’ ^""oplos shifts in the formulation of fundamental evaluative principles}. (ii) The last people example. The last man example can be broadened to the last people example. We can assume that they know they are the last people, e.g. because they are aware that radiation effects have blocked any chance of reproduction. One considers the last people in order to rul!! out «rcorre p„ that what these people do harms or somehow physically interferes with later people. the spossibility Otherwise one could as well 1..ons1der science fiction cases where peoole arrive at a new planet and »™ ^“xxi™r <"■■— ^.^ ^ sssh ss ±“ ™.™««. oS «’Srr "”'be “ ” “c,v A ™88eZ™1£„XXe°' rw S,SCUre ss?wX".“ . ,.. ___ X;»,XyrXt“ber ® S “ xxr •' xe xz^x z “:zz:::?“~ssss fgs 5 A related principle is that (m d11ieJ •,.., •.,r.i ..,, »c can operate "ith,n similar limits 207 207 WIMI iWlliMMW-l-i �destroy its ecosystems, whether with good intentions such as perfecting the planet for their ends and making it more fruitful or, forgetting the lesser traditions, just for the hell of it. Let us assume that the last people are very numerous. They humanely exterminate every wild animal and they eliminate the fish of the seas, they put all arable land under intensive cultivation, and all remaining forests disappear in favour of quarries or plantations, and so on. They may give various familiar reasons for this, e.g. they believe it is the way to salvation or to perfection, or they are simply satisfying reasonable needs, or even that it is needed to keep the last people employed or occupied so that they do not worry too much about their impending extinctions. On an en­ vironmental ethic the last people have behaved badly; they have simplified and largely destroyed all the natural ecosystems, and with their demise the world will soon be an ugly and largely wreck­ ed place. But this conduct may conform with the basic chauvinist principle, and as well with the principles enjoined by the lesser traditions. Indeed the main point of elaborating this example is because, as the last man example reveals, basic chauvinism may conflict with stewardship or co­ operation principles. The conflict may be removed it seems by conjoining a further proviso to the basic principle, to the effect (3) that he does not wilfully destroy natural resources. But as the last people do not destroy resources wilfully, but perhaps “for the best of reasons”, the variant is still environmentally inadequate. (iii) The great entrepreneur example. The last man example can be adjusted so as to not fall foul of clause (3). The last man is an industrialist; he runs a giant complex of automated factories and farms which he proceeds to extend. He produces automobiles among other things, from renewable and recyclable resources of course, only he dumps and recycles these shortly after manufacture and sale to a dummy buyer instead of putting them on the road for a short time as we do. Of course he has the best of reasons for his activity, e.g. he is increasing gross world product, or he is improving output to fulfil some plan, and he will be increasing his own and general welfare since he much prefers increased output and productivity. The entrepreneur’s behaviour is on the Western ethic quite permissible; indeed his conduct is commonly thought to be quite fine and may even meet Pareto optimality requirements given prevailing notions of being “better off’. Just as we can extend the last man example to a class of last people, so we can extend this ex­ ample to the industrial society example: the society looks rather like ours. (iv) The vanishing species example. Consider the blue whale, a mixed good on the economic pic­ ture. The blue whale is on the verge of extinction because of his qualities as a private good, as a source of valuable oil and meat. The catching and marketing of blue whales does not harm the whalers; it does not harm or physically interfere with others in any good sense, though it may up­ set them and they may be prepared to compensate the whalers if they desist: nor need whale hun­ ting be wilful destruction. (Slightly different examples which eliminate the hunting aspect of the blue whale example are provided by cases where a species is eliminated or threatened through destruction of its habitat by man’s activity or the activities of animals he has introduced, e.g. many plains-dwelling Australian marsupials and the Arabian oryx.) The behaviour of the whalers in eliminating this magnificent species of whale is accordingly quite permissible-at least according to basic chauvinism. But on an environmental ethic it is not. However the free-market mechanism will not cease allocating whale^ to commercial uses, as a satisfactory environmental economics would; instead the market model will grind inexorably 6 along the private demand curve until the blue whale population is no longer viable—if that point has not already been passed. In sum, the class of permissible actions that rebound on the environment is more narrowly circumscribed on an environmental ethic than it is in the Western super ethic. But aren’t en­ vironmentalists going too far in claiming that these people, those of the examples and respected in dustrialists, fishermen and farmers are behaving, when engaging in environmentally degrading ac tivities of the sort described, in a morally impermissible way ? No. what these people do is to a greater or lesser extent evil, and hence in serious cases morally impermissible. For example, insofar as the killing or forced displacement of primitive peoples who stand in the way of an industrial development is morally indefensible and impermissible, so also is the slaughter of the last remain­ ing blue whales for private profit. But how to reformulate basic chauvinism as a satisfactory 6 For the tragedy-of-the-commons type reasons well explained in 131 �2^°;™ pn"c,p e ls 3 morc d,flku11 matter. A tentative, but none too adequate beginning might be made by extending (2) to include harm to or interference with others who would be so affected by the action in question were they placed in the environment and (3) to exclude speciepide. It may be preferable, m view of the way the freedom principle sets the onus of proof, simply to scrap it altogether, and instead to specify classes of rights and permissible conduct, as in a bill of rights. rei2tsArhadRaJ change-ri" a ^eory some,,mcs forces changes in the meta-theory; e.g. a logic which jects the Reference Theory tn 4 thoroughgoing way requires a modification of the usual metatheory which also accepts the Reference Theory and indeed which is tailored to cater only for logics which do conform. A somewhat similar phenomena seems to occur in the case of a meta-ethic adequate for an environmental ethic. Quite apart from introducing several environmen­ tally important notions, such as conservation, pollution, growth and preservation, for meta-ethical analysis, an environmental ethic compels re-examination and modified analyses of such characteristic actions as natural right, ground of right, and of the relations of obligation and per­ missibility to rights; it may well require re-assessment of traditional analyses of such notions as \alue and right, especially where these are based on chauvinist assumptions; and it forces the rejec­ tion of many of the more prominent meta-ethical positions. These points are illustrated by a verv brie! examination of accounts of natural right and then by a sketch of the species bias of some major positions,7 Hart (in |5|) accepts, subject to defeating conditions which are here irrelevant, the classical doctrine of natural rights according to which, among other things, ‘any adult human ... capable of choice is at liberty to do (i.e. is under no obligation to abstain from) any action which is not one coercing or restraining or designed to injure other persons’. But this sufficient condition for a human natural right depends on accepting the very human chauvinist principle an environmental ethic rejects, since if a person has a natural right he has a right; so too the definition of a natural right adopted by classical theorists and accepted with minor qualifications by Hart presupposes the same defective principle. Accordingly an environmental ethic would have to amend the classical notion of a natural right, a far from straight forward matter now that human rights with respect to animals and the natural environment are, like those with respect to slaves not all that long ago, undergoing major re-evaluation. An environmental ethic does not commit one to the view that natural objects such as trees have rights (though such a view is occasionally held, e.g. by pantheists. But pantheism is false since artefacts are not alive). For moral prohibitions forbidding certain actions with respect to an object do not award that object a correlative right. That it would be wrong to mutilate a given tree or piece of property does not entail that the tree or piece of property has a correlative right not to be mutilated (without seriously stretching the notion of a right). Environmental views can stick with mainstream theses according to which rights are coupled with corresponding responsibilities and so with bearing obligations, and with corresponding interests and concern; i.e., at least, whatever has a right also has responsibilities and therefore obligations, and whatever has a right has in­ terests. Thus although any person may have a right by no means every living thing can (significantly) have rights, and arguably most sentient objects other than persons cannot have rights. But persons can relate morally, through obligations, prohibitions and so forth, to practically anything at all. r J The species bias of certain ethical and economic positions which aim to make principles of conduct or reasonable economic behaviour calculable is easily brought out. These positions typica ly employ a single criterion p. such as preference or happiness, as a summum bonum; characteristically each individual of some base class, almost always humans, but perhaps including future humans, is supposed to have an ordinal p ranking of the states in question (e.g. of afTairs, of the economy); then some principle is supplied to determine a collective p ranking of these states in terms of individual prankings, and what is best or ought to be done is determined either directly, as in act-utilitarianism under the Greatest Happiness principle, or indirectly, as in rule-utilitarianism, in terms of some optimization principle applied to the collective ranking. The species bias is transparent from the selection of the base class. And even if the base class is extended to embrace persons, or even some animals (at the cost, like that of including remotely future humans, of losing P°’ntS arC deVdOped by thOSC protcstin« about human maltreatment of animals; see especially the essays �testability), the positions are open to familiar criticism, namely that the whole of the base class may be prejudiced in a way which leads to unjust principles. For example if every member of the base class detests dingoes, on the basis of mistaken data as to dingoes’ behaviour, then by the Pareto ranking test the collective ranking will rank states where dingoes are exterminated very highly, from which it will generally be concluded that dingoes ought to be exterminated (the evaluation of most Australian farmers anyway). Likewise it would just be a happy accident, it seems, if collective demand (horizontally summed from individual demand) for a state of the economy with blue whales as a mixed good, were to succeed in outweighing private whaling demands; for if no one in the base class happened to know that blue whales exist or cared a jot that they do then ‘‘rational” economic decision-making would do nothing to prevent their extinction. Whether the blue whale survives should not have to depend on what humans know or what they see on televi­ sion. Human interests and preferences are far too parochial to provide a satisfactory basis for deciding on what is environmentally desirable. These ethical and economic theories are not alone in their species chauvinism; much the same applies to most going meta-ethical theories which, unlike intuitionistic theories, try to offer some rationale for their basic principles. For instance, on social contract positions obligations are a matter of mutual agreements between individuals of the base class; on a social justice picture rights and obligations spring from the application of symmetrical fairness principles to members of the ~^^base class, usually a rather special class of persons, while on a Kantian position which has some * v^gue obligations somehow arise from respect for members of the base class, persons. In each case if members of the base class happen to be ill-disposed to items outside the base class then that is too bad for them: that is (rough) justice. REFERENCES 1. A. Leopold, A Sand Country Almanac with other essays on Conservation. New York (1966). 2. J. Passmore, Ecological Problems and Western Traditions (unpublished). 3. P.W.Barkley and D.W.Seckier, Economic Growth and Environmental Decay. The Solution becomes the Problem, New York (1972). 4. S. and R. Godlovitch and J. Harris (editors), Animals, Men and Morals. An enquiry into the maltreatment of non-humans, London (1971). 5. H.L.A.Hart, ‘Are there any natural rights?’, reprinted in A.Quinton (editor), Political Philosophy, Oxford (1967). �for < MC. fyjfot'''? ■tu / �v x .. 5^ ' A - ■. �3 7 • ... , ■ '-■ “"■'T �“"7— , O' .. / ... . t ■ �- _____ 5 11 I * �b. ■-^ ' ■ 1 ■■ ■:.,' ?• f ■ ■ '■ ■ \ • < ■- ■> ■ '■ ...:■■ ■■■ ■- k ..... £ • tOx ' A . ' ’ . ' -. . ........... ........ '■' •■■ ' - ■ ,. ; 1 L ___ SL&L___ ___------------------------------------- r.._ Ao ..... . ' ■ r - \ v * . . , ' ' ' . ... . ' . .■ . , '. - ■ A * O ' ' . ' , ' . . , , f . iK 4**«^ £' . ' •) ■ ; ‘ ' ' ' ' &-A. */- “S A r* - f’ ,Z ■ .. ��t u< lzJ*C C<& 'Co h* zLzx^ X CXA-a. 'tel Aj .. ‘ X .’ ■tzO .. i ’ ' \ u<J-A^LA ,. z^i*" V^o*4^ -^- -Oi--\z> f ■ ' ■ ti i .— 4 a. - ' ■v tO-- \. u> (.<■ •'■ * Z fi fl £/\-'-X n ’ ‘ ' UaJ-A^La I cJ <-X j <A 03 v. I*~c-%>a tu <*--a O•- V �— * ' . ? . . ____ ___ .-r.'^-—> .. .. . • Q :' -*• f■ V Jidk ■ ■ t :ygn. -A. < I- . k -V u i----- L u J ' . ... ______________ 2Zo.... ■ « tj- a. i €o _ZSt - 'w**sfe2______ i_X £I -sX ■ > ' C "■ ■’ . ' W:'^~ .■„... tC^L d ■ ■ J < ' ' . Opt*^ .>w^4Ua4t L. cU^fU^ �L �•<».. ., • >/»• ■ I P < •. V ho o- k . - ■ * •• j ■ \ aVumL. cAfth 7 - ; 4 / ( . > ■ ' ■ IX . c ' ■ ,v^_...... . JgLl . ‘ •■ lI.. I A ,__ y J^-xZs, vX>. ! V ' �■ ............ -.- C^> ^O-*—<" . U-^QU-^^ az^<^6*^....... ■ V �exp UrC 4- Cl J&, I—C^L-o—ti I i / c r ’ ■'X '■ . j£o - a~, -< JU-<9v-a --- * Izy, L cLa-^aJL *-L — • cC^c u-> 0 >—-» l|o-*—'-. Xa^ J •*’ X- <^» C"Q- . »-fe-, >1^ A U*--—-** t-v.^ X^LzO* U-1U— -J, xo. <xXo •&/ ,-tfJ. V) \. '< ' I i —x-> >» 'k -vjf eSt <>- fl o»-^e^ "KL^ X-t v-jlA~ a JL^> <a . A > -A ‘-V. <^y--- O^A^X C<J-’- X- -v<a ^>4jUl^ , *V r ~ w*<- *-Xa^jJL, ) K c¥- ctdL c^r\ -% . CA ■ -a-- --------------------- z>-*^ r V s/ <4* V^VA '✓*. x 'A p~* €z ;< ' y 'Cir> �i * f *7) A-0 >• a- <o o d <>• us \ > ~k QJ^ Cj. O- ft-Kfj xGv-y dx>- > p '*d £ ^su »X_ c c Jj CjC-»~-.r-< . ^=> Qo «AvA £>-* ....... (X- V**-CAz^ ) -aAjL^— ^~\_ cL>^^ < Aa_ A-t-HP * '+ aCv‘—*— Ao ZA_ V- f> A-*V-A (b-rvtU ■ >J£ T.T.C <*»»• V • ‘ \rfA-f'»~-*^AX VX*-^ V-U— X AAc-A ^1 J /*-•■••*•> «*Z> zi-v tajx4" vj-^-*-4“ . ‘r *3tx_^( uJ“—^''^-A OVsjI^ & * a v_-~—<o*—sw^ o^-»_ VjJLu- , c^<- -*A X< ztr^ /Ace. ^A- KT^-XXa -\ GO-ce^T F(Sb /'ik-ov^ “'-'■> O -V^ r~ ,5>^XC^'-'~'CC» • ''.'J * a ■> V, fc*-■■■&-'-") rtj.J /VO '-—*•• ■*■ t*A ‘—91 * * io -^22^ * 3 ' U- } -Cztxo^J-a A^^-U- a-xa uztt> (4 xtu AU-A y ^<*^CAvUr^ ub-^Lv A- cl*w. *%*x> X—7 &~t z\> a- ^Glx^ -^j—c r<XA^v<_ 4 &- txAuA^ id1'~- ' c* C~* * ~ "fc ^«Uf<-<-,ri • -< 'J a.X-^u . xJx C. . ’ , & '--^-C ,v> e^- o < •" •-'' '•>■>:.•■*'?: �V J Aj 3 .to XA 'v~, •n O -•.•> / / * t~ -* ” <• ^-^So Zo ) J^Xr*-^r-^ r^) A^V* kj^v—o Bu0 " bu- v>^c4- r- d Cy^>~e-~ ^v«-^-^vCc / i-^hx~K_-^<-A. <<> <-*—-V—>ttkA< J^O-U- |t-r-&Xxv— ^e^avX—( J /"tzO. r-U- u^rt«4~ *9 &A X-^JL zUU-< -z> -^Aa \n-*c • �4, r>v v-*^ o j£3jl f * s■ c o CC-^J| A. C-*^-y^'A-'» Co £^4-2- Z-CC V1" ZX) v^<.^J>rC r-O\ i^j-Ca. U-v_ ^V*-4^'r-^A~^-> A>U jXK ^-^-^jl _pL v^x-'JxClLa^ A—>—v<_ -*~-<_>JLv. .'CvAz^ £O^ AXzv^A. ♦ < — c+^ “/JU. “T^Gl 'Ao*- 0 -" —A^* <A*^Cg ^L xX*^ULt—□ iGs^G^ /i<>‘-*-c. '-C»— Ca^ a^Ll I VAaA >>An^ '-O-Qa*~t__ 4 > "^“*~^> V-'JK—A.'^C. Xg.^u^j c Ou%**j "’0^^ 55T *-<a ^~L ^to £)La-a?< H- G>' rG A? ^AQst^.... yO<*-w»»A . QkJLLl . Go^^-a^AA. ..... l^x>— !jC l*Jc — . .... ^n*w^^v&A. Va.^ cG*-? L& -^ >-***- u> C-tfktA^. _. -XSL( o-G_lX %^?yr r <j2^ z>tnC/X**-vjtX '***"■ z/V\z^^Ax ^*-*-^ £ -c<X *V~>~ ^wK>-‘\SwjLX Cczl XJbu-t A'>>~“ _ 'Yvv\U~’J—V (V^Ffr s r * /^v—4-V3 ^>r<. 1^'-*-* , "to _ 0a>-< 3> ^>i~x “ \> ■ k>*- -a^Xaa -•■• (k.c>^\ f //-V . ' / . <r" U<_ , !0'-^C_. <\b*-GA^x^ fiLMs-ut. p- -G— "**{1^-5 Cysut, >—oKxi^t k Tg ^^cJUc I x-v| , �■ IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW, AN ENVIRONMENTAL, ETHIC? Richard Routley (Australia) § 1. It is increasingly said that civilization, Western civilization at least, stands in need of a new ethic (and derivatively of a new economics) setting out people's relations to the natural environ­ ment, in Leopold's words ‘an ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it’ ([1], p. 238). It is not of course that old and prevaling ethics do not deal with man's relation to nature: they do, and on the prevailing view man is free to deal with nature as he pleases, i.e. his relations with nature, insofar at least as they do not affect others, are not subject to moral censure. Thus assertions such as ‘Crusoe ought not to be mutilating those trees’ are significant and morally determinate but, inasmuch at least as Crusoe's actions do not interfere with others, they are false or do not hold - and trees are not, in a good sense, moral objects.1 It is to this, to the values and evaluations of the prevailing ethics, that Leopold and others in fact take ex­ ception. Leopold regards as subject to moral criticism, as wrong, behaviour that on prevailing views is morally permissible. But it is not, as Leopold seems to think, that such behaviour is beyond the scope of the prevailing ethics and that an extension of traditional morality is required to cover such cases, to fill a moral void. If Leopold is right in his criticism of prevailing conduct what is required is a change in the ethics, in attitudes, values and evaluations. For as matters stand, as he himself explains, men do not feel morally ashamed if they interfere with a wilderness, if they maltreat the land, extract from it whatever it will yield, and then move on; and such conduct is not taken to interfere with and does not rouse the moral indignation of others. ‘A farmer who clears the woods off a 75% slope,turns his cows into the clearing, and dumps its rainfall,rocks, andsoil into the community creek, is still (if otherwise decent) a respected member of society.’ ([1]), p.245) Under what we shall call an environmental ethic such traditionally permissible conduct would be accounted morally wrong, and the farmer subject to proper moral criticism. Let us grant such evaluations for the purpose of the argument. What is not so clear is that a new ethic is required even for such radical judgements. For one thing it is none too clear what is going to count as a new ethic, much as it is often unclear whether a new development in physics counts as a new physics or just as a modification or extension of the old. For, notoriosly, ethics are not clearly articulated or at all well worked out, so that the application of identity criteria for ethics may remain obscure.2 Furthermore we tend to cluster a family of ethical systems which do not differ on core or fundamental principles together as the one ethic; e.g. the Christain ethic, which is an umbrella notion covering a cluster of differing and even competing systems. In fact then there are two other possibilities, apart from a new environmental ethic, which might cater for the evaluations, namely that of an extension of modification of the prevailing ethics or that of the development of principles that are already encompassed or latent within the prevailing ethic. The second possibility, that environmental evaluations can be incorporated within (and ecological problems solved within) the framework of prevailing Western ethics, is open because there isn’t a 1 A view occasionally tempered by the idea that trees house spirits 2 To the consternation .nodoubt of Quineans. But the fact is that we can talk perfectly well about inchoate and fragmentary systems the identity of which may be indeterminate 205 �is, near enough: ~ propositional system (i.e. a structured set of propositions) or theory which includes ( like md1v1duals of a theory) a set of values and (like postulates of a theory) a set of general evaluative Ju~gements co~cermng conduct, typically of what is obligatory, permissible and wrong of_ what ~re rights, what _is valued, and so forth. A ~eneral or lawlike proposition of a system is ~ prmc1ple, and certainly 1f syst~ms S, and S2 contam different principles, then they are different systems. It foll?ws t~at any environmental ethic differs from the important traditional ethics outlined. Moreo~er 1f environmental ethics differ from Western ethical systems on some core principle embedded m Western systems, then these systems differ from the Western super ethic (assuming wh~t _seems to be so, that it can be uniquely characterised) - in which case if an environm~ntai eth1_c 1s needed then a new ethic is wanted. It suffices then to locate a core principle and to provide environmental counter examples to it. It is com_monly assu_med that_ there are. what amount to, core principles of Western ethical ~ystems, principles that will accordingly belong to the super ethic. The fairness principle inscribed ~n the Golden Rule provides o~e example. Directly relevant here, as a good stab at a core principle, ts the . commonly formulated hberal pnnc1ple of the modified dominance position .. A recent for: · " • "'• ,;, /'' /,'. / ~·- - ·· ..._ mulation 5 runs as follows ( [ 3 I, p. 58): . 'The liberal philosophy of the Wes tern world holds that one should be able to do what he wishes, prov1dmg ( 1) that he d0es not harm orhers and (2) that he is not likely to harm himself irreparably.' Let us call this principle basic (human) chauvinism - because under it humans, or people. co_me_ first and everyt_hmg else a bad last - though sometimes the principle is hailed as a freedom pnnc1ple becaus~ 1t gives perm1ss1on to perform a wide range of actions (including actio.ns which mess_ up the ~nv1ronment and natural things) providing they do not harm others. In fact it tends to c_unn_mgly shift the onus of pro?fto others. It is worth remarking that harming others in the restrict10n 1s narrower than a restnct1on to the (usual) interests of others; it is not enough that it is in my mterests, because. I detest you, that you stop breathing; you are free to breathe, for the time being anyway, because 1t does not harm me. There remains a problem however as to exactly what counts as harm or mter_ference. Mor~over the width of the principle is so far obscure because 'other' may be fill~d. out m s1gmficantly different ways: it makes a difference to the e~tent, and privilege, of the cha~vm1s~ whe~her '.other' _ex~ands to 'other human' - which is too restrictive - or to 'other'person or to _other sent1~nt be1~g ; and 1t mak~s a difference to the adequacy of the principle, and inversely to its economic apphcab1hty, to which class of others it is intended to apply whether to future as well as to present others, whether to remote future others or only to non-discountable future others, a?d. whether to possible others. The latter would make the principle completely unworkable, and 1t 1s generally assumed that it applies at most to present and future others. ' //4-_ ItIt_ is taken for granted. in_ d_e_signing counter examples to basic chauvinist principles, that a ....,. /..~..., . ( sem_antical analysis of perm1ss1b1hty and obligation statements stretches out over ideal situations r.,.·-=-"'t.. :.;1 -c.: , · ~/:_ (".~-htch may be mcon:iplete or even inconsistent), so that what is permissible holds in some ideal ideal every in s1tuat10n, what 1s obl_1gato_ry in every ideal situation, and what is wrong is excluded ~1tuat10n. But the_mam pomt to grasp for the counter examples that follow, is that ethical principles · t· 1f correct are umversal and are assessed over the class of I·deal s1tua ions. (') Th z collapse of the world system the 1 _survi~ing perso~) (or man e as_t ma~ e~a~ple. The last lays ~bout him, ehmmatmg, ~s far as he can, e~ery !tvmg th_mg, animal or plant (but painlessly if iou hke, a~ at the best abattoirs). What he does 1s qmte permissible according to basic chauvinism ut on envir?nmental grounds what he does is wrong. Moreover one does not have to be commit~ ~~d \o e~ot~nc values to regard M'.. Las_t Man as behaving badly (the reason being perhaps that ra~cfa th mkmg a nd val~es have shifted m an environmental direction in advance of corresponding s .. 1 ts m the formulation of fundamental evaluative principles). (u) The last people example. The last man example can be broadened to the last people example. We can assume that they know they are the last people, e.g. because they are aware that radiation effects h_a~~ blocked any chance of reproduction. One considers the last people in order to rule out ~e pos~1b1hty that what these pe~ple d~ harms or somehow physically interferes with later people. therwise one could as well consider science fiction cases where people arrive at a new planet and single ethical system uniquely assumed in Western civilization: on many issues, and especially on controversial issues such as infanticide, women's rights and drugs, there are competing sets of principles. Talk of a new ethic and prevailing ethics tends to suggest a sort of monolithic structure, a uniformity, that prevailing ethics, and even a single ethic, need not have. Indeed Passmore (in [2]) has mapped out three important traditions in Western ethical views concerning man's relation to nature; a dominant tradition, the despotic position, with man as despot (or tyrant), and two lesser traditions, the stewardship position, with man as custodian, and the co-operative position with man as perfector. Nor are these the only traditions; primitivism is another, and both romanticism and mysticism have influenced Western views. The dominant Western view is simply inconsistent with an environmental ethic; for according to it nature is the dominion of man and he is free to deal with it as he pleases (since - at least on the mainstream Stoic - Augustine view - it exists only for his sake), whereas on an environmental ethic man is not so free to do as he pleases. But it is not quite so obvious that an environmental ethic cannot be coupled with one of the lesser traditions. Part of the problem is that the lesser traditions are by no means adequately characterised anywhere, especially when the religious backdrop is removed, e.g. who is man steward for and responsible to? However both traditions are inconsistent with an environmental ethic because they imply policies of complete interference, whereas on an environmental ethic some worthwhile parts of the earth's surface should be preserved from substantial human interference, whether of the "improving" sort or not. Both traditions would in fact prefer to see the earth's land surfaces reshaped along the lines of the tame and comfortable north-Europea n small farm and village landscape. According to the co-operative position man's proper role is todevelop, cultivate and perfect nature - all nature eventually - by bringing out its potentialities, the test of perfection being primarily usefulness for human purposes; while on the stewardship view man's role, like that of a farm manager, is to make nature productive by his efforts though not by means that will deliberately degrade its resources. Although these positions both depart from the dominant position in a way which enables the incorporation of some evaluations of an environmental ethic, e.g. some of those concerning the irresponsible farmer, they do not go far enough: for in the present situation of expanding populations confined to finite natural areas, they will lead to, and enjoin, the perfecting, farming and utilizing of all natural areas. Indeed these lesser traditions lead to, what a thoroughgoing environmental ethic would reject, a 3 principle of total use,implying that every natural area should be cultivated or otherwise used for human ends, "humanized". As the important Western traditions exclude an environmental ethic, it would appear that such an ethic, not primitive, mystical or romantic, would be new alright. The matter is not so straightforwa rd; for the dominant ethic has been substantially qualified by the rider that one is riot always entitled to do as one pleases where this physically interferes with others. Maybe some such proviso was implicit all along (despite evidence to the contrary), and it was simply assumed that doing what one pleased with natural items would not affect others (the non-interference assumption). Be this as it may, the modified dominant position appears, at least for m~ny thinkers, to have supplanted the dominant position; and the modified position can undoubtedly go much further towards an environmental ethic. For example, the farmer's polluting of a community stream may be ruled immoral on the grounds that it physically interferes with others who use or would use the stream. Likewise business enterprises which destroy the natural environment for no satisfactory returns or which cause pollution deleterious to the health of future humans, can be criticised on the sort of welfare basis (e.g. that of [3]) that blends with the modified position; and so on. The position may even serve to restrict the sort of family size one is entitled to have since in a finite situation excessive population levels will interfere with future people. Nontheless neither the modified dominant position nor its Western variants, obtained by combining it with the lesser traditions, is adequate as an environmental ethic, as I shall try to show. A new ethic is wanted. a ~pecific ethic, /§ 2. -As. we noticed----(a~ ethic is ambi~uous, as bet_ween a specifi~ ethical system, and a more generic notion, a super ethic, under which specific ethics cluster.4 An ethical system S ./ 3 If 'use' is extended, somewhat illicitly, to include use for preservation, this total use principle is rendered inocuous at least as regards its actual effects. Note that the total use p1 inciple is tied to the resource view of nature 4-A meta-elhic is, as usual, a theory about ethics, super ethics, their features and fundamental notions 5 A related principle is that (modified) free c.1tcrprise can operate I il 11 ,·thi'n s· -1 1- • 1m1 ar 1m11s 207 �destroy its ecosystems, whether with good intentions such as perfecting the planet for their ends and making it more fruitful or, forgetting the lesser traditions, just for the hell of it. Let us assume that the last people are very numerous. They humanely exterminate every wild ar,imal and they eliminate the fish of the seas, they put all arable land under intensive cultivation, and all ~emaining forests disappear in favour of quarries or plantations, and so on. They may give various familiar reasons for this, e.g. they believe it is the way to salvation or to perfection, or they are simply satisfying reasonable needs, or even that it is needed to keep the last people employed or occupied so that they do not worry too much about their impending extinctions. On an environmental ethic the last people have behaved badly; they have simplified and largely destroyed all the natural ecosystems, and with their demise the world will soon be an ugly and largely wrecked place. But this conduct may conform with the basic chauvinist principle, and as well with the principles enjoined ·by the lesser traditions. Indeed the main point of elaborating this example is because, as the last man example reveals, basic chauvinism may conflict with stewardship or cooperation principles. The conflict may be removed it seems by conjoining a further proviso to the basic principle, to the effect (3) that he does not wilfully destroy natural resources. But as the last people do not destroy resources wilfully, but perhaps "for the best of reasons", the variant is still environmentally inadequate. (iii) The great entrepreneur example. The last man example can be adjusted so as to not fall foul of clause (3). The last man is an industrialist; he runs a giant complex of automated factories and farms which he proceeds to extend. He produces automobiles among other things, from renewable and recyclable resources of course, only he dumps and recycles these shortly after manufacture and sale to a dummy buyer instead of putting them on the road for a short time as we do. Of course he has the best of reasons for his activity, e.g. he is increasing gross world product, or he is improving outpJt to fulfil some plan, and he will be increasing his own and general welfare since h~ much prefers increased output and productivity. The entrepreneur's behaviour is on the Western ethic quite permissible; indeed his conduct is commonly thought to be quite fine and may even meet Pareto optimality requirements given prevailing notions of being "better off'. Just as we can extend the last man example to a class of last people, so we can extend this example to the industrial society example: the society looks rather like ours. (iv) The vanishing species example. Consider the blue whale, a mixed good on the economic picture. The blue whale is on the verge of extinction because of his qualities as a private good, as a source of valuable oil and meat. The catching and marketing of blue whales does not harm the whalers; it does not harm or physically interfere with others in any good sense, though it may upset them and they may be prepared to compensate the whalers if they desist; nor need whale hunting be wilful destruction. (Slightly different examples which eliminate the hunting aspect of the blue whale example are provided by cases where a species is eliminated or threatened through destruction of its habitat by man's activity or the activities of animals he has introduced, e.g. many plains-dwelling Australian marsupials and the Arabian oryx.) The l?ehaviour of the whalers in eliminating this magnificent species of whale is accqrdingly quite permissible-at least according to basic chauvinism. But on an environmental ethic it is not. However the free-market mechanism will not cease allocating whal~[~ to commercial uses, as a satisfactory environmental econo_mics would; instead the market model will grind inexorably 6 along the private demand curve until the blue whale population is no longer viable-if that point has not already been passed. In sum, the class of permissible actions that rebound on the environment _is more narrowly circumscribed on an environmental ethic than it is in the Western super ethic. But aren't environmentalists going too far in claiming that these people, those of the examples and respe~ted industrialists fishermen and farmers are behaving, when engaging in environmentally degrading activities of ;he sort described, in a morally impermissible way~ No, what these people do _is to a greater or lesser extent evil, and hence in serious cases morally impermissible. For exampl_e, mso~ar as the killing or forced displacement of primitive peoples who stand in the way of an mdustnal development is morally indefensible and impermissible, so also is _the slau~hter of the last_ remaining blue whales for private profit. But how to reformulate basic chauvm1sm as a satisfactory 6 For the tragedy-of-the-commons type reasons well explained in [31 freedom principle is a more difficult matter. A tentative, but none too adequate beginning might be made by extending (2) to include harm to or interference with others who would be so affected by the action in question were they placed in the environment and (3) to exclude specieside. It may be preferable , in view of the way the freedom principle sets the onus of proof. simply to scrap it altogether, and instead to specify classes of rights and permissible conduct. as in a bill of rights. § 3. A radical change in a {eory sometimes forces changes in the meta-theory; e.g. a logic which rejects the Reference Theory in a thoroughgoing way requires a modification of the usual metatheory which also accepts the Reference Theory and indeed which is tailored to cater only for logics which do conform. A somewhat similar phenomena seems to occur in the case of a meta-ethic adequate for an environmental ethic. Quite apart from introducing several environmentally important notions, such as conservation, pollu1io11, growth and presen•atio11,for meta-ethical analysis, an environmental ethic compels re-examination and modified analyses of such characteristic actions as na1ural right, ground of right, and of the relations of obligation and permissibility to rights: it may well require re-assessment of traditional analyses of such notions as i-alue and right, especially where these are based on chauvinist assumptions; and it forces the rejection o [ many of the more prominent meta-ethical positions. These points are illustrated by a very brief examination of accounts of natural right and then by a sketch of the species bias of some major positions. 7 Hart (in I 5]) accepts. subject to defeating conditions which are here irrelevant, the classical doctrine of natural rights according to which. among other things, 'any adult human . .. capable of choice is at liberty to do (i.e. is under no obligation to abstain from) any action which is not one coercing or restraining or designed to injure other persons'. But this sufficient condition for a human natural right depends on accepting the very human chauvinist principle an em iron mental ethic rt::jects, since if a person has a natural right he has a right; so too the deflni1io11 of a natural right adopted by classical theorists and accepted with minor qualifications by Hart presupposes the same defective principle. Accordingly an environmental ethic would have to amend the classical notion of a natural right. a far from straight forward matter now that human rights with rcspc:ct to animals and the natural environment are, like those with respect to slaves not all that lon g ago, undergoing major re-evaluation. An environmental ethic does not commit one to the view that natural objects such as trees have rights (though such a view is occa~ionally held, e.g. by pantheists. But pantheism is false since artefacts are not alive). For moral prohibitions forbidding certain actions with respect to an object do not award that object a correlative right. That it would be wrong to mutilate a given tree or piece of property does not entail that the tree or piece of property has a correlative right n_ot to _be mutilated (without seriously stretching the notion of a right). Environmental views can stick with mainstream theses according to which rights are coupled with corresponding responsibilities and so with bearing obligations, and with corresponding interests and concern; i.e., at least, whatever has a right also has responsibilities and therefore obligations, and whatever has a right has interests . Thus although any person may have a right by no means every living thing can (significantly) have rights. and arguably most sentient objects other than persons cannot have rights. But persons can relate morally, through obligations, prohibitions and so forth. to practically anything at all. The species bias of certain ethical and economic positions which aim to make principles of conduct or reasonable economic behaviour calculable is easily brought out. These positions typically employ a single criterion p, such as preference or happiness, as a summ.um_ bonu_m; characteristically each individual of some base class, almost always humans, but perhaps mcludmg future humans, is supposed to have an ordinal p ranking of the states in question (e.g. of affairs, 6f the economy); then some principle is supplied to determine a collective p ranking of these states in terms of individual prankings, and what is best or ought to be done is determined either_ ~ire~tl~, as in act-utilitarianism under the Greatest Happiness principle, or indirectly, asin rule-ut1lttanantsm, in terms of some optimization principle applied to the collective ranking. The species bias is transparent from the selection of the base class. And even if the base class is extended to embr~ce persons. or even some animals (at the cost. like that of including remotely future humans, of losing 1 Some of thes< points arc developed by those protesting about human maltreatment of animals; see especially the essays collec!ed in I 4 I 9 ~ iii 208 WJ 6 14 209 �testability), the positions are open to familiar criticism, namely that the whole of the base class may be prejudiced in a way which leads to unjust principles. For example if every member of the base class detests dingoes, on the basis of mistaken data as to dingoes’ behaviour, then by the Pareto ranking test the collective ranking will rank states where dingoes are exterminated very highly, from which it will generally be concluded that dingoes ought to be exterminated (the evaluation of most Australian farmers anyway). Likewise it would just be a happy accident, it seems, if collective demand (horizontally summed from individual demand) for a state of the economy with blue whales as a mixed good, were to succeed in outweighing private whaling demands; for if no one in the base class happened to know that blue whales exist or cared a jot that they do then “rational” economic decision-making would do nothing to prevent their extinction. Whether the blue whale survives should not have to depend on what humans know or what they see on televi­ sion. Human interests and preferences are far too parochial to provide a satisfactory basis for deciding on what is environmentally desirable. These ethical and economic theories are not alone in their species chauvinism; much the same applies to most going meta-ethical theories which, unlike intuitionistic theories, try to offer some rationale for their basic principles. For instance, on social contract positions obligations are a matter of mutual agreements between individuals of the base class; on a social justice picture rights and obligations spring from the application of symmetrical fairness principles to members of the _base class, usually a rather special class of persons, while on a Kantian position which has some v v^gue obligations somehow arise from respect for members of the base class, persons. In each case if members of the base class happen to be ill-disposed to items outside the base class then that is too bad for them: that is (rough) justice. REFERENCES 1. A. Leopold, A Sand Country Almanac with other essays on Conservation. New York (1966). 2. J. Passmore, Ecological Problems and Western Traditions (unpublished). 3. P.W.Barkley and D.W.Seckier, Economic Growth and Environmental Decay. The Solution becomes the Problem, New York (1972). 4. S. and R.Godlovitch and J. Harris (editors), A nimals, Men and Morals. An enquiry into the maltreatment of non-humans, London (1971). 5. H.L.A.Hart, ‘Are there any natural rights?’, reprinted in A.Quinton (editor), Political Philosophy, Oxford (1967). �C'/■ClUi/! n /t'v'Tl tf-t / ^■nt's 'z 0/7 /#£■* O/^Z ^rfscr . J*. B? c ey-rzZ^ft. Z ZZzztZszL. , tZ/at-e-Zf/^ ; /f ?Z Sl’lff/Z' A0S fe 3 /c^^Z Z,z ZzZ L^f-4- ) /-^ // -------- ----------- ;.. ^z t e-'T— /) <LSfC t-x. e *<~Z^<--~ -f &'? } e- Xa^C^Tl f fs>\ . Zc'T- /ZZr^. t c*/'d />t^r*-( x X-C- ct'Ze^ &a L '—4. HA- ZZ> / Z^S. Zt Z&-'■?■&■'£ -, 4^ t J&-*. ro �X, fle^ Si. ^ef/'Yrv Caf^ ---- )CS~ /pf" /J'ttx J 7 G-y 7 Jg; V JK-Ajtj <S\_Cc-O'/n--^> <2/- if y 1 ix j o vt/ hj ’ J) k t-C u, 1 <1 Sa-d- A ansi. OrttQ- &<v&tsx. J A Irt V- — 7 l>o!ri\f<i i&- ©a. * —, >1 /<^®./?v. /, z for * o^fh dUrl c^f'v^r *x 7&/I g fzZf c^e crftor. 'I ’rl^. s, r',\7 f\^e.d( c-^~ 77 r I 7/^t * 7fs7^ * /l/l f'cT" ffxCL^e/4^ c-x i t trv-e^ /t> e/kctp s i\tk for 'W’mH.- hu^^t) nn f& y e> k//A /&• ft 0 A dt^nc-f 3 7/dz- «Wzte>v a/C7 e/[e^ /~e'^~^ /7n^-J<- /fa f^7 7 �/A e>r-Mo-y kdd k<c by kud d ^of hdd.}ttpvtcrtiJiy n6t h<^/<Z j is Ctfu( tfia. nS f //e^- fry a^a-Cfe^ 4 4 £> Al *~ it'&M «J I ex i tr -p£ kh a. n. y CH a C6hti*fb&t'/ncrft&r, ^^<.{ t . it• s dv^rft.c.u.n Aa st K u- m a. drrk. dl bex n.p a I /HA. II KA o{ a xs as or amwk ct IA. j _f c>A 0— C>d AO ®f 1. ?’ , I*. ’ @sw( A&u A a. I it m « n s vai a/rcj^^c t/4— m cd(tS A-Cf&h"tHc.S part . ike. c Cn. S f~o ft a cL v p!^ fi^-O Aft &kic*> . fl *<£ ■• - -t'/iese- a.rt~l C-i pA. t»6 n. 3 i c^ch v rtes. tfa(L Xc^r-Mf />?«< /5C>- —“ c_C-j h lost- of « ) 0/ il ) I 'V chuxi'HAf ofe-sa/inAf A a CA- D F ( r IA . IV^K.'t' ) H ~ t'i^-f axtivitiOj clhl^ c-la<> i) y / A Ca u b$i^s l\j & ) i>»- r c> f' t</ 7>/«- o/ /^G't CfLLctpiL^^.1 CL s .1 focMUftU . OTWr X CCA is* a/£ CCKVirv n.neA.t*'! e-i/CA \t ' w-ru-C, faijict, Aorf SO)tyd 0 + ■X fti cUatiiU <’/Z<3r >^»n, , A<i^f "^“ to 0iOf? haul kt CMjiafa J «< ?/ ��t iViebl' I I no n - pn V I i / y (l/(cL ^€4 Of / L Ourx^^/cx^ C blZ/lQ. C^f //lwfc+'x t. c^a.*/ u . /\/f/c^ts/t f^r- t\ a^$_ ofac^t^ //1lM(^ z>r~ <*-*x AtZ. » ct/^rKb^f / // & d</r&S /A ff^f /f //4e ) ? fiC & ^r �c 1 7L. // -Z /t Vy^u �JBL ' /'JL '^'^“'*7't/ nT4 I c z\ rkQ—-v t-ATl 0 1-t'F ' li'sWet iwt y "V A_Arv [an^W^i.^r(u.t\ ko^-d^.\ i*~ zu* f A , |p \. kt were rfa^?</k \ 0^ Il £' centh’ki j . 7"tf a k U. »*i A A J i Y>y.^~^i)c(calces) e/- fa 6 . \ iW-6*//y .j r*- R-r ka.t)b c(i*scr i At i a a. "t io a. "Vkij Cut <z V) M i $ f H i i a. rt 't'<2-/- tA. sAo^3 W?£$far A Wo,3 14k t€S f O A ■Wio ift- . r-< A . \ ?"T, A K ^c> £>a__ q)kitk i 'lLt tS | k CK V e, > S£ Z8* �'</ (/ /-W, iS /tJt. } a^f yyx^f^tv' ^ft>eliitOKi at C4t4^S t PX l $ 4/t<LS £, ftQi / 1^,0- k 6- <_ f" er Q-Cc3~l\.ffl. t'' 'kh.j^t RA- only cCkC- If ‘H't<l*f . £ tme R. 5 U- 9 |w VO'/l ,. clrtist f i /y0^f tf <T A 2. ns oVcbf ar *ri*t p re-Feje/vceS ©t - + A,e- far — oTtva-r 'ortyevr-r o-H^-r* cr^tt O tor / ‘ , . t® n2 io(e-/-ATrt>rx ‘ — * ft, r 6 i cr iter i arx I o fiu cLo-fi respLoF J? j /s tta>eCiSSO>>.'t’<i.ty /n^cc.f'i'e.) ' priAcrple? z ©n 5*<c--A, °’ Kiir- ut>rtAi»hil^. j> conSi^l^h c^ a,{ -ft) rn/iind frtHyd/), 'J /€<L af/pctiMi&fcC A $u2fylj\t''O m'*U4H*(i?f7'+ if d / accost C-- t C'fC.t^-t CL-fCS | ere iAf^ 1 ; > ■Far . Ivunf*** 70 loanee-' If- 't'^iS b ttffl C-t fi-A't" if . entreat A ^rmrr//e; ft *j be ke I qI of' p | | mV* ? Cj nfi (2o.r n-ftok. e^-rjftJL <s I ^zjcf'Fjo'x !t(rf Jl Mj1 G.S Z.O W Si C^Lr £ F ioa. OX ■ l^> jJ t~o <?F Ct ^CL f Zt/f co^ce-rri- J / which tk(^ y to tl\^T trj W1M MQcfvm C. U aXum y> iv-/ 1 nto c*— v^o c ork bftAztv/du’r .flxrfnor h.UrflMX»j ot^4*r "Tor btkcjrl } (X. (Z (L^nCt/g, ‘ utt^e ) aejit tfi f oloes Ct l^'oxv r H- A/ O b !Ijdtio'if ^C'D^ni^d- to ix\\cL(U^i'^:'\ TotaiLCwc(^ ej'^M pryo,fly or rA»M^ 6-1^ /l-----------------—6jQ.AJl.fdli se fL £> Ft ) /^r 44^**^ (( tiTi/icr/on 44^4——dlfkO s z^ev c] of con^ici~Crcis2 JojlY" poirv-t- , tklS pl^c/io r^Ac^-S jjA^ - ^Ai7 r^y t'ko^ f ^Jcrbncg^ «s£ , it is p nG jka. 0" f~r 0 >v_ a, or- ■f' For pt a-f-ct-c-n. u«_ — Inin/p c>uez/itf<~— b£c*i« rcCtf/ZZ’tKZ- ^XcAr^«<<a. e4M«»-f.^X TnA" //4/a^, . ebr^n co-\\k\iiAti I T <L m f) IAk) pfG-TCj e. >\ c d~- — Aa m f* OJihe/LSZ I . Kn 1X' &»/f P / 1^7-^ j • ' io 7iCz irx >vi/A. ' 1>hj<’j itfr ynorntch (itj / r -Fr 4 yh g ot1 f vA_ Qiov\b2c. . / . Co fl-T < a (pfvt<(?'-'■ t( s C> inO't I 0£ a_ h rsipoS f*tpe.rcor (L r\te.t tox^ *®/ ' , . c >ni~i e*« c e__,_ c^>wZ /A / <2 // �r h. k tn I'M , ve^e. bttble. s ki<>h«A co. n_ Cf&DCt~m/e.S vyot _ i^k.) 1^ foroaX^/zp^^^ <k teveJn do J j e,j . zt £ ct ii\ . , a Aon/c_ / ■/-© &**C filo x / » • , fr z c/alf //c^ Lfi—- k Ct V 4 f J rh £u ol C. yy/fai b c CQ^tv I Af°*~ S Yc '~~ c f Xf 'i p( 6 e s - P^ 4 / c 'C^t^ f Q- >t LVi '/A.e. , c<-*yr& /^r Xa< C zn.^6 A& * A>> ^i> ?//<cn , c«*^’6,»i1Jp/’Xty. /n ) dt s p-rQ- a. a I ih<# ^1 — t* * Q-x-k&s'pCo.tl C-A n n <nit~ £ #xX fitnWj Iw/iy tn z>/C ol<~ve^foji me e>|(2/-1 rue/ e a / /j ■/^c zfi �Zz i's t k cc tr Und^ (X#l ct i Halt V T' <J 6n I •> vj (X11 c I?lo i lj at/on i Z "L To a s Piorftl "Iw-Xs <?/n<2-r Cc> KV t <s a- r a-f <^ crrv/y c^ct'^z-J z\ tS ^0 tz ——■ z zt /y i'k&t v lev zzLjUr J 'j k (l- a. UgsTma ku-w-tins C^vZ i4! o Act rGJ < Cg/- z/^/zj Aa c't'wJ #4^ (Xi h i i"u^i'u Lt-1 /zo Zte^ > 0- i . ■X c- a-rt-fW^ have. o^e- �7 �er o ’e £ PC- �1 in nmUCh at ,eaSt aS CrUSOe'S w-th —2£S^2SS SS=S=E-lg=:==ES maltreat the land, extract frontU>2 *"* 3 W,'dcrness',f taken to tnterfere with and does not rouse the moral indtgnL^n ofThey ’ C°ndUCt ” not Z^eyyero/ woods off a 75% slope, turns his cows intn rh»> •he „«k. „ SIi„ (ir otherwise dccenl) farmer who clears the <f^^- s a- z. // / A * /7~. z^r&sz A, / ' Z - — ^z4— C ��» Ci s t2"* 7^ ji /<t^/ <- f /'t ^ ~C ' f' /~ e^ttcfuc^ / /^b. f 0 /•> | it is none loo clear what is going to count as a new ethic, much as it is often unclear whether a new development in physics counts as a new physics or just as a modification or extension of the old. For, notoriosly, ethics are not clearly articulated or al all well worked out. so that the application of identity criteria foi ethics may remain obscure. Furthermore we tend to cluster a family of ethical sy stems which do not differ on core or fundamental principles together as the one ethic; e.g. the Christen ethic, which is an umbrella notion covering a cluster of differing and even competing systems. In fact then there are two,.other possibilities, apart from a new environmental ethic, which might cater for the evaluations, namely that of an extension of modification of the prevailing ethicszor that of the development of principles that are already encompassed or latent within the prevailing ethic. The second possibility, that environmental evaluations can be incorporated within (and ecological problems solved within) the /?<rf fff /> (Het-//'s-j Ilk > Ct at— single ethical system uniquely assumed in Western civilization: on many issues, and especially on ckd«°T^a *ssues such as infanticide, women’s rights and drugs, there are competing sets of prin S’ T. ? nCW e^h‘C and Prevai,ln8 ethics tends to suggest a sort of monolithic structure, a uniformity that prevathng ethics, and even a single ethic, need not have. - r. . jM40/ Indeed Passmore (in |2|) has mapped out three important traditions in Western ethical views concerning man’s relation to nature; a dominant tradition, the despotic position, with man as despot (or tyrant), and two lesser traditions, the stewardship position, with man as custodian, and the co-operative position with man as perfector. Nor are these the only traditions; primitivism is another, and both romanticism and mysticism have influenced Western views.-31 ' j i 7) el'f'r/rel-x rC-~ r* �A. The dominant Western view is simply inconsistent with an environmental ethic; for according to it nature is the dominion of man and he is free to deal with it as he pleases (since - at least on the mainstream Stoic^— Augustine view - it exists only for his sake), whereas on an environmental ethic man is not so free to do as he pleases. But it is not quite so obvious that an environmental ethic cannot be coupled with one of the lesser traditions. Part of the problem is that the lesser traditions are by no means adequately characterised anywhere, especially when the religious backdrop is removeej, eg. vv/zo is man steward for and responsible to? However both traditions are inconsistent with a ^environmental ethic because they imply policies of complete interference, whereas on an environmental ethic some worthwhile parts of the earth’s surface should be presen ed from substantial human interference, whether of the “improving” sort or not. Both traditions would in fact prefer to see the earth's land surfaces reshaped along the lines of the tame and com fortable north-European small farm and village landscape. According to the co-operative position man’s proper role is todevelop, cultivate and perfect galiye - all nature eventually - by bringing out its potentialities, the test of perfection being ^usefulness for.human purposes: while on the stewardship view man's role, like that of a farm manager, is to make nature productive by his efforts though not by means that will deliberately degrade its resources./ '7Zu^ /fate- c.C^( 4c~S~ £^7 7c/<*-/'- /rw*. e-1 Cr*..s~y 7 7 , J - cvalua,,^. of an environmental ethic.oXs" coter^^ A t !(^ ; ^,l(he1SStmECXPa!’U"’g P?pula,ions eon,'^d ‘0 finite Indeeo these lesser traditions lead to what a thomnpho’ ‘dr‘”"lg anJ utl,izing ofall natural areas principle of total use,imping that every r-turJl X m ^v,ronmental othic would reject, a human ends, “humanized” ' area shou,d be ^‘^ted or otherw.se used 3 f v 3 rr • H use is extended, somewhat illicitly, to inciud. as regards its actual eftects. Note that the toU’ e •eSiCrVat‘<>n; thiS tOtal USe Princ‘P|c is rendered mocuous al least <»e pr , pie is tied to the resource view of nature , �such an ethic, not primitive, mystical or’romantic, would be new aljigjiu The matter is r straightforward: for the dominant.ethic has been substantial!v uuaiitle^y the n&er that one is not always entitled to do as one pleases where this physically int^Tes \0tn peers'. 7 > proviso was implicit all along (despite evidence to the contrary), and it was simply assumed that doing what one pleased with natural items would not affect others (the Goiyuuterference assump­ tion). Be this as it may, the modified dominant position appears, at least for many thinkers, to have supplanted the dominant position: and the modified position can undoubtedly go much further '* towards an environmental ethic. For example, the farmer's polluting of a community stream may be ruled immoral on the grounds that it physically interferes with others who use or would use the stream. Likewise business enterprises which, destroy the natural environment for no satisfactory returns or which cause pollution deleterious to the health of future humans, can be criticised on the sort of welfare basis (e.g. that of [31) that blends with the modified position; /hcrt/t f'cd c-Z^x . may even serve to restrict the sort of family size one is entitled to have since in a finite situa tion excessive population levels will interfere with future people. Nontheless neither the modified dominant position nor its Western variants, obtained by combining it with the lesser traditions, is adequate as an environmental ethic, as I ^vall A new ethic is wanted, aoh/ 1, /T-- < zfre^e^ 7y 7> j7**u\ �5 /g^7rc> e*- /5> g Zte-Z*-^ a-rfCsC , 'sCett /J /tr ! t>7 f rCL , ioG-j . c s f~CT /fc. /•J2 crt-cc^ a m 7 7/ s e fJ Ifc,'-* 7 ■ is, near‘enough, a propositional system (i.e. a structured set of propositions) or theory which in dudes (like individuals of a theory > a set of values and (like postulates of a theory) a set of general evaluative judgements concerning conduct, typically of what is obligators permissible and wrong.'x* ! of what are rights, what is valued, and so forth. A general or lawlike proposition of a system is a \ principle; and certamlv if systems S, and S2contain different principles, then they are different systems. It follows that anv en onmental ethic differs from the important traditional ethics outlin ed. Moreover if environmental ethics differ from Western ethical systems on some core principlaJL embedded in Western systems, then these systems differ from the Western super ethic (assuming. I what seems to be so. that it can be uniquely characterised) - in which case if an environmental ethic /s needed then a new- ethic is wanted. It suffices then to locate a core principle and to provide environ mental counter examples to it z , /3^'f> Ji^f^ yt �i« * Q-. V '5'" 7/ / Z/t-y -y ZLo c^-T V / C o-~f^ e o—•. /K^~ . are' w^at amount to, core principles of Western ethicaSR ? 1 7 accordingly belong to the super ethic. The fairness principle inscribed ' m the Golden Rule provides one example. Directly relevant here, as a good stab at a core^&iple ' is the commonly formulated liberal principle ' / * ...2>^-.Yjr7 , /fol; >ws ( j 3J. p. 58): (D). The liberal philosophy of (he Western world holds that one should be able to d< □ what he wishes, providing (1) that he does not harm others and (2) that he is not likely to harm .himself jrreparablv.' ■ "Wf® /Ac7 7^— /zxc principle because it e.ves permission m st. some,im« the principle is haded as a freedom SESSSSSsasyr??”- •A?x chauvinism whether ‘other’ expands io ‘other h "* ' ■’ ' Ten' '° lhe c*Ient- antl Pn' 'lege, of the son* or toother sentient be.nXnd t makes aX" wh,chu’s t0° r^<ttive or Mother per verselj to its economic applicability to whieh I LrenrCe l.° the ar,e4uacy of the principle, and in future as well as present other" whether to r '55 ,° r°therS “? t0 ‘ w,lcther to future others, and whether to possible others Th -Th utur<J othefs or onl-v t0 non-discountable V and it is generally c /wf- e \ ��c) fff)Ct^ &J C'C. X ) 1. CAu^f ' b- / ^U4r<fc C 7 *4 & S f/'t J &&&!&&— ?£*~ ^KBMCfc. a/ fiU €t y^ < r- cC 7 ^C/>< Z__i___ �* sC I y/L j (ft) f . } /a fC*2— z’vz/XLt,/ /XL x« /'c-^ anaivjfe of permissibility; £ 7 Zcz2—z obhgatio/falementsjstretc^. out over ideal mInations• (which may be incomplete or even inconsistent), so that what is permissible holds in some idefl^fe situation, what is obligatory in every ideal situation, and what is wrong is excluded in every ideal ' ■ situation. But the main point to grasp for the counter examples that follow, is that ethical principles if correct are universal and are assessed over the class of ideal situations. ZSl ezn^Tfez- />?> b /> C&7 rr cX? eef ff (i) ’ The last man example. The last man (or person) surviving the collapse of the world system Zo eliminating, as far as he can, every living thing, animal or plant (but painlessly if you like, as at the best abattoirs). What he does is quite permissible according to f/)) but on environmental grounds what he does is wrong. Moreover pne d^gsjtot have to Ke commit ted to esoteric values to regard Mr. Last Man as behaving badly, (the reason l^eing^crhapsthatra dica! thinking and values have shifted in an environmental direction in advance of corresponding shifts in the formulation of fundamental evaluative principles)./^ f /U, Corf MG /<€ C ifZ (ii) The last people example. The last man example can be . to the last people example. We can assume that they know they are the last people, e.g. because they are aware that radiation effects have blocked any chance of reproduction. One considers the last people in order to rule out the possibility that what these people do harms or somehow physically interferes with later people. Otherwise one could as well consider science fiction cases where people arrive at a new planet and ft}) �destroy its ecosystems, whether with good intentions such as perfecting the planet for their ends and making it more fruitful or, forgetting the lesser traditions, just for the Let us assume that the last people are very numerous. They humanely exterminate every wild animal and they eliminate the fish of the seas, they put all arable land under intensive cultivation, " and all remaining forests disappear in favour ofpatfuM or plantations, and so on. They may give various familiar reasons for this, e.g. they believe it is the way to salvation or to perfection, or they are simply satisfying reasonable needs, or even that it is needed to keep the last people employed or occupied so that they do not worry too much about their impending extinctions. On an en­ vironmental ethic the last people have behaved badly; £ qfXL/ }r ex/ s* e< 9 they have simplified and largely destroyed all the natural ecosystems, and with their demise the world will soon be an ugly and largely wreck­ ed place. But this conduct may conform with the ’ CCW (£>) Ccf'tC I ^cZ /y //I- /IZPCC-X c'LjruZ^ ~Z / / s/y i ■ jr.ru effect (3) that he does not wilfully destroy natural resources. But as the last people do not destroy resources wilfully, but perhaps “for the best of reasons’", the variant is still environmentally inadequate. (iii) The great entrepreneur example. The last man example can be adjusted so as to not fall foul of clause (3). The last man is an industrialist; he runs a giant complex of automated factories and farms which he proceeds to extend. He produces automobiles among other things, from renewable and recyclable resources of course, only he dumps and recycles these shortly after manufacture and sale to a dummy buyer instead of putting them on the road for a short time as we do. Of course he has the best of reasons for his activity, e.g. he is increasing gross world product, or he is improving output to fulfil some plan, and he will be increasing his own and general welfare since he much prefers increased output and productivity. The entrepreneur's behaviour is on the Western ethic quite permissible; indeed his conduct is commonly thought to be quite fine and may even meet Pareto optimality requirements given prevailing notions of being “better ofT’. 7 /<L. , /tMVbcr^r, Z^> /7^ cx-yr .1 , C< /ctj'/ //’fr ) 7(3 /&- cL C ^^T- �77 toe-^ g rXl-rr^ ^/y) <L c7t Qr<g,*y/i/& , M zrzreX e*i SKfX&d ft C^ g<c /&- ^<XaY£- 77 ^1 4rc7jW4— ) f re/nctd lb— /f ... --*^g*._ K on the verge of extinction because of his qualities as a private good, as a source of valuable oil and meat. The catching and marketing of blue whales does not harm the whalers; it does not harm or physically interfere with others in any good sense, though it may up set them and they may be prepared to compensate the whalers if they desist; nor need whale hun ting be wilful destruction. (Slightly different examples which eliminate the hunting aspect of the blue w'hale example are provided by cases where a speues is eliminated or threatened through destruction of its habitat by man’s activity or the activities of animals he has introduced, e.g. many plains-dwelling Australian marsupials and the Arabian oryx.) The behaviour of the whalers in eliminating this magnificent species of whale is accordingly quite permissible-at least according to basic chauvinism. But on an environmental ethic it is not However the free-market mechanism will not cease allocating whale$ to commercial uses, as a satisfactory environmental economics I would; instead the market r ynuX InGswkblj C/bf £?3 ) tr^Cjec(j-ep-HtL- Cornnc nJ 7 Ct/on(j e(.&^ Ma Jt>«f Cu-Ort- wd ?a6 J w*v7YY w/cX<2- * //> /t * ■J <Y // / Ara /jo f cjff c c , 7 i- ft-T X_S>'C''lf X-S" c x c^r^r Ca— „v z Xc< ✓ » . J ♦ �4 �Zl. e/?o f M dyeeft (T& fd- Ci/c / Awl 7 ■J'yt jf vironmentalists going too far in claiming that these people, those of the examples and respected in­ dustrialists, fishermen and farmers arc behaving, when engaging in environmentally degrading ac tivities of the sort described, in a morally impermissible way? No, what these people do is to a 5 greater or lesser extent eviitand hence in serious vases morally impermissible. For example, insofar as the killing or forced displacement of primiioe peoples who stand in the way of an industrial development is morally indefensible and-^r* permissible, so also is the slaughter ol the last remain ing blue whale^for private profit,. , or fa & 1 j“'/z^4> i ■T.JS �(X. (t^o-r<- a~ ^~h%AJ2-A Au—4^-, -vGtt^y ^-■-? —j—G\A<?-‘-*-k Cj^ /^tc /&rf SV-ev*^. "* JLk^-A~A- ^aj-<j^_u-< ko <=jA- 6< ~34 '-£-^biA -uf-e^kCvjt^ JJv-a-oA CyyA -vo> u^Aj| pj-e-Aic^- £ lAxJ'iz-^-e. cAA fu-__~ ^-^k_k &$ -o-«- <-*■---- -C-^V A -c—_ AXq. cA>V JL&&U- {L&{- — ^Gg-O-i-- <xz.^ V/GA-C -"^o J e> cAM^t-K <_ kvj/l (co*.— yy-j^A , Afk-o -tedt^dA- -4-<--^»X. *~ <-<_>^>—/Y""k AJk-A AJU <-Avh v-J2X4- ^4 k’v-C Lv-\-^ Uu~e> z C v-—&_<k * j^jkjtxv^z jL C<_ ( kKu_k Q/<^-CAA) Cck^X^ a urAk ,^Ah—<4-x c< Aoi—-v c ca-£——-dL/b vz<,vn—v-k* -A £y< xj^—~ -A. -— cCj2_j2_A- o u—Cu-y V—C c Xx G.ZX-—^A Ou-A-^ «v '’4^c V-vA^ Cl~A k-% ^SSL- '-J- ^-~~ kk vr~v -~-e_ /yxxav^ oA c^ ^^r~ /t' ,-cA o<— _J—, ^Rjt^r r c--^--^ nouzfe^ O9e>yn^5 kA. Av—^>^,a»-A- Ak^-u-jy^ rtcr^ . _• ^/,G ftr»&'rt-£-e,43^. J -v—<x— ) Aik. ^L z^J klMmiL ^■‘-"-t-t-* tesr-e^ c^ Ak<A J? y. AA-A J-C t <V— <R_ v— c>j-ej-- u--o-k_N_<_ u^k-^-A ) :— v—e_ -VekjL 0-<X jz_>-e Ar -a_A c--> UZ^U-u-^-^A Afib( A*&( «n Zz7 Co—- '“Cy- <.<2^'1A < &*•>/'" ^r~ Ac^(/i^ f(Ci,f^C^^*- -Co ------- U~-<SX_u-----Y C-7 aJ-Ao-C /'aA^A? <S<—st-C Act ** ^-a2-x_d Z7/^ '7C‘<k YL<iT&rvtl GJk'—s ��23’. u>v 4^ ^r^2-^L ’I'*' C—^r-^-^' A^rtr4— £H 'Xf X ^-°^> C-C-CX-KcX > et4zU^ _ Jrfc^ ^uu. ;££L;k<_ wXo tlq. <_^ CD1-— i_rMl\. B CAC-yrV^ L -2X-C -C+^ 6^M"" -t-L ej" e^H? O £y-Q^-' 0>C-t-4- <c^3 a) ^sxv*^^v 0~“'—“’■ ’A ^—e— O^Lia^v'-a-^ k^-ZZ-ZUJ — .^>p-v^_gA-C -Anu---- ^r-e-ttu- -C-O^G-oXZc^ z z5 OdX^-i^x^ — ^te W-— <^- < *tj> - '-Vua^W- e— "VL«-e- ' ■■'■> ^js> £^J2-— v€ c<x\ ££jL^ c C> 'UC 4^V~ jtXK-sj- <£HL <Sj—<— # ALU- 4^>V ^CtSLu—> t>c—- ^K-’t' l^l \w6 6v_ O ._. <u>ce(jltv‘®— IU~ —v, fU^ar^^A ?n 'u~-Av c^u^laf^^ ,-^K t*^ ��to L- ‘0*^1- &—■*- _A^3L v— A,Z 1 ~ Iks, p. — I fi.tib'£ 6t> Ji.— A A aZ^S^-AJLA ZA CXUj" X----------- — -'-s V" <JL-~^(/^4^ — «XJ-— ��6l ) Ac,<3-^ 7^L^~ £-_ /-"^^ c^tu yte, ... ^iri^^f_____________________________________________ ■I ^)<L^)c.^\ cA^Vt^i)^ I(^y Alrlccj* (Jj<*~£^ r^/J>7 /M;-^ : z* --^///<2<r-> &-f f /^/^C 2Z cJ t X^ctML Ou /h^z*7vczy ; o-r e^ V'iAl<JL. 7^^ Xw// erf ty /irf&usC lrf~ AA^ £&2__/ati/ y^r t&AiJ'x CJL. /A<*% LT^A<JL.\ } njL^J: (c^A^A'/Vetr^ i/iUti^C Ay £ft<>AAiA JO rfA^ / ) // // <^zrx^>t /wz?/ ' /Jf/PfiM crduZ^ O^(//y W fA£^f A />*/ /c^ a fo jO'^A^r fed# £s.^A’ fr/K'r&SfJ ' �z/ .y it On. ^£>4X 6<1SA<_ a~m-A -Wv*------- ^IXS- �does not commit one to the view that natural objects such as trees have rights is occasionally held, e.g. by pantheists. since artefacts are not alive). (though such a view But pantheism is false For moral prohibitions forbidding certain actions with respect to an object do^riot award that object a correlative right. That it would be wrong to mutilate a given tree or piece of property does not entail that the tree or piece of property has a correlative right not to be mutilated (without seriously stretching the notion of a right). Environmental views can stick with,jmainstrean» theses according to which rights X coupled with corresponding responsibilities and so with bearing obligations, and with corresponding interests and concerns; i.e., at least, whatever, has a right also has responsibilities and therefore obligations, and whatever^has a right has^interests st- <■ �J ? �j2_x>~«^-^—4“V- C>----- <~*'f~'^ < —r_>4 AN-^V5i „ /s i—^Jj-o- -gk, zLo jfe-f-4-^- c^-^a- c'k <j£—*A C. -in ^..Sj-oSL-U-^-^zf- ^LM. c_f-<_ C-O x_ C*"^——'p^^— ^ri»|^e>\A»tL' (o~— 1_ <"7 Qr*—S—Ic^-k^pj —.*—*L_ d /'—>-^—^- J &i $"'z'~1<— . — -^_T-Ca_Xa—<__ Aj<, J^«-------- .__><sxbV_ vyH-m <Ji J<$A_ Aal -n^tx/$J'_>~'lx<"c~j-^_<vj4-toA V 2 k^hssXkx^ Z 4----- ------------------- A-S <—<-^-^X_ rA-c____ cL<i—A, "t^-ajZavJ^v i^a--— (kx_A_—-C—, .O-JL '*-^>>J2—AziUAAA O^ . _ _ aAUL :A>=> v __ <=y- fcAlA- v-*o-aA c-» ^Sjhj /"Xr-j-«_ -t~s p-vvj-^MSV-s »_—c<-^»ji—, 'V—Ci.’V' c_r—4~ iUvagk-A-tar^ t (__r-i!e~-^~--> 3 ci r \ 'Wt or e_. fkftyt i‘n ■'—^££ -T©t? Zv€>v^_^ <_<_ x^-aZ-xA' 0 5 <3^ tX,L 4Z <^/ 4b»-ULk /h <-<&— e2 \> c-^^uuxxi ��78 t ��A__ -V �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW, AN ENVIRONMENTAL, ETHIC? Richard Routley (Australia) § 1. It is increasingly said that civilization, Western civilization at least, stands in need of a new ethic (and derivatively of a new economics) setting out people's relations to the natural environ­ ment, in Leopold’s words ‘an ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it' (| 1], p. 238). It is not of course that old and prevaling ethics do not deal with man’s relation to nature: they do, and on the prevailing view man is free to deal with nature as he pleases, i.e. his relations with nature, insofar at least as they do not affect others, are not subject to moral censure. Thus assertions such as ‘Crusoe ought not to be mutilating those trees’ are significant and morally determinate but, inasmuch at least as Crusoe's actions do not interfere with others, they are false or do not hold - and trees are not, in a good sense, moral objects.1 It is to this, to the values and evaluations of the prevailing ethics, that Leopold and others in fact take ex­ ception. Leopold regards as subject to moral criticism, as wrong, behaviour that on prevailing views is morally permissible. But it is not, as Leopold seems to think, that such behaviour is beyond the scope of the prevailing ethics and that an extension of traditional morality is required to cover such cases, to fill a moral void. If Leopold is right in his criticism of prevailing conduct what is required is a change in the ethics, in attitudes, values and evaluations. For as matters stand, as he himself-explains, men do not feel morally ashamed if they interfere with a wilderness, if they maltreat the land, extract from it whatever it will yield, and then move on; and such conduct is not taken to interfere with and does not rouse the moral indignation of others. ‘A farmer who clears the woods ofTa 75% slope, turns his cows into the clearing, and dumps its rainfall, rocks, and soil into the community creek, is still (if otherwise decent) a respected member of society.’ (UJ), p.245) Under what we shall call an environmental ethic such traditionally permissible conduct would be accounted morally wrong, and the farmer subject to proper moral criticism. Let us grant such evaluations for the purpose of the argument. What is not so clear is that a new ethic is required even for such radical judgements. For one thing it is none too clear what is going to count as a new ethic, much as it is often unclear whether a new development in physics counts as a new physics or just as a modification or extension of the old. For, notoriosly, ethics are not clearly articulated or at all well worked out, so that the application of identity criteria for ethics may remain obscure.2 Furthermore we tend to cluster a family of ethical systems which do not differ on core or fundamental principles together as the one ethic; e.g. the Christain ethic, which is an umbrella notion covering a cluster of differing and even competing systems. In fact then there are two other possibilities, apart from a new environmental ethic, which might cater for the evaluations, namely that of an extension of modification of the prevailing ethics or that of the development of principles that are already encompassed or latent within the prevailing ethic. The second possibility, that environmental evaluations can be incorporated within (and ecological problems solved within) the framework of prevailing Western ethics, is open because there isn’t a 1 A view occasionally tempered by the idea that trees house spirits 2 To the consternation nodoubt of Quineans But the fact is that we can talk perfectly well about inchoate and fragmentary systems the identity of which may be indeterminate 205 single ethical system uniquely assumed in Western civilisation: on many issues, and especially on controversial issues such as infanticide, women’s rights and drugs, there are competing sets of prin­ ciples. Talk of a new ethic and prevailing ethics tends to suggest a sort of monolithic structure, a uniformity, that prevailing ethics, and even a single ethic, need not have. Indeed Passmore (in [21) has mapped out three important traditions in Western ethical views concerning man’s relation to nature; a dominant tradition, the despotic position, with man as despot (or tyrant), and two lesser traditions, the stewardship position, with man as custodian, and the co-operative position with man as perfcctor. Nor are these the only traditions; primitivism is another, and both romanticism and mysticism have influenced Western views. The dominant Western view is simply inconsistent with an environmental ethic; for according to it nature is the dominion of man and he is free to deal with it as he pleases (since - at least on the mainstream Stoic - Augustine view - it exists only for his sake), whereas on an environmental ethic man is not so free to do as he pleases. But it is not quite so obvious that an environmental ethic cannot be coupled with one of the lesser traditions. Part of the problem is that the lesser traditions are by no means adequately characterised anywhere, especially when the religious backdrop is removed, e.g. who is man steward for and responsible to? However both traditions are inconsistent with an environmental ethic because they imply policies of complete interference, whereas on an environmental ethic some worthwhile parts of the earth’s surface should be preserv­ ed from substantial human interference, whether of the “improving” sort or not. Both traditions would in fact prefer to see the earth’s land surfaces reshaped along the lines of the tame and com­ fortable north-European small farm and village landscape. According to the co-operative position man’s proper role is todevelop, cultivate and perfect nature — all nature eventually - by bringing out its potentialities, the test of perfection being primarily usefulness for human purposes; while on the stewardship view man’s role, like that of a farm manager, is to make nature productive by his efforts though not by means that will deliberately degrade its resources. Although these positions both depart from the dominant position in a way which enables the incorporation of some evaluations of an environmental ethic, e.g. some of those concerning the irresponsible farmer, they do not go far enough: for in the present situation of expanding populations confined to finite natural areas, they will lead to, and enjoin, the perfecting, farming and utilizing of all natural areas. Indeed these lesser traditions lead to, what a thoroughgoing environmental ethic would reject, a principle of total use,implying that every natural area should be cultivated or otherwise used3 for human ends, “humanized”. As the important Western traditions exclude an environmental ethic, it would appear that such an ethic, not primitive, mystical or romantic, would be new alright. The matter is not so straightforward; for the dominant ethic has been substantially qualified by the rider that one is not always entitled to do as one pleases where this physically interferes with others. Maybe some such proviso was implicit all along (despite evidence to the contrary), and it was simply assumed that doing what one pleased with natural items would not affect others (the non-interference assump­ tion). Be this as it may, the modified dominant position appears, at least for many thinkers, to have supplanted the dominant position; and the modified position can undoubtedly go much further towards an environmental ethic. For example, the farmer’s polluting of a community stream may be ruled immoral on the grounds that it physically interferes with others who use or would use the stream. Likewise business enterprises which destroy the natural environment for no satisfactory returns or which cause pollution deleterious to the health of future humans, can be criticised on the sort of welfare basis (e.g. that of [3]) that blends with the modified position; and so on. The posi­ tion may even serve to restrict the sort of family size one is entitled to have since in a finite situa­ tion excessive population levels will interfere with future people. Nontheless neither the modified dominant position nor its Western variants, obtained by combining it with the lesser traditions, is adequate as an environmental ethic, as I shall try to show. A new ethic is wanted. 2. -A^ we noticed-(an) ethic is ambiguous, as between a specific ethical system, a specific ethic, and a more generic notion, a super ethic, under which specific ethics cluster.4 An ethical system S 3 If ‘use’ is extended, somewhat illicitly, to include use for preservation, this total use principle is rendered inocuous at least as regards its actual effects. Note that the total use principle is tied to the resource view of nature 4 A meta-ethic is, as usual, a theory about ethics, super ethics, their features and fundamental notions 206 '^"es - a( SeS’a,Pr0pos^r th«>ry whlch in. is, near enough, a proposit1or ., ~"f'm (1.e. a structured set of propositions) or theory which in--.:ludes ( like individuals of a th• . a set of values and (like postulates of a theory) a set ° of general or to‘other he^er conduct. to verselytypically to its of thers obligatory, or isonf ? applypermissible n’ untableand wrong, what concern,n~ evaluativeOnjudgements of what are rights, what is valued, and !>O forth. A general or lawlike proposition of a system is a principle; and certainly if systems S, and S2 contain _different principles, then they are different systems. It follows that any en\llnnmental ethic differs from the important traditional ethics outlined. Moreover if environmental ethic5 lifTer from Western ethical systems on some core principle embedded in Western systems, then ,hese systems differ from the Western super ethic (assurring, what seems to be so, that it can be uniquely characterised) - in which case if an environmental ethic is needed t!ien a new ethic is wanted It suffices then to locate a core principle and to provide environmental count,·r examples to 1t. It 1s commonly assumed that there are, what amount to, core principles of Western ethical systems. principles that will accordingly belong to the super ethic. The fairness principle inscribed in the Golden Ruk I w ,des one example. Directly relevant here. as a good stab at a core principle. is the com111unli, formulated liberal principle 0f the moqified flominan"-,~siti on..A recent for-""•..._ ,/c,.,.M,....,,, ~ lo/,'/ mulation~ runs a, follows ( 131, p. 58}: 'The liberal philosophy of the Western world holds that one should be able to do what he wishes, providing ( I) that he does not harm others and (2) that he is not hkel 1 to harm himself irreparably.' Let us call this prmciple basic (/Funan) chauvinism - because under it humans, or people, come fir~t and everything else a bad last - though sometimes the principle is hailed as a freedom principle because it gives perm1ss10n to perform a wide range of actions (including actions which mess up the environment and natural things) providing they do not harm others. In fact it tends to cunningly shift the onus of proof to others. It is wortti remarking that harming others in the restriction is narrower than a rc,tnction tu the I usual) interests of others; it is not enough that 1t is in my interests, because I detest you, that you stop breathing; you are free to breathe, for the time being anywa~ because 1t does not harm me. There remains a problem however as to e~actly what counts as harm or interference. Moreover the width of the pnnciple is so far obscure because 'other' ma~ be filled out in significantly diffen:nt 11, ays. it makes a difference to the e,itent, and pri, ilege, of the chauvinism whether 'other' expands to ·other human' - which is too restrictive - or to 'other'peradequacy toCthe a ^t being'; and fnd uture k to 'other'sentient s^ed other as well thaut^ atter s it wmakes °u'd o nn re °difference "°w and^t °mpletel y “n-of the principle, and inson'it or versely to its economic applicability, to which class of others it is intended to apply, whether to Wor kable, Th^ atake future "ymakethe as count t0 others, Co m°St whether to P to remote future others or only to non-discountable present aspato asis well future e. whether to possible others. The latter would make the principle completely unand others, future It ysK" ^nled in des<gning anaJ ). "ple ™' last m,„ « u,,, ,k 1 -1/.'l;· nr semantical workable, and it is generally assumed that it applies at most to present and future others. ,( ., ■ „di examples to basic chauvinist principles, that a It is taken for granted in designing counter ·~ .....-<;,_ semantical analysis of permissibility and obligation statements stretches out over ideal situations , ... ~#... ideal some in (which may be incomplete or even inconsistent), so that what is permissible holds situation, what is obligatory in every id.:al situation, and what is wrong is excluded in every ideal situation. But the mam point to grasp for the counter example\ that follow, is that ethical principles if correct are universal and are assessed over the class of ideal situations. -(i) The last man example. The last man (or person) surviving the collapse of the world system lays about him, eliminating, as far as he can, every living thing, animal or plant (but painlessly if you like, as a• the best abattoirs). What he doc~ 1s quite permissible according to ba 1c chauvinism, but on environmental ground~ what he does is wrong. Moreover one does not have to be committed to esoteric values to regard Mr Last Man as behaving badly (the reason being perhaps that raof corresponding in' advance dical thinking and values have shifted in an environmental usurne direction ’’ ^""oplos shifts in the formulation of fundamental evaluative principles}. (ii) The last people example. The last man example can be broadened to the last people example. We can assume that they know they are the last people, e.g. because they are aware that radiation effects have blocked any chance of reproduction. One considers the last people in order to rul!! out «rcorre p„ that what these people do harms or somehow physically interferes with later people. the spossibility Otherwise one could as well 1..ons1der science fiction cases where peoole arrive at a new planet and »™ ^“xxi™r <"■■— ^.^ ^ sssh ss ±“ ™.™««. oS «’Srr "”'be “ ” “c,v A ™88eZ™1£„XXe°' rw S,SCUre ss?wX".“ . ,.. ___ X;»,XyrXt“ber ® S “ xxr •' xe xz^x z “:zz:::?“~ssss fgs 5 A related principle is that (m d11ieJ •,.., •.,r.i ..,, »c can operate "ith,n similar limits 207 207 WIMI iWlliMMW-l-i destroy its ecosystems, whether with good intentions such as perfecting the planet for their ends and making it more fruitful or, forgetting the lesser traditions, just for the hell of it. Let us assume that the last people are very numerous. They humanely exterminate every wild animal and they eliminate the fish of the seas, they put all arable land under intensive cultivation, and all remaining forests disappear in favour of quarries or plantations, and so on. They may give various familiar reasons for this, e.g. they believe it is the way to salvation or to perfection, or they are simply satisfying reasonable needs, or even that it is needed to keep the last people employed or occupied so that they do not worry too much about their impending extinctions. On an en­ vironmental ethic the last people have behaved badly; they have simplified and largely destroyed all the natural ecosystems, and with their demise the world will soon be an ugly and largely wreck­ ed place. But this conduct may conform with the basic chauvinist principle, and as well with the principles enjoined by the lesser traditions. Indeed the main point of elaborating this example is because, as the last man example reveals, basic chauvinism may conflict with stewardship or co­ operation principles. The conflict may be removed it seems by conjoining a further proviso to the basic principle, to the effect (3) that he does not wilfully destroy natural resources. But as the last people do not destroy resources wilfully, but perhaps “for the best of reasons”, the variant is still environmentally inadequate. (iii) The great entrepreneur example. The last man example can be adjusted so as to not fall foul of clause (3). The last man is an industrialist; he runs a giant complex of automated factories and farms which he proceeds to extend. He produces automobiles among other things, from renewable and recyclable resources of course, only he dumps and recycles these shortly after manufacture and sale to a dummy buyer instead of putting them on the road for a short time as we do. Of course he has the best of reasons for his activity, e.g. he is increasing gross world product, or he is improving output to fulfil some plan, and he will be increasing his own and general welfare since he much prefers increased output and productivity. The entrepreneur’s behaviour is on the Western ethic quite permissible; indeed his conduct is commonly thought to be quite fine and may even meet Pareto optimality requirements given prevailing notions of being “better off’. Just as we can extend the last man example to a class of last people, so we can extend this ex­ ample to the industrial society example: the society looks rather like ours. (iv) The vanishing species example. Consider the blue whale, a mixed good on the economic pic­ ture. The blue whale is on the verge of extinction because of his qualities as a private good, as a source of valuable oil and meat. The catching and marketing of blue whales does not harm the whalers; it does not harm or physically interfere with others in any good sense, though it may up­ set them and they may be prepared to compensate the whalers if they desist: nor need whale hun­ ting be wilful destruction. (Slightly different examples which eliminate the hunting aspect of the blue whale example are provided by cases where a species is eliminated or threatened through destruction of its habitat by man’s activity or the activities of animals he has introduced, e.g. many plains-dwelling Australian marsupials and the Arabian oryx.) The behaviour of the whalers in eliminating this magnificent species of whale is accordingly quite permissible-at least according to basic chauvinism. But on an environmental ethic it is not. However the free-market mechanism will not cease allocating whale^ to commercial uses, as a satisfactory environmental economics would; instead the market model will grind inexorably 6 along the private demand curve until the blue whale population is no longer viable—if that point has not already been passed. In sum, the class of permissible actions that rebound on the environment is more narrowly circumscribed on an environmental ethic than it is in the Western super ethic. But aren’t en­ vironmentalists going too far in claiming that these people, those of the examples and respected in dustrialists, fishermen and farmers are behaving, when engaging in environmentally degrading ac tivities of the sort described, in a morally impermissible way ? No. what these people do is to a greater or lesser extent evil, and hence in serious cases morally impermissible. For example, insofar as the killing or forced displacement of primitive peoples who stand in the way of an industrial development is morally indefensible and impermissible, so also is the slaughter of the last remain­ ing blue whales for private profit. But how to reformulate basic chauvinism as a satisfactory 6 For the tragedy-of-the-commons type reasons well explained in 131 2^°;™ pn"c,p e ls 3 morc d,flku11 matter. A tentative, but none too adequate beginning might be made by extending (2) to include harm to or interference with others who would be so affected by the action in question were they placed in the environment and (3) to exclude speciepide. It may be preferable, m view of the way the freedom principle sets the onus of proof, simply to scrap it altogether, and instead to specify classes of rights and permissible conduct, as in a bill of rights. rei2tsArhadRaJ change-ri" a ^eory some,,mcs forces changes in the meta-theory; e.g. a logic which jects the Reference Theory tn 4 thoroughgoing way requires a modification of the usual metatheory which also accepts the Reference Theory and indeed which is tailored to cater only for logics which do conform. A somewhat similar phenomena seems to occur in the case of a meta-ethic adequate for an environmental ethic. Quite apart from introducing several environmen­ tally important notions, such as conservation, pollution, growth and preservation, for meta-ethical analysis, an environmental ethic compels re-examination and modified analyses of such characteristic actions as natural right, ground of right, and of the relations of obligation and per­ missibility to rights; it may well require re-assessment of traditional analyses of such notions as \alue and right, especially where these are based on chauvinist assumptions; and it forces the rejec­ tion of many of the more prominent meta-ethical positions. These points are illustrated by a verv brie! examination of accounts of natural right and then by a sketch of the species bias of some major positions,7 Hart (in |5|) accepts, subject to defeating conditions which are here irrelevant, the classical doctrine of natural rights according to which, among other things, ‘any adult human ... capable of choice is at liberty to do (i.e. is under no obligation to abstain from) any action which is not one coercing or restraining or designed to injure other persons’. But this sufficient condition for a human natural right depends on accepting the very human chauvinist principle an environmental ethic rejects, since if a person has a natural right he has a right; so too the definition of a natural right adopted by classical theorists and accepted with minor qualifications by Hart presupposes the same defective principle. Accordingly an environmental ethic would have to amend the classical notion of a natural right, a far from straight forward matter now that human rights with respect to animals and the natural environment are, like those with respect to slaves not all that long ago, undergoing major re-evaluation. An environmental ethic does not commit one to the view that natural objects such as trees have rights (though such a view is occasionally held, e.g. by pantheists. But pantheism is false since artefacts are not alive). For moral prohibitions forbidding certain actions with respect to an object do not award that object a correlative right. That it would be wrong to mutilate a given tree or piece of property does not entail that the tree or piece of property has a correlative right not to be mutilated (without seriously stretching the notion of a right). Environmental views can stick with mainstream theses according to which rights are coupled with corresponding responsibilities and so with bearing obligations, and with corresponding interests and concern; i.e., at least, whatever has a right also has responsibilities and therefore obligations, and whatever has a right has in­ terests. Thus although any person may have a right by no means every living thing can (significantly) have rights, and arguably most sentient objects other than persons cannot have rights. But persons can relate morally, through obligations, prohibitions and so forth, to practically anything at all. r J The species bias of certain ethical and economic positions which aim to make principles of conduct or reasonable economic behaviour calculable is easily brought out. These positions typica ly employ a single criterion p. such as preference or happiness, as a summum bonum; characteristically each individual of some base class, almost always humans, but perhaps including future humans, is supposed to have an ordinal p ranking of the states in question (e.g. of afTairs, of the economy); then some principle is supplied to determine a collective p ranking of these states in terms of individual prankings, and what is best or ought to be done is determined either directly, as in act-utilitarianism under the Greatest Happiness principle, or indirectly, as in rule-utilitarianism, in terms of some optimization principle applied to the collective ranking. The species bias is transparent from the selection of the base class. And even if the base class is extended to embrace persons, or even some animals (at the cost, like that of including remotely future humans, of losing P°’ntS arC deVdOped by thOSC protcstin« about human maltreatment of animals; see especially the essays testability), the positions are open to familiar criticism, namely that the whole of the base class may be prejudiced in a way which leads to unjust principles. For example if every member of the base class detests dingoes, on the basis of mistaken data as to dingoes’ behaviour, then by the Pareto ranking test the collective ranking will rank states where dingoes are exterminated very highly, from which it will generally be concluded that dingoes ought to be exterminated (the evaluation of most Australian farmers anyway). Likewise it would just be a happy accident, it seems, if collective demand (horizontally summed from individual demand) for a state of the economy with blue whales as a mixed good, were to succeed in outweighing private whaling demands; for if no one in the base class happened to know that blue whales exist or cared a jot that they do then ‘‘rational” economic decision-making would do nothing to prevent their extinction. Whether the blue whale survives should not have to depend on what humans know or what they see on televi­ sion. Human interests and preferences are far too parochial to provide a satisfactory basis for deciding on what is environmentally desirable. These ethical and economic theories are not alone in their species chauvinism; much the same applies to most going meta-ethical theories which, unlike intuitionistic theories, try to offer some rationale for their basic principles. For instance, on social contract positions obligations are a matter of mutual agreements between individuals of the base class; on a social justice picture rights and obligations spring from the application of symmetrical fairness principles to members of the ~^^base class, usually a rather special class of persons, while on a Kantian position which has some * v^gue obligations somehow arise from respect for members of the base class, persons. In each case if members of the base class happen to be ill-disposed to items outside the base class then that is too bad for them: that is (rough) justice. REFERENCES 1. A. Leopold, A Sand Country Almanac with other essays on Conservation. New York (1966). 2. J. Passmore, Ecological Problems and Western Traditions (unpublished). 3. P.W.Barkley and D.W.Seckier, Economic Growth and Environmental Decay. The Solution becomes the Problem, New York (1972). 4. S. and R. Godlovitch and J. Harris (editors), Animals, Men and Morals. An enquiry into the maltreatment of non-humans, London (1971). 5. H.L.A.Hart, ‘Are there any natural rights?’, reprinted in A.Quinton (editor), Political Philosophy, Oxford (1967). for < MC. fyjfot'''? ■tu / v x .. 5^ ' A - ■. 3 7 • ... , ■ '-■ “"■'T “"7— , O' .. / ... . t ■ - _____ 5 11 I * b. ■-^ ' ■ 1 ■■ ■:.,' ?• f ■ ■ '■ ■ \ • < ■- ■> ■ '■ ...:■■ ■■■ ■- k ..... £ • tOx ' A . ' ’ . ' -. . ........... ........ '■' •■■ ' - ■ ,. ; 1 L ___ SL&L___ ___------------------------------------- r.._ Ao ..... . ' ■ r - \ v * . . , ' ' ' . ... . ' . .■ . , '. - ■ A * O ' ' . ' , ' . . , , f . iK 4**«^ £' . ' •) ■ ; ‘ ' ' ' ' &-A. */- “S A r* - f’ ,Z ■ .. t u< lzJ*C C<& 'Co h* zLzx^ X CXA-a. 'tel Aj .. ‘ X .’ ■tzO .. i ’ ' \ u<J-A^LA ,. z^i*" V^o*4^ -^- -Oi--\z> f ■ ' ■ ti i .— 4 a. - ' ■v tO-- \. u> (.<■ •'■ * Z fi fl £/\-'-X n ’ ‘ ' UaJ-A^La I cJ <-X j <A 03 v. I*~c-%>a tu <*--a O•- V — * ' . ? . . ____ ___ .-r.'^-—> .. .. . • Q :' -*• f■ V Jidk ■ ■ t :ygn. -A. < I- . k -V u i----- L u J ' . ... ______________ 2Zo.... ■ « tj- a. i €o _ZSt - 'w**sfe2______ i_X £I -sX ■ > ' C "■ ■’ . ' W:'^~ .■„... tC^L d ■ ■ J < ' ' . Opt*^ .>w^4Ua4t L. cU^fU^ L •<».. ., • >/»• ■ I P < •. V ho o- k . - ■ * •• j ■ \ aVumL. cAfth 7 - ; 4 / ( . > ■ ' ■ IX . c ' ■ ,v^_...... . JgLl . ‘ •■ lI.. I A ,__ y J^-xZs, vX>. ! V ' ■ ............ -.- C^> ^O-*—<" . U-^QU-^^ az^<^6*^....... ■ V exp UrC 4- Cl J&, I—C^L-o—ti I i / c r ’ ■'X '■ . j£o - a~, -< JU-<9v-a --- * Izy, L cLa-^aJL *-L — • cC^c u-> 0 >—-» l|o-*—'-. Xa^ J •*’ X- <^» C"Q- . »-fe-, >1^ A U*--—-** t-v.^ X^LzO* U-1U— -J, xo. <xXo •&/ ,-tfJ. V) \. '< ' I i —x-> >» 'k -vjf eSt <>- fl o»-^e^ "KL^ X-t v-jlA~ a JL^> <a . A > -A ‘-V. <^y--- O^A^X C<J-’- X- -v<a ^>4jUl^ , *V r ~ w*<- *-Xa^jJL, ) K c¥- ctdL c^r\ -% . CA ■ -a-- --------------------- z>-*^ r V s/ <4* V^VA '✓*. x 'A p~* €z ;< ' y 'Cir> i * f *7) A-0 >• a- <o o d <>• us \ > ~k QJ^ Cj. O- ft-Kfj xGv-y dx>- > p '*d £ ^su »X_ c c Jj CjC-»~-.r-< . ^=> Qo «AvA £>-* ....... (X- V**-CAz^ ) -aAjL^— ^~\_ cL>^^ < Aa_ A-t-HP * '+ aCv‘—*— Ao ZA_ V- f> A-*V-A (b-rvtU ■ >J£ T.T.C <*»»• V • ‘ \rfA-f'»~-*^AX VX*-^ V-U— X AAc-A ^1 J /*-•■••*•> «*Z> zi-v tajx4" vj-^-*-4“ . ‘r *3tx_^( uJ“—^''^-A OVsjI^ & * a v_-~—<o*—sw^ o^-»_ VjJLu- , c^<- -*A X< ztr^ /Ace. ^A- KT^-XXa -\ GO-ce^T F(Sb /'ik-ov^ “'-'■> O -V^ r~ ,5>^XC^'-'~'CC» • ''.'J * a ■> V, fc*-■■■&-'-") rtj.J /VO '-—*•• ■*■ t*A ‘—91 * * io -^22^ * 3 ' U- } -Cztxo^J-a A^^-U- a-xa uztt> (4 xtu AU-A y ^<*^CAvUr^ ub-^Lv A- cl*w. *%*x> X—7 &~t z\> a- ^Glx^ -^j—c r<XA^v<_ 4 &- txAuA^ id1'~- ' c* C~* * ~ "fc ^«Uf<-<-,ri • -< 'J a.X-^u . xJx C. . ’ , & '--^-C ,v> e^- o < •" •-'' '•>■>:.•■*'?: V J Aj 3 .to XA 'v~, •n O -•.•> / / * t~ -* ” <• ^-^So Zo ) J^Xr*-^r-^ r^) A^V* kj^v—o Bu0 " bu- v>^c4- r- d Cy^>~e-~ ^v«-^-^vCc / i-^hx~K_-^<-A. <<> <-*—-V—>ttkA< J^O-U- |t-r-&Xxv— ^e^avX—( J /"tzO. r-U- u^rt«4~ *9 &A X-^JL zUU-< -z> -^Aa \n-*c • 4, r>v v-*^ o j£3jl f * s■ c o CC-^J| A. C-*^-y^'A-'» Co £^4-2- Z-CC V1" ZX) v^<.^J>rC r-O\ i^j-Ca. U-v_ ^V*-4^'r-^A~^-> A>U jXK ^-^-^jl _pL v^x-'JxClLa^ A—>—v<_ -*~-<_>JLv. .'CvAz^ £O^ AXzv^A. ♦ < — c+^ “/JU. “T^Gl 'Ao*- 0 -" —A^* <A*^Cg ^L xX*^ULt—□ iGs^G^ /i<>‘-*-c. '-C»— Ca^ a^Ll I VAaA >>An^ '-O-Qa*~t__ 4 > "^“*~^> V-'JK—A.'^C. Xg.^u^j c Ou%**j "’0^^ 55T *-<a ^~L ^to £)La-a?< H- G>' rG A? ^AQst^.... yO<*-w»»A . QkJLLl . Go^^-a^AA. ..... l^x>— !jC l*Jc — . .... ^n*w^^v&A. Va.^ cG*-? L& -^ >-***- u> C-tfktA^. _. -XSL( o-G_lX %^?yr r <j2^ z>tnC/X**-vjtX '***"■ z/V\z^^Ax ^*-*-^ £ -c<X *V~>~ ^wK>-‘\SwjLX Cczl XJbu-t A'>>~“ _ 'Yvv\U~’J—V (V^Ffr s r * /^v—4-V3 ^>r<. 1^'-*-* , "to _ 0a>-< 3> ^>i~x “ \> ■ k>*- -a^Xaa -•■• (k.c>^\ f //-V . ' / . <r" U<_ , !0'-^C_. <\b*-GA^x^ fiLMs-ut. p- -G— "**{1^-5 Cysut, >—oKxi^t k Tg ^^cJUc I x-v| , ■ IS THERE A NEED FOR A NEW, AN ENVIRONMENTAL, ETHIC? Richard Routley (Australia) § 1. It is increasingly said that civilization, Western civilization at least, stands in need of a new ethic (and derivatively of a new economics) setting out people's relations to the natural environ­ ment, in Leopold's words ‘an ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it’ ([1], p. 238). It is not of course that old and prevaling ethics do not deal with man's relation to nature: they do, and on the prevailing view man is free to deal with nature as he pleases, i.e. his relations with nature, insofar at least as they do not affect others, are not subject to moral censure. Thus assertions such as ‘Crusoe ought not to be mutilating those trees’ are significant and morally determinate but, inasmuch at least as Crusoe's actions do not interfere with others, they are false or do not hold - and trees are not, in a good sense, moral objects.1 It is to this, to the values and evaluations of the prevailing ethics, that Leopold and others in fact take ex­ ception. Leopold regards as subject to moral criticism, as wrong, behaviour that on prevailing views is morally permissible. But it is not, as Leopold seems to think, that such behaviour is beyond the scope of the prevailing ethics and that an extension of traditional morality is required to cover such cases, to fill a moral void. If Leopold is right in his criticism of prevailing conduct what is required is a change in the ethics, in attitudes, values and evaluations. For as matters stand, as he himself explains, men do not feel morally ashamed if they interfere with a wilderness, if they maltreat the land, extract from it whatever it will yield, and then move on; and such conduct is not taken to interfere with and does not rouse the moral indignation of others. ‘A farmer who clears the woods off a 75% slope,turns his cows into the clearing, and dumps its rainfall,rocks, andsoil into the community creek, is still (if otherwise decent) a respected member of society.’ ([1]), p.245) Under what we shall call an environmental ethic such traditionally permissible conduct would be accounted morally wrong, and the farmer subject to proper moral criticism. Let us grant such evaluations for the purpose of the argument. What is not so clear is that a new ethic is required even for such radical judgements. For one thing it is none too clear what is going to count as a new ethic, much as it is often unclear whether a new development in physics counts as a new physics or just as a modification or extension of the old. For, notoriosly, ethics are not clearly articulated or at all well worked out, so that the application of identity criteria for ethics may remain obscure.2 Furthermore we tend to cluster a family of ethical systems which do not differ on core or fundamental principles together as the one ethic; e.g. the Christain ethic, which is an umbrella notion covering a cluster of differing and even competing systems. In fact then there are two other possibilities, apart from a new environmental ethic, which might cater for the evaluations, namely that of an extension of modification of the prevailing ethics or that of the development of principles that are already encompassed or latent within the prevailing ethic. The second possibility, that environmental evaluations can be incorporated within (and ecological problems solved within) the framework of prevailing Western ethics, is open because there isn’t a 1 A view occasionally tempered by the idea that trees house spirits 2 To the consternation .nodoubt of Quineans. But the fact is that we can talk perfectly well about inchoate and fragmentary systems the identity of which may be indeterminate 205 is, near enough: ~ propositional system (i.e. a structured set of propositions) or theory which includes ( like md1v1duals of a theory) a set of values and (like postulates of a theory) a set of general evaluative Ju~gements co~cermng conduct, typically of what is obligatory, permissible and wrong of_ what ~re rights, what _is valued, and so forth. A ~eneral or lawlike proposition of a system is ~ prmc1ple, and certainly 1f syst~ms S, and S2 contam different principles, then they are different systems. It foll?ws t~at any environmental ethic differs from the important traditional ethics outlined. Moreo~er 1f environmental ethics differ from Western ethical systems on some core principle embedded m Western systems, then these systems differ from the Western super ethic (assuming wh~t _seems to be so, that it can be uniquely characterised) - in which case if an environm~ntai eth1_c 1s needed then a new ethic is wanted. It suffices then to locate a core principle and to provide environmental counter examples to it. It is com_monly assu_med that_ there are. what amount to, core principles of Western ethical ~ystems, principles that will accordingly belong to the super ethic. The fairness principle inscribed ~n the Golden Rule provides o~e example. Directly relevant here, as a good stab at a core principle, ts the . commonly formulated hberal pnnc1ple of the modified dominance position .. A recent for: · " • "'• ,;, /'' /,'. / ~·- - ·· ..._ mulation 5 runs as follows ( [ 3 I, p. 58): . 'The liberal philosophy of the Wes tern world holds that one should be able to do what he wishes, prov1dmg ( 1) that he d0es not harm orhers and (2) that he is not likely to harm himself irreparably.' Let us call this principle basic (human) chauvinism - because under it humans, or people. co_me_ first and everyt_hmg else a bad last - though sometimes the principle is hailed as a freedom pnnc1ple becaus~ 1t gives perm1ss1on to perform a wide range of actions (including actio.ns which mess_ up the ~nv1ronment and natural things) providing they do not harm others. In fact it tends to c_unn_mgly shift the onus of pro?fto others. It is worth remarking that harming others in the restrict10n 1s narrower than a restnct1on to the (usual) interests of others; it is not enough that it is in my mterests, because. I detest you, that you stop breathing; you are free to breathe, for the time being anyway, because 1t does not harm me. There remains a problem however as to exactly what counts as harm or mter_ference. Mor~over the width of the principle is so far obscure because 'other' may be fill~d. out m s1gmficantly different ways: it makes a difference to the e~tent, and privilege, of the cha~vm1s~ whe~her '.other' _ex~ands to 'other human' - which is too restrictive - or to 'other'person or to _other sent1~nt be1~g ; and 1t mak~s a difference to the adequacy of the principle, and inversely to its economic apphcab1hty, to which class of others it is intended to apply whether to future as well as to present others, whether to remote future others or only to non-discountable future others, a?d. whether to possible others. The latter would make the principle completely unworkable, and 1t 1s generally assumed that it applies at most to present and future others. ' //4-_ ItIt_ is taken for granted. in_ d_e_signing counter examples to basic chauvinist principles, that a ....,. /..~..., . ( sem_antical analysis of perm1ss1b1hty and obligation statements stretches out over ideal situations r.,.·-=-"'t.. :.;1 -c.: , · ~/:_ (".~-htch may be mcon:iplete or even inconsistent), so that what is permissible holds in some ideal ideal every in s1tuat10n, what 1s obl_1gato_ry in every ideal situation, and what is wrong is excluded ~1tuat10n. But the_mam pomt to grasp for the counter examples that follow, is that ethical principles · t· 1f correct are umversal and are assessed over the class of I·deal s1tua ions. (') Th z collapse of the world system the 1 _survi~ing perso~) (or man e as_t ma~ e~a~ple. The last lays ~bout him, ehmmatmg, ~s far as he can, e~ery !tvmg th_mg, animal or plant (but painlessly if iou hke, a~ at the best abattoirs). What he does 1s qmte permissible according to basic chauvinism ut on envir?nmental grounds what he does is wrong. Moreover one does not have to be commit~ ~~d \o e~ot~nc values to regard M'.. Las_t Man as behaving badly (the reason being perhaps that ra~cfa th mkmg a nd val~es have shifted m an environmental direction in advance of corresponding s .. 1 ts m the formulation of fundamental evaluative principles). (u) The last people example. The last man example can be broadened to the last people example. We can assume that they know they are the last people, e.g. because they are aware that radiation effects h_a~~ blocked any chance of reproduction. One considers the last people in order to rule out ~e pos~1b1hty that what these pe~ple d~ harms or somehow physically interferes with later people. therwise one could as well consider science fiction cases where people arrive at a new planet and single ethical system uniquely assumed in Western civilization: on many issues, and especially on controversial issues such as infanticide, women's rights and drugs, there are competing sets of principles. Talk of a new ethic and prevailing ethics tends to suggest a sort of monolithic structure, a uniformity, that prevailing ethics, and even a single ethic, need not have. Indeed Passmore (in [2]) has mapped out three important traditions in Western ethical views concerning man's relation to nature; a dominant tradition, the despotic position, with man as despot (or tyrant), and two lesser traditions, the stewardship position, with man as custodian, and the co-operative position with man as perfector. Nor are these the only traditions; primitivism is another, and both romanticism and mysticism have influenced Western views. The dominant Western view is simply inconsistent with an environmental ethic; for according to it nature is the dominion of man and he is free to deal with it as he pleases (since - at least on the mainstream Stoic - Augustine view - it exists only for his sake), whereas on an environmental ethic man is not so free to do as he pleases. But it is not quite so obvious that an environmental ethic cannot be coupled with one of the lesser traditions. Part of the problem is that the lesser traditions are by no means adequately characterised anywhere, especially when the religious backdrop is removed, e.g. who is man steward for and responsible to? However both traditions are inconsistent with an environmental ethic because they imply policies of complete interference, whereas on an environmental ethic some worthwhile parts of the earth's surface should be preserved from substantial human interference, whether of the "improving" sort or not. Both traditions would in fact prefer to see the earth's land surfaces reshaped along the lines of the tame and comfortable north-Europea n small farm and village landscape. According to the co-operative position man's proper role is todevelop, cultivate and perfect nature - all nature eventually - by bringing out its potentialities, the test of perfection being primarily usefulness for human purposes; while on the stewardship view man's role, like that of a farm manager, is to make nature productive by his efforts though not by means that will deliberately degrade its resources. Although these positions both depart from the dominant position in a way which enables the incorporation of some evaluations of an environmental ethic, e.g. some of those concerning the irresponsible farmer, they do not go far enough: for in the present situation of expanding populations confined to finite natural areas, they will lead to, and enjoin, the perfecting, farming and utilizing of all natural areas. Indeed these lesser traditions lead to, what a thoroughgoing environmental ethic would reject, a 3 principle of total use,implying that every natural area should be cultivated or otherwise used for human ends, "humanized". As the important Western traditions exclude an environmental ethic, it would appear that such an ethic, not primitive, mystical or romantic, would be new alright. The matter is not so straightforwa rd; for the dominant ethic has been substantially qualified by the rider that one is riot always entitled to do as one pleases where this physically interferes with others. Maybe some such proviso was implicit all along (despite evidence to the contrary), and it was simply assumed that doing what one pleased with natural items would not affect others (the non-interference assumption). Be this as it may, the modified dominant position appears, at least for m~ny thinkers, to have supplanted the dominant position; and the modified position can undoubtedly go much further towards an environmental ethic. For example, the farmer's polluting of a community stream may be ruled immoral on the grounds that it physically interferes with others who use or would use the stream. Likewise business enterprises which destroy the natural environment for no satisfactory returns or which cause pollution deleterious to the health of future humans, can be criticised on the sort of welfare basis (e.g. that of [3]) that blends with the modified position; and so on. The position may even serve to restrict the sort of family size one is entitled to have since in a finite situation excessive population levels will interfere with future people. Nontheless neither the modified dominant position nor its Western variants, obtained by combining it with the lesser traditions, is adequate as an environmental ethic, as I shall try to show. A new ethic is wanted. a ~pecific ethic, /§ 2. -As. we noticed----(a~ ethic is ambi~uous, as bet_ween a specifi~ ethical system, and a more generic notion, a super ethic, under which specific ethics cluster.4 An ethical system S ./ 3 If 'use' is extended, somewhat illicitly, to include use for preservation, this total use principle is rendered inocuous at least as regards its actual effects. Note that the total use p1 inciple is tied to the resource view of nature 4-A meta-elhic is, as usual, a theory about ethics, super ethics, their features and fundamental notions 5 A related principle is that (modified) free c.1tcrprise can operate I il 11 ,·thi'n s· -1 1- • 1m1 ar 1m11s 207 destroy its ecosystems, whether with good intentions such as perfecting the planet for their ends and making it more fruitful or, forgetting the lesser traditions, just for the hell of it. Let us assume that the last people are very numerous. They humanely exterminate every wild ar,imal and they eliminate the fish of the seas, they put all arable land under intensive cultivation, and all ~emaining forests disappear in favour of quarries or plantations, and so on. They may give various familiar reasons for this, e.g. they believe it is the way to salvation or to perfection, or they are simply satisfying reasonable needs, or even that it is needed to keep the last people employed or occupied so that they do not worry too much about their impending extinctions. On an environmental ethic the last people have behaved badly; they have simplified and largely destroyed all the natural ecosystems, and with their demise the world will soon be an ugly and largely wrecked place. But this conduct may conform with the basic chauvinist principle, and as well with the principles enjoined ·by the lesser traditions. Indeed the main point of elaborating this example is because, as the last man example reveals, basic chauvinism may conflict with stewardship or cooperation principles. The conflict may be removed it seems by conjoining a further proviso to the basic principle, to the effect (3) that he does not wilfully destroy natural resources. But as the last people do not destroy resources wilfully, but perhaps "for the best of reasons", the variant is still environmentally inadequate. (iii) The great entrepreneur example. The last man example can be adjusted so as to not fall foul of clause (3). The last man is an industrialist; he runs a giant complex of automated factories and farms which he proceeds to extend. He produces automobiles among other things, from renewable and recyclable resources of course, only he dumps and recycles these shortly after manufacture and sale to a dummy buyer instead of putting them on the road for a short time as we do. Of course he has the best of reasons for his activity, e.g. he is increasing gross world product, or he is improving outpJt to fulfil some plan, and he will be increasing his own and general welfare since h~ much prefers increased output and productivity. The entrepreneur's behaviour is on the Western ethic quite permissible; indeed his conduct is commonly thought to be quite fine and may even meet Pareto optimality requirements given prevailing notions of being "better off'. Just as we can extend the last man example to a class of last people, so we can extend this example to the industrial society example: the society looks rather like ours. (iv) The vanishing species example. Consider the blue whale, a mixed good on the economic picture. The blue whale is on the verge of extinction because of his qualities as a private good, as a source of valuable oil and meat. The catching and marketing of blue whales does not harm the whalers; it does not harm or physically interfere with others in any good sense, though it may upset them and they may be prepared to compensate the whalers if they desist; nor need whale hunting be wilful destruction. (Slightly different examples which eliminate the hunting aspect of the blue whale example are provided by cases where a species is eliminated or threatened through destruction of its habitat by man's activity or the activities of animals he has introduced, e.g. many plains-dwelling Australian marsupials and the Arabian oryx.) The l?ehaviour of the whalers in eliminating this magnificent species of whale is accqrdingly quite permissible-at least according to basic chauvinism. But on an environmental ethic it is not. However the free-market mechanism will not cease allocating whal~[~ to commercial uses, as a satisfactory environmental econo_mics would; instead the market model will grind inexorably 6 along the private demand curve until the blue whale population is no longer viable-if that point has not already been passed. In sum, the class of permissible actions that rebound on the environment _is more narrowly circumscribed on an environmental ethic than it is in the Western super ethic. But aren't environmentalists going too far in claiming that these people, those of the examples and respe~ted industrialists fishermen and farmers are behaving, when engaging in environmentally degrading activities of ;he sort described, in a morally impermissible way~ No, what these people do _is to a greater or lesser extent evil, and hence in serious cases morally impermissible. For exampl_e, mso~ar as the killing or forced displacement of primitive peoples who stand in the way of an mdustnal development is morally indefensible and impermissible, so also is _the slau~hter of the last_ remaining blue whales for private profit. But how to reformulate basic chauvm1sm as a satisfactory 6 For the tragedy-of-the-commons type reasons well explained in [31 freedom principle is a more difficult matter. A tentative, but none too adequate beginning might be made by extending (2) to include harm to or interference with others who would be so affected by the action in question were they placed in the environment and (3) to exclude specieside. It may be preferable , in view of the way the freedom principle sets the onus of proof. simply to scrap it altogether, and instead to specify classes of rights and permissible conduct. as in a bill of rights. § 3. A radical change in a {eory sometimes forces changes in the meta-theory; e.g. a logic which rejects the Reference Theory in a thoroughgoing way requires a modification of the usual metatheory which also accepts the Reference Theory and indeed which is tailored to cater only for logics which do conform. A somewhat similar phenomena seems to occur in the case of a meta-ethic adequate for an environmental ethic. Quite apart from introducing several environmentally important notions, such as conservation, pollu1io11, growth and presen•atio11,for meta-ethical analysis, an environmental ethic compels re-examination and modified analyses of such characteristic actions as na1ural right, ground of right, and of the relations of obligation and permissibility to rights: it may well require re-assessment of traditional analyses of such notions as i-alue and right, especially where these are based on chauvinist assumptions; and it forces the rejection o [ many of the more prominent meta-ethical positions. These points are illustrated by a very brief examination of accounts of natural right and then by a sketch of the species bias of some major positions. 7 Hart (in I 5]) accepts. subject to defeating conditions which are here irrelevant, the classical doctrine of natural rights according to which. among other things, 'any adult human . .. capable of choice is at liberty to do (i.e. is under no obligation to abstain from) any action which is not one coercing or restraining or designed to injure other persons'. But this sufficient condition for a human natural right depends on accepting the very human chauvinist principle an em iron mental ethic rt::jects, since if a person has a natural right he has a right; so too the deflni1io11 of a natural right adopted by classical theorists and accepted with minor qualifications by Hart presupposes the same defective principle. Accordingly an environmental ethic would have to amend the classical notion of a natural right. a far from straight forward matter now that human rights with rcspc:ct to animals and the natural environment are, like those with respect to slaves not all that lon g ago, undergoing major re-evaluation. An environmental ethic does not commit one to the view that natural objects such as trees have rights (though such a view is occa~ionally held, e.g. by pantheists. But pantheism is false since artefacts are not alive). For moral prohibitions forbidding certain actions with respect to an object do not award that object a correlative right. That it would be wrong to mutilate a given tree or piece of property does not entail that the tree or piece of property has a correlative right n_ot to _be mutilated (without seriously stretching the notion of a right). Environmental views can stick with mainstream theses according to which rights are coupled with corresponding responsibilities and so with bearing obligations, and with corresponding interests and concern; i.e., at least, whatever has a right also has responsibilities and therefore obligations, and whatever has a right has interests . Thus although any person may have a right by no means every living thing can (significantly) have rights. and arguably most sentient objects other than persons cannot have rights. But persons can relate morally, through obligations, prohibitions and so forth. to practically anything at all. The species bias of certain ethical and economic positions which aim to make principles of conduct or reasonable economic behaviour calculable is easily brought out. These positions typically employ a single criterion p, such as preference or happiness, as a summ.um_ bonu_m; characteristically each individual of some base class, almost always humans, but perhaps mcludmg future humans, is supposed to have an ordinal p ranking of the states in question (e.g. of affairs, 6f the economy); then some principle is supplied to determine a collective p ranking of these states in terms of individual prankings, and what is best or ought to be done is determined either_ ~ire~tl~, as in act-utilitarianism under the Greatest Happiness principle, or indirectly, asin rule-ut1lttanantsm, in terms of some optimization principle applied to the collective ranking. The species bias is transparent from the selection of the base class. And even if the base class is extended to embr~ce persons. or even some animals (at the cost. like that of including remotely future humans, of losing 1 Some of thes< points arc developed by those protesting about human maltreatment of animals; see especially the essays collec!ed in I 4 I 9 ~ iii 208 WJ 6 14 209 testability), the positions are open to familiar criticism, namely that the whole of the base class may be prejudiced in a way which leads to unjust principles. For example if every member of the base class detests dingoes, on the basis of mistaken data as to dingoes’ behaviour, then by the Pareto ranking test the collective ranking will rank states where dingoes are exterminated very highly, from which it will generally be concluded that dingoes ought to be exterminated (the evaluation of most Australian farmers anyway). Likewise it would just be a happy accident, it seems, if collective demand (horizontally summed from individual demand) for a state of the economy with blue whales as a mixed good, were to succeed in outweighing private whaling demands; for if no one in the base class happened to know that blue whales exist or cared a jot that they do then “rational” economic decision-making would do nothing to prevent their extinction. Whether the blue whale survives should not have to depend on what humans know or what they see on televi­ sion. Human interests and preferences are far too parochial to provide a satisfactory basis for deciding on what is environmentally desirable. These ethical and economic theories are not alone in their species chauvinism; much the same applies to most going meta-ethical theories which, unlike intuitionistic theories, try to offer some rationale for their basic principles. For instance, on social contract positions obligations are a matter of mutual agreements between individuals of the base class; on a social justice picture rights and obligations spring from the application of symmetrical fairness principles to members of the _base class, usually a rather special class of persons, while on a Kantian position which has some v v^gue obligations somehow arise from respect for members of the base class, persons. In each case if members of the base class happen to be ill-disposed to items outside the base class then that is too bad for them: that is (rough) justice. REFERENCES 1. A. Leopold, A Sand Country Almanac with other essays on Conservation. New York (1966). 2. J. Passmore, Ecological Problems and Western Traditions (unpublished). 3. P.W.Barkley and D.W.Seckier, Economic Growth and Environmental Decay. The Solution becomes the Problem, New York (1972). 4. S. and R.Godlovitch and J. Harris (editors), A nimals, Men and Morals. An enquiry into the maltreatment of non-humans, London (1971). 5. H.L.A.Hart, ‘Are there any natural rights?’, reprinted in A.Quinton (editor), Political Philosophy, Oxford (1967). C'/■ClUi/! n /t'v'Tl tf-t / ^■nt's 'z 0/7 /#£■* O/^Z ^rfscr . J*. B? c ey-rzZ^ft. Z ZZzztZszL. , tZ/at-e-Zf/^ ; /f ?Z Sl’lff/Z' A0S fe 3 /c^^Z Z,z ZzZ L^f-4- ) /-^ // -------- ----------- ;.. ^z t e-'T— /) <LSfC t-x. e *<~Z^<--~ -f &'? } e- Xa^C^Tl f fs>\ . Zc'T- /ZZr^. t c*/'d />t^r*-( x X-C- ct'Ze^ &a L '—4. HA- ZZ> / Z^S. Zt Z&-'■?■&■'£ -, 4^ t J&-*. ro X, fle^ Si. ^ef/'Yrv Caf^ ---- )CS~ /pf" /J'ttx J 7 G-y 7 Jg; V JK-Ajtj <S\_Cc-O'/n--^> <2/- if y 1 ix j o vt/ hj ’ J) k t-C u, 1 <1 Sa-d- A ansi. OrttQ- &<v&tsx. J A Irt V- — 7 l>o!ri\f<i i&- ©a. * —, >1 /<^®./?v. /, z for * o^fh dUrl c^f'v^r *x 7&/I g fzZf c^e crftor. 'I ’rl^. s, r',\7 f\^e.d( c-^~ 77 r I 7/^t * 7fs7^ * /l/l f'cT" ffxCL^e/4^ c-x i t trv-e^ /t> e/kctp s i\tk for 'W’mH.- hu^^t) nn f& y e> k//A /&• ft 0 A dt^nc-f 3 7/dz- «Wzte>v a/C7 e/[e^ /~e'^~^ /7n^-J<- /fa f^7 7 /A e>r-Mo-y kdd k<c by kud d ^of hdd.}ttpvtcrtiJiy n6t h<^/<Z j is Ctfu( tfia. nS f //e^- fry a^a-Cfe^ 4 4 £> Al *~ it'&M «J I ex i tr -p£ kh a. n. y CH a C6hti*fb&t'/ncrft&r, ^^<.{ t . it• s dv^rft.c.u.n Aa st K u- m a. drrk. dl bex n.p a I /HA. II KA o{ a xs as or amwk ct IA. j _f c>A 0— C>d AO ®f 1. ?’ , I*. ’ @sw( A&u A a. I it m « n s vai a/rcj^^c t/4— m cd(tS A-Cf&h"tHc.S part . ike. c Cn. S f~o ft a cL v p!^ fi^-O Aft &kic*> . fl *<£ ■• - -t'/iese- a.rt~l C-i pA. t»6 n. 3 i c^ch v rtes. tfa(L Xc^r-Mf />?«< /5C>- —“ c_C-j h lost- of « ) 0/ il ) I 'V chuxi'HAf ofe-sa/inAf A a CA- D F ( r IA . IV^K.'t' ) H ~ t'i^-f axtivitiOj clhl^ c-la<> i) y / A Ca u b$i^s l\j & ) i>»- r c> f' t</ 7>/«- o/ /^G't CfLLctpiL^^.1 CL s .1 focMUftU . OTWr X CCA is* a/£ CCKVirv n.neA.t*'! e-i/CA \t ' w-ru-C, faijict, Aorf SO)tyd 0 + ■X fti cUatiiU <’/Z<3r >^»n, , A<i^f "^“ to 0iOf? haul kt CMjiafa J «< ?/ t iViebl' I I no n - pn V I i / y (l/(cL ^€4 Of / L Ourx^^/cx^ C blZ/lQ. C^f //lwfc+'x t. c^a.*/ u . /\/f/c^ts/t f^r- t\ a^$_ ofac^t^ //1lM(^ z>r~ <*-*x AtZ. » ct/^rKb^f / // & d</r&S /A ff^f /f //4e ) ? fiC & ^r c 1 7L. // -Z /t Vy^u JBL ' /'JL '^'^“'*7't/ nT4 I c z\ rkQ—-v t-ATl 0 1-t'F ' li'sWet iwt y "V A_Arv [an^W^i.^r(u.t\ ko^-d^.\ i*~ zu* f A , |p \. kt were rfa^?</k \ 0^ Il £' centh’ki j . 7"tf a k U. »*i A A J i Y>y.^~^i)c(calces) e/- fa 6 . \ iW-6*//y .j r*- R-r ka.t)b c(i*scr i At i a a. "t io a. "Vkij Cut <z V) M i $ f H i i a. rt 't'<2-/- tA. sAo^3 W?£$far A Wo,3 14k t€S f O A ■Wio ift- . r-< A . \ ?"T, A K ^c> £>a__ q)kitk i 'lLt tS | k CK V e, > S£ Z8* '</ (/ /-W, iS /tJt. } a^f yyx^f^tv' ^ft>eliitOKi at C4t4^S t PX l $ 4/t<LS £, ftQi / 1^,0- k 6- <_ f" er Q-Cc3~l\.ffl. t'' 'kh.j^t RA- only cCkC- If ‘H't<l*f . £ tme R. 5 U- 9 |w VO'/l ,. clrtist f i /y0^f tf <T A 2. ns oVcbf ar *ri*t p re-Feje/vceS ©t - + A,e- far — oTtva-r 'ortyevr-r o-H^-r* cr^tt O tor / ‘ , . t® n2 io(e-/-ATrt>rx ‘ — * ft, r 6 i cr iter i arx I o fiu cLo-fi respLoF J? j /s tta>eCiSSO>>.'t’<i.ty /n^cc.f'i'e.) ' priAcrple? z ©n 5*<c--A, °’ Kiir- ut>rtAi»hil^. j> conSi^l^h c^ a,{ -ft) rn/iind frtHyd/), 'J /€<L af/pctiMi&fcC A $u2fylj\t''O m'*U4H*(i?f7'+ if d / accost C-- t C'fC.t^-t CL-fCS | ere iAf^ 1 ; > ■Far . Ivunf*** 70 loanee-' If- 't'^iS b ttffl C-t fi-A't" if . entreat A ^rmrr//e; ft *j be ke I qI of' p | | mV* ? Cj nfi (2o.r n-ftok. e^-rjftJL <s I ^zjcf'Fjo'x !t(rf Jl Mj1 G.S Z.O W Si C^Lr £ F ioa. OX ■ l^> jJ t~o <?F Ct ^CL f Zt/f co^ce-rri- J / which tk(^ y to tl\^T trj W1M MQcfvm C. U aXum y> iv-/ 1 nto c*— v^o c ork bftAztv/du’r .flxrfnor h.UrflMX»j ot^4*r "Tor btkcjrl } (X. (Z (L^nCt/g, ‘ utt^e ) aejit tfi f oloes Ct l^'oxv r H- A/ O b !Ijdtio'if ^C'D^ni^d- to ix\\cL(U^i'^:'\ TotaiLCwc(^ ej'^M pryo,fly or rA»M^ 6-1^ /l-----------------—6jQ.AJl.fdli se fL £> Ft ) /^r 44^**^ (( tiTi/icr/on 44^4——dlfkO s z^ev c] of con^ici~Crcis2 JojlY" poirv-t- , tklS pl^c/io r^Ac^-S jjA^ - ^Ai7 r^y t'ko^ f ^Jcrbncg^ «s£ , it is p nG jka. 0" f~r 0 >v_ a, or- ■f' For pt a-f-ct-c-n. u«_ — Inin/p c>uez/itf<~— b£c*i« rcCtf/ZZ’tKZ- ^XcAr^«<<a. e4M«»-f.^X TnA" //4/a^, . ebr^n co-\\k\iiAti I T <L m f) IAk) pfG-TCj e. >\ c d~- — Aa m f* OJihe/LSZ I . Kn 1X' &»/f P / 1^7-^ j • ' io 7iCz irx >vi/A. ' 1>hj<’j itfr ynorntch (itj / r -Fr 4 yh g ot1 f vA_ Qiov\b2c. . / . Co fl-T < a (pfvt<(?'-'■ t( s C> inO't I 0£ a_ h rsipoS f*tpe.rcor (L r\te.t tox^ *®/ ' , . c >ni~i e*« c e__,_ c^>wZ /A / <2 // r h. k tn I'M , ve^e. bttble. s ki<>h«A co. n_ Cf&DCt~m/e.S vyot _ i^k.) 1^ foroaX^/zp^^^ <k teveJn do J j e,j . zt £ ct ii\ . , a Aon/c_ / ■/-© &**C filo x / » • , fr z c/alf //c^ Lfi—- k Ct V 4 f J rh £u ol C. yy/fai b c CQ^tv I Af°*~ S Yc '~~ c f Xf 'i p( 6 e s - P^ 4 / c 'C^t^ f Q- >t LVi '/A.e. , c<-*yr& /^r Xa< C zn.^6 A& * A>> ^i> ?//<cn , c«*^’6,»i1Jp/’Xty. /n ) dt s p-rQ- a. a I ih<# ^1 — t* * Q-x-k&s'pCo.tl C-A n n <nit~ £ #xX fitnWj Iw/iy tn z>/C ol<~ve^foji me e>|(2/-1 rue/ e a / /j ■/^c zfi Zz i's t k cc tr Und^ (X#l ct i Halt V T' <J 6n I •> vj (X11 c I?lo i lj at/on i Z "L To a s Piorftl "Iw-Xs <?/n<2-r Cc> KV t <s a- r a-f <^ crrv/y c^ct'^z-J z\ tS ^0 tz ——■ z zt /y i'k&t v lev zzLjUr J 'j k (l- a. UgsTma ku-w-tins C^vZ i4! o Act rGJ < Cg/- z/^/zj Aa c't'wJ #4^ (Xi h i i"u^i'u Lt-1 /zo Zte^ > 0- i . ■X c- a-rt-fW^ have. o^e- 7 er o ’e £ PC- 1 in nmUCh at ,eaSt aS CrUSOe'S w-th —2£S^2SS SS=S=E-lg=:==ES maltreat the land, extract frontU>2 *"* 3 W,'dcrness',f taken to tnterfere with and does not rouse the moral indtgnL^n ofThey ’ C°ndUCt ” not Z^eyyero/ woods off a 75% slope, turns his cows intn rh»> •he „«k. „ SIi„ (ir otherwise dccenl) farmer who clears the <f^^- s a- z. // / A * /7~. z^r&sz A, / ' Z - — ^z4— C » Ci s t2"* 7^ ji /<t^/ <- f /'t ^ ~C ' f' /~ e^ttcfuc^ / /^b. f 0 /•> | it is none loo clear what is going to count as a new ethic, much as it is often unclear whether a new development in physics counts as a new physics or just as a modification or extension of the old. For, notoriosly, ethics are not clearly articulated or al all well worked out. so that the application of identity criteria foi ethics may remain obscure. Furthermore we tend to cluster a family of ethical sy stems which do not differ on core or fundamental principles together as the one ethic; e.g. the Christen ethic, which is an umbrella notion covering a cluster of differing and even competing systems. In fact then there are two,.other possibilities, apart from a new environmental ethic, which might cater for the evaluations, namely that of an extension of modification of the prevailing ethicszor that of the development of principles that are already encompassed or latent within the prevailing ethic. The second possibility, that environmental evaluations can be incorporated within (and ecological problems solved within) the /?<rf fff /> (Het-//'s-j Ilk > Ct at— single ethical system uniquely assumed in Western civilization: on many issues, and especially on ckd«°T^a *ssues such as infanticide, women’s rights and drugs, there are competing sets of prin S’ T. ? nCW e^h‘C and Prevai,ln8 ethics tends to suggest a sort of monolithic structure, a uniformity that prevathng ethics, and even a single ethic, need not have. - r. . jM40/ Indeed Passmore (in |2|) has mapped out three important traditions in Western ethical views concerning man’s relation to nature; a dominant tradition, the despotic position, with man as despot (or tyrant), and two lesser traditions, the stewardship position, with man as custodian, and the co-operative position with man as perfector. Nor are these the only traditions; primitivism is another, and both romanticism and mysticism have influenced Western views.-31 ' j i 7) el'f'r/rel-x rC-~ r* A. The dominant Western view is simply inconsistent with an environmental ethic; for according to it nature is the dominion of man and he is free to deal with it as he pleases (since - at least on the mainstream Stoic^— Augustine view - it exists only for his sake), whereas on an environmental ethic man is not so free to do as he pleases. But it is not quite so obvious that an environmental ethic cannot be coupled with one of the lesser traditions. Part of the problem is that the lesser traditions are by no means adequately characterised anywhere, especially when the religious backdrop is removeej, eg. vv/zo is man steward for and responsible to? However both traditions are inconsistent with a ^environmental ethic because they imply policies of complete interference, whereas on an environmental ethic some worthwhile parts of the earth’s surface should be presen ed from substantial human interference, whether of the “improving” sort or not. Both traditions would in fact prefer to see the earth's land surfaces reshaped along the lines of the tame and com fortable north-European small farm and village landscape. According to the co-operative position man’s proper role is todevelop, cultivate and perfect galiye - all nature eventually - by bringing out its potentialities, the test of perfection being ^usefulness for.human purposes: while on the stewardship view man's role, like that of a farm manager, is to make nature productive by his efforts though not by means that will deliberately degrade its resources./ '7Zu^ /fate- c.C^( 4c~S~ £^7 7c/<*-/'- /rw*. e-1 Cr*..s~y 7 7 , J - cvalua,,^. of an environmental ethic.oXs" coter^^ A t !(^ ; ^,l(he1SStmECXPa!’U"’g P?pula,ions eon,'^d ‘0 finite Indeeo these lesser traditions lead to what a thomnpho’ ‘dr‘”"lg anJ utl,izing ofall natural areas principle of total use,imping that every r-turJl X m ^v,ronmental othic would reject, a human ends, “humanized” ' area shou,d be ^‘^ted or otherw.se used 3 f v 3 rr • H use is extended, somewhat illicitly, to inciud. as regards its actual eftects. Note that the toU’ e •eSiCrVat‘<>n; thiS tOtal USe Princ‘P|c is rendered mocuous al least <»e pr , pie is tied to the resource view of nature , such an ethic, not primitive, mystical or’romantic, would be new aljigjiu The matter is r straightforward: for the dominant.ethic has been substantial!v uuaiitle^y the n&er that one is not always entitled to do as one pleases where this physically int^Tes \0tn peers'. 7 > proviso was implicit all along (despite evidence to the contrary), and it was simply assumed that doing what one pleased with natural items would not affect others (the Goiyuuterference assump­ tion). Be this as it may, the modified dominant position appears, at least for many thinkers, to have supplanted the dominant position: and the modified position can undoubtedly go much further '* towards an environmental ethic. For example, the farmer's polluting of a community stream may be ruled immoral on the grounds that it physically interferes with others who use or would use the stream. Likewise business enterprises which, destroy the natural environment for no satisfactory returns or which cause pollution deleterious to the health of future humans, can be criticised on the sort of welfare basis (e.g. that of [31) that blends with the modified position; /hcrt/t f'cd c-Z^x . may even serve to restrict the sort of family size one is entitled to have since in a finite situa tion excessive population levels will interfere with future people. Nontheless neither the modified dominant position nor its Western variants, obtained by combining it with the lesser traditions, is adequate as an environmental ethic, as I ^vall A new ethic is wanted, aoh/ 1, /T-- < zfre^e^ 7y 7> j7**u\ 5 /g^7rc> e*- /5> g Zte-Z*-^ a-rfCsC , 'sCett /J /tr ! t>7 f rCL , ioG-j . c s f~CT /fc. /•J2 crt-cc^ a m 7 7/ s e fJ Ifc,'-* 7 ■ is, near‘enough, a propositional system (i.e. a structured set of propositions) or theory which in dudes (like individuals of a theory > a set of values and (like postulates of a theory) a set of general evaluative judgements concerning conduct, typically of what is obligators permissible and wrong.'x* ! of what are rights, what is valued, and so forth. A general or lawlike proposition of a system is a \ principle; and certamlv if systems S, and S2contain different principles, then they are different systems. It follows that anv en onmental ethic differs from the important traditional ethics outlin ed. Moreover if environmental ethics differ from Western ethical systems on some core principlaJL embedded in Western systems, then these systems differ from the Western super ethic (assuming. I what seems to be so. that it can be uniquely characterised) - in which case if an environmental ethic /s needed then a new- ethic is wanted. It suffices then to locate a core principle and to provide environ mental counter examples to it z , /3^'f> Ji^f^ yt i« * Q-. V '5'" 7/ / Z/t-y -y ZLo c^-T V / C o-~f^ e o—•. /K^~ . are' w^at amount to, core principles of Western ethicaSR ? 1 7 accordingly belong to the super ethic. The fairness principle inscribed ' m the Golden Rule provides one example. Directly relevant here, as a good stab at a core^&iple ' is the commonly formulated liberal principle ' / * ...2>^-.Yjr7 , /fol; >ws ( j 3J. p. 58): (D). The liberal philosophy of (he Western world holds that one should be able to d< □ what he wishes, providing (1) that he does not harm others and (2) that he is not likely to harm .himself jrreparablv.' ■ "Wf® /Ac7 7^— /zxc principle because it e.ves permission m st. some,im« the principle is haded as a freedom SESSSSSsasyr??”- •A?x chauvinism whether ‘other’ expands io ‘other h "* ' ■’ ' Ten' '° lhe c*Ient- antl Pn' 'lege, of the son* or toother sentient be.nXnd t makes aX" wh,chu’s t0° r^<ttive or Mother per verselj to its economic applicability to whieh I LrenrCe l.° the ar,e4uacy of the principle, and in future as well as present other" whether to r '55 ,° r°therS “? t0 ‘ w,lcther to future others, and whether to possible others Th -Th utur<J othefs or onl-v t0 non-discountable V and it is generally c /wf- e \ c) fff)Ct^ &J C'C. X ) 1. CAu^f ' b- / ^U4r<fc C 7 *4 & S f/'t J &&&!&&— ?£*~ ^KBMCfc. a/ fiU €t y^ < r- cC 7 ^C/>< Z__i___ * sC I y/L j (ft) f . } /a fC*2— z’vz/XLt,/ /XL x« /'c-^ anaivjfe of permissibility; £ 7 Zcz2—z obhgatio/falementsjstretc^. out over ideal mInations• (which may be incomplete or even inconsistent), so that what is permissible holds in some idefl^fe situation, what is obligatory in every ideal situation, and what is wrong is excluded in every ideal ' ■ situation. But the main point to grasp for the counter examples that follow, is that ethical principles if correct are universal and are assessed over the class of ideal situations. ZSl ezn^Tfez- />?> b /> C&7 rr cX? eef ff (i) ’ The last man example. The last man (or person) surviving the collapse of the world system Zo eliminating, as far as he can, every living thing, animal or plant (but painlessly if you like, as at the best abattoirs). What he does is quite permissible according to f/)) but on environmental grounds what he does is wrong. Moreover pne d^gsjtot have to Ke commit ted to esoteric values to regard Mr. Last Man as behaving badly, (the reason l^eing^crhapsthatra dica! thinking and values have shifted in an environmental direction in advance of corresponding shifts in the formulation of fundamental evaluative principles)./^ f /U, Corf MG /<€ C ifZ (ii) The last people example. The last man example can be . to the last people example. We can assume that they know they are the last people, e.g. because they are aware that radiation effects have blocked any chance of reproduction. One considers the last people in order to rule out the possibility that what these people do harms or somehow physically interferes with later people. Otherwise one could as well consider science fiction cases where people arrive at a new planet and ft}) destroy its ecosystems, whether with good intentions such as perfecting the planet for their ends and making it more fruitful or, forgetting the lesser traditions, just for the Let us assume that the last people are very numerous. They humanely exterminate every wild animal and they eliminate the fish of the seas, they put all arable land under intensive cultivation, " and all remaining forests disappear in favour ofpatfuM or plantations, and so on. They may give various familiar reasons for this, e.g. they believe it is the way to salvation or to perfection, or they are simply satisfying reasonable needs, or even that it is needed to keep the last people employed or occupied so that they do not worry too much about their impending extinctions. On an en­ vironmental ethic the last people have behaved badly; £ qfXL/ }r ex/ s* e< 9 they have simplified and largely destroyed all the natural ecosystems, and with their demise the world will soon be an ugly and largely wreck­ ed place. But this conduct may conform with the ’ CCW (£>) Ccf'tC I ^cZ /y //I- /IZPCC-X c'LjruZ^ ~Z / / s/y i ■ jr.ru effect (3) that he does not wilfully destroy natural resources. But as the last people do not destroy resources wilfully, but perhaps “for the best of reasons’", the variant is still environmentally inadequate. (iii) The great entrepreneur example. The last man example can be adjusted so as to not fall foul of clause (3). The last man is an industrialist; he runs a giant complex of automated factories and farms which he proceeds to extend. He produces automobiles among other things, from renewable and recyclable resources of course, only he dumps and recycles these shortly after manufacture and sale to a dummy buyer instead of putting them on the road for a short time as we do. Of course he has the best of reasons for his activity, e.g. he is increasing gross world product, or he is improving output to fulfil some plan, and he will be increasing his own and general welfare since he much prefers increased output and productivity. The entrepreneur's behaviour is on the Western ethic quite permissible; indeed his conduct is commonly thought to be quite fine and may even meet Pareto optimality requirements given prevailing notions of being “better ofT’. 7 /<L. , /tMVbcr^r, Z^> /7^ cx-yr .1 , C< /ctj'/ //’fr ) 7(3 /&- cL C ^^T- 77 toe-^ g rXl-rr^ ^/y) <L c7t Qr<g,*y/i/& , M zrzreX e*i SKfX&d ft C^ g<c /&- ^<XaY£- 77 ^1 4rc7jW4— ) f re/nctd lb— /f ... --*^g*._ K on the verge of extinction because of his qualities as a private good, as a source of valuable oil and meat. The catching and marketing of blue whales does not harm the whalers; it does not harm or physically interfere with others in any good sense, though it may up set them and they may be prepared to compensate the whalers if they desist; nor need whale hun ting be wilful destruction. (Slightly different examples which eliminate the hunting aspect of the blue w'hale example are provided by cases where a speues is eliminated or threatened through destruction of its habitat by man’s activity or the activities of animals he has introduced, e.g. many plains-dwelling Australian marsupials and the Arabian oryx.) The behaviour of the whalers in eliminating this magnificent species of whale is accordingly quite permissible-at least according to basic chauvinism. But on an environmental ethic it is not However the free-market mechanism will not cease allocating whale$ to commercial uses, as a satisfactory environmental economics I would; instead the market r ynuX InGswkblj C/bf £?3 ) tr^Cjec(j-ep-HtL- Cornnc nJ 7 Ct/on(j e(.&^ Ma Jt>«f Cu-Ort- wd ?a6 J w*v7YY w/cX<2- * //> /t * ■J <Y // / Ara /jo f cjff c c , 7 i- ft-T X_S>'C''lf X-S" c x c^r^r Ca— „v z Xc< ✓ » . J ♦ 4 Zl. e/?o f M dyeeft (T& fd- Ci/c / Awl 7 ■J'yt jf vironmentalists going too far in claiming that these people, those of the examples and respected in­ dustrialists, fishermen and farmers arc behaving, when engaging in environmentally degrading ac tivities of the sort described, in a morally impermissible way? No, what these people do is to a 5 greater or lesser extent eviitand hence in serious vases morally impermissible. For example, insofar as the killing or forced displacement of primiioe peoples who stand in the way of an industrial development is morally indefensible and-^r* permissible, so also is the slaughter ol the last remain ing blue whale^for private profit,. , or fa & 1 j“'/z^4> i ■T.JS (X. (t^o-r<- a~ ^~h%AJ2-A Au—4^-, -vGtt^y ^-■-? —j—G\A<?-‘-*-k Cj^ /^tc /&rf SV-ev*^. "* JLk^-A~A- ^aj-<j^_u-< ko <=jA- 6< ~34 '-£-^biA -uf-e^kCvjt^ JJv-a-oA CyyA -vo> u^Aj| pj-e-Aic^- £ lAxJ'iz-^-e. cAA fu-__~ ^-^k_k &$ -o-«- <-*■---- -C-^V A -c—_ AXq. cA>V JL&&U- {L&{- — ^Gg-O-i-- <xz.^ V/GA-C -"^o J e> cAM^t-K <_ kvj/l (co*.— yy-j^A , Afk-o -tedt^dA- -4-<--^»X. *~ <-<_>^>—/Y""k AJk-A AJU <-Avh v-J2X4- ^4 k’v-C Lv-\-^ Uu~e> z C v-—&_<k * j^jkjtxv^z jL C<_ ( kKu_k Q/<^-CAA) Cck^X^ a urAk ,^Ah—<4-x c< Aoi—-v c ca-£——-dL/b vz<,vn—v-k* -A £y< xj^—~ -A. -— cCj2_j2_A- o u—Cu-y V—C c Xx G.ZX-—^A Ou-A-^ «v '’4^c V-vA^ Cl~A k-% ^SSL- '-J- ^-~~ kk vr~v -~-e_ /yxxav^ oA c^ ^^r~ /t' ,-cA o<— _J—, ^Rjt^r r c--^--^ nouzfe^ O9e>yn^5 kA. Av—^>^,a»-A- Ak^-u-jy^ rtcr^ . _• ^/,G ftr»&'rt-£-e,43^. J -v—<x— ) Aik. ^L z^J klMmiL ^■‘-"-t-t-* tesr-e^ c^ Ak<A J? y. AA-A J-C t <V— <R_ v— c>j-ej-- u--o-k_N_<_ u^k-^-A ) :— v—e_ -VekjL 0-<X jz_>-e Ar -a_A c--> UZ^U-u-^-^A Afib( A*&( «n Zz7 Co—- '“Cy- <.<2^'1A < &*•>/'" ^r~ Ac^(/i^ f(Ci,f^C^^*- -Co ------- U~-<SX_u-----Y C-7 aJ-Ao-C /'aA^A? <S<—st-C Act ** ^-a2-x_d Z7/^ '7C‘<k YL<iT&rvtl GJk'—s 23’. u>v 4^ ^r^2-^L ’I'*' C—^r-^-^' A^rtr4— £H 'Xf X ^-°^> C-C-CX-KcX > et4zU^ _ Jrfc^ ^uu. ;££L;k<_ wXo tlq. <_^ CD1-— i_rMl\. B CAC-yrV^ L -2X-C -C+^ 6^M"" -t-L ej" e^H? O £y-Q^-' 0>C-t-4- <c^3 a) ^sxv*^^v 0~“'—“’■ ’A ^—e— O^Lia^v'-a-^ k^-ZZ-ZUJ — .^>p-v^_gA-C -Anu---- ^r-e-ttu- -C-O^G-oXZc^ z z5 OdX^-i^x^ — ^te W-— <^- < *tj> - '-Vua^W- e— "VL«-e- ' ■■'■> ^js> £^J2-— v€ c<x\ ££jL^ c C> 'UC 4^V~ jtXK-sj- <£HL <Sj—<— # ALU- 4^>V ^CtSLu—> t>c—- ^K-’t' l^l \w6 6v_ O ._. <u>ce(jltv‘®— IU~ —v, fU^ar^^A ?n 'u~-Av c^u^laf^^ ,-^K t*^ to L- ‘0*^1- &—■*- _A^3L v— A,Z 1 ~ Iks, p. — I fi.tib'£ 6t> Ji.— A A aZ^S^-AJLA ZA CXUj" X----------- — -'-s V" <JL-~^(/^4^ — «XJ-— 6l ) Ac,<3-^ 7^L^~ £-_ /-"^^ c^tu yte, ... ^iri^^f_____________________________________________ ■I ^)<L^)c.^\ cA^Vt^i)^ I(^y Alrlccj* (Jj<*~£^ r^/J>7 /M;-^ : z* --^///<2<r-> &-f f /^/^C 2Z cJ t X^ctML Ou /h^z*7vczy ; o-r e^ V'iAl<JL. 7^^ Xw// erf ty /irf&usC lrf~ AA^ £&2__/ati/ y^r t&AiJ'x CJL. /A<*% LT^A<JL.\ } njL^J: (c^A^A'/Vetr^ i/iUti^C Ay £ft<>AAiA JO rfA^ / ) // // <^zrx^>t /wz?/ ' /Jf/PfiM crduZ^ O^(//y W fA£^f A />*/ /c^ a fo jO'^A^r fed# £s.^A’ fr/K'r&SfJ ' z/ .y it On. ^£>4X 6<1SA<_ a~m-A -Wv*------- ^IXS- does not commit one to the view that natural objects such as trees have rights is occasionally held, e.g. by pantheists. since artefacts are not alive). (though such a view But pantheism is false For moral prohibitions forbidding certain actions with respect to an object do^riot award that object a correlative right. That it would be wrong to mutilate a given tree or piece of property does not entail that the tree or piece of property has a correlative right not to be mutilated (without seriously stretching the notion of a right). Environmental views can stick with,jmainstrean» theses according to which rights X coupled with corresponding responsibilities and so with bearing obligations, and with corresponding interests and concerns; i.e., at least, whatever, has a right also has responsibilities and therefore obligations, and whatever^has a right has^interests st- <■ J ? j2_x>~«^-^—4“V- C>----- <~*'f~'^ < —r_>4 AN-^V5i „ /s i—^Jj-o- -gk, zLo jfe-f-4-^- c^-^a- c'k <j£—*A C. -in ^..Sj-oSL-U-^-^zf- ^LM. c_f-<_ C-O x_ C*"^——'p^^— ^ri»|^e>\A»tL' (o~— 1_ <"7 Qr*—S—Ic^-k^pj —.*—*L_ d /'—>-^—^- J &i $"'z'~1<— . — -^_T-Ca_Xa—<__ Aj<, J^«-------- .__><sxbV_ vyH-m <Ji J<$A_ Aal -n^tx/$J'_>~'lx<"c~j-^_<vj4-toA V 2 k^hssXkx^ Z 4----- ------------------- A-S <—<-^-^X_ rA-c____ cL<i—A, "t^-ajZavJ^v i^a--— (kx_A_—-C—, .O-JL '*-^>>J2—AziUAAA O^ . _ _ aAUL :A>=> v __ <=y- fcAlA- v-*o-aA c-» ^Sjhj /"Xr-j-«_ -t~s p-vvj-^MSV-s »_—c<-^»ji—, 'V—Ci.’V' c_r—4~ iUvagk-A-tar^ t (__r-i!e~-^~--> 3 ci r \ 'Wt or e_. fkftyt i‘n ■'—^££ -T©t? Zv€>v^_^ <_<_ x^-aZ-xA' 0 5 <3^ tX,L 4Z <^/ 4b»-ULk /h <-<&— e2 \> c-^^uuxxi 78 t A__ -V  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 15, item 1721: Notes and cuttings on environmental ethics Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Subject The topic of the resource Handwritten notes and annotated photocopy (2 copies) of Routley R (1973) 'Is there a need for a new, an environmental, ethic?', Proceedings of the XVth World Congress of Philosophy, 1:205-210. Description An account of the resource Title in collection finding aid: Blue Folder containing more of the same . Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span><span>,</span> Box 15, item 1721 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [68] leaves. 62.47 MB. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:62d159c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:62d159c</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Australian National University Office Australian National University Office > Second Bookcase > Third Shelf > Second Pile Box 15: Green Projects in Progress https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/4495525491cdad380d51db6c4168e929.pdf 411c2a0db2f12cd20bea776c91ffe49d PDF Text Text CASE DISSOLVED: critique of argumentsto and for the State Over the centuries that humans have been stuck with states, many different attempts to justify them, as in some way necessary or desirable (as more than an unfortunate accident of history), have been attempted. None pf these arguments succeed (as much would perhaps be quite widely conceded^). / / There are various wayjs of showing that the arguments fail. One powerful way deploys, indicates or develops, counterexamples; for instance modelling social arrangements without states. Another more pedestrian but essential way consists in direct examination of the arguments, not merely some of them or various classes of them, but, for completeness, each and every one of them. Ultimately that calls for, what is attempted first in a first attempt fashion, an exhaustive classification of the arguments „ A preliminary classification of these arguments can take the following form: 1. //i-yfonc or <?Ma,s7-/H,s'f(9rzc. These arguments divide in tum into two principal subclasses: 1.1 Daycrzpnve.* /b/Zacy o/TAo quo. A first group of arguments^justification of the state, try to take advantage of the descriptive features that states are entrenched almost everywhere as the dominant feature of the political landscape. Helpful as it may be having states in avoiding hypothetical in injecting a heavy element of realism oLesdisn, nonetheless fact is not per se justification: what is often X ought not to be. Bank robbers and robber barons are justified by their mere existence There are similar problems<dth the argument from tradition. If some principle, practice or theory stood for a good while it had something going for it. Some such consideration lies at the basis of precedence in law; the idea of tradition as encapsulating past wisdom - or past folly. Among the problems are that with authoritarian institutions come their antitheses, with the state the anti-state. Many practices like barbarism and racism have stood for a very long tirne,^ many organisations like mafia have been airound for a long time, so they have something going for them? Such troubles, the evident gap between descriptive and normative, are among those that plague In s^prt without utterly questionable connecting assumptions, such as that what is is necessary (a modal fallacy) or that what is is right (a deontic fallacyi), such arguments fail to afford justification. There are some important JMbtypes of descriptive (or quasi-descriptive) arguments, namely * 1 arguments. The state is not only established, it works. Immediate difficulties This fallacy, heavily utilized by Hegel, is critically examined in NNL. X �0 V-v L^ /]/ t 4^c AA-<s A ^^7*. JA^? (^A t ACA C.^y1k Av �2.2- 1 t.. z^ z^pr p^r- *-y^2^— ��2 with such arguments are obvious. The Mafia too/is well-established. It too works, often in opposition the the State (as a sort of negative opposite, like the Devil to God). What sort of standards of is working intended to meet? All sorts of awful political arrangements have "worked", at least in persisting for as long as statist arrangements: despotisms, dictatorships, tyrannies, ... . Still as pragmatic arguments enjoy considerable popularity, especially in North America, they will have to be considered in more detail (than they deserve). * arguments. The state has evolved through a long sequence of political forms. It is tried and tested, and now selected, selected as best available. Such arguments afford scientific clothing for the appalling Hegelian "what is is right". For what has evolved is selected thereby as best, and what is selected as best is no doubt right (by a familiar utilitarian deontic reduction). Slather evidently such arguments prove too much. Any form that in fact emerges, no matter how achieved, though what dusta^dly Machievellian deeds, no matter how awful, is thereby justified: empires and dictatorships of the worst sort, fa^ist and totalitarian states, one and all, are justified, provided only they are established.^ this only for climax states, where some sort of evolutionary plutoniums have been achieved have been achieved (otherwise bad means to select evolutionary ends may temporarily prevail). But where is the evidence that the State is not another transitional stage, like feudalism before it? As an evolutionary form it is very recent, and fortunately not yet established in evolutionary time. 1.2 AfoK-J&pcripf/ve. Difficulties with descriptive arguments, including prescriptive fallacies (deriving presciptive or evaluative conclusions from purely descriptive premisses), are evaded/idealisation arguments, which include These are genetic in justificatory character, relating the mythological "historical" development of the State from an imaginary pre-state situation.^ These arguments are not sharply^p^rated from * fdea/ /n,yfory arguments. * MMagmary and ideal reconjfrMcrfoK arguments. For the transactions, such as an originating social contract, may be presented in a quasi-historic form. This important class of arguments is broader than contractual arrangements, including all the following sorts of imaginary transactions: negotiating, bargaining, experimenting, etc., in given (idealised) conditions, perhaps issuing in an arrangement, agreement, contract, etc. One preliminary That contemporary exponents and practitioniers of state craft are inclined to accept these^orts of considerations, and to recognise any region that has gained (short-term) control over a territory and its administration, does nothing for the considerations^ What it reveals rather is the moral sickness of contemporary real-politics. They include (as opposed to relocation arguments, where a group ("voting with its feet ) relocates and forms a state (except of course these gorups, when there was room for them, tended to aim for new societies, not states). These arguments form a bridge between descriptive and ntunative. While voluntary contract arguments are descripively implausible, voluntary relocation has, or did have, a little descriptive �3 classification of these arguments divides them into natural quasi-theological, legalistic invisible hand evolutionary consensual or equivalent. artificial, The most notorious of these reconstructions, or political thought-experiments, are the social contract theories whereby individual members of a society fictitiously enter into an enforceable contract, inescapable for themselves and all their descendants, setting up the state, primarily as a security arrangement. In later versions which may involve other legalistic forms than contracts, such as pa^cts, trusts, etc., there is much negotiating and bargaining in contrived situations, where humans lose many of their distinctive features and accoutrements (in a effort to ensure some initial fairness). A variant on contract theories, which justify some sort of state arrangements Z/* they arose in an ideal way, is retrojustification of the state as naturally arising, as a sort of super­ insurance agency, from pre-state arrangements. For example, the minimal state evolves from a competing set of state-like security agencies one of which somehow gains a monopoly, and is retrojustified through insurance arguments (concerning risk and compensation). Such arguments are sometimes presented as replacing overall contractual arrangements (through minor arrangements undoubtedly enter) with invisible hand mechanisms. Whereas contractual arguments take the general segmented shape: INITIAL STATE: INPUT INTERMEDIATE STATES prestate negotiation followed by situation: draft contrad, assessment "state of nature" FINAL STATE: OUTPUT state established situation followed by contract adoption ^in invisible hand arguments the intermediate steps, on route to the state, consist in formation of organisations and their progressive amalgatiation to provide finally a state. For example, in Nozick these organisations are taken to comprise protective agencies (though that is only one statist function), and to ensure legitimacy for the final object, it is contended that each intermediate state derives from the proceeding in a morally permissible way, namely preserves % selected rights. Such arguments fail for two main classes of reasons: inadequacy in the derivations of late and final stages from earlier ones, and unsatisfactoriness over the initial state (in particular, what is assumed in it, such as proprietorial rights, and what is excluded, i$ the way of more satisfactory alternatives). In these forms the State arises through voZimfary actions and transactions. Whereas anarchists and many socialists see anarchism as a post-state state, these transaction arguments often assume anarchism, in very motly forms, as pre-state states. People voluntarily elect to escape those pre-state form, "rushing" into the jaws of the State. But there are, as well, versions, where the State is established through legalistic or religious means, natural religion or the like. For example, the details of State organisation, or a recipe or �4 commandments therefore, are received by or given to some powerful religious personage, who implements the organisation under religious authority. The legalistic equivalent came about through implementation, not of religious dictates, but what may be very similar in practical affect and detail, natural law. Normally this law will be "seen", for, by some powerful personages, who are in a position to convey, and have put into effect, their illumination. With the decline of religion these sorts of arguments have lost much of their general appeal (they should never have enjoyed much credibility). But many relics of these shattered arguments remain, to be removed. A critical point is that such arguments should not gain independent standing. Most law is mfra-state, state manufactured and state serving. What is independent of states has to answer to standards, moral standards especially, that are independently justified. Similarly for religious commandments. As a result, these arguments collapse back to arguments for the State. Now modern states did not arise in any such "natural" or contractual way. Often they were imposed by conquest or through colonialisation, and with a few exceptions, using military means rather than offering much sweetness and light and choice. There are a notable discrepancies between typical justifications of the state (in which much is sweetness and light, though it is far from a pareto-optimal object) and common explanations of the role of the state (in which much is obviousness and intrigue). Nor do the ideal constructions or histories offer much justification for these resulting state power configurations. For the states so delivered are very different from those most people presently toil under. In any case, the arguments involved do not succeed. They are extraordinarily gappy by contemporary logical standards. They depend upon some utterly implausible assumptions, for example as to how vile conditions are^n extra^state situations. These changes are easily illustrated, and will be.) small immediate)^eana&14 example. Underlying several of the imaginary transaction arguments to the state, are various c/zofcg arguments of a thought-experiment cast. Commonly such arguments ambitiously aim to show that * the state is necessary, and that * the state is superior to its absence. But such arguments.like those embedcTin confracf arguments .are little better than con jobs.as are presented depend upon a false choice. For only two options are considered: H, a horrible Hobbesian "state of nature" and S, a well-ordered (contructually-reached) Hobbesian state. The argument, appealing to the vices of H and the virtues of S, has little trouble in concluding * * S is better than H (or similarly, rational agents would select S over H, etc.) other options, such as anarchist ones. Why should anarchists want to line up with S? They can agree with proposition * *. They might also want The choice conveniently leaves to assert that anarchistic arrangements Z are superior to S. Whereupon it is evident that neither * nor * follows. For necessity all accessible alternatives have to be considered (by the �semantics of That has not been done. For superiority, the superiority of S to Z and other alternatives has to be taken into account. That has not been done. — , ----------------------- alternative i^\Carter^^(?c^ry^which produces The kind of individuals who have strongly internalized values and can live cooperatively and freely without the threat of force ...\ i^)(p.25).4 6V1C- No doubt some of the gaps in the arguments could be plugged by further, further contestable, assumptions, but such analytic work remains to be attempted and assessed, after two millennia of such arguments. In fact it was long ago realised that such arguments exhibit unlikely and even paradoxical features. For example, in consenting to a state for security purposes, participants to the state contract proceed to establish an institution which is far more dangerous to them than the power of others taken distributively. It would seem that those smart enough to enter into a social contract for a state would be smart enough to foresee the problems of hiring a monster, and to avoid the state and steer along without it. In establishing a state, inhabitants set up an institution that is far more powerful and dangerous to them than the power of other inhabitants taken singly or in groups. This is to think that Men are so fulish that they tak care to avoid what Mischiefs may be done then by PoZe-caM, or but are contra^ f^ay think it Safety, to be devoured by AZo/asA These arguments, like others to follow, even if somehow repaired, would not establish an institution with anything approaching the power and complexity of the modern state. Arguments to the state typically establish, at best, only a rather minimal state, with certain protective and regulatory powers. Such minimal states would not deliver many of the goods economists, still less socialists, have come to expect of the state. The arguments certainly do not establish anything like the oppressive paternal state with a panoply of powers that many citizens are forceably subject to, power states have accumulated by their own unjustified predatory activity. In this respect too, arguments to the state resemble arguments to God. Deistic arguments characteristically establish (insofar as they establish anything) only a quite minimal rAar w/zZc/t, a first cause, some existent, a most perfect object, a universal designer, clockmaker or the like. They do nothing to establish many of the powers or properties asciibed to God. There is yet another resemblance a surplus of attributes are regularly ascribed to Gock so much power, knowledge, andj^^like^that paradoxes of omnipotence, omniscience, and jimilar, are quickly engendereb^aradoxes that a lesser God that merely satisized on virtue (and could tolerate some production of evil) could easily escape)^ So too a surplus of power is conceded to the State. The state carries ^far more power than is required for collective organisation, a large "political surphis" which should be relinquished. /4 ^ reversmg Hobbes' argument,pottom halfl really a cranking. $ Locke p.372. ——^Lesser Gods encounter ^other difficulties: their plurality, the fact that they can be exceeded by other greater Gods, and their upstaging by ontological arguments. �6 2(-l*) S*y^7?zayic. These arguments divide again into two principal subclasses, namely 2.1 Ana/yac and 2.2 M?K#K(2/y%c. Further both subclasses may be subdivided in tum into individualistic and holistic subclasses, for instance 2.1 into 2.1.1 Indiviualistic and 2.1.2 Non-individualistic. Most recent investigation has been concentrated within subdivision 2.1.^1, upon game-theoretic justifications of the State. Indeed, given prevailing methodological individualism, which almost invariably takes analytic form, all acceptable justification reuced to this subdivision? Certainly other systematic ways of endeavouring to justify the state tent z to have fallen by the wayside or been abandoned. However it is worth listing two further forms, one of which remains significant: * Holistic/brz/t considerations. The State is presented as the form, or even spirit, of Society, much as the mind is the form of the corresponding body. Insofar as there is an argument, it is analogical, from an increasingly dubious basis. Contemporary up-dating of the torm'ideas would no doubt have the State as - what is even less plausible - the program, or the software, of a corresponding Society. * Mora/ considerations. But there is little good reason to embrace individualism, methodological or other, because many sorts of wholes, beginning with ^bstra&i, do not come down to individuals; it is poor methodology to try to proceed as if they do. More on individualism elsewhere. See aM JB �3VHATEVER3 2. Arguments in a game theory setting: Prrhners' Diiemma games and supergames. What is widely regarded as the most persuasive justification of the state [is] "the argument that, without the state, people would not voluntarily cooperate to provide themselves with certain public goods... ". This argument, which is quite popular with contemporary academics, suggests that, without the state, people would not be able to "act so as to realise their interests."* . So far, hewexEr, we have not encountered^an argument, but simply a very large claim. The argument itself^is remarkably circuitous, circuiting through a range of examples drawn from game theory, and, so it will emerge, as yet quite indecisive. Obtaining a view, a clear view, of the whole argument, or rather the spectrum of potential arguments, matters for anarchism. For that will help considerably in dispelling the myth that here, partly hidden, is a powerful P3p*x argument against A The argument takes the form of a modal syllogism: * The state is necessary for the optimal, or adequate, provision of collective (i.e. public) goody (zzm/or premiss), of* ' * Collective goods are necessary for a satisfactory social life, (J%7M% premiss) . the state is necessary for a satisfactory social life./Moreover, given that the latter, a satisfactory social life (in a given region), is a certain desiderata, the state is to that extent necessary (a necessity is (^bolutized). While the big argument takes thatybrm, it is subject to variation. Furthermore, some variation is essential, else it, and one of the chief forms incorporated, is invalid. For the argument displayed has a different, and an ambiguous, middle term. For requisite uniformity, and validity, the middle term has to be either a) adequate provision of colective goods, or o) optimal provision of collective goods. While little supporting argument get lavished on the minor premiss, it being assumed obvious, that obviousness selected. For a satisfactory social life may result when when term o) is than optimal provisioning of collective goods occurs. Adequate lives only require adequate goods, perhaps even a modest supply of goods for less consumptive societies, not optimal or maximal levels. There is/a significant skating about, of justificatory relevance, in the "most persuasive justification of the state", as normally slackly presented^between (as in o), nomally explicated in terms of maximization; erms of satisization); of provisioning: opPma/ (as in a), have construed int (unspecified, as in the quote above, or perhaps specified as in Hobbes, e.g. defence and security of property). Unfortunately for the argument, all that the game-theoretic arguments for the major 1 2 Grofman 80, p.108, quoting Taylor. For another similar statement, qualified to members of a large public, see Taylor 82, p.53. Thus, basic collective goods for a basic social life, as for instance in subsistence lifestyles. ��' ' ' ' / premiss typically establish at best is failure of optima^ or certain large prov^pning, without the state. They do not show failure to provision at all without the state, or failure to achieve "basic" provision, or even adequate provisioning. Now anarchism can^granF that certain large provisioning is improbable without the state; for example^ntercoiynental nuclear missiles, or large output nuclear power plants. 3 But i^hardly matters! f&r such state-posessed goods are? arguably antithetical to satisfactory social life. Nor need anarchism accede Rr optimality requirements, thereby destroying usual game-theoretic arguments. For these arguments usually show that more would be obtained under certain counter-individualistic cooperative strategies than would otherwise be obtained, not that some or basic levels would not be achieved. To put it bluntly, satisizing anarchists can throw out the challenge: what does it matter if a few state prisoners defect (i.e. there are some not fully-paid-up rider^so long as enough goods are still delivered? That challenge has not been met, even implicitly, as will appear. 5? It is unreasonable, in any case, to demand optimal levels from non-statist societies, because no extant stat^ measure up to such excessive requirements. Indeed most staites do ... ........................................... , . bd not even meet utterly basic demands. Henceforth we shall be looking for leads, which %?.yo /hero cover basic demands. The argument for the critical major premiss takes the following sort of route, involving these components: 1. Assimilation of the problem of provision of collective goods (in the light of the minor premiss it can be cast as a problem) to paradigmatic problems in game theory, initially the Prisoners' Dilemma (PD for short). No doubt efforts at provision of public goods commonly result in arrangements that can be represented formally as Prisoners' Dilemmas. But it is sometimes claimed, what will be repudiated subsequently, that all such efforts result in PD situations, that is that there is a universal linkage. Two connections are regularly assumed: a universal representation of problems in game theory, and a more plausible less ambitious connection with PD games. That is: * all provisioning problems can be represented within game theory. ** these problems^requently)takePD form. . The first assumption, of game theory representation, is^severe. Each problem is transformed into a game, with n independent players, normally individuals or individual units (such as an "individual" family or firm in economics^)/ These players characteristically possess but limited information, and almost invariably are allowed only extraordinarily narrow motivations and objectives, am) as maximizing their own interests or pay-offs, in a rigid setting with fixed predetermined moves.$ According to the more plausible, less ambitious collections, 3 4 5 So much is argued elsewhere (nuclear wo^k). While in many politically relevant applications, such as the "tragedy of the common^' game,the players may bedndividuals, in other applications the players may be communities, societies, or even states, e.g\mtemational traaR and war games. It is this sort of rigidity and limitation that/make^ parts of game-theory automatically tractable. <?; �3 * provisioning of public goods frequently yields prisoners' dilemma situations, Ahat is the problem involved can be transformed into a typical PD game, comprising a perhaps interated games among a public of n individuals. 2. Sometimes these games yield unfavourable results, that is not enough individuals cooperate but instead defect, so the good in question will not be delivered. 3. On/y by intervention pf the state can cooperation be obtained, by coercion of individuals? other devices, such a; of the market, will notsucceed. �4 3. THE CASE AGAINST REPLACEMENT FROM PRISONERS' DILEMMA SITUATIONS AND THE buttress the State status quc^are based on variants of the prisoners' Dilemma, to the effect that there are imporran? cases where individuals will not agree^ or co-operate to provide them­ selves with (or to maintain) collective goods without coercion, such as on/y the State can furnish? In such 'dilemma' situations each individual will hope to gain advantage, without contributing (or exercising restraint), from others' contributions (or restraint), by freeloading on others (or profiting from others' restraint). The claim is that only the State with its backing of force can resolve such situations: anarchistic replacement cannot succeed. In short,'certain individual choice cannot replace state-covered choice. important cases, coo< There are (as the bracketed clauses indicate) two main types of case, those where people do not conrri&M&.to themselves with, or with optimum quantities of, a "collective good", and those where people do not themselves to or maintain optimum quantities of, some already available "collective good". The first type of case is taken to include such traditional and modern concerns of the state and its subsidiary institutions as order, security, defence, and perhaps private property, as well as sewerage schemes, water supplies, waste services, public health, social security, etc. The second case is supposed to include, as well as village commons, newer enviromental concerns such as clean air, unpolluted streams and beaches, parks, rainforests, wilderness, whales, etc. But there is no sharp division between the cases (security or parks could be of either type depending on the status quo), and The case broken-backed right here: because if we don't ^o this^not going to agree to social contract — which allegedly implies these things — either. Similarly, jocia/ contract theory &ro&cn-&ac%cJ. The Tragedy of the Commons is set up so as to assume no collective methods have been developed or can be developed without coercion. (Roberts). The point of coercion is to retain the privatised individual. For the factor of coercion makes it in intrests of private individual. So coercion makes the effect of relations to be got without exceeding provatised individual picture. Coercion substitutes for relations in the context of privatised individuals. Privatised individuals are, of course, products, in large part, of the operation (and enforcement and entrenchment) of a particular social theory, or ra/Zzcr jar/ ofsocial theory. Arguments of this type are sometimes said to represent 'the strongest case that can be made for the desirability of the State* (M. Taylor, Anarc/ty anJ Coap^raZiaa, Wiley, London, 1976, p.9). To cover all arguments of the type, and to avoid repetition of the phrase 'variants of and disputes as to whether certain arguments such as those of Hume and of Olson involve Prisoners' Dilemma situations, 'Prisoner's Dilemma' is used in a wide sense to include not merely single nperson Prisoners' Dilemma games, but, for example, games where the payoffs are not merely egoistic (as with both Hobbes and Hume) and where such games are iterated. As the bracketed clauses in the text indicate, there are two types of case, not sharply separated and both the jawt^ Zagica/ /oral — those where people do not to themselves with, or with 'optimum' quantities of, a 'collective good' (e.g. security, order, sewage), and those where people do not refrain themselves to wainfam, or maintain 'optimum' quantities of, some alrca< available 'collective good' (e.g. commons, unpolluted streams, whales, wilderness). That received arguments of all these types involves Prisoners? Dilemma situations (in the wide sense) is argued in effect, in Taylor, op.cif. and elsewhere. An easier introduction to the material covered by Taylor, which also surveys other important literature, is given in the final chapter of R. Abrams, FoaaJan'aaj o/Po/aica/ Aaa/y^, Columbia University press, New York, 1980. Z y �5 as arguments for state institution both have the same logical form, that of a Prisoners' Dilemma or some finite sequence of Prisoners' Dilemma games (what are called Prisoners' Dilemma &%?^rgames). The arguments are not mere exercises in game theory since it is through arguments of this type that political theorists such as Hobbes and Hume have attempted to demonstrate the necessity of the State, so it is sometimes claimed (e.g. by Taylor). Furthermore, it is with arguments of the same^form, the "Tragedy of the Commons", that Hardin and others have tried to show that extensive, indeed draconian, state powers are required to resolve environmental problems; without such powers no exploiter or polluter will exercise restraint, ra c . Consider the single Prisoners' Dilemma game where each player, or prisoner, is assumed, as is usual in these things, to be egoistic (sometime equated with "being rational"), to seek just maximisation of his own private payoff, in the special case where there are just two players. (The special case illustrates all the main points except one, the c/size in making a case for the state.) < . A basic ingredient^a.considerable variety of argumentfof this type, including Hobbes' andlTragedy of the Commons' argument, and recent economic arguments for State intervention to secure collective goods, i^/tne single prisoners' Dilemma game with just two players.s Two prisoners, 1 and 2, taken to be accomplices in a crime, have been separately imprisoned. A State representative makes the following offers separately to each: if the prisoner confesses and becomes a State's witness while his or her accomplice remains silent, he or she will be released at once while the accomplice gets 8 years. 3t so happens that if both prisoners remain silent the State has only enough evidence to impose a 1 year sentence. But if both confess they would each receive 4 years. The 'game' can be summarised in the following 'payoff' matrix: Prisoner 1 Strategies S(ilence) C(onfess) S -1,-1 -8,0 C 0, -8 -4, -4 '— Prisoner 2 The game is not intended to present a moral ^ilemma, that each can only go free at the cost of the others' freedom, but the following dilemma: It is in each prisoner's private interest to An important matter the two player game does not illustrate is the relevance of populations size in the arguments for the State. But size is not decisive (see, e.g., Taylor, chapter 2), and the issue can be avoided (or relocated) by organisation into smaller communities. The figures given in the matrix are illustrative only; for inequalities which suffice for a Dilemma situation, see Tayor, p.5. �6 choose strategy C no matter what the other does: strategy C is, in the jargon, each players' 'dominant' strategy (and also in fact a minimax strategy). For if 2, for example, remains silent, the%l goes free by confessing, while if 2 confesses, then 1 halves his or her sentence by if both prisoners choose their dominant strategy they obtain an outcome to that which would have resulted by what is tendentiously called 'co-operating', by confessing. their both remaining silent. 3.1 FOILING THE PRISONERS' DILEMMA ARGUMENT. It is bizarre that a dilemma alleged to show the necessity of the State — which is supposed to intervene, forcibly if required, to ensure that the prisoners 'co-operate' to obtain an optimal outcome — should be set up by the State's own operative.^ The case looks like an inside job; and it M, though neither the operative, nor for that matter the prisoners on their own, continue to play an essential role. The prisoners, in any finite number, can be members of a community and payoffs quantities of some collective good. The claim is, that without intervention (by the State), the community will only chase a subotimal quantity of the good if any. Some features of the prisoners' relations are assumed to transfer however. Of course the State's presence in arranging (of accentuating) such dilemmas is inessential, as is much else from the example. But some features of the Prisoner's relations are isolated, and so have no opportunity to communicate or r^aZZy co-operate. Similarly, in the more general argument a privatisation assumption is smuggled in in the way the dilemma is formulated, that we are dealing with self contained individuals who, like the prisoners, act only in their own narrowly construed private interests and whose interests are opposed. The applicability of the dilemma to the human condition is accordingly seriously limited, io A cursory aside is often added to the Prisoners' Dilemma to the effect that the segregation of the priisoners makes no real difference. It is claimed that even if the prisoners could meet and discuss and even agreed to co-operate, that would make no difference, since neither could trust (the sincerity) of the other (Abrams, p.193), 'neither has an incentive to keep the agreement' (Taylor, p.5). Experimental and historical evidence indicates that this is very often no so — and in a more co-operative social setting than currently encouraged privatisation of life, the extent of co-operation and trust would undoubtedly be much higher n The argument has to depend crucially then on substantially mistaken assumptions about human propensities It is similarly bizarre that there should be outcomes that the State alone is said to be able to arrange, but not mere social cooperation, when the State rv (as on many theories) the result of reflection of social cooperation. This important point is much elaborated in V. and R. Routley, &?cmZ 77^or^.y, S^Zf aztrZ Envirownf/tfaZ Pro&Zewty in Environmental Philosophy (edited D. Mannison and others), RSSS, Australian national University, 1980. As a result of G. Hardin's Tragedy CoHWHonj, historical evidence has been assembled which reveals how far Hardin's 'Commons' diverges from historic commons; see, inparticular, A. Roberts, 77^ S^Zf-Managing Allison & Busby, London, 1979, chapter 10, but also Routley, op.cir., p.285 and ppp.329-332. Similar points apply as regards many other Dilemma situations. Tn the experimental studies of the prisoner's dilemma game approximately half of the participants choose a cooperative strategy even when they know for certain that the other player will cooperate'. Abrams, op.ciz., p.308. �7 in various settings, e.g. that purely egoistic interests are always pursued, backed up by a large measure of scepticism about the reliability of other people (but if people were Jia? unreliable and devious, many State arrangements involved in providing public goods would not succeed either). That such assumptions are operating can be seen by elaborating the situation; e.g. to bring out the first, suppose the prisoners have a common bond, e.g. they are friends or they are political prisoners with a shared social commitment, or they are neighbours and face a future in the same community; to bring out the philosophical scepticism involved, suppose the prisoner with a tarnished record offers the other security against default, and so on. The question of the character of human interests and preferences %/iJ the extent of their determination by the social context in which they occur is/MKJcwtcnhJ to the whole question of social economic arrangements, and also accordingly to arguments for the State on the basis of human propensities. A major assumption underlying prevailing (non-Marxist) economics and associated political theory, is that the interests and preferences, as summed up in a preference ranking or utility function, of each human that is taken to count is an mJcpcnJcnr parameter, which depends neither on the preference rankings of other nor on the social context in which that human operates. Wh8ile the individuals and firms of mainstream economic theory do, by definition, satisfy the independence requirements, and while there is very substantial cultural pressure on consumers to conform (through advertising, education, popular media), vc/y many Jo /io? cozi/briH, and the extent of cultural pressure towards privatisation itself belies the naturalness of this independence. And having sufficiently many interest-interdependent people in a small community (which is not thoroughly impoverished) is normally enough, given their social influence, to avoid or resolve by co-operation the types of Prisoners' Dilemma situations that appear to count in favour of the State. 3.2 Why the dilemma arguments cannot succeed. What the Dilemma-based case for the State has to show — what never has been shown — is that there are outstanding Dilemma situations which are relevant, important, and also damaging if unresolved, and that they are resolvable by State intervention, and only so (optimally) resolvable. Finally it has to be shown that in the course of so resolving these Dilemma situations, worse situations than those that are resolved are not thereby induced. These complex conditions cannot be satisfied, if they can be satisfied at all, in a way that is not question begging. For several of the conditions are value dependent (e.g. what is important, damaging, optimal, worse) and involve considerations about which resonable parties can differ. The selection of Dilemmas itself provides an example of value dependence: after all there are many such Dilemmas (e.g. as to environmental degradation, of over-exploitation, of family violence or fueds) which are considered beyond the sphere of the State or not worthy of State attention. There are now grounds for concluding that the conditions cannot be satisfied at all. For 12 Cf. the disucssion in Taylor, op.ci/., p.93. �8 many of the arguments using Prisoners' Dilemma games, Hobbes' and Hume's arguments for the State and Hardin's 'Tragedy of the Commons' for instance, turn out when to consist not just of a single game but of a sequence of such games, to be more adequately represented by what is called a But in many such sequential Prisoners' Dilemma games, rational 'co-operation' can occur, even assuming separated players with purely egoistic interests. 13 For what sequential games permit that isolated games exclude, is that players' actions may be dependent upon past performance of other players. This dependence effectively removes one extremely unrealistic self-containment assumption from Dilemma situations, that individuals act in totally isolated ways, not learning from past social interaction. In such sueprgames then, no intervention is required. Undoubtedly some Dilemmas are resolved by 'intervention', e.g. by allowing the prisoners to get in touch so that they find they are neighbours or that they can really co-operate. Euqally important, and equally independent of the State, is the matter of breaking down the adverary, or game, situation so the prisoners do not act as competitors but are prepared to co­ operate.^ Informational input may also be important, e.g. news that each prisoner has a good record of adhering to agreement, or if not is prepared to stake collateral, etc. Nor is force or threat of force required as an incentive to guarantee optimal strategies: a range of other inducements and incentives is known (shuld they be required in recalcitrant cases), and is used even by the State, e.g. gifts, deprivation, social pressure, etc. But at no stage is the State required to make these arrangements: much as some real Prisoners' Dilemmas are resolved by work of Amnesty International, so voluntary organisations can be formed to detect and deal with Prisoners' Dilemma situations where they are not already catered for. And in fact communal and co-operative organisation did resolve Prisoners' Dilemma-type situations historically, for example in the case of the Commons. In sum, here also replacement works. There are no important Dilemma situations, it seems, where the State is essential. The State has been thought to be essential because of certain influential flase dichotomies; for example, that all behaviour that is not egoistic is altruistic (but altruistic behaviour is uncommon, and 'irrational'), that the only way of allocating goods, apart from profit-directed markets — which tend to deal abysmally with collective goods — is through State control.^ But it is quite evident that there are methods of allocation, both economic (e.g. exchange, through traditional markets, based on supply costs) and social (e.g. by co-operatives, clubs). Lastly, introduction of the State to resolve 13 14 15 Dilemma situations has very extensive This important result is established in Taylor, op. ctf., for a number of critical cases, though not generally; see, e.g. p.32 but especially chapter 5. Such moves have proved valuable in reducing the State's role in legal prosecution, and in eliminating courtroom procedures, including cases where the State is one of the 'adversaries'. Both the false dichotomies cited are common-place, not to say rife, in modem economic and political theorising. Both are to be found in Abram's final chapter, for example, and the first (with an attempt to plaster over the gap with a definition) in Taylor. For a further criticism of such false dichotomies, see Routley, op.cit., pp.250./ff �9 effects, *6 many of them negative, so that the gains made, if any, in so resolving Dilemma situations, appear to be substantially outweighted by the costs involved. For there are the many evil aspects of the typical State to put in the balance. As regards Dilemma situations, entry of the State with its authority showing may not help but may worsen some situations, and morre important, new Dilemmas may be initiated by State activity, as in the case of the prisoners, or differently with the State as a further player (since the State may engage in whaling, have access to a commons, etc.). These points lead also to further arguments against the State. Suppose, to see the impact of the first reason for the failure of independence, the prisoners are friends and their common interest is to be together. Then, if they are given the opportunity to co-operate, and independence is not enforced by separation, they will, quite rationally, choose a joint optimal strategy, and there is no dilemma. Since the same considerations will not apply where large numbers of strangers are involved, the question arises as the extent and severity of Dilemma situations. The question is complicated by the second double-edged reason for the failure of independence, namely that statist political arrangements undoubtedly accentuate the extent and severity of Dilemma situations by discouraging (providing negative incentives) for genuinely co-operative behaviour and mutual aid. This is another respect in which statist arrangements (like some subclimax biological communities) tend to be self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating. Accordingly, what arguments for the State on such bases as Prisoners' Dilemma situations have to show is not merely 1) that state coercion does suffice to resolve (sufficiently) many such (damaging) Dilemmas, but also 2) that such coercion is the on/y way of doing so, and 3) that in doing so worse situations than those that are resolved are not thereby induced. These things have never been shown: nor can they be shown definitively, since firstly there are various nonstatist arrangements for resolving wehat are taken to be damaging Dilemmas, and secondly the overall assessment of what Dilemmas are and what costs are worf/t incurring in resolving them are ultimately evaluative and go back to rival, and presumably coherent, value systems. Hence, when all this is spelled out, the irrefutability of anarchism. To get some feel for the complexity of the issue and for the extent to which evaluative matters do enter, several points relevant to 1) - 3) should be introduced. Firstly, there are many Dilemma situations into which the State puts little or no effort and many others which are, or were, considered as beyond the sphere of influence of the State or as not worthy of State attention, for instance, cases of environmental degradation, overexploitation of a "resource", personal or family fueds, etc., several of them aggravated by State arrangments such as To take one lesser example, State intrusion often induces a certain social escapism: one escapes one's social roles and is enabled to concentrate on private affairs or just to laze. Or so it may appear: for in reality anyone who works, works long and often alientated hours to pay for this apparent escapism and to cover the high costs of frequently inadequate State activity. �10 excessive privatisation of resources (e.g. enclosure of the commons). (7/* such Dilemmas can be downgraded in importance to suit the Statist case so can other Dilemmas apparently favouring State intervention.) Many of these cases would not be helped at all by the entry of the State or its representatives with their authority duly showing (thugh they might be assisted by sensitive mediation, which does not call for a State, only rudiments of a society). Secondly, introduction of the State to resolve Prisoners' Dilemma situations is not without wide-ranging effects, many of them negative, so that the gains made, if any, in so resolving Dilemma situations have to be weighed against costs involved in achieving these gains. Among the costs are new Dilemmas, such as the very example considered in illustrating prisoner Dilemma games which was initiated by State activity. Differently, new Dilemmas will result with the state as a further player (since the State may have access to the commons, engage in whaling, etc.). Some of these situations are interesting in theat they may lead to litigation and decision-making outside of or largely independent of the State, the results of which the State is supposed to enforce though it may be against its interests. But what ensures that if sticks to the findings. Nothing does: it is simply assumed that the State will adhere to its role. But if that assumption is valid with respect to the State (not known for its reliability) then it is good also for various other parties. In short, agreement or decisions can be reached and adhered to without need for State enforcement. So coercion is not always required. Are there important Dilemmas where use the authority of the State is the (?H/y way? Often behind the claim that is is, is a false (but very influential) dichotomy, that the only way of allocating goods, apart from profit-directed markets which may deal abysmally with collective goods, is through state control. But it is quite evident that there are other methods of allocation, both economic (e.g. exchange, based on costs involved) and social (e.g. club, co­ operatives). [And a mixture of these methods can be applied to resolve any Prisoners' Dilemma that matters, i.e. here too replacement works. An important initial move is, as was seen, to put the prisoners in touch, so that they could cooperate: equally important is breaking down the ...] Such organisations would not have nearly so much to do as statists would like us to believe, especially once co-operative ways of doing things and mutual aid had become established ways in contrast to competitive and privatised ways. For the extent of simple Prisoners' Dilemma situations calling for intervention (of some sort) has been exaggerated and many, probably, very many, of those that have been thought to require intervention do not because the players (are prepared to) "cooperate" anyway. There are importantly different reasons why the latter can happen:- Firstly, enough players operate with motives which are not purely privatised for a sufficiently optimal outcome to result. This does not imply that these players have altruistic motives: their interests may depend on those of other players in a range of nonaltruistic ways. Secondly, many cases presented as if they were simple Prisoner's Dilemma games turn out when properly analysed, in particular when time is duly taken account of, to be Prisoners' Dilemma super-games. Such, for instance, is the positions with the �11 arguments of Hobbes, Hume and Hardin. But in such supergames rational "cooperation" often occurs even assuming the players have the worst of privatised motives. In short, where the correct analysis of a Prisoner's Dilemma game is as a supergame, statists are often beaten at their own game. [Detail Taylor's partial results, anJ their problems.] �/AfJ^ Ji) /7!_^ A/^ ./ <. / "tv 7^-*^-^ �/ z7 /$CV^/^<^ /'J /^! ^7 </*<9 ^7^7" /^c / r 4& /d-^&V' f o j <. t/7^, c t_ , ^7 J* .X 6. <?^) /y . /^xv Jct/^^ JL �3. <%y4r-/^ ,X^7< .,;^;X 3 <X X?X" X)c. X /T^.X^ 4X3X*/- /X. y/^4. . / X X^X yXX s/ ^,/X-,^X^ Xy ^r y7^ Xox^Levc =-, <^- /, ^ / ^T^ — X? X" ^7^ ^X xx x^/^ <y A^rXXi/^ 6co /^4. /c<_ ^ / /X^cu— <^-^-^- ^4/ /*7^jC *- X^T Xt^/ / < ^Cv ^C A -C �<22^ 7^4 y dVf! ^-r- <^ -^* r^CL A-?f-? yj /K-*- ) ^-*^-^/7 Ar^- ^c/ 4-A A /7^^?7"J^ ^^^tr-t^c'-^/j; y>V w t^L y ^). /%4?/ e / J—, /7 ^^7< Z *- ^rt^ *— " Z^? C- /^L ^-7 -^7 ZL- < Z*^/ c-y 7 <^* z Ay /, ?/ y*^ <9 ' �J �w to be accomplices in a crime, have been separately imprisoned. A State represen­ tative makes the following offers separately to each: if the prisoner con­ fesses and becomes a State's witness while his or her accomplice remains silent, he or she will be released at once while the accomplice gets 8 years. It so happens that if both prisoners remain silent the State has only enough evidence to impose a 1 year sentence. But if both confess they would each receive 4 years. The 'game' can be summarised in the following 'payoff' matrix: Prisoner 1 Strategies S(ilence) C(onfess) S -1, -1 -8, 0 C 0, -8 -4, -4 Prisoner 2 3. T7/E C/1SE z1G.4/MSE AEFL.4 CEA^E^T ERCW ER/5CWERS' D/EEA7AE1 tS77X/?177CW5 E/7E E/AE. I he main arguments designed to rebut the replacement argument for anarchism and to buttress the State status quo, are based on variants of the Prisoners' Dilemma, to the effect that there are /wporftm/cases where individuals will not agree^-or co-operate to provide them­ selves with (or to maintain) collective goods without coercion, such as cw/y the State can furnish/ In such 'dilemma' situations each individual will hope to gain advantage, without contributing (or exercising restraint), from others' contri­ butions (or restraint), by freeloading on others (or profiting from others' restraint). The claim is that only the State with its backing of force can resolve such situations: anarchistic replacement cannot succeed^ A basic ingredient of a considerable variety of arguments of this type, in­ cluding Hobbes' and Hume's arguments for the State, the 'Tragedy of the Com­ mons' argument, and recent economic arguments for State intervention to secure collective goods, is the single Prisoners' Dilemma game with just two players/ Two prisoners, 1 and 2, taken The game^ is not intended to present a moral dilemma, that each can only go free at the cost of the others' freedom, but the following dilemma: It is in each prisoner's private interest to choose strategy C no matter what the other docs: strategy C is, in the jargon, each players' 'dominant' strategy (and also in fact a minimax strategy). For if 2, for ex­ ample, remains silent, then 1 goes free by confessing, while if 2 confesses, then 1 halves his or her sentence by confess­ ing. if both prisoners choose their dominant strategy they obtain an m/er/or outcome to that which would have resulted by what is tendentiously called 'co-operating', by their both remaining silent. ?./ It is bizarre that a dilemma alleged to show the necessity of the State — which is supposed to intervene, forcibly if re­ quired, to ensure that the prisoners 'co­ operate' to obtain an optimal outcome — should bg set up by the State's own operative.^Of course the State's presence in arranging (or accentuating) such dilemmas is inessential, as is much else from the example. But some features of the prisoner's relations are essential, in particular the separability assumption that the prisoners are isolated, and so have no opportunity to communicate or rec/Zy co-operate. Similarly, in the more general argument, a privatisation assumption is smuggled in in the way the dilemma is formulated, that we are dealing with self contained individuals who, like the prisoners, act only in their own narrowly construed private interests and whose interests are opposed. The applicability of the dilem- A 7 �ma to the human condition is accordingly seriously limited/ A cursory aside is often added to the Prisoners' Dilemma to the effect that the segregation of the prisoners makes no real difference. It is claimed that even if the prisoners could meet and discuss and even agreed to co-operate, that would make no difference, since neither could trust (the sincerity) of the other (Abrams, p.193), 'neither has an incen­ tive to keep the agreement' (Taylor, p.5). Experimental and historical evidence in­ dicates that this is very often not so — and in a more co-operative social setting than the currently encouraged privatisa­ tion of life, the extent of co-operation and trust would undoubtedly be much higher/ The argument has to depend crucially then on substantially mistaken assumptions about human propensities in various settings, e.g. that purely egoistic interests are always pursued, backed up by a large measure of scep­ ticism about the reliability of other peo­ ple (but if people were /Ar?/ unreliable and devious, many State arrangements involved in providing public goods would not succeed either). That such assumptionsareoperating can be seen by elaborating the situation; e.g. to bring out the first, suppose the prisoners have a common bond, e.g. they are friends or they are political prisoners with a shared social commitment, or they are neigh­ bours and face a future in the same com­ munity; to bring out the philosophical scepticism involved, suppose the prisoner with a tarnished record offers the other security against default, and so on. The question of the character of human interests and preferences the extent of their determination by the social context in which they occur is /MnrArznrvna/ to the whole question of social and economic arrangements, and also accordingly to arguments for the State on the basis of human propensities. A major assumption underlying prevail­ ing (non-Marxist) economics and associated political theory, is that the in­ terests and preferences, as summed up in a preference ranking or utility function, of each human that is taken to count is an mc/e/zenr/enf parameter, which depends neither on the preference rank­ ings of others nor on the social context in which that human operates. While the individuals and firms of mainstream economic theory do, by definition, satisfy the independence requirements, and while there is very substantial cultural pressure on consumers to con­ form (through advertising, education, popular media), wany <7o /?oz ccw/bfTn, and the extent of cultural pressure towards privatisation itself belies the naturalness of this indepen- sequential games permit that isolated games exclude, is that players' actions may be dependent upon past perfor­ mance of other players. This dependence effectively removes one extremely ....a major functmn of the state is unrealistic self-containment assumption to maintain and pohee inequitable from Dilemma situations, that in­ dividuals act in totally isolated ways, not distribution. learning from past social interaction. In such supergames then, no intervention is required. Undoubtedly some Dilemmas are Z/gtZ-f resolved by 'intervention', e.g. by allow­ dence. And having sufficiently many/ ing the prisoners to get in touch so that interest-interdependent people in a smali they find they are neighbours or that community (which is not thoroughly im­ they can really co-operate. Equally im­ poverished) is normally enough, given portant, and equally independent of the State, is the matter of breaking down the their social influence, to avoid or resolve adversary, or game, situation so the by co-operation the types of Prisoners' prisoners do not act as competitors but Dilemma situations that appear to count are prepared to co-operate/' Informa­ in favour of the State/ tional input may also be important, e.g. news that each prisoner has a good ff /yy 77/E /VLEA7A/.1 record of adhering to agreement, or if not is prepared to stake collateral, etc. Nor is force or threat of force required SC/CC777) as an incentive to guarantee optimal What the Dilemma-based case for the strategies: a range of other inducements State has to show — what never has been and incentives is known (should they be shown — is that there are outstanding required in recalcitrant cases), and is Dilemma situations which are relevant, used even by the State, e.g. gifts, important, and also damaging if deprivation, social pressure, etc. But at unresolved, and that they are resolvable no stage is the State required to make by State intervention, and only so (op­ these arrangements: much as some real timally) resolvable. Finally it has to be Prisoners' Dilemmas are resolved by shown that in the course of so resolving work of Amnesty International, so these Dilemma situations, worse situa­ voluntary organisations can be formed tions than those that are resolved are not to detect and deal with Prisoners' Dilem­ thereby induced. These complex condi­ ma situations where they are not already tions cannot be satisfied, if they can be catered for. And in fact communal and satisfied at all, in a way that is not ques­ co-operative organisation did resolve tion begging. For several of the condi­ Prisoners' Dilemma-type situations tions are value dependent (e.g. what is historically, for example in the case of important, damaging, optional, worse) the Commons. In sum, here also replacement works. and involve considerations about which reasonable parties can differ. The selec­ There are no important Dilemma situa­ tion of Dilemmas itself provides an ex­ tions, it seems, where the State is essen­ ample of value dependence: after all tial. The State has been thought to be there are many such Dilemmas (e.g. as to essential because of certain influential environmental degradation, of over­ false dichotomies; for example, that all exploitation, of family fcuds/or^violencQ) behaviour that is not egoistic is altruistic which are considered beyond the sphere (but altruistic behaviour is uncommon, of the State or not worthy of State atten­ and 'irrational'), that the only way of allocating goods, apart from profittion. There are now grounds for concluding directed markets — which tend to deal that the conditions cannot be satisfied at abysmally with collective goods — is all. For many of the arguments using through State control.'^ But it is quite Prisoners' Dilemma games, Hobbes' evident that there are o/Aer methods of and Hume's arguments for the State and allocation, both economic (e.g. ex­ Hardin's 'Tragedy of the Commons' for change, through traditional markets, instance, turn out when projver/y /or- based on supply costs) and social (e.g. by to consist not just of a single co-operatives, clubs). Lastly, introduction of the State to game but of a sequence of such games, to be more adequately represented by resolve so/ne Dilemma situations has what is called a But in many very extensive effects/ many of them such sequential Prisoners' Dilemma negative, so that the gains made, if any, games, rational 'co-operation' can oc­ in so resolving Dilemma situations, ap­ cur, even assuming separated players pear to be substantially outweighed by with purely egoistic interests.'" For what the costs involved. For there are the SOCIAL ALTERNA ! tVES Vet. 2 No. 3. )982 25 �many evi! aspects of the typicai State to put in the baiance. As regards Dilemma situations, entry of the State with its authority showing may not help but may worsen some situations, and more im­ portant, new Dilemmas may be initiated by State activity, as in the case of the prisoners, or differently with the State as a further player (since the State may engage in whaling, have access to a com­ mons, etc.). These points lead also to further arguments against the State. available 'collective good' (e.g. commons, un polluted streams, whales, wilderness). That received arguments of ail these types involves Prisoners' Dilemma situations (in the wide sense) is argued, in effect, in Taylor, op.cit. and etsewhere. An easier introduction to the material covered by Taylor, which also surveys other Important literature, is given in the final chapter of R Abrams, Foundations of Political Analysis, Columbia University Press, New York, 1980. 5. An important matter the two player game does not illustrate is the relevance of popula­ tion size in the arguments for the State. But size is not decisive (see, e.g., Taylor, chapter 2), and the issue can be avoided (or relocated) by organisation into smaller communities. The figures given in the matrix are illustrative only; for inequalities which suffice for a Dilemma situation, see Taylor, p.5. 6. It is similarly bizarre that there should be out­ comes that the State alone is said to be able to arrange, but not mere social cooperation, when the State zs (as on many theories) the result or reflection of social cooperation. 7. This important point is much elaborated in V. and R. Routley, Soc/af Theories, Se// Management, and T'n wronwm'a/ ProAferru in Environmental Philosophy (edited D Mannison and others), RSSS, Australian National University, 1980. 9. 10. 11. 12. 4. Arguments of this type are sometimes said to represent 'the strongest case that can be made for the desirability of the State' (M. Taylor, Anarchy and Cooperation, Wiley, London, 1976. p.9). To cover all arguments of the type, and to avoid repetition of the phrase 'variants of' and disputes as to whether cer­ tain arguments such as those of Hume and of Olson involve Prisoners' Diiernnta situations, Prisoner's Dilemma' is used in a wide sense to include not merely single n-person Prisoners' Dilemma games, but for example, games where the payoffs are not merely egoistic (as with both Hobbes and Hume) and where such games are iterated. As the bracketed clauses in the text indicate, there are two types of case, not sharply separated and both of the same /ogtcaZ/orm — those where people do not rwr/A/wfe to sup/r/y themselves with, or with 'optimum' quantities of, a 'collective good' (e.g. security, order, sewage), and those where people do not re.s/ram themselves to mam/am, or maintain 'optimum" quantities of, some already 13. As a result of G. Hardin's Tragerh' o/ rhe Commons, historical evidence has been assembled which reveals how far Hardin's 'Commons' diverges from historic commons; see, in particular, A. Roberts, 7'he Se/fManagmg TTiwonmenr, Allison & Busby. London, 1979, chapter 10, but also Routley, op.cit. p.285 and pp. 329-332. Similar points apply as regards many other Dilemma situa­ tions. 'In the experimental studies of the prisoner's dilemma game approxtmately half of the participants choose a cooperative strategy even when they know for certain that the other player will cooperate'. Abrams. op.cit., p.3O8. ' Cf. the discussion in Taylor, op.cit.. p.93. This important result is established in Taylor, op.cit, for a number of critical cases, though not generally; see, e.g. p.32 but especially chapter 5. Such moves have proved valuable in reducing the State's role in legal prosecution, and in eliminating courtroom procedures, including cases where the State is one of the 'adver­ saries'. Both the false dichotomies cited are common­ place, not to say rife, in modern economic and political theorising. Both are to be found in Abram's final chapter, for example, and the first (with an attempt to plaster over the gap with a definition) in Taylor. For a further criticism of such false dichotomies, see Routley, op.cit., pp.25O ff. To take one lesser example. State intrusion often induces a certain social escapism: one escapes one's social roles and is enabled to concentrate on private affairs or just to laze. Or so it may appear: for in reality anyone who works, works long and often alienated hours to pay for this apparent escapism and to cover the high costs of frequently inade­ quate State activity. �of course. ] 5^ The case if broken-backed right here: to agree because if we don't to this not goint/ to social contract - which allegedly implies these things - either. Similarly, the social contract theory is broken-backed. G5; . Alternative longer at this point in §3:- In shof^* in certain important cases, cooperative individual choice cannot replace state-covered choice. There are (as the bracketed clauses indicate) two main types of case, those where people do not contribute to supply themselves with, or with optimum quant­ ities of, a "collective good", and those where people do not restrain themselves to maintain, or maintain optimum quantities of, some already available "collective good". The first type of case is taken to include such traditional and modern concerns of the state and its subsidiary institutions as order, security, defence, and perhaps private property, as well as sewerage schemes, water supplies^.waste services, public health, social security, etc. The second case is supposed to include, as well as village commons, newer environmental concerns such as clean air, unpolluted streams and beaches, parks, rainforests, wilderness, wha les, etc. But there is no sharp division between the cases (security or parks could be of either type depending on the status quo), and as arguments for state institution both have the same logical form, that of a Prisoners' Dilemma or some finite sequence of Pri soners' Dilemma games (what are called Prisoners' Dilemma The arguments are not mere exercises in game theory since it is through arguments of this type that political theorists such as Hobbes and Hume have �5. attempted to demonstrate the necessity of the Stato4^ Furthermore, it is with arguments of the same form, the "Tragedy of the Commons", that Hardia and others have tried to show that extensive, indeed draconian, state powers are required to resolve environmental problems; without such powers no exploiter or polluter will exercise restraint. Consider the gj^le Prisoners' Dilemma game where each player, or prisoner, is assuined, as is usual in these things, to be egoistic (sometime equated with "being rational"), to seek just&axijnisation of his own private payoff, in the special case where there are just two players. (The special case illustrates all the main points except one, the importance of size in making a case for the state.) [Joins text again at fn.5 point.] /* 4. In §3:- The Trac^ec[y of the Commons is set up so as to assume no collective methods had [Teen developed or can be developed without coercion. (Roberts). The point of coercian is to ret^n the privatised individual. $ For the factor of coercion makes it in interests of private individualize coercion makes the effect of relations to be got without exceeding privatised individual picture. Coercion substitutes for relations in the context of privatised individuals. Privatised individuals are, of course, products, in large part, of the operation (and enforcement and entrenchment) of a particular social theory, or rather sort of social theory. ^5^ In §4:- The case looks like an inside job; and it is, though neither the operative, nor for that matter the prisoners ^n their own, essential role. play an The prisoners, in any finite number, can be members of a community and payoffs quantities of some collective good . The claim is, that without intervention (by thecate), the community will only corpse a subeyy^mo/ quantity of the good if any. Some features of the prisoners' relations are assumed to transfer however. Suppose, to see the impact of the first reason for the failure of independence, the prisoners are friends and their common interest is to �6. be together. Then, if they are given the opportunity to cooperate, and independ­ ence is not enforced by separation, they will, quite rationally, choose a joint optimal strategy,and there is no dilemma. Since the same considerations will not apply where large numbers of strangers are involved, the question arises as the extent and severity of Dilemma situations. The question is complicated by the second double-edged reason for the failure of independence, namely that statist political arrangements undoubtedly accentuate the extent and severity of Dilemma situations by discouraging (providing negative incentives) for genuinely cooper­ ative behaviour and nmttAcd aid. This is another respect in which statist arrangments (like some subclimax biological communities) tend to be self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating. [Transfer some experimental material to here?] Accordingly, what arguments for the State on such b ases as Prisoners' Dilemma situations have to show is not merely 1) that state coercion does suffice to resolve (sufficiently^ many such (damaging) Dilemmas, but also 2) that such coercion is the only way of doing so, and 3) that in doing so worse situations than those that are resolved are not thereby induced. These things have never been shown: nor can they be shown definitely, since firstly 4 there are various nonstatist arrangements for resolving what are taken to be damaging Dilemmas, and secondly the overall assessment of what Dilemmas are damaging and what costs are worth incurring in resolving them are ultimately evaluative and go back to rival, and presumably coherent, value systems. Hence, when all this is spelled out, the irrefutability of anarchism. To get some feel for the complexity of the issue and for the extent to evolutive matters do enter, several points relevant to l)-3) should be introduced. Firstly, there are many Dilemma situations into which the State puts little or no effort and many others which are, or were, considered as beyond the sphere of influence of the State or as not worthy of State attention, for instance, cases of �7. environmental degradation, overexploitation of a "resource", personal or family feuds, etc., several of them aggravated by State arrangements such as excessive privatisation of resources (e.g. enclosure of the commons). (If such Dilemmas can be downgraded in importance to suit the Statist case so can other Dilemmas appar­ ently favouring State intervention.) Many of these cases would not be helped at all by the entry of the State or its representatives with their authority duly showing (though they might be assisted by sensitive mediation, which does not call for a State, only rudiments Secondly, introduction of the State tof&yolve some Prisoners' of a society). Dilemma situations is not without wide-ranging effects, many of them negative, so that the gains made, if any, in so resolving Dilemma situations have to be weighed against costs involved in achieving these gains. Among the costs are new Dilemmas, such as the very example considered in illustrating Prisoner Dilemma games which was initiated by State activity. Differently, new Dilemmas will result with the state as a further player (since the State may have access to the commons, engage in whaling, etc.). Some of these situations are interesting in that they may lead to litigation and decision-making outside of or independ­ ent of the State, the resultgof which the State is supposed to enforce though it may be against its d Nothing does: interests. But what ensures that rt sticks to the findings. it is simply assumed that the State will adhere to its role. But if that assumption is valid with respect to the State (not known for its reliability) then it is good also for various other parties. In short,agreement or decision!* can be reached and adhered to without need for State enforcement. So coercion is not always required. Are there important Dilemmas where use the authority of the State is the only way? Often behind the claim that is is, is a false (but very influential) dichotomy, that the only way of allocating goods, apart from profit-directed markets which may deal abysmally with collective goods, is through state control^' �8. But it is quite evident that there are other methods of allocation, both economic (e.g. exchange, based on costs involved) and social (e.g. clubs, cooper­ [And a mixture of these methods can be applied to resolve any Prinsoners' atives). Dilemma that matters, i.e. here too replacement works. An important initial move is, as was seen, to put the prisoners in touch, so that they could cooperate: equally important is breaking down the ...] [Joins top of p.7] Such organisations would not have nearly so much to do as statists would like us to believe, especially once cooperative ways of doing things and mutual aid had become established ways in contrast to competitive and privatised ways. For the extent of simple Prisoners' Dilemma situations calling for intervention (o^ some sort) has been exaggerated and many, probably, very many, of those that have been thought to require intervention do not because the players (are prepared to) "cooperate" anyway. happen:- There are importantly different reasons why the latter can Firstly, enough players operate with motives which are not purely priv­ atised for a sufficiently optimal outcome to result. these players have altruistic motives: This does not imply that their interests may depend on those of other players in a range of nonaltruistic ways. Secondly, many cases presented as if they were simple Prisoner's Dilemma games turn out when properly analysed, in particular when time is duly taken account of, to be Prisoners' Dilemma supergames. Such, for instance, is the position with the arguments of Hobbes, Hume and Hardin. But in such supergames rational "cooperation" often occurs, even assuming the players have the worst of privatised correct analysis of a Prisoner's Dil&wima often beaten at their own game. problems.] motives. In short, where the game is as a supergame, statists are [Detail Taylor's partial results, and their �Chapter 3 Con,v7i^c%y^ /) CRITIQUE OF THE STATE 1. ARGUMENTS The main argument for anarchism can be concentrated in a detailed critique of the state. For therewith arguments against state-like institutions are also advanced. However further ado is no doubt required to remove all other (unexplified) alternatives to anarchism. A Anarchist critiques of the state advance the following themes: * States and state-like institutions are without satisfactory justification. * Such institutions are not required for organisational purposes. * Such institutions have most inharmonious consequences; they bring a whole series of social and environmental bungles or evils in their train. In brief, they are unnecessary unjustified evils. The anarchist critique does not end there, but typically includes, such further themes as : * States have excessive power, linkages to state power. * Societies are not inductably saddled with states. States can be displaced or even decay (though they are unlikely to just wither away). (9 �1 Chapter 3 : CRITIQUE OF THE STATE 1. ARGUMENTS The main argument for anarchism can be concentrated in a detailed critique of the state. For therewith arguments against state-like institutions are also advanced. However further ado is no doubt required to remove all other (unexplified) alternatives to anarchism. / Anarchist critiques of the state advance the following themes: * States and state-like institutions are without satisfactory justification. e Such institutions are not required for organisational purposes. Such institutions have most inharmonious consequences; they bring a whole series of social and environmental bungles or evils in their train. In brief, they are unnecessary unjustified evils. The anarchist critique does not end there, but typically includes, such further themes as : * States have excessive power. * States are devices for channelling privilege and wealth to certain minorities with inside linkages to state power. * Societies are not ineluctably saddled with states. States can be displaced or even decay (though they are unlikely to just wither away). 1. The state is an undesirable, or even downright evii, institution, for the following range of reasons:- * States entrench inequities, domination and exploitation. States are devices for the protection of wealth, property and privilege, and usually for the redistribution upwards, and often concentration, of wealth and privilege. A minor but popular illustration is offered by the expensive conferences and other junkets that state employees or party officials organise for themselves and manage to bill to state revenue, in turn sucked up from inequitable taxation. Certainly a main historical outcome of the state has been domination of exploitation of certain segments of society by others, and some see its main, and barely concealed, purpose as just that: domination and exploitation. * States are typically corrupt. For example, there are enquiries presently in train, or with follow-through activities yet to be duly completed, in many states in Australia, enquires which have revealed considerable corruption, and there are prima facie cases for similar enquiries in most of the remainder. Nor is this a new phenomenon: these revelations often resemble older or on-going scandals. * States are enormously expensive, and constitute a heavy drain upon regional resources, and accordingly on local environments. In poorer regions they are not merely a heavy burden, but �2 a main cause of impoverishment. One reason for their voracious appetite is an excess of over­ remunerated and often under-productive state employees. Another connected reason is that many state operations are far from lean and efficient, but incorporate many duplications, drag factors and dead weight. Under anarchisms, of all varieties, these heavy cost burdens, weighing down subservient populaces, would be shed. Costs of organisation would be very significantly reduced. * The state is an incubus. States are major impositions on everyday life. They are intrusive and demanding. Never has this been more forcefully expressed than in Proudhon's famous denouncement of state government: To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first world of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality (quoted in M p.6). As a result, there are constant demands for the reduction of the cancerous state, for removing parts of it through deregulation, selling off state enterprises and so on. There are two troubles with such demands from anarchist standpoints: they never go far enough, to the complete reduction of the state to zero, but characteristically retain parts supportive of or favourable to bigger business, and they proceed in the wrong way, stripping away social safety nets rather than ripping off business support nets (such as limited liability, strike limitation legislation, etc.). * States, for all that they have been promoted as delivering public goods, are mostly dismal news for environmental protection and health and for social justice. Furthermore they are liable to impose substantial hazards or risks upon subservient populations not merely through military and like activities but, more insidious, through support and promotion of dangerous industries, such as nuclear and giant chemical industries. * States usually exert a heavy pressure to uniformity, they tend to eliminate plurality and cultural differences. These pressures are exercised by a state in the alleged interests of national unity, and against its enemies, external and internal. Even the most liberal of states tend to give minorities more difficult lives in times of stress, such as war. They are always espousing national values, state interests, and commonly assimilation and adoption of state values (thus for example Canada, formerly and briefly a state toying with multiculturalism, now insistent upon "Canadian values"). Such exercises are conspicuous, not only in citizen ceremonies and other state rituals, such as national sporting and religious events, but more important are virtually ubiquitous in elementary education (down to deference to the flag, and �3 similar). * States are a major source of wars, and the major source of major wars, undoubted evils (however supposedly inevitable). They are major sources and suppliers of military technology and weapons, the means of war. Roughly, the more powerful and "advanced" a state, the further it is engaged in weapon production and export. Without states it is doubtful that there would be any nuclear weapons, and accordingly there would be no prospect of nuclear wars as there would be no weapons with which to fight them. * States are a serious drag on a more satisfactory international order. That there are not more, and more satisfactory, international regulatory organisations "is mainly a matter of the reluctance of nation states to surrender their powers and the dangers of their being dominated by very powerful states. If only nation states would be dissolved into specialized [departments] there is every reason to believe that most world problems could be handled by appropriate specialized [organisations]' (Bumheimp.221). * States have excessive power, and are even accumulating or trying to accumulate more, for instance through more centralization, further controls, additional licences, etc., etc. The excessive power of the state is exhibited not only in the treatment of its citizens and foreigners within its territory; it is exemplified also in its practices its territory, through such features as military pressures, including invasion, trade pressures, including sanitions, and in treatment of its citizens everywhere.! Obvious responses to excessive power are regionalization of powers, separation of powers, achieved by decoupling and some fragmentation, limitation of powers, and so on. * Present monolithic governments have assumed far too many roles, for many of which they are not competent, from some of which they are disqualified by other roles (e.g. as impartial referees by their business commitments). Because the centre tries to do and control foo much, as a consequence it does very much unsatisfactorily. Improved arrangements would separate these roles, deconcentrating and decentralizing power. States thus appear far from a good bargain on a preliminary consideration of costs, and very far from maximal or optimal. Especially bad states, the run of states, which engage in politically-motivated inclination or torture of their citizens, and so on. Where are the The issue tends to be avoided; it is contended that, contrary to appearances, we cannot get along without state cossetting: states are necessary. But, given that we can get along without them, would we really be significantly worse off without them? cfr . <r ,,^ven m thd better cases (not allowing for alternative nonstatist arrangements which states have precluded or systems they have usurped)? But arguments for states are not usually so directly utilitarian in character. Such arguments would make it look as if we might well opt out of state organisation, and often be better off doing so. 1 A recent shocking example concerns the attempt of Eire to prevent an Irish women having an abortion in England. �4 These considerations divide into two groups: features that are on normal, normally bad, operations of states, and features that are normic on institution and operation of states. The first group of criticisms are eliminated under good to ideal operation of states, what officiandos of states characteristically unwarr^ntedly make. For the evidence seems to be that in practice states will tend away from the ideal. There are arguments from low efficiencies of complex mechanical structures that can be adopted to lend support to what evidence reveals. Features that are normic, and perhaps inevitable upon institution of states do however yield arguments against states that do not depend on ym*e contingencies of most states, their and so on. / 2. Ways of demonstrating that the State is not Required: as for God and the Church, so for the State. There is a theological component in the presumption and theory of the State; that theological component and therewith of the argMmenfa/ foundations for the State should be fully exposed. By contrast, anarchism, ^ approached from an argument perspective, enjoys nn considerable strength requiring no leaps of faith. The State is like God: the anarchist is like the atheist in disbelief and nonrecognition of what is commonly assumed, mostly as a matter of faith, to be needed. The awn by Bakunin, has as well as considerable strength certain weaknesses. While the atheist believes that God does not exist, the anarchist does not believe that there are no states: on the contrary, there are all too many, though none are legitimate.^The important parallel is as to argM/n^n^. The agnostic does not believe that the arguments for the existence of God succeed, and so adopts a 'neutral' stance; similarly the State-agnostic does not believe that the arguments for the State work, and likewise tries to adopt a fence-sitting position. Soundly based atheism goes further than agnosticism, not only faulting the argumentybr, but taking it for granted that there are arguments, or at least solid considerations, <2g(?in.yL So it is with soundly based anarchism; it both faults arguments for the State, showing none are generally viable, and de ps an incisive case against the State. A more obvious comparison, appreciated from Reformation on and again emphasised by Bakunin,2 is that of State and Church. 'Of course Knever should have eventuated; several bad political turnings were taken in the modern period following the Renaissance, t In several respects the comparison is better than that of the State and God, since both belong to the same category, institutions. Thus too both have looked to some philosophers as human inventions or artifices, both have looked to others (reductionists) as objects that could be reduced to features of the individuals involved in their organisation (but it is hard to see why such fictions or logical constructions shuld be assigned the power and deference they are 2 Bakunin on Anap^hy-(gdited S. Dolgolff), Allen & Unwin, London, 1973, especially p.139. �5 accorded). This institutional comparison enables several relevant features of the State to be emphasised; for example, how, as the Church used to, the State assigns to itself many very extensive powers, such as a monopoly on the production and control of the main medium of exchange, currency, and an ultimate monopoly on organised violence, all other internal security arrangements being eventually answerable to its police, and thence to its officers and military; how it is of the same category as business organisations such as multinationals, which now to some extent threaten it but by and large collaborate with it; how, as again the Church used to, it has nominal support of most of its 'subjects', though many of them are little better than Sunday believers, and an increasing number have come to see the State as in many respects evil and inevitably corrupt, but as a necessary evil. It is easy now, in retrospect, to see how from being a compulsory feature of social life in many places, the Church has become a voluntary, and fragmented one; such a parallel desirable transformation of the State would eliminate it. Whether the State is inevitably evil or not, it is so it will be argued, in a way parallelling the famous Five Ways of Aquinas designed to prove that God exists. That is, much as there are several ways of arguing to the existence of God, assembled by Aquinas into the famous (but not exhaustive, and invariably invalid) Five Ways, as well as various less famous but also important arguments against the existence of God, so in a parallel fashion there are various arguments that the State is required, as well as, what comes later that is especially relevant for anarchism, several ways of arguing against the necessity and desirability of the State. Since the State is unnecessary, as well as costly and typically at least evil in many of its practices and in other respects, it should be superseded. And it can be succeeded, by alternative social arrangements. It can be superseded or replaced as the Churches to a .9*1 large extent been supeyuated or replaced in many places. Just as the power of the ChurchAas declined until it has lost its authority over parishioners, so authority of the State can be undermined, and it can lose recognition and its claim to sovereignty over those in its territory,/A But there is a crucial difference between State and Church: under those conditions the State vanishes; for authority backed by coercive power is essential to the State but not (any longer) to the Church. And where the State differs crucially from Society anarchistically organised is as to the matter of coercion and of authority back^by force, such a Society relying basically on voluntary cooperation where the State relies on authority backed by force. Furthermore, the Church is justified through a religious theory, and is backed up ultimately by appeal to God's authority. The modern secular State by contrast annexes itself authority (or has simply inherited it) and, though it may claim to be justified by some political theory which confers upon it legitimacy, makes no appeal back to a justifying or authorizing agent. So what justifies it? Briefly, nothing does. * The First Way of Showing that the State is not Required: t&e Argument. / �6 The core of the argument is simple and persuasive: everything in the collective interest accomplished by the State can equally be accomplished by alternative arrangements such as voluntary cooperation, the remainder of State activity being dispensed with. The argument is not a straight substitution argument, for it is not as if a rational person would want to have everything accomplished by the State replicated by alternative arrangements. There is much the State does or supports that is at best rather indifferent, for instance, sponsorship of pomp and ceremony and of junkets by VIP's; and a great deal of typical State activity is positively evil and not in the collective interest, for instance, graft, corruption, brutality, maintenance of inequitable distribution of wealth, land and other resources, and encouragement; of protection^ of polluting or qvironmentally destructive industries (e.g. without state sponsorship we should not be well embarked on a nuclear future, without state assistance and subsidization Australia would not be burdened with its extensive forest-destructive pine planting and woodchip projects). The modern State has however many other functions than repressive or damaging ones, functions of community welfare or of otherwise beneficial kind. This does not upset the replacement argument for anarchism. The argument, implicit in the works of the classical anarchists, goesjike this: The functions of the State can be divided into two types, those that are in the collective interest and generally beneficial such as community welfare and organisational functions, and those that are not (but are, presumably, in the interests of some of the powerful groups the State tends to serve). But as regards functions of the first type, the generally beneficial functions which are in the collecdve interest, no coercion is required. For why should people have to be coerced into carrying out functions which are in their collective interest? Such functions can be performed, and performed better, without the coercion which is the hallmark of the State, and without the accompanying tendency of the State to pervert such functions to the maintenance of privilege and inequality of power, and to remove power from those it 'serves'. The detailed argument that such functions can be performed takes a case-by-case form considering each function in turn.3 In each case the function is carried out through alternative arrangements, such as voluntary co-operation by the people directly concerned, which replace State arrangements. Consider, for example, the operation of mutual aid or self help medical services, or community access communications (e.g. radio), most of which are presently either starved of infrastucture or hindered by the State. Such beneficial services would in general be reorganised so that all the relevant infrastructure became communally held, and That is, proper elaboration of this argument takes each facet of generally beneficial state activity - there is only a (relatively small) finite number to consider - and shows how it can be replaced in one way or another. Replacement is not of course uniquely determined. Lines such replacements can take are indicated in much anarchist (and self-management) literature, consider especially, but no, uncritically, P. Kropootkin, MMfMai Aid, New York University Press 1972, and also his Fi^/dy, Faci<?rie.y and WorLyAo/w, second edition, Nelson, London, 1913, and 77te Con<?Me.yf o/Brgad. Chapman and Hall, London, 1913. �7 those wishing to arrange or use the service would manage the operation themselves, taking the operation into their own hands instead of being the passive recipients of favours meted out to them by professionals and powerful agencies. Coercion is unnecessary because, in more communal types of anarchism, the basic infrastructure and many resources (other than individual labour) are already held by the community, so there is no need to apply coercion to individuals to extract these resources needed for community welfare projects, as there is in the situation where wealth and resources are privatised and coercion is required to wrest resources from unwilling private individuals. As for the second type of functions, those which are no? in the collective interest, coercion will normally be required for the performance of functions, and is thus an essential part of the State's operation. But those functions are better dispensed with, since they are not in the collective interest. In this way, while the good part of the state's operation is retained and improved upon, the bad part — especially the evils of brutality, corruption and other abuses invariably associated with the coercive apparatus - is detached. State services that are concerned with orr/gr, in the general sense, may be similarly removed or replaced. These services, which include reduction of violence to persons and redress for such violence, quarantine services, security, orderly operation of traffic, and so on, have often been said to make for especial difficulties for anarchism, or even to refute it. They do not. Firstly, disputes can be settled and offences dealt with directly by communities themselves without intervention by the State. Secondly, a great many of these problems are created or enhanced by the State, e.g. violence of which the State is the main purveyor and which is often the outcome of the State's propping up of gross inequalitiesA A community which seriously limits (or dispenses with) the institution of private property and removes gross inequalities in the distribution of wealth thereby removes the need for many "welfare services and the basis for a great many offences involving violence: virtually all those involving violence to private property and many of those involving personal violence. Such a left-leaning anarchism is also quite invulnerable to further familiar, but ludicrous, arguments for the State, such as those based on the fairer distribution of land, property and wealth allegedly achieved by State enforcement of redistribution. As all too many people are aware, a major function of the State is to maintain and police inequitable distribution. This then is the main classical argument for anarchism. The argument has however been challenged, both by historical and more recent objections, which are designed to show that people cannot act in their collective interest without coercion. On these points see, e.g. 7?6wZMZz'a/zary Pawp/z/^tj (edited S. Baldwin), Kover Publications, New York, 1970, p.206ff.; also P.J. Proudhon, Cazz/e^jza/M' a/* a R^va/azza/zary. For recent discussion of, and practical examples of, replacements for arbitration and law court procedures (Zzaz for right-leaning anarchism), see C.D. Stone, Sawg <?H arhZzrazZag oar way ra anarcAy, Anarchism (reprint of Nomos XIX) New York University Press, 1978, pp.213- s �8 It is from the simulation argument, in particular, that the corollary of the q/ will follow? For, to overstate the case, anything the State can do that does reflect sought collective interests,, cooperation and other techniques can also achieve in the longer run, and mostly better. * The Second Way: The argument from problem recurrence. The solution by the State to problems of social organisation repeats or generates in more dangerous form the very real problems introduction of the State was designed to solve, including new Dilemmas. Suppose, for instance, the secular State really introduced in order to solve Prisoners' Dilemmas, then the array of States so resulting generates new Prisoners' Dilemmas (with States as 'prisoners'), which there is no Super-State to resolve by coercion. In fact, as opposed to State-justifying mythology, the modem secular State was not introduced (just as the original states were not initiated) for any such apparently intellectually reputable reasons, but was largely inherited from the religious State (and the Church) and maintained to prop up privilege and foster objectives that are not in its communities' interests. Or suppose, as the myth also has it, that the State really were introduced, or contracted, in the interest of order and stability and to curb violence; then the array of States resulting more than negates these advantages, with instability, disorder and violence (e.g. between States) on a grander scale than before the emergence of modern secular States? * The Third Way: The overshoot argument, from the inadequacy of institutional controls on state power. Having ceded a monopoly of power of the State in order to resolve some dilemmas, some of them arising from an inequitable distribution of power, what controls or balances the power of the State? A Super-State. And its power? There is a vicious infinite regress if the reply to the question 'What controls the controller?' is 'a further controller'? The only promising way of avoiding this problem — other routes lead (even more) directly to totalitarianism — is by having the first of these controllers, the State, answer back to those in whose interests it is allegedly established, those of the society or group of communities it controls. This implies democratic methods of some kind. Others go further: 'democracy [is] the only known means to achieve this control, the only known device by which we can try to The title of a joint paper upon which several of these sections draw^. The argument, to be found in Bakunin, is elaborated a little in Taylor, op cif, chapter 7. A related argument, also in Bakunin, is from the way in which emergence of the State compromises and even closes off nonstate solutions to problems of social organisation in adjoining regions. Several historical examples of this phenomenon are alluded to in M. Harris, and Ajngj, Collins, London. 1978, where it is also revealed how little the actual origin and rise of the State had to do with Dilemma situations, e.g. escaping a Hobbesian state of nature. Indeed, it was (j^th the advent and development of the State that life became for many what it had not apparently been in pre-State neolithic times, 'nasty, brutish and short'. The question is in effect Plato's question and the regress is reminiscent of his Third Man argument. �9 protect ourselves against the misuse of political power'.R In this event, control has mostly failed. Democracy is extremely attentuated, even in those states that claim to practice it. The exercise of power in modem 'democratic' states is often channelled through 'non-elected authority' and 'is not democratic in the traditional meaning of the term'.9 Moreover, the much increased power in the modern State, which reaches deep into people's lives, has passed, with no increase in legitimacy, to certain managerial elites who present the power as directed at the attainment of 'generally accepted' objectives such as economic growth (but through, e.g., increased military expenditure) or material 'progress' (but through, e.g., increased military expenditure) or material 'progress' (but through, e.g. subsidization of environmentally destructive enterprises of off-shore companies), though the acceptability of such particular objectives is never democratically tested. In any case, indirect democratic and other institutional checks are in as much as they depend ultimately on the toleration of those who have direct control of the forces of the State. Experience seems to show that such toleration will only be shown so long as democratic procedures deliver results that are not too disagreeable, that are broadly in accord iwth what those who control the coercive power are prepared to accept. (Toleration of such a tamed democracy then brings benefits to those who hold power, especially the cover of legitimation). But institutional checks which operate only insofar as a system acceptable to the powerholders is not seriously challenged, and which depend ultimately upon the toleration of those 'checked', are not really checks at all. The problem of controlling the power of the State and preventing the State once established from usurping further power and exceeding its mandate, is only solved by not ceding power to the State in the first place. The best way of avoiding the evils of accumulated power is the anarchist way, of blocking its accumulation. * The Fourth Way: The argument from freedom and autonomy. A person is responsible for actions deliberately undertaken. This premise can be derived, if need be, from the notion of a person as a moral agent. Taking responsibility for one's actions implies, among other things, making the final decision about what to do on each such occasion oneself; not acting on direction from outside, but determining how to act, what ought to be done, oneself; not handing that decision over to someone or something else. It implies, that is, moral autonomy. Autonomy in turn implies what responsibility requires, freedom. For the autonomous being, endorsing its own decisions and principles, is K.R. Popper, 77ie (?/?<?/i 5*<9c;'<?ry and Vol. II. Fourth edition (revised), Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1962, p.129 and p.127. The (overshoot) problem is, according to Popper 'the most fundamental problem of all politics: the control of the controller, of the dangerous accumulation of power represented in teh State' 'upon which' Marxists never had 'any wellconsidered view' (p.129). V. Lauber, Eco/ogy, po/ZzZcj and Zz&emZ ^efwocracy, Government and Opposition, 13 (1978), 199-217: seep.209 and p.211. �10 not subject to the will of another. Even if it does what another directs, it is not another so directs. In being free, nof of constraints (both physical and self-determined), but of the constraints and will of others, an autonomous being is morally free. A necessary feature of the State is (XMf/ionry over those in its territory (under its de facto jurisdiction), the right to rule and impose its will uon them. Such authority backed by force is incompatible with moral autonomy and with freedom. An autonomous being, though it may act in accordance with some imperatives of the State, those it independently endorses, is bound to reject such (a claim to) authority, and therewith the State. In sum, being a person, as also being autonomous and being free, implies rejecting the authority of the State, and so not acknowledging the State; that is, each condition on personhood implies, if the argument is sound, anarchism, io It is possible to combine autonomy with an extremely attenuated 'State', one based on on-going unanimous direct democracy. But such a 'State', with no independent authority, is not really a state, since any participant can dissolve it at any time, and so constitutes no threat to anarchism. On the contrary, such direct democratic methods are part of the very stuff of anarchistic organisation. * The Fifth Way: The argument from anarchistic experience. The replacement argument enables construction of a model of a society functioning without the State, of a practically possible Stateless world; which shows that the State is not necessary. But it can always be - even if the claim can seldom or ever be made good - that the modelling leaves out some crucial feature of real world circumstances, rendering it inapplicable. The gap may be closed by appeal to the independently valuable argument from experience, that at various times and places anarchism has been tested and has rworked. Examples of such Stateless organisation suffice to show that crucial real world features have not been omitted. There are many examples of non-industrialised societies which were, or are, anarchistic, there is the rich experience of the Spanish collectives,n and there is much localised experience of self-management and small-scale anarchistic arrangements within the State structure. 12 The argument, outlined by Bakunin, is much elaborated, but in a very individualistic and Kantian fashion, in R.P. Wolff, 7% of A/iarc/H-sw, Harper & Row, New York, 1970. No argument is without assumptions, which are open to dispute. Wolffs argument, from which the argument in the text is adapted, has its pitfalls, and is, for example, disputed by G. Wall, P/uZo-yop/wcaZ revi\yg<7, Anarchism, op.cit. p.273ff. Documented in 77ze 1974. Co/Zecfiv&y (edited S. Dolgoff), Free Life Editions New York As B. Martin boldly asserts, 'The advantages of self-management and alternative lifestyles �11 The state is far from necessary and iacks adequate justification. The state is not a self-justifying object. But none of the justificatory arguments to the state are cogent. A familiar theme, conceding that the state is a problematic object, is that the state is a necessary evil. 13 But, to the contrary, states, though generally evil, are hardly necessary. It needs stressing, furthermore, how weak any necessity claimed has to be. For it is becoming increasingly easy, with the advances in logical modellings and computer simulations of other worlds, virtual states and the like, to envisage accessible worlds organised without modern states. As such worlds, inhabited by humans or human-like creatures are possible, states are not necessary. No doubt then, the necessity has to be of some more andpr^m^Jc sort, a "social human necessity" for example appealing to emergent features of humans, kinks of human nature, obtruding in unfavourable situations of high concentrations and extensive scarcity (situations that states themselves have, like many survival systems, helped contrive). Further the necessity has to be relative to certain organisational objectives, such as a particular state delivery of collective goods and services. Remarkably, none of the extant arguments to the state make it plain that such a weak pragmatic relative "necessity" is indicated, though they would hardly establish more, and though they Jo make strong (implausible) assumptions about the brutal situation outside states, in states-of-nature and so on, and about human motivation and practice, its utterly selfish, self-interested and acquisitive, and frequently debased character (i.e. what appears encouraged under economic rationalism, and pretty much what many have come to expect under conditions of advanced capitalism). Mostly no effort is made any longer, outside a few abstruse texts, to justify the state. Within contemporary institutional arrangement it is simply taken for granted (like Big Science), as axiomatic, as God was under medieval arrangements. But unlike God, who was good personified and therefore had a large problem with the extent of evil in the world, the state is acknowledged as problematic and far from unimplicated in the evil of the world (but directly engaged therein when the councils of the many Machievellis are heeded). Such a problematic object cannot stand up as merely postulated. Nor is there a corresponding ontological argument for the state, as that organisational structure than which nothing more are many and significant. And these alternatives are entirely feasible: there is plenty of evidence and experience to support their superiority over the present way society operates. The obstacles to self-management and alternative lifestyles are powerful vested interests and institutional resistance to change', C/zanging f/x? C<%f, Friends of the Earth, Canberra, 1979. p.6. 13 The theme, enunciated for instance by Popper, that * state power must always remain a dangerous though necessary evil' (II, p.30) is a commonplace one. �12 perfect can exist. Outside the flawed imagination of German idealists there is no such Super State; all actual states are manifestly highly imperfect, all humanly realisable ones are likely similar. As a result of the institutionalisation of the state itself, as a received and indeed central part of modern political arrangements, the onus of proof has become curiously inverted. Efforts to justify the state have become fairly ideal and academic, no longer a serious issue, and onus transferred to anarchists to demonstrate that human social life could proceed well and smoothly (as it now does, of course) without states. While anarchists are not absolved from offering some account of operations of good social lives without states (for, except in fairy tales, it does not all just emerge, unplanned, in the new stateless setting), neither are archists absolved from justification of de facto statist arrangements, beginning with the state itself. �4 a ARCrpM&^S-. The main argument for anarchism can be concentrated in a detailed critique of the state, therewithal state-like institutions a/t? %/ro /j /< 7 ) c /A—Zb n X! ct A<$ Anarchist critiques of the state advance the following themes: * States and state-like institutions are without satisfactory justification. * Such institutions are not required for organisational purposes. * Such institutions have most inharmonious consequences; they bring a whole series of social and environmental bungles or evils in their train. In brief, they are unnecessary unjustified evils The anarchist critique does not end there, but typically includes.'further themes/ such as : w States are devices for channelling privilege and wealth to certain minorities with inside , �The state is an undesirable, or even downright evii, institution, for the following range of reasons:- * States entrench inequities, domination and exploitation. States are devices for the protection of wealth, property and privilege, and usually for the redistribution upwards, and often concentration, of wealth and privilege. A minor but popular illustration is offered by the expensive conferences and other junkets that state employees or party officials organise for themselves and manage to bill to state revenue, in turn sucked up from inequitable taxation. Certainly a main historical outcome of the state has been domination of exploitation of certain segments of society by others, and some see its main, and barely concealed, purpose as just that: domination and exploitation. ) * States are typically corrupt. For example, there are enquiries presently in train, or with follow-through activities yet to be duly completed, in many states in Australia, enquires which have revealed considerable corruption, and there are prima facie cases for similar enquiries in most of the remainder. Nor is this a new phenomenon: these revelations often resemble older or on-going scandals. * States are enormously expensive, and constitute a heavy drain upon regional resources, and accordingly on local environments. In poorer regions they are not merely a heavy burden, but a main cause of impoverishment. One reason for their voracious appetite is an excess of over­ remunerated and often under-productive state employees. Another connected reason is that many state operations are far from lean and efficient, but incorporate many duplications, drag factors and dead weight. Under anarchisms, of all varieties, these heavy cost burdens, weighing down subservient populaces, would be shed. Costs of organisation would be very significantly reduced. * States are major impositions on everyday life. They are intrusive and demanding^. As a Never has this been more forcefully expressed than in Proudhon's famous denouncement of state government: ^1/7^ To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first world of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality (quoted in M p.6). �result, there are constant demands for the reduction of the cancerous state, for removing parts of it through deregulation, selling off state enterprises and so on. There are two troubles with such demands from anarchist standpoints: they never go far enough, to the complete reduction of the state to zero, but characteristically retain parts supportive of or favourable to bigger business, and they proceed in the wrong way, stripping away social safety nets rather than ripping off business support nets (such as limited liability, strike limitation legislation, etc.). * States, for all that they have been promoted as delivering public goods, are mostly dismal news for environmental protection and health and for social justice. Furthermore they are liable to impose substantial hazards or risks upon subservient populations not merely through military and like activities but, more insidious, through support and promotion of dangerous industries, such as nuclear and giant chemical industries. * Statetusually exert a heavy pressure to uniformity, they tend to eliminate plurality and cultural differences. These pressures are exercised by a state in the alleged interests of national unity, and against its enemies, external and internal. Even the most liberal of states tend to give minorities more difficult lives in times of stress, such as war. They are always espousing national values, state interests, and commonly assimilation and adoption of state values (thus for example Canada, formerly and briefly a state toying with multiculturalism, now insistent upon "Canadian values"). Such exercises are conspicuous, not only in citizen ceremonies and other state rituals, such as national sporting and religious events, but more important are virtually ubiquitous in elementary education (down to deference to the f la , and similar). * States are a major source of wars, and the major source of major wars, undoubted evils (however supposedly inevitable). They are major sources and suppliers of military technology and weapons, the means of war. Roughly, the more powerful and "advanced" a state, the further it is engaged in weapon production and export. Without states it is doubtful that there would be any nuclear weapons, and accordingly there would be no prospect of nuclear wars as there would be no weapons with which to fight them. * States are a serious drag on a more satisfactory international order. That there are not more, and more satisfactory, international regulatory organisations 'is mainly a matter of the reluctance of nation states to surrender their powers and the dangers of their being dominated by very powerful states. If only nation states would be dissolved into specialized [departments] there is every reason to believe that most world problems could be handled by appropriate specialized �[organisations]' (Burnheimp.221). * States have excessive power, and are even accumulating or trying to accumulate more, for (hT) instance through more centralization, further controls, additional licences, etc., etc. Obvious responses to excessive power are separation of powers, achieved by decoupling and some fragmentation, limitation of powers, and so on. States thus appear farTrom a good bargain on a preliminary consideration of costs, Especially bad states, the run of states, which engage in politically-motivated incun-ation or t.ifure of their citizens, and so on. Where are the compensating benefits?' yven that we can get along without them, would we really be significantly worse off without them? Even in the better cases (not allowing for alternative nonstatist arrangements which states have precluded or systems they have usurped)? But arguments for states are not usually so directly utilitarian in character. Such arguments would make it look as if we might well opt out of state organisation, and often be better off doing so. Mat it is contended that, contrary to appearances, we cannot get along without state cossetting: states are necessary. , *?: - Present monolithic governments have assumed far too many roles, for many of which they are not competent, from some of which they are disqualified by other roles (e.g. as impartial referees by their business commitments). Because the centre tries to do and control top much, as a consequence it does very much unsatisfactorily. Improved arrangements would separate these roles, deconcentrating and decentralizing power. wcef- �/%^2^ /\^^ 1 C 4 Z Z^-^7 �W GW, //?(? C/7//A /7, jWr f/7(? 3/(7/d The State is like God: the anarchist is like the atheist in disbelief and nonrecognition of what is commonly assumed, mostlv as a matter of faith, to be needed. T)ie pafatlel, BakummTtlibjat^weaknessessas well as Rs strengt%^.''^Vhiie the atheist believes that God does not exist, the anarchist does not believe that there are no states: on the contrary, there are all too many, though none are legitimate. The impor­ tant parallel is as to arguments. The agnostic does not believe that the arguments for the existence of God suc­ ceed, and so adopts a 'neutral' stance; similarly the State-agnostic does not believe that the arguments for the State work, and likewise tries to adopt a fence­ sitting position. Soundly based atheism goes further than agnosticism, not only faulting the argumentsybr, but takingdt for granted that there are arguments, or at least solid considerations, rzgm/ry/. So it is with soundly based anarchism; <t both fault) arguments for the r" 3tatuce- a case against the State. A more obvious comparison, ap­ preciated from Reformation on and again emphasised bvBakunin,' is that of State and Church^ This institutional comparison enables several relevant features of the State to be emphasised; for example, how, as the Church used to, the State assigns to itself many very extensive powers, such as a monopoly on the production and control of the main medium of exchange, currency, and an ultimate monopoly on organised violence, all other internal security arrangernggt^)eing eventually answerable to its pdhee and military^; how it is of the same category as business organisations such as multinationals, which now to some extent threaten it but by and large collaborate with it; how, as again the Church used to, it has nominal support of most of its 'subjects', though many of them are little better than Sunday believers, and an increasing number have come to see the State as in many This does not upset the replacement respects evil and inevitably corrupt, but argument for anarchism. The argument, as a necessary evil.^) implicit in the works of the classical Whether the State is inevitably evil or anarchists, goes like this: The functions not, it is M/mecas-wry, so it will be of the State can be divided into two argued, in a wav parallelling the famous types, those that are in the collective in­ jVquinas designed to prove terest and generally beneficial such as that God exi^&^Since the State is un­ community welfare and organisational necessary, as welt as costly and typically functions, and those that are not (but at leas! evil in many of its practices and are, presumably, in the interests of some undesirable in other respects, it should of the powerful groups the State tends to be superseded. And it can be succeeded, serve). by alternative social arrangements, But as regards functions of the first type, the generally beneficial functions gg 77^ /7r.v/ IWj Q/ SbotWg which are in the collective interest, no coercion is required. For why should /r7t?/ //?C S/t//^ Ay ,76)/ 7?^T//7W.' people have to be coerced into carrying //!f /?e/)GcT/77^?7/ WRM/W7/. out functions which are in their collec­ tive interest? Such functions can be per­ The core of the argument is simple formed, and performed better, without and persuasive: everything in the collec- the coercion which is the hallmark of the tive interest accomplished by the State State, and without the accompanying can equally be accomplished by alterna­ tendency of the State to pervert such tive arrangements such as voluntary co­ functions to the maintenance of privilege operation, the remainder of State activi­ and inequality of power, and to remove ty being dispensed with. The argument is power from those it 'serves'. The detail­ not a straight substitution argument, for ed argument that such functions can be it is not as if a rational person would performed takes a case by case form, want to have everything accomplished considering each function in turn7 In by the State replicated by alternative each case the function is carried out arrangements. There is much the State through alternative arrangements, such does or supports that is at best rather in­ different, ^"'sponsorship of pomp and as voluntary co-operation by the people directly concerned, which replace State ceremony and of junkets by VIPs; and a arrangements. Consider, for example, great deal of typical State activity is the operation of mutual aid or self help positively evil and not in the collective medical services or building programs, interest,'e^. gral^t, corruption, brutality, or self managed welfare, housing or en­ maintenance of inequitable distribution vironment services, or community access of wealth, land and other resources, and communications (e.g. radio), most of encouragement of protection of polluting or environmentally destructive industries (e.g. without state sponsorship we should not be well embarked on a nuclear future, without state assistance and subsidization Australia would not be burdened with its extensive forest­ destructive pine planting and woodchip projects). The modern State has however many other functions than repressive or damaging ones, functions of community welfare or of otherwise beneficial kind. �which are presently either starved of infrastructure or hindered by the State. Such beneficia! services would in genera! be reorganised so that ah the relevant infrastructure became communaHy heid, and those wishing to arrange or use the service wou!d manage the operation themselves, taking the operation into their own hands instead of being the passive recipients of favours meted out to them by professional and powerful agencies. Coercion is unnecessary because, in more communal types of anarcnism, the basic infrastructure and many resources (other than individual labour) are already held by the com­ munity, sdthereis no need to apply coer­ cion to individuals to extract these resources needed for community welfare projects, as there is in the situation where wealth and resources are privatis­ ed and coercion is required to wrest resources from unwilling private in­ dividuals. As for the second type of functions, those which are /tor in the collective in­ terest, coercion will normally be required for the performance of //tew functions, and is thus an essentia! part of the State's operation. But those functions are better dispensed with, since they are not in the coHective interest. !n this way, while the good part of the State's operation is re­ tained and improved upon, the bad part — especially the evils of brutality, corruption and other abuses invariabty associated with the coercive apparatus — is detached. State services that are concerned with orjpr, in the genera! sense, may be similarly removed or replaced. These services, which include reduction of violence to persons and redress for such violence, quarantine services, security, orderly operation of traffic, and so on, have often been said to make for especial difficulties for anarchism, or even to refute it. They do not. Firstly, disputes can be settled and offences dealt with directly by communities themselves without intervention by the State. Secondly, a great many of these pro­ blems are created or enhanced by the State, e.g. violence of which the State is the main purveyor and which is often the outcome of the State's propping up of gross inequalities? A community which seriously limits (or dispenses with) the in­ stitution of private property and removes gross inequalities in the distribution of wealth thereby removes the need for many 'welfare' services and the basis for a great many offences in­ volving violence: virtually ail those in­ volving violence to private property and many of those involving personal violence. Such a left-leaning anarchism is also quite invulnerable to further familiar, but ludicrous, arguments for the State, such as those based on the fairer distribution of land, property and wealth allegedly achieved by State en­ forcement of redistribution. As all too many people are aware, a major func­ tion of the State is to maintain and police inequitable distribution. This then is the main classical argu­ ment for anarchism. The argument has however been challenged, both by historical and more recent objections, which are designed to show that people cannot act in their collective interest without coercion. �7./ NOTES 14. [5. 16. oK !. Bakunin on Anarchy (edited S. Dolgofl), Allen & LJnwin, London, (973, especially p.139. Much else in this paper, eg. the distinction between the State and Society, also derives from Bakunin. 2. That is, proper elaboration of this argument takes each facet of generally beneficial state activity — there is only a (relatively small) finite number to consider — and shows how it can be replaced in one way or another. Replacement is not of course uniquely deter­ mined. Lines such replacements can take are indicated in much anarchist (and self management) literature, consider especially, but no/ uncritically, P. Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, New York University Press, 1972, and also his Fields. Factories and Workshops, second edition, Nelson, London, 1913, and the Conquest of Bread, Chapman and Hall, London, 1913. 3. On these points see, e.g. Kropotkin's Revolu­ tionary Pamphlets (edited S. Baldwin), Dover Publications, New York, 1970, p.206 ff.; also P.J. Proudhon, Confessions of a Revolu­ tionary. For recent discussion of, and practical examples of, replacements for arbitration and law court procedures (6td for right-leaning anarchism), see C D. Stone, Some re/?ec//on.s on o/Tn/rohng our way /o anarc/ty * Anarchism (reprint of Nomos XIX) New York University Press, 1978, pp.213^4. The argument, to be found in Bakunin, is elaborated a littic in Taylor, op.cit., chapter 7. A related argument, also in Bakunin, is from the way in which emergence of the State com promises and even closes off nonstate solu­ tions to problems of social organisation in ad­ joining regions. Several historical examples of this phenomenon are alluded to in M. Harris, Cannibals and Kings, Collins, London. 1978. where it is also revealed how little the actual origin and rise of the State had to do with Dilemma situations, e.g. escaping a Hobbesian state of nature. Indeed, it was with the advent and development of the State that life became for many what it had not apparently been in prc-State neolithic times, 'nasty, brutish and short'. The question is m effect Plato's question, and the regress is reminiscent of his Third Man argument. K.R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Yol.iL Fourth edition (revised), Routledge and Kegan Paul. London. 1962, p.129 and p.127. The (overshoot) problem ts. according to Popper 'the most fundamental problem of all politics: the control of the con­ troller. of the dangerous accumulation of power represented in the State' 'upon which' Marxists never had view' (p. 129). 'any well-considered 17. V. Lauber. /co/o^y, po/t/tes an<7 hbera/ r/emocracv. Government and Opposition. 13 (1978), 199-217: see p.2O9 and p.211. 18. The argument, outlined by Bakunin, is much elaborated, but tn a very individualistic and Kantian fashion, tn R.P. Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism, Harper & Row, New York. 1970. No argument is without assumptions, which are open to dispute. Wolff's argument, from which the argument in the text is adapted, has its pitfalls, and is, for example, disputed by G. Wall. P/b/o.sop/hca/ awc/n.sw re row/, Anarchism, op.cit. p.273ff. 19. Documented in The Anarchist Cotiectives (edited S. Dolgoff), Free Life Editions, New York. 1974. 20. As B. Martin boldly asserts, 'The advantages of self-management and alternative lifestyles are many and significant. And these alter­ natives are entirely feasible: there is plenty of evidence and experience to support their superiority over the present way society operates. The obstacles to self-management and alternative lifestyles are powerful vested interests and institutional resistance to change', ( hanging the Cogs, Friends of the Earth, Canberra, 1979, p.6. �ANARCHISM - ENLARGED j ____________ foundations* There is a theological component in the theory of the ^tate;.the weakness af^whieh should be brought out. A A By contrast, anarchism ^.s approached from an argument pe^p^ctive, of considerable streng strength^ Since the &tate is an imposed structure that induces considerable costs, the onus of proof is moreover on the State side. (The State versus states: r instantiate the universal.) 2. they Circled numbers hereafter refer to insert places in elder working version. In §1:- (^ In several respects the comparison is better than that of the State and God, since both belong to the same category, institutions. /cc Thus both have looked to some philosophers as human inventions or artifices, both have looked to others (reductionists) as objects that could be reduced to features of the individuals involved in their organisation (but it is hard to see why such fictions or logical constructions should be assigned the power and deference they are accorded). 0 It can be superseded, or replaced^ as the Church has to a large, ^in many places. extent been Just as the power of the Church has declined until it has lost its authority over parishioners, so authority of the State can be undermined, and it can lose recognition and its claim to jAu&h^rit^ over those in its territory. But there is a crucial difference between State and Church: under those condit­ ions the State vanishes, for authority backs!by coercive power is essential to the State but not (any longer) to the Church. from Society anarchistically organised And where the State differs crucially is as to the matter of coercion and of authority backed by force, such a society relying basically on voluntary cooper­ ation where the State relies on authority backed by force. Furthermore, the Church is justified through a religious theory, and is backed up ultimately by appeal to God's authority. The modern secular State by contrast annexes itself J �A 2. itself authority (or has simply inherited it) and, though it may claim to be justified by some political th(o^ry which confers upon it legitimacy, makes no appeal back to a justifying or authorizing <3<^e.nt. So what justifies it? 2^.^ These sorts of considerations prompt two connected complaints of the anarch- ist, which have never been satisfactorily met, the agnostic's complaint that the State has no adequate justification - the arguments for its imposition or certain action fail - and the stronger complaint that the State is not necessary at all. These complaints are backed by arguments and further arguments, namely an assess) ment of arguments. These arguments are important, not, or not merely, because they will show, if unsuccessful, that anarchism j^s irrefutable, but because they convey muqh information, e.g. as to the weak (to the point of vacuity) sense in which the State is "necessary", because they do much to determine the general 0^ logical shape of the anarchism that results, and because they indicate routes to anarchism, not merely why but, to some extent, how the State can be superseded by a Society anarchistically organised. t pfuch as there are several ways of arguing to the existence of God, assembled by Aquinas into the famous (but not exhaustive, and invariably invalid) Five Ways, and various less famous but also important arguments against the existence of God, apcni&Igs , (jAtb so there are various arguments that the State is required, and^ especially —-2 relevant for anarchism^, several ways of arguing against the necessity of the State. is from the simulation argument, in particular, that the irrefutibj.lity of Ai) anarchism will follow^ anything the State can do that does reflect the collective interests A/. A74 cooperation.can also do in the long-run, and mostly better. [Over- i ��g T7/E SECOAD X 777E /1RGGA7EATFROM PROEEEM RECGRREyVCE. The solution by the State to problems of social organisation repeats or generates in more dangerous form the very real problems introduction of the State was designed to solve, inciuding new Diiemmas. Suppose, for instance, the secular State realty were introduced in order to soive Prisoners' Dilemmas, then the array of States so resulting generates new Prisoners' Ditemmas (with States as 'prisoners'), which there is no Super-State to resotve by coercion. In fact, as opposed to State-justifying mythology, the modern secutar State was not introduced (just as the originat States were not initiated) for any such apparentty intellectually reputable reasons, but was targety inherited from che religious State (and the Church) and Jiaintained to prop up privitege and foster objectives that are not in its com­ munities' interests. Or suppose, as the myth atso has it, that the State reaity were introduced, or contracted, in the interest of order and stability and to curb violence; then the array of States resuming more than negates these advan­ tages, with instability, disorder and viotence (e.g. between States) on a grander scale than before the emergence of modern secutar States."* S 77/E 77//RD HA1 Y. RHE (9 YERSEOGE /IRGt/MEAE FROM EE/E /A/(/9E()G^CY GE /AF77EG77GA74E CGA7RGES GA A7MEE PG^ER Having ceded a monopoty of power J) the State in order to resotve some diiemmas, some of them arising from an inequitable distribution of power, what controts or batances the power of the State? A Super-State. And its power? There is a vicious infinite regress if the repty to the question 'What controts the controtter?' is 'a further controller'A The onty promising way of avoiding this problem — other routes tead (even 1 more) directty to totaiitarianism — is by having the first of these controllers, the State, answer back to those in whose in­ terests it is aitegediy estabtished, those of the society or group of communities it controts. This implies democratic methods of some kind. Others go fur­ ther: 'democracy (is] the onty known means to achieve this control, the onty known device by which we can try to protect oursetves against the misuse of pohtica! power'.'* In this event, control has mostty failed. Democracy is ex­ tremely attenuated, even in those states that claim to practice it. The exercise of power in modern 'democratic' states is often channelled through 'non-elected authority' and 'is not democratic in the traditional meaning of the term'E Moreover, the much increased power in the modern State, which reaches deep in­ to people's lives, has passed, with no in­ crease in legitimacy, to certain managerial elites who present the power as directed at the attainment of 'general­ ly accepted' objectives such as economic growth (but through, e.g.', increased military expenditure) or materia! 'pro­ gress' (but through, e.g. subsidization of environmentally destructive enterprises of off-shore companies), though the ac­ ceptability of such particular objectives is never democratically tested. In any case, indirect democratic and other institutional checks are /em/OMS in as much as they depend uttimately on the toleration of those who have direct con­ trol of the forces of the State. Experience seems to show that such toleration wit! only be shown so long as democratic procedures deliver results that are not too disagreeable, that are broadly in ac­ cord with what those who control the coercive power are prepared to accept. (Toleration of such a tamed democracy then brings benefits to those who hold power, especially the cover of legitima­ tion). But institutional checks which operate only insofar as a system accep­ table to the powerholders is not seriously challenged, and which depend ultimately upon the toleration of those 'checked', 39 EE/E FGGR 777 Y. EE/E ARGGMEA?^ FRGA7 EREEDGA7 ^lAD^l GEGAGAf Y. A person is responsible for actions deliberately undertaken. This premise can be derived, if need be, from the notion of a person as a moral agent. Taking responsiblity for one's actions implies, among other things, making the final decision about what to do on each such occasion oneself; not acting on direction from outside, but determin­ ing how to act, what ought to be done, oneself; not handing that decision over to someone or something else. It implies, that is, moral autonomy. Autonomy in turn implies, what responsibility re­ quires, freedom. For the autonomous being, endorsing its own decisions and principles, is not subject to the will of another. Even if it does what another directs, it is not /yeemzse another so directs. In being free, no/ of constraints (both physical and self-determined), but of the constraints and will of others, an autonomous being is morally free. A necesary feature of the State is <7H//io,7/y over those in its territory (under its de facto jurisdiction), the right to rule and impose its will upon them. Such authority backed by force is incom­ patible with moral autonomy and with freedom. An autonomous being, though it may act in accordance with some im­ peratives of the State, those it in­ dependently endorses, is bound to reject such (a claim to) authority, and therewith the State. In sum, being a per­ son, as also being autonomous and being free, implies rejecting the authority of the State, and so not acknowledging the State; that is, each condition on per­ sonhood implies, if the argument is sound, anarchism.'* It is possible to combine autonomy with an extremely attenuated 'State', one based on on-going unanimous direct democracy. But such a 'State', with no independent authority, is not really a state, since any participant can dissolve it at any time, and so constitutes no threat to anarchism. On the contrary, such direct democratic methods are part of the very stuff of anarchistic organisation. W E/7E E7E777 HA1Y. 777E are not really checks at ali. ^RGGMEAEFRGM The problem of controlling the power of the State and preventing the State M A91 RCA75&EAVER7EACE. once established from usurping further The replacement argument enables power and exceeding its mandate, is only construction of a model of a society w/cyAc/orr/y solved by not ceding power functioning without the State, of a prac­ to the State in the first place. The best tically possible Stateless world; which way of avoiding the evils of accumulated shows that the State is not necessary. But power is the anarchist way, of blocking it can always be c/c/wer/ — even if the its accumulation. claim can seldom or ever be made good — that the modelling leaves out some crucial feature of real world circum­ stances, rendering it inapplicable. The gap may be closed by appeal to the inde­ pendently valuable argument from ex­ perience, that at various times and places anarchism has been tested and has work­ ed. Examples of such Stateless organisa­ tion suffice to show that crucial real world features have not been omitted. ^Yiere are many examples of nontndustrialised socieities which were, or are, anarchistic, there is the rich experi­ ence of the Spanish collectives,'" and there is much localised experience of seif-management and small-scale anar chistic arrangements within the State structure?" �z e The state tacks adequate justification. The state is not a self-justifying object. But none of the justificatory arguments to the state are cogent. A familiar theme, conceding that the Al state is a problematic object, is that the state is a necessary evil. But, to the contrary, states, though generally evil, are hardly necessary^ It needs stressing, furthermore, how weak necessity claimed has to be. For it is becoming increasingly easy, with the advances in logical!^ modellings and computer simulations of other worlds, virtual states and the like, to envisage accessible worlds organised without modern states. No doubt then, the necessity has to be of some more pragmatic sort, a "social human necessity" for example appealing to emergent features of humans, kinks of human nature, obtruding in unfavourable situations of high concentrations and extensive scarcity (situations that states themselves have, like many survival systems, helped contrive).Remarkably, none of the extant arguments to the state make it plain that such a weak pragmatic "necessity" is intricated, though they would hardly establish more, and though they make strong (implausible) assumptions about the brutal situation outside states, in states-of-nature and so on, and about human motivation and practice, its utterly selfish, self-interested and acquisitive, and frequently debased character (i.e. what appears encouraged under economic rationalism, and pretty much what many have come to expect under conditions of advanced capitalism). Mostly no effort is made any longer, outside a few abstruse texts, to justify the state. Within contemporary institutional arrangement it is simply taken for granted (like Big Science), as axiomatic, as God was under medieval arrangements. But unlike God, who was good personified and therefore had a large problem with the extent of evil in the world, the state is acknowledged as problematic and far from unimplicated in the evil of the world (but directly engaged therein when the councils of the many Machievellis are heeded). Such a problematic Popper^s view that 'state power must always remain a dangerous though necess­ ary evil' (II, p.30) is a commonplace one. �object cannot stand up as merely postulated. Nor is there a corresponding ontological argument for the state, as that organisational structure than which nothing more perfect can exist. Outside the flawed imagination of German idealists there is no such Super State; all actual states are manifestly highly imperfect, all humanly realisable ones are likely similar. As a result of the institutionalisation of the state itself, as a received and indeed central part of modem political arrangements, the onus of proof has become curiously inverted. Efforts to justify the state have become fairly ideal and academic, no longer a serious issue, and onus transferred to anarchists to demonstrate that human social life could proceed well and smoothly (as it now does, of course) without states. While anarchists are not absolved from offering some account of operations of good social lives without states (for, except in fairy tales, it does not all just emerge, unplanned, in the new stateless setting), neither are statists absolved from justification of de facto statist arrangements, beginning with the state itself. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document CASE DISSOLVED: critique of argumentsto and for the State Over the centuries that humans have been stuck with states, many different attempts to justify them, as in some way necessary or desirable (as more than an unfortunate accident of history), have been attempted. None pf these arguments succeed (as much would perhaps be quite widely conceded^). / / There are various wayjs of showing that the arguments fail. One powerful way deploys, indicates or develops, counterexamples; for instance modelling social arrangements without states. Another more pedestrian but essential way consists in direct examination of the arguments, not merely some of them or various classes of them, but, for completeness, each and every one of them. Ultimately that calls for, what is attempted first in a first attempt fashion, an exhaustive classification of the arguments „ A preliminary classification of these arguments can take the following form: 1. //i-yfonc or <?Ma,s7-/H,s'f(9rzc. These arguments divide in tum into two principal subclasses: 1.1 Daycrzpnve.* /b/Zacy o/TAo quo. A first group of arguments^justification of the state, try to take advantage of the descriptive features that states are entrenched almost everywhere as the dominant feature of the political landscape. Helpful as it may be having states in avoiding hypothetical in injecting a heavy element of realism oLesdisn, nonetheless fact is not per se justification: what is often X ought not to be. Bank robbers and robber barons are justified by their mere existence There are similar problems<dth the argument from tradition. If some principle, practice or theory stood for a good while it had something going for it. Some such consideration lies at the basis of precedence in law; the idea of tradition as encapsulating past wisdom - or past folly. Among the problems are that with authoritarian institutions come their antitheses, with the state the anti-state. Many practices like barbarism and racism have stood for a very long tirne,^ many organisations like mafia have been airound for a long time, so they have something going for them? Such troubles, the evident gap between descriptive and normative, are among those that plague In s^prt without utterly questionable connecting assumptions, such as that what is is necessary (a modal fallacy) or that what is is right (a deontic fallacyi), such arguments fail to afford justification. There are some important JMbtypes of descriptive (or quasi-descriptive) arguments, namely * 1 arguments. The state is not only established, it works. Immediate difficulties This fallacy, heavily utilized by Hegel, is critically examined in NNL. X 0 V-v L^ /]/ t 4^c AA-<s A ^^7*. JA^? (^A t ACA C.^y1k Av 2.2- 1 t.. z^ z^pr p^r- *-y^2^— 2 with such arguments are obvious. The Mafia too/is well-established. It too works, often in opposition the the State (as a sort of negative opposite, like the Devil to God). What sort of standards of is working intended to meet? All sorts of awful political arrangements have "worked", at least in persisting for as long as statist arrangements: despotisms, dictatorships, tyrannies, ... . Still as pragmatic arguments enjoy considerable popularity, especially in North America, they will have to be considered in more detail (than they deserve). * arguments. The state has evolved through a long sequence of political forms. It is tried and tested, and now selected, selected as best available. Such arguments afford scientific clothing for the appalling Hegelian "what is is right". For what has evolved is selected thereby as best, and what is selected as best is no doubt right (by a familiar utilitarian deontic reduction). Slather evidently such arguments prove too much. Any form that in fact emerges, no matter how achieved, though what dusta^dly Machievellian deeds, no matter how awful, is thereby justified: empires and dictatorships of the worst sort, fa^ist and totalitarian states, one and all, are justified, provided only they are established.^ this only for climax states, where some sort of evolutionary plutoniums have been achieved have been achieved (otherwise bad means to select evolutionary ends may temporarily prevail). But where is the evidence that the State is not another transitional stage, like feudalism before it? As an evolutionary form it is very recent, and fortunately not yet established in evolutionary time. 1.2 AfoK-J&pcripf/ve. Difficulties with descriptive arguments, including prescriptive fallacies (deriving presciptive or evaluative conclusions from purely descriptive premisses), are evaded/idealisation arguments, which include These are genetic in justificatory character, relating the mythological "historical" development of the State from an imaginary pre-state situation.^ These arguments are not sharply^p^rated from * fdea/ /n,yfory arguments. * MMagmary and ideal reconjfrMcrfoK arguments. For the transactions, such as an originating social contract, may be presented in a quasi-historic form. This important class of arguments is broader than contractual arrangements, including all the following sorts of imaginary transactions: negotiating, bargaining, experimenting, etc., in given (idealised) conditions, perhaps issuing in an arrangement, agreement, contract, etc. One preliminary That contemporary exponents and practitioniers of state craft are inclined to accept these^orts of considerations, and to recognise any region that has gained (short-term) control over a territory and its administration, does nothing for the considerations^ What it reveals rather is the moral sickness of contemporary real-politics. They include (as opposed to relocation arguments, where a group ("voting with its feet ) relocates and forms a state (except of course these gorups, when there was room for them, tended to aim for new societies, not states). These arguments form a bridge between descriptive and ntunative. While voluntary contract arguments are descripively implausible, voluntary relocation has, or did have, a little descriptive 3 classification of these arguments divides them into natural quasi-theological, legalistic invisible hand evolutionary consensual or equivalent. artificial, The most notorious of these reconstructions, or political thought-experiments, are the social contract theories whereby individual members of a society fictitiously enter into an enforceable contract, inescapable for themselves and all their descendants, setting up the state, primarily as a security arrangement. In later versions which may involve other legalistic forms than contracts, such as pa^cts, trusts, etc., there is much negotiating and bargaining in contrived situations, where humans lose many of their distinctive features and accoutrements (in a effort to ensure some initial fairness). A variant on contract theories, which justify some sort of state arrangements Z/* they arose in an ideal way, is retrojustification of the state as naturally arising, as a sort of super­ insurance agency, from pre-state arrangements. For example, the minimal state evolves from a competing set of state-like security agencies one of which somehow gains a monopoly, and is retrojustified through insurance arguments (concerning risk and compensation). Such arguments are sometimes presented as replacing overall contractual arrangements (through minor arrangements undoubtedly enter) with invisible hand mechanisms. Whereas contractual arguments take the general segmented shape: INITIAL STATE: INPUT INTERMEDIATE STATES prestate negotiation followed by situation: draft contrad, assessment "state of nature" FINAL STATE: OUTPUT state established situation followed by contract adoption ^in invisible hand arguments the intermediate steps, on route to the state, consist in formation of organisations and their progressive amalgatiation to provide finally a state. For example, in Nozick these organisations are taken to comprise protective agencies (though that is only one statist function), and to ensure legitimacy for the final object, it is contended that each intermediate state derives from the proceeding in a morally permissible way, namely preserves % selected rights. Such arguments fail for two main classes of reasons: inadequacy in the derivations of late and final stages from earlier ones, and unsatisfactoriness over the initial state (in particular, what is assumed in it, such as proprietorial rights, and what is excluded, i$ the way of more satisfactory alternatives). In these forms the State arises through voZimfary actions and transactions. Whereas anarchists and many socialists see anarchism as a post-state state, these transaction arguments often assume anarchism, in very motly forms, as pre-state states. People voluntarily elect to escape those pre-state form, "rushing" into the jaws of the State. But there are, as well, versions, where the State is established through legalistic or religious means, natural religion or the like. For example, the details of State organisation, or a recipe or 4 commandments therefore, are received by or given to some powerful religious personage, who implements the organisation under religious authority. The legalistic equivalent came about through implementation, not of religious dictates, but what may be very similar in practical affect and detail, natural law. Normally this law will be "seen", for, by some powerful personages, who are in a position to convey, and have put into effect, their illumination. With the decline of religion these sorts of arguments have lost much of their general appeal (they should never have enjoyed much credibility). But many relics of these shattered arguments remain, to be removed. A critical point is that such arguments should not gain independent standing. Most law is mfra-state, state manufactured and state serving. What is independent of states has to answer to standards, moral standards especially, that are independently justified. Similarly for religious commandments. As a result, these arguments collapse back to arguments for the State. Now modern states did not arise in any such "natural" or contractual way. Often they were imposed by conquest or through colonialisation, and with a few exceptions, using military means rather than offering much sweetness and light and choice. There are a notable discrepancies between typical justifications of the state (in which much is sweetness and light, though it is far from a pareto-optimal object) and common explanations of the role of the state (in which much is obviousness and intrigue). Nor do the ideal constructions or histories offer much justification for these resulting state power configurations. For the states so delivered are very different from those most people presently toil under. In any case, the arguments involved do not succeed. They are extraordinarily gappy by contemporary logical standards. They depend upon some utterly implausible assumptions, for example as to how vile conditions are^n extra^state situations. These changes are easily illustrated, and will be.) small immediate)^eana&14 example. Underlying several of the imaginary transaction arguments to the state, are various c/zofcg arguments of a thought-experiment cast. Commonly such arguments ambitiously aim to show that * the state is necessary, and that * the state is superior to its absence. But such arguments.like those embedcTin confracf arguments .are little better than con jobs.as are presented depend upon a false choice. For only two options are considered: H, a horrible Hobbesian "state of nature" and S, a well-ordered (contructually-reached) Hobbesian state. The argument, appealing to the vices of H and the virtues of S, has little trouble in concluding * * S is better than H (or similarly, rational agents would select S over H, etc.) other options, such as anarchist ones. Why should anarchists want to line up with S? They can agree with proposition * *. They might also want The choice conveniently leaves to assert that anarchistic arrangements Z are superior to S. Whereupon it is evident that neither * nor * follows. For necessity all accessible alternatives have to be considered (by the semantics of That has not been done. For superiority, the superiority of S to Z and other alternatives has to be taken into account. That has not been done. — , ----------------------- alternative i^\Carter^^(?c^ry^which produces The kind of individuals who have strongly internalized values and can live cooperatively and freely without the threat of force ...\ i^)(p.25).4 6V1C- No doubt some of the gaps in the arguments could be plugged by further, further contestable, assumptions, but such analytic work remains to be attempted and assessed, after two millennia of such arguments. In fact it was long ago realised that such arguments exhibit unlikely and even paradoxical features. For example, in consenting to a state for security purposes, participants to the state contract proceed to establish an institution which is far more dangerous to them than the power of others taken distributively. It would seem that those smart enough to enter into a social contract for a state would be smart enough to foresee the problems of hiring a monster, and to avoid the state and steer along without it. In establishing a state, inhabitants set up an institution that is far more powerful and dangerous to them than the power of other inhabitants taken singly or in groups. This is to think that Men are so fulish that they tak care to avoid what Mischiefs may be done then by PoZe-caM, or but are contra^ f^ay think it Safety, to be devoured by AZo/asA These arguments, like others to follow, even if somehow repaired, would not establish an institution with anything approaching the power and complexity of the modern state. Arguments to the state typically establish, at best, only a rather minimal state, with certain protective and regulatory powers. Such minimal states would not deliver many of the goods economists, still less socialists, have come to expect of the state. The arguments certainly do not establish anything like the oppressive paternal state with a panoply of powers that many citizens are forceably subject to, power states have accumulated by their own unjustified predatory activity. In this respect too, arguments to the state resemble arguments to God. Deistic arguments characteristically establish (insofar as they establish anything) only a quite minimal rAar w/zZc/t, a first cause, some existent, a most perfect object, a universal designer, clockmaker or the like. They do nothing to establish many of the powers or properties asciibed to God. There is yet another resemblance a surplus of attributes are regularly ascribed to Gock so much power, knowledge, andj^^like^that paradoxes of omnipotence, omniscience, and jimilar, are quickly engendereb^aradoxes that a lesser God that merely satisized on virtue (and could tolerate some production of evil) could easily escape)^ So too a surplus of power is conceded to the State. The state carries ^far more power than is required for collective organisation, a large "political surphis" which should be relinquished. /4 ^ reversmg Hobbes' argument,pottom halfl really a cranking. $ Locke p.372. ——^Lesser Gods encounter ^other difficulties: their plurality, the fact that they can be exceeded by other greater Gods, and their upstaging by ontological arguments. 6 2(-l*) S*y^7?zayic. These arguments divide again into two principal subclasses, namely 2.1 Ana/yac and 2.2 M?K#K(2/y%c. Further both subclasses may be subdivided in tum into individualistic and holistic subclasses, for instance 2.1 into 2.1.1 Indiviualistic and 2.1.2 Non-individualistic. Most recent investigation has been concentrated within subdivision 2.1.^1, upon game-theoretic justifications of the State. Indeed, given prevailing methodological individualism, which almost invariably takes analytic form, all acceptable justification reuced to this subdivision? Certainly other systematic ways of endeavouring to justify the state tent z to have fallen by the wayside or been abandoned. However it is worth listing two further forms, one of which remains significant: * Holistic/brz/t considerations. The State is presented as the form, or even spirit, of Society, much as the mind is the form of the corresponding body. Insofar as there is an argument, it is analogical, from an increasingly dubious basis. Contemporary up-dating of the torm'ideas would no doubt have the State as - what is even less plausible - the program, or the software, of a corresponding Society. * Mora/ considerations. But there is little good reason to embrace individualism, methodological or other, because many sorts of wholes, beginning with ^bstra&i, do not come down to individuals; it is poor methodology to try to proceed as if they do. More on individualism elsewhere. See aM JB 3VHATEVER3 2. Arguments in a game theory setting: Prrhners' Diiemma games and supergames. What is widely regarded as the most persuasive justification of the state [is] "the argument that, without the state, people would not voluntarily cooperate to provide themselves with certain public goods... ". This argument, which is quite popular with contemporary academics, suggests that, without the state, people would not be able to "act so as to realise their interests."* . So far, hewexEr, we have not encountered^an argument, but simply a very large claim. The argument itself^is remarkably circuitous, circuiting through a range of examples drawn from game theory, and, so it will emerge, as yet quite indecisive. Obtaining a view, a clear view, of the whole argument, or rather the spectrum of potential arguments, matters for anarchism. For that will help considerably in dispelling the myth that here, partly hidden, is a powerful P3p*x argument against A The argument takes the form of a modal syllogism: * The state is necessary for the optimal, or adequate, provision of collective (i.e. public) goody (zzm/or premiss), of* ' * Collective goods are necessary for a satisfactory social life, (J%7M% premiss) . the state is necessary for a satisfactory social life./Moreover, given that the latter, a satisfactory social life (in a given region), is a certain desiderata, the state is to that extent necessary (a necessity is (^bolutized). While the big argument takes thatybrm, it is subject to variation. Furthermore, some variation is essential, else it, and one of the chief forms incorporated, is invalid. For the argument displayed has a different, and an ambiguous, middle term. For requisite uniformity, and validity, the middle term has to be either a) adequate provision of colective goods, or o) optimal provision of collective goods. While little supporting argument get lavished on the minor premiss, it being assumed obvious, that obviousness selected. For a satisfactory social life may result when when term o) is than optimal provisioning of collective goods occurs. Adequate lives only require adequate goods, perhaps even a modest supply of goods for less consumptive societies, not optimal or maximal levels. There is/a significant skating about, of justificatory relevance, in the "most persuasive justification of the state", as normally slackly presented^between (as in o), nomally explicated in terms of maximization; erms of satisization); of provisioning: opPma/ (as in a), have construed int (unspecified, as in the quote above, or perhaps specified as in Hobbes, e.g. defence and security of property). Unfortunately for the argument, all that the game-theoretic arguments for the major 1 2 Grofman 80, p.108, quoting Taylor. For another similar statement, qualified to members of a large public, see Taylor 82, p.53. Thus, basic collective goods for a basic social life, as for instance in subsistence lifestyles. ' ' ' ' / premiss typically establish at best is failure of optima^ or certain large prov^pning, without the state. They do not show failure to provision at all without the state, or failure to achieve "basic" provision, or even adequate provisioning. Now anarchism can^granF that certain large provisioning is improbable without the state; for example^ntercoiynental nuclear missiles, or large output nuclear power plants. 3 But i^hardly matters! f&r such state-posessed goods are? arguably antithetical to satisfactory social life. Nor need anarchism accede Rr optimality requirements, thereby destroying usual game-theoretic arguments. For these arguments usually show that more would be obtained under certain counter-individualistic cooperative strategies than would otherwise be obtained, not that some or basic levels would not be achieved. To put it bluntly, satisizing anarchists can throw out the challenge: what does it matter if a few state prisoners defect (i.e. there are some not fully-paid-up rider^so long as enough goods are still delivered? That challenge has not been met, even implicitly, as will appear. 5? It is unreasonable, in any case, to demand optimal levels from non-statist societies, because no extant stat^ measure up to such excessive requirements. Indeed most staites do ... ........................................... , . bd not even meet utterly basic demands. Henceforth we shall be looking for leads, which %?.yo /hero cover basic demands. The argument for the critical major premiss takes the following sort of route, involving these components: 1. Assimilation of the problem of provision of collective goods (in the light of the minor premiss it can be cast as a problem) to paradigmatic problems in game theory, initially the Prisoners' Dilemma (PD for short). No doubt efforts at provision of public goods commonly result in arrangements that can be represented formally as Prisoners' Dilemmas. But it is sometimes claimed, what will be repudiated subsequently, that all such efforts result in PD situations, that is that there is a universal linkage. Two connections are regularly assumed: a universal representation of problems in game theory, and a more plausible less ambitious connection with PD games. That is: * all provisioning problems can be represented within game theory. ** these problems^requently)takePD form. . The first assumption, of game theory representation, is^severe. Each problem is transformed into a game, with n independent players, normally individuals or individual units (such as an "individual" family or firm in economics^)/ These players characteristically possess but limited information, and almost invariably are allowed only extraordinarily narrow motivations and objectives, am) as maximizing their own interests or pay-offs, in a rigid setting with fixed predetermined moves.$ According to the more plausible, less ambitious collections, 3 4 5 So much is argued elsewhere (nuclear wo^k). While in many politically relevant applications, such as the "tragedy of the common^' game,the players may bedndividuals, in other applications the players may be communities, societies, or even states, e.g\mtemational traaR and war games. It is this sort of rigidity and limitation that/make^ parts of game-theory automatically tractable. <?; 3 * provisioning of public goods frequently yields prisoners' dilemma situations, Ahat is the problem involved can be transformed into a typical PD game, comprising a perhaps interated games among a public of n individuals. 2. Sometimes these games yield unfavourable results, that is not enough individuals cooperate but instead defect, so the good in question will not be delivered. 3. On/y by intervention pf the state can cooperation be obtained, by coercion of individuals? other devices, such a; of the market, will notsucceed. 4 3. THE CASE AGAINST REPLACEMENT FROM PRISONERS' DILEMMA SITUATIONS AND THE buttress the State status quc^are based on variants of the prisoners' Dilemma, to the effect that there are imporran? cases where individuals will not agree^ or co-operate to provide them­ selves with (or to maintain) collective goods without coercion, such as on/y the State can furnish? In such 'dilemma' situations each individual will hope to gain advantage, without contributing (or exercising restraint), from others' contributions (or restraint), by freeloading on others (or profiting from others' restraint). The claim is that only the State with its backing of force can resolve such situations: anarchistic replacement cannot succeed. In short,'certain individual choice cannot replace state-covered choice. important cases, coo< There are (as the bracketed clauses indicate) two main types of case, those where people do not conrri&M&.to themselves with, or with optimum quantities of, a "collective good", and those where people do not themselves to or maintain optimum quantities of, some already available "collective good". The first type of case is taken to include such traditional and modern concerns of the state and its subsidiary institutions as order, security, defence, and perhaps private property, as well as sewerage schemes, water supplies, waste services, public health, social security, etc. The second case is supposed to include, as well as village commons, newer enviromental concerns such as clean air, unpolluted streams and beaches, parks, rainforests, wilderness, whales, etc. But there is no sharp division between the cases (security or parks could be of either type depending on the status quo), and The case broken-backed right here: because if we don't ^o this^not going to agree to social contract — which allegedly implies these things — either. Similarly, jocia/ contract theory &ro&cn-&ac%cJ. The Tragedy of the Commons is set up so as to assume no collective methods have been developed or can be developed without coercion. (Roberts). The point of coercion is to retain the privatised individual. For the factor of coercion makes it in intrests of private individual. So coercion makes the effect of relations to be got without exceeding provatised individual picture. Coercion substitutes for relations in the context of privatised individuals. Privatised individuals are, of course, products, in large part, of the operation (and enforcement and entrenchment) of a particular social theory, or ra/Zzcr jar/ ofsocial theory. Arguments of this type are sometimes said to represent 'the strongest case that can be made for the desirability of the State* (M. Taylor, Anarc/ty anJ Coap^raZiaa, Wiley, London, 1976, p.9). To cover all arguments of the type, and to avoid repetition of the phrase 'variants of and disputes as to whether certain arguments such as those of Hume and of Olson involve Prisoners' Dilemma situations, 'Prisoner's Dilemma' is used in a wide sense to include not merely single nperson Prisoners' Dilemma games, but, for example, games where the payoffs are not merely egoistic (as with both Hobbes and Hume) and where such games are iterated. As the bracketed clauses in the text indicate, there are two types of case, not sharply separated and both the jawt^ Zagica/ /oral — those where people do not to themselves with, or with 'optimum' quantities of, a 'collective good' (e.g. security, order, sewage), and those where people do not refrain themselves to wainfam, or maintain 'optimum' quantities of, some alrca< available 'collective good' (e.g. commons, unpolluted streams, whales, wilderness). That received arguments of all these types involves Prisoners? Dilemma situations (in the wide sense) is argued in effect, in Taylor, op.cif. and elsewhere. An easier introduction to the material covered by Taylor, which also surveys other important literature, is given in the final chapter of R. Abrams, FoaaJan'aaj o/Po/aica/ Aaa/y^, Columbia University press, New York, 1980. Z y 5 as arguments for state institution both have the same logical form, that of a Prisoners' Dilemma or some finite sequence of Prisoners' Dilemma games (what are called Prisoners' Dilemma &%?^rgames). The arguments are not mere exercises in game theory since it is through arguments of this type that political theorists such as Hobbes and Hume have attempted to demonstrate the necessity of the State, so it is sometimes claimed (e.g. by Taylor). Furthermore, it is with arguments of the same^form, the "Tragedy of the Commons", that Hardin and others have tried to show that extensive, indeed draconian, state powers are required to resolve environmental problems; without such powers no exploiter or polluter will exercise restraint, ra c . Consider the single Prisoners' Dilemma game where each player, or prisoner, is assumed, as is usual in these things, to be egoistic (sometime equated with "being rational"), to seek just maximisation of his own private payoff, in the special case where there are just two players. (The special case illustrates all the main points except one, the c/size in making a case for the state.) < . A basic ingredient^a.considerable variety of argumentfof this type, including Hobbes' andlTragedy of the Commons' argument, and recent economic arguments for State intervention to secure collective goods, i^/tne single prisoners' Dilemma game with just two players.s Two prisoners, 1 and 2, taken to be accomplices in a crime, have been separately imprisoned. A State representative makes the following offers separately to each: if the prisoner confesses and becomes a State's witness while his or her accomplice remains silent, he or she will be released at once while the accomplice gets 8 years. 3t so happens that if both prisoners remain silent the State has only enough evidence to impose a 1 year sentence. But if both confess they would each receive 4 years. The 'game' can be summarised in the following 'payoff' matrix: Prisoner 1 Strategies S(ilence) C(onfess) S -1,-1 -8,0 C 0, -8 -4, -4 '— Prisoner 2 The game is not intended to present a moral ^ilemma, that each can only go free at the cost of the others' freedom, but the following dilemma: It is in each prisoner's private interest to An important matter the two player game does not illustrate is the relevance of populations size in the arguments for the State. But size is not decisive (see, e.g., Taylor, chapter 2), and the issue can be avoided (or relocated) by organisation into smaller communities. The figures given in the matrix are illustrative only; for inequalities which suffice for a Dilemma situation, see Tayor, p.5. 6 choose strategy C no matter what the other does: strategy C is, in the jargon, each players' 'dominant' strategy (and also in fact a minimax strategy). For if 2, for example, remains silent, the%l goes free by confessing, while if 2 confesses, then 1 halves his or her sentence by if both prisoners choose their dominant strategy they obtain an outcome to that which would have resulted by what is tendentiously called 'co-operating', by confessing. their both remaining silent. 3.1 FOILING THE PRISONERS' DILEMMA ARGUMENT. It is bizarre that a dilemma alleged to show the necessity of the State — which is supposed to intervene, forcibly if required, to ensure that the prisoners 'co-operate' to obtain an optimal outcome — should be set up by the State's own operative.^ The case looks like an inside job; and it M, though neither the operative, nor for that matter the prisoners on their own, continue to play an essential role. The prisoners, in any finite number, can be members of a community and payoffs quantities of some collective good. The claim is, that without intervention (by the State), the community will only chase a subotimal quantity of the good if any. Some features of the prisoners' relations are assumed to transfer however. Of course the State's presence in arranging (of accentuating) such dilemmas is inessential, as is much else from the example. But some features of the Prisoner's relations are isolated, and so have no opportunity to communicate or r^aZZy co-operate. Similarly, in the more general argument a privatisation assumption is smuggled in in the way the dilemma is formulated, that we are dealing with self contained individuals who, like the prisoners, act only in their own narrowly construed private interests and whose interests are opposed. The applicability of the dilemma to the human condition is accordingly seriously limited, io A cursory aside is often added to the Prisoners' Dilemma to the effect that the segregation of the priisoners makes no real difference. It is claimed that even if the prisoners could meet and discuss and even agreed to co-operate, that would make no difference, since neither could trust (the sincerity) of the other (Abrams, p.193), 'neither has an incentive to keep the agreement' (Taylor, p.5). Experimental and historical evidence indicates that this is very often no so — and in a more co-operative social setting than currently encouraged privatisation of life, the extent of co-operation and trust would undoubtedly be much higher n The argument has to depend crucially then on substantially mistaken assumptions about human propensities It is similarly bizarre that there should be outcomes that the State alone is said to be able to arrange, but not mere social cooperation, when the State rv (as on many theories) the result of reflection of social cooperation. This important point is much elaborated in V. and R. Routley, &?cmZ 77^or^.y, S^Zf aztrZ Envirownf/tfaZ Pro&Zewty in Environmental Philosophy (edited D. Mannison and others), RSSS, Australian national University, 1980. As a result of G. Hardin's Tragedy CoHWHonj, historical evidence has been assembled which reveals how far Hardin's 'Commons' diverges from historic commons; see, inparticular, A. Roberts, 77^ S^Zf-Managing Allison & Busby, London, 1979, chapter 10, but also Routley, op.cir., p.285 and ppp.329-332. Similar points apply as regards many other Dilemma situations. Tn the experimental studies of the prisoner's dilemma game approximately half of the participants choose a cooperative strategy even when they know for certain that the other player will cooperate'. Abrams, op.ciz., p.308. 7 in various settings, e.g. that purely egoistic interests are always pursued, backed up by a large measure of scepticism about the reliability of other people (but if people were Jia? unreliable and devious, many State arrangements involved in providing public goods would not succeed either). That such assumptions are operating can be seen by elaborating the situation; e.g. to bring out the first, suppose the prisoners have a common bond, e.g. they are friends or they are political prisoners with a shared social commitment, or they are neighbours and face a future in the same community; to bring out the philosophical scepticism involved, suppose the prisoner with a tarnished record offers the other security against default, and so on. The question of the character of human interests and preferences %/iJ the extent of their determination by the social context in which they occur is/MKJcwtcnhJ to the whole question of social economic arrangements, and also accordingly to arguments for the State on the basis of human propensities. A major assumption underlying prevailing (non-Marxist) economics and associated political theory, is that the interests and preferences, as summed up in a preference ranking or utility function, of each human that is taken to count is an mJcpcnJcnr parameter, which depends neither on the preference rankings of other nor on the social context in which that human operates. Wh8ile the individuals and firms of mainstream economic theory do, by definition, satisfy the independence requirements, and while there is very substantial cultural pressure on consumers to conform (through advertising, education, popular media), vc/y many Jo /io? cozi/briH, and the extent of cultural pressure towards privatisation itself belies the naturalness of this independence. And having sufficiently many interest-interdependent people in a small community (which is not thoroughly impoverished) is normally enough, given their social influence, to avoid or resolve by co-operation the types of Prisoners' Dilemma situations that appear to count in favour of the State. 3.2 Why the dilemma arguments cannot succeed. What the Dilemma-based case for the State has to show — what never has been shown — is that there are outstanding Dilemma situations which are relevant, important, and also damaging if unresolved, and that they are resolvable by State intervention, and only so (optimally) resolvable. Finally it has to be shown that in the course of so resolving these Dilemma situations, worse situations than those that are resolved are not thereby induced. These complex conditions cannot be satisfied, if they can be satisfied at all, in a way that is not question begging. For several of the conditions are value dependent (e.g. what is important, damaging, optimal, worse) and involve considerations about which resonable parties can differ. The selection of Dilemmas itself provides an example of value dependence: after all there are many such Dilemmas (e.g. as to environmental degradation, of over-exploitation, of family violence or fueds) which are considered beyond the sphere of the State or not worthy of State attention. There are now grounds for concluding that the conditions cannot be satisfied at all. For 12 Cf. the disucssion in Taylor, op.ci/., p.93. 8 many of the arguments using Prisoners' Dilemma games, Hobbes' and Hume's arguments for the State and Hardin's 'Tragedy of the Commons' for instance, turn out when to consist not just of a single game but of a sequence of such games, to be more adequately represented by what is called a But in many such sequential Prisoners' Dilemma games, rational 'co-operation' can occur, even assuming separated players with purely egoistic interests. 13 For what sequential games permit that isolated games exclude, is that players' actions may be dependent upon past performance of other players. This dependence effectively removes one extremely unrealistic self-containment assumption from Dilemma situations, that individuals act in totally isolated ways, not learning from past social interaction. In such sueprgames then, no intervention is required. Undoubtedly some Dilemmas are resolved by 'intervention', e.g. by allowing the prisoners to get in touch so that they find they are neighbours or that they can really co-operate. Euqally important, and equally independent of the State, is the matter of breaking down the adverary, or game, situation so the prisoners do not act as competitors but are prepared to co­ operate.^ Informational input may also be important, e.g. news that each prisoner has a good record of adhering to agreement, or if not is prepared to stake collateral, etc. Nor is force or threat of force required as an incentive to guarantee optimal strategies: a range of other inducements and incentives is known (shuld they be required in recalcitrant cases), and is used even by the State, e.g. gifts, deprivation, social pressure, etc. But at no stage is the State required to make these arrangements: much as some real Prisoners' Dilemmas are resolved by work of Amnesty International, so voluntary organisations can be formed to detect and deal with Prisoners' Dilemma situations where they are not already catered for. And in fact communal and co-operative organisation did resolve Prisoners' Dilemma-type situations historically, for example in the case of the Commons. In sum, here also replacement works. There are no important Dilemma situations, it seems, where the State is essential. The State has been thought to be essential because of certain influential flase dichotomies; for example, that all behaviour that is not egoistic is altruistic (but altruistic behaviour is uncommon, and 'irrational'), that the only way of allocating goods, apart from profit-directed markets — which tend to deal abysmally with collective goods — is through State control.^ But it is quite evident that there are methods of allocation, both economic (e.g. exchange, through traditional markets, based on supply costs) and social (e.g. by co-operatives, clubs). Lastly, introduction of the State to resolve 13 14 15 Dilemma situations has very extensive This important result is established in Taylor, op. ctf., for a number of critical cases, though not generally; see, e.g. p.32 but especially chapter 5. Such moves have proved valuable in reducing the State's role in legal prosecution, and in eliminating courtroom procedures, including cases where the State is one of the 'adversaries'. Both the false dichotomies cited are common-place, not to say rife, in modem economic and political theorising. Both are to be found in Abram's final chapter, for example, and the first (with an attempt to plaster over the gap with a definition) in Taylor. For a further criticism of such false dichotomies, see Routley, op.cit., pp.250./ff 9 effects, *6 many of them negative, so that the gains made, if any, in so resolving Dilemma situations, appear to be substantially outweighted by the costs involved. For there are the many evil aspects of the typical State to put in the balance. As regards Dilemma situations, entry of the State with its authority showing may not help but may worsen some situations, and morre important, new Dilemmas may be initiated by State activity, as in the case of the prisoners, or differently with the State as a further player (since the State may engage in whaling, have access to a commons, etc.). These points lead also to further arguments against the State. Suppose, to see the impact of the first reason for the failure of independence, the prisoners are friends and their common interest is to be together. Then, if they are given the opportunity to co-operate, and independence is not enforced by separation, they will, quite rationally, choose a joint optimal strategy, and there is no dilemma. Since the same considerations will not apply where large numbers of strangers are involved, the question arises as the extent and severity of Dilemma situations. The question is complicated by the second double-edged reason for the failure of independence, namely that statist political arrangements undoubtedly accentuate the extent and severity of Dilemma situations by discouraging (providing negative incentives) for genuinely co-operative behaviour and mutual aid. This is another respect in which statist arrangements (like some subclimax biological communities) tend to be self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating. Accordingly, what arguments for the State on such bases as Prisoners' Dilemma situations have to show is not merely 1) that state coercion does suffice to resolve (sufficiently) many such (damaging) Dilemmas, but also 2) that such coercion is the on/y way of doing so, and 3) that in doing so worse situations than those that are resolved are not thereby induced. These things have never been shown: nor can they be shown definitively, since firstly there are various nonstatist arrangements for resolving wehat are taken to be damaging Dilemmas, and secondly the overall assessment of what Dilemmas are and what costs are worf/t incurring in resolving them are ultimately evaluative and go back to rival, and presumably coherent, value systems. Hence, when all this is spelled out, the irrefutability of anarchism. To get some feel for the complexity of the issue and for the extent to which evaluative matters do enter, several points relevant to 1) - 3) should be introduced. Firstly, there are many Dilemma situations into which the State puts little or no effort and many others which are, or were, considered as beyond the sphere of influence of the State or as not worthy of State attention, for instance, cases of environmental degradation, overexploitation of a "resource", personal or family fueds, etc., several of them aggravated by State arrangments such as To take one lesser example, State intrusion often induces a certain social escapism: one escapes one's social roles and is enabled to concentrate on private affairs or just to laze. Or so it may appear: for in reality anyone who works, works long and often alientated hours to pay for this apparent escapism and to cover the high costs of frequently inadequate State activity. 10 excessive privatisation of resources (e.g. enclosure of the commons). (7/* such Dilemmas can be downgraded in importance to suit the Statist case so can other Dilemmas apparently favouring State intervention.) Many of these cases would not be helped at all by the entry of the State or its representatives with their authority duly showing (thugh they might be assisted by sensitive mediation, which does not call for a State, only rudiments of a society). Secondly, introduction of the State to resolve Prisoners' Dilemma situations is not without wide-ranging effects, many of them negative, so that the gains made, if any, in so resolving Dilemma situations have to be weighed against costs involved in achieving these gains. Among the costs are new Dilemmas, such as the very example considered in illustrating prisoner Dilemma games which was initiated by State activity. Differently, new Dilemmas will result with the state as a further player (since the State may have access to the commons, engage in whaling, etc.). Some of these situations are interesting in theat they may lead to litigation and decision-making outside of or largely independent of the State, the results of which the State is supposed to enforce though it may be against its interests. But what ensures that if sticks to the findings. Nothing does: it is simply assumed that the State will adhere to its role. But if that assumption is valid with respect to the State (not known for its reliability) then it is good also for various other parties. In short, agreement or decisions can be reached and adhered to without need for State enforcement. So coercion is not always required. Are there important Dilemmas where use the authority of the State is the (?H/y way? Often behind the claim that is is, is a false (but very influential) dichotomy, that the only way of allocating goods, apart from profit-directed markets which may deal abysmally with collective goods, is through state control. But it is quite evident that there are other methods of allocation, both economic (e.g. exchange, based on costs involved) and social (e.g. club, co­ operatives). [And a mixture of these methods can be applied to resolve any Prisoners' Dilemma that matters, i.e. here too replacement works. An important initial move is, as was seen, to put the prisoners in touch, so that they could cooperate: equally important is breaking down the ...] Such organisations would not have nearly so much to do as statists would like us to believe, especially once co-operative ways of doing things and mutual aid had become established ways in contrast to competitive and privatised ways. For the extent of simple Prisoners' Dilemma situations calling for intervention (of some sort) has been exaggerated and many, probably, very many, of those that have been thought to require intervention do not because the players (are prepared to) "cooperate" anyway. There are importantly different reasons why the latter can happen:- Firstly, enough players operate with motives which are not purely privatised for a sufficiently optimal outcome to result. This does not imply that these players have altruistic motives: their interests may depend on those of other players in a range of nonaltruistic ways. Secondly, many cases presented as if they were simple Prisoner's Dilemma games turn out when properly analysed, in particular when time is duly taken account of, to be Prisoners' Dilemma super-games. Such, for instance, is the positions with the 11 arguments of Hobbes, Hume and Hardin. But in such supergames rational "cooperation" often occurs even assuming the players have the worst of privatised motives. In short, where the correct analysis of a Prisoner's Dilemma game is as a supergame, statists are often beaten at their own game. [Detail Taylor's partial results, anJ their problems.] /AfJ^ Ji) /7!_^ A/^ ./ <. / "tv 7^-*^-^ / z7 /$CV^/^<^ /'J /^! ^7 </*<9 ^7^7" /^c / r 4& /d-^&V' f o j <. t/7^, c t_ , ^7 J* .X 6. <?^) /y . /^xv Jct/^^ JL 3. <%y4r-/^ ,X^7< .,;^;X 3 <X X?X" X)c. X /T^.X^ 4X3X*/- /X. y/^4. . / X X^X yXX s/ ^,/X-,^X^ Xy ^r y7^ Xox^Levc =-, <^- /, ^ / ^T^ — X? X" ^7^ ^X xx x^/^ <y A^rXXi/^ 6co /^4. /c<_ ^ / /X^cu— <^-^-^- ^4/ /*7^jC *- X^T Xt^/ / < ^Cv ^C A -C <22^ 7^4 y dVf! ^-r- <^ -^* r^CL A-?f-? yj /K-*- ) ^-*^-^/7 Ar^- ^c/ 4-A A /7^^?7"J^ ^^^tr-t^c'-^/j; y>V w t^L y ^). /%4?/ e / J—, /7 ^^7< Z *- ^rt^ *— " Z^? C- /^L ^-7 -^7 ZL- < Z*^/ c-y 7 <^* z Ay /, ?/ y*^ <9 ' J w to be accomplices in a crime, have been separately imprisoned. A State represen­ tative makes the following offers separately to each: if the prisoner con­ fesses and becomes a State's witness while his or her accomplice remains silent, he or she will be released at once while the accomplice gets 8 years. It so happens that if both prisoners remain silent the State has only enough evidence to impose a 1 year sentence. But if both confess they would each receive 4 years. The 'game' can be summarised in the following 'payoff' matrix: Prisoner 1 Strategies S(ilence) C(onfess) S -1, -1 -8, 0 C 0, -8 -4, -4 Prisoner 2 3. T7/E C/1SE z1G.4/MSE AEFL.4 CEA^E^T ERCW ER/5CWERS' D/EEA7AE1 tS77X/?177CW5 E/7E E/AE. I he main arguments designed to rebut the replacement argument for anarchism and to buttress the State status quo, are based on variants of the Prisoners' Dilemma, to the effect that there are /wporftm/cases where individuals will not agree^-or co-operate to provide them­ selves with (or to maintain) collective goods without coercion, such as cw/y the State can furnish/ In such 'dilemma' situations each individual will hope to gain advantage, without contributing (or exercising restraint), from others' contri­ butions (or restraint), by freeloading on others (or profiting from others' restraint). The claim is that only the State with its backing of force can resolve such situations: anarchistic replacement cannot succeed^ A basic ingredient of a considerable variety of arguments of this type, in­ cluding Hobbes' and Hume's arguments for the State, the 'Tragedy of the Com­ mons' argument, and recent economic arguments for State intervention to secure collective goods, is the single Prisoners' Dilemma game with just two players/ Two prisoners, 1 and 2, taken The game^ is not intended to present a moral dilemma, that each can only go free at the cost of the others' freedom, but the following dilemma: It is in each prisoner's private interest to choose strategy C no matter what the other docs: strategy C is, in the jargon, each players' 'dominant' strategy (and also in fact a minimax strategy). For if 2, for ex­ ample, remains silent, then 1 goes free by confessing, while if 2 confesses, then 1 halves his or her sentence by confess­ ing. if both prisoners choose their dominant strategy they obtain an m/er/or outcome to that which would have resulted by what is tendentiously called 'co-operating', by their both remaining silent. ?./ It is bizarre that a dilemma alleged to show the necessity of the State — which is supposed to intervene, forcibly if re­ quired, to ensure that the prisoners 'co­ operate' to obtain an optimal outcome — should bg set up by the State's own operative.^Of course the State's presence in arranging (or accentuating) such dilemmas is inessential, as is much else from the example. But some features of the prisoner's relations are essential, in particular the separability assumption that the prisoners are isolated, and so have no opportunity to communicate or rec/Zy co-operate. Similarly, in the more general argument, a privatisation assumption is smuggled in in the way the dilemma is formulated, that we are dealing with self contained individuals who, like the prisoners, act only in their own narrowly construed private interests and whose interests are opposed. The applicability of the dilem- A 7 ma to the human condition is accordingly seriously limited/ A cursory aside is often added to the Prisoners' Dilemma to the effect that the segregation of the prisoners makes no real difference. It is claimed that even if the prisoners could meet and discuss and even agreed to co-operate, that would make no difference, since neither could trust (the sincerity) of the other (Abrams, p.193), 'neither has an incen­ tive to keep the agreement' (Taylor, p.5). Experimental and historical evidence in­ dicates that this is very often not so — and in a more co-operative social setting than the currently encouraged privatisa­ tion of life, the extent of co-operation and trust would undoubtedly be much higher/ The argument has to depend crucially then on substantially mistaken assumptions about human propensities in various settings, e.g. that purely egoistic interests are always pursued, backed up by a large measure of scep­ ticism about the reliability of other peo­ ple (but if people were /Ar?/ unreliable and devious, many State arrangements involved in providing public goods would not succeed either). That such assumptionsareoperating can be seen by elaborating the situation; e.g. to bring out the first, suppose the prisoners have a common bond, e.g. they are friends or they are political prisoners with a shared social commitment, or they are neigh­ bours and face a future in the same com­ munity; to bring out the philosophical scepticism involved, suppose the prisoner with a tarnished record offers the other security against default, and so on. The question of the character of human interests and preferences the extent of their determination by the social context in which they occur is /MnrArznrvna/ to the whole question of social and economic arrangements, and also accordingly to arguments for the State on the basis of human propensities. A major assumption underlying prevail­ ing (non-Marxist) economics and associated political theory, is that the in­ terests and preferences, as summed up in a preference ranking or utility function, of each human that is taken to count is an mc/e/zenr/enf parameter, which depends neither on the preference rank­ ings of others nor on the social context in which that human operates. While the individuals and firms of mainstream economic theory do, by definition, satisfy the independence requirements, and while there is very substantial cultural pressure on consumers to con­ form (through advertising, education, popular media), wany <7o /?oz ccw/bfTn, and the extent of cultural pressure towards privatisation itself belies the naturalness of this indepen- sequential games permit that isolated games exclude, is that players' actions may be dependent upon past perfor­ mance of other players. This dependence effectively removes one extremely ....a major functmn of the state is unrealistic self-containment assumption to maintain and pohee inequitable from Dilemma situations, that in­ dividuals act in totally isolated ways, not distribution. learning from past social interaction. In such supergames then, no intervention is required. Undoubtedly some Dilemmas are Z/gtZ-f resolved by 'intervention', e.g. by allow­ dence. And having sufficiently many/ ing the prisoners to get in touch so that interest-interdependent people in a smali they find they are neighbours or that community (which is not thoroughly im­ they can really co-operate. Equally im­ poverished) is normally enough, given portant, and equally independent of the State, is the matter of breaking down the their social influence, to avoid or resolve adversary, or game, situation so the by co-operation the types of Prisoners' prisoners do not act as competitors but Dilemma situations that appear to count are prepared to co-operate/' Informa­ in favour of the State/ tional input may also be important, e.g. news that each prisoner has a good ff /yy 77/E /VLEA7A/.1 record of adhering to agreement, or if not is prepared to stake collateral, etc. Nor is force or threat of force required SC/CC777) as an incentive to guarantee optimal What the Dilemma-based case for the strategies: a range of other inducements State has to show — what never has been and incentives is known (should they be shown — is that there are outstanding required in recalcitrant cases), and is Dilemma situations which are relevant, used even by the State, e.g. gifts, important, and also damaging if deprivation, social pressure, etc. But at unresolved, and that they are resolvable no stage is the State required to make by State intervention, and only so (op­ these arrangements: much as some real timally) resolvable. Finally it has to be Prisoners' Dilemmas are resolved by shown that in the course of so resolving work of Amnesty International, so these Dilemma situations, worse situa­ voluntary organisations can be formed tions than those that are resolved are not to detect and deal with Prisoners' Dilem­ thereby induced. These complex condi­ ma situations where they are not already tions cannot be satisfied, if they can be catered for. And in fact communal and satisfied at all, in a way that is not ques­ co-operative organisation did resolve tion begging. For several of the condi­ Prisoners' Dilemma-type situations tions are value dependent (e.g. what is historically, for example in the case of important, damaging, optional, worse) the Commons. In sum, here also replacement works. and involve considerations about which reasonable parties can differ. The selec­ There are no important Dilemma situa­ tion of Dilemmas itself provides an ex­ tions, it seems, where the State is essen­ ample of value dependence: after all tial. The State has been thought to be there are many such Dilemmas (e.g. as to essential because of certain influential environmental degradation, of over­ false dichotomies; for example, that all exploitation, of family fcuds/or^violencQ) behaviour that is not egoistic is altruistic which are considered beyond the sphere (but altruistic behaviour is uncommon, of the State or not worthy of State atten­ and 'irrational'), that the only way of allocating goods, apart from profittion. There are now grounds for concluding directed markets — which tend to deal that the conditions cannot be satisfied at abysmally with collective goods — is all. For many of the arguments using through State control.'^ But it is quite Prisoners' Dilemma games, Hobbes' evident that there are o/Aer methods of and Hume's arguments for the State and allocation, both economic (e.g. ex­ Hardin's 'Tragedy of the Commons' for change, through traditional markets, instance, turn out when projver/y /or- based on supply costs) and social (e.g. by to consist not just of a single co-operatives, clubs). Lastly, introduction of the State to game but of a sequence of such games, to be more adequately represented by resolve so/ne Dilemma situations has what is called a But in many very extensive effects/ many of them such sequential Prisoners' Dilemma negative, so that the gains made, if any, games, rational 'co-operation' can oc­ in so resolving Dilemma situations, ap­ cur, even assuming separated players pear to be substantially outweighed by with purely egoistic interests.'" For what the costs involved. For there are the SOCIAL ALTERNA ! tVES Vet. 2 No. 3. )982 25 many evi! aspects of the typicai State to put in the baiance. As regards Dilemma situations, entry of the State with its authority showing may not help but may worsen some situations, and more im­ portant, new Dilemmas may be initiated by State activity, as in the case of the prisoners, or differently with the State as a further player (since the State may engage in whaling, have access to a com­ mons, etc.). These points lead also to further arguments against the State. available 'collective good' (e.g. commons, un polluted streams, whales, wilderness). That received arguments of ail these types involves Prisoners' Dilemma situations (in the wide sense) is argued, in effect, in Taylor, op.cit. and etsewhere. An easier introduction to the material covered by Taylor, which also surveys other Important literature, is given in the final chapter of R Abrams, Foundations of Political Analysis, Columbia University Press, New York, 1980. 5. An important matter the two player game does not illustrate is the relevance of popula­ tion size in the arguments for the State. But size is not decisive (see, e.g., Taylor, chapter 2), and the issue can be avoided (or relocated) by organisation into smaller communities. The figures given in the matrix are illustrative only; for inequalities which suffice for a Dilemma situation, see Taylor, p.5. 6. It is similarly bizarre that there should be out­ comes that the State alone is said to be able to arrange, but not mere social cooperation, when the State zs (as on many theories) the result or reflection of social cooperation. 7. This important point is much elaborated in V. and R. Routley, Soc/af Theories, Se// Management, and T'n wronwm'a/ ProAferru in Environmental Philosophy (edited D Mannison and others), RSSS, Australian National University, 1980. 9. 10. 11. 12. 4. Arguments of this type are sometimes said to represent 'the strongest case that can be made for the desirability of the State' (M. Taylor, Anarchy and Cooperation, Wiley, London, 1976. p.9). To cover all arguments of the type, and to avoid repetition of the phrase 'variants of' and disputes as to whether cer­ tain arguments such as those of Hume and of Olson involve Prisoners' Diiernnta situations, Prisoner's Dilemma' is used in a wide sense to include not merely single n-person Prisoners' Dilemma games, but for example, games where the payoffs are not merely egoistic (as with both Hobbes and Hume) and where such games are iterated. As the bracketed clauses in the text indicate, there are two types of case, not sharply separated and both of the same /ogtcaZ/orm — those where people do not rwr/A/wfe to sup/r/y themselves with, or with 'optimum' quantities of, a 'collective good' (e.g. security, order, sewage), and those where people do not re.s/ram themselves to mam/am, or maintain 'optimum" quantities of, some already 13. As a result of G. Hardin's Tragerh' o/ rhe Commons, historical evidence has been assembled which reveals how far Hardin's 'Commons' diverges from historic commons; see, in particular, A. Roberts, 7'he Se/fManagmg TTiwonmenr, Allison & Busby. London, 1979, chapter 10, but also Routley, op.cit. p.285 and pp. 329-332. Similar points apply as regards many other Dilemma situa­ tions. 'In the experimental studies of the prisoner's dilemma game approxtmately half of the participants choose a cooperative strategy even when they know for certain that the other player will cooperate'. Abrams. op.cit., p.3O8. ' Cf. the discussion in Taylor, op.cit.. p.93. This important result is established in Taylor, op.cit, for a number of critical cases, though not generally; see, e.g. p.32 but especially chapter 5. Such moves have proved valuable in reducing the State's role in legal prosecution, and in eliminating courtroom procedures, including cases where the State is one of the 'adver­ saries'. Both the false dichotomies cited are common­ place, not to say rife, in modern economic and political theorising. Both are to be found in Abram's final chapter, for example, and the first (with an attempt to plaster over the gap with a definition) in Taylor. For a further criticism of such false dichotomies, see Routley, op.cit., pp.25O ff. To take one lesser example. State intrusion often induces a certain social escapism: one escapes one's social roles and is enabled to concentrate on private affairs or just to laze. Or so it may appear: for in reality anyone who works, works long and often alienated hours to pay for this apparent escapism and to cover the high costs of frequently inade­ quate State activity. of course. ] 5^ The case if broken-backed right here: to agree because if we don't to this not goint/ to social contract - which allegedly implies these things - either. Similarly, the social contract theory is broken-backed. G5; . Alternative longer at this point in §3:- In shof^* in certain important cases, cooperative individual choice cannot replace state-covered choice. There are (as the bracketed clauses indicate) two main types of case, those where people do not contribute to supply themselves with, or with optimum quant­ ities of, a "collective good", and those where people do not restrain themselves to maintain, or maintain optimum quantities of, some already available "collective good". The first type of case is taken to include such traditional and modern concerns of the state and its subsidiary institutions as order, security, defence, and perhaps private property, as well as sewerage schemes, water supplies^.waste services, public health, social security, etc. The second case is supposed to include, as well as village commons, newer environmental concerns such as clean air, unpolluted streams and beaches, parks, rainforests, wilderness, wha les, etc. But there is no sharp division between the cases (security or parks could be of either type depending on the status quo), and as arguments for state institution both have the same logical form, that of a Prisoners' Dilemma or some finite sequence of Pri soners' Dilemma games (what are called Prisoners' Dilemma The arguments are not mere exercises in game theory since it is through arguments of this type that political theorists such as Hobbes and Hume have 5. attempted to demonstrate the necessity of the Stato4^ Furthermore, it is with arguments of the same form, the "Tragedy of the Commons", that Hardia and others have tried to show that extensive, indeed draconian, state powers are required to resolve environmental problems; without such powers no exploiter or polluter will exercise restraint. Consider the gj^le Prisoners' Dilemma game where each player, or prisoner, is assuined, as is usual in these things, to be egoistic (sometime equated with "being rational"), to seek just&axijnisation of his own private payoff, in the special case where there are just two players. (The special case illustrates all the main points except one, the importance of size in making a case for the state.) [Joins text again at fn.5 point.] /* 4. In §3:- The Trac^ec[y of the Commons is set up so as to assume no collective methods had [Teen developed or can be developed without coercion. (Roberts). The point of coercian is to ret^n the privatised individual. $ For the factor of coercion makes it in interests of private individualize coercion makes the effect of relations to be got without exceeding privatised individual picture. Coercion substitutes for relations in the context of privatised individuals. Privatised individuals are, of course, products, in large part, of the operation (and enforcement and entrenchment) of a particular social theory, or rather sort of social theory. ^5^ In §4:- The case looks like an inside job; and it is, though neither the operative, nor for that matter the prisoners ^n their own, essential role. play an The prisoners, in any finite number, can be members of a community and payoffs quantities of some collective good . The claim is, that without intervention (by thecate), the community will only corpse a subeyy^mo/ quantity of the good if any. Some features of the prisoners' relations are assumed to transfer however. Suppose, to see the impact of the first reason for the failure of independence, the prisoners are friends and their common interest is to 6. be together. Then, if they are given the opportunity to cooperate, and independ­ ence is not enforced by separation, they will, quite rationally, choose a joint optimal strategy,and there is no dilemma. Since the same considerations will not apply where large numbers of strangers are involved, the question arises as the extent and severity of Dilemma situations. The question is complicated by the second double-edged reason for the failure of independence, namely that statist political arrangements undoubtedly accentuate the extent and severity of Dilemma situations by discouraging (providing negative incentives) for genuinely cooper­ ative behaviour and nmttAcd aid. This is another respect in which statist arrangments (like some subclimax biological communities) tend to be self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating. [Transfer some experimental material to here?] Accordingly, what arguments for the State on such b ases as Prisoners' Dilemma situations have to show is not merely 1) that state coercion does suffice to resolve (sufficiently^ many such (damaging) Dilemmas, but also 2) that such coercion is the only way of doing so, and 3) that in doing so worse situations than those that are resolved are not thereby induced. These things have never been shown: nor can they be shown definitely, since firstly 4 there are various nonstatist arrangements for resolving what are taken to be damaging Dilemmas, and secondly the overall assessment of what Dilemmas are damaging and what costs are worth incurring in resolving them are ultimately evaluative and go back to rival, and presumably coherent, value systems. Hence, when all this is spelled out, the irrefutability of anarchism. To get some feel for the complexity of the issue and for the extent to evolutive matters do enter, several points relevant to l)-3) should be introduced. Firstly, there are many Dilemma situations into which the State puts little or no effort and many others which are, or were, considered as beyond the sphere of influence of the State or as not worthy of State attention, for instance, cases of 7. environmental degradation, overexploitation of a "resource", personal or family feuds, etc., several of them aggravated by State arrangements such as excessive privatisation of resources (e.g. enclosure of the commons). (If such Dilemmas can be downgraded in importance to suit the Statist case so can other Dilemmas appar­ ently favouring State intervention.) Many of these cases would not be helped at all by the entry of the State or its representatives with their authority duly showing (though they might be assisted by sensitive mediation, which does not call for a State, only rudiments Secondly, introduction of the State tof&yolve some Prisoners' of a society). Dilemma situations is not without wide-ranging effects, many of them negative, so that the gains made, if any, in so resolving Dilemma situations have to be weighed against costs involved in achieving these gains. Among the costs are new Dilemmas, such as the very example considered in illustrating Prisoner Dilemma games which was initiated by State activity. Differently, new Dilemmas will result with the state as a further player (since the State may have access to the commons, engage in whaling, etc.). Some of these situations are interesting in that they may lead to litigation and decision-making outside of or independ­ ent of the State, the resultgof which the State is supposed to enforce though it may be against its d Nothing does: interests. But what ensures that rt sticks to the findings. it is simply assumed that the State will adhere to its role. But if that assumption is valid with respect to the State (not known for its reliability) then it is good also for various other parties. In short,agreement or decision!* can be reached and adhered to without need for State enforcement. So coercion is not always required. Are there important Dilemmas where use the authority of the State is the only way? Often behind the claim that is is, is a false (but very influential) dichotomy, that the only way of allocating goods, apart from profit-directed markets which may deal abysmally with collective goods, is through state control^' 8. But it is quite evident that there are other methods of allocation, both economic (e.g. exchange, based on costs involved) and social (e.g. clubs, cooper­ [And a mixture of these methods can be applied to resolve any Prinsoners' atives). Dilemma that matters, i.e. here too replacement works. An important initial move is, as was seen, to put the prisoners in touch, so that they could cooperate: equally important is breaking down the ...] [Joins top of p.7] Such organisations would not have nearly so much to do as statists would like us to believe, especially once cooperative ways of doing things and mutual aid had become established ways in contrast to competitive and privatised ways. For the extent of simple Prisoners' Dilemma situations calling for intervention (o^ some sort) has been exaggerated and many, probably, very many, of those that have been thought to require intervention do not because the players (are prepared to) "cooperate" anyway. happen:- There are importantly different reasons why the latter can Firstly, enough players operate with motives which are not purely priv­ atised for a sufficiently optimal outcome to result. these players have altruistic motives: This does not imply that their interests may depend on those of other players in a range of nonaltruistic ways. Secondly, many cases presented as if they were simple Prisoner's Dilemma games turn out when properly analysed, in particular when time is duly taken account of, to be Prisoners' Dilemma supergames. Such, for instance, is the position with the arguments of Hobbes, Hume and Hardin. But in such supergames rational "cooperation" often occurs, even assuming the players have the worst of privatised correct analysis of a Prisoner's Dil&wima often beaten at their own game. problems.] motives. In short, where the game is as a supergame, statists are [Detail Taylor's partial results, and their Chapter 3 Con,v7i^c%y^ /) CRITIQUE OF THE STATE 1. ARGUMENTS The main argument for anarchism can be concentrated in a detailed critique of the state. For therewith arguments against state-like institutions are also advanced. However further ado is no doubt required to remove all other (unexplified) alternatives to anarchism. A Anarchist critiques of the state advance the following themes: * States and state-like institutions are without satisfactory justification. * Such institutions are not required for organisational purposes. * Such institutions have most inharmonious consequences; they bring a whole series of social and environmental bungles or evils in their train. In brief, they are unnecessary unjustified evils. The anarchist critique does not end there, but typically includes, such further themes as : * States have excessive power, linkages to state power. * Societies are not inductably saddled with states. States can be displaced or even decay (though they are unlikely to just wither away). (9 1 Chapter 3 : CRITIQUE OF THE STATE 1. ARGUMENTS The main argument for anarchism can be concentrated in a detailed critique of the state. For therewith arguments against state-like institutions are also advanced. However further ado is no doubt required to remove all other (unexplified) alternatives to anarchism. / Anarchist critiques of the state advance the following themes: * States and state-like institutions are without satisfactory justification. e Such institutions are not required for organisational purposes. Such institutions have most inharmonious consequences; they bring a whole series of social and environmental bungles or evils in their train. In brief, they are unnecessary unjustified evils. The anarchist critique does not end there, but typically includes, such further themes as : * States have excessive power. * States are devices for channelling privilege and wealth to certain minorities with inside linkages to state power. * Societies are not ineluctably saddled with states. States can be displaced or even decay (though they are unlikely to just wither away). 1. The state is an undesirable, or even downright evii, institution, for the following range of reasons:- * States entrench inequities, domination and exploitation. States are devices for the protection of wealth, property and privilege, and usually for the redistribution upwards, and often concentration, of wealth and privilege. A minor but popular illustration is offered by the expensive conferences and other junkets that state employees or party officials organise for themselves and manage to bill to state revenue, in turn sucked up from inequitable taxation. Certainly a main historical outcome of the state has been domination of exploitation of certain segments of society by others, and some see its main, and barely concealed, purpose as just that: domination and exploitation. * States are typically corrupt. For example, there are enquiries presently in train, or with follow-through activities yet to be duly completed, in many states in Australia, enquires which have revealed considerable corruption, and there are prima facie cases for similar enquiries in most of the remainder. Nor is this a new phenomenon: these revelations often resemble older or on-going scandals. * States are enormously expensive, and constitute a heavy drain upon regional resources, and accordingly on local environments. In poorer regions they are not merely a heavy burden, but 2 a main cause of impoverishment. One reason for their voracious appetite is an excess of over­ remunerated and often under-productive state employees. Another connected reason is that many state operations are far from lean and efficient, but incorporate many duplications, drag factors and dead weight. Under anarchisms, of all varieties, these heavy cost burdens, weighing down subservient populaces, would be shed. Costs of organisation would be very significantly reduced. * The state is an incubus. States are major impositions on everyday life. They are intrusive and demanding. Never has this been more forcefully expressed than in Proudhon's famous denouncement of state government: To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first world of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality (quoted in M p.6). As a result, there are constant demands for the reduction of the cancerous state, for removing parts of it through deregulation, selling off state enterprises and so on. There are two troubles with such demands from anarchist standpoints: they never go far enough, to the complete reduction of the state to zero, but characteristically retain parts supportive of or favourable to bigger business, and they proceed in the wrong way, stripping away social safety nets rather than ripping off business support nets (such as limited liability, strike limitation legislation, etc.). * States, for all that they have been promoted as delivering public goods, are mostly dismal news for environmental protection and health and for social justice. Furthermore they are liable to impose substantial hazards or risks upon subservient populations not merely through military and like activities but, more insidious, through support and promotion of dangerous industries, such as nuclear and giant chemical industries. * States usually exert a heavy pressure to uniformity, they tend to eliminate plurality and cultural differences. These pressures are exercised by a state in the alleged interests of national unity, and against its enemies, external and internal. Even the most liberal of states tend to give minorities more difficult lives in times of stress, such as war. They are always espousing national values, state interests, and commonly assimilation and adoption of state values (thus for example Canada, formerly and briefly a state toying with multiculturalism, now insistent upon "Canadian values"). Such exercises are conspicuous, not only in citizen ceremonies and other state rituals, such as national sporting and religious events, but more important are virtually ubiquitous in elementary education (down to deference to the flag, and 3 similar). * States are a major source of wars, and the major source of major wars, undoubted evils (however supposedly inevitable). They are major sources and suppliers of military technology and weapons, the means of war. Roughly, the more powerful and "advanced" a state, the further it is engaged in weapon production and export. Without states it is doubtful that there would be any nuclear weapons, and accordingly there would be no prospect of nuclear wars as there would be no weapons with which to fight them. * States are a serious drag on a more satisfactory international order. That there are not more, and more satisfactory, international regulatory organisations "is mainly a matter of the reluctance of nation states to surrender their powers and the dangers of their being dominated by very powerful states. If only nation states would be dissolved into specialized [departments] there is every reason to believe that most world problems could be handled by appropriate specialized [organisations]' (Bumheimp.221). * States have excessive power, and are even accumulating or trying to accumulate more, for instance through more centralization, further controls, additional licences, etc., etc. The excessive power of the state is exhibited not only in the treatment of its citizens and foreigners within its territory; it is exemplified also in its practices its territory, through such features as military pressures, including invasion, trade pressures, including sanitions, and in treatment of its citizens everywhere.! Obvious responses to excessive power are regionalization of powers, separation of powers, achieved by decoupling and some fragmentation, limitation of powers, and so on. * Present monolithic governments have assumed far too many roles, for many of which they are not competent, from some of which they are disqualified by other roles (e.g. as impartial referees by their business commitments). Because the centre tries to do and control foo much, as a consequence it does very much unsatisfactorily. Improved arrangements would separate these roles, deconcentrating and decentralizing power. States thus appear far from a good bargain on a preliminary consideration of costs, and very far from maximal or optimal. Especially bad states, the run of states, which engage in politically-motivated inclination or torture of their citizens, and so on. Where are the The issue tends to be avoided; it is contended that, contrary to appearances, we cannot get along without state cossetting: states are necessary. But, given that we can get along without them, would we really be significantly worse off without them? cfr . <r ,,^ven m thd better cases (not allowing for alternative nonstatist arrangements which states have precluded or systems they have usurped)? But arguments for states are not usually so directly utilitarian in character. Such arguments would make it look as if we might well opt out of state organisation, and often be better off doing so. 1 A recent shocking example concerns the attempt of Eire to prevent an Irish women having an abortion in England. 4 These considerations divide into two groups: features that are on normal, normally bad, operations of states, and features that are normic on institution and operation of states. The first group of criticisms are eliminated under good to ideal operation of states, what officiandos of states characteristically unwarr^ntedly make. For the evidence seems to be that in practice states will tend away from the ideal. There are arguments from low efficiencies of complex mechanical structures that can be adopted to lend support to what evidence reveals. Features that are normic, and perhaps inevitable upon institution of states do however yield arguments against states that do not depend on ym*e contingencies of most states, their and so on. / 2. Ways of demonstrating that the State is not Required: as for God and the Church, so for the State. There is a theological component in the presumption and theory of the State; that theological component and therewith of the argMmenfa/ foundations for the State should be fully exposed. By contrast, anarchism, ^ approached from an argument perspective, enjoys nn considerable strength requiring no leaps of faith. The State is like God: the anarchist is like the atheist in disbelief and nonrecognition of what is commonly assumed, mostly as a matter of faith, to be needed. The awn by Bakunin, has as well as considerable strength certain weaknesses. While the atheist believes that God does not exist, the anarchist does not believe that there are no states: on the contrary, there are all too many, though none are legitimate.^The important parallel is as to argM/n^n^. The agnostic does not believe that the arguments for the existence of God succeed, and so adopts a 'neutral' stance; similarly the State-agnostic does not believe that the arguments for the State work, and likewise tries to adopt a fence-sitting position. Soundly based atheism goes further than agnosticism, not only faulting the argumentybr, but taking it for granted that there are arguments, or at least solid considerations, <2g(?in.yL So it is with soundly based anarchism; it both faults arguments for the State, showing none are generally viable, and de ps an incisive case against the State. A more obvious comparison, appreciated from Reformation on and again emphasised by Bakunin,2 is that of State and Church. 'Of course Knever should have eventuated; several bad political turnings were taken in the modern period following the Renaissance, t In several respects the comparison is better than that of the State and God, since both belong to the same category, institutions. Thus too both have looked to some philosophers as human inventions or artifices, both have looked to others (reductionists) as objects that could be reduced to features of the individuals involved in their organisation (but it is hard to see why such fictions or logical constructions shuld be assigned the power and deference they are 2 Bakunin on Anap^hy-(gdited S. Dolgolff), Allen & Unwin, London, 1973, especially p.139. 5 accorded). This institutional comparison enables several relevant features of the State to be emphasised; for example, how, as the Church used to, the State assigns to itself many very extensive powers, such as a monopoly on the production and control of the main medium of exchange, currency, and an ultimate monopoly on organised violence, all other internal security arrangements being eventually answerable to its police, and thence to its officers and military; how it is of the same category as business organisations such as multinationals, which now to some extent threaten it but by and large collaborate with it; how, as again the Church used to, it has nominal support of most of its 'subjects', though many of them are little better than Sunday believers, and an increasing number have come to see the State as in many respects evil and inevitably corrupt, but as a necessary evil. It is easy now, in retrospect, to see how from being a compulsory feature of social life in many places, the Church has become a voluntary, and fragmented one; such a parallel desirable transformation of the State would eliminate it. Whether the State is inevitably evil or not, it is so it will be argued, in a way parallelling the famous Five Ways of Aquinas designed to prove that God exists. That is, much as there are several ways of arguing to the existence of God, assembled by Aquinas into the famous (but not exhaustive, and invariably invalid) Five Ways, as well as various less famous but also important arguments against the existence of God, so in a parallel fashion there are various arguments that the State is required, as well as, what comes later that is especially relevant for anarchism, several ways of arguing against the necessity and desirability of the State. Since the State is unnecessary, as well as costly and typically at least evil in many of its practices and in other respects, it should be superseded. And it can be succeeded, by alternative social arrangements. It can be superseded or replaced as the Churches to a .9*1 large extent been supeyuated or replaced in many places. Just as the power of the ChurchAas declined until it has lost its authority over parishioners, so authority of the State can be undermined, and it can lose recognition and its claim to sovereignty over those in its territory,/A But there is a crucial difference between State and Church: under those conditions the State vanishes; for authority backed by coercive power is essential to the State but not (any longer) to the Church. And where the State differs crucially from Society anarchistically organised is as to the matter of coercion and of authority back^by force, such a Society relying basically on voluntary cooperation where the State relies on authority backed by force. Furthermore, the Church is justified through a religious theory, and is backed up ultimately by appeal to God's authority. The modern secular State by contrast annexes itself authority (or has simply inherited it) and, though it may claim to be justified by some political theory which confers upon it legitimacy, makes no appeal back to a justifying or authorizing agent. So what justifies it? Briefly, nothing does. * The First Way of Showing that the State is not Required: t&e Argument. / 6 The core of the argument is simple and persuasive: everything in the collective interest accomplished by the State can equally be accomplished by alternative arrangements such as voluntary cooperation, the remainder of State activity being dispensed with. The argument is not a straight substitution argument, for it is not as if a rational person would want to have everything accomplished by the State replicated by alternative arrangements. There is much the State does or supports that is at best rather indifferent, for instance, sponsorship of pomp and ceremony and of junkets by VIP's; and a great deal of typical State activity is positively evil and not in the collective interest, for instance, graft, corruption, brutality, maintenance of inequitable distribution of wealth, land and other resources, and encouragement; of protection^ of polluting or qvironmentally destructive industries (e.g. without state sponsorship we should not be well embarked on a nuclear future, without state assistance and subsidization Australia would not be burdened with its extensive forest-destructive pine planting and woodchip projects). The modern State has however many other functions than repressive or damaging ones, functions of community welfare or of otherwise beneficial kind. This does not upset the replacement argument for anarchism. The argument, implicit in the works of the classical anarchists, goesjike this: The functions of the State can be divided into two types, those that are in the collective interest and generally beneficial such as community welfare and organisational functions, and those that are not (but are, presumably, in the interests of some of the powerful groups the State tends to serve). But as regards functions of the first type, the generally beneficial functions which are in the collecdve interest, no coercion is required. For why should people have to be coerced into carrying out functions which are in their collective interest? Such functions can be performed, and performed better, without the coercion which is the hallmark of the State, and without the accompanying tendency of the State to pervert such functions to the maintenance of privilege and inequality of power, and to remove power from those it 'serves'. The detailed argument that such functions can be performed takes a case-by-case form considering each function in turn.3 In each case the function is carried out through alternative arrangements, such as voluntary co-operation by the people directly concerned, which replace State arrangements. Consider, for example, the operation of mutual aid or self help medical services, or community access communications (e.g. radio), most of which are presently either starved of infrastucture or hindered by the State. Such beneficial services would in general be reorganised so that all the relevant infrastructure became communally held, and That is, proper elaboration of this argument takes each facet of generally beneficial state activity - there is only a (relatively small) finite number to consider - and shows how it can be replaced in one way or another. Replacement is not of course uniquely determined. Lines such replacements can take are indicated in much anarchist (and self-management) literature, consider especially, but no, uncritically, P. Kropootkin, MMfMai Aid, New York University Press 1972, and also his Fi^/dy, Faci<?rie.y and WorLyAo/w, second edition, Nelson, London, 1913, and 77te Con<?Me.yf o/Brgad. Chapman and Hall, London, 1913. 7 those wishing to arrange or use the service would manage the operation themselves, taking the operation into their own hands instead of being the passive recipients of favours meted out to them by professionals and powerful agencies. Coercion is unnecessary because, in more communal types of anarchism, the basic infrastructure and many resources (other than individual labour) are already held by the community, so there is no need to apply coercion to individuals to extract these resources needed for community welfare projects, as there is in the situation where wealth and resources are privatised and coercion is required to wrest resources from unwilling private individuals. As for the second type of functions, those which are no? in the collective interest, coercion will normally be required for the performance of functions, and is thus an essential part of the State's operation. But those functions are better dispensed with, since they are not in the collective interest. In this way, while the good part of the state's operation is retained and improved upon, the bad part — especially the evils of brutality, corruption and other abuses invariably associated with the coercive apparatus - is detached. State services that are concerned with orr/gr, in the general sense, may be similarly removed or replaced. These services, which include reduction of violence to persons and redress for such violence, quarantine services, security, orderly operation of traffic, and so on, have often been said to make for especial difficulties for anarchism, or even to refute it. They do not. Firstly, disputes can be settled and offences dealt with directly by communities themselves without intervention by the State. Secondly, a great many of these problems are created or enhanced by the State, e.g. violence of which the State is the main purveyor and which is often the outcome of the State's propping up of gross inequalitiesA A community which seriously limits (or dispenses with) the institution of private property and removes gross inequalities in the distribution of wealth thereby removes the need for many "welfare services and the basis for a great many offences involving violence: virtually all those involving violence to private property and many of those involving personal violence. Such a left-leaning anarchism is also quite invulnerable to further familiar, but ludicrous, arguments for the State, such as those based on the fairer distribution of land, property and wealth allegedly achieved by State enforcement of redistribution. As all too many people are aware, a major function of the State is to maintain and police inequitable distribution. This then is the main classical argument for anarchism. The argument has however been challenged, both by historical and more recent objections, which are designed to show that people cannot act in their collective interest without coercion. On these points see, e.g. 7?6wZMZz'a/zary Pawp/z/^tj (edited S. Baldwin), Kover Publications, New York, 1970, p.206ff.; also P.J. Proudhon, Cazz/e^jza/M' a/* a R^va/azza/zary. For recent discussion of, and practical examples of, replacements for arbitration and law court procedures (Zzaz for right-leaning anarchism), see C.D. Stone, Sawg <?H arhZzrazZag oar way ra anarcAy, Anarchism (reprint of Nomos XIX) New York University Press, 1978, pp.213- s 8 It is from the simulation argument, in particular, that the corollary of the q/ will follow? For, to overstate the case, anything the State can do that does reflect sought collective interests,, cooperation and other techniques can also achieve in the longer run, and mostly better. * The Second Way: The argument from problem recurrence. The solution by the State to problems of social organisation repeats or generates in more dangerous form the very real problems introduction of the State was designed to solve, including new Dilemmas. Suppose, for instance, the secular State really introduced in order to solve Prisoners' Dilemmas, then the array of States so resulting generates new Prisoners' Dilemmas (with States as 'prisoners'), which there is no Super-State to resolve by coercion. In fact, as opposed to State-justifying mythology, the modem secular State was not introduced (just as the original states were not initiated) for any such apparently intellectually reputable reasons, but was largely inherited from the religious State (and the Church) and maintained to prop up privilege and foster objectives that are not in its communities' interests. Or suppose, as the myth also has it, that the State really were introduced, or contracted, in the interest of order and stability and to curb violence; then the array of States resulting more than negates these advantages, with instability, disorder and violence (e.g. between States) on a grander scale than before the emergence of modern secular States? * The Third Way: The overshoot argument, from the inadequacy of institutional controls on state power. Having ceded a monopoly of power of the State in order to resolve some dilemmas, some of them arising from an inequitable distribution of power, what controls or balances the power of the State? A Super-State. And its power? There is a vicious infinite regress if the reply to the question 'What controls the controller?' is 'a further controller'? The only promising way of avoiding this problem — other routes lead (even more) directly to totalitarianism — is by having the first of these controllers, the State, answer back to those in whose interests it is allegedly established, those of the society or group of communities it controls. This implies democratic methods of some kind. Others go further: 'democracy [is] the only known means to achieve this control, the only known device by which we can try to The title of a joint paper upon which several of these sections draw^. The argument, to be found in Bakunin, is elaborated a little in Taylor, op cif, chapter 7. A related argument, also in Bakunin, is from the way in which emergence of the State compromises and even closes off nonstate solutions to problems of social organisation in adjoining regions. Several historical examples of this phenomenon are alluded to in M. Harris, and Ajngj, Collins, London. 1978, where it is also revealed how little the actual origin and rise of the State had to do with Dilemma situations, e.g. escaping a Hobbesian state of nature. Indeed, it was (j^th the advent and development of the State that life became for many what it had not apparently been in pre-State neolithic times, 'nasty, brutish and short'. The question is in effect Plato's question and the regress is reminiscent of his Third Man argument. 9 protect ourselves against the misuse of political power'.R In this event, control has mostly failed. Democracy is extremely attentuated, even in those states that claim to practice it. The exercise of power in modem 'democratic' states is often channelled through 'non-elected authority' and 'is not democratic in the traditional meaning of the term'.9 Moreover, the much increased power in the modern State, which reaches deep into people's lives, has passed, with no increase in legitimacy, to certain managerial elites who present the power as directed at the attainment of 'generally accepted' objectives such as economic growth (but through, e.g., increased military expenditure) or material 'progress' (but through, e.g., increased military expenditure) or material 'progress' (but through, e.g. subsidization of environmentally destructive enterprises of off-shore companies), though the acceptability of such particular objectives is never democratically tested. In any case, indirect democratic and other institutional checks are in as much as they depend ultimately on the toleration of those who have direct control of the forces of the State. Experience seems to show that such toleration will only be shown so long as democratic procedures deliver results that are not too disagreeable, that are broadly in accord iwth what those who control the coercive power are prepared to accept. (Toleration of such a tamed democracy then brings benefits to those who hold power, especially the cover of legitimation). But institutional checks which operate only insofar as a system acceptable to the powerholders is not seriously challenged, and which depend ultimately upon the toleration of those 'checked', are not really checks at all. The problem of controlling the power of the State and preventing the State once established from usurping further power and exceeding its mandate, is only solved by not ceding power to the State in the first place. The best way of avoiding the evils of accumulated power is the anarchist way, of blocking its accumulation. * The Fourth Way: The argument from freedom and autonomy. A person is responsible for actions deliberately undertaken. This premise can be derived, if need be, from the notion of a person as a moral agent. Taking responsibility for one's actions implies, among other things, making the final decision about what to do on each such occasion oneself; not acting on direction from outside, but determining how to act, what ought to be done, oneself; not handing that decision over to someone or something else. It implies, that is, moral autonomy. Autonomy in turn implies what responsibility requires, freedom. For the autonomous being, endorsing its own decisions and principles, is K.R. Popper, 77ie (?/?<?/i 5*<9c;'<?ry and Vol. II. Fourth edition (revised), Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1962, p.129 and p.127. The (overshoot) problem is, according to Popper 'the most fundamental problem of all politics: the control of the controller, of the dangerous accumulation of power represented in teh State' 'upon which' Marxists never had 'any wellconsidered view' (p.129). V. Lauber, Eco/ogy, po/ZzZcj and Zz&emZ ^efwocracy, Government and Opposition, 13 (1978), 199-217: seep.209 and p.211. 10 not subject to the will of another. Even if it does what another directs, it is not another so directs. In being free, nof of constraints (both physical and self-determined), but of the constraints and will of others, an autonomous being is morally free. A necessary feature of the State is (XMf/ionry over those in its territory (under its de facto jurisdiction), the right to rule and impose its will uon them. Such authority backed by force is incompatible with moral autonomy and with freedom. An autonomous being, though it may act in accordance with some imperatives of the State, those it independently endorses, is bound to reject such (a claim to) authority, and therewith the State. In sum, being a person, as also being autonomous and being free, implies rejecting the authority of the State, and so not acknowledging the State; that is, each condition on personhood implies, if the argument is sound, anarchism, io It is possible to combine autonomy with an extremely attenuated 'State', one based on on-going unanimous direct democracy. But such a 'State', with no independent authority, is not really a state, since any participant can dissolve it at any time, and so constitutes no threat to anarchism. On the contrary, such direct democratic methods are part of the very stuff of anarchistic organisation. * The Fifth Way: The argument from anarchistic experience. The replacement argument enables construction of a model of a society functioning without the State, of a practically possible Stateless world; which shows that the State is not necessary. But it can always be - even if the claim can seldom or ever be made good - that the modelling leaves out some crucial feature of real world circumstances, rendering it inapplicable. The gap may be closed by appeal to the independently valuable argument from experience, that at various times and places anarchism has been tested and has rworked. Examples of such Stateless organisation suffice to show that crucial real world features have not been omitted. There are many examples of non-industrialised societies which were, or are, anarchistic, there is the rich experience of the Spanish collectives,n and there is much localised experience of self-management and small-scale anarchistic arrangements within the State structure. 12 The argument, outlined by Bakunin, is much elaborated, but in a very individualistic and Kantian fashion, in R.P. Wolff, 7% of A/iarc/H-sw, Harper & Row, New York, 1970. No argument is without assumptions, which are open to dispute. Wolffs argument, from which the argument in the text is adapted, has its pitfalls, and is, for example, disputed by G. Wall, P/uZo-yop/wcaZ revi\yg<7, Anarchism, op.cit. p.273ff. Documented in 77ze 1974. Co/Zecfiv&y (edited S. Dolgoff), Free Life Editions New York As B. Martin boldly asserts, 'The advantages of self-management and alternative lifestyles 11 The state is far from necessary and iacks adequate justification. The state is not a self-justifying object. But none of the justificatory arguments to the state are cogent. A familiar theme, conceding that the state is a problematic object, is that the state is a necessary evil. 13 But, to the contrary, states, though generally evil, are hardly necessary. It needs stressing, furthermore, how weak any necessity claimed has to be. For it is becoming increasingly easy, with the advances in logical modellings and computer simulations of other worlds, virtual states and the like, to envisage accessible worlds organised without modern states. As such worlds, inhabited by humans or human-like creatures are possible, states are not necessary. No doubt then, the necessity has to be of some more andpr^m^Jc sort, a "social human necessity" for example appealing to emergent features of humans, kinks of human nature, obtruding in unfavourable situations of high concentrations and extensive scarcity (situations that states themselves have, like many survival systems, helped contrive). Further the necessity has to be relative to certain organisational objectives, such as a particular state delivery of collective goods and services. Remarkably, none of the extant arguments to the state make it plain that such a weak pragmatic relative "necessity" is indicated, though they would hardly establish more, and though they Jo make strong (implausible) assumptions about the brutal situation outside states, in states-of-nature and so on, and about human motivation and practice, its utterly selfish, self-interested and acquisitive, and frequently debased character (i.e. what appears encouraged under economic rationalism, and pretty much what many have come to expect under conditions of advanced capitalism). Mostly no effort is made any longer, outside a few abstruse texts, to justify the state. Within contemporary institutional arrangement it is simply taken for granted (like Big Science), as axiomatic, as God was under medieval arrangements. But unlike God, who was good personified and therefore had a large problem with the extent of evil in the world, the state is acknowledged as problematic and far from unimplicated in the evil of the world (but directly engaged therein when the councils of the many Machievellis are heeded). Such a problematic object cannot stand up as merely postulated. Nor is there a corresponding ontological argument for the state, as that organisational structure than which nothing more are many and significant. And these alternatives are entirely feasible: there is plenty of evidence and experience to support their superiority over the present way society operates. The obstacles to self-management and alternative lifestyles are powerful vested interests and institutional resistance to change', C/zanging f/x? C<%f, Friends of the Earth, Canberra, 1979. p.6. 13 The theme, enunciated for instance by Popper, that * state power must always remain a dangerous though necessary evil' (II, p.30) is a commonplace one. 12 perfect can exist. Outside the flawed imagination of German idealists there is no such Super State; all actual states are manifestly highly imperfect, all humanly realisable ones are likely similar. As a result of the institutionalisation of the state itself, as a received and indeed central part of modern political arrangements, the onus of proof has become curiously inverted. Efforts to justify the state have become fairly ideal and academic, no longer a serious issue, and onus transferred to anarchists to demonstrate that human social life could proceed well and smoothly (as it now does, of course) without states. While anarchists are not absolved from offering some account of operations of good social lives without states (for, except in fairy tales, it does not all just emerge, unplanned, in the new stateless setting), neither are archists absolved from justification of de facto statist arrangements, beginning with the state itself. 4 a ARCrpM&^S-. The main argument for anarchism can be concentrated in a detailed critique of the state, therewithal state-like institutions a/t? %/ro /j /< 7 ) c /A—Zb n X! ct A<$ Anarchist critiques of the state advance the following themes: * States and state-like institutions are without satisfactory justification. * Such institutions are not required for organisational purposes. * Such institutions have most inharmonious consequences; they bring a whole series of social and environmental bungles or evils in their train. In brief, they are unnecessary unjustified evils The anarchist critique does not end there, but typically includes.'further themes/ such as : w States are devices for channelling privilege and wealth to certain minorities with inside , The state is an undesirable, or even downright evii, institution, for the following range of reasons:- * States entrench inequities, domination and exploitation. States are devices for the protection of wealth, property and privilege, and usually for the redistribution upwards, and often concentration, of wealth and privilege. A minor but popular illustration is offered by the expensive conferences and other junkets that state employees or party officials organise for themselves and manage to bill to state revenue, in turn sucked up from inequitable taxation. Certainly a main historical outcome of the state has been domination of exploitation of certain segments of society by others, and some see its main, and barely concealed, purpose as just that: domination and exploitation. ) * States are typically corrupt. For example, there are enquiries presently in train, or with follow-through activities yet to be duly completed, in many states in Australia, enquires which have revealed considerable corruption, and there are prima facie cases for similar enquiries in most of the remainder. Nor is this a new phenomenon: these revelations often resemble older or on-going scandals. * States are enormously expensive, and constitute a heavy drain upon regional resources, and accordingly on local environments. In poorer regions they are not merely a heavy burden, but a main cause of impoverishment. One reason for their voracious appetite is an excess of over­ remunerated and often under-productive state employees. Another connected reason is that many state operations are far from lean and efficient, but incorporate many duplications, drag factors and dead weight. Under anarchisms, of all varieties, these heavy cost burdens, weighing down subservient populaces, would be shed. Costs of organisation would be very significantly reduced. * States are major impositions on everyday life. They are intrusive and demanding^. As a Never has this been more forcefully expressed than in Proudhon's famous denouncement of state government: ^1/7^ To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first world of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality (quoted in M p.6). result, there are constant demands for the reduction of the cancerous state, for removing parts of it through deregulation, selling off state enterprises and so on. There are two troubles with such demands from anarchist standpoints: they never go far enough, to the complete reduction of the state to zero, but characteristically retain parts supportive of or favourable to bigger business, and they proceed in the wrong way, stripping away social safety nets rather than ripping off business support nets (such as limited liability, strike limitation legislation, etc.). * States, for all that they have been promoted as delivering public goods, are mostly dismal news for environmental protection and health and for social justice. Furthermore they are liable to impose substantial hazards or risks upon subservient populations not merely through military and like activities but, more insidious, through support and promotion of dangerous industries, such as nuclear and giant chemical industries. * Statetusually exert a heavy pressure to uniformity, they tend to eliminate plurality and cultural differences. These pressures are exercised by a state in the alleged interests of national unity, and against its enemies, external and internal. Even the most liberal of states tend to give minorities more difficult lives in times of stress, such as war. They are always espousing national values, state interests, and commonly assimilation and adoption of state values (thus for example Canada, formerly and briefly a state toying with multiculturalism, now insistent upon "Canadian values"). Such exercises are conspicuous, not only in citizen ceremonies and other state rituals, such as national sporting and religious events, but more important are virtually ubiquitous in elementary education (down to deference to the f la , and similar). * States are a major source of wars, and the major source of major wars, undoubted evils (however supposedly inevitable). They are major sources and suppliers of military technology and weapons, the means of war. Roughly, the more powerful and "advanced" a state, the further it is engaged in weapon production and export. Without states it is doubtful that there would be any nuclear weapons, and accordingly there would be no prospect of nuclear wars as there would be no weapons with which to fight them. * States are a serious drag on a more satisfactory international order. That there are not more, and more satisfactory, international regulatory organisations 'is mainly a matter of the reluctance of nation states to surrender their powers and the dangers of their being dominated by very powerful states. If only nation states would be dissolved into specialized [departments] there is every reason to believe that most world problems could be handled by appropriate specialized [organisations]' (Burnheimp.221). * States have excessive power, and are even accumulating or trying to accumulate more, for (hT) instance through more centralization, further controls, additional licences, etc., etc. Obvious responses to excessive power are separation of powers, achieved by decoupling and some fragmentation, limitation of powers, and so on. States thus appear farTrom a good bargain on a preliminary consideration of costs, Especially bad states, the run of states, which engage in politically-motivated incun-ation or t.ifure of their citizens, and so on. Where are the compensating benefits?' yven that we can get along without them, would we really be significantly worse off without them? Even in the better cases (not allowing for alternative nonstatist arrangements which states have precluded or systems they have usurped)? But arguments for states are not usually so directly utilitarian in character. Such arguments would make it look as if we might well opt out of state organisation, and often be better off doing so. Mat it is contended that, contrary to appearances, we cannot get along without state cossetting: states are necessary. , *?: - Present monolithic governments have assumed far too many roles, for many of which they are not competent, from some of which they are disqualified by other roles (e.g. as impartial referees by their business commitments). Because the centre tries to do and control top much, as a consequence it does very much unsatisfactorily. Improved arrangements would separate these roles, deconcentrating and decentralizing power. wcef- /%^2^ /\^^ 1 C 4 Z Z^-^7 W GW, //?(? C/7//A /7, jWr f/7(? 3/(7/d The State is like God: the anarchist is like the atheist in disbelief and nonrecognition of what is commonly assumed, mostlv as a matter of faith, to be needed. T)ie pafatlel, BakummTtlibjat^weaknessessas well as Rs strengt%^.''^Vhiie the atheist believes that God does not exist, the anarchist does not believe that there are no states: on the contrary, there are all too many, though none are legitimate. The impor­ tant parallel is as to arguments. The agnostic does not believe that the arguments for the existence of God suc­ ceed, and so adopts a 'neutral' stance; similarly the State-agnostic does not believe that the arguments for the State work, and likewise tries to adopt a fence­ sitting position. Soundly based atheism goes further than agnosticism, not only faulting the argumentsybr, but takingdt for granted that there are arguments, or at least solid considerations, rzgm/ry/. So it is with soundly based anarchism; <t both fault) arguments for the r" 3tatuce- a case against the State. A more obvious comparison, ap­ preciated from Reformation on and again emphasised bvBakunin,' is that of State and Church^ This institutional comparison enables several relevant features of the State to be emphasised; for example, how, as the Church used to, the State assigns to itself many very extensive powers, such as a monopoly on the production and control of the main medium of exchange, currency, and an ultimate monopoly on organised violence, all other internal security arrangernggt^)eing eventually answerable to its pdhee and military^; how it is of the same category as business organisations such as multinationals, which now to some extent threaten it but by and large collaborate with it; how, as again the Church used to, it has nominal support of most of its 'subjects', though many of them are little better than Sunday believers, and an increasing number have come to see the State as in many This does not upset the replacement respects evil and inevitably corrupt, but argument for anarchism. The argument, as a necessary evil.^) implicit in the works of the classical Whether the State is inevitably evil or anarchists, goes like this: The functions not, it is M/mecas-wry, so it will be of the State can be divided into two argued, in a wav parallelling the famous types, those that are in the collective in­ jVquinas designed to prove terest and generally beneficial such as that God exi^&^Since the State is un­ community welfare and organisational necessary, as welt as costly and typically functions, and those that are not (but at leas! evil in many of its practices and are, presumably, in the interests of some undesirable in other respects, it should of the powerful groups the State tends to be superseded. And it can be succeeded, serve). by alternative social arrangements, But as regards functions of the first type, the generally beneficial functions gg 77^ /7r.v/ IWj Q/ SbotWg which are in the collective interest, no coercion is required. For why should /r7t?/ //?C S/t//^ Ay ,76)/ 7?^T//7W.' people have to be coerced into carrying //!f /?e/)GcT/77^?7/ WRM/W7/. out functions which are in their collec­ tive interest? Such functions can be per­ The core of the argument is simple formed, and performed better, without and persuasive: everything in the collec- the coercion which is the hallmark of the tive interest accomplished by the State State, and without the accompanying can equally be accomplished by alterna­ tendency of the State to pervert such tive arrangements such as voluntary co­ functions to the maintenance of privilege operation, the remainder of State activi­ and inequality of power, and to remove ty being dispensed with. The argument is power from those it 'serves'. The detail­ not a straight substitution argument, for ed argument that such functions can be it is not as if a rational person would performed takes a case by case form, want to have everything accomplished considering each function in turn7 In by the State replicated by alternative each case the function is carried out arrangements. There is much the State through alternative arrangements, such does or supports that is at best rather in­ different, ^"'sponsorship of pomp and as voluntary co-operation by the people directly concerned, which replace State ceremony and of junkets by VIPs; and a arrangements. Consider, for example, great deal of typical State activity is the operation of mutual aid or self help positively evil and not in the collective medical services or building programs, interest,'e^. gral^t, corruption, brutality, or self managed welfare, housing or en­ maintenance of inequitable distribution vironment services, or community access of wealth, land and other resources, and communications (e.g. radio), most of encouragement of protection of polluting or environmentally destructive industries (e.g. without state sponsorship we should not be well embarked on a nuclear future, without state assistance and subsidization Australia would not be burdened with its extensive forest­ destructive pine planting and woodchip projects). The modern State has however many other functions than repressive or damaging ones, functions of community welfare or of otherwise beneficial kind. which are presently either starved of infrastructure or hindered by the State. Such beneficia! services would in genera! be reorganised so that ah the relevant infrastructure became communaHy heid, and those wishing to arrange or use the service wou!d manage the operation themselves, taking the operation into their own hands instead of being the passive recipients of favours meted out to them by professional and powerful agencies. Coercion is unnecessary because, in more communal types of anarcnism, the basic infrastructure and many resources (other than individual labour) are already held by the com­ munity, sdthereis no need to apply coer­ cion to individuals to extract these resources needed for community welfare projects, as there is in the situation where wealth and resources are privatis­ ed and coercion is required to wrest resources from unwilling private in­ dividuals. As for the second type of functions, those which are /tor in the collective in­ terest, coercion will normally be required for the performance of //tew functions, and is thus an essentia! part of the State's operation. But those functions are better dispensed with, since they are not in the coHective interest. !n this way, while the good part of the State's operation is re­ tained and improved upon, the bad part — especially the evils of brutality, corruption and other abuses invariabty associated with the coercive apparatus — is detached. State services that are concerned with orjpr, in the genera! sense, may be similarly removed or replaced. These services, which include reduction of violence to persons and redress for such violence, quarantine services, security, orderly operation of traffic, and so on, have often been said to make for especial difficulties for anarchism, or even to refute it. They do not. Firstly, disputes can be settled and offences dealt with directly by communities themselves without intervention by the State. Secondly, a great many of these pro­ blems are created or enhanced by the State, e.g. violence of which the State is the main purveyor and which is often the outcome of the State's propping up of gross inequalities? A community which seriously limits (or dispenses with) the in­ stitution of private property and removes gross inequalities in the distribution of wealth thereby removes the need for many 'welfare' services and the basis for a great many offences in­ volving violence: virtually ail those in­ volving violence to private property and many of those involving personal violence. Such a left-leaning anarchism is also quite invulnerable to further familiar, but ludicrous, arguments for the State, such as those based on the fairer distribution of land, property and wealth allegedly achieved by State en­ forcement of redistribution. As all too many people are aware, a major func­ tion of the State is to maintain and police inequitable distribution. This then is the main classical argu­ ment for anarchism. The argument has however been challenged, both by historical and more recent objections, which are designed to show that people cannot act in their collective interest without coercion. 7./ NOTES 14. [5. 16. oK !. Bakunin on Anarchy (edited S. Dolgofl), Allen & LJnwin, London, (973, especially p.139. Much else in this paper, eg. the distinction between the State and Society, also derives from Bakunin. 2. That is, proper elaboration of this argument takes each facet of generally beneficial state activity — there is only a (relatively small) finite number to consider — and shows how it can be replaced in one way or another. Replacement is not of course uniquely deter­ mined. Lines such replacements can take are indicated in much anarchist (and self management) literature, consider especially, but no/ uncritically, P. Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, New York University Press, 1972, and also his Fields. Factories and Workshops, second edition, Nelson, London, 1913, and the Conquest of Bread, Chapman and Hall, London, 1913. 3. On these points see, e.g. Kropotkin's Revolu­ tionary Pamphlets (edited S. Baldwin), Dover Publications, New York, 1970, p.206 ff.; also P.J. Proudhon, Confessions of a Revolu­ tionary. For recent discussion of, and practical examples of, replacements for arbitration and law court procedures (6td for right-leaning anarchism), see C D. Stone, Some re/?ec//on.s on o/Tn/rohng our way /o anarc/ty * Anarchism (reprint of Nomos XIX) New York University Press, 1978, pp.213^4. The argument, to be found in Bakunin, is elaborated a littic in Taylor, op.cit., chapter 7. A related argument, also in Bakunin, is from the way in which emergence of the State com promises and even closes off nonstate solu­ tions to problems of social organisation in ad­ joining regions. Several historical examples of this phenomenon are alluded to in M. Harris, Cannibals and Kings, Collins, London. 1978. where it is also revealed how little the actual origin and rise of the State had to do with Dilemma situations, e.g. escaping a Hobbesian state of nature. Indeed, it was with the advent and development of the State that life became for many what it had not apparently been in prc-State neolithic times, 'nasty, brutish and short'. The question is m effect Plato's question, and the regress is reminiscent of his Third Man argument. K.R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Yol.iL Fourth edition (revised), Routledge and Kegan Paul. London. 1962, p.129 and p.127. The (overshoot) problem ts. according to Popper 'the most fundamental problem of all politics: the control of the con­ troller. of the dangerous accumulation of power represented in the State' 'upon which' Marxists never had view' (p. 129). 'any well-considered 17. V. Lauber. /co/o^y, po/t/tes an<7 hbera/ r/emocracv. Government and Opposition. 13 (1978), 199-217: see p.2O9 and p.211. 18. The argument, outlined by Bakunin, is much elaborated, but tn a very individualistic and Kantian fashion, tn R.P. Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism, Harper & Row, New York. 1970. No argument is without assumptions, which are open to dispute. Wolff's argument, from which the argument in the text is adapted, has its pitfalls, and is, for example, disputed by G. Wall. P/b/o.sop/hca/ awc/n.sw re row/, Anarchism, op.cit. p.273ff. 19. Documented in The Anarchist Cotiectives (edited S. Dolgoff), Free Life Editions, New York. 1974. 20. As B. Martin boldly asserts, 'The advantages of self-management and alternative lifestyles are many and significant. And these alter­ natives are entirely feasible: there is plenty of evidence and experience to support their superiority over the present way society operates. The obstacles to self-management and alternative lifestyles are powerful vested interests and institutional resistance to change', ( hanging the Cogs, Friends of the Earth, Canberra, 1979, p.6. ANARCHISM - ENLARGED j ____________ foundations* There is a theological component in the theory of the ^tate;.the weakness af^whieh should be brought out. A A By contrast, anarchism ^.s approached from an argument pe^p^ctive, of considerable streng strength^ Since the &tate is an imposed structure that induces considerable costs, the onus of proof is moreover on the State side. (The State versus states: r instantiate the universal.) 2. they Circled numbers hereafter refer to insert places in elder working version. In §1:- (^ In several respects the comparison is better than that of the State and God, since both belong to the same category, institutions. /cc Thus both have looked to some philosophers as human inventions or artifices, both have looked to others (reductionists) as objects that could be reduced to features of the individuals involved in their organisation (but it is hard to see why such fictions or logical constructions should be assigned the power and deference they are accorded). 0 It can be superseded, or replaced^ as the Church has to a large, ^in many places. extent been Just as the power of the Church has declined until it has lost its authority over parishioners, so authority of the State can be undermined, and it can lose recognition and its claim to jAu&h^rit^ over those in its territory. But there is a crucial difference between State and Church: under those condit­ ions the State vanishes, for authority backs!by coercive power is essential to the State but not (any longer) to the Church. from Society anarchistically organised And where the State differs crucially is as to the matter of coercion and of authority backed by force, such a society relying basically on voluntary cooper­ ation where the State relies on authority backed by force. Furthermore, the Church is justified through a religious theory, and is backed up ultimately by appeal to God's authority. The modern secular State by contrast annexes itself J A 2. itself authority (or has simply inherited it) and, though it may claim to be justified by some political th(o^ry which confers upon it legitimacy, makes no appeal back to a justifying or authorizing <3<^e.nt. So what justifies it? 2^.^ These sorts of considerations prompt two connected complaints of the anarch- ist, which have never been satisfactorily met, the agnostic's complaint that the State has no adequate justification - the arguments for its imposition or certain action fail - and the stronger complaint that the State is not necessary at all. These complaints are backed by arguments and further arguments, namely an assess) ment of arguments. These arguments are important, not, or not merely, because they will show, if unsuccessful, that anarchism j^s irrefutable, but because they convey muqh information, e.g. as to the weak (to the point of vacuity) sense in which the State is "necessary", because they do much to determine the general 0^ logical shape of the anarchism that results, and because they indicate routes to anarchism, not merely why but, to some extent, how the State can be superseded by a Society anarchistically organised. t pfuch as there are several ways of arguing to the existence of God, assembled by Aquinas into the famous (but not exhaustive, and invariably invalid) Five Ways, and various less famous but also important arguments against the existence of God, apcni&Igs , (jAtb so there are various arguments that the State is required, and^ especially —-2 relevant for anarchism^, several ways of arguing against the necessity of the State. is from the simulation argument, in particular, that the irrefutibj.lity of Ai) anarchism will follow^ anything the State can do that does reflect the collective interests A/. A74 cooperation.can also do in the long-run, and mostly better. [Over- i g T7/E SECOAD X 777E /1RGGA7EATFROM PROEEEM RECGRREyVCE. The solution by the State to problems of social organisation repeats or generates in more dangerous form the very real problems introduction of the State was designed to solve, inciuding new Diiemmas. Suppose, for instance, the secular State realty were introduced in order to soive Prisoners' Dilemmas, then the array of States so resulting generates new Prisoners' Ditemmas (with States as 'prisoners'), which there is no Super-State to resotve by coercion. In fact, as opposed to State-justifying mythology, the modern secutar State was not introduced (just as the originat States were not initiated) for any such apparentty intellectually reputable reasons, but was targety inherited from che religious State (and the Church) and Jiaintained to prop up privitege and foster objectives that are not in its com­ munities' interests. Or suppose, as the myth atso has it, that the State reaity were introduced, or contracted, in the interest of order and stability and to curb violence; then the array of States resuming more than negates these advan­ tages, with instability, disorder and viotence (e.g. between States) on a grander scale than before the emergence of modern secutar States."* S 77/E 77//RD HA1 Y. RHE (9 YERSEOGE /IRGt/MEAE FROM EE/E /A/(/9E()G^CY GE /AF77EG77GA74E CGA7RGES GA A7MEE PG^ER Having ceded a monopoty of power J) the State in order to resotve some diiemmas, some of them arising from an inequitable distribution of power, what controts or batances the power of the State? A Super-State. And its power? There is a vicious infinite regress if the repty to the question 'What controts the controtter?' is 'a further controller'A The onty promising way of avoiding this problem — other routes tead (even 1 more) directty to totaiitarianism — is by having the first of these controllers, the State, answer back to those in whose in­ terests it is aitegediy estabtished, those of the society or group of communities it controts. This implies democratic methods of some kind. Others go fur­ ther: 'democracy (is] the onty known means to achieve this control, the onty known device by which we can try to protect oursetves against the misuse of pohtica! power'.'* In this event, control has mostty failed. Democracy is ex­ tremely attenuated, even in those states that claim to practice it. The exercise of power in modern 'democratic' states is often channelled through 'non-elected authority' and 'is not democratic in the traditional meaning of the term'E Moreover, the much increased power in the modern State, which reaches deep in­ to people's lives, has passed, with no in­ crease in legitimacy, to certain managerial elites who present the power as directed at the attainment of 'general­ ly accepted' objectives such as economic growth (but through, e.g.', increased military expenditure) or materia! 'pro­ gress' (but through, e.g. subsidization of environmentally destructive enterprises of off-shore companies), though the ac­ ceptability of such particular objectives is never democratically tested. In any case, indirect democratic and other institutional checks are /em/OMS in as much as they depend uttimately on the toleration of those who have direct con­ trol of the forces of the State. Experience seems to show that such toleration wit! only be shown so long as democratic procedures deliver results that are not too disagreeable, that are broadly in ac­ cord with what those who control the coercive power are prepared to accept. (Toleration of such a tamed democracy then brings benefits to those who hold power, especially the cover of legitima­ tion). But institutional checks which operate only insofar as a system accep­ table to the powerholders is not seriously challenged, and which depend ultimately upon the toleration of those 'checked', 39 EE/E FGGR 777 Y. EE/E ARGGMEA?^ FRGA7 EREEDGA7 ^lAD^l GEGAGAf Y. A person is responsible for actions deliberately undertaken. This premise can be derived, if need be, from the notion of a person as a moral agent. Taking responsiblity for one's actions implies, among other things, making the final decision about what to do on each such occasion oneself; not acting on direction from outside, but determin­ ing how to act, what ought to be done, oneself; not handing that decision over to someone or something else. It implies, that is, moral autonomy. Autonomy in turn implies, what responsibility re­ quires, freedom. For the autonomous being, endorsing its own decisions and principles, is not subject to the will of another. Even if it does what another directs, it is not /yeemzse another so directs. In being free, no/ of constraints (both physical and self-determined), but of the constraints and will of others, an autonomous being is morally free. A necesary feature of the State is <7H//io,7/y over those in its territory (under its de facto jurisdiction), the right to rule and impose its will upon them. Such authority backed by force is incom­ patible with moral autonomy and with freedom. An autonomous being, though it may act in accordance with some im­ peratives of the State, those it in­ dependently endorses, is bound to reject such (a claim to) authority, and therewith the State. In sum, being a per­ son, as also being autonomous and being free, implies rejecting the authority of the State, and so not acknowledging the State; that is, each condition on per­ sonhood implies, if the argument is sound, anarchism.'* It is possible to combine autonomy with an extremely attenuated 'State', one based on on-going unanimous direct democracy. But such a 'State', with no independent authority, is not really a state, since any participant can dissolve it at any time, and so constitutes no threat to anarchism. On the contrary, such direct democratic methods are part of the very stuff of anarchistic organisation. W E/7E E7E777 HA1Y. 777E are not really checks at ali. ^RGGMEAEFRGM The problem of controlling the power of the State and preventing the State M A91 RCA75&EAVER7EACE. once established from usurping further The replacement argument enables power and exceeding its mandate, is only construction of a model of a society w/cyAc/orr/y solved by not ceding power functioning without the State, of a prac­ to the State in the first place. The best tically possible Stateless world; which way of avoiding the evils of accumulated shows that the State is not necessary. But power is the anarchist way, of blocking it can always be c/c/wer/ — even if the its accumulation. claim can seldom or ever be made good — that the modelling leaves out some crucial feature of real world circum­ stances, rendering it inapplicable. The gap may be closed by appeal to the inde­ pendently valuable argument from ex­ perience, that at various times and places anarchism has been tested and has work­ ed. Examples of such Stateless organisa­ tion suffice to show that crucial real world features have not been omitted. ^Yiere are many examples of nontndustrialised socieities which were, or are, anarchistic, there is the rich experi­ ence of the Spanish collectives,'" and there is much localised experience of seif-management and small-scale anar chistic arrangements within the State structure?" z e The state tacks adequate justification. The state is not a self-justifying object. But none of the justificatory arguments to the state are cogent. A familiar theme, conceding that the Al state is a problematic object, is that the state is a necessary evil. But, to the contrary, states, though generally evil, are hardly necessary^ It needs stressing, furthermore, how weak necessity claimed has to be. For it is becoming increasingly easy, with the advances in logical!^ modellings and computer simulations of other worlds, virtual states and the like, to envisage accessible worlds organised without modern states. No doubt then, the necessity has to be of some more pragmatic sort, a "social human necessity" for example appealing to emergent features of humans, kinks of human nature, obtruding in unfavourable situations of high concentrations and extensive scarcity (situations that states themselves have, like many survival systems, helped contrive).Remarkably, none of the extant arguments to the state make it plain that such a weak pragmatic "necessity" is intricated, though they would hardly establish more, and though they make strong (implausible) assumptions about the brutal situation outside states, in states-of-nature and so on, and about human motivation and practice, its utterly selfish, self-interested and acquisitive, and frequently debased character (i.e. what appears encouraged under economic rationalism, and pretty much what many have come to expect under conditions of advanced capitalism). Mostly no effort is made any longer, outside a few abstruse texts, to justify the state. Within contemporary institutional arrangement it is simply taken for granted (like Big Science), as axiomatic, as God was under medieval arrangements. But unlike God, who was good personified and therefore had a large problem with the extent of evil in the world, the state is acknowledged as problematic and far from unimplicated in the evil of the world (but directly engaged therein when the councils of the many Machievellis are heeded). Such a problematic Popper^s view that 'state power must always remain a dangerous though necess­ ary evil' (II, p.30) is a commonplace one. object cannot stand up as merely postulated. Nor is there a corresponding ontological argument for the state, as that organisational structure than which nothing more perfect can exist. Outside the flawed imagination of German idealists there is no such Super State; all actual states are manifestly highly imperfect, all humanly realisable ones are likely similar. As a result of the institutionalisation of the state itself, as a received and indeed central part of modem political arrangements, the onus of proof has become curiously inverted. Efforts to justify the state have become fairly ideal and academic, no longer a serious issue, and onus transferred to anarchists to demonstrate that human social life could proceed well and smoothly (as it now does, of course) without states. While anarchists are not absolved from offering some account of operations of good social lives without states (for, except in fairy tales, it does not all just emerge, unplanned, in the new stateless setting), neither are statists absolved from justification of de facto statist arrangements, beginning with the state itself.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 13, item 996: Draft chapters 1 to 4 on anarchism, for correction Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Description An account of the resource Typescripts and handwritten chapters, with handwritten emendations and annotations. Title in collection finding aid: Blue folder: Anarkism - For Correction - chapters 1-4. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span><span>,</span> Box 13, item 996 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [60] leaves. 137.3 MB. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:9ab5607" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:9ab5607</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/e8f40bdcc644ad46c5a77df4b8940142.pdf 2b370a7c388f901ab1a9176c90205ab4 PDF Text Text Richapd'Sylvan /> << Ji 197d p. I WHAT IS WRONG WITH APPLIED ETHICS Richard Sylvan There is much that is wrong with and in applied ethics. Specifically, there are three comprehensive counts where things are wrong with the commodity concerned, applied ethics, that is with applied ethics so economically viewed.1 Namely on the following three counts: • extraneous, with the supply, delivery, consumption, and the like of applied ethics, AE. The category prominently includes the delivery of applied ethics: what is done, taught and learnt, by whom, and how qualified (e.g. whether taught by professionals, professional ethicists or philosophers in particular). That has tended to presume that the commodity itself is more or less in order, though the presumption lacks good pedigree, delivery of defective goods being almost as ubiquitous as business enterprise. The present focus is not however upon the delivery, or other features of the production and consumption, packaging and marketing of the goods, but on features of the commodity itself, applied ethics itself. Thus • intraneous counts, concerning the commodity itself, where a further two things are wrong: •• the applied idea, and ••• what the application is presumed to be made to, established - or, should it be, establishment - ethics. Because an implicit premiss in organising the Philosophy and Applied Ethics Re-examined1 Conference seems to have been that the issues to be addressed are predominantly extraneous, and because most of the papers actually relevant to the Conference topic appear to focus on extraneous issues, the present exercise, by contrast, concentrates upon intraneous problems, especially the third: radical deficiencies in what is supposed to be applied, prevailing ethics, and some extensive repairs thereto. 1. The applied count To begin with, there is something decidedly3 odd, not to say radically unsatisfactory, about the very idea of applied ethics. To bring out the oddness, the conceptual inadequacy, it helps to consider the dictionary senses and established usage of applied. The term in the only relevant sense (the other obsolete sense is that offolded) means: ‘put to practical use; practical as distinguished from abstract or theoretical' (OED, similarly Concise English). Relevant examples cited are: ‘the applied sciences’ (from Babbage 1832), ‘applied logic (as distinguished from pure)’ (from Thomson 1806).4 It may appear then, that "applied ethics" amounts to pleonasm, a popular tautology (and "pure ethics" correspondingly to an oxymoron), because ethics itself is already practical, for instance much or all of it being concerned with practical action and its qualities (such is Maclver s assumption: moral philosophy is practical - in a way in which other branches of philosophy are not’, p.206). In this respect "applied ethics", even more "applied morals", is rather like "applied motoring", "applied nursing" or "applied housekeeping". Conceptual confusion would be considerably reduced by removing the modifier ‘applied .5 Such a charge of confusion can however be mitigated by properly I7 �18 What is wrong with applied ethics distinguishing ethics, which includes philosophy and theory of morality, from morals, thereby revealing, perhaps, elements of some theory apt for application. No doubt something like this is the presupposition of those who preach or profit from practical ethics (similarly practical economics, but doubtfully practical housekeeping): that standing in contrast is a suitably established theoretical ethics (could it perchance be utilitarianism?) which can rather uncontroversiarbe used to guide practice. But is there such a theory, apt for application, for translation into practice? To appreciate what is required for adequacy, consider successful applied subjects. Let us compare "applied ethics" with^long established applied discipline, namely applied mathematics, which often boasts a separate department in universities (a discipline I was obliged to study as an undergraduate in order to proceed further in pure mathematics). In the first place, applied mathematics contrasts with pure mathematics, applied logic with pure. Where, a naive outsider may ask, is pure ethics that similarly stands in contrast with applied ethics? Could there decently be separate departments of pure and of applied ethics? For the most part, applied mathematics applies to practice, in some wide sense, a body of pure mathematics that is more or less correct, at least within the assumption framework and contextual settings where it is applied. (The qualified formulation is given for pluralistic reasons; given the dominant paradigm, the pure mathematics that is applied is correct without further qualification, correct period.) A body of substantially correct theory ready for application is then the first of several pertinent features of that relational object, applied mathematics, the first of several dubiously matchable by "applied ethics". The proviso ‘for the most part’ (introducing the paragraph) signals another discrepancy. There is a, presumably derivative, part of applied mathematics that investigates, in essentially the manner of pure mathematics, theories, algebras, spaces and similar, selected through postulates, principles or equational sets drawn from standard applied mathematics (thus e.g. Newtonian theories where classical force laws are satisfied, Hilbert and phase spaces, and so on).6 Such derivative applied mathematics need not compromise at all normal methodological requirements (such as they are) of pure mathematics, for rigour, exactness, and similar. Ordinary applied mathematics, in its quest, even haste, for practical results, does compromise, or violate, pure mathematical methodology. For example, shortcuts are taken, simplifications made, information shed, figures rounded, approximations adopted, and so. Science veers towards art. From a pure perspective, dreadful things are often done to data or mathematical transformations of data. Skilled practitioners tend to appreciate what they can get away with in this sort of regard. Again, none of this, neither the body of information nor the kinds of skills, is really matched in ethics, in putting ethical theory to practical work. Next, the mathematics that is applied, a body of pure mathematics, is not thoroughly contested. Ethics however is. There is nothing in ethics like arithmetic or elementary mechanics; the nearest thing ethics can offer is some controversial development along axiomatic geometric lines. Mathematics has its critics, both inside (e.g. intuitionists) and out (e.g., cultural relativists), but none (hard core sceptics excepted) suggest changing all of it or tampering with most of what is applied. By contrast, in ethics, there continues to be an array of competing theories, none of which has managed to win broad allegiance. What pure theory is there to apply, to do dreadful things to? It might be said in response: whichever of them is adopted! Even that, a hollow compromise will not stand up for long. For deeper environmental ethics challenge a broad range of pure theory that is alleged to be applied! What challenges a whole subject, that would change it, can hardly be an application of it. The rise of such environmental ethics is one reason why the modifier applied is a misnomer. For deeper environmental ethics is not any sort of / �Richard Sylvan 19 application of ethics; it instead challenges prevailing ethics. Nor is it, like stock "applied ethics", an adaptation of ethics within an environmental context. The label applied is substantially, if not entirely, a misnomer. Adjectives in modifier or attributive roles, in the combination adjective-noun phrase, often enough do not signify application. The assumption that all modification is application invokes a dubious, presumably false, theory of adjectival attribution. Consider a few examples involving a relevant adjective, ‘medical’. Combinations such as ‘medical student’, ‘medical book’, ‘medical trial’ do not signify applications. A medical s is not normally an application of s to medical matters (of books or students in this fashion); normally it is a type (an m type) of s.7 There are occasional exceptions, in which case compounds are liable to be recorded in dictionaries, as with medical jurisprudence which is not a type of jurisprudence, but ‘the legal knowledge required of a doctor’. There is good reason to think that ethics induces no exception, that medical ethics, and similarly business ethics, follow the normal pattern. Thus business ethics is a type of ethics, namely ethics within a specifically business setting, and accordingly adapted thereto. Observe that such a preliminary account incorporates automatically (what gives the applied presumption some problemsj^sce-^ppendix T) allowance for variations in standards, that business corporations for example should not be expected to measure up to standards set up for ordinary persons (any more than they should iw»t be expected to pay the same levels of taxes)! Given the manifold inadequacies of the label applied, amendment of terminology appears warranted. Amendment, not abandonment. After all, what ‘applied ethics’ is supposed to comprehend, such as medical ethics, business ethics, even environmental ethics, are not themselves in court, but presently taken as viable fields. A superior label is field, for field-defined or field-restricted; another is type, for type-delimited, another domain. Where others speak of "applied ethics", let us discourse about field ethics. Investment ethics, for instance, is a field ethic, with field investment. An "institute for applied ethics concentrating upon applications to business" is an institute for field ethics with main field business. The "applied ethics" movement becomes effectively a field ethics movement. Observe that professional ethics are field ethics, with the field in each case the profession concerned. But professional ethics in sum form a quite proper subclass of field ethics; bio-ethics and ecological ethics are plainly not professional ethics. Less obviously, more importantly, field ethics differs from practical ethics (as usually poorly defined), with which "applied ethics" is regularly conflated. For, on the one side, ordinary living and daily life, central to practical ethics, are not fields. On the other, field ethics are not confined to practice, but may involve considerable theoretical material, particularly from the fields concerned. 2. The ethics count Not only is the applied operation in trouble, ethics also is in deep trouble. Indeed, in a way, the main problem lies here. There is not a fit, properly satisfactory subject, for some significant applications. For some "applications" have to change and develop the subject! But, the problems do not vanish when the amendment to field ethics is made. Satisfactory fieldwork, satisfactory outcomes in field ethics are seriously hampered by long-standing troubles in ethics. For as field ethics involve ethics, whatever is wrong with ethics affects field ethics. To glimpse these troubles, consider recent ambivalence towards ethics. Is ethics even a good good. There is a most curious contrast in later 20th century attitudes towards ethics. On the one side, there are great expectations, for instance for what ethics can contribute, to social and professional lite �20 What is -wrong with applied ethics especially; but on the other there is serious disquiet, occasionally verging upon despair and into nihilism, as to ethics, and its role. Virtually the whole spectrum from great expectations through no expectations to substantial forebodings is selectively represented. A few examples: • Great expectations for ethics, beginning to re-emerge these days, tend to come from outside professional philosophical ranks, from scientists and social scientists.8 Ethics is seen as taking up again its grand legitimization and critical roles. It can indeed be used in this respect as regards to a wide variety of practices, such as in business, economics, government, scientific experimentation, and so on. Of course it cannot always succeed, because one ethics can be pitted against another, and each and all challenged. ( p-— These expectations, a bit surprising after the drab days of analytic moral philosophy (where I philosophy could express no interesting moral opinions), contrast sharply with ' /•—• heavy disquiet or worse as to present ethics. A recent example is afforded by z MacIntyre’s disturbing introduction to After Virtue', that ‘we have - very largely, if not entirely - lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical of morality’ (p.2). Some, like MacIntyre, promise a happy, even a great, outcome, should we return to proper paths, to a virtue ethic in the tradition of Aristotle. Others are not so sanguine; , there is 1 • no hope for ethics. There are divergent routes here. Either it can play no relevant , role any longer, or it can play only a negative or damaging role (thus e.g. Hinckfuss). Though both these routes lead badly astray, present (merely classificatory) objectives do not include showing as much.9 There is, furthermore, reason for at least serious disquiet. Should we care to look closely at, and try to assess, the total ethical heritage, then what we find is not very promising. • What is on offer is mostly extremely sketchy and very piecemeal, much of it a hotchpotch. There are extraordinarily few well-worked out and detailed ethics. Spinoza’s Ethics is perhaps one rare example. • Most of what is on offer is seriously biassed or prejudiced, indeed from a deep environmental perspective even unethical. Prime examples include • religious bias, heavily constraining or distorting creatures’ lives, and putting them to work to serve imagined religious objectives. • spiritualistic distortion. Even where an explicit religion does not feature, as in Platonism and neo-Platonism and in edified Buddhism, the whole of life may be distorted through promise of an after-life or successor life or extra-material life, where furthermore some system of rewards or punishments may be dished out for previous performance. No doubt such biasses help in conferring upon ethics authority, unwarranted authority (fulfil duties or be dammed, etc.). • humanistic distortion, summed up as human chauvinism. It is upon this prejudice, critical for environmental ethics, that we concentrate. A main matter that is wrong with ethics, and ipso facto its practice and its belated appearance in many professional settings (when it$ should have been in evidence long ago), is its anthropic bias, its considerable prejudice in favour of (present) humans.10 The matter is highly material in several fields, most obviously in environmental ethics, but also in medical ethics, bio-ethics, agricultural and vefinarian ethics, and similar. It is widely assumed, however, that ethics is inevitably human biassed, that it has to be anthropocentric. That is not so. Ethics can be repaired. So much is the substance of ethics without humans. Both morals and ethics can be characterised, in substantially reportive ways, so as to free �Richard Sylvan 21 them of anthropocentrism and the like.11 Furthermore, the whole superstructural theory can be developed in a fashion that makes no essential reference to humans or any other biological species.12 These repairs represent, however, only the beginning of adjustment and change - of many changes if a satisfactory deep-green ethics is to be reached. When repairing goods, there often comes a stage, increasingly rapidly encountered those days, when it becomes a more attractive proposition to acquire new items than to persist with repairs. So it may be, it is now suggested, with ethics. So increasingly it has been suggested this century, with demands for new ethics, new moral philosophies. Those making such proposals include Schweitzer, Maclver, Leopold, along with many others.13 Suppose we should arrive, through addressing different or new fields, at what amounts to a new ethics, as many think we do (thus Maclver, p. 179 and many ecocentric philosophers). Then what emerges is no "application" of a standard ethics, but something different, not an applied standard ethics at all. Now something similar may appear to occur for normal applied subjects. A newly encountered group of physical phenomena, for instance, leads not to the elevation of some dusty mathematical theory buried in archives, what is mostly the case, but to elaboration of a new mathematical theory. Normally in this event, the main body of pure mathematics would remain untouched; a new annex or suburb would simply be added to it.14 With ethics, however, things are different. There are grounds for contending that the green (environmental) revolution has shaken ethics to its (dubious) foundations and core, and, as coupled with associated non domination themes (as emphasised especially in ecofeminism), has left comparatively little untouched. The standard city of ethics is not left alone, unscathed. Much the same sort of points can be presented in the form of a dilemma, for standard ethics and a proposed field, such as environmental issues. Either standard ethics will not cover the field (or cannot be extended to do so because it (or its extension) does not apply, or through being forced upon the field it twists or damages the data, for instance leaves an indelible anthropic bias. A homely carpentry analogy may help: there is some cabinet work where delicate hammering would be appropriate, but the only tool we have is a sledgehammer.15 Likewise, a standard chauvinistic ethic is the wrong tool to try to use or extend for deeper environmental work. Unremarkably, the three options emerging, namely (inappropriate) application, extension or adjustment, and fashioning of something new or different, correspond more or less to the now familiar threefold division of environmental positions, into shallow, intermediate and deep.16 As before, deep ethics are not "applications", but near ethics. 3. Extraneous issues Among the many extraneous issues concerning field ethics, those that have come to exercise philosophers do look distinctly partisan:17 namely, the role of philosophers, especially professionals; the place of philosophy in field ethics; and the poor practice of these ethics, particularly from a professional philosophical perspective. Here the main thesis to be advanced inclines towards these professionally unsympathetic lines: insofar as these matters, philosophical extranalities, are of negatixe impact for philosophy, philosophers have largely themselves to blame, for they are largely of their own making (or, to sheet some of the responsibility more accurately, of the controlling power elite of the profession}.18 Let us investigate some of the extraneous issues seriatim. Because a field ethics concerns the field as well as (relevant parts of) ethics, its investigation, practice and teaching, requires an intersection of capacities and skills, drawn from both ethics and the field. �n What is wrong with applied ethics This simple observation enables an immediate response to such questions as: if not philosophers, then who is to investigate, and teach, field ethics? That response is: those from one area or the other who have acquired requisite knowledge and technique in the other, or less promising, those from outside (but with some appropriate informational background) who acquire these prerequisites in both. In medical ethics, where there is perhaps a larger pool of information concerning the field than there is regarding ethics, a moral philosopher untrained in medicine may have more to learn than a medical doctor unversed in ethics and lacking philosophical skills. (Really, neither should be let loose on students before they are duly prepared in the intersection.) It is evident, then, that philosophy enjoys no natural monopoly in field ethics. The place of philosophy is less exalted, and certainly is not dominant - still less given recent proposed (but hardly well justified) decoupling of ethics from philosophy.19 There are corollaries regarding the roles of philosophers on committees relating to field ethics, in decision-making and so on on these topics. Philosophers do not have an automatic place. Unless they are well-informed as to ethics (many philosophers are not) and as to the field, they do not deserve a place at all (of course they still may gain a role for want of any better placed). Ousting of under-informed or unenergetic philosophers is not always such a bad thing. While the informational situation is now significantly better than in 1945 when Maclver was agonising over the predicament of moral philosophy, it is still true that ‘academic moral philosophers are not using ‘every opportunity to make themselves acquainted, so far as possible, with the real difficulties of those [not merely present humans] who need the help of moral philosophy most... I ... confess that I myself lack the factual knowledge which would be required to do this work well. I suspect that many ethic philosophers are in the same position ...20 One of the reasons why philosophy has lost prestige in recent years is that it has not kept pace’ (pp.204-205). One example Maclver incisively develops concerns ‘discoveries associated with the name of Freud. The behaviour of philosophers in this connection is particularly hard to excuse. At first they flatly denied the reality of the alleged discoveries - maintained that the notion of "unconscious mind" was self contradictory, and so forth. But all this has now been given up. ... Philosophers no longer dispute ... details of the Freudian system - but disregard them. If they mention them at all, they talk as if they somehow concerned none but medical men - as if the same propositions could be sene in medicine and false outside it. In the light of the recognition of unconscious motives the whole traditional theory of moral responsibility needs overhauling, but no moral philosopher undertakes this’ (p.205). The reason why the corresponding philosophical debate (about whether unconscious desires are sometimes evil, whether relevant moral predicates are restricted to conscious motives, and so forth) had not "by 1945, after 40 years of exposure to Freudian issues, Maclver attributed to the mass of psychological literature which philosophers have not read and would have to read, reading that is obligatory if moral philosophy is to be made ‘the subject which it ought to be’ (p.206). There has been disappointment among some professional philosophers, those with expansionist . instin^tions, that field ethics has not turned out to be quite the bonanza anticipated, that the expected / boom in new opportunities and positions began to dissipate as field practitioners started to supply their own "field ethicists".21 None of this should have been surprising, for broad inductive reasons. Philosophy had long shed subjects and fields of overlap; and those professionals who have hung in have become something different (economists instead of social philosophers, computer scientists instead of logicians22) Nor have philosophers, especially those who have not changed or reskilled, all the virtues assumed by professionals; e.g. they have little or no theory, they are too fuzzy, they are indecisive, or vacillate, etc. (remember the sophists; these provide some of the reasons too why philosophers are often not welcome on committees). ( �Richard Sylvan 23 Some outside inputs into ethics, such as field studies or field workers may supply, would not go astray. For there is theoretically little that is new or interesting on the standard ethics scene. Much of it is 19th century revival, refinement of utilitarianism or Kantianism, and ornate additions (with bells and whistles). One of the few "new" offerings is the revival of Aristotelian virtue ethics! Nothing, however, stops outside inputs. Anyone is free to attempt philosophy. Professionals have no exclusive rights over philosophy, still less over ethics; nor should they. There is a case for widening practice of philosophy, and encouraging paraphilosophers. For critical problems emerging are not so much those of philosophy itself (which could be very different from the way it is practised and professionalised), but of philosophy as professionalised and as conducted. The immediate future does not bode well for change in the latter, for several reasons; the prevailing materialistic technological ethos (which dev^lyes pure intellectual activity), the consequent marginalisation of subjects like philosophy and continuing narrowness of dominant philosophical activity. Nor, moreover, have philosophers proceeded well, particularly in the Antipodes, in training and "^pp^ing students who can readily adapt to become field ethicists. Philosophy has never been strongly employment-market driven (but has tended to rely on a version of Say’s flawed law); indeed there are features intrinsic to philosophy, such as its contemplative character, that renders it antithetical to the veiy idea of responding to markets at all. There are other regional features that compound this sort of problem: the conservative, and class, bias of philosophy (inherited from similar British arrangements), which has meant that Australian philosophy has not been innovative in adapting its topics and emphases to changing circumstances;23 and the heavy concentration, as in British empiricism (still dominant in Australia), upon epistemology, with ethics and what went into moral sciences and social philosophy still regarded as second class arenas and not what philosophy was really about or what first class chaps would mainly concern themselves. These are major reasons why philosophy lost out, and Reserved to lose. It is for those latter sorts of reasons in particular, that environmental ethics and environmental philosophy have been unable to gain more than occasional marginal status in philosophy curricula in Australian universities. Fuller accounts of the predicament of environmental philosophy have been given elsewhere.24 Its predicament tends to illustrate a general problem for field ethics, with bioethics (with its own institutional settings) the only partial exception. Now that field ethics is being lost to the fields in many cases, there are complaints about the calibre of what is done and taught, the quality of the investigators and teachers, and so on. No doubt much of this criticism is warranted; some similar criticism of ethics within philosophy would also be warranted. Among the justified criticisms are these: • that field ethics as done from the field is divorced from ethical theory (from what theory has so far been developed). Too much comprises mere case studies, as with business MBAs. • that the field practitioners are not trained in ethical theory, and are often ill-informed ethically and lacking in analytic and critical skills crucial for satisfactory philosophy. A different complaint, of importance, concerns the poor ethical practice, even the unethical practice in some of the fields, despite the development of field ethics. Such a problem is particularly conspicuous in the field of business.25 But this has been a long-standing problem for ethics itself; how to get people to behave as they ought? Teaching agents ethics can certainly enable, and encourage, them to be moral: but it cannot make them moral. Nor would it be proper for it to do so. The field ethics movement, successor to the late AE movement, is both important and timely, especially as regards getting ethics and axiology back into many fields that hard tried, erroneously it now appears, to eliminate them. The movement will have to be carefully orchestrated however to \ I 1 �24 What is wrong with applied ethics avoid capture by the very power structures and disciplinary paradigms that it should transform. These are certainly grounds for some cynicism about such movements: that they are easy targets for co-option, that they can bemused to cover up abuses by power structures, and to authorise dubious procedures, or worse,^with a rubber stamp of ethical approval from appropriate ethics’ committees and inquiries. Such grounds for cynicism can be reasoned, however, and new hope inaugurated, given more adequate formulation and development of relevant field ethics (exercises including considerable theoretical work), along with independent and impartial administration of emerging codes and decision methods, and with appropriate openness of the formerly abused procedures they are intended to regulate fairly. REFERENCES Callicott, J.B., In Defense of the Land Ethic, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1989. Edwards, J.C., Ethics without Philosophy, University Presses of Florida, Tampa, 1982. Engel, J.R., Ethics of Environment and Development, Belhaven Press, 1990. Hinkfuss, I., The Moral Society: Its Structure and Effects, Discussion papers in environmental philosophy, no. 16, The Australian National University, 1987. Leopold, A., A Sand Country Almanac, Oxford University Press, New York, 1949. MacIntyre, A., After Virtue, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1981. Maclver, A.M., "Towards anew moral philosophy", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, no. 46 (1945-6): 179-206. Sylvan, R. "Prospects for regional philosophy in Australasia", Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 1986. Sylvan, R., From Wisdom to Wowserism, typescript, 1991. Sylvan, R., Deep-Green Ethics, typescript, 1993. i Sylvan, R. and Bennett, H., The Greening of Ethics, White Horse Press, Cambridge, 199^. Wilson, E.O. (ed.), Biodiversity, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1988. NOTES 1. For such a treatment of items like ethics, as economic goods, see further Greening of Ethics. 2. The Conference, organised by the University of Newcastle in August 1993, where this paper was presented. 3. Ethical theory has tended to borrow classifications from elsewhere, from apparently more successful enterprises. Thus, for instance, the (normative) ethics/meta-ethics distinction lifted, none too adeptly, �25 Richard Sylvan from logical theory. Thus too the present pure/applied distinction, also purloined. By no means everything that intelligent agents dream up and promote is entirely in order. Rather uncontroversially colourless green ideas is one such combination, more controversially human nature, deep ecology and post-modernism are such. Applied ethics appears to belong to this not-in-satisfactory-order or out-of-order bunch. 4. ‘Applied. Practical, put to practical use. Applied science. Science of which the abstract principles are put to practical use in the arts’ (Concise English'). ‘2. Put to practical use; practical as distinguished from abstract or theoretical’ (OED). Though we persevere with these dictionary explications, there are grounds for complaint; there are neglected nuances. For example, the practical/theoretical contrast (just one of the muddy contrasts with practical) differs from an applied/pure contrast. A theory can in principle be applied (a plying to, i.e., a mapping) in a non practical, or impractical, field. Different again is that concrete/abstract contrast. And what exactly is practical? 5. The advance notices for the Conference (which look pretty confused, even mumbo jumbo), well they add insult to injury by invoking talk of a theory of applied ethics. There is said to ‘appear to be a significant gap between the theory of applied ethics and its practice’; this is said to be why ‘disillusionment has set in’ now. While there may be a theory of applications, talk of a "theory of applied ethics" heaps confusion (‘theory of) upon confusion (‘applied ethics’). As for gaps (really, between the theory and practice of ethics), there are two, as we shall see; there is an ambiguity in ‘gap’As for mumbo jumbo, try the following sentence: ‘The teaching and practice of applied ethics has grown rapidly and in an unruly manner across many disciplines, with many practitioners now not possessing any depth of philosophical knowledge and expertise and, because of difficulties experienced with the theory and practice given, in some cases deciding that same is relevant.’ Its sequel is easily unscrambled: ‘We wish to hold a conference to explore this issue for the Australian community and its practical consequences.’ 6. Thus, too, there is a two way process. Application feeds back to inform theory and to enrich the pure subject. With ethics, as we shall see, something similar or more dramatic happens. Field developments not merely may inform and enlarge the ethical theory; some may alter it irrevocably. 7. Of course not all adjectives function in this way. butTor. instance without types of responded s. Thus, e.g. possible, probable, alleged, putative,etc. I 8. Examples include Wilson in Biodiversity, Engel. 9. We try to show as much elsewherey-Routley and HTIF. 10. This is by no means all that is wrong with standard ethics. Another, important for field ethics, is the lack of an adequate theory of ethical dilemmas, confronting which is a main engine of progress in ethics. 11. See Greening of Ethics', also ‘Ethics without humans. Philosophy without humans', Observe that ^repairs are not unique. <y : » 12. As to how this is accomplished, see the annular theory, reiterated in Greening'. X �26 What is wrong with applied ethics 13. Maclver suggests ‘that all the old codes are out of date and a satisfactory new one has still to be discovered. A lost moral code cannot be recovered, and a new one obtained, simply for the asking’ (p.201). 14. Nothing, no paradigm shift as revolution has effected the whole citadel of mathematics; none is likely to (even dialethism, more threatening than much else, because central areas can be protected by /w roj due qualification). 15. A different example: an isolated person has an extensive weeding tool in a weed invaded forest, with the only techniques availabe a broad-acre chemical defoliant. 16. For a classification of environmental positions along the lines of the three options, see Callicott Introduction, where attention is also drawn to shortcomings in the applied idea. 17. On extraneous issues in ethics, including especially field ethics such as environmental ethics, see for a detailed treatment Greening of Ethics, part II/. JJ 18. Among other things, philosophers did not act, did not respond to incipient demand, fast enough in organising appropriate structures for delivery of field ethics. <5? 19. See esp. Edwards, plhieswilhourPhilosophy^ 20. Maclver continues ‘and for this reason this conception of the task of moral philosophy is unlikely to be popular in the profession.’ There are two troubles with the tack: firstly, field ethics do not should not - exhaust ethics; secondly, field ethics are enjoying some popularity. 21. The proposition, from the circulated Conference announcement, that field ethics might rejuvenate a flagging philosophy, that they had ‘given philosophy a rebirth’ can hardly be taken seriously (for all that they may have given jaded philosophy departments a fillip). Concrete working examples and dilemmas might stimulate ethical investigation, but would only exceptionally impact an ethical theory, and moreover ethics itself has but rarely been a source of growth and development in philosophy. Field practitioners, who often have their own expansionist and imperialist ambitions and programs, are unlikely to let a service subject be supplied from elsewhere unless they cannot yet manage the subject themselves and then only so long as times are good so they do not need the jobs and can avoid chores involved. 22. Interestingly there has been no similar fuss from professionals regarding the attrition of logicians within philosophy (for which some of them have responsibility), or the on-going loss of logic to computing science and mathematics. 23. It is for this sort of reason that philosophy in Australia, unlike that in parts of USA^,missed the field van. 24. See Sylvan 1986, The Greening of Ethics, From Wisdom to Wowserism. iSrn- 25. A problem in fact exacerbated under prominent ethical positions, e.g., crude utilitarian fostering "greed is good" notions, most social Darwinism encouraging cut-throat competition. I' � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Richapd'Sylvan /> << Ji 197d p. I WHAT IS WRONG WITH APPLIED ETHICS Richard Sylvan There is much that is wrong with and in applied ethics. Specifically, there are three comprehensive counts where things are wrong with the commodity concerned, applied ethics, that is with applied ethics so economically viewed.1 Namely on the following three counts: • extraneous, with the supply, delivery, consumption, and the like of applied ethics, AE. The category prominently includes the delivery of applied ethics: what is done, taught and learnt, by whom, and how qualified (e.g. whether taught by professionals, professional ethicists or philosophers in particular). That has tended to presume that the commodity itself is more or less in order, though the presumption lacks good pedigree, delivery of defective goods being almost as ubiquitous as business enterprise. The present focus is not however upon the delivery, or other features of the production and consumption, packaging and marketing of the goods, but on features of the commodity itself, applied ethics itself. Thus • intraneous counts, concerning the commodity itself, where a further two things are wrong: •• the applied idea, and ••• what the application is presumed to be made to, established - or, should it be, establishment - ethics. Because an implicit premiss in organising the Philosophy and Applied Ethics Re-examined1 Conference seems to have been that the issues to be addressed are predominantly extraneous, and because most of the papers actually relevant to the Conference topic appear to focus on extraneous issues, the present exercise, by contrast, concentrates upon intraneous problems, especially the third: radical deficiencies in what is supposed to be applied, prevailing ethics, and some extensive repairs thereto. 1. The applied count To begin with, there is something decidedly3 odd, not to say radically unsatisfactory, about the very idea of applied ethics. To bring out the oddness, the conceptual inadequacy, it helps to consider the dictionary senses and established usage of applied. The term in the only relevant sense (the other obsolete sense is that offolded) means: ‘put to practical use; practical as distinguished from abstract or theoretical' (OED, similarly Concise English). Relevant examples cited are: ‘the applied sciences’ (from Babbage 1832), ‘applied logic (as distinguished from pure)’ (from Thomson 1806).4 It may appear then, that "applied ethics" amounts to pleonasm, a popular tautology (and "pure ethics" correspondingly to an oxymoron), because ethics itself is already practical, for instance much or all of it being concerned with practical action and its qualities (such is Maclver s assumption: moral philosophy is practical - in a way in which other branches of philosophy are not’, p.206). In this respect "applied ethics", even more "applied morals", is rather like "applied motoring", "applied nursing" or "applied housekeeping". Conceptual confusion would be considerably reduced by removing the modifier ‘applied .5 Such a charge of confusion can however be mitigated by properly I7 18 What is wrong with applied ethics distinguishing ethics, which includes philosophy and theory of morality, from morals, thereby revealing, perhaps, elements of some theory apt for application. No doubt something like this is the presupposition of those who preach or profit from practical ethics (similarly practical economics, but doubtfully practical housekeeping): that standing in contrast is a suitably established theoretical ethics (could it perchance be utilitarianism?) which can rather uncontroversiarbe used to guide practice. But is there such a theory, apt for application, for translation into practice? To appreciate what is required for adequacy, consider successful applied subjects. Let us compare "applied ethics" with^long established applied discipline, namely applied mathematics, which often boasts a separate department in universities (a discipline I was obliged to study as an undergraduate in order to proceed further in pure mathematics). In the first place, applied mathematics contrasts with pure mathematics, applied logic with pure. Where, a naive outsider may ask, is pure ethics that similarly stands in contrast with applied ethics? Could there decently be separate departments of pure and of applied ethics? For the most part, applied mathematics applies to practice, in some wide sense, a body of pure mathematics that is more or less correct, at least within the assumption framework and contextual settings where it is applied. (The qualified formulation is given for pluralistic reasons; given the dominant paradigm, the pure mathematics that is applied is correct without further qualification, correct period.) A body of substantially correct theory ready for application is then the first of several pertinent features of that relational object, applied mathematics, the first of several dubiously matchable by "applied ethics". The proviso ‘for the most part’ (introducing the paragraph) signals another discrepancy. There is a, presumably derivative, part of applied mathematics that investigates, in essentially the manner of pure mathematics, theories, algebras, spaces and similar, selected through postulates, principles or equational sets drawn from standard applied mathematics (thus e.g. Newtonian theories where classical force laws are satisfied, Hilbert and phase spaces, and so on).6 Such derivative applied mathematics need not compromise at all normal methodological requirements (such as they are) of pure mathematics, for rigour, exactness, and similar. Ordinary applied mathematics, in its quest, even haste, for practical results, does compromise, or violate, pure mathematical methodology. For example, shortcuts are taken, simplifications made, information shed, figures rounded, approximations adopted, and so. Science veers towards art. From a pure perspective, dreadful things are often done to data or mathematical transformations of data. Skilled practitioners tend to appreciate what they can get away with in this sort of regard. Again, none of this, neither the body of information nor the kinds of skills, is really matched in ethics, in putting ethical theory to practical work. Next, the mathematics that is applied, a body of pure mathematics, is not thoroughly contested. Ethics however is. There is nothing in ethics like arithmetic or elementary mechanics; the nearest thing ethics can offer is some controversial development along axiomatic geometric lines. Mathematics has its critics, both inside (e.g. intuitionists) and out (e.g., cultural relativists), but none (hard core sceptics excepted) suggest changing all of it or tampering with most of what is applied. By contrast, in ethics, there continues to be an array of competing theories, none of which has managed to win broad allegiance. What pure theory is there to apply, to do dreadful things to? It might be said in response: whichever of them is adopted! Even that, a hollow compromise will not stand up for long. For deeper environmental ethics challenge a broad range of pure theory that is alleged to be applied! What challenges a whole subject, that would change it, can hardly be an application of it. The rise of such environmental ethics is one reason why the modifier applied is a misnomer. For deeper environmental ethics is not any sort of / Richard Sylvan 19 application of ethics; it instead challenges prevailing ethics. Nor is it, like stock "applied ethics", an adaptation of ethics within an environmental context. The label applied is substantially, if not entirely, a misnomer. Adjectives in modifier or attributive roles, in the combination adjective-noun phrase, often enough do not signify application. The assumption that all modification is application invokes a dubious, presumably false, theory of adjectival attribution. Consider a few examples involving a relevant adjective, ‘medical’. Combinations such as ‘medical student’, ‘medical book’, ‘medical trial’ do not signify applications. A medical s is not normally an application of s to medical matters (of books or students in this fashion); normally it is a type (an m type) of s.7 There are occasional exceptions, in which case compounds are liable to be recorded in dictionaries, as with medical jurisprudence which is not a type of jurisprudence, but ‘the legal knowledge required of a doctor’. There is good reason to think that ethics induces no exception, that medical ethics, and similarly business ethics, follow the normal pattern. Thus business ethics is a type of ethics, namely ethics within a specifically business setting, and accordingly adapted thereto. Observe that such a preliminary account incorporates automatically (what gives the applied presumption some problemsj^sce-^ppendix T) allowance for variations in standards, that business corporations for example should not be expected to measure up to standards set up for ordinary persons (any more than they should iw»t be expected to pay the same levels of taxes)! Given the manifold inadequacies of the label applied, amendment of terminology appears warranted. Amendment, not abandonment. After all, what ‘applied ethics’ is supposed to comprehend, such as medical ethics, business ethics, even environmental ethics, are not themselves in court, but presently taken as viable fields. A superior label is field, for field-defined or field-restricted; another is type, for type-delimited, another domain. Where others speak of "applied ethics", let us discourse about field ethics. Investment ethics, for instance, is a field ethic, with field investment. An "institute for applied ethics concentrating upon applications to business" is an institute for field ethics with main field business. The "applied ethics" movement becomes effectively a field ethics movement. Observe that professional ethics are field ethics, with the field in each case the profession concerned. But professional ethics in sum form a quite proper subclass of field ethics; bio-ethics and ecological ethics are plainly not professional ethics. Less obviously, more importantly, field ethics differs from practical ethics (as usually poorly defined), with which "applied ethics" is regularly conflated. For, on the one side, ordinary living and daily life, central to practical ethics, are not fields. On the other, field ethics are not confined to practice, but may involve considerable theoretical material, particularly from the fields concerned. 2. The ethics count Not only is the applied operation in trouble, ethics also is in deep trouble. Indeed, in a way, the main problem lies here. There is not a fit, properly satisfactory subject, for some significant applications. For some "applications" have to change and develop the subject! But, the problems do not vanish when the amendment to field ethics is made. Satisfactory fieldwork, satisfactory outcomes in field ethics are seriously hampered by long-standing troubles in ethics. For as field ethics involve ethics, whatever is wrong with ethics affects field ethics. To glimpse these troubles, consider recent ambivalence towards ethics. Is ethics even a good good. There is a most curious contrast in later 20th century attitudes towards ethics. On the one side, there are great expectations, for instance for what ethics can contribute, to social and professional lite 20 What is -wrong with applied ethics especially; but on the other there is serious disquiet, occasionally verging upon despair and into nihilism, as to ethics, and its role. Virtually the whole spectrum from great expectations through no expectations to substantial forebodings is selectively represented. A few examples: • Great expectations for ethics, beginning to re-emerge these days, tend to come from outside professional philosophical ranks, from scientists and social scientists.8 Ethics is seen as taking up again its grand legitimization and critical roles. It can indeed be used in this respect as regards to a wide variety of practices, such as in business, economics, government, scientific experimentation, and so on. Of course it cannot always succeed, because one ethics can be pitted against another, and each and all challenged. ( p-— These expectations, a bit surprising after the drab days of analytic moral philosophy (where I philosophy could express no interesting moral opinions), contrast sharply with ' /•—• heavy disquiet or worse as to present ethics. A recent example is afforded by z MacIntyre’s disturbing introduction to After Virtue', that ‘we have - very largely, if not entirely - lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical of morality’ (p.2). Some, like MacIntyre, promise a happy, even a great, outcome, should we return to proper paths, to a virtue ethic in the tradition of Aristotle. Others are not so sanguine; , there is 1 • no hope for ethics. There are divergent routes here. Either it can play no relevant , role any longer, or it can play only a negative or damaging role (thus e.g. Hinckfuss). Though both these routes lead badly astray, present (merely classificatory) objectives do not include showing as much.9 There is, furthermore, reason for at least serious disquiet. Should we care to look closely at, and try to assess, the total ethical heritage, then what we find is not very promising. • What is on offer is mostly extremely sketchy and very piecemeal, much of it a hotchpotch. There are extraordinarily few well-worked out and detailed ethics. Spinoza’s Ethics is perhaps one rare example. • Most of what is on offer is seriously biassed or prejudiced, indeed from a deep environmental perspective even unethical. Prime examples include • religious bias, heavily constraining or distorting creatures’ lives, and putting them to work to serve imagined religious objectives. • spiritualistic distortion. Even where an explicit religion does not feature, as in Platonism and neo-Platonism and in edified Buddhism, the whole of life may be distorted through promise of an after-life or successor life or extra-material life, where furthermore some system of rewards or punishments may be dished out for previous performance. No doubt such biasses help in conferring upon ethics authority, unwarranted authority (fulfil duties or be dammed, etc.). • humanistic distortion, summed up as human chauvinism. It is upon this prejudice, critical for environmental ethics, that we concentrate. A main matter that is wrong with ethics, and ipso facto its practice and its belated appearance in many professional settings (when it$ should have been in evidence long ago), is its anthropic bias, its considerable prejudice in favour of (present) humans.10 The matter is highly material in several fields, most obviously in environmental ethics, but also in medical ethics, bio-ethics, agricultural and vefinarian ethics, and similar. It is widely assumed, however, that ethics is inevitably human biassed, that it has to be anthropocentric. That is not so. Ethics can be repaired. So much is the substance of ethics without humans. Both morals and ethics can be characterised, in substantially reportive ways, so as to free Richard Sylvan 21 them of anthropocentrism and the like.11 Furthermore, the whole superstructural theory can be developed in a fashion that makes no essential reference to humans or any other biological species.12 These repairs represent, however, only the beginning of adjustment and change - of many changes if a satisfactory deep-green ethics is to be reached. When repairing goods, there often comes a stage, increasingly rapidly encountered those days, when it becomes a more attractive proposition to acquire new items than to persist with repairs. So it may be, it is now suggested, with ethics. So increasingly it has been suggested this century, with demands for new ethics, new moral philosophies. Those making such proposals include Schweitzer, Maclver, Leopold, along with many others.13 Suppose we should arrive, through addressing different or new fields, at what amounts to a new ethics, as many think we do (thus Maclver, p. 179 and many ecocentric philosophers). Then what emerges is no "application" of a standard ethics, but something different, not an applied standard ethics at all. Now something similar may appear to occur for normal applied subjects. A newly encountered group of physical phenomena, for instance, leads not to the elevation of some dusty mathematical theory buried in archives, what is mostly the case, but to elaboration of a new mathematical theory. Normally in this event, the main body of pure mathematics would remain untouched; a new annex or suburb would simply be added to it.14 With ethics, however, things are different. There are grounds for contending that the green (environmental) revolution has shaken ethics to its (dubious) foundations and core, and, as coupled with associated non domination themes (as emphasised especially in ecofeminism), has left comparatively little untouched. The standard city of ethics is not left alone, unscathed. Much the same sort of points can be presented in the form of a dilemma, for standard ethics and a proposed field, such as environmental issues. Either standard ethics will not cover the field (or cannot be extended to do so because it (or its extension) does not apply, or through being forced upon the field it twists or damages the data, for instance leaves an indelible anthropic bias. A homely carpentry analogy may help: there is some cabinet work where delicate hammering would be appropriate, but the only tool we have is a sledgehammer.15 Likewise, a standard chauvinistic ethic is the wrong tool to try to use or extend for deeper environmental work. Unremarkably, the three options emerging, namely (inappropriate) application, extension or adjustment, and fashioning of something new or different, correspond more or less to the now familiar threefold division of environmental positions, into shallow, intermediate and deep.16 As before, deep ethics are not "applications", but near ethics. 3. Extraneous issues Among the many extraneous issues concerning field ethics, those that have come to exercise philosophers do look distinctly partisan:17 namely, the role of philosophers, especially professionals; the place of philosophy in field ethics; and the poor practice of these ethics, particularly from a professional philosophical perspective. Here the main thesis to be advanced inclines towards these professionally unsympathetic lines: insofar as these matters, philosophical extranalities, are of negatixe impact for philosophy, philosophers have largely themselves to blame, for they are largely of their own making (or, to sheet some of the responsibility more accurately, of the controlling power elite of the profession}.18 Let us investigate some of the extraneous issues seriatim. Because a field ethics concerns the field as well as (relevant parts of) ethics, its investigation, practice and teaching, requires an intersection of capacities and skills, drawn from both ethics and the field. n What is wrong with applied ethics This simple observation enables an immediate response to such questions as: if not philosophers, then who is to investigate, and teach, field ethics? That response is: those from one area or the other who have acquired requisite knowledge and technique in the other, or less promising, those from outside (but with some appropriate informational background) who acquire these prerequisites in both. In medical ethics, where there is perhaps a larger pool of information concerning the field than there is regarding ethics, a moral philosopher untrained in medicine may have more to learn than a medical doctor unversed in ethics and lacking philosophical skills. (Really, neither should be let loose on students before they are duly prepared in the intersection.) It is evident, then, that philosophy enjoys no natural monopoly in field ethics. The place of philosophy is less exalted, and certainly is not dominant - still less given recent proposed (but hardly well justified) decoupling of ethics from philosophy.19 There are corollaries regarding the roles of philosophers on committees relating to field ethics, in decision-making and so on on these topics. Philosophers do not have an automatic place. Unless they are well-informed as to ethics (many philosophers are not) and as to the field, they do not deserve a place at all (of course they still may gain a role for want of any better placed). Ousting of under-informed or unenergetic philosophers is not always such a bad thing. While the informational situation is now significantly better than in 1945 when Maclver was agonising over the predicament of moral philosophy, it is still true that ‘academic moral philosophers are not using ‘every opportunity to make themselves acquainted, so far as possible, with the real difficulties of those [not merely present humans] who need the help of moral philosophy most... I ... confess that I myself lack the factual knowledge which would be required to do this work well. I suspect that many ethic philosophers are in the same position ...20 One of the reasons why philosophy has lost prestige in recent years is that it has not kept pace’ (pp.204-205). One example Maclver incisively develops concerns ‘discoveries associated with the name of Freud. The behaviour of philosophers in this connection is particularly hard to excuse. At first they flatly denied the reality of the alleged discoveries - maintained that the notion of "unconscious mind" was self contradictory, and so forth. But all this has now been given up. ... Philosophers no longer dispute ... details of the Freudian system - but disregard them. If they mention them at all, they talk as if they somehow concerned none but medical men - as if the same propositions could be sene in medicine and false outside it. In the light of the recognition of unconscious motives the whole traditional theory of moral responsibility needs overhauling, but no moral philosopher undertakes this’ (p.205). The reason why the corresponding philosophical debate (about whether unconscious desires are sometimes evil, whether relevant moral predicates are restricted to conscious motives, and so forth) had not "by 1945, after 40 years of exposure to Freudian issues, Maclver attributed to the mass of psychological literature which philosophers have not read and would have to read, reading that is obligatory if moral philosophy is to be made ‘the subject which it ought to be’ (p.206). There has been disappointment among some professional philosophers, those with expansionist . instin^tions, that field ethics has not turned out to be quite the bonanza anticipated, that the expected / boom in new opportunities and positions began to dissipate as field practitioners started to supply their own "field ethicists".21 None of this should have been surprising, for broad inductive reasons. Philosophy had long shed subjects and fields of overlap; and those professionals who have hung in have become something different (economists instead of social philosophers, computer scientists instead of logicians22) Nor have philosophers, especially those who have not changed or reskilled, all the virtues assumed by professionals; e.g. they have little or no theory, they are too fuzzy, they are indecisive, or vacillate, etc. (remember the sophists; these provide some of the reasons too why philosophers are often not welcome on committees). ( Richard Sylvan 23 Some outside inputs into ethics, such as field studies or field workers may supply, would not go astray. For there is theoretically little that is new or interesting on the standard ethics scene. Much of it is 19th century revival, refinement of utilitarianism or Kantianism, and ornate additions (with bells and whistles). One of the few "new" offerings is the revival of Aristotelian virtue ethics! Nothing, however, stops outside inputs. Anyone is free to attempt philosophy. Professionals have no exclusive rights over philosophy, still less over ethics; nor should they. There is a case for widening practice of philosophy, and encouraging paraphilosophers. For critical problems emerging are not so much those of philosophy itself (which could be very different from the way it is practised and professionalised), but of philosophy as professionalised and as conducted. The immediate future does not bode well for change in the latter, for several reasons; the prevailing materialistic technological ethos (which dev^lyes pure intellectual activity), the consequent marginalisation of subjects like philosophy and continuing narrowness of dominant philosophical activity. Nor, moreover, have philosophers proceeded well, particularly in the Antipodes, in training and "^pp^ing students who can readily adapt to become field ethicists. Philosophy has never been strongly employment-market driven (but has tended to rely on a version of Say’s flawed law); indeed there are features intrinsic to philosophy, such as its contemplative character, that renders it antithetical to the veiy idea of responding to markets at all. There are other regional features that compound this sort of problem: the conservative, and class, bias of philosophy (inherited from similar British arrangements), which has meant that Australian philosophy has not been innovative in adapting its topics and emphases to changing circumstances;23 and the heavy concentration, as in British empiricism (still dominant in Australia), upon epistemology, with ethics and what went into moral sciences and social philosophy still regarded as second class arenas and not what philosophy was really about or what first class chaps would mainly concern themselves. These are major reasons why philosophy lost out, and Reserved to lose. It is for those latter sorts of reasons in particular, that environmental ethics and environmental philosophy have been unable to gain more than occasional marginal status in philosophy curricula in Australian universities. Fuller accounts of the predicament of environmental philosophy have been given elsewhere.24 Its predicament tends to illustrate a general problem for field ethics, with bioethics (with its own institutional settings) the only partial exception. Now that field ethics is being lost to the fields in many cases, there are complaints about the calibre of what is done and taught, the quality of the investigators and teachers, and so on. No doubt much of this criticism is warranted; some similar criticism of ethics within philosophy would also be warranted. Among the justified criticisms are these: • that field ethics as done from the field is divorced from ethical theory (from what theory has so far been developed). Too much comprises mere case studies, as with business MBAs. • that the field practitioners are not trained in ethical theory, and are often ill-informed ethically and lacking in analytic and critical skills crucial for satisfactory philosophy. A different complaint, of importance, concerns the poor ethical practice, even the unethical practice in some of the fields, despite the development of field ethics. Such a problem is particularly conspicuous in the field of business.25 But this has been a long-standing problem for ethics itself; how to get people to behave as they ought? Teaching agents ethics can certainly enable, and encourage, them to be moral: but it cannot make them moral. Nor would it be proper for it to do so. The field ethics movement, successor to the late AE movement, is both important and timely, especially as regards getting ethics and axiology back into many fields that hard tried, erroneously it now appears, to eliminate them. The movement will have to be carefully orchestrated however to \ I 1 24 What is wrong with applied ethics avoid capture by the very power structures and disciplinary paradigms that it should transform. These are certainly grounds for some cynicism about such movements: that they are easy targets for co-option, that they can bemused to cover up abuses by power structures, and to authorise dubious procedures, or worse,^with a rubber stamp of ethical approval from appropriate ethics’ committees and inquiries. Such grounds for cynicism can be reasoned, however, and new hope inaugurated, given more adequate formulation and development of relevant field ethics (exercises including considerable theoretical work), along with independent and impartial administration of emerging codes and decision methods, and with appropriate openness of the formerly abused procedures they are intended to regulate fairly. REFERENCES Callicott, J.B., In Defense of the Land Ethic, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1989. Edwards, J.C., Ethics without Philosophy, University Presses of Florida, Tampa, 1982. Engel, J.R., Ethics of Environment and Development, Belhaven Press, 1990. Hinkfuss, I., The Moral Society: Its Structure and Effects, Discussion papers in environmental philosophy, no. 16, The Australian National University, 1987. Leopold, A., A Sand Country Almanac, Oxford University Press, New York, 1949. MacIntyre, A., After Virtue, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1981. Maclver, A.M., "Towards anew moral philosophy", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, no. 46 (1945-6): 179-206. Sylvan, R. "Prospects for regional philosophy in Australasia", Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 1986. Sylvan, R., From Wisdom to Wowserism, typescript, 1991. Sylvan, R., Deep-Green Ethics, typescript, 1993. i Sylvan, R. and Bennett, H., The Greening of Ethics, White Horse Press, Cambridge, 199^. Wilson, E.O. (ed.), Biodiversity, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1988. NOTES 1. For such a treatment of items like ethics, as economic goods, see further Greening of Ethics. 2. The Conference, organised by the University of Newcastle in August 1993, where this paper was presented. 3. Ethical theory has tended to borrow classifications from elsewhere, from apparently more successful enterprises. Thus, for instance, the (normative) ethics/meta-ethics distinction lifted, none too adeptly, 25 Richard Sylvan from logical theory. Thus too the present pure/applied distinction, also purloined. By no means everything that intelligent agents dream up and promote is entirely in order. Rather uncontroversially colourless green ideas is one such combination, more controversially human nature, deep ecology and post-modernism are such. Applied ethics appears to belong to this not-in-satisfactory-order or out-of-order bunch. 4. ‘Applied. Practical, put to practical use. Applied science. Science of which the abstract principles are put to practical use in the arts’ (Concise English'). ‘2. Put to practical use; practical as distinguished from abstract or theoretical’ (OED). Though we persevere with these dictionary explications, there are grounds for complaint; there are neglected nuances. For example, the practical/theoretical contrast (just one of the muddy contrasts with practical) differs from an applied/pure contrast. A theory can in principle be applied (a plying to, i.e., a mapping) in a non practical, or impractical, field. Different again is that concrete/abstract contrast. And what exactly is practical? 5. The advance notices for the Conference (which look pretty confused, even mumbo jumbo), well they add insult to injury by invoking talk of a theory of applied ethics. There is said to ‘appear to be a significant gap between the theory of applied ethics and its practice’; this is said to be why ‘disillusionment has set in’ now. While there may be a theory of applications, talk of a "theory of applied ethics" heaps confusion (‘theory of) upon confusion (‘applied ethics’). As for gaps (really, between the theory and practice of ethics), there are two, as we shall see; there is an ambiguity in ‘gap’As for mumbo jumbo, try the following sentence: ‘The teaching and practice of applied ethics has grown rapidly and in an unruly manner across many disciplines, with many practitioners now not possessing any depth of philosophical knowledge and expertise and, because of difficulties experienced with the theory and practice given, in some cases deciding that same is relevant.’ Its sequel is easily unscrambled: ‘We wish to hold a conference to explore this issue for the Australian community and its practical consequences.’ 6. Thus, too, there is a two way process. Application feeds back to inform theory and to enrich the pure subject. With ethics, as we shall see, something similar or more dramatic happens. Field developments not merely may inform and enlarge the ethical theory; some may alter it irrevocably. 7. Of course not all adjectives function in this way. butTor. instance without types of responded s. Thus, e.g. possible, probable, alleged, putative,etc. I 8. Examples include Wilson in Biodiversity, Engel. 9. We try to show as much elsewherey-Routley and HTIF. 10. This is by no means all that is wrong with standard ethics. Another, important for field ethics, is the lack of an adequate theory of ethical dilemmas, confronting which is a main engine of progress in ethics. 11. See Greening of Ethics', also ‘Ethics without humans. Philosophy without humans', Observe that ^repairs are not unique. <y : » 12. As to how this is accomplished, see the annular theory, reiterated in Greening'. X 26 What is wrong with applied ethics 13. Maclver suggests ‘that all the old codes are out of date and a satisfactory new one has still to be discovered. A lost moral code cannot be recovered, and a new one obtained, simply for the asking’ (p.201). 14. Nothing, no paradigm shift as revolution has effected the whole citadel of mathematics; none is likely to (even dialethism, more threatening than much else, because central areas can be protected by /w roj due qualification). 15. A different example: an isolated person has an extensive weeding tool in a weed invaded forest, with the only techniques availabe a broad-acre chemical defoliant. 16. For a classification of environmental positions along the lines of the three options, see Callicott Introduction, where attention is also drawn to shortcomings in the applied idea. 17. On extraneous issues in ethics, including especially field ethics such as environmental ethics, see for a detailed treatment Greening of Ethics, part II/. JJ 18. Among other things, philosophers did not act, did not respond to incipient demand, fast enough in organising appropriate structures for delivery of field ethics. <5? 19. See esp. Edwards, plhieswilhourPhilosophy^ 20. Maclver continues ‘and for this reason this conception of the task of moral philosophy is unlikely to be popular in the profession.’ There are two troubles with the tack: firstly, field ethics do not should not - exhaust ethics; secondly, field ethics are enjoying some popularity. 21. The proposition, from the circulated Conference announcement, that field ethics might rejuvenate a flagging philosophy, that they had ‘given philosophy a rebirth’ can hardly be taken seriously (for all that they may have given jaded philosophy departments a fillip). Concrete working examples and dilemmas might stimulate ethical investigation, but would only exceptionally impact an ethical theory, and moreover ethics itself has but rarely been a source of growth and development in philosophy. Field practitioners, who often have their own expansionist and imperialist ambitions and programs, are unlikely to let a service subject be supplied from elsewhere unless they cannot yet manage the subject themselves and then only so long as times are good so they do not need the jobs and can avoid chores involved. 22. Interestingly there has been no similar fuss from professionals regarding the attrition of logicians within philosophy (for which some of them have responsibility), or the on-going loss of logic to computing science and mathematics. 23. It is for this sort of reason that philosophy in Australia, unlike that in parts of USA^,missed the field van. 24. See Sylvan 1986, The Greening of Ethics, From Wisdom to Wowserism. iSrn- 25. A problem in fact exacerbated under prominent ethical positions, e.g., crude utilitarian fostering "greed is good" notions, most social Darwinism encouraging cut-throat competition. I'  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 14, item 1978: What is wrong with applied ethics Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Description An account of the resource Typescript with handwritten emendations and annotations. Paper presented at the 1993 Philosophy and applied ethics re-examined conference. [10] leaves. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span><span>,</span> Box 14, item 1978 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:5bcffeb">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:5bcffeb</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [10] leaves. 8.49 MB. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Australian National University - [Unlisted in Error Likely 2nd Drawer] Australian National University Office Australian National University Office > [Unlisted in Error Likely 2nd Drawer] Box 14: Green Projects in Progress https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/0b7902d211e4ae23ce6364a79b1fdef4.pdf 903a4c17a0584ed036707fe4b4aa469a PDF Text Text ������������������������������������������������������������� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Nuclear Power—Some Ethical, Social and Political Dimensions Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=val+routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Val Routley</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://manuscripts.library.uq.edu.au/index.php/uqfl291" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Richard Sylvan Papers, UQFL291</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Manuscript https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/448d8517e9ca68f07df1452eec947883.pdf 5534af9a9b545e7a7587c7c0c0504e3a PDF Text Text ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft of Nuclear Power—Some Ethical, Social and Political Dimensions Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=val+routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Val Routley</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://manuscripts.library.uq.edu.au/index.php/uqfl291" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Richard Sylvan Papers, UQFL291</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Manuscript https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/68d29df80f9d20e41a77ef7fdb412966.pdf f2093594e525a6ba4c68813d0f8e0eb4 PDF Text Text GAEAN GREENHOUSE, NUCLEAR WINTER, AND ANTHROPIC DOOMSDAY. ... climate change, like no other issue, calls the whole notion of human progress into question. The [ever promised] benefits of newer technologies, more efficient economics, and improved political systems could be overwhelmed by uncontrolled global warming. ... the pace of climate change will soon overwhelm natural variability in the earth's climate. Indeed, it can be improved with nuclear war for its potential to disrupt a wide range of human and natural systems, [severely] complicating the back of moneying economics and coping with other problems. Irrigation works, settlement patterns, and food production [among others] would be tragically disrupted ... (Worldwatch 89, p.ll, p.10) There are many approaches to the Greenhouse problematique, upon which this philosophical investigation focuses. These approaches, range from playing the issue down entirely, dismissing it as not a problem, not something anyone should worry about, at the one end of the range, to playing it up at the other. Those who play it up may even foresee the demise of the human race, the substantially new socio-economic arrangements soon eventuate. There is certainly plenty of room for different approaches, and for some eclecticism. For what is being relied upon, in every case, comprises shaky and contestable arguments, from flimsy forecasting models lacking many apparently relevant details. No one of sound judgment, aware that weather reports for twelve hours ahead can be wildly astray, would place a very high level of confidence on climatic forests for fifty years ahead down a very hazardous track. But there is enough information to act; and there is information rationally requiring action. For things in the future are not going to be the same. It is very doubtful that they are going to be any better (though much important economic theorizing presupposes as much, such as the monetary discounting of the future). They are not going to be similar even, because so many parameters important to life are changing, several at exponential rates. Significant in these changes are likely climatic changes. The Greenhouse effect is among those, a result of the increases of “greenhouse” gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane, in the Earth's atmosphere, which have followed exponential paths since the highenergy phase of industrial culture. The growth in gas concentration produces, what it is lagged by, but is now apparent, a significant increase in mean global temperatures. This has major implications for much of life on Earth. �2 Diagram 1. Spectrum of approaches: Course of action Reasons offered Short response No problem Refutable No certainty Irrational Adaptive capacity Exaggerated High tech resolution Wishful thinking Severe dislocation otherwise Utopian Individual survival Pointless No action1 Moderate action Considerable action These very condensed responses will be expanded and explained as we proceed. Breifly too the outcome is that there is no easy path; future humans should expect a hard landing. 1. Investigative philosophy, argument and rational decision The role of philosophy in such a complex problematique as that of Greenhouse is not difficult to state briefly. Philosophy, Anglo-American philosophy especially, is concerned above all with argument. Investigative philosophy is applied philosophy, investigating arguments, their features - assumptions, reliability, etc. - and their generalisation to rational processes, but outside normal philosophical topics. The generalisation to rational processes comprehends a wider range of philosophical throughput than the orthodox range of argument typically addressed in logic courses; to probabilistic and plausibilistic reasoning, to decision processing and making. A main objective in this piece of investigative philosophy is to consider certain arguments for severe dislocation pprobabilities, as a result of Greenhouse effects, and the resulting impact on rational decision formation and action. There are certain arguments of particular interest radical decision and action: various neo-Malthusian arguments, and doomsday arguments. 1 Taoist no-action would be different. It would not have undertaken excessive industrial action in the first place. �3 The main run of arguments to considerable action are neo-Malthusian in character. The general form of these arguments is simply this: growth in some parameter encounters limits, with severe effects. A characteristic graphic representation is as follows: limits growth parameter time exponential growth pattern J encountering limits subsequent varying unstable behavior The limits are often imposed just by finitude, e.g. finiteness of a resource or a sink. But other limits can be important, for instance where new phenomena or thresholds come into play. General Malthusian arguments loom in the background in what follows. But a different argument, of especial concern as regard climatic changes, is the following anthropic doomsday argument:• There is some probability that the Gaean “greenhouse effect”, generated by human activity, will get out of control, that Gaean control mechanisms will fail, and that the Earth will, for example, overheat (Runaway Greenhouse, or Lesser Venus Prospect, premiss). • That result would be disastrous for human activities, and indeed for humans (Catastrophe Prospect). • Because of the unusual, and unusually precarious, position of humans, such a probability of disaster is not in fact small but decidedly large As a consequence then, the human species will probably sharply decline, and even become extinct (Catastrophe Probability). That is, by a rectified version of Murphy's law - that if something can go wrong then in appropriate unusual conditions, it very probability will - an incrementally small probability is inflated into a very large probability. �4 It would be a mistake to conclude that because the argument itself is an unlikely one, everyone can stop worrying. The argument is but one of a substantial raft of arguments that should have everyone worried; it is but a final intellectual string, so to say, from the inconspicuous cosmological tail. Such a doomsday argument no doubt puts together, in one more exact form, some of the sorts of considerations that are troubling many people, especially concerned youth, about the Greenhouse business: that humans (including themselves) are on a decline or extinction path. It is no doubt not the only consideration that should be troubling them or us. For whether or not doomsday warnings are warranted, there are other matters that should be sufficiently worrisome, to anyone of moral integrity:• Future times are likely to be exceedingly uncomfortable for very many creatures, as habitats are destroyed, food producing regions are eliminated, and environments seriously impoverished. (Many of these creatures are nonexistents, mere future existents, i.e. creatures that do not yet exist or participate in market or voting rituals, but who -will exist and may participate. But, despite their presently unfavourable ontological status, they are entitled to fair and decent treatment.) • Given such future prospects, present practices which do nothing or vanishingly little to ameliorate these prospects, are decidedly irrational. Indeed a main message that will emerge from the present exercise is the moral irrationality of critical large-scale human practices. The irrationality, morally-weighed-down irrationality, of present large-scale human practices is already conspicuous from the wintry downside of climatic prospects of which Greenhouse warming is the upside. Diagram 2. Macro-climatic setting. Bands: all boundaries fuzzy mean global temperature (degrees C) escalating emissions Disequilibrium: Venus prospect increasing dislocation possible adaptation increasing dislocation thermonuclear war disequilibrium: Mars prospect �5 1860 1990 The apparatus for conducting a world-wide nuclear wars is entirely in place and indeed on alert. The probability of such a war, even if small, is not zero. Among the many awful effects of a large nuclear war is that of nuclear winter, which would bring about the demise of present human civilisation, and would at the very least mean enormous dislocation for most surviving humans and other creatures. A sufficiently diabolical chemo-nuclear war, reaching into all inhabited parts of the globe, could indeed drive the human species close to extinction. The decidedly dubious rationality and morality of these nuclear arrangements - both through what they are in themselves for what purposes, and through their moral opportunity costs - are widely appreciated. The thesis that the arrangements and practices are immoral, irrational, and ought to be dismantled - already much argued, and also contested2 - is not the present concern. The thermonuclear downside is, by comparison, a very easy case to examine philosophically, and argue, as compared with the greenhouse upside.3 For there is, for instance, a case of sorts, for much increased use of greenhouse gases, such as CFCs in refrigerators, a case that hardly extends very plausibly to nuclear weapons. It is a case heavily pressed by some “developing” nations, for polluting devices already in widespread use in more affluent places, as necessary for local standards of living. Greenhouse and nuclear winter are more intricately connected than being the upside and downside of meteorological phenomena. One of the high-tech solutions suggestions for atmospheric overheating, involves the generation of wintering effects - to cool things down - by flinging enough dust up into the atmosphere, a trick most easily achieved no doubt on the requisite scale by nuclear explosives. Needless to say, like backburning against out-of- control fires, artificial winter would be a pretty desperate and, given present expertise, irrational expedient. 2. The Greenhouse debate, main policy responses, and irrational decision. The Greenhouse debate, as to what to do, if anything, about forecast Greenhouse effects on Earth, is intellectually disturbing. For it has revealed, as we shall soon see, that many of those who have spoken, worse that many who have some role in decision making For my very small contribution to this, see the War and Peace series in Discussion Papers in Environmental Philosophy, RSSS, Australian National UniversityGlobal warming, by no means entirely certain, is assumed to be the outcome of increasing greenhouse gas build up. Of course though some temperatures will rise, cooling will probably occur also in some localized regions. �6 (including both experts and politicians), lack a firm grasp on decision-making in conditions of uncertainty or possible risk.4 The main canvassed policy approaches to the Greenhouse problematique lie firmly within the dominant social paradigm, the high-tech growth and development ideology. Diagram 2 Broad policy responses to the Greenhouse problematique. Dominant paradigm Alternative paradigm Procrastination (wait-and-see) Soft energy paths and alternative regulation Adaptation (sink-or-swim) Socio-economic transformation Regulation Intervention (star wars) We will briefly outline, and find wanting, all the dominant approaches. • Procrastination, the prevailing response. In fact the main gooon mental and conservative response thus far has been procrastination, or “wait-and-see” as it is more benignly known.5 The approach makes much of the uncertainties, of the shortcomings in even the most elaborate general circulation models, of the high noise-to-signal levels. On such bases, it contends that it is too early to do anything, except staging some meetings, organising some review committees, undertaking some monitoring, and funding a little more “research”. It obviously does nothing to rock the growth ideology boat. There is the pretence that we do not know enough to act6 But it is known that carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are fast increasing. The main causes and enough likely consequences are also known. Theoretical consideration, have already been partially confirmed by rising temperatures in the eighties. Outlines of rising temperatures are also known in broad outline, rising sea levels, and so forth. In addition, there are partial Following Knight, some economists (try to) distinguish between uncertainty and risk. Risk is said to obtain when some more or less objective numberable probabilities can be assigned to outcomes, a situation not obtaining as regards the global greenhouse effect. Bayesians, who can always assign subjective probabilities tend to eschew the distinction, e.g. Cyert and DeGroot, also say that ‘decision making under uncertainty refers to situations in which the outcome of the decision is not precisely predictable’ (p.3). Either way, Greenhouse involves uncertainty. There is significant rhetorical art in the choice of classificatory labels, a rather philosophically neglected art. A PR person must have been hired to produce the Greenhouse adaptation of ‘adaptation’. Part of the problem is that scientists have been caught out (e.g. crying wolf) and have become ultra-cautious. With the advent of thermodymumies, for instance, scientists begin ‘threatening mankind with a rather swift “bad death’” as the universe random ‘Thus m. Aber, on ‘balant ideological use of science even by scientists themselves’ (Bernard p.9). �7 small-scale models of the Greenhouse effect in action. For example a city such as MexicoCity, which is situated in the bowl-like valley is placed in an environment traps heat as well as pollution. The ecological affects, like the human affects, are pretty dramatic even at this small level, and hardly to be sought, or amelated elsewhere. There is a pretence, fostered also by many scientists, that Greenhouse difficulties have only just been discovered; a date commonly set for that watershed even is the Villiers conference and statement of 1986 (e.g. Pittoch ....). Actually there have been Greenhouse warmings for more than a decade, and there has been a corresponding decade of inaction. Nor is any action of much significance presently seriously contemplated. Back in 1979 Bernard wrote at length about and reported the substantial concern of climate logists about Greenhouse effects. Even the magazine Nature, not noted for its green sympathies, recorded that ‘the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels is, concemally, the most important environmental issue in the world today’ (May ? 1975). Bernard quotes many other concerned scientists, several asserting that ‘the government must start dealing with this problem now’. They meant the United States government. “The” government didn't take the hint. For more than a decade then scientists have been emphasizing that the greenhouse threat is a major environmental problem, and that action should be taken immediately. Over 10 years nothing of real significance to counter the problem has happened. There has been more than a decade of inaction , during which matters have got worse, and the time frame for evasive action disturbingly shorter. It is already evident that requisite decision making under uncertainty is not taking place. On straight inductive grounds, it would be reasonable to expect nothing will be done. While there are theoretical grounds to bark up such an assessment, still it is only just beginning to get through to a much wider public (which can exercise a marginal influence on what politicians say) that there is - or may be, as some more reactionary modal-managering academics would have - a problem or two. Many scientists have joined the wait-and-see queue, with their begging bowls, hoping for more hand-outs for research. They assume, rightly enough, that more information would assist with rational decision-making, and also, quite wrongly, that “scientific activity” is required for action to be taken. Physical scientists are not done in their misapprehension of rational decision methods. Although there is a good deal of practical experience available of statistical-type decision making order uncertainty, for instance as regards insurance coverage and engineering projects, decision theory, especially as regards unreputable situations, has not penetrated very far into standard scientific methodology or much into mainstream parts of social sciences. ‘Economists in particular have shown a talent for bringing ever problem back to a world of certainty where all solutions are known or can be easily found.’ Natural scientists �including dematologists are, for the most part, on the same erroneous-reduction-toconlittainable-certainty trip. ‘This is not to say that economists have not worked on uncertainty. ... however ... uncertainty is introduced and then taken out by assumption’ (Cyort and DeGroot p.l). But there are several classes of problematic situations, where decision and action may be required, where uncertainty cannot be discarded by first, reduction strategeness or otherwise, notably:• inheritantly probabilistic situations, such as those of indeterminacy in quantum theory; • essentially unpredictable situations (which may be deterministic) such as those now under investigation chaos theory; • presently uncertain situations and outcomes, which may eventually resolve into certain cases, or may turn into some of the above classes, where there is not time to wait for resolution. The Greenhouse problem is regularly put into the latter class, a standard assumption being that with enough money and research effort thrown at it, it will resolve to decent certainty. But it may well not; there are grounds for supposing that critical parts of climatology will fall into the essentially unpredictable class. The standard approach of too many research scientists is a pathetic begging-bowl posture: Supply more funding so we can go on researching until we obtain certainty.7 There are some severe problems with this standard response. Firstly, it is irrational. Certainty if achieved may be achieved too late. What was required for rationality was decision making in advance of certainty. Secondly, certainty may be unobtainable. The meteorological equations may be non additive (non additive) and so incapable of delivering stable results over slightly fluctuating in strict data. The standard response is methodologically unsound. • Adaptation, learning to live with and love the Greenhouse. The policy ‘that tends to be favoured by most economists’ is an adaptive strategy: “Let society adjust to environmental changes without attempting to mitigate or prevent the changes in advance” We could adapt to climate change for example, by planting alternative crop strain [themselves] ... more widely adopted... ’ (Schneider p.8). Observe, however, that it is a decidedly restricted “adaptation” that is being proposed, that humans adjust to the results of present economic and industrial practices, rather than adjusting them. It is assumed that economic growth comes first, that we do not change (e.g. through decent regulation) high energy industrial practices. A fuller and smarter adaptation would adapt these practices. The policy is like a pernicious agriculture policy that says, “Let farmers adjust to the results of soil erosion, salination and 7 It does not seem to have occurred to most research scientists demanding more money (even more per article) that an important reason why they are not obtaining the funding they expect is because their research results could, if unfavorable, act a serious drag on the industrial establishment. They are not going to be funded to delegitimize modem industrial society. �9 so on, without attempting to mitigate or prevent these deleterious changes in advance.” Such “adaptative agriculture”, the present predominant practice in advanced agriculture, is antienvironmental, but is given a spurious air of evolutionary inevitability and evolutionary redistributive justice; you can't back natural evolution, which is entirely natural, can you. Let us condense such far-from-inevitable and highly artificial mal-adaptation in the neologism badaptation. Greenhouse adaptation, like nuclear adaptation, is badaptation (some, less kind, would say medaptation). There is a pragmatic, if cynical, political argument for badaptation, namely, that unilateral action to prevent a warning is unfeasible and requisite international cooperation unattainble. Both contentions open to doubt. Unilateral action by the USA, by far the World's heaviest resource and energy consumer (per capita and on several other relevant domains) backed up by pressure (familiar from other settings, such as the narcotics war) on other nations and through the United Nations could make a major difference. Unfortunately the USA is also the world's largest supplier of influential grown economists. In any case, international agreements such as those in whaling and Antarctica, are attainable, and sometimes effective. The ozone protocols, limiting production of CFCs show that results can be achieved to limit trace gas emissions. The adaptation proposal is presently compatible with wait-and-see; both mean no hauling back on trace gas production. Indeed procrastination will force societies towards badaptation. Typical of adaptation, like procrastination, is an (over-)emphasis on the uncertainties of Greenhouse forecasts, and on the decision-theoretic paralysis such uncertainties are alleged to produce. Characteristic of adaptation too is a minimisation of the extent of Greenhouse modification. No doubt the impression that things won't be so very different, or far removed from what has already been experienced, is important in getting adaptationism more readily accepted, as a rational course of action (instead of the seemingly irrational course it is). Thus badaptation tends to play with figures at the law end of projected ranges of temperature increase, such as 1.5°C for 2050, when in fact present data indicates something rather in the vicinity of 4°C - in a setting, furthermore, where fractions of a degree centigrade may well be linked ot macro-physical and macro-biological change. Recent modellings deliver, an average, on increase in 2°C attributable to carbon dioxide, and it is widely thought that other trace gases will double the CO2 effect, yielding a 4°C temperature increase.8 8 Sources. Note that methane is beginning to rival carbon dioxide as a gas where atmospheric propostems really matter and whose present increase is excessive. �10 The colossal extent of future human dislocation has correspondingly been deliberately underemphasized. The adaptive capacities of human arrangements, when humans are living at the margin, to massive natural shifts, has been grossly exaggerated. Consider agriculture alone - set aside flooded cities, sunken atoll islands, and all the rest. Some of the Earth's major grain producing regions - upon which famine relief projects depend - could be pushed substantially out of business. The conditions which prevailed during the American dust-bowl experience of the nineteen-thirties were benign indeed compared with those which threaten with mid twenty-first century Greenhouse conditions. The mid continental summer temperatures were only 1-2° C warmer than the present average, under greenhouse conditions they could be more than 3-4° C warmer. In the dustbowl rainfall only slipped at critical growing times (e.g. July for northern com) to 80% of the contemporary norm; but under Greenhouse conditions it could be significantly less again. A super dust-bowl is not improbable (for much more detail, see Bernard). Similarly for other similar latitude Northern grain producing regions. But the high-energy industrial superstructure is crucially based upon sufficient cheap food (bread) for the urban masses. • Intervention, high-tech Gaean engineering. Interventionist proposals so far floated include • New oceans in parts of the Earth's land surface lying below, at, or near sea level. These projects would make the mega-dams of recent times look like childrens' play. • Wintering effects. Production of sufficient dust in the atmosphere, achieved for instance by nuclear detonations, to mitigate heating effects. Such enterprise would make modification of the weather by cloud seeding look like childs' play. Fortunately these and other expensive and grandiose proposals, which would call for considerable international cooperation, are far down the planning track; with these schemes procrastination is rational. • Regulation, controlling free(-wheeling) enterprise. Regulation itself, not so bureaucratically popular under that presentation in these latter days of economic irrationalism, is of course transparadigmatic, where it belongs depend on what measures (what sorts of constraints, rights, etc.) are proposed and how they are imposed or enforced. If it is, for example, some industrial law-and-order, smokestack scrubbing regulations or Greenhouse polluting rights, within the status quo, that is one thing, but if a minimally-constrained growth paradigm is questioned and alternative socio-economic arrangements advocated, that is quite another, and falls outside the dominant paradigm. Such policies involving regulations controlling fossil fuel emissions especially, are negatively labelled prevention in the predominantly American policy literature, though there is now no preventing some Greenhouse effects; but the worse to follow could still be prevented. What is usually covered under the label is however some regulation within prevailing political arrangements. So energy efficiencies and savings for investment in �11 growth elsewhere is comprehensible, straight growth-curtailing non-consumption is not contemplated. But the latter is just what alternatives do contemplate. Democratic political arrangements do not exclude such alternatives both the power bases of political leaders and economic prescriptions do. Adequate regulation within prevailing socio-economic arrangements is going to prove impossible, without adjustment of power structures and economic imperatives, in effect without far-reaching systems and a devological adjustment. While such adjustment may be rational, it is unlikely. Power structures have too much to lose.9 This is an opposite point to record the chauvinism and environmental shallowness of the Greenhouse debate. Like heart disease and cancer, the Greenhouse effect is gaining much discussion and some funding because it just may severely effect the affluent, affluent people and affluent nations, that have a good deal to lose, in North America especially. The impact will, however, be at least as severe in some third world nations, whose lands or much of them will be flooded, countries which cannot afford extensive expensive dyking (or where such effort would be in the longer term, as seas rise, pointless), countries such as Pacific coral atoll nations and delta states like Bangladesh. But the really serious losers will no doubt be, not humans , rich or poor, but nonhumans. Biological diversity, already being reduced by various human activities, may be one of the chief casualties of global worming. Massive destruction of forests, wetlands, and even the polar tundra could irrevocably destroy complex ecosystems that have existed for millennia. Indeed, various biological reserves created in the past decade to protect species diversity could become virtual death traps as wildlife attempt to survive in conditions for which they are poorly suited. Accelerated species extinction is an inevitable consequence of a rapid warming (Worldwatch p.10). 3. Arguments to dislocation and for a Lesser Venus Prospect. There is at least a small probability that predicted increase in mean atmospheric temperatures will seriously interfere with most remaining natural environments and result in the degeneration or destruction of many of them, especially forests wetlands, maritime environments. Nor will adaptationism help here; for natural evolution is much too slow for adaptationism to succeed (cf. Keeton pp.763-4). Natural ecosystems will not adapt effectively to rapid climatic change,... With regard to forests, habitats for plants and animals cannot be re-created or transplanted rapidly. Continuing climatic changes would strain the capabilities Holistic problems are too extensive for individuals, or even small collectives, to make much difference acting or their own. Some are too beg even for large collectives or states, but would require whole regions of the Earth acting in concerte. But of course some state players, such as the superpowers, as regards nuclear winter, can make a substantial difference, or even all the difference. �12 of management practices even in commercial tree plantations (Beijer Institute Report pp.21-3). The decline or demise of these systems, vast reservoirs for greenhouse gases will accelerate the warming, and accordingly make matters substantially worse: Trees are adapted to a narrow range of temperature and moisture levels, and cannot cope with rapid climate change. A temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius per decade in mid- to upper latitudes translates into a shift in vegetation zones of 60-100 miles northward. Terrestrial ecosystems cannot migrate that fast. Vast numbers of trees are likely to die, and new trees adapted to warmer temperatures are unlikely to be able to replace them rapidly. During such a disruption, huge areas of forest could die and, as they decay or bum, send large quantities of additional CO2 into the atmosphere, accelerating the warming (Brown p.10). Of course the immediate climate patterns would be somewhat more complex. If enough soot and ash from fires were flung into the atmosphere there would be a cooling effect, like that of a small nuclear winter, before heating accelerated. The present pattern of ecosystemic loss would also be sharply accelerated. When natural ecosystems get reduced to about 30% of their initial size, they tend to collapse of themselves. Moreover, there would be other significant positive feedback from ecosystems other than the terrestrial forests, from the oceans especially. As the oceans warm, they lose their capacity to serve as carbon dioxide reservoirs. So they too release additional gases, including previously absorbed CO2, back into the atmosphere, further accelerating the warming. A critical question arises as to how much danger such positive feedback poses? As so often, informed opinions, and so probability estimates differ. However ‘several scientists working in the area consider that positive feedback effects will force a very bleak picture to be drawn’ (p.19 ref?)10 Unlike the interim effect of a small nuclear winter, where after a few years at most, climatic behavior (as distinct from radioactivity levels) would presumably return towards the previous norm, there will be no similar recovery under greenhouse impact. Technically then, stability would be lost under the impact,11 disequilibrium induced. An eventual longterm return to some different equilibrium could well be excluded. Under new climatic regimes plants themselves may be able to do little more than hang on for part of their own lives. In many places conditions would be too severe for much of the “year” to permit normal plant functioning, including what is crucial for greenhouse amelioration, photosynthesis. In most plants, photosynthesis only occurs across a narrow band of Second order probabilities, probabilities and uncertainties in the light of first order subjective probabilities, enter importantly. Stability is defined in physics in terms of return to an initial (inertial) position after small disturbance. �13 temperatures (e.g. 6 - 34°C); outside that range the plants shut down operations.12 Even more important, many plants would leave few or no successful successors. Even where plants set seed, seedlings would not survive under the severe conditions expected; for instance, they would be killed by hot dry summer conditions, or in other places by frosts to which they are not adapted, both phenomena already familiar after clearfelling of forests. The situation at... in southern Sahara, where there is but one ancient tree hanging on in thousands of square kilometers of desert, a tree with viable seeds which sets no seedlings, could be more or less replicated in many other places where forests or woody plants once grew. In fact we are already witnessing the demise of the trees in much of Australia. Already dead and dying trees form a predominant feature of the Australian rural landscape. Virtually whichever way ecologists travel in Australia where trees remain, they are confronted with dead and dying trees 13 The reasons for the present decline of trees in rural Australia is, for the most part, not to be attributed to early greenhouse or even pollution effects.14 It is thought to be due to a complex of factors, including a range of insect predators whose effects are enhanced on isolated trees left after an excessive zeal for clearing (i.e. holistic effects enter as regards healthy persistence of trees). The relevant point is that these features are likely to be accelerated given the additional impact of greenhouse warming on plant functioning and reproduction. There are several major ways through which the maintenance structures of the Earth can be not merely awkwardly disturbed, but thrown right out of kilter - perhaps, given the delicacy of several critical matters, never to return present norms. Most obvious and immediately threatening is • nuclear warfare, and therewith nuclear Winter. But there are of course other severe shocks the planet could suffer than those chemo-nuclear warfare, some human induced, some a “chance” matter of the planets' position in space, namely • a mini Big Bang, or an undermining of metastability, brought about through very high energy experimentation (see Leslie) • a collision with a large meteorite or asteroid. Such uncertainties, not germane to the main climatic arguments, are listed, not to achieve a bogus completeness, but to emphasize that complete certainty is not to expected, not rationally.. Should we obtain it, should we obtain easy relatively unproblematic lives, then we have, by world standards, been rather lucky. Moreover, these latter uncertainties do The upper bound may be difficult to appreciate in most of Aotearoa. But in much of Australia, during the summer, many plants close down their operations for much of the day. Reported by Recher on Earthworm. Thus coastline vegetational destruction through detergents in sewerage waters. �14 appear negligible compared with those bound up with climate, ascribable to: • excess economic development. The practices involve a complex and sustained assault on most of the Earth's major ecosystems, forests, seas, etc, along with the alteration of atmospheric composition by greenhouse gases. For example, the forests are cut down, burnt, poisoned by herbicides and acid rain, or otherwise removed or destroyed. (Therewith too a great deal more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere and major sinks of carbon dioxide are removed.) As a result of these concerted growth-and-development activities such systems are driven to limits, and breakdown occurs. Once it occurs at some weak point it can escalate elsewhere, like a conflagration.; thus again ecosystemic collapse for example. Quite apart from breakdown at or approaching limits, for instance because of systemic overload, remarkable changes can occur in desiccative systems under stress or strain. • excess energy or chemical loading. Though such striking examples as the chemical clock, it has been demonstrated that dissipative systems can suddenly, and often rather unpredictably, undergo extraordinary changes, as for instance energy flux is increased (Prigogine and others), [describe briefly] Such non-additive, or nonlinear, effects, characteristic of more holistic dissipative systems, are bound to occur within the Earth's atmosphere and oceans as they undergo compositional changes. Carbon dioxide itself provides a good example. With small quantities its effect on the temperature of the air is proportional to the amount added; there is a linear effect. However once the carbon dioxide concentration in the air approaches 1%, new nonlinear effects come into play and heating greatly increases. In the absence of a biosphere to fix carbon dioxide, its concentration in the atmosphere would probably exceed the critical figure of 1%. The Earth would then heat up rapidly to a temperature near to that of boiling water. Increasing temperatures would speed up chemical reactions and accelerate their progress towards chemical equilibrium. ... eventually ... the Earth would become permanently cocooned in a brilliant white cloud - a second Venus, although not quite as hot (Lovelock pp.45-6). Fortunately for Gaean prospects, the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now nowhere near 1% nor likely to be pushed near 1% by projected doubting of carbon dioxide levels under economic activity over the next 50 years15. However eventual exponential growth will lead towards levels, and the side effect of such growth, the release of carbon dioxide from forests and oceans and the considerable reduction in fixation of carbon dioxide with the decline of forests, will lead in that disastrous direction rather more rapidly. The 1% 15 In the atmosphere of the very early Earth, CO2 exceeded the critical 1% figure; but solar luminority was about 25% less than now. With increasing solar flux the Earth would have overheated had the proposition of CO2 not been much reduced (e.g. see Lovelock 88 p.56). �15 bound constitutes just one of the many serious limits to continuation of present developmental practices. Now there can be no rational confidence with respect to complex dissipative systems - about the behavior of which we presently know comparatively little - that no other nonadditive effects will no be encountered at a much earlier stage. After all, the Gaean system, its atmosphere, oceans and ecosystems, will be pushed into essentially unexperienced and substantially unknown reaches. There is, for example, no experience from past times of such elevated temperatures as Green house effects will lead to, to draw upon. ‘There is no evidence that the land-bound glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica have ever completely melted in the last two million years’. There is experience of much colder periods. ‘During ice ages, the earth's average temperature has been about 5°C colder than at present, with glaciers covering major portions of continents’ (Barth p.7). But there is no similar experience of temperatures 4-5° C warmer than at present (in a warm interglacial period), ‘a global increase of more than 2°C above present is unprecedented in the era of human civilization’ (Schneider p.6) It would accordingly be decidedly rash, rash decision makings, to assign a zero or negligible probability to the emergence of new or unknown effects of relevance, to assume all will go smoothly and well. That would presuppose, in any event, a completeness in present scientific knowledge, contrary to the information we have that present investigation of holistic systems, among much else, is still in its infancy. The probability of something critical (e.g. perhaps radicals like hydroxyl) having been left out of estimations, of room accordingly for something unexpected or for something to go wrong, may be small, though experience implies it is not always so but it certainly appears to be non-zero. For the overconfident, with excess faith in the flimsy scientific edifice, there is a salutary lesson to be drawn from the erratic and stumbling path of the main proponent of Gaia hypotheses, Lovelock. Lovelock, coming from a working life as an industrial chemist, part of that time for a giant chemical transnational, had, and retained for a considerable time after he began his holistic hypothesizing a strong antipathy for environmentalists.16 Even Gaia was for industry and against the environmentalists; she was going to laughingly soak up all the pollution, courtesy of the chemical companies especially, that we humans could throw at her. In particular, we did not really need to worry much about ozone depletion or greenhouse gas escalation.17 ‘Contrary to the forebodings of many environmentalists, Coupled with this, there is a certain schizophrenia in Lovelock's attitude to the natural environment. There is also a matching schizophrenia as to the fragility of life on Earth. On the one side, it required very delicate settings and fine barring to arise; this is part of the argument for a Gaia hypothesis. On the other side, life is ‘tough, robust, and [highly] adaptable’, virtually indestructable (p.90). But though a flawed hero, Lovelock is a hero nonetheless. See Lovelock 79, p.40ff; and also 88? [detail] �16 finding a suitable’ destructive agent to bring about a ‘doom scenario’ ‘turns out to be an almost insoluble problem’ (p.40). Lovelock makes it easier for himself by helping himself to the assumption that a doomsday scenario involves the destruction of all “life”, ‘down to the last spore of some deep-buried anaerobic bacteria’ (p.40). But even for the least chauvinistic of environmentalists, destruction of all humans but the select elect would be quite enough for a decent doomsday. Lovelock's high redefinition of a environmental ‘doomsday scenario’ is unacceptable. Lovelock does not however stay within the bound of his redefinition. He proceeds to pooh-pooh the idea that anything much that we humans could accomplish would make any difference to Gaia (p.41) or even to most humans, including use of nuclear devices. Unfortunately for Lovelock's credibility, he was writing three years before the seemingly obvious wintering effects of a major nuclear war were realised by the accredited scientific community. Appealing in a common scientific fashion to scientific authority, he proceeds to minimalize the human and ecological effects of a major war. The report he relies upon as authoritative was a 1975 (unreferenced) one of ‘the US National Academy of Sciences ... prepared by an eight-man committee of their own distinguished members, assisted by forty-eight other scientists chosen from those expert in the effects of nuclear explosions and all things subsequent to them’ (p.41, italics added). Lovelock draws from the distinguished expert report the findings that ... if half of all the nuclear weapons in the world's arsenals, about 10,000 megatons, were used in a nuclear war the effects on most of the human and man-made ecosystems of the world would be small at first and would become negligible within thirty years. Both aggressor and victim nations would of course suffer catastrophic local devastation, but areas remote from the battle and, especially important in the biosphere, marine and coastal ecosystems would be minimally disturbed (p.41). Three years later Turco and others proceeded to detail a very different scenario that of widespread and ecologically damaging nuclear winter.. Not for the first time, Lovelock had been caught out badly. As with pollution, Lovelock has more recently shifted ground18 considerably in the vulnerability of the Earth to human-induced disturbance. When a system such as Gaia in homeostatis is stressed to near the limits of regulation even a small disturbance may cause it to jump to a new stable state or even fail entirely.... Shifting ground may be fine, especially when it is to an improved position. But it should be done honestly and openly, not stealthily or shiftily. Lovelock proceeds to attribute a caricuture of his own previous position to critics of the Gaia hypothesis (as a clever ‘fabrication’ which it was not); that it is ‘an argument developed to allow industry to pollute at will, since mother Gaia will clean up the mess (85 p.53). �17 It could be that the regulation of the Earth's climate is not far from one of these limits. Thus if some part of climate regulation is connected with the natural level of CO2 then clearly we are close to the limits of its regulation. This is because CO2 cannot be reduced much below the level observed for the last glaciation, about 180 ppm, without seriously limiting the rate of growth of the more abundant C3 type plants. If we perturb the Earth's radiation balance by adding more CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or reduce its capacity to regulate by decreasing the area of forests or both of these together then we could be surprised by a sudden jump of both CO2 and temperature to a new and much warmer steady state; or by the initiation of periodic fluctuations between that state and our present climate. The anomalously low abundance of CO2 on Earth when compared with the other terrestrial planets and especially the fact that the mean temperature of the Earth is on the cool side of the optimum for regulation, suggests strongly that the biota is regulating the climate by pumping CO2 from the air. The common feature of most of our pollutions and of our exploitation of the land surface seems to be unintentionally to thwart this natural process (Lovelock 85 pp5354). The argument to the lesser Venus path, to significant disequilibrium with the Earth's ecological support system destabilized, takes the following lines. The Earth appears to be a discipative (far-from-equilibrium) system held at its present balance by a combination of an (increasing) solar flux - a main energy input into the system - and its major ecological arrangements, especially vegetation complanes and live oceans. The sheer extent to which the resulting system differs from the stable dead system it could otherwise be is shown by the following table for atmospheric and oceanic composition. TABLE 1. Substance Carbon dioxide A Nitrogen T R Oxygen Argon 0 C E A N S Water Planetary comparisons (principal components per cent). Equilibrium Earth Venus Lifeless Earth Mass Present Earth 99 0 98 1.9 98 1.9 95 2.7 0.03 79 0 1 trace 0.1 trace 0.1 0.13 2 21 1 63 Salt 3.5 Sodium nitrate 1.7 96 n.a. n.a. 3.5 traces Surface temperatures (°C) n.a 477 Total pressure (bars) n.a. 90 290±50 60 -53 13 0064 1 The table is based upon tables 1 and 2 of Lovelock 79, pp37 and p.39. �18 The whole Earth system is accordingly far from equilibrium. Unpredictable behavior as locals increase is therefore almost to be expected. A likely moral is presumably: stress they system, or destabilize ecosystem controls sufficiently, and the system may be in deep trouble. It is relevant to inquire into what evidence we have on this case. To do so let us reconsider some of the array of arguments there are from some sort of holistic organisation of the Earth (for a modest Gaia hypothesis). But for the participation of the Earth's ecological support systems, plant complexes especially the Earth would not be blessed with its present life-benign physical characteristics. The oceans would be much saltios and too salty for most life, the air would not contain the present rich mixture of oxygen and carbon dioxide so important for terrestrial life, and so on, perhaps most important the Earth would be significantly hotter and too hot for most life, for what of what does the regulating and stabilizing of present conditions. For the solar flux has increased in intensity about 30% since life appeared on Earth, but the mean global temperatures have exhibited no corresponding increase, but have remained relatively constant. Such an expected consistency in the face of disturbing inputs is ascribed, under holistic approaches that do something to explain it, to the concerted activity of plants, [detail] Lovelock and collaberaters have devised an elementary daisy world model which reveals how a feedback system with two types of daisies can, within limits, stabilize temperatures despite increasing energy input. The limits are important, for as these limits are approached the maintenance systems break down. diagram Q Similarly several of the well-known chemical cycles, such as those for nitrogen, sulphur, sodium and so forth depends for their maintenance on the adequate operation of active ecological structures. Plainly if a cycle loops through a component, such as forests, which is severely disturbed then the cycle itself could be disrupted. There is some probability furthermore that the foregoing changes will disturb crucial equilibrium systems and chemical cycles. Some of these feedback systems are in fact maintained in equilibrium by natural ecosystems (an example is Lovelock's daisy world model, which becomes unstable when temperature rises too high). Instability could ensue under disturbance [explain, include Greenhouse holism]. Without doubt these matters are bad enough. Demise of most of the Earth's richness19 is not a minor matter. Worse could follow. Natural richness is the main richness, much exceeding human artifice. �19 The general tenor of the argument is so far this:- By arguments from physical models, and because of uncertainties, the probability that something could go badly wrong is nonzero,20 and indeed far from negligible. Part of the argument can be put as follows: there is a decent probability that a modest Gaia hypothesis holds. But then, there is a considerable probability that excessive Greenhouse build up will lead to damaging system destabilization. So containing probabilities, there at least a nonneglizible probability of such destabilization. An analogy should now emphasize both the dubiousness of what is being proposed under adaptationism and the precariousness of the human predicament. The proposal is to take this ancient craft, now overloaded with human passengers and their heavy baggage, a cargo it was never organised to carry, out on new routes and run it fast and higher than it has ever travelled before. Even for an experimental prototype, a now very fast (air-)bus say, with a select text crew, such a procedure, of running over new uncharted routes at speeds and heights never attained before, would be risky enterprise. With an ancient craft, with a heavy nonelite cargo of baggage and passengers (some whom try to interfere with the controls), the proposal is extremely rash. For the chances that the craft will breakdown and perhaps crash, with serious consequences to passengers and for the baggage, are greatly elevated over the risks of proceeding as usual much more slowly. With the costs of crashing so severe, rational operators and sensible pilots would not take them.21 Unfortunately the analogy is not at all far-fetched, but resembles what is in store for spaceship Earth, already under significant stress with its excessive human passenger load and their heavy ecological practices. Not only is the future itself pretty new territory, but it is a future at terrestrial temperatures, important processes will proceed faster than ever before, in particular all chemical processes. Simply to take the craft up there, as do-nothing and adaptation approaches would have is to emulate the risks and hubris of Daedelus; such approaches are aptly rarely Daedelian 4. The Sting in the Cosmic Tail: the mini-Furphy theorem and the likely demise of homo sapiens, spp. economicus.. The trouble with the initial formulation of Murphy's law: if anything can go wrong, it will, From logical theories of probability such as Carnap's non-zero probabilities are rather easily reached (perhaps too easily, with the converse feature that natural laws never obtain high probabilities. The difficulty can be characteristed, to some extent, by restruction to physical models). The analogy is an old one, which we exploited before in the nuclear case; for the “bus analogy”, see Routley and Routley. The analogy admits of much graphic variation. Instead of running the craft at excess speed, an alternative or additional image is that of destroying the controls of the craft. Lovelock deploys this opposite image (88 p.63), which corresponds to the demolition of Gaians control systems. �20 was that it was insufficiently qualified, much too absolutist, and apparently self-refuting..22 Certain crucial qualifications are required:• Replacement of the certain (certainlistic) conclusion by a somewhat weaker probabilistic one: namely, it probably will. • Correlative to weakening the conclusion, strengthening the premiss, by rendering it more specific; namely, in place of ‘anything’ or ‘something’ put ‘some thing ... given a chancy situation’. The modified formulation is accordingly the following Mini-Furphy result:23 if some thing can genuinely go wrong, given a relatively chancy situation, it probably will. Here ‘chancy’ means more or less what it means according to the dictionaries: doubtful, decidedly risky, or as we shall construe it, having a comparatively low probability vis-a-vis its alternatives. The precise extent of relative chanciness will be explained as we go. To prove this proposition, let us first recast it in appropriate symbolic form. Let D be some arbitrary bad situation, a suitable disaster. Let the possibility of D's happening something's going wrong - be represented by a non-zero probability, and genuineness by non-negligible probability. It can be assumed that that probability, P(D), is small, otherwise the requisite conclusion would follow in any case. Let C represent the features that render the situation chancy. Then what we aim to show is that where P(D) is small positive, P(D < C) is probable. The proof applies a special case of Bayes' theorem, which take the following form where there are n alternative hypotheses hi,...,hn including h: Pv(h) x P(i < h) P(h < i) X P(hr) X P(i < hr) r = 1 Here h is the hypothesis, which in our application is D, i is the additional information (or, is in Carnap, a new observation), which in our case is C.24 P(h < i) is the probability of h 22 23 24 For this and other formulations of Murphy's law, and many loosely associated humorous maxims with grains of truth encapsulated, see Block. As to the history of the “law”, which originated with J.M. Chase, editor of Aviation Mechanics, see the Encyclopaedia Americana', Chase's initial formulation in a 1955 issue read ‘If an aircraft part can be installed in correctly, someone will install it the way”. This little theorem was originally more accurately entitled the Murphy-Leslie theorem. It is an adaptation, suggested by Leslie's work, of Murphy's Law. This section is overwhelmingly indebted to Leslie; for Leslie's debts, and so the transitive debts of this section, see Leslie himself, who deserves to be read in defence his legitimate doomsday apprehensions. The next not indicates the limited extent to which Leslie's arguments are endorsed. The formulation is a special case of that proved in Carnap, p.331; namely that (absolute) case where the evidence e is elided, or e set = 1. A similar result follows, subject to slightly more rigorous conditions, in relevant probability theory; see Routley 79 p.954. �21 given i, or of h on condition i (the backward arrow notation, <, symbolises the condition involved and shows its direction). For simplicity we shall suppose that all the alternatives to D are concentrated (as far as symbolic exposure goes) in one, namely D*. Then the form we seek to apply is simply: p(D < C) __________ P(D) x P(C < D)__________ P(D) x P(C < D) + P(D*) x P(C < D*)' = The arithmetic details needed can be tabulated in a revealing form as follows: Cases D D* Initial (or prior) probability d 1-d m, say Vd m/l, say 1/dl of outcome relative chance that C As it is the relative chance of C that matters, we can rescale to set m = 1/d. To make C relatively chancy, I has some modest size; specifically let I exceed 1-d/d. Then the probability to be estimated, P(D < C), is d x 1/d d x 1/d + (l-d)/dl where k = • 1 1+k _ “ That is» and P(D < C) | y when k < 1, i.e. when I [ p(D < C) = where k = 1, . Thud D is probable, at least in being more probable than not, given C, when I is of at least modest size, i.e. given C is relatively chancy. In a merely apparently more general form of the estimation, where we do not align m to d, In effect we shall look at the form P(h < i) = --------------- < h)------------------------------P(h) X P(i < h) + XP(hr) X P(i < hr)’ n with the sum excluding the product for h. Though demonstrable given satisfiable exclusion and exhaustion conditions, Bayes' theorem is not lacking critics, in part because of the surprises this bit of logic can deliver. Carnap meets the objection that Bayes' theorem has sometimes ‘been applied to cases where it led to strange or even absurd results’ thus: ‘This was mostly due to an uncritical use of the principle of indifference :... [The] theorem is provable ... on the basis of those weak assumptions which practically all theories of probability seem to have in common’ (p.331, sub 1 elided). Of course the present applications could (just) be objected to on the grounds that the logical conditions for the theorem to apply are not fully satisfied. �P(D [ C) 22 d x m d x m + (1-d) x m/l 1 1 + k’ 1 as before. That is m drops out, only the relative chanciness really matters. The little Furphy theorem follows as before. Now to put some relevant flesh on these abstract statements and figures. Let D be some future disaster such as the catastrophic decline, for instance, through summer or winter phenomena of the human species, from which the enormous present population never recovers. At worst (from a chauvinistic angle) the population, like many catastrophically effected by human activities, goes extinct. Suppose, for a bifurcating outcome, there is a catastrophe stage, before halfway through next century, 2050. If humans do not get their act together before then, they go into catastrophic decline, as already indicated. If however they do get their ecopolitical act together then humans, while they hardly live happily ever after (poverty, inequality, domination, and other evils not being removed), they continue to persist or even grow in numbers, perhaps fanning out through the solar system ( in the way envisaged by too many physicists). Suppose further we are optimists, imagining that the prior probability of D ecodisaster and human decline, is small, say 1%. That is d = .01, and the initial probability of D*, human “success”, is .99. The figures are pretty notional. Supreme optimists would want to set d much smaller, pessimists rather at a higher probability. Application Table 1. Cases D human decline D* human success Initial probabilities 1%, i.e. .01 99%, i.e. .99 Relative chanciness, VlOO, i.e. .01 1/100 x l/l ofC Then the probability of human decline given .01 x ,01 P(D < C) .01 x .01 + .99 x .01/1 1 !/2 , when I > 99. �23 It remains to fill out C, thereby showing that I is likely much much larger, and correspondingly human decline so much the more probable in the light of additional information, i.e. a posteriori probable in the usual jargon. There are several high risk factors, acting in a certain concert, factors emphasized more than a decade ago in world systems modellings (such as, most famously that, of the Club of Rome) Malthusian factors such as human population, economic product, pollution, energy consumption,.... It is appropriate for estimate posterier probability relative to anyone of these, any of which can serve as C, in order to expose the riskiness of present gross human practices. In brief, because there are several high risk factors, so there are several appropriate relative or reference classes. Thus the posterier probability is assessed relative to such matters as our being alive, humans being thus and so (Leslie's reference class), this being present energy use, present wast output, present forest destruction and so forth.25 The anthropic argument considers the environmentally invidious situation of present humans on the Earth. The argument can be carried through either in terms of sheer population, gross numbers, or in terms of human resource grabbing, as estimated for instance through energy consumption. Let us consider the prospects given additional information as to the present phase of gross human population. C will be some such proposition as: the proportional preponderance of humans who have ever lived alive now, or to personalize it: the chance that you or your family, is alive now. Chart: Our present population predictment on the two scenerios. Demise scenerio “Success” scenerio - representative zjs human numbers human numbers On of the weaknesses in the argument may appear to be its dependence on an appropriate choice of relative class. For, the relative probabilities can fall away if different reference classes, not exhibiting such growth patterns are taken, e.g. present wattle distribution, birds being thus and so. On the other hand, probabilities can be elevated even more by selection of more unusual reference classes cuh as our being scientists, or being computer programmers, etc.. �24 Humans have got themselves - to some extent put themselves, though much may be the result of muddling through - into an extremely dubious, environmentally insidious and unsustainable position, on a range of critical parameters. Their numbers are excessive, their high energy use is excessive, their waste and their pollution are both excessive - and all chose and other excesses are at the steep end of upward exponential curves. Several relevant graphs are distressingly exponential, with the present in the near vertical growth phase: graphs Many other similarly shaped graphs26 could be added, for instance for growth of pollution, of waste products, of weapons (in terms of tonnes of explosive power), of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and so on. The display typifies the accelerating human roller coaster. Those curves are tightly interconnected, in criss-crossing fashion. For example, the productivity of contemporary agriculture which enables the feeding of hugh urbanised human populations depends on a very high energy use (in term of energy efficiency, contemporary high-tech agriculture falls below that of much traditional agriculture). The maintenance of high populations with supplies of cheap food depends in turn on fossil fuel agriculture. Because of the intertwining of these phenomena, there is no easy way of getting off the accelerating roller-coaster. 26 All the graphs exhibited are drawn from Boyden. �25 Nor, as observed, is there much effort devoted to slowing the coaster. For politicians it would be politically risky and inexpedient to try (for them the rhetoric about an ecologically sustainable future must remain just that, more rhetoric). For many other power holders and brokers such ideas are ideologically excluded: growth remains the gospel. So a precarious position becomes ever more precarious. Humans are in a decidedly chancy position, because of their population situation and other Malthusian factors; they are becoming very disasterprone. If humans want an acceptable future for themselves - they have virtually ruled out an acceptable future for many other creatures, through their predominantly selfish thoughtless greedy practices - then they will probably have to mend their ways, very considerably and very soon. But, given the nature of the beast, that itself seems improbable. Humans, if they seek a more assured future, should make a concerted effort to put themselves into a less precarious position. That could be achieved by proceeding to reduce relative risks. These relative risks, sharply reducing prospects for a reliable future, fall into two classes:• manufactured risk factors, including weaponry such as mega-nuclear devices and elements of biochemical warfard, and experimental equipment such as very high energy particle accelerators (which could perhaps tunnel under a metastable state or induce a min-Big-Bang; see Leslie). • Accumulated risk factors, such as the hugh relative size of human population, energy consumption, greenhouse gas production, etc..27 Despite the ideological obstacles, enormous political, religious and economic obstacles blocking the way of requisite change, major efforts should be put into reducing both these types of risks. Philosophers could have a significant role in breaking down the ideological barriers and in clarifying and developing the arguments involved. 5. What ought to be done about Greenhouse? The general result already reached, that humans collectively should reduce their risk taking, and in particular reduce their gross numbers, extends to rational Greenhouse decision and action theory. But that large and difficult challenge is not all that there is to try, that should rationally be attempted. While some increase in mean global temperatures, and all that implies, can no longer be averted, the potentially most damaging effects can be: namely, by curtailing human-induced 27 As before, there are various different reasons why these induce risk, neo-Malthusian and probabilistic in particular. �26 output of Greenhouse gases. Moreover, there is an approximate upper bound upon temperature of importance, which can serve to supply a significant limit as output. That bound - which reduces risk taking by confining encountered situations to those where there is some past experiential basis - is given by estimated temperatures during Altithermal and Eemian eras. Those temperatures are estimated to have been between about 1/2 a degree and 1 degree Centigrade above contemporary (pre-1980) temperatures; so the upper bound is about 1°C. Not only will a continuation of current emission trends take global temperatures clean through and way beyond that bound, so also will an alternative set-up where emission rates are fixed more or less at current rates. The only apparent way to remain rationally within an experiential domain is to curtail sharply trace gas emissions beginning easily in the 1990s. That means shifting from the dominant growth paradigm; it means expensive re- and deindustrialisation. It is unlikely. Final corollary: Humans collectively are not (particularly) rational. But we had already guessed as much from the latest...... in the long history of human wars. References H.W. Bernard, The Greenhouse Effect, Ballinger, Cambridge Mass., 1980. A. Block, Murphy's Law. Book Two, Magnum, Methuen, ... S. Boyden, Western Civilization in Biological Perspective, Clarendon, Oxford, 1987. L.R. Brown and others, State of the World 1989, Norton/Worldwatch, New York, 1989; referred to as Worldwatch. R. Carnap, Logical Foundations of Probability, Second edition, University of Chicago Press, 1962. R.M. Cyert and M.H. DeGroot, Bayesian Analysis and Uncertainty in Economic Theory, Rowman & Littfield, New Jersey, 1987. ‘Developing policies for responding to climatic change’, Report of the Beijer Institute, February 1988. Keeton, J. Leslie, ‘Risking and World's End’, Bulletin of the Curiadian Nuclear Society 10(3) (1989) 1-6; all references to Leslie are to this article unless otherwise indicated. J. Leslie, ‘Is the end of the world nigh?’, The Philosophical Quarterly, to appear; referred to as PQ. J.E. Lovelock, Gaia. A new look at life on Earth, Oxford University Press, 1979. J. Lovelock, ‘Are we destabilising world climate?’, The Ecologist 15(1985) 52-55. �27 J.Lovelock, ‘Man and Gaia’, The Earth Report Monitoring the Battle for Our Environment, (ed. E. Goldsmith and N. Hilgard) Mitchell Benzley, London, 1988, 51-64. R. and V. Routley, ‘Nuclear energy and obligations to the future’, Inquirey 21(1978) 133R. Routley, ‘Ultralogic as universal?’ reprinted as an Appendix in Exploring Meinong's Jungle, RSSS, Australian National University, 1979. S. Schneider ‘Not to decide is to decide’, in Greenhouse 1988: Planning for Climate Change (ed. T. Dendy), Department of Environment and Planning, Adelaide, 1989, 5-10. R.P. Turco and others, ‘Nuclear winter: Global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions’, Science 222 (1983) 1283-1292. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document GAEAN GREENHOUSE, NUCLEAR WINTER, AND ANTHROPIC DOOMSDAY. ... climate change, like no other issue, calls the whole notion of human progress into question. The [ever promised] benefits of newer technologies, more efficient economics, and improved political systems could be overwhelmed by uncontrolled global warming. ... the pace of climate change will soon overwhelm natural variability in the earth's climate. Indeed, it can be improved with nuclear war for its potential to disrupt a wide range of human and natural systems, [severely] complicating the back of moneying economics and coping with other problems. Irrigation works, settlement patterns, and food production [among others] would be tragically disrupted ... (Worldwatch 89, p.ll, p.10) There are many approaches to the Greenhouse problematique, upon which this philosophical investigation focuses. These approaches, range from playing the issue down entirely, dismissing it as not a problem, not something anyone should worry about, at the one end of the range, to playing it up at the other. Those who play it up may even foresee the demise of the human race, the substantially new socio-economic arrangements soon eventuate. There is certainly plenty of room for different approaches, and for some eclecticism. For what is being relied upon, in every case, comprises shaky and contestable arguments, from flimsy forecasting models lacking many apparently relevant details. No one of sound judgment, aware that weather reports for twelve hours ahead can be wildly astray, would place a very high level of confidence on climatic forests for fifty years ahead down a very hazardous track. But there is enough information to act; and there is information rationally requiring action. For things in the future are not going to be the same. It is very doubtful that they are going to be any better (though much important economic theorizing presupposes as much, such as the monetary discounting of the future). They are not going to be similar even, because so many parameters important to life are changing, several at exponential rates. Significant in these changes are likely climatic changes. The Greenhouse effect is among those, a result of the increases of “greenhouse” gases, especially carbon dioxide and methane, in the Earth's atmosphere, which have followed exponential paths since the highenergy phase of industrial culture. The growth in gas concentration produces, what it is lagged by, but is now apparent, a significant increase in mean global temperatures. This has major implications for much of life on Earth. 2 Diagram 1. Spectrum of approaches: Course of action Reasons offered Short response No problem Refutable No certainty Irrational Adaptive capacity Exaggerated High tech resolution Wishful thinking Severe dislocation otherwise Utopian Individual survival Pointless No action1 Moderate action Considerable action These very condensed responses will be expanded and explained as we proceed. Breifly too the outcome is that there is no easy path; future humans should expect a hard landing. 1. Investigative philosophy, argument and rational decision The role of philosophy in such a complex problematique as that of Greenhouse is not difficult to state briefly. Philosophy, Anglo-American philosophy especially, is concerned above all with argument. Investigative philosophy is applied philosophy, investigating arguments, their features - assumptions, reliability, etc. - and their generalisation to rational processes, but outside normal philosophical topics. The generalisation to rational processes comprehends a wider range of philosophical throughput than the orthodox range of argument typically addressed in logic courses; to probabilistic and plausibilistic reasoning, to decision processing and making. A main objective in this piece of investigative philosophy is to consider certain arguments for severe dislocation pprobabilities, as a result of Greenhouse effects, and the resulting impact on rational decision formation and action. There are certain arguments of particular interest radical decision and action: various neo-Malthusian arguments, and doomsday arguments. 1 Taoist no-action would be different. It would not have undertaken excessive industrial action in the first place. 3 The main run of arguments to considerable action are neo-Malthusian in character. The general form of these arguments is simply this: growth in some parameter encounters limits, with severe effects. A characteristic graphic representation is as follows: limits growth parameter time exponential growth pattern J encountering limits subsequent varying unstable behavior The limits are often imposed just by finitude, e.g. finiteness of a resource or a sink. But other limits can be important, for instance where new phenomena or thresholds come into play. General Malthusian arguments loom in the background in what follows. But a different argument, of especial concern as regard climatic changes, is the following anthropic doomsday argument:• There is some probability that the Gaean “greenhouse effect”, generated by human activity, will get out of control, that Gaean control mechanisms will fail, and that the Earth will, for example, overheat (Runaway Greenhouse, or Lesser Venus Prospect, premiss). • That result would be disastrous for human activities, and indeed for humans (Catastrophe Prospect). • Because of the unusual, and unusually precarious, position of humans, such a probability of disaster is not in fact small but decidedly large As a consequence then, the human species will probably sharply decline, and even become extinct (Catastrophe Probability). That is, by a rectified version of Murphy's law - that if something can go wrong then in appropriate unusual conditions, it very probability will - an incrementally small probability is inflated into a very large probability. 4 It would be a mistake to conclude that because the argument itself is an unlikely one, everyone can stop worrying. The argument is but one of a substantial raft of arguments that should have everyone worried; it is but a final intellectual string, so to say, from the inconspicuous cosmological tail. Such a doomsday argument no doubt puts together, in one more exact form, some of the sorts of considerations that are troubling many people, especially concerned youth, about the Greenhouse business: that humans (including themselves) are on a decline or extinction path. It is no doubt not the only consideration that should be troubling them or us. For whether or not doomsday warnings are warranted, there are other matters that should be sufficiently worrisome, to anyone of moral integrity:• Future times are likely to be exceedingly uncomfortable for very many creatures, as habitats are destroyed, food producing regions are eliminated, and environments seriously impoverished. (Many of these creatures are nonexistents, mere future existents, i.e. creatures that do not yet exist or participate in market or voting rituals, but who -will exist and may participate. But, despite their presently unfavourable ontological status, they are entitled to fair and decent treatment.) • Given such future prospects, present practices which do nothing or vanishingly little to ameliorate these prospects, are decidedly irrational. Indeed a main message that will emerge from the present exercise is the moral irrationality of critical large-scale human practices. The irrationality, morally-weighed-down irrationality, of present large-scale human practices is already conspicuous from the wintry downside of climatic prospects of which Greenhouse warming is the upside. Diagram 2. Macro-climatic setting. Bands: all boundaries fuzzy mean global temperature (degrees C) escalating emissions Disequilibrium: Venus prospect increasing dislocation possible adaptation increasing dislocation thermonuclear war disequilibrium: Mars prospect 5 1860 1990 The apparatus for conducting a world-wide nuclear wars is entirely in place and indeed on alert. The probability of such a war, even if small, is not zero. Among the many awful effects of a large nuclear war is that of nuclear winter, which would bring about the demise of present human civilisation, and would at the very least mean enormous dislocation for most surviving humans and other creatures. A sufficiently diabolical chemo-nuclear war, reaching into all inhabited parts of the globe, could indeed drive the human species close to extinction. The decidedly dubious rationality and morality of these nuclear arrangements - both through what they are in themselves for what purposes, and through their moral opportunity costs - are widely appreciated. The thesis that the arrangements and practices are immoral, irrational, and ought to be dismantled - already much argued, and also contested2 - is not the present concern. The thermonuclear downside is, by comparison, a very easy case to examine philosophically, and argue, as compared with the greenhouse upside.3 For there is, for instance, a case of sorts, for much increased use of greenhouse gases, such as CFCs in refrigerators, a case that hardly extends very plausibly to nuclear weapons. It is a case heavily pressed by some “developing” nations, for polluting devices already in widespread use in more affluent places, as necessary for local standards of living. Greenhouse and nuclear winter are more intricately connected than being the upside and downside of meteorological phenomena. One of the high-tech solutions suggestions for atmospheric overheating, involves the generation of wintering effects - to cool things down - by flinging enough dust up into the atmosphere, a trick most easily achieved no doubt on the requisite scale by nuclear explosives. Needless to say, like backburning against out-of- control fires, artificial winter would be a pretty desperate and, given present expertise, irrational expedient. 2. The Greenhouse debate, main policy responses, and irrational decision. The Greenhouse debate, as to what to do, if anything, about forecast Greenhouse effects on Earth, is intellectually disturbing. For it has revealed, as we shall soon see, that many of those who have spoken, worse that many who have some role in decision making For my very small contribution to this, see the War and Peace series in Discussion Papers in Environmental Philosophy, RSSS, Australian National UniversityGlobal warming, by no means entirely certain, is assumed to be the outcome of increasing greenhouse gas build up. Of course though some temperatures will rise, cooling will probably occur also in some localized regions. 6 (including both experts and politicians), lack a firm grasp on decision-making in conditions of uncertainty or possible risk.4 The main canvassed policy approaches to the Greenhouse problematique lie firmly within the dominant social paradigm, the high-tech growth and development ideology. Diagram 2 Broad policy responses to the Greenhouse problematique. Dominant paradigm Alternative paradigm Procrastination (wait-and-see) Soft energy paths and alternative regulation Adaptation (sink-or-swim) Socio-economic transformation Regulation Intervention (star wars) We will briefly outline, and find wanting, all the dominant approaches. • Procrastination, the prevailing response. In fact the main gooon mental and conservative response thus far has been procrastination, or “wait-and-see” as it is more benignly known.5 The approach makes much of the uncertainties, of the shortcomings in even the most elaborate general circulation models, of the high noise-to-signal levels. On such bases, it contends that it is too early to do anything, except staging some meetings, organising some review committees, undertaking some monitoring, and funding a little more “research”. It obviously does nothing to rock the growth ideology boat. There is the pretence that we do not know enough to act6 But it is known that carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are fast increasing. The main causes and enough likely consequences are also known. Theoretical consideration, have already been partially confirmed by rising temperatures in the eighties. Outlines of rising temperatures are also known in broad outline, rising sea levels, and so forth. In addition, there are partial Following Knight, some economists (try to) distinguish between uncertainty and risk. Risk is said to obtain when some more or less objective numberable probabilities can be assigned to outcomes, a situation not obtaining as regards the global greenhouse effect. Bayesians, who can always assign subjective probabilities tend to eschew the distinction, e.g. Cyert and DeGroot, also say that ‘decision making under uncertainty refers to situations in which the outcome of the decision is not precisely predictable’ (p.3). Either way, Greenhouse involves uncertainty. There is significant rhetorical art in the choice of classificatory labels, a rather philosophically neglected art. A PR person must have been hired to produce the Greenhouse adaptation of ‘adaptation’. Part of the problem is that scientists have been caught out (e.g. crying wolf) and have become ultra-cautious. With the advent of thermodymumies, for instance, scientists begin ‘threatening mankind with a rather swift “bad death’” as the universe random ‘Thus m. Aber, on ‘balant ideological use of science even by scientists themselves’ (Bernard p.9). 7 small-scale models of the Greenhouse effect in action. For example a city such as MexicoCity, which is situated in the bowl-like valley is placed in an environment traps heat as well as pollution. The ecological affects, like the human affects, are pretty dramatic even at this small level, and hardly to be sought, or amelated elsewhere. There is a pretence, fostered also by many scientists, that Greenhouse difficulties have only just been discovered; a date commonly set for that watershed even is the Villiers conference and statement of 1986 (e.g. Pittoch ....). Actually there have been Greenhouse warmings for more than a decade, and there has been a corresponding decade of inaction. Nor is any action of much significance presently seriously contemplated. Back in 1979 Bernard wrote at length about and reported the substantial concern of climate logists about Greenhouse effects. Even the magazine Nature, not noted for its green sympathies, recorded that ‘the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels is, concemally, the most important environmental issue in the world today’ (May ? 1975). Bernard quotes many other concerned scientists, several asserting that ‘the government must start dealing with this problem now’. They meant the United States government. “The” government didn't take the hint. For more than a decade then scientists have been emphasizing that the greenhouse threat is a major environmental problem, and that action should be taken immediately. Over 10 years nothing of real significance to counter the problem has happened. There has been more than a decade of inaction , during which matters have got worse, and the time frame for evasive action disturbingly shorter. It is already evident that requisite decision making under uncertainty is not taking place. On straight inductive grounds, it would be reasonable to expect nothing will be done. While there are theoretical grounds to bark up such an assessment, still it is only just beginning to get through to a much wider public (which can exercise a marginal influence on what politicians say) that there is - or may be, as some more reactionary modal-managering academics would have - a problem or two. Many scientists have joined the wait-and-see queue, with their begging bowls, hoping for more hand-outs for research. They assume, rightly enough, that more information would assist with rational decision-making, and also, quite wrongly, that “scientific activity” is required for action to be taken. Physical scientists are not done in their misapprehension of rational decision methods. Although there is a good deal of practical experience available of statistical-type decision making order uncertainty, for instance as regards insurance coverage and engineering projects, decision theory, especially as regards unreputable situations, has not penetrated very far into standard scientific methodology or much into mainstream parts of social sciences. ‘Economists in particular have shown a talent for bringing ever problem back to a world of certainty where all solutions are known or can be easily found.’ Natural scientists including dematologists are, for the most part, on the same erroneous-reduction-toconlittainable-certainty trip. ‘This is not to say that economists have not worked on uncertainty. ... however ... uncertainty is introduced and then taken out by assumption’ (Cyort and DeGroot p.l). But there are several classes of problematic situations, where decision and action may be required, where uncertainty cannot be discarded by first, reduction strategeness or otherwise, notably:• inheritantly probabilistic situations, such as those of indeterminacy in quantum theory; • essentially unpredictable situations (which may be deterministic) such as those now under investigation chaos theory; • presently uncertain situations and outcomes, which may eventually resolve into certain cases, or may turn into some of the above classes, where there is not time to wait for resolution. The Greenhouse problem is regularly put into the latter class, a standard assumption being that with enough money and research effort thrown at it, it will resolve to decent certainty. But it may well not; there are grounds for supposing that critical parts of climatology will fall into the essentially unpredictable class. The standard approach of too many research scientists is a pathetic begging-bowl posture: Supply more funding so we can go on researching until we obtain certainty.7 There are some severe problems with this standard response. Firstly, it is irrational. Certainty if achieved may be achieved too late. What was required for rationality was decision making in advance of certainty. Secondly, certainty may be unobtainable. The meteorological equations may be non additive (non additive) and so incapable of delivering stable results over slightly fluctuating in strict data. The standard response is methodologically unsound. • Adaptation, learning to live with and love the Greenhouse. The policy ‘that tends to be favoured by most economists’ is an adaptive strategy: “Let society adjust to environmental changes without attempting to mitigate or prevent the changes in advance” We could adapt to climate change for example, by planting alternative crop strain [themselves] ... more widely adopted... ’ (Schneider p.8). Observe, however, that it is a decidedly restricted “adaptation” that is being proposed, that humans adjust to the results of present economic and industrial practices, rather than adjusting them. It is assumed that economic growth comes first, that we do not change (e.g. through decent regulation) high energy industrial practices. A fuller and smarter adaptation would adapt these practices. The policy is like a pernicious agriculture policy that says, “Let farmers adjust to the results of soil erosion, salination and 7 It does not seem to have occurred to most research scientists demanding more money (even more per article) that an important reason why they are not obtaining the funding they expect is because their research results could, if unfavorable, act a serious drag on the industrial establishment. They are not going to be funded to delegitimize modem industrial society. 9 so on, without attempting to mitigate or prevent these deleterious changes in advance.” Such “adaptative agriculture”, the present predominant practice in advanced agriculture, is antienvironmental, but is given a spurious air of evolutionary inevitability and evolutionary redistributive justice; you can't back natural evolution, which is entirely natural, can you. Let us condense such far-from-inevitable and highly artificial mal-adaptation in the neologism badaptation. Greenhouse adaptation, like nuclear adaptation, is badaptation (some, less kind, would say medaptation). There is a pragmatic, if cynical, political argument for badaptation, namely, that unilateral action to prevent a warning is unfeasible and requisite international cooperation unattainble. Both contentions open to doubt. Unilateral action by the USA, by far the World's heaviest resource and energy consumer (per capita and on several other relevant domains) backed up by pressure (familiar from other settings, such as the narcotics war) on other nations and through the United Nations could make a major difference. Unfortunately the USA is also the world's largest supplier of influential grown economists. In any case, international agreements such as those in whaling and Antarctica, are attainable, and sometimes effective. The ozone protocols, limiting production of CFCs show that results can be achieved to limit trace gas emissions. The adaptation proposal is presently compatible with wait-and-see; both mean no hauling back on trace gas production. Indeed procrastination will force societies towards badaptation. Typical of adaptation, like procrastination, is an (over-)emphasis on the uncertainties of Greenhouse forecasts, and on the decision-theoretic paralysis such uncertainties are alleged to produce. Characteristic of adaptation too is a minimisation of the extent of Greenhouse modification. No doubt the impression that things won't be so very different, or far removed from what has already been experienced, is important in getting adaptationism more readily accepted, as a rational course of action (instead of the seemingly irrational course it is). Thus badaptation tends to play with figures at the law end of projected ranges of temperature increase, such as 1.5°C for 2050, when in fact present data indicates something rather in the vicinity of 4°C - in a setting, furthermore, where fractions of a degree centigrade may well be linked ot macro-physical and macro-biological change. Recent modellings deliver, an average, on increase in 2°C attributable to carbon dioxide, and it is widely thought that other trace gases will double the CO2 effect, yielding a 4°C temperature increase.8 8 Sources. Note that methane is beginning to rival carbon dioxide as a gas where atmospheric propostems really matter and whose present increase is excessive. 10 The colossal extent of future human dislocation has correspondingly been deliberately underemphasized. The adaptive capacities of human arrangements, when humans are living at the margin, to massive natural shifts, has been grossly exaggerated. Consider agriculture alone - set aside flooded cities, sunken atoll islands, and all the rest. Some of the Earth's major grain producing regions - upon which famine relief projects depend - could be pushed substantially out of business. The conditions which prevailed during the American dust-bowl experience of the nineteen-thirties were benign indeed compared with those which threaten with mid twenty-first century Greenhouse conditions. The mid continental summer temperatures were only 1-2° C warmer than the present average, under greenhouse conditions they could be more than 3-4° C warmer. In the dustbowl rainfall only slipped at critical growing times (e.g. July for northern com) to 80% of the contemporary norm; but under Greenhouse conditions it could be significantly less again. A super dust-bowl is not improbable (for much more detail, see Bernard). Similarly for other similar latitude Northern grain producing regions. But the high-energy industrial superstructure is crucially based upon sufficient cheap food (bread) for the urban masses. • Intervention, high-tech Gaean engineering. Interventionist proposals so far floated include • New oceans in parts of the Earth's land surface lying below, at, or near sea level. These projects would make the mega-dams of recent times look like childrens' play. • Wintering effects. Production of sufficient dust in the atmosphere, achieved for instance by nuclear detonations, to mitigate heating effects. Such enterprise would make modification of the weather by cloud seeding look like childs' play. Fortunately these and other expensive and grandiose proposals, which would call for considerable international cooperation, are far down the planning track; with these schemes procrastination is rational. • Regulation, controlling free(-wheeling) enterprise. Regulation itself, not so bureaucratically popular under that presentation in these latter days of economic irrationalism, is of course transparadigmatic, where it belongs depend on what measures (what sorts of constraints, rights, etc.) are proposed and how they are imposed or enforced. If it is, for example, some industrial law-and-order, smokestack scrubbing regulations or Greenhouse polluting rights, within the status quo, that is one thing, but if a minimally-constrained growth paradigm is questioned and alternative socio-economic arrangements advocated, that is quite another, and falls outside the dominant paradigm. Such policies involving regulations controlling fossil fuel emissions especially, are negatively labelled prevention in the predominantly American policy literature, though there is now no preventing some Greenhouse effects; but the worse to follow could still be prevented. What is usually covered under the label is however some regulation within prevailing political arrangements. So energy efficiencies and savings for investment in 11 growth elsewhere is comprehensible, straight growth-curtailing non-consumption is not contemplated. But the latter is just what alternatives do contemplate. Democratic political arrangements do not exclude such alternatives both the power bases of political leaders and economic prescriptions do. Adequate regulation within prevailing socio-economic arrangements is going to prove impossible, without adjustment of power structures and economic imperatives, in effect without far-reaching systems and a devological adjustment. While such adjustment may be rational, it is unlikely. Power structures have too much to lose.9 This is an opposite point to record the chauvinism and environmental shallowness of the Greenhouse debate. Like heart disease and cancer, the Greenhouse effect is gaining much discussion and some funding because it just may severely effect the affluent, affluent people and affluent nations, that have a good deal to lose, in North America especially. The impact will, however, be at least as severe in some third world nations, whose lands or much of them will be flooded, countries which cannot afford extensive expensive dyking (or where such effort would be in the longer term, as seas rise, pointless), countries such as Pacific coral atoll nations and delta states like Bangladesh. But the really serious losers will no doubt be, not humans , rich or poor, but nonhumans. Biological diversity, already being reduced by various human activities, may be one of the chief casualties of global worming. Massive destruction of forests, wetlands, and even the polar tundra could irrevocably destroy complex ecosystems that have existed for millennia. Indeed, various biological reserves created in the past decade to protect species diversity could become virtual death traps as wildlife attempt to survive in conditions for which they are poorly suited. Accelerated species extinction is an inevitable consequence of a rapid warming (Worldwatch p.10). 3. Arguments to dislocation and for a Lesser Venus Prospect. There is at least a small probability that predicted increase in mean atmospheric temperatures will seriously interfere with most remaining natural environments and result in the degeneration or destruction of many of them, especially forests wetlands, maritime environments. Nor will adaptationism help here; for natural evolution is much too slow for adaptationism to succeed (cf. Keeton pp.763-4). Natural ecosystems will not adapt effectively to rapid climatic change,... With regard to forests, habitats for plants and animals cannot be re-created or transplanted rapidly. Continuing climatic changes would strain the capabilities Holistic problems are too extensive for individuals, or even small collectives, to make much difference acting or their own. Some are too beg even for large collectives or states, but would require whole regions of the Earth acting in concerte. But of course some state players, such as the superpowers, as regards nuclear winter, can make a substantial difference, or even all the difference. 12 of management practices even in commercial tree plantations (Beijer Institute Report pp.21-3). The decline or demise of these systems, vast reservoirs for greenhouse gases will accelerate the warming, and accordingly make matters substantially worse: Trees are adapted to a narrow range of temperature and moisture levels, and cannot cope with rapid climate change. A temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius per decade in mid- to upper latitudes translates into a shift in vegetation zones of 60-100 miles northward. Terrestrial ecosystems cannot migrate that fast. Vast numbers of trees are likely to die, and new trees adapted to warmer temperatures are unlikely to be able to replace them rapidly. During such a disruption, huge areas of forest could die and, as they decay or bum, send large quantities of additional CO2 into the atmosphere, accelerating the warming (Brown p.10). Of course the immediate climate patterns would be somewhat more complex. If enough soot and ash from fires were flung into the atmosphere there would be a cooling effect, like that of a small nuclear winter, before heating accelerated. The present pattern of ecosystemic loss would also be sharply accelerated. When natural ecosystems get reduced to about 30% of their initial size, they tend to collapse of themselves. Moreover, there would be other significant positive feedback from ecosystems other than the terrestrial forests, from the oceans especially. As the oceans warm, they lose their capacity to serve as carbon dioxide reservoirs. So they too release additional gases, including previously absorbed CO2, back into the atmosphere, further accelerating the warming. A critical question arises as to how much danger such positive feedback poses? As so often, informed opinions, and so probability estimates differ. However ‘several scientists working in the area consider that positive feedback effects will force a very bleak picture to be drawn’ (p.19 ref?)10 Unlike the interim effect of a small nuclear winter, where after a few years at most, climatic behavior (as distinct from radioactivity levels) would presumably return towards the previous norm, there will be no similar recovery under greenhouse impact. Technically then, stability would be lost under the impact,11 disequilibrium induced. An eventual longterm return to some different equilibrium could well be excluded. Under new climatic regimes plants themselves may be able to do little more than hang on for part of their own lives. In many places conditions would be too severe for much of the “year” to permit normal plant functioning, including what is crucial for greenhouse amelioration, photosynthesis. In most plants, photosynthesis only occurs across a narrow band of Second order probabilities, probabilities and uncertainties in the light of first order subjective probabilities, enter importantly. Stability is defined in physics in terms of return to an initial (inertial) position after small disturbance. 13 temperatures (e.g. 6 - 34°C); outside that range the plants shut down operations.12 Even more important, many plants would leave few or no successful successors. Even where plants set seed, seedlings would not survive under the severe conditions expected; for instance, they would be killed by hot dry summer conditions, or in other places by frosts to which they are not adapted, both phenomena already familiar after clearfelling of forests. The situation at... in southern Sahara, where there is but one ancient tree hanging on in thousands of square kilometers of desert, a tree with viable seeds which sets no seedlings, could be more or less replicated in many other places where forests or woody plants once grew. In fact we are already witnessing the demise of the trees in much of Australia. Already dead and dying trees form a predominant feature of the Australian rural landscape. Virtually whichever way ecologists travel in Australia where trees remain, they are confronted with dead and dying trees 13 The reasons for the present decline of trees in rural Australia is, for the most part, not to be attributed to early greenhouse or even pollution effects.14 It is thought to be due to a complex of factors, including a range of insect predators whose effects are enhanced on isolated trees left after an excessive zeal for clearing (i.e. holistic effects enter as regards healthy persistence of trees). The relevant point is that these features are likely to be accelerated given the additional impact of greenhouse warming on plant functioning and reproduction. There are several major ways through which the maintenance structures of the Earth can be not merely awkwardly disturbed, but thrown right out of kilter - perhaps, given the delicacy of several critical matters, never to return present norms. Most obvious and immediately threatening is • nuclear warfare, and therewith nuclear Winter. But there are of course other severe shocks the planet could suffer than those chemo-nuclear warfare, some human induced, some a “chance” matter of the planets' position in space, namely • a mini Big Bang, or an undermining of metastability, brought about through very high energy experimentation (see Leslie) • a collision with a large meteorite or asteroid. Such uncertainties, not germane to the main climatic arguments, are listed, not to achieve a bogus completeness, but to emphasize that complete certainty is not to expected, not rationally.. Should we obtain it, should we obtain easy relatively unproblematic lives, then we have, by world standards, been rather lucky. Moreover, these latter uncertainties do The upper bound may be difficult to appreciate in most of Aotearoa. But in much of Australia, during the summer, many plants close down their operations for much of the day. Reported by Recher on Earthworm. Thus coastline vegetational destruction through detergents in sewerage waters. 14 appear negligible compared with those bound up with climate, ascribable to: • excess economic development. The practices involve a complex and sustained assault on most of the Earth's major ecosystems, forests, seas, etc, along with the alteration of atmospheric composition by greenhouse gases. For example, the forests are cut down, burnt, poisoned by herbicides and acid rain, or otherwise removed or destroyed. (Therewith too a great deal more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere and major sinks of carbon dioxide are removed.) As a result of these concerted growth-and-development activities such systems are driven to limits, and breakdown occurs. Once it occurs at some weak point it can escalate elsewhere, like a conflagration.; thus again ecosystemic collapse for example. Quite apart from breakdown at or approaching limits, for instance because of systemic overload, remarkable changes can occur in desiccative systems under stress or strain. • excess energy or chemical loading. Though such striking examples as the chemical clock, it has been demonstrated that dissipative systems can suddenly, and often rather unpredictably, undergo extraordinary changes, as for instance energy flux is increased (Prigogine and others), [describe briefly] Such non-additive, or nonlinear, effects, characteristic of more holistic dissipative systems, are bound to occur within the Earth's atmosphere and oceans as they undergo compositional changes. Carbon dioxide itself provides a good example. With small quantities its effect on the temperature of the air is proportional to the amount added; there is a linear effect. However once the carbon dioxide concentration in the air approaches 1%, new nonlinear effects come into play and heating greatly increases. In the absence of a biosphere to fix carbon dioxide, its concentration in the atmosphere would probably exceed the critical figure of 1%. The Earth would then heat up rapidly to a temperature near to that of boiling water. Increasing temperatures would speed up chemical reactions and accelerate their progress towards chemical equilibrium. ... eventually ... the Earth would become permanently cocooned in a brilliant white cloud - a second Venus, although not quite as hot (Lovelock pp.45-6). Fortunately for Gaean prospects, the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now nowhere near 1% nor likely to be pushed near 1% by projected doubting of carbon dioxide levels under economic activity over the next 50 years15. However eventual exponential growth will lead towards levels, and the side effect of such growth, the release of carbon dioxide from forests and oceans and the considerable reduction in fixation of carbon dioxide with the decline of forests, will lead in that disastrous direction rather more rapidly. The 1% 15 In the atmosphere of the very early Earth, CO2 exceeded the critical 1% figure; but solar luminority was about 25% less than now. With increasing solar flux the Earth would have overheated had the proposition of CO2 not been much reduced (e.g. see Lovelock 88 p.56). 15 bound constitutes just one of the many serious limits to continuation of present developmental practices. Now there can be no rational confidence with respect to complex dissipative systems - about the behavior of which we presently know comparatively little - that no other nonadditive effects will no be encountered at a much earlier stage. After all, the Gaean system, its atmosphere, oceans and ecosystems, will be pushed into essentially unexperienced and substantially unknown reaches. There is, for example, no experience from past times of such elevated temperatures as Green house effects will lead to, to draw upon. ‘There is no evidence that the land-bound glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica have ever completely melted in the last two million years’. There is experience of much colder periods. ‘During ice ages, the earth's average temperature has been about 5°C colder than at present, with glaciers covering major portions of continents’ (Barth p.7). But there is no similar experience of temperatures 4-5° C warmer than at present (in a warm interglacial period), ‘a global increase of more than 2°C above present is unprecedented in the era of human civilization’ (Schneider p.6) It would accordingly be decidedly rash, rash decision makings, to assign a zero or negligible probability to the emergence of new or unknown effects of relevance, to assume all will go smoothly and well. That would presuppose, in any event, a completeness in present scientific knowledge, contrary to the information we have that present investigation of holistic systems, among much else, is still in its infancy. The probability of something critical (e.g. perhaps radicals like hydroxyl) having been left out of estimations, of room accordingly for something unexpected or for something to go wrong, may be small, though experience implies it is not always so but it certainly appears to be non-zero. For the overconfident, with excess faith in the flimsy scientific edifice, there is a salutary lesson to be drawn from the erratic and stumbling path of the main proponent of Gaia hypotheses, Lovelock. Lovelock, coming from a working life as an industrial chemist, part of that time for a giant chemical transnational, had, and retained for a considerable time after he began his holistic hypothesizing a strong antipathy for environmentalists.16 Even Gaia was for industry and against the environmentalists; she was going to laughingly soak up all the pollution, courtesy of the chemical companies especially, that we humans could throw at her. In particular, we did not really need to worry much about ozone depletion or greenhouse gas escalation.17 ‘Contrary to the forebodings of many environmentalists, Coupled with this, there is a certain schizophrenia in Lovelock's attitude to the natural environment. There is also a matching schizophrenia as to the fragility of life on Earth. On the one side, it required very delicate settings and fine barring to arise; this is part of the argument for a Gaia hypothesis. On the other side, life is ‘tough, robust, and [highly] adaptable’, virtually indestructable (p.90). But though a flawed hero, Lovelock is a hero nonetheless. See Lovelock 79, p.40ff; and also 88? [detail] 16 finding a suitable’ destructive agent to bring about a ‘doom scenario’ ‘turns out to be an almost insoluble problem’ (p.40). Lovelock makes it easier for himself by helping himself to the assumption that a doomsday scenario involves the destruction of all “life”, ‘down to the last spore of some deep-buried anaerobic bacteria’ (p.40). But even for the least chauvinistic of environmentalists, destruction of all humans but the select elect would be quite enough for a decent doomsday. Lovelock's high redefinition of a environmental ‘doomsday scenario’ is unacceptable. Lovelock does not however stay within the bound of his redefinition. He proceeds to pooh-pooh the idea that anything much that we humans could accomplish would make any difference to Gaia (p.41) or even to most humans, including use of nuclear devices. Unfortunately for Lovelock's credibility, he was writing three years before the seemingly obvious wintering effects of a major nuclear war were realised by the accredited scientific community. Appealing in a common scientific fashion to scientific authority, he proceeds to minimalize the human and ecological effects of a major war. The report he relies upon as authoritative was a 1975 (unreferenced) one of ‘the US National Academy of Sciences ... prepared by an eight-man committee of their own distinguished members, assisted by forty-eight other scientists chosen from those expert in the effects of nuclear explosions and all things subsequent to them’ (p.41, italics added). Lovelock draws from the distinguished expert report the findings that ... if half of all the nuclear weapons in the world's arsenals, about 10,000 megatons, were used in a nuclear war the effects on most of the human and man-made ecosystems of the world would be small at first and would become negligible within thirty years. Both aggressor and victim nations would of course suffer catastrophic local devastation, but areas remote from the battle and, especially important in the biosphere, marine and coastal ecosystems would be minimally disturbed (p.41). Three years later Turco and others proceeded to detail a very different scenario that of widespread and ecologically damaging nuclear winter.. Not for the first time, Lovelock had been caught out badly. As with pollution, Lovelock has more recently shifted ground18 considerably in the vulnerability of the Earth to human-induced disturbance. When a system such as Gaia in homeostatis is stressed to near the limits of regulation even a small disturbance may cause it to jump to a new stable state or even fail entirely.... Shifting ground may be fine, especially when it is to an improved position. But it should be done honestly and openly, not stealthily or shiftily. Lovelock proceeds to attribute a caricuture of his own previous position to critics of the Gaia hypothesis (as a clever ‘fabrication’ which it was not); that it is ‘an argument developed to allow industry to pollute at will, since mother Gaia will clean up the mess (85 p.53). 17 It could be that the regulation of the Earth's climate is not far from one of these limits. Thus if some part of climate regulation is connected with the natural level of CO2 then clearly we are close to the limits of its regulation. This is because CO2 cannot be reduced much below the level observed for the last glaciation, about 180 ppm, without seriously limiting the rate of growth of the more abundant C3 type plants. If we perturb the Earth's radiation balance by adding more CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or reduce its capacity to regulate by decreasing the area of forests or both of these together then we could be surprised by a sudden jump of both CO2 and temperature to a new and much warmer steady state; or by the initiation of periodic fluctuations between that state and our present climate. The anomalously low abundance of CO2 on Earth when compared with the other terrestrial planets and especially the fact that the mean temperature of the Earth is on the cool side of the optimum for regulation, suggests strongly that the biota is regulating the climate by pumping CO2 from the air. The common feature of most of our pollutions and of our exploitation of the land surface seems to be unintentionally to thwart this natural process (Lovelock 85 pp5354). The argument to the lesser Venus path, to significant disequilibrium with the Earth's ecological support system destabilized, takes the following lines. The Earth appears to be a discipative (far-from-equilibrium) system held at its present balance by a combination of an (increasing) solar flux - a main energy input into the system - and its major ecological arrangements, especially vegetation complanes and live oceans. The sheer extent to which the resulting system differs from the stable dead system it could otherwise be is shown by the following table for atmospheric and oceanic composition. TABLE 1. Substance Carbon dioxide A Nitrogen T R Oxygen Argon 0 C E A N S Water Planetary comparisons (principal components per cent). Equilibrium Earth Venus Lifeless Earth Mass Present Earth 99 0 98 1.9 98 1.9 95 2.7 0.03 79 0 1 trace 0.1 trace 0.1 0.13 2 21 1 63 Salt 3.5 Sodium nitrate 1.7 96 n.a. n.a. 3.5 traces Surface temperatures (°C) n.a 477 Total pressure (bars) n.a. 90 290±50 60 -53 13 0064 1 The table is based upon tables 1 and 2 of Lovelock 79, pp37 and p.39. 18 The whole Earth system is accordingly far from equilibrium. Unpredictable behavior as locals increase is therefore almost to be expected. A likely moral is presumably: stress they system, or destabilize ecosystem controls sufficiently, and the system may be in deep trouble. It is relevant to inquire into what evidence we have on this case. To do so let us reconsider some of the array of arguments there are from some sort of holistic organisation of the Earth (for a modest Gaia hypothesis). But for the participation of the Earth's ecological support systems, plant complexes especially the Earth would not be blessed with its present life-benign physical characteristics. The oceans would be much saltios and too salty for most life, the air would not contain the present rich mixture of oxygen and carbon dioxide so important for terrestrial life, and so on, perhaps most important the Earth would be significantly hotter and too hot for most life, for what of what does the regulating and stabilizing of present conditions. For the solar flux has increased in intensity about 30% since life appeared on Earth, but the mean global temperatures have exhibited no corresponding increase, but have remained relatively constant. Such an expected consistency in the face of disturbing inputs is ascribed, under holistic approaches that do something to explain it, to the concerted activity of plants, [detail] Lovelock and collaberaters have devised an elementary daisy world model which reveals how a feedback system with two types of daisies can, within limits, stabilize temperatures despite increasing energy input. The limits are important, for as these limits are approached the maintenance systems break down. diagram Q Similarly several of the well-known chemical cycles, such as those for nitrogen, sulphur, sodium and so forth depends for their maintenance on the adequate operation of active ecological structures. Plainly if a cycle loops through a component, such as forests, which is severely disturbed then the cycle itself could be disrupted. There is some probability furthermore that the foregoing changes will disturb crucial equilibrium systems and chemical cycles. Some of these feedback systems are in fact maintained in equilibrium by natural ecosystems (an example is Lovelock's daisy world model, which becomes unstable when temperature rises too high). Instability could ensue under disturbance [explain, include Greenhouse holism]. Without doubt these matters are bad enough. Demise of most of the Earth's richness19 is not a minor matter. Worse could follow. Natural richness is the main richness, much exceeding human artifice. 19 The general tenor of the argument is so far this:- By arguments from physical models, and because of uncertainties, the probability that something could go badly wrong is nonzero,20 and indeed far from negligible. Part of the argument can be put as follows: there is a decent probability that a modest Gaia hypothesis holds. But then, there is a considerable probability that excessive Greenhouse build up will lead to damaging system destabilization. So containing probabilities, there at least a nonneglizible probability of such destabilization. An analogy should now emphasize both the dubiousness of what is being proposed under adaptationism and the precariousness of the human predicament. The proposal is to take this ancient craft, now overloaded with human passengers and their heavy baggage, a cargo it was never organised to carry, out on new routes and run it fast and higher than it has ever travelled before. Even for an experimental prototype, a now very fast (air-)bus say, with a select text crew, such a procedure, of running over new uncharted routes at speeds and heights never attained before, would be risky enterprise. With an ancient craft, with a heavy nonelite cargo of baggage and passengers (some whom try to interfere with the controls), the proposal is extremely rash. For the chances that the craft will breakdown and perhaps crash, with serious consequences to passengers and for the baggage, are greatly elevated over the risks of proceeding as usual much more slowly. With the costs of crashing so severe, rational operators and sensible pilots would not take them.21 Unfortunately the analogy is not at all far-fetched, but resembles what is in store for spaceship Earth, already under significant stress with its excessive human passenger load and their heavy ecological practices. Not only is the future itself pretty new territory, but it is a future at terrestrial temperatures, important processes will proceed faster than ever before, in particular all chemical processes. Simply to take the craft up there, as do-nothing and adaptation approaches would have is to emulate the risks and hubris of Daedelus; such approaches are aptly rarely Daedelian 4. The Sting in the Cosmic Tail: the mini-Furphy theorem and the likely demise of homo sapiens, spp. economicus.. The trouble with the initial formulation of Murphy's law: if anything can go wrong, it will, From logical theories of probability such as Carnap's non-zero probabilities are rather easily reached (perhaps too easily, with the converse feature that natural laws never obtain high probabilities. The difficulty can be characteristed, to some extent, by restruction to physical models). The analogy is an old one, which we exploited before in the nuclear case; for the “bus analogy”, see Routley and Routley. The analogy admits of much graphic variation. Instead of running the craft at excess speed, an alternative or additional image is that of destroying the controls of the craft. Lovelock deploys this opposite image (88 p.63), which corresponds to the demolition of Gaians control systems. 20 was that it was insufficiently qualified, much too absolutist, and apparently self-refuting..22 Certain crucial qualifications are required:• Replacement of the certain (certainlistic) conclusion by a somewhat weaker probabilistic one: namely, it probably will. • Correlative to weakening the conclusion, strengthening the premiss, by rendering it more specific; namely, in place of ‘anything’ or ‘something’ put ‘some thing ... given a chancy situation’. The modified formulation is accordingly the following Mini-Furphy result:23 if some thing can genuinely go wrong, given a relatively chancy situation, it probably will. Here ‘chancy’ means more or less what it means according to the dictionaries: doubtful, decidedly risky, or as we shall construe it, having a comparatively low probability vis-a-vis its alternatives. The precise extent of relative chanciness will be explained as we go. To prove this proposition, let us first recast it in appropriate symbolic form. Let D be some arbitrary bad situation, a suitable disaster. Let the possibility of D's happening something's going wrong - be represented by a non-zero probability, and genuineness by non-negligible probability. It can be assumed that that probability, P(D), is small, otherwise the requisite conclusion would follow in any case. Let C represent the features that render the situation chancy. Then what we aim to show is that where P(D) is small positive, P(D < C) is probable. The proof applies a special case of Bayes' theorem, which take the following form where there are n alternative hypotheses hi,...,hn including h: Pv(h) x P(i < h) P(h < i) X P(hr) X P(i < hr) r = 1 Here h is the hypothesis, which in our application is D, i is the additional information (or, is in Carnap, a new observation), which in our case is C.24 P(h < i) is the probability of h 22 23 24 For this and other formulations of Murphy's law, and many loosely associated humorous maxims with grains of truth encapsulated, see Block. As to the history of the “law”, which originated with J.M. Chase, editor of Aviation Mechanics, see the Encyclopaedia Americana', Chase's initial formulation in a 1955 issue read ‘If an aircraft part can be installed in correctly, someone will install it the way”. This little theorem was originally more accurately entitled the Murphy-Leslie theorem. It is an adaptation, suggested by Leslie's work, of Murphy's Law. This section is overwhelmingly indebted to Leslie; for Leslie's debts, and so the transitive debts of this section, see Leslie himself, who deserves to be read in defence his legitimate doomsday apprehensions. The next not indicates the limited extent to which Leslie's arguments are endorsed. The formulation is a special case of that proved in Carnap, p.331; namely that (absolute) case where the evidence e is elided, or e set = 1. A similar result follows, subject to slightly more rigorous conditions, in relevant probability theory; see Routley 79 p.954. 21 given i, or of h on condition i (the backward arrow notation, <, symbolises the condition involved and shows its direction). For simplicity we shall suppose that all the alternatives to D are concentrated (as far as symbolic exposure goes) in one, namely D*. Then the form we seek to apply is simply: p(D < C) __________ P(D) x P(C < D)__________ P(D) x P(C < D) + P(D*) x P(C < D*)' = The arithmetic details needed can be tabulated in a revealing form as follows: Cases D D* Initial (or prior) probability d 1-d m, say Vd m/l, say 1/dl of outcome relative chance that C As it is the relative chance of C that matters, we can rescale to set m = 1/d. To make C relatively chancy, I has some modest size; specifically let I exceed 1-d/d. Then the probability to be estimated, P(D < C), is d x 1/d d x 1/d + (l-d)/dl where k = • 1 1+k _ “ That is» and P(D < C) | y when k < 1, i.e. when I [ p(D < C) = where k = 1, . Thud D is probable, at least in being more probable than not, given C, when I is of at least modest size, i.e. given C is relatively chancy. In a merely apparently more general form of the estimation, where we do not align m to d, In effect we shall look at the form P(h < i) = --------------- < h)------------------------------P(h) X P(i < h) + XP(hr) X P(i < hr)’ n with the sum excluding the product for h. Though demonstrable given satisfiable exclusion and exhaustion conditions, Bayes' theorem is not lacking critics, in part because of the surprises this bit of logic can deliver. Carnap meets the objection that Bayes' theorem has sometimes ‘been applied to cases where it led to strange or even absurd results’ thus: ‘This was mostly due to an uncritical use of the principle of indifference :... [The] theorem is provable ... on the basis of those weak assumptions which practically all theories of probability seem to have in common’ (p.331, sub 1 elided). Of course the present applications could (just) be objected to on the grounds that the logical conditions for the theorem to apply are not fully satisfied. P(D [ C) 22 d x m d x m + (1-d) x m/l 1 1 + k’ 1 as before. That is m drops out, only the relative chanciness really matters. The little Furphy theorem follows as before. Now to put some relevant flesh on these abstract statements and figures. Let D be some future disaster such as the catastrophic decline, for instance, through summer or winter phenomena of the human species, from which the enormous present population never recovers. At worst (from a chauvinistic angle) the population, like many catastrophically effected by human activities, goes extinct. Suppose, for a bifurcating outcome, there is a catastrophe stage, before halfway through next century, 2050. If humans do not get their act together before then, they go into catastrophic decline, as already indicated. If however they do get their ecopolitical act together then humans, while they hardly live happily ever after (poverty, inequality, domination, and other evils not being removed), they continue to persist or even grow in numbers, perhaps fanning out through the solar system ( in the way envisaged by too many physicists). Suppose further we are optimists, imagining that the prior probability of D ecodisaster and human decline, is small, say 1%. That is d = .01, and the initial probability of D*, human “success”, is .99. The figures are pretty notional. Supreme optimists would want to set d much smaller, pessimists rather at a higher probability. Application Table 1. Cases D human decline D* human success Initial probabilities 1%, i.e. .01 99%, i.e. .99 Relative chanciness, VlOO, i.e. .01 1/100 x l/l ofC Then the probability of human decline given .01 x ,01 P(D < C) .01 x .01 + .99 x .01/1 1 !/2 , when I > 99. 23 It remains to fill out C, thereby showing that I is likely much much larger, and correspondingly human decline so much the more probable in the light of additional information, i.e. a posteriori probable in the usual jargon. There are several high risk factors, acting in a certain concert, factors emphasized more than a decade ago in world systems modellings (such as, most famously that, of the Club of Rome) Malthusian factors such as human population, economic product, pollution, energy consumption,.... It is appropriate for estimate posterier probability relative to anyone of these, any of which can serve as C, in order to expose the riskiness of present gross human practices. In brief, because there are several high risk factors, so there are several appropriate relative or reference classes. Thus the posterier probability is assessed relative to such matters as our being alive, humans being thus and so (Leslie's reference class), this being present energy use, present wast output, present forest destruction and so forth.25 The anthropic argument considers the environmentally invidious situation of present humans on the Earth. The argument can be carried through either in terms of sheer population, gross numbers, or in terms of human resource grabbing, as estimated for instance through energy consumption. Let us consider the prospects given additional information as to the present phase of gross human population. C will be some such proposition as: the proportional preponderance of humans who have ever lived alive now, or to personalize it: the chance that you or your family, is alive now. Chart: Our present population predictment on the two scenerios. Demise scenerio “Success” scenerio - representative zjs human numbers human numbers On of the weaknesses in the argument may appear to be its dependence on an appropriate choice of relative class. For, the relative probabilities can fall away if different reference classes, not exhibiting such growth patterns are taken, e.g. present wattle distribution, birds being thus and so. On the other hand, probabilities can be elevated even more by selection of more unusual reference classes cuh as our being scientists, or being computer programmers, etc.. 24 Humans have got themselves - to some extent put themselves, though much may be the result of muddling through - into an extremely dubious, environmentally insidious and unsustainable position, on a range of critical parameters. Their numbers are excessive, their high energy use is excessive, their waste and their pollution are both excessive - and all chose and other excesses are at the steep end of upward exponential curves. Several relevant graphs are distressingly exponential, with the present in the near vertical growth phase: graphs Many other similarly shaped graphs26 could be added, for instance for growth of pollution, of waste products, of weapons (in terms of tonnes of explosive power), of other greenhouse gases such as methane, and so on. The display typifies the accelerating human roller coaster. Those curves are tightly interconnected, in criss-crossing fashion. For example, the productivity of contemporary agriculture which enables the feeding of hugh urbanised human populations depends on a very high energy use (in term of energy efficiency, contemporary high-tech agriculture falls below that of much traditional agriculture). The maintenance of high populations with supplies of cheap food depends in turn on fossil fuel agriculture. Because of the intertwining of these phenomena, there is no easy way of getting off the accelerating roller-coaster. 26 All the graphs exhibited are drawn from Boyden. 25 Nor, as observed, is there much effort devoted to slowing the coaster. For politicians it would be politically risky and inexpedient to try (for them the rhetoric about an ecologically sustainable future must remain just that, more rhetoric). For many other power holders and brokers such ideas are ideologically excluded: growth remains the gospel. So a precarious position becomes ever more precarious. Humans are in a decidedly chancy position, because of their population situation and other Malthusian factors; they are becoming very disasterprone. If humans want an acceptable future for themselves - they have virtually ruled out an acceptable future for many other creatures, through their predominantly selfish thoughtless greedy practices - then they will probably have to mend their ways, very considerably and very soon. But, given the nature of the beast, that itself seems improbable. Humans, if they seek a more assured future, should make a concerted effort to put themselves into a less precarious position. That could be achieved by proceeding to reduce relative risks. These relative risks, sharply reducing prospects for a reliable future, fall into two classes:• manufactured risk factors, including weaponry such as mega-nuclear devices and elements of biochemical warfard, and experimental equipment such as very high energy particle accelerators (which could perhaps tunnel under a metastable state or induce a min-Big-Bang; see Leslie). • Accumulated risk factors, such as the hugh relative size of human population, energy consumption, greenhouse gas production, etc..27 Despite the ideological obstacles, enormous political, religious and economic obstacles blocking the way of requisite change, major efforts should be put into reducing both these types of risks. Philosophers could have a significant role in breaking down the ideological barriers and in clarifying and developing the arguments involved. 5. What ought to be done about Greenhouse? The general result already reached, that humans collectively should reduce their risk taking, and in particular reduce their gross numbers, extends to rational Greenhouse decision and action theory. But that large and difficult challenge is not all that there is to try, that should rationally be attempted. While some increase in mean global temperatures, and all that implies, can no longer be averted, the potentially most damaging effects can be: namely, by curtailing human-induced 27 As before, there are various different reasons why these induce risk, neo-Malthusian and probabilistic in particular. 26 output of Greenhouse gases. Moreover, there is an approximate upper bound upon temperature of importance, which can serve to supply a significant limit as output. That bound - which reduces risk taking by confining encountered situations to those where there is some past experiential basis - is given by estimated temperatures during Altithermal and Eemian eras. Those temperatures are estimated to have been between about 1/2 a degree and 1 degree Centigrade above contemporary (pre-1980) temperatures; so the upper bound is about 1°C. Not only will a continuation of current emission trends take global temperatures clean through and way beyond that bound, so also will an alternative set-up where emission rates are fixed more or less at current rates. The only apparent way to remain rationally within an experiential domain is to curtail sharply trace gas emissions beginning easily in the 1990s. That means shifting from the dominant growth paradigm; it means expensive re- and deindustrialisation. It is unlikely. Final corollary: Humans collectively are not (particularly) rational. But we had already guessed as much from the latest...... in the long history of human wars. References H.W. Bernard, The Greenhouse Effect, Ballinger, Cambridge Mass., 1980. A. Block, Murphy's Law. Book Two, Magnum, Methuen, ... S. Boyden, Western Civilization in Biological Perspective, Clarendon, Oxford, 1987. L.R. Brown and others, State of the World 1989, Norton/Worldwatch, New York, 1989; referred to as Worldwatch. R. Carnap, Logical Foundations of Probability, Second edition, University of Chicago Press, 1962. R.M. Cyert and M.H. DeGroot, Bayesian Analysis and Uncertainty in Economic Theory, Rowman & Littfield, New Jersey, 1987. ‘Developing policies for responding to climatic change’, Report of the Beijer Institute, February 1988. Keeton, J. Leslie, ‘Risking and World's End’, Bulletin of the Curiadian Nuclear Society 10(3) (1989) 1-6; all references to Leslie are to this article unless otherwise indicated. J. Leslie, ‘Is the end of the world nigh?’, The Philosophical Quarterly, to appear; referred to as PQ. J.E. Lovelock, Gaia. A new look at life on Earth, Oxford University Press, 1979. J. Lovelock, ‘Are we destabilising world climate?’, The Ecologist 15(1985) 52-55. 27 J.Lovelock, ‘Man and Gaia’, The Earth Report Monitoring the Battle for Our Environment, (ed. E. Goldsmith and N. Hilgard) Mitchell Benzley, London, 1988, 51-64. R. and V. Routley, ‘Nuclear energy and obligations to the future’, Inquirey 21(1978) 133R. Routley, ‘Ultralogic as universal?’ reprinted as an Appendix in Exploring Meinong's Jungle, RSSS, Australian National University, 1979. S. Schneider ‘Not to decide is to decide’, in Greenhouse 1988: Planning for Climate Change (ed. T. Dendy), Department of Environment and Planning, Adelaide, 1989, 5-10. R.P. Turco and others, ‘Nuclear winter: Global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions’, Science 222 (1983) 1283-1292.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 14, item 2064: Gaean Greenhouse, Nuclear Winter, and Anthropic Doomsday Subject The topic of the resource Typescript of paper published in Australian National University. Department of Philosophy (1990) Research series in unfashionable philosophy, 4. Description An account of the resource Title in collection finding aid: RS: Gaean Greenhouse, Nuclear Winter, Anthropic Doomsday ts. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span><span>,</span> Box 14, item 2064 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1990-01-01. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [27] leaves. 18.58 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <div class="element-set"> <div id="dublin-core-identifier" class="element"> <div class="element-text"><a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:fdb034b" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:fdb034b</a></div> </div> </div> Australian National University Office Australian National University Office > Miscellaneous Box 14: Green Projects in Progress https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/4fe1fe98ae8c68a6133b900b99cc64c3.pdf 6d0edff22c3ea28d0c8ed53a3961f5b8 PDF Text Text AN ALTERNATIVE ANGLE ON THE HUMANITIES by Richard Routley Higher education in the humanities, beyond the basics of literacy, has been under attack for a Long time. This is partly because it costs money and public resources that might be otherwise invested (e.g. for technological education, for industrial assistance or subsidization); it is also because education in the humanities can lead to dissatisfac­ tion with established ways, and criticism of them^i.e. "rocking the boat . While it is impossible to develop a definitive argument for extensive education in the humanities—any more than it is possible to mount a conclusive argument against it—a telling case can nonetheless be made. There tends to be little dispute about some of the things humanities' subjects teach, much better than other areas: competence and skills in composition and communication, for example, both essential for many roles in modern technological society. University courses Ln humanities teach these things, mostly as a by—product of the other topics they rightly focus upon. It is about subjects and topics beyond this usually conceded minimal level that questions are asked: Why should universities teach, or teach so much of, typical humanities' subjects English, other languages and literatures, linguistics, history and philosophy when a university education in these areas affords direct access to but few jobs, and is, it is assumed, inessential for most day-to-day ^The social sciences, which are sometimes grouped with the humanities, have been excluded from consideration; that is, humanities is being used in its narrower modern sense. This artificial separation sharpens the issues; for the case for university, or at least polytechnic education in economics, for instance, is straightforward in much the way that forestry and engineering is. �2 living? It is obvious enough why they should be offered and taught: because they comprise a significant part of knowledge. But this reply does not meet the complaint that they are still too much taught. The older response to this type of challenge appealed to the importance of culture, to "the utilization of the intellect as an end", to the desirability of having cultivated and civilized men and women in the community. Higher education in the humanities was taken to be distinctively fitted to confer these virtues. The older response has force, but it has to meet the tedious objection that much humanities' education merely delivers "dreamers who can converse well over cocktails;" moreover, it needs supplementation if it is to be sustained nowadays. In particular, it requires underpinning by an argument, independently called for, which counteracts the narrow industrial utilitarianism into the framework of which answers are all too often supposed to fit. According to this type of industrial philosophy, university education is important if it contributes directly to such things as providing (typically at public expense) a technically skilled but not surplus workforce, if it helps to enlarge the industrial base, enables expansion or improvements in sales and marketing of industrial products, and so on—taking it for granted that all these industrial activities are worthwhile. But the further and deeper issue is: these industrial activities and makes them valuable? What justifies To put it bluntly, these activities are valuable not for the profits they inequitably distribute, but rather for what they add to the communities they should serve, in the way of net value (such as a richer life for members of the community, making some allowance for the costs involved, by way of pollution, despoiliation of urban, rural and �- 3 - and natural environments, etc.)- And it is to these same values that higher education in the humanities should also answer—not, to consider a worst case, to the direct demands of a damaging and undesirable industry furnishing dangerous or alienated jobs. If we do look at these more ultimate values, the attainment of rich and rewarding and varied lifestyles, then it is evident, without much elaboration, that higher education in the humanities has much to recommend it, that people whose lives are fuller and richer and who add to the variety and culture of the communities in which they live will be produced by humanities education at its best., that the older argument can be pushed through. There are, however, further responses, reinforcing the older response, which it is now necessary to indicate. All the older response generally implies is that an educated person can simply be pumped full of a stuff called "culture"—a supply of allegedly factual information, views, and prejudices on this or that area. What higher education in the humanities teach s at its best is much more, and more important than this: namely, the acquisition of a range of critical and analytical skills of practical value. These include such analytical skills as being able to dissect an issue or problem, to break it down to its components and determine the basic assumptions, to work out the presuppositions made, to draw out the implications of the matter, and to view the problem from various angles. They include such critical skills as the ability to assess a problem or work analysed; for instance the ability to criticise the assumptions made and to locate and evaluate alternatives to them, to weigh evidence, to see faults in arguments and fallacies when they occur, and so on. They also include such skills as the �4 ability to obtain further information and to apply the methods, and to research new areas and new problems independently of a teacher. In short, the humanities, properly done, teach an analytical and critical method, and above all the ability "to reason well in all matters". As an integral part of this, they should teach the awareness of alternatives, an appreciation of alternative situations, cultures, and worlds. A first step in the critical evaluation of an institution, for example, is often the awareness of alternatives, that things do not have to be exactly the way the institution is, but that there are alternative situations where the institution is variously modified or even eliminated. It is not difficult to see how depth education in history or the languages leads to an appreciation of options, by placing the student in contexts where things are done and seen differently. Philosophy and parts of modern linguistics, specifically semantics, take this whole enterprise much further and now, in the explicit investigation of possible worlds, render it systematic. Indeed, a significant part of the history of philosophy has consisted in the envisaging and following through of certain such alternatives. And such a devising of alternative situations is tied intimately to reasoning. For example, an argument is valid if there are no alternative situations where its premisses hold but its conclusion does not. Finally, the critical method, in particular the ability to discern alternatives, helps people to become aware of their own intellectual assumptions, and where necessary to change them. Thus too, it leads to an intellectual flexibility and adaptability, which is increasingly important for modern, practical problem-solving, �- 5 - and for the adjustments in lifestyle many of us may confront. Systematic philosophy teaches critical reasoning explicitly; a central part of philosophy is the assessment of arguments and the detection of fallacies. Other humanities' disciplines teach the analytic and critical method also, though less directly, and more by example. English does it through the medium of literary criticism; languages, in analogous ways, by the analysis and critical evaluation of "foreign" literature and the critical examination of the practices, customs, and thought of a culture with a different language and literature. A good language education can not only introduce people to alternatives, but can in the process reveal to them their own cultural assumptions, and so open the way to alternative possibilities they have not previously considered. So it is also with history, which involves similar interpretative skills in the investigation of far-removed societies. What is the virtue of critical and analytical reasoning, of being able to think in a concentrated, systematic imaginative way, of being able to approach problems from several angles? What, in particular, is the relevance of these skills to that obtrusive part of the practical world, business, commerce, etc.? Not only will there be many problems for firms and services to handle and try to resolve, problems often best dealt with using just such skills, but the problems arising will increasingly be of a different character, of a type for which purely technological educations are inappropriate or inadequate, and where new alternatives will have to be devised, seriously considered, and sometimes adopted. newer problems include two important overlapping types: mental problems and resource problems. These environ­ The resource problems are �- 6 - due to increasing scarcity and escalating prices of materials, especially oil^but also lumber, etc. As a result, industry and government, as well as the private individual, will have to be re­ conciled to, and make, very considerable adaptations and adjustments (of kinds still to be determined), to adopt alternative practices and solutions to problems on a wide range of fronts. The environ­ mental problems arise because present and historical practices are often damaging, sometimes destructive, to the environment or the people who live in it, and because these practices, such as rapacious forestry and injurious pollution, are not going to be tolerated^ indefinitely, but will require much modification at the very least. In each case, resource and environmental, much innovation will be essential, much new and alternative thinking required, far better if it is analytical and critical, and so does not lead to a compounding of old and bad technological fixes. In sum, the problems to be faced, many of them of considerable complexity, are of a different character: successful resolution of them, where it can be accomplished, and superior decision-making will more and more demand substantial and imaginatively-deployed analytical and critical skills. The requisite skills are inculcated in a good education in the humanities. Of course, some of these skills are acquired in the theore­ tical sciences—though the critical skills usually in a lesser way, much as compositional skills are acquired in a lesser way in the sciences. What further distinguishes most of the humanities is the way they relate to, and take account of, humans—of people as people and not merely as statistics. Those educated in the humanities tend to have a sensitivity to people, and understanding of them, �-7 - that technologists often lack. So it is that they can introduce important elements into problem-solving, due respect for persons (and not mere fobbing off by public relations exercises), that technological resolutions of problems frequently, but inadmissibly, neglect. A corollary of all this is that there is a sound case for deploying people well educated in the humanities more widely in organizations engaged in research and problem solving. It would be rash to pretend that either industry, governments, and so on (the potential employers) on the one side, or the universities (the potential suppliers of humanities graduates) on the other, are entirely ready for this already initiated scenario. It is not that universities do not always teach humanities at their best (that could hardly be expected), but that the skills and methods called for, analytical and critical, are often not sought and are sometimes deliberately devalued. Sometimes indeed the critical method is forgotten and university education—not just in the humanities— degenerates into something approaching a brainwashing process, reinforcing prevailing practices, attitudes and ideologies instead of indicating serious weaknesses in prevailing practices and revealing the range of alternatives open in one way or another. Nor do universities make much effort, so far, to prepare students for the possibility that the critical skills they acquire may be put into practice outside class assignments, not just in their day-to-day living, but in the workplace and in their attempts to enter it (e.g. by being duly prepared for interviews). There is also apparently some resistance by humanities' students to �8 - entering employment in industry, owing to a blanket condemnation of industry^ instead of a more discriminating attitude which makes due criticism where it is warranted. on the other side as well. Faults of similar magnitude appear For example, even where senior management does recognize the modern relevance of the skills humanities' students acquire, personnel selection staff are usually unequipped to select for such skills. A further corollary is that an integral part of a modern technological education is a training in the humanities. 2 'Both Professor Raymond Bradley of Simon Fraser University and the Editor of this Newsletter made many useful suggestions which have been incorporated in the text. The main quotations are from Cardinal Newman's The Idea of a University. �/ AN ALTERNATIVE ANGLE ON THE HUMANITIES by Richard Routley* Higher education in the humanities, beyond the basics of literacy, has been under attack for a long time, in part because it costs money and public resources that might be otherwise invested (e.g. for technological education, for industrial assistance and subsidization), but also because it can lead to (sometimes warranted) dissatisfaction with established ways and criticism of them (e.g. to "rocking the boat"). While it is impossible to develop a definitive argument for extensive education in the humanities—any more than it is possible to mount a conclusive argument against it—a telling caye can nonetheless be made. About some of the things humanities* subjects teach, much better than other areas such as the sciences and technologies, competence and skills in composition and communication—essential for many roles in modern technological society—there tends to be little dispute. University courses in humanities teach these things, sometimes, initially, directly, but more often as a by-product of the other topics they rightly focus upon. It is about subjects and topics beyond this usually conced ed minimal level that questions are asked:—Why should universities teach, or teach so much of, typical humanities' subjects— such as English, and other languages and literatures, linguistics, history and philosophy^—when a university education in these areas affords direct access to but few jobs, and is, it is assumed, inessential for most day-to-day living? It is obvious enough '"The author is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities and Senior Fellow in Philosophy at the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. He is visiting the University of Victoria as a Canadian Commonwealth Fellow. ^The social sciences, which are sometimes grouped with the humanities, have been excluded from consideration; that is, 'humanities' is being used in its narrower modern sense. This (artificial) separation sharpens the issues; for the case for university, or at least polytechnic, education in economics, for instance, is straightforward in much the way that forestry and engineering is. �2 - why they should be offered and taught: cant part of knowledge. because they comprise a signifi­ But this reply does not meet the complaint that they are still too much taught. The older response to this type of challenge appealed to the importance of culture and of "the utilization of the intellect as an end", of having cultivated and civilized men (and women) in the community, higher education in the humanities being taken to be distinctively fitted to confer, at least often, these virtues. The older response has force, but it has to meet the %ne^riiag objection that much humanities' education merely delivers "god-damn dreamers who can converse well over cocktails," and it needs supplementation if it is to be sustained nowadays. In addition, it requires underpinning by a move, independently called for, which takes on the narrow industrial utilitarianism into the framework of which answers are all too often supposed to fit. According to this type of industrial philosophy, university education is important if it contributes directly to such things as providing (typically at public expense) a technically skilled but not surplus workforce, if it helps enlarge the industrial base, enables expansion or improvements in sales and marketing of industrial products, and so on—taking it for granted that all these industrial activities are worthwhile. But the further and deeper issue is what justifies these industrial activities and makes them valuable when they are (which is far from always the case). To put it bluntly, they are valuable not for the profits they inequitably distribute, but rather for what they add to the communities they should serve, in the way of net value (such as a richer life for members of the community, making some allowance for the costs involved, by way of pollution, despoiliation of urban, rural and natural environments, etc.). And it is to these values, that industrial activities themselves have ultimately to answer, that higher education in the humanities should also answer—not, to consider a worst case, to the direct demands of a damaging and undesirable industry furnishing dangerous or alienated jobs. If we do look at these more ultimate values, the attainment of rich and rewarding and varied lifestyles, then it is evident , �- 3 - / without much elaboration, that higher education in the humanities has much to recommend it., that people whose lives are fuller and richer and who add to the variety and culture of the communities in which they live will be produced by humanities education at its best, coat the older argument can be pushed through. There are, however, further responses, reinforcing the older response, which it is now necessary to indicate. response sometimes says, an educated For all tae older person can simply be pumped full of a stuff called culture, a supply of (allegedly) factual information, views, and also prejudices, on this or that area. What higher education in the humanities, at its best, teaches is much more, and more important than this; namely the acquisition of a range of crff*Ktal and analytical skills of practical value. These include such analytical skills as being able to dissect an issue or problem, to break it down to^components and determine the basic assumptions; to work out the presuppositions made, and to draw out the implications of the matter; to view the problem from various They include such critical skills as the ability to assess angles. critically a problem or w^rk analysed, for instance to criticise the assumptions made and to locate and evaluate alternatives to them, the ability to weigh evidence, to see faults in arguments and fallacies when they occur, and so on. They also include such skills as the ability to obtain further information and to apply the methods, to research independently of a teacher in new areas and on new problems. In short, the humanities, properly done, teach an analytical and critical method, and above all the ability "to reason well in all matters". As an integral part of this they (should) t.^ctch the aware­ ness of alternatives, an appreciation of alternative situations, cultures, worlds. A first step in the critical evaluation of an institution, for example, is often the awareness of alternatives, that things do not have to be exactly that way, the way the institution is, but that there are alternative situations where the institution is variously modified or even eliminated. It is not difficult to see how depth education in history or the languages leads to an appreciation of alternatives, by placing the student in contexts where things are done and seen differently. Philosophy and parts �4 of modern linguistics (specifically semantics) take this whole enter­ prise much further and now, in the explicit investigation of (possible) worlds, render it systematic: but a significant part of the history of philosophy has consisted (it can now be seen) in the envisaging and following through of certain such alternatives. And such a devising of alternative situations is tied intimately to reasoning. For example, whether an argument is valid or not is a matter of there are not or are alternative situations where its premises hold but its conclusion does not. Finally, the critical method, in particular the ability to discern alternatives, helps people to become aware of their own intellectual assumptions, and where necessary to change them. Thus too it leads to an intellectual flexibility and adaptability, which is increasingly important for modern, practical problem-solving and for the adjustments in lifestyle many of us may confront. Systematic philosophy teaches critical reasoning explicitly: a central part of philosophy is the assessment of arguments and the detection of fallacies. Other humanities' disciplines teach the analytic and critical method also, though less directly, and more by example. English does it through, for instance, the medium of literary criticism, languages in analogous ways, by the analysis and critical evaluation of "foreign" literature and the critical examination of the practices, customs, and thought of a culture with a different language and literature. A good language education can not only introduce people to alternatives, but can in the process reveal to them their own cultural assumptions, and so open the way to alternative possibilities they have not previously considered. So it is also with history, which often involves similar interpretative skills, e.g. in the investigation of some period in the history of a society as far removed from modern societies as that of ancient Athens. What is the virtue, or relevance, of critical and analytical reasoning, of being able to think in a concentrated, systematic imaginative way, of being able to approach problems from several angles? What, in particular, is the relevance to that obtrusive part of the practical world, business, commerce, etc. Not only will there be many many problems for firms and services to handle and �5 try to resolve, problems often best dealt with using just such skills, but the problems arising will increasingly be of a different character, of a type for which purely technological educations are inappropriate or inadequate, and where new alternatives will have to be devised, seriously considered and sometimes adopted. These newer problems include two important (overlapping) types, environmental problems and resource problems. The resource problems are due to increasing scarcity and escalating prices of materials, especially oil (but also, e.g., lumber)—as a result of which industry and government (as well as the private individual) will have to be reconciled to and niaoke very considerably, adaptations and adjustments of kinds still to be determined, to adopt alternative practices and solutions to problems on a wide range of fronts. The environmental problems arise because present practices are frequently damaging, * - ' 1 destructive, to the environment or the people who live in it (e.g. through pollution and effects such as cancer), and because these practices, such as rapacious forestry and ser^oct^s pollution, are not going to be tolerated indefinitely, but will require much modification at the very least. In each case, resource and environmental, much, innovation will be essential, much new and alternative thinking required, far better if it is analytical and critical, and so does not lead, for example, to a compounding of old and bad technological fixes. In sum, the problems to be faced, many of them of considerable complexity, are of a different character: successful resolution of them, where it can be accomplished, and superior decision-making will more and more demand, among other things, substantial and imaginatively-deployed analytical and critical skills. The requisite skills are inculcated in a good education in the humanities. Of course, some of these skills are acquired in the theoretical sciences—though usually in a m^rked^-lesser way, piuch as compositional skills (which typically increase with further training in the humanities) are acquired in a-de-eide<Hy lesser way in the sciences. What further distinguishes most of the humanities is the way they relate to, and take account of, humans people and not merely as statistics. of people as Those educated in the humanities tend to have a sensitivity to people, and understanding of them, that technologists often lack. So it is that they can introduce importune �6 -- elements into problem-solving, due respect for persons (and not mere fobbing off by public relations exercises), that technological resolutions of problems frequently, but inadmissibly, neglect. A corollary of all this is that there is a sound case for deploying people well educated in the humanities more widely in organizations engaged in research and problem solving. It would be rash to pretend that either industry, governments, and so on (the potential employers) on the one side, or the universities (the potential suppliers of humanities graduates) on the other, are entirely ready for this already initiated scenario. It is not that universities do not always teach humanities at their best (that could hardly be expected), but that the skills and methods called for, analytical and critical, are often (e.g. in language ers) not sought and are sometimes (deliberately) devalued. Sometimes indeed the critical method is forgotten and university education—not just in the humanities—degenerates into something approaching a brainwashing process, reinforcing prevailing practices, attitudes and ideologies instead of indicating < ; in prevailing practices and.the range of alternatives open in one way A or another. Nor do universities fticke much effort, so far, to prepare students for the possibility that the. critical skills they acquire may be put into practice outside class assignments, not just in their day-to-day living, but in the workplace and in their attempts to enter it (e.g. by being duly prepared for interviews). There is also apparently some resistance by humanities' students to entering employment in industry, owing to a blanket condemnation of industry (not altogether unexpected given the performances and attitudes of some industries), instead of a mere discriminating attitude which makes due criticism where it is warranted. of similar magnitude appear on the other side as well. Faults For example, even where senior management does re&o<? nize the modern relevance of the skills humanities' students acquire, personnel selection staff (who often have a technological background) are usually § unequipped to select for such skills and reluctant to do so. �§Both Professor Raymond Bradley of Simon Fraser University and the Editor of this Newsletter made many useful suggestions which have been incorporated in the text. The main quotations are from Cardinal Newman' s Tire Idea of a University. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document AN ALTERNATIVE ANGLE ON THE HUMANITIES by Richard Routley Higher education in the humanities, beyond the basics of literacy, has been under attack for a Long time. This is partly because it costs money and public resources that might be otherwise invested (e.g. for technological education, for industrial assistance or subsidization); it is also because education in the humanities can lead to dissatisfac­ tion with established ways, and criticism of them^i.e. "rocking the boat . While it is impossible to develop a definitive argument for extensive education in the humanities—any more than it is possible to mount a conclusive argument against it—a telling case can nonetheless be made. There tends to be little dispute about some of the things humanities' subjects teach, much better than other areas: competence and skills in composition and communication, for example, both essential for many roles in modern technological society. University courses Ln humanities teach these things, mostly as a by—product of the other topics they rightly focus upon. It is about subjects and topics beyond this usually conceded minimal level that questions are asked: Why should universities teach, or teach so much of, typical humanities' subjects English, other languages and literatures, linguistics, history and philosophy when a university education in these areas affords direct access to but few jobs, and is, it is assumed, inessential for most day-to-day ^The social sciences, which are sometimes grouped with the humanities, have been excluded from consideration; that is, humanities is being used in its narrower modern sense. This artificial separation sharpens the issues; for the case for university, or at least polytechnic education in economics, for instance, is straightforward in much the way that forestry and engineering is. 2 living? It is obvious enough why they should be offered and taught: because they comprise a significant part of knowledge. But this reply does not meet the complaint that they are still too much taught. The older response to this type of challenge appealed to the importance of culture, to "the utilization of the intellect as an end", to the desirability of having cultivated and civilized men and women in the community. Higher education in the humanities was taken to be distinctively fitted to confer these virtues. The older response has force, but it has to meet the tedious objection that much humanities' education merely delivers "dreamers who can converse well over cocktails;" moreover, it needs supplementation if it is to be sustained nowadays. In particular, it requires underpinning by an argument, independently called for, which counteracts the narrow industrial utilitarianism into the framework of which answers are all too often supposed to fit. According to this type of industrial philosophy, university education is important if it contributes directly to such things as providing (typically at public expense) a technically skilled but not surplus workforce, if it helps to enlarge the industrial base, enables expansion or improvements in sales and marketing of industrial products, and so on—taking it for granted that all these industrial activities are worthwhile. But the further and deeper issue is: these industrial activities and makes them valuable? What justifies To put it bluntly, these activities are valuable not for the profits they inequitably distribute, but rather for what they add to the communities they should serve, in the way of net value (such as a richer life for members of the community, making some allowance for the costs involved, by way of pollution, despoiliation of urban, rural and - 3 - and natural environments, etc.)- And it is to these same values that higher education in the humanities should also answer—not, to consider a worst case, to the direct demands of a damaging and undesirable industry furnishing dangerous or alienated jobs. If we do look at these more ultimate values, the attainment of rich and rewarding and varied lifestyles, then it is evident, without much elaboration, that higher education in the humanities has much to recommend it, that people whose lives are fuller and richer and who add to the variety and culture of the communities in which they live will be produced by humanities education at its best., that the older argument can be pushed through. There are, however, further responses, reinforcing the older response, which it is now necessary to indicate. All the older response generally implies is that an educated person can simply be pumped full of a stuff called "culture"—a supply of allegedly factual information, views, and prejudices on this or that area. What higher education in the humanities teach s at its best is much more, and more important than this: namely, the acquisition of a range of critical and analytical skills of practical value. These include such analytical skills as being able to dissect an issue or problem, to break it down to its components and determine the basic assumptions, to work out the presuppositions made, to draw out the implications of the matter, and to view the problem from various angles. They include such critical skills as the ability to assess a problem or work analysed; for instance the ability to criticise the assumptions made and to locate and evaluate alternatives to them, to weigh evidence, to see faults in arguments and fallacies when they occur, and so on. They also include such skills as the 4 ability to obtain further information and to apply the methods, and to research new areas and new problems independently of a teacher. In short, the humanities, properly done, teach an analytical and critical method, and above all the ability "to reason well in all matters". As an integral part of this, they should teach the awareness of alternatives, an appreciation of alternative situations, cultures, and worlds. A first step in the critical evaluation of an institution, for example, is often the awareness of alternatives, that things do not have to be exactly the way the institution is, but that there are alternative situations where the institution is variously modified or even eliminated. It is not difficult to see how depth education in history or the languages leads to an appreciation of options, by placing the student in contexts where things are done and seen differently. Philosophy and parts of modern linguistics, specifically semantics, take this whole enterprise much further and now, in the explicit investigation of possible worlds, render it systematic. Indeed, a significant part of the history of philosophy has consisted in the envisaging and following through of certain such alternatives. And such a devising of alternative situations is tied intimately to reasoning. For example, an argument is valid if there are no alternative situations where its premisses hold but its conclusion does not. Finally, the critical method, in particular the ability to discern alternatives, helps people to become aware of their own intellectual assumptions, and where necessary to change them. Thus too, it leads to an intellectual flexibility and adaptability, which is increasingly important for modern, practical problem-solving, - 5 - and for the adjustments in lifestyle many of us may confront. Systematic philosophy teaches critical reasoning explicitly; a central part of philosophy is the assessment of arguments and the detection of fallacies. Other humanities' disciplines teach the analytic and critical method also, though less directly, and more by example. English does it through the medium of literary criticism; languages, in analogous ways, by the analysis and critical evaluation of "foreign" literature and the critical examination of the practices, customs, and thought of a culture with a different language and literature. A good language education can not only introduce people to alternatives, but can in the process reveal to them their own cultural assumptions, and so open the way to alternative possibilities they have not previously considered. So it is also with history, which involves similar interpretative skills in the investigation of far-removed societies. What is the virtue of critical and analytical reasoning, of being able to think in a concentrated, systematic imaginative way, of being able to approach problems from several angles? What, in particular, is the relevance of these skills to that obtrusive part of the practical world, business, commerce, etc.? Not only will there be many problems for firms and services to handle and try to resolve, problems often best dealt with using just such skills, but the problems arising will increasingly be of a different character, of a type for which purely technological educations are inappropriate or inadequate, and where new alternatives will have to be devised, seriously considered, and sometimes adopted. newer problems include two important overlapping types: mental problems and resource problems. These environ­ The resource problems are - 6 - due to increasing scarcity and escalating prices of materials, especially oil^but also lumber, etc. As a result, industry and government, as well as the private individual, will have to be re­ conciled to, and make, very considerable adaptations and adjustments (of kinds still to be determined), to adopt alternative practices and solutions to problems on a wide range of fronts. The environ­ mental problems arise because present and historical practices are often damaging, sometimes destructive, to the environment or the people who live in it, and because these practices, such as rapacious forestry and injurious pollution, are not going to be tolerated^ indefinitely, but will require much modification at the very least. In each case, resource and environmental, much innovation will be essential, much new and alternative thinking required, far better if it is analytical and critical, and so does not lead to a compounding of old and bad technological fixes. In sum, the problems to be faced, many of them of considerable complexity, are of a different character: successful resolution of them, where it can be accomplished, and superior decision-making will more and more demand substantial and imaginatively-deployed analytical and critical skills. The requisite skills are inculcated in a good education in the humanities. Of course, some of these skills are acquired in the theore­ tical sciences—though the critical skills usually in a lesser way, much as compositional skills are acquired in a lesser way in the sciences. What further distinguishes most of the humanities is the way they relate to, and take account of, humans—of people as people and not merely as statistics. Those educated in the humanities tend to have a sensitivity to people, and understanding of them, -7 - that technologists often lack. So it is that they can introduce important elements into problem-solving, due respect for persons (and not mere fobbing off by public relations exercises), that technological resolutions of problems frequently, but inadmissibly, neglect. A corollary of all this is that there is a sound case for deploying people well educated in the humanities more widely in organizations engaged in research and problem solving. It would be rash to pretend that either industry, governments, and so on (the potential employers) on the one side, or the universities (the potential suppliers of humanities graduates) on the other, are entirely ready for this already initiated scenario. It is not that universities do not always teach humanities at their best (that could hardly be expected), but that the skills and methods called for, analytical and critical, are often not sought and are sometimes deliberately devalued. Sometimes indeed the critical method is forgotten and university education—not just in the humanities— degenerates into something approaching a brainwashing process, reinforcing prevailing practices, attitudes and ideologies instead of indicating serious weaknesses in prevailing practices and revealing the range of alternatives open in one way or another. Nor do universities make much effort, so far, to prepare students for the possibility that the critical skills they acquire may be put into practice outside class assignments, not just in their day-to-day living, but in the workplace and in their attempts to enter it (e.g. by being duly prepared for interviews). There is also apparently some resistance by humanities' students to 8 - entering employment in industry, owing to a blanket condemnation of industry^ instead of a more discriminating attitude which makes due criticism where it is warranted. on the other side as well. Faults of similar magnitude appear For example, even where senior management does recognize the modern relevance of the skills humanities' students acquire, personnel selection staff are usually unequipped to select for such skills. A further corollary is that an integral part of a modern technological education is a training in the humanities. 2 'Both Professor Raymond Bradley of Simon Fraser University and the Editor of this Newsletter made many useful suggestions which have been incorporated in the text. The main quotations are from Cardinal Newman's The Idea of a University. / AN ALTERNATIVE ANGLE ON THE HUMANITIES by Richard Routley* Higher education in the humanities, beyond the basics of literacy, has been under attack for a long time, in part because it costs money and public resources that might be otherwise invested (e.g. for technological education, for industrial assistance and subsidization), but also because it can lead to (sometimes warranted) dissatisfaction with established ways and criticism of them (e.g. to "rocking the boat"). While it is impossible to develop a definitive argument for extensive education in the humanities—any more than it is possible to mount a conclusive argument against it—a telling caye can nonetheless be made. About some of the things humanities* subjects teach, much better than other areas such as the sciences and technologies, competence and skills in composition and communication—essential for many roles in modern technological society—there tends to be little dispute. University courses in humanities teach these things, sometimes, initially, directly, but more often as a by-product of the other topics they rightly focus upon. It is about subjects and topics beyond this usually conced ed minimal level that questions are asked:—Why should universities teach, or teach so much of, typical humanities' subjects— such as English, and other languages and literatures, linguistics, history and philosophy^—when a university education in these areas affords direct access to but few jobs, and is, it is assumed, inessential for most day-to-day living? It is obvious enough '"The author is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities and Senior Fellow in Philosophy at the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. He is visiting the University of Victoria as a Canadian Commonwealth Fellow. ^The social sciences, which are sometimes grouped with the humanities, have been excluded from consideration; that is, 'humanities' is being used in its narrower modern sense. This (artificial) separation sharpens the issues; for the case for university, or at least polytechnic, education in economics, for instance, is straightforward in much the way that forestry and engineering is. 2 - why they should be offered and taught: cant part of knowledge. because they comprise a signifi­ But this reply does not meet the complaint that they are still too much taught. The older response to this type of challenge appealed to the importance of culture and of "the utilization of the intellect as an end", of having cultivated and civilized men (and women) in the community, higher education in the humanities being taken to be distinctively fitted to confer, at least often, these virtues. The older response has force, but it has to meet the %ne^riiag objection that much humanities' education merely delivers "god-damn dreamers who can converse well over cocktails," and it needs supplementation if it is to be sustained nowadays. In addition, it requires underpinning by a move, independently called for, which takes on the narrow industrial utilitarianism into the framework of which answers are all too often supposed to fit. According to this type of industrial philosophy, university education is important if it contributes directly to such things as providing (typically at public expense) a technically skilled but not surplus workforce, if it helps enlarge the industrial base, enables expansion or improvements in sales and marketing of industrial products, and so on—taking it for granted that all these industrial activities are worthwhile. But the further and deeper issue is what justifies these industrial activities and makes them valuable when they are (which is far from always the case). To put it bluntly, they are valuable not for the profits they inequitably distribute, but rather for what they add to the communities they should serve, in the way of net value (such as a richer life for members of the community, making some allowance for the costs involved, by way of pollution, despoiliation of urban, rural and natural environments, etc.). And it is to these values, that industrial activities themselves have ultimately to answer, that higher education in the humanities should also answer—not, to consider a worst case, to the direct demands of a damaging and undesirable industry furnishing dangerous or alienated jobs. If we do look at these more ultimate values, the attainment of rich and rewarding and varied lifestyles, then it is evident , - 3 - / without much elaboration, that higher education in the humanities has much to recommend it., that people whose lives are fuller and richer and who add to the variety and culture of the communities in which they live will be produced by humanities education at its best, coat the older argument can be pushed through. There are, however, further responses, reinforcing the older response, which it is now necessary to indicate. response sometimes says, an educated For all tae older person can simply be pumped full of a stuff called culture, a supply of (allegedly) factual information, views, and also prejudices, on this or that area. What higher education in the humanities, at its best, teaches is much more, and more important than this; namely the acquisition of a range of crff*Ktal and analytical skills of practical value. These include such analytical skills as being able to dissect an issue or problem, to break it down to^components and determine the basic assumptions; to work out the presuppositions made, and to draw out the implications of the matter; to view the problem from various They include such critical skills as the ability to assess angles. critically a problem or w^rk analysed, for instance to criticise the assumptions made and to locate and evaluate alternatives to them, the ability to weigh evidence, to see faults in arguments and fallacies when they occur, and so on. They also include such skills as the ability to obtain further information and to apply the methods, to research independently of a teacher in new areas and on new problems. In short, the humanities, properly done, teach an analytical and critical method, and above all the ability "to reason well in all matters". As an integral part of this they (should) t.^ctch the aware­ ness of alternatives, an appreciation of alternative situations, cultures, worlds. A first step in the critical evaluation of an institution, for example, is often the awareness of alternatives, that things do not have to be exactly that way, the way the institution is, but that there are alternative situations where the institution is variously modified or even eliminated. It is not difficult to see how depth education in history or the languages leads to an appreciation of alternatives, by placing the student in contexts where things are done and seen differently. Philosophy and parts 4 of modern linguistics (specifically semantics) take this whole enter­ prise much further and now, in the explicit investigation of (possible) worlds, render it systematic: but a significant part of the history of philosophy has consisted (it can now be seen) in the envisaging and following through of certain such alternatives. And such a devising of alternative situations is tied intimately to reasoning. For example, whether an argument is valid or not is a matter of there are not or are alternative situations where its premises hold but its conclusion does not. Finally, the critical method, in particular the ability to discern alternatives, helps people to become aware of their own intellectual assumptions, and where necessary to change them. Thus too it leads to an intellectual flexibility and adaptability, which is increasingly important for modern, practical problem-solving and for the adjustments in lifestyle many of us may confront. Systematic philosophy teaches critical reasoning explicitly: a central part of philosophy is the assessment of arguments and the detection of fallacies. Other humanities' disciplines teach the analytic and critical method also, though less directly, and more by example. English does it through, for instance, the medium of literary criticism, languages in analogous ways, by the analysis and critical evaluation of "foreign" literature and the critical examination of the practices, customs, and thought of a culture with a different language and literature. A good language education can not only introduce people to alternatives, but can in the process reveal to them their own cultural assumptions, and so open the way to alternative possibilities they have not previously considered. So it is also with history, which often involves similar interpretative skills, e.g. in the investigation of some period in the history of a society as far removed from modern societies as that of ancient Athens. What is the virtue, or relevance, of critical and analytical reasoning, of being able to think in a concentrated, systematic imaginative way, of being able to approach problems from several angles? What, in particular, is the relevance to that obtrusive part of the practical world, business, commerce, etc. Not only will there be many many problems for firms and services to handle and 5 try to resolve, problems often best dealt with using just such skills, but the problems arising will increasingly be of a different character, of a type for which purely technological educations are inappropriate or inadequate, and where new alternatives will have to be devised, seriously considered and sometimes adopted. These newer problems include two important (overlapping) types, environmental problems and resource problems. The resource problems are due to increasing scarcity and escalating prices of materials, especially oil (but also, e.g., lumber)—as a result of which industry and government (as well as the private individual) will have to be reconciled to and niaoke very considerably, adaptations and adjustments of kinds still to be determined, to adopt alternative practices and solutions to problems on a wide range of fronts. The environmental problems arise because present practices are frequently damaging, * - ' 1 destructive, to the environment or the people who live in it (e.g. through pollution and effects such as cancer), and because these practices, such as rapacious forestry and ser^oct^s pollution, are not going to be tolerated indefinitely, but will require much modification at the very least. In each case, resource and environmental, much, innovation will be essential, much new and alternative thinking required, far better if it is analytical and critical, and so does not lead, for example, to a compounding of old and bad technological fixes. In sum, the problems to be faced, many of them of considerable complexity, are of a different character: successful resolution of them, where it can be accomplished, and superior decision-making will more and more demand, among other things, substantial and imaginatively-deployed analytical and critical skills. The requisite skills are inculcated in a good education in the humanities. Of course, some of these skills are acquired in the theoretical sciences—though usually in a m^rked^-lesser way, piuch as compositional skills (which typically increase with further training in the humanities) are acquired in a-de-eide<Hy lesser way in the sciences. What further distinguishes most of the humanities is the way they relate to, and take account of, humans people and not merely as statistics. of people as Those educated in the humanities tend to have a sensitivity to people, and understanding of them, that technologists often lack. So it is that they can introduce importune 6 -- elements into problem-solving, due respect for persons (and not mere fobbing off by public relations exercises), that technological resolutions of problems frequently, but inadmissibly, neglect. A corollary of all this is that there is a sound case for deploying people well educated in the humanities more widely in organizations engaged in research and problem solving. It would be rash to pretend that either industry, governments, and so on (the potential employers) on the one side, or the universities (the potential suppliers of humanities graduates) on the other, are entirely ready for this already initiated scenario. It is not that universities do not always teach humanities at their best (that could hardly be expected), but that the skills and methods called for, analytical and critical, are often (e.g. in language ers) not sought and are sometimes (deliberately) devalued. Sometimes indeed the critical method is forgotten and university education—not just in the humanities—degenerates into something approaching a brainwashing process, reinforcing prevailing practices, attitudes and ideologies instead of indicating < ; in prevailing practices and.the range of alternatives open in one way A or another. Nor do universities fticke much effort, so far, to prepare students for the possibility that the. critical skills they acquire may be put into practice outside class assignments, not just in their day-to-day living, but in the workplace and in their attempts to enter it (e.g. by being duly prepared for interviews). There is also apparently some resistance by humanities' students to entering employment in industry, owing to a blanket condemnation of industry (not altogether unexpected given the performances and attitudes of some industries), instead of a mere discriminating attitude which makes due criticism where it is warranted. of similar magnitude appear on the other side as well. Faults For example, even where senior management does re&o<? nize the modern relevance of the skills humanities' students acquire, personnel selection staff (who often have a technological background) are usually § unequipped to select for such skills and reluctant to do so. §Both Professor Raymond Bradley of Simon Fraser University and the Editor of this Newsletter made many useful suggestions which have been incorporated in the text. The main quotations are from Cardinal Newman' s Tire Idea of a University.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 72, Item 3: Two drafts of An alternate angle on the humanities Subject The topic of the resource Two typescript drafts, handwritten emendations. Description An account of the resource Unnumbered paper from collection, item number assigned by library staff. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 72, Item 3 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [15] leaves. 32.46 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8054ad6">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8054ad6</a> Box 72: Unlisted and Untitled Boxes https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/55fb7770f181791e005281a8636a1abd.pdf 1ed72ad17f186317bccf30e6630b50d8 PDF Text Text RBSTRRCT The proposed syntheses Ls set Mithin generat object-theorg. tde3 The undertging the sgnthesis ts that the 3tternative Mortds sewantics - arrived 3t tn of pursuit of a tnctudtng senanttes universat ones) retevant and, semantics generat (a as connectedLg, part for of att a Languages, comprehensive object-theorg - be apptted atso tn fundamentat phgstcs, Most importanttg to the natter of the ortgtn, htstorg, 3nd phgstcat features of the cosmos, but as Mett, agatn connectedtg, theorg. etseMhere, Ln particutar Ln the LnterpretatLon of quantum a The unLversat semantics Ls a mang Mortds - theorg. The poLnt of such apptgLng an mang nonexistent Mortds - LnterpretatLon Ln cosmotogg atso Ls exptained bg Mag of examp Les, concernLng the understandLng of the contLngencg of exLstence and of present arrangements. improbabititg the R resotutton of the basLc question, sketched, a as Marm-up exerctse 'Nhg does angthLng at for exLst?' att questions as to Mhg various other the prominent features of the universe are as theg are, notabtg Mhg the constants of phgstcs appear to have. have the fundamentat parttcutar surprtstngtg senstttve vatues theg Chauvinistic ansMers through anthroptc prLnctptes are crLttcattg Ln favour of resotutLon bg Mag of Mortd sgntactLcattg, status quo arguments, MhLch use setection^ and gross rejected, correspondLng features geophgsLcat thLs and neLghbourLng unLverses to exp La Ln the surprLsLng vatues of The character of the Mortd—sgnthests resotutton - reaLLg a resotutton Ls ts of constants. frameMork fLLLed out Ln the course of countering a Mide SMeep of objections, and of exp La LnLng Mhg the resotutton frameMork invotving seLeet ion satisfactorg of the main tgpes LLLustrated in the four-fotd: is the most �IMPROVED CO3MO-LOCICRL 3YMTHE3I3 TOWRRD RH There Logicai is a foundations tradition persistent - impiging simpLe and get undiscovered - for the whoLe of cosmoLogg. The as tradition, which peaked in modern rationaiism, continues strong in cosmoLogicai specuLation. unassaiiabLe Thus, contemporarg for exampLe, recent rationaiistic theories of the universe, ambitiousLg aimed at mathematico-iogicai expression and capture of nature. Thus, of MheeLer: for exampLe, the bottom Line to the mang theoreticaL enterprises LittLe astonishment shouLd there be, therefore, if the description of nature carries one in the end to Logic, the ethereat egrie at the center of mathematics. If, as one beiieves, aLL mathematics reduces to the mathematics of Logic, and aLL phgsics reduces to mathematics, what aLtemative is there but for aLL phgsics to reduce to the mathematics of Log ic ? Logic is the ontg branch of mathematics that can think about itse Lf'. Logic reassumes its ancient roLe 3S the fundamentaL science; the Mord expresses a LogicaL recipe. Even white abandoning some of the it Lus ions of grand reduct ion istic schemes, and undermining the EnLightenment power guest for the LogicaL the theoreticaL capture and can The sgnthesis outiined in setting. contribute what foLLows LiberaLised bg are semantics and to the organisation of a unified fits into this more modest It is achieved bg suitabig reLocating cosmoLogg as a part of semantics (generousig construed, for exampie, to admit contextuaL eLements). then, to controt of the universe, there is much of a more modest character that recent LogicaL theorg, as nonstandard sgstematisation, worid picture. kegs universaL So unified, semantics, re Levant semantics and cosmoLogg, as suggested in a preLiminarg wag in diagram 1. �RCTURL X L ORLD(S) GEOPHYSICRL SYSTEMS SUBSPRCE PHYSICRL SYSTEMS SUBSPRCE RELEVRHT SYSTEMS SUBSPRCE MORLD SPRCE Comment. The subspaces are Marked out by ctosure and other requirements, that of by cLosure of each worLd under deducibiLity (reLevant deriva— systems reLevant biLity), that of physicaL systems by cLosure aLso under physicaL Laws formuLated terMS Ln (suitabLy of condLtLonaLs) and perhaps factuaL constraints as weLL. actuaL (or better t3ctuai) worLd Ls a seLect coMMon worLd the to nested spaces. The underLytng Lde3 of the synthesis is siMpiy this: a subspace of is aLso a suitabLe framework for cosmoLogy, for an interpret— semantics worids neutrai *3 L Lon of the Log iceL theory of the universe as a whoLe. In Less condensed form, the ide3 is that the aLternative worids semantics arrived at in the pursuit of a semantics universaL part connectedLy, as semantics comprehensive (a theory the of aLL of for aLL be objects, Languages) and, aLso appLied physics - most importantiy to the matter of the origin, history and fundamentaL physicaL features of this cosmos, but 3S weLL eLsewhere, in interpretation theory. quantum of particuLar Ln That stripping. ontoLogicai of Load MorLd-ensembLe terms of nonexistent Mortds. Hot surprisingiy, in the recasting the in theory j^s for is, the theory can be recast in existentiaLLy neutraL terms, wcthout the originaL object ionabLe theory, the Rnd in the case of quantum theory there is aLready, most convenientiy, a many-universe or worLd-ensembLe theory, ready neutrai in (e.g. changed unobservabLe the spiitting worLd of the Everett other worids interpretation gives way to future— directed worLd branching). The setting in terms of do which objects not exist, especiaLLy, is essentiaL. For one reason, the idea grew out of investigation (with Griffin for the provisionaL but so far nonexistent book UQ) of what is normaLLy taken to be a phiLosophicaL question, indeed by some such as as the fundamentaL question of metaphysics, nameLy exist? . Reset in worLd terms this becomes a question worLd such Mhy does anything at aLL of seiection the - a contains be to taken exist. For then the oLd circLe is simpiy reentered, expiaining existence in terms of more existents. Here the circLe is metaphysics: 3 much more tractabLe question. But the recasting Loses expLanatory merit shouLd aLL the worids invoived objectionabie of that we find ourseLves in which contains something existent (us as among other existent things) as opposed to an aLternative worLd, which nothing Heidegger cf. JB broken, as it is eLsewhere (particuLarLy in chapter 2), by expiaining what exists by way of what does not. It is the faiLure to duty aLLow for and -2- acknowLedge this pattern of �expLsnatLons, though Lt represents coMMon practLce Ln the theoretLcaL sciences, that has wade Lssues LLke the Lntractab Le. In fact quest Lons Lihg Hetdeggerean the concernLng does angthLng quest Lon onLg Ls exLst? question LLke Lt so ftrst of a LattLce of the the character and nature of the cosMos Ln whLch Me happen to be, that are LLabLe to be asked , questLons ascendLng to (Just) seen Ls? ; questLons Uhg Ls thLs cosMos Mhtch MorLd ModeLLLngs wag fruLtfuLLg be to appLLed, as an Lwportant fLrst step Ln eLLcLtLng sone ansMers. (Bounded) LattLce of questLons. DIRGRRM 2. 7 Uhg does Mhg does angthLng evergthLng at aLL exLst? exLst as Lt Uhg do 7 Hhg do eLectrons Lihg does Lnte L L Lgent ex Lst? (Ln LLf e LLfe forns the nunbers exLst? (Ln the ex Lst? theg do?) forM Lt does?) In the reorLentatLon of MorLds senantLcs fron Languages to cosnoLog Les, f row Language to the MorLd, there are certaLn features that shouLd be kept fLrriLg Ln vLeM - apart fron such notorLous features as that anong the MorLds of the node L L Lngs are a range of bLzarre, absurd, LncoMpLete and MaverLck MorLds, and that each (nonexLstent) MorLd has a LncLudes donaLn of objects though Lt a subdoMatn (perhaps nuLL) of ent Lt Les, tgpLcaLLg contaLns nonexLstent objects, both posstbLe and not, phgsLcaLLg reaLLsabLe and the MhLch, feature of not. In partLcuLar, MorLd seLectLon shouLd not be Lost sLght of. For Lnstance, Ln assessing truth, a factuaL MorLd T Ls seLected - Ln one Mag or' another, but tgpLcaLLg bg a choLce functLon on a cLrcunscrLbed evaLuatLons are Morked out (recursLveLg) at I. cLass NaturaLLg and ho LdLng the assessnent of truth MLLL generaLLg Lead begond MorLd T LtseLf. For (reLevant) <deducLbLLLtg a subsgstew of dertvatLonaLLg cLosed MorLds Ls defLned; for poss Lb L L Ltg a subsgsteM coMprLsLng consLstent MorLds Ls Marked out; for naturaL LaMLLkeness a subsgsteM of phgsLcaL MorLds Ls dLstLnguLshed^; and so on for other cases of subsgstew and group seLectLon. $I- The Mang MorLds approach to the "Uhg does angthLng at aLL exLst?" quest Lon. -3- �There ere Many canvassed answers to thts questton, and stLLL More Mays of trytng to dtsMtss Lt. RLL dtsposat the atteMpts are defective, 3nd Most of the canvassed answers are unsattsfytng (so Grtfftn and I devote a good deat of space tn UQ to showtng). One approach that ts not inadequate — but perMtts however devetopMent tn severat dtfferent dtrecttons - ts the Many wortds approach. It ts true (and argued eLsewhere, e.g. JB) that R) SoMe thtngs extst. Thts truth enjoys a Modat status, that of conttngency tn fact. weaker ctatM sufftees, naMety But, to begtn, a C) It ts conttngentty true that sone thtngs extst. For the extstence that Most thtngs enjoy or regret ts conttngent. The obvious truth of the More controverstat ctatM that nothtng necessartty Left open for the present. extsts, can be NeutraL wortds ModeLLtng of theMe C) yteLds dtreetty a Many wortds picture, wtth soMe wortds, tnctudtng the actuat wortd T, contatntng extstents, and wtth soMe posstbte wortds contatntng no extstents (but perhaps soMe nonextstents). Likened to a dtsp Lay of baLLoons: DIRGRRH 3. Static pteture of a 0 : 0 : 0 Object doMatns contatn 0 ____ _________ extstents 0 0 : 0 0 worLds ModeLLtng for theMe 0). 0 : 0 0 It can be 0 00 DoMatns contatn no 0 extstents posstbte worLds Such a neutraL nodeLLLng begs no sertous onto Log teat questions, invotves no ontoLogtcaL prodtgaLLty. For tt ts not assuMed that any of these Ln worLds extst, any way. (It ts not dtfftcuLt to represent what does not extst.) Nor need Lt prejudtee Matters unduty agatnst necesstty theMes such even were Lt Lf Lnterpretatton MistakenLy Lnststed, as as agatnst God-hypotheses. the For stratghtforward of C), whtch aLLows Lt ts necessartty true (under soMe necesstty deterMtnabLe) that soMe thtngs extst, a retated Many worLds pteture woutd resuLt; the dashed LLne woutd stMpty Move down the diagraM). But Let us st Lek wtth what ts rtght, C. It ts More reveattng to take theMe C) as tensed - after aLL extstence ts existence now (JB chapter 2) - and to tntroduce, what further Lnvesttgatton wLLL require, dynaMtcat ModeLLLngs. Then, wtth soMe evtdent eMbrotdery, the foLLowtng sort of pteture eMerges: -4- �Dgnantc ptcture untverses. DIRGRRfl t*. MorLds of nodeLLLng of thene C), ML th sanpLe t 3 EXI5TEHTS (FULL CONSERVRTION) RLse and faLL of HD ] A Lt SOMET IME EXISTENTS^ R NULL LJORLD f* ExternaL ttne scats (tsLgnLfLes the Locat present) Consents. r-bjch Ls presupposed Ln the wag the pLcture Ls draMn (e.g. that sone Measure of exLstents C3n be obtained, bg Mag of partLcLe nunbers)^ but these presupposLtLons can be nodLfLed or renoved. The such as sane sort nodeLLLng serves aLso to vaLLdate thenes LLnked to C), of D) There mag have been a tLne Mhen nothLng exLsted. ConsLder seLectLon, noM (or done Ln terns of of the cructat wetter of T-seLectLon, L.e. factuat Mortd 6-seLectLon, L.e. referentLaL sub-Mortd seLectLon). ThLs Ls certaLn features these Mortds have, such as contaLnLng entttLes, LncLudLng observers, exhLbLtLng LLfe, nanLfestLng LnteLLLgence or wLnd - to antLcLpate features conLng up and sonetLnes proposed for MorLd seLectLon. Such seLectLon pLcks out thts MorLd fron the ensenbLe of MorLds (our Mortd aLso, as Lt happens). Rnd the Mortd thus seLected LncLudes exLstents. Mhg does angthLng at aLL exLst? Because thts MorLd, T, LncLudes, happens to LncLude, extstent objects. To thts extent Lt Ls -5- a natter of fortune - qood �it night be hazarded, since the worLd exhibits enough that is good 3nd fortune, enough potentiaL for good. Rs a contingent Matter, this worLd contains (in its object donain) '.tens that exist. So T-setection deLivers a worLd n3king it true objectiveLg that sone things exist.^ The answer Mag seeM trite; that but is in Measure Large because the and answer are taken in isoLation, apart froM issues as to the detaiLs question of the process, the how questions, such as H) How does it happen that soMething exists? The issue can be considered in uLtinateLg exists is question terns this of of nass-energg, since evergthing that kind (so it is argued in JB chapter 9). To the H ) How does it happen that sone Mass-energg exists? tMo sorts of answer are possibte. FirstLg, there is the conservative answer: sone atwags existed. There is an end Less ongoing sea of Mass-energg, which sinpLg fLuctuates, Moves, recgcLes, etc. There are pLentg of probLens with this answer; for instance, phgsicaL prob Lens, such as how did the Big Bang of standard cosMOLogg occur, what was happening before it? But there are aLternative MatheMaticai stories now being toLd, for instance, of a Massive singuLaritg Located in space (rather than at phgsic3t tine t = 0 as with the Big Bang), which trg to offer a phgsicaL account of a continuous universe (see e.g. G. ELLis). Rnd the singuLaritg stories offered can be enriched (aiong Lines rather Like what wiLL be ventured in the case of the second answer). RLnost aLL traditionaL phiiosophicai and theoLogicat accounts, aLL v^rtuaLLg honage paging to ontoLogicaL assunptions, shouLd be inciuded aMong the conservative, existence-aiwags answers. But the nonnateriaLLst accounts anong these characteristicaLLg invoLve LeveL shifts^^Thei is back to the existence of God or the (uLtinate) One, who, on a higher LeveL, serves as eternaL sustainer, and perhaps fashioner, of the MateriaL universe. The conceptual and other probtens of such answers are sufficientLg notorious. SecondLg, there is stage nothcng existed. The energg. the Rt More appeaiing and siMpLe radicaL answer: at sone that difficuLtg before tiMe, the that anccent Long-received probLeM orthodox of how prejudice, sonething that nchLi fct, is invariabLg reinforced bg again Bang, there was no for this picture is how Mass-energg ever appeared froM the MacroscopicaLLg tranquiL sea of nothingness. past Big can It is no great feat to get coMe froM nothing. The froM nothing nothing cones, ex nihiLo Mistaken ontoLogicaL assunptions (see JB chapter 2). Yet even when these ontoLogicaL assunptions are set aside, there is the awkward natter of C3usai nechanisn. But an unLikeig storg can be toLd, a ngth retated, expLaining how sonething -6- �a may (suddenly) emerge from nothing, jet of mass-energy the from sea of nothingness. The story borrows from the quantum theory of the vacuum (or rather, ot suitabie vacuums). There is suddeniy an avaianche of energy borrowing , 3nd mass creation of particies in a concentrated area.& This is the beginning of the Big Bang (at internaL time zero). It is unigue (in experience) because such a singuiarity is very improbabte. (Even a SmaLL Bang wouid be rather improbabie.) The net energy "borrowed" is borrowed on a very Long term (at high interest?), with a gradu3i repLayment pLan. This ties concerning the run-down eventuaL eventuaLLy (though perhaps over this of very a with principLes universe. protracted of thermodynamics, On this story, it wiLL time) subside back into From nothing everything existent originaLLy came; into nothingness everything existent wiLL uitimateLy process. nothingness. It is one thing to such devise 3 story, or rather the (or outLine scaffoLding) of a story; it is another to condense it into science. before But scorn is poured on such a story, Let it be noted that the story is Less bizarre, more and informative, than other extant phiiosophicaL stories. For exampLe, it appears more piausibie than the ideaList story of the construction of the physicaL worid from idea, or than the set-theoreticaL myth of the construction of the entire universe from the nuLL set - undoubtedLy a it as earLy encompasses existent individuaLs, construction, insofar of something existent from nothing, not since, despite orthodox cLaims to the contrary, the nuLL set certainty does exist (JB 9.9). There are reasons for much preferring the second styLe of story to the first - though it may appear to some to viotate conservation principLes such that mass-energy: of as in fact it need not. One is that the end Less mass-energy story faits to account for the presence of mass-energy. By contrast, nothingness does not reguire expLanation: it is, so to speak, the rest position. In terms of the range of possibiiities here, existence is what is unusuaL, what is atypicaL, what especiaLLy caLLs for expLanation, not nonexistence.? Hence the expLanatory superiority of the radicaL answer. Rs one might expect in varying such an obvious and ancient story, and as is easity discovered, scientific condensation and assessment has begun, especiaLLy in the Last decade. The idea that the totaL energy of the universe is zero was considered a human generation ago by Mhitrow&, refLecting on Flach s phiLosophy of motion. More recentLy, Tryon has argued the zero totaL energy theme, assuming a cLcsed universe and appeaLing the standard treatment of gravitationai to If the universe contains just enough potentiaL energy as negative energy. mass to cLose it, then the negative energy must more or Less exactLy canceL the energy (mc^) invoLved in the existence of that mass. Hence, the argument runs, even a a cosmos as impressiveLy Large and ancient as this universe couLd exist as deveLopment quantum vacuum through in borrowing fLuctuation on a a zero-energy vacuum, that is, through grand scaLe in a reiativistic setting. Such vacuum fLuctuations can occur by dispensation of the AE.At --h; when the mass-energy AE of a physicaL object -7- uncertainty principLe approaches zero, its �LLfe,tLMe At can becoMe verg targe. OnLg the Merest begLnnLng on reMOvtng certaLn object Lons and to wore scLenttfLc storg MtLL be atteMpted. FLrstLg, there are, LnevLtabLg a such obstacLes Lt seews, onto Log LeaL and verLfteat Lontst object Lons. Hang of these turn hoMever on assuMtng that a vacuuM and ewptg space Must soMehoM exLst, at Least bg Mag of sort of exLstLng contaLner or structure. Such assuMpttons are wtstaken: no (pre-) exLstence need be assuwed. Such objects 3s vacuuws and unoccupLed space sone nonexLstent are and dLstLnctLve Mtth objects assessLbLe MatheMatLcaLLg propertLes. Though theg nag not be access LbLe to observatton, and Ln thLs narroM respect are outsLde the range of experLence, then concernLng tnvesttgattons exactLng for there to LnfornatLon Ls suffLcLent be Made of theLr features. SLnLLar potnts teLL agaLnst the objection that Lt Ls Mrong to Lwpose an externat spatLaL or tewporaL Measure on (Mass-energg) cLosed space-tLMe; for exawpLe, Mhat happened before the BLg Bang, or to ewbed the curved space-ttMe of LnquLre the unLverse Ln a Larger spatLaL or tenporaL settLng. Rs a Matter of fact, cosMOLogLsts wang exh Lb Lt no unease Ln ashLng Mhat happened before the BLg Bang even Mhen assuwLng no Matter before that, though verLftcattonLsM MouLd no doubt such to ruLe guesttons out as weanLngLess or otherMtse out of order. More to the potnt, bounded Metrtcs can atMags be extended (HubbLe ttMe Ls just wtstahe though fruLtfuLLg, soMettnes bounds vertfLcatLontst one are exaMpte), exceeded. and Rnother has been to assuwe that NothLng, stnee nonexLstent, Ls entLreLg Mtthout structure or organLsatton and ungoverned. Indeed tMo dtaMetrtcaLLg opposed poLar v,eMS of Lt have prevented, and even been run together: of NothLng chaottc, as and so excessLveLg rtch, and of Nothing as entLreLg bLank, and so excessLveLg tMpovertshed. Both are Lnadequate. R More tnteresttng ontoLogtcaL objeetton (ratsed bg Rrwstrong) Ls that such an account of the ortgtn of the unLverse takes granted for exLstence the naturaL LaMS, and so does not expLaLn hoM sowethLng ex Latent cane frow objecttons Such confuse truth neo-PLaton Law. LaMS hoLd, but do not vteMs, Mhere LaMS Mtth exLstence, exLst - bg after contrast Mtth nothLng. fashLon the of of neo-PLatonLc reLatLons of unLversaLs, MhLch exLst. On object-theorg are (such as that of JB), hoMever, unLversaLs do not exLst, and so LaMS are not thus extstentLaLLg Loaded. Once truth Ls duLg separated frow exLstence, there Ls of course the further questton of Mhg the LaMS that hoLd or evoLve do hoLd. But thts Ls a separate, and vextng, questton of uLttMate expLanatton.^ SecondLg, are there More technLcaL adwLttedLg shakg phgstcaL account; for quantuM nuwbers of objeettons, instance, that dtrected But Lt the Mtth the the vacuuw MtLL constst equaLLg of Matter and antt-Matter, and qutckLg vantsh agatn, Mhereas features of the unLverse perstst tMbaLance. agaLnst fLuctuattons and suggest noM seeMs that a verg sLLght (and, so Lt Ls satd, deLLcate) tMbaLance earLg Ln the evoLutton of the unLverse after the BLg Bang Ls just Mhat Ls required for present perMLtted features of the unLverse; and such an LMbaLance, on recent (GUT) theorLes, catastrophtc fLuctuatton hardLg excLudes. R thLrd connected obstacLe used to be sertous: Lt -8- has been presupposed that a �state can be assigned to the whoLe universe.^ But that is now aLright; quantuM according for neutraL to of) (adaptation the Everett Many-universe interpretation of quantuM theory, a state function i covers the behaviour of the P worLds phgsicaL I (with P c K), which presuMabig evoLve according to a e reLativised Schrodinger equation of the fom SE(T). To soMe expLain of the recent appeaL of this sort of wortd-ensewbLe interpretation, it is worth turning to the interesting and curious business of the phgsicaL constants. The §2. of constants of phgsics and sone of their neat interreLations. natter The interesting cLaiM is that the setting or adjustMent of certain constants surprisingLg deLicate, and if the constants (and soMe of their constant that ratios) were different bg ontg sMaLL Margins, then the actuaL universe woutd very is be with the resuLt, aMong Mang other things, that we shoutdn't be different, here to observe ang of its LocaL passing show. Now the possibiLity of exp Lanation of the specific vaLues of these the in terMS of phgsicaL theory itseLf is not so far exciuded. Perhaps no constants constants in physics are uLtiMateLy fundaMentai, Various ways eiiMinating of constants though seeMS that unLikeLy. are now faMitiar, e.g. soMe represent new scaie factors and are eiiMinated by re-scaLing or choice of coordinates. Others are reMoved by More radicaL ways of reLooking at things, as in Einstein s treatMent of gravitation. But sone resist eiiMination - so far. in For, phgsicaL any theory, what case, fundaMentai is depends and soMe previousLg fundaMentat constants (such as Rvogadro s nuMber) have turned out to be derivative as theory constants on the given shape of advanced new and (deeper) were introduced. There is the reMote possibiLity, obviousLy cherished that bg soMe scientists, that in the end aLL phgsicaL constants can be reMoved, a constant-free (very grand unified) theorg in which aLL constants can be reMoved wiLL resuLt. This is not obviousLg iMpossibLe in the wag that a coMpLete eiiMination of LogicaL constants froM Log teat theorg is, that a finat triuMphant reMovat of the Scheffer stroke froM cLassicaL propositionaL Logic is iMpossibLe. However, it is too Much to expect that a "deep MatheM3tic3i anaLgsis" aLways do the job. For one thing, exp Lanations of this sort do give is an arguMent for this out. can There froM the backward proceeding character of deductive expLanations to More generaL preMisses (appLging the content-incLusion character of deduction proper). There are no MatheMaticaL anaigses without assuMptions, without a systeM of postutates. The hope (expressed by MatheMaticat Carter and others), that generaLLy deeper underlying theories can be found, wiLL not 3iwags be fuLfiLLed, of necessity. Since transforMations, such as seating, aLter or reMove constants, can transfer the Big Bang back to Minus-infinity, and so on, there is no soLid to expLain, underLying the ELLis, for one, aLLegedLy probLeMatic nuMericaL features (so data B. contends). UhiLe it is true that which constants feature, and what their vaLues are, wiLL depend on initiaL choice of units, whatever that �at Least some of the constants wiLL emerge. Thus there wiLL be features choice, and vatues which require expianation, and exptanation of the however transforming the done. is For S3me broad tgpe, the present, 3nd immediate future at Least, there is no getting rid of the constants, and white theg to continue figure their numericaL vatues and ratios set some trickg prob Lems. There is the probtem, first of aLL, of describing the reLevant phgsicat data neutraL non—prejudiciaL fashion. The facts of the matter are more or Less a Ln as foLLows:- Present phgsicat theories incLude mang (phgsicaL) constants, which occur in the formutation of Laws and principtes. R number of these constants are fundamentsL, in that theg are not derived from other constants (or deduced from deeper phgsicat theorg). Two things have been noticed concerning fundamentat constants of present phgsicat theorg, both of which caLL for expLanation:If 1) the of certain constants Lag outside a rather narrow band (sur­ vatues rounding their perhaps universe wouLd be ascertained vatue), gross features of the geophgsicaL different. this - hopefuttg without CaLL prejudice, since its contra­ position represents the substantiat core of the anthropic poss ib Le principte - the sens i t iv i tg numer teat f eature. va Lues For record, the the geophgsicaL principte resuLting from contraposition takes the foLLowing form: certain gross features of the geophgsicaL universe are onLg possibie in present form if the numericaL vatues of certain constants Lie within a narrow sensitivitg band. Examptes of such gross features are isLand gataxies, Long-Lived stars, ptanets, recognised ittustrate, water, hgdrogen, heavg carbon, metats. RLL the forces, for instance, exhibit the sensitivitg features. To phgsicat the strong nuctear force were marginattg stronger, nuctei coutd if grow much begond the present Limits and att hgdrogen woutd Long have ago been converted to heLium, with the resutt that there wouLd be no Long-Lived stars (of present tgpe) and no water. On the other side, a decrease in the strong force wouLd prevent the formation of nucLei of heavg metaLs. R dozen further and more of simitar phgsics Literature. sensitivitg mag be assembLed from the re Levant easiLg 2) The Pgthagorean feature. Large numbers arrived at in ions famous turn of Eddington s out these to coincide Large reLation, exampLes astronomicaL computat­ (to within order of magnitudes). Perhaps the most number stating coincidences', the universe is the inverse square of the number as theg are mostLg caLLed, of gravitationaL other exampLes are assembLed in Bondi.) -10- particLes coupLing in the constant. is visibLe (Mang �These two nunericaL features sensitivitg features co inc idences. are are (or can be) These nunericaL features are cited LaMs) conservation of inportanttg that in Large exptain to used nunber as evidence Justifging the introduction of various exotic theories (e.g. invoLving phgsicaL Most interconnected, departures exaMpies earLg Mhich froM accepted norMaLLg Mere the "verging G theories of Dirac and Jordan . So Mrites Carter, Mho appeais to soMe differentig exotic principies, anthropic principtes, Mithin features in order froM far opposite the phgsics Bang) thesis: (GeneraL cosMoLogg and Mhich couLd in principLe have been used to unsurprisingLg, the order of the dag in Mag and be great fun. It cosnoLogg. course Of that the is distiLLation specuLation is is Mith the conversion of this stuff to in received MisdoM, or even knoMLedge, that caveats shouLd be Mhen cLaiM froM evidentLg estabLished. But Large cLains on fLinsg foundations are, far fine, i.e. ReLativistic predict theM 3LL in advance of their observation' (p.291) - 3 Large is nuMericat evidence in favour of exotic theories these coincidences being shouLd rather be considered as confirMing "conventionat" Big the noM received cosMoiogicai setting. Mith the heLp of these the anthropic principies he canvasses, as he puts it, that expLain to prejudiciaL, in e.g. that entered, especiaLLg it points to favoured cone Lus ions such as priviLege or design (for huMans) in the universe. Much capitaL has aireadg been Made of the nuMericat features, of Mhat is referred to - gou C3n see the Loading straightaMag - as a cataLogue of extra­ ordinarg phgsicaL coincidence and apparentig accidentsL co-operation' (0 p.110). Here is a tgpicaL beat-up, bg Davies: The structure of the phgsicaL MorLd is deiicsteig dependent on a varietg of apparent nunericaL accidents. hang of the rather basic features of the universe are deternined in essence bg the vaLues that are assigned to the fundanentaL constants of nature, such as G, a, Mp and so on, and these features MouLd be drasticsLLg aLtered if the constants assuned even noderateig different vaLues. ... for nature to produce a cosnos even renoteLg resenbLing our own, Mang apparentLg unconnected branches of phgsics have to co-operate to a renarkabLe degree (D p.lll; sone of the prejudiciaL terninoLogg is under L ined). The part Last is particuiarig Meak: so our ignorance of interconnections is disclosed, ignorance Me Might have forestaLLed froM arguMent theorg integrated resist apparentLg fitting of unreLated phgsics: together. the topics' present if Carter serves is right. RLL the to reveaL is Lack of an theorg is bits and pieces, Mhich Nor do Large nunber coincidences point to ang hidden co-operation, but rather to over Looked connections Mhich can be argued toHards (as bg Dicke, Carter and others) using fairLg conventionaL phgsicaL equations.^ Rs for the hidden purpose terMinotogg, for nature to produce ...', MeLL, the Justificatorg case for its use is not Mereig not evident, but entireLg The sane appLies to other Lacking. terns Mhich Davies and others infiLtrate, such as -11- �* 'conspire' (Dp.Ill), 'fine-tuned', deiicateiy baianced', 3ii of which suggests agents with certain purposes. Re Lated happening not objections te rm ino Logy, be some against Lodged accident , it accidentaL; be shouLd of the improbab Le coincidence , etc. R contingent worLd need is not accidentaL that Griffin Lives in Troy, Ontario, though it is contingent certainty. Rn improbabLe worLd need not be accidentaL either. RccidentaL means, according to the Concise EngLish Dictionary (CED), Occurring by chance, unexpectedLy, not according to the usuaL order of non-essentiaL'. The misp Laced for the actuaL worLd; and adventitious, th ings; generaL thrust of the notion is decidedLy accidentaL universe is a misdescription.^ To be sure, there is some considerabLe sLackness in terms Like accidentaL', wh Lch can come cLose aLso, when appLied as in schoLastic theory, to meaning contingent. The term vac i L La t ion, as its of condition dictionary coinciding; concurrence nicety coincidence' a definition remarkabLe iLLustrates makes instance the The pLain: of we L L-known act, fact or apparentLy fortu itous Large-number The coincidences are of the first type; there is LittLe case for making them out as of the second type. argue, To however, that the actuaL worLd is not mereLy contingent, but improbabLe, Lt is hardLy necessary to go so far afieLd as advanced physics. Some more homeiy exampies have managed ho Les wiLL do, such as the matter of aLL the Lucky goLfers who in one. consider Or foLLowing the from argument contingencies, to the improbabiLity of the actuaL worLd. Take some contingency, e.g. that person 1 in some ordering of the audience <^s wearing a green top. She might have been wearing any other cotour. Say there are 100 shades to choose from in the cLothing coLour cards. Then the probabiLity that she is in green is no more than 1 in 100. eut the same sort of probabiLity hoids for every other person on the earth presentLy wearing 3 top, and these probabiLities are LargeLy independent, say in I(US) bit Lion cases, i.e. 10^ cases. That is, the probabiLity of the present array of tops is no more than 1 in loH. That aLready makes present arrangements exceedingiy unLikeLy, before we go into the coLours of other bits of appareL peopie are customariLy bedecked in, the coLours towards 16 improbabLe. Lead of the NonetheLess, of motor cars and so on. So even surface contingencies books, cone Lus ion that the worLd actuaL is astronomicaLLu the situation with the fundamentaL constants does differ. Rn important difference between these day-to-day improbabilities, such as have the spouses we do, and those the constants induce is things these this:- Even that if aLL (coLours, e.g.) had been different, the worLd wouLd not be a very different pLace. Contrast the constants: their significant variation wouLd the we make worLd a very different pLace. Is there a difference in kind, with 3 radicaL improbabiLity appearing as regards the constants, degree? OnLy in degree, picture wiLL serve for the bridging range exampies of cases, or tend for -12- mereLy a difference in to suggest. The same broad everyday and cosmoLogicaL �contingencg. §3- Back to mang worLds: improbabiLities and the universaL quantum theorg. Mhere that broad - Leads picture so sgnthesis sought the suggests, as does an increasing amount of cosmoLogicaL theorg - is to the mang-worLds of interpretation Quite evidentLg, worLds semantics are not the onLg semantics improbabiLitg. that can be offered for probabiLitg. few But other offer semantics simitar universaLLtg and informativeness, and some of the aLLeged competitors (not to be taken too serioustg as face damaging circuLaritg in this area, e.g. rivaLs) probabiListic semantics, urn semantics. The idea of the modeLLing naturaLLg It is improbabLe that gou have the spouse gou have , is true bg virtue of this: fact the is that in onLg a few worLds of the modeLLing, incLuding the actuaL one, do gou have gour current spouse; mostLg (insofar as gou occur) gou do not. In preciseLg the same improbabiLities, cosmic wag such particuLar as numericaL vaLues for phgsicaL constants, Lead to mang universe modeLLings. is argument to mang-universes from improbabiLities . The description of the the situation phgsicaL coincidence of probabiListic requires remarkabLe constants, notions, features', e.g. etc. extraordinarg semantics But probabiListic notions caLLs for aLternative worLds. (Thus Davies archerg Les Lie s and This goLf exampLe Of course Davies tends to see worLds used for exampLe). probabiLities as a conceptuaL device (D p.128); Everett invariabLg sees them That reaL. is, what we have emerging is repLag then do improbabiLities the as of universaLs issue! But universaLs do not exist, and nor do these expLanatorg worLds (cf. JB onLg of 8.8). Not Lead to a mang-nonexistent-worLds picture; converseLg the muLti-universe theorg expLains the improbabiLities. envisaged modeL contains ref Leet a huge coLLection of certain intervaL of accuracg); thus worLds the range of (naturaL) vaLues of the fundamentaL constants. RLL initiaL arrangements of matter and motion are refLected in worLds is The worLds. the chances of the present smaLL, exceedingig which expLains (at Least within universe a resuLting various improbabiLities. Does it than matter that we can t normaLLg quantifg these improbabiLities? Rng more we can quantifg the (Large) probabiLitg of nucLear war? No; there is something offensive about the repeated demand for quantification.^ Quantum theorg circumscribed affords situations, a the aLternative phgsicaL situations. actuaL worLd - is seLected, simiLar state mang worLds function is On measurement, one apparentLg at random picture. Least Rt for a superposition of severaL particuLar worLd - the (D p.12!*). This approach enab Les immediate resoLution of an important prob Lem in orthodox quantum theorg. R standing probLem with a compLete universe state function is that sgstem we must have some measuring apparatus that is sgstem. ... Mhen the not itseLf to measure a part of the sgstem is the entire universe, the notion of a piece of externaL measuring apparatus is meaningLess (D p.I2t+). So emerges the famiLiar conundrum for quantum theorg presented aLong orthodox (von Neumann) Lines: If there is nothing Left with which to measure [or otherwise interfere with] the -13- �state the of how universe, universe the can transition from a the make superposition of many possibLe worids to one, concrete, actu3t wortd?' (D p.12^) is, There asserts, Davies interpretation many-universes one oniy - which comprehensive however a resoLution 'accept[s] simuitaneous the reaiity of aLL the possibte atternative universes' (D p.I2i+). But, given the route we have come, it is easy to ontccaLLy atternative neutrai this, to direct that see from there an is object-theory. atternative assumes many universes atso, but onty some at any stage are This actuat. It is obvious enough is that the probabilistic spread of quantum states does not require existent states, any more than the range of atternative dress states for someone probabty attired in requires green, the existence of the person in different ctothes. Measurement now shows which wortd/state an object such as etectron or person in. actuatty is an In these terms it does not cotLapse the probabiLity wave packet, or set of worLds, but marks one out. Lihat isn't known measurement is which worLd (or narrower set of worLds) is actuaL (or the before actuat etectron is in). quantum description, Uhen nothing the entire cosmos encompassed is the within Left to coLLapse the wave' (D p,12S). Rather is nothing in the way of externat measurements is avaiLabLe to determine which is the actuaL worLd; however internaL information can be made use of in the usuaL experimentaL ways. To set interpretations many-worids Everett the quantum of theory and in the contrasting neutrai worLds perspective, here (adapting OeLJitt and Graham) are some Leading features: i) R separate cLassicaL sphere externaL to any and every is not required; quantum set-up it makes sense to consider and investigate a state vector for the whoLe universe. ii) The state vector covering the totaL system never universes) (of coLLapses, and so the totatity it describes can be deterministic. iii) LJhat is described through variabLes dynamicaL the jointLy, comprehensive is not aLL equaLLy reaL; vector and the the actuaL worLd but a system comprising many worLds. (On the Everett are state interpretation on the neutraL worLds these interpretation they are not, other worLds than actuaL ones Lacking of any sort of reaLity.) iv) Through chronoLogicaL deveLopment of the dynamicaL the state vector decomposes naturaLLy ref Leeting a progressing branching of the into system orthogonaL universe worLds) into a set of mutuaLLy unobservabLe worLds. variabLes, (and (On account this is described as a continuaL spLitting into vectors system the of Everett equaLLy reaL worLds; but not in neutraL theory which disposes of this reLativism.) v) In each worLd good" measurements yieLd definite resuLts, and in many -14- �worLds, incLuding the actuaL, famiLiar statisticaL quantum Laws hoLd, indeed C3n be derived or approximated. *- -^ince the neutraL version directLg avoids mang of the to theorg, what is the case for the Everett form? In main part it consists Everett simptg of mistaken ontoLogicaL assumptions, as such objections the what that ReaLitg overactive an principte, has phgsicaL properties must exist.The further argument that aLL branches must be equaLLg reaL, is not compeLLing. Thus DeMitt contends: Because there exists neither a mechanism within the framework of the formaiism nor, bg definition, an entitg outside of the universe that can designate which branch of the grand superposition is the reaL worLd, aLL branches must be regarded as equaLLg reaL (p.178). But we can easiLg incLude actuaL worLd seLection (as group worLd seLection) within cone Lus ion does not foLLow. the weLL and framework; other as given difficuLties the Everett specific, there is, Ln the first pLace, reaList theories such Everett's. as permissive regarding such worLds. In reaList-reLativist a demarcation SecondLg, fact, the however, interpretation theorg avoids. To be faced prob Lem not neutraL theorg the of this the intended It has been objected (e.g. bg Lewis) that the neutraL worLd encounters kinds neutraL bg is too theorg is restrictive about worLds; and few or none of worLds of contemporarg reaLists (^uch as Lewis) get into the picture, since aLL such worLds incLude as existents certain universaLs. OnLg neutraLised anaLogues of such worLds appear fn case, the theorg can be as restrictive as is appropriate about ang In 7). aLso (see which worLds are phgsLeaL, or phgsicaLLg possible. Requisite subcLasses such worLds phgsicaL can marked be out conform tig to phgsicaL Laws and through framework requirements (e.g. that the ensembLe forms a HLLbert space). it is an iLLusion that reaLism as Moreover soLves the reLevant demarcation probLem. It simpLg covers it up, in an unsatisfactorg wag. highLight To us varg a in stock of coupLe pertations, some of what is different in a neutraL iLLustrations of reaListic interpretation, the ontic mang-worLds Let inter- the famiLLar two sLit interfer­ wag. Consider first ence affair. On a straightforward the neutraL approach, we appear forced to concLude that each eLectron traverses both sLits in a wave Like form' (Les Lie LI, p.I!+6), is to the dcaLectic interpretation that the eLectron goes through that both sLits. The mang- worLds approach avoids such contradiction^, aLLowing eLectron to traverse just one sLit in the actuaL worLd - onLg in another branching from this, the the worLd, eLectron traverses the other sLit, therebg inducing probabiListic interference with the actuaL-case eLectron. The wave function provides a superposition of two such possibLe cases, not two actuaL cases. In the transition other worLds are not mang-worLds theorg). from phgsicaL (or potentiaL) worLds to the actuaL one, 'destroged' (as LesLie suggests in his criticism of Nor is the interaction of worLds causaL. There are few or -15- �no causaL effects even on the Everett reaLity version; is spiitting thus not not actuaity observed (cf. virtuai worLds, reLations, etc.). Though there seen, are transworLd interreLations on object-theory these do further criticaL point is that physicaL worLds are not probabiListicaLLy The entities. as exist not independent. But that s aLright; since probabiLity is an natter, intensionaL probabiListic interference is unprobLenatic (cf. "possibiLity" interference). scattering exanpLe where an eLectron is Consider next Davies at fired a proton. The probabiLity wave in such scattering represents a set of worLds for the eLectron. 'The quantun wave provides a Measure of the probabiLity of finding the eLectron 3t the Location: where the eLectron is Most LikeLy to be found ation, and disturbance is greatest there the wave (D p.l2i*). Fleasurenent deterMines the Loc­ so aLters the probabiLities, thus on the orthodox view reducing the wave. Recording to the Everett on however, interpretation, neasurenent the universe divides into two, ... one containing a right Moving eLectron ... Each worLd is equaLLy rest inhabiting each since it is not The observer conscious upon that MeasureMent down-right is spiitting so thus, by occurs; the for there certain a is so near­ probabiLities, anending scattering, that, possibie the because of the uncertainties physicaL states of universe, corres­ ponding to the probabiLity wave, are increased. Lihere there was one for the actuaL possibLities). worLd in possibiLity regard, now there are N Many (N Mirroring the this R nany-worids interpretation of physicaL theory provides a naturaL for neutraL a new state function resuits, appearing to coLLapse 'the wave. since RLL that happens wuth worLd branching is guaranteed copy worLds. But onLy one worLd is actuaL, and represents the (reaL) of universe. Heasurenent can deterMine which this is, and one spLits, MisLeading. There is no spiitting; rather in quantuM processes worLd-branching takes pLace, rep Licat ion atso wortd . Even on the Everett interpretation this is inaccurate, it interpretation ... principLes which aMong seLect detinit or wortds, as setting what are caLLed anthropic principLes, and aLso non-chauvinistic reptaceMents for then such as geophysicaL principLes, can serve to do.^ Rnd in this setting expLanations, of a sort and of varying adequacy, The of aLL the nunericaL features can be furnished. under Lying reason is not (siMpty) that there wiLL aLways be sone universes, which are duty seLected, where the nuMbers coMe out right, but that sone and universes conditions (for of the right sort are aLso decent physicaL universes (a Much More difficuLt requirenent to satisfy). sone such coincidences) It is as these, furtherMore, that are observed (by us), contain universes carbon and water LocaLLy, and so forth. It is then no surprise that we perceive a universe to which so Many speciaL conditions pertain, for we have seLected fron the enseMbLe onLy by our very existence' (0 p.126). But it again, taLk of our seLecting is MisLeading (though taLk of seLection, or naturaL seLection, is not). It is rather that, as a contingent natter, we happen to inhabit such universes^. Rnd such taLk negLects the iMportant point that further work is required, for satisfactory expianation - that piausibte argunents, not invoLving us, but connecting gross geophysicaL features with nuMericaL features, have aLso -16- �to be suppLLed. In thts Mag, ustng the MorLd-ensembLe hgpothests ... [but] MLth[out] the Meak anthropLc prLncLpLe, Lt Ls possLbte to discover pLausLbLe arguments to pLn doMn the vaLues of aLmost aLL of the fundamentaL parameters p.129, a centraL part of hLs cLatm). Indeed DavLes hotds out the negatLng but (D prospect of beLng abte to do much more, constraLnLng the dtmensLonaLttg of space and ttme, the number of quarks and Leptons, numbers of fundamentaL forces, That reaLLg MouLd a sgnthesLs of consLderabLe poMer. It Ls a sgnthesLs, gtve moreover, MhLch can be absorbed or sLmuLated MLth Ln a upon mang-MorLds neutraLLsLng prLncLpLes MorLd bg etc. quantum seLectLon theorg prLncLpLes. and cosmo-Log LeaL repLacLng NonetheLess sgnthesLs, the anthropLc DavLes, the LLke maLnstream phgsLcLsts he artLcuLateLg represents, Ls uncomfortabLe MLth ang such that he LndLcates, ang such grand pLcture, and rLghtLg so, as the 3S sgnthesLs anthropLc expLanattons LnvoLved are far from entLreLg satLsfactorg. HostLg he seems to hope Lnstead that contLngencLes MLLL aLL be expLaLned as necessLtLes of (proposLtLons phgsLcs grand a pLcture, necessarg grand at Least Ln foLLoMLng Log LeaLLg from another theorg). But the hope Ls mLspLaced; Ln Large unLfLed measure Lt represents 17thC ratLonaLLsm over agatn. SometLmes, hoMever, he seems to feet desLgn Ln the untverse. - Ls Mhat features: to supposed emerge, and does emerge, from the numerLcaL Mhat anthropLc prLncLpLes vs. MorLd seLectLon prLncLpLes. Uhat Ls supposed to emerge depends upon hoM the matter Ls set up, hoM the pLcture emphasLaed. Ls Mhat presented, For exampLe, DavLes and LesLLe both set thtngs up so onLg tMo optLons are supposed to be open. In hLs Preface to Da^Le^ Ls The RcctdentaL UnLverse, suggests the sgstematLc aLternatLves are eLther reLLgLon or an anthropLc prLncLpLe. R sLmLLar cLaLm appears Ln LesLLe, Mho puts the aLternatLves as (ethtcaL) necessttg or anthropLc assumptLons. Thus hLs concLusLon (to L2, p.81) The cosmotogLcaL evidence can suppLg __ forcefut grounds for vLeMLng at Least one of these thtngs ss true. (1) God Ls reaL, though presumabLg as a creattve ethtcaLrequtrement rather than as a dtvtne person Mho LLteraLLg destgned our LLfe-contaLntng cosmos. [So the unLverse extsts because Lt shouLd.J (2) There extsts a Mortd EnsembLe [so the condtttons LeadLng to Ltfe are bound to occur someMhere (L2, p.55)J - and the attempt to dertve aLL the fundamentaL charactertstLcs of our cosmos from some untfted FLeLd Theorg Ls tn error. DavLes LnsLnuates that the obvtous Lnference from the cat3Logue of numerLcaL features Ls thts: a htdden prLncLpLe seems to be at Mork, organLstng the cosmos Ln a coherent Mag (p.110). Thts runs paraLLeL to argument from desLgn, hardLg an Lmprovement. One of the prLncLpLes htdden Ls hgpothests; but another Mhtch DavLes (unLtke LesLLe) generaLLg anthropLc prLncLpLe, to LncredLbLe accuracg 3nd Ls some sort of God favours Ls the a gutdtng prLncLpLe Mhtch serves to fLne-tune the cosmos for us (humans) - or Ltfe, or Ltfe-supportLng sgstems, or __ ? Or for observers,or LnteLLLgence, or not for angthtng. The chotce offered Ls reaLLg then an oLd famLLLar one, faced bg thtnkers at Least stnee the (so-caLLed) EnLtghtenment: God or Han, or after a recent ftrst correctton and Mtth a different emphasts, Humans -17- or God. In fact burted under �duaLitg, this is aLreadg as (Science) or Hunans or God. However the a nang tenpts favoured which option, Phgsics excLuded, in error . Rnd it is we as seen: have (coMprehensive) phgsics without netaphgsics, no scientific theorg no is Much scientist and phiLosopher, is increasinqLg seen as excLuded, as forbidden fruit or even as there at Least a three-wag choice: Phgsics giinpsed, without Large assunptions - which stands on its own. But further afieLd there is get is which option, another not excLuded: option here canvassed. The ciain to be eLaborated is this: no (deep-ecoLogicaL) principies of a tgpe not aLreadg required for Low LeveL senanticaL purposes worLd seLection principies) are caLLed for in expiaining the nunericaL (naMeig, features at Least as satisfactoriig as nor huMans Neither principies, gods such be upon popuiarig aLreadg foreshadowed, doing. in More in reMoving huMans features god-Like (and, universe. the principLe cones in a varietg of anthropic verg precise (incLuding Barrow's biocentric reforMutations). SoMe exaMptes give the inpression:- The existence as observers seLection bioLogicaL (D to the own used be can existence a as constants' (ibid). This presents severaL for renoving underiging ngsterg is verg different fron nunericat of expLanation, our p.viii); effect, ... to expLain the otherwise Mgsterious nuMericat disentangie; expLat,ning wiLL idea is to reiate basic worLd features to our own vaLues of the fundanentaL phgsicaL issues as such coLourfuL for nainstreaM phgsicists, atMost none of then prettg MostLg the upon hunans, associated inteLLigence) fron a new speciaL pLace Rs succeed options other the are essenti3t. Since gods do not figure in anthropic wiLL focus the incidentaLLg, forMS, object-theoru far-out the features. sorts, various or Rnd nag these turn in have further theg Mag be siMpig contingent, refLecting seLection without specific purpose. Sone phgsicists go so far as to ciain: our existence constrains the structure of the universe, indeed it even it (0 p-112), for to us , quote froM Hawking and CoLLins. connection in this sweeping context h3s been dubbed this j^s Davies the does, have nothing specificaLLg to do inteLLigence, or with Life, etc. The Dicke argunent, for Eddington-Dirac expLain coincidence, is based of principLe : anthropic the show with what work the or hunans, with designed exanpLe, to onig on the presence of heavg eieMents, and so gives but a hint of bioLogg, if that. So reversaL Invoking the huMan forMuLaticn of the principLe (D p.112)! But quite generaLLg the argunents advanced, which do principLe seLects reaLLg there is no spirit of the Copernican revoLution' in this fashion (pace D p.115, barter, and others). The conditionaL principLe estabLished bg the Dicke arguMent is essentiaLLg J) If [because, g^ven] there exist heavg eieMents, then the universe is such that the Eddington-Dirac coincidence ho ids. The fuLL expLanatorg argunent conprises, as weLL as the detaiLed phgsics that goes toward J), the nodus ponens inference: -18- �The Eddington-Dirac coincidence hotds. There exist heavy eLements, J) More generaLiy, the anthropic way gives principie to physicatiy a argued conditionai scheme of the enthymematic form K) if F then T, or its contrapositive K ) if not-F then not-T, where F is a hard factuai ciaim or more commoniy its existentiat reiativety generaiisation , and T is a more theoretic3i ciaim concerning typicaity features of the worLd, such as numericai features. The short form of anthropic exp Lanation, or better status quo expLanation, is then the argument form F, if F then T L) . .T. famiLiar ontoLogicaL proofs, for instance of an externaL worLd from the Moore s fact that exist, hands arguments. such omit typicaLLy proofs phiLosophers just are difference The is that the soLid argumentation that goes into estabLishing the conditionai schemes of status quo expianations; for instance, makes LittLe effort in this direction, and the required entaiLment rather Moore evidentLy faiLs to hoLd (see fn 30). Other formutations of the anthropic principie in the Literature are than better those hardLy 3tready exhibited. LesLie, who at Least (Like Barrow) moves humans a LittLe off centre stage, puts it in this counterfactuaL way: if our universe had been [everywhere] hostiie to Life then nobody wouLd be observing it (L2, p.66). If the consequent simpiy contextuaLLy impiies that something a Live is doing the observing, then the principie is ana Lytic, and scarceLy up to the intended expLanatory tasks (without requisite information that the the universe contains Life, and much eLse being separateLy pumped in). MhiLe if does not require this, it appears fatse; the Latest seeing-eye robot consequent did survive the hoLocaust, or did just happen as a resuLt of the quantum fLuctuation. In such as Dicke's most purported argument. offers faces reLated difficuLties: worLd appLications of the anthropic The other version of the principie LesLie NecessariLy we conscious beings observe a which is Life-containing (LI, p.lt+1). Rs it stands, this is faLse; for we mightn t exist. Nor wiLL appropriate deLetion consciousness retain we' of fix things. the worLd is, Me might but not be observers, aLL being in vats. But repaired the version is pretty use Less. It bears onLy tangentiaLLy (through that vacuum any case the formuiation Lacks sufficient generaLity; it faiLs to connect appropriateLy with scheme, the but contingency, Life its consequent, containing) on what is at issue concerning numericaL features. The materiaL on us, on observers and the Like, is strictLy irreLevant, a hang-over again presumabLy constructions of quantum theory. -1?- from bad ideaList �* The that the Copernican principte has suffered some sort of set-b3ck idea because of the essentiai rote of anthropic principies in explaining Large-number can be traced back through Carter, who heLped popuLarise the rote coincidences, between of anthropic principies and made the (rather obscure) distinction strong weak has been exaggerated subservience to the 'Copernican principte' [which is] that we must and not assume principies. anthropic gratuitoustg that we Recording to Carter, there occupg a priviLeged centraL position in the (C p.231). The regrettabLe tendency, he sags, has been to universe extend the to a most questionable dogma to the effect that our situation cannot principte be priviLeged in ang sense ... (in extreme form ... the 'perfect cosmoLogicaL principLe ...)'. The Latter assumption is certaintg untenabLe (as Dicke pointed because the universe is bg no means spatiaLLg homogeneous on a LocaL scaLe out) and speciaL conditions (of terrestrial temperature, chemicaL environment) do prevaiL on Earth. But its removaL does nothing to undercut Life the Copernican principLe, or to boost the anthropic principLe in the wag thinks Lt For does. is Carter his bracketed comment after his first formuiation of the anthropcc principle is that Lt for requisite aLthough our situation is not necessaritg centraL, inevitabLg priviLeged to some extent' (C p.291). It is doubtfuL that our position is centraL; whether it is so priviLeged depends on the intended contrast, but whatever the privilege is, it hardlg seems inevitabLe. Carter gives severaL non-equivaLent formuLations of the anthropic principLe, the first of which takes the quasi-anaLgtic but ambiguous form, LJhat we C3n expect to observe must be restricted bg the conditions necessarg for our presence as observers' (C p.291; repeated D p.119). This is certs inLg not the same as Davies condensation of it, what he caLLs the weak principLe, that observers construaL, restrict the observed'. On the obvious (but Less charitabLe) this is but rampant verificationism, of a tgpe verg familiar however from interpretations of quantum theorg. Uhat exists is independent of observers; and observers, especiaLLg remote ones, mag have no significant impact on what iL5 observed. The condensation is accordingLg false. So also, for different reasons, is what it condenses. For one thing, our expectations mag run astrag. True, what we observe is restricted bg the conditions for our doing just that, nameLg being as observers. But this tautologg imposes no phgsical constraints, being equaLLg true for Xing as observing; and no such connection is appeaied to in ang of the derivations of coincidences that Carter sketches. Once again aqain the present arguments never have angthing in detail to do with humans, or even "observers 4-c? -20- .2-1 �(and surety animats observe). Fit best the arguments are directed to the presence of water or carbon 12 or some such - things sometimes erroneousiy equated Life, and often, rather dubiousty, said to be necessary for Life.^S The situation is of this sort with Carter's "iiiustration" of the weak better Locat) anthropic principte, which he formutates as foitows: 'we must (or be prepared to take account of the fact that our Location in observers universe is existence as the necessariLy priviLeged to the extent of being compatibLe with our p.233). In order to get to grips with this recondite formuiation (C Let us remove the initiaL intensionaL functors (which my empiricist friends to with assure are me not essentiaL in physics, despite ubiquity, and their physicists procLivities to modaLs). Now our position can hardLy be priviLeged (despite Carter s tru necessariLy since human-types just might be itaLicization), uniformLy distributed through the universe or again might not exist at aLL. LJhat necessity there is enters in a different way. LJhat we are Left de Let ion, with since misLeading, probabiListic arguments suitabLe for Life in the universe (some detaiLs justified is Like more something unique (though principte this need require of Hh3t may be met. In this humans we are Long-Lived stars Rnd stiLL much more than a weak is dragged in. It is enough, for seLeet ion, universe contains Locations, neighbourhood Sag3n). we're working at it); even on Terra much of the rest of the animat kingdom is simitarLy favoured. seLeet ion in priviLege of habitats miLLions suggest are to this: we are favoured in that the physicaL conditions for our existence, as observers, are hardLy due Our Location in the universe is priviLeged to the extent of is then: be',ng compatibLe with our existence as observers'. But this ciaim cs after in where fact heavy Like the earth, in the metaLs occur, and so on (for certain other pureLy geotogicaL features). BoLtzmann s expLanation of the present high degree of which Ls extremety improbabLe cosmic organisation (in a thermodynamicaL setting) is aiso said to appLy a weak anthropic principte ; witness this the onLy reason that we are priviLeged to exceedingLy untikeiy occurrence is that our very existence [etc.J -21- O.2.2.. �* depends upon the condition which atone can be bg estabiished remarkabte that (D p.123). But again onLg gross phgsicaL organisationat principLes fLuctuation are seLected for; and no more than a weak seLection principte is required. beveraL expLained , so Carter and Davies ci3im, be cannot coincidences simpig bg a weak principte (at Least in the muLti-universes). of is made to the strong (or better gLobaL) principte: appeaL these absence The universe ... must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some in barter s (p.120). formuLation exist is for manifesttg faLse. So, Cartesian paraphrase Carter gives of the strong different cogito ergo mundus taLis est . The worLd wouLd presumabtg not be principte, verg theg is this appaLLing the necessarg; the universe does. Rnd since observers mag verg easiLg never given have evotved in the universe, reasons, stage R coroLLarg of the strong principte in this heaviLg necessitated guise is that observers are conditionaLLg must For so different were the contingent premiss faLse; and certainLg the premiss mag Least be true but the cone Lus ion faLse. But at Loading, necessitg gets and principte the appropriate conctusion. For, propertg ideaLLg this the inferentiaL form, with the into formuLated, abandons paraphrase scheme the as is before, Law Like conditionaL of basic form, if F then T, where however T is a a genuinetg gLobaL cLaim that the universe is such 3nd such (e.g. the universe now contains more matter than radiation). The scheme, so then, recast is feature distinctive some theoreticaL LocaL strong the that T is hoListic assertion 3bout the universe, incLuding essentiaL reference to it, not, as it mag be on about of the weak principte, of the universe, which can readiLg be features stated or restated without reference to the universe. But the distinction is not particuiarLg important. The robust, troubie is it from 3 worLd-seLection gives Lt a misLeading most LawLike Mag requisite within consequent. For exampLe, there is stiLL no (egocentric) thought matter; to phgsicaLLg without Descartes God to puLL him out. universe the taiLor-made is for framework of idea - in essence it cLaims a wag Living organisms are subsequentig assured of existence. [So it is]... akin mankind to inhabit. products secuLar expLanations. teteoLogicaL R duLg cLaims anthropic worLd for (D p.121). Such erroneous presentations have done much to encourage both a new anthropocentrism and the idea that are unLike habitation, 3nd that both the Laws of to traditionaL retigious expLanation of the worLd: that God made the are from Hard as it is to credit, Carter is phgsics and the initiaL conditions obLigingLg arrange themseLves in such that an procLivitg to ideaiism exceLLed bg Davies, who sags of the strong principte that that in route respectabLe Carter's (exhibited in C2)), he mag weLL get stuck in the argue to bounds to the intended phgsicaL given and of satisfactorg impression antecedents for the scheme, and makes it presentLg impossibLe appropriateLg verg perspective Carter's extravagant Cartesian paraphrase of the strong with that is principte nor on a par reformuLated Davies with, strong and in schema expLanations anthropic competition supports design with, none of the makes regarding the universe. Nor, as wiLL appear, expLanations, when made presentabLe, -22- akin to retigious �features of the worLd. The expLanations take different LogicaL of explanations forms and LnvoLve quite different ingredients. To see what is reaLLy required for the strong schema to operate, it pays to Look at Then appLications. it becomes evident observercentric that considerations are strictLy irreLevant. Once again far stronger, and biocentric more dubious, conditions than are required for the estimates actuaLLy made been For introduced. instance, (BoLtamann) K, is a good exampLe of a prediction based on what strong' anthropic principLe' (C p.23^); (8) is as foLLows: K aLL f < that is 2 " Tl_ 5 have according to Carter, his condition (8), which imposes an order of magnitude upper bound on cosmoLogicaL But and constant may be termed the 3 ' "P , P invoLved in obtaining this bound, retevance, is the of assumption that ' the un iverse is not radiation dominated aLL its [finite] Life (i.e. that the matter contribution ... to the mean mass density ... becomes greater at some stage Insofar this as is than the necessary radiation (C ...)' contribution pp.233-^.). at aLL - since the estimates concern onLy very broad features, and not LocaL variations - it is 3s necessary for Lichen as for Larkspurs. DLL that is required is a sLightLy stronger worLd seLection principLe than mereLy that worLd contain heavier eLements at some stage; but stiLL the onLy a gLobaL geophysicaL principLe. Rnd this is aLL that here. The same set of points amounts to appLies to Carter's further use of the strong principLe, to estimate the Lower bound on K, which appLies the conventionaL that gaLax Les ... are formed by condensation, starting as reLativeLy hypothesis smaLL density fLuctuations in an otherwise homogeneous further The strength tendentious assumption in background (C p.2St+). this appiication is that gaiaxies are necessary for the formation of stars and hence of Life (C p.23!*). NonetheLess there are arguments for the strong anthropic principLe, though faLLacious ones obviousLy. They come firstLy from positivism. It is cLaimed that if the universe exists then it must be observabLe; so there must be observers - a modaL faLLacy. Davies (in his exposition of Barrow and not argues universe which from the faLse premiss that onLy what is observed exists, that a did then others) admit observers is meaningLess' (D p.I21). This is ideaListic garbage. They come secondLy from an aLLeged expianatory rote, in expLaining coincidences. But it is unnecessary for this purpose as initiaL worLd seLection wiLL serve. They come thirdLy from human chauvinism; thus, too human existence is said to be responsibLe for the very speciaL structure of the universe' (D p.121)! The connection is not however causaL; so what is it supposed There is be: teLeoLogicaL? thus a serious probLem as to how this responsibitity, hardLy evident, is exercised. FinaLLy a strong principLe might uniformity to - one principLe to cover be argued for on grounds of aLL cases. But better a weaker correct -23- �principLe than a strong faLse or geophgsicaL principLe wouLd suffice Rnd principLe. dubious doubt no a weaker aLL phgsicaL constants. (Of course, for there reMains the natter of this worLd seLection. This worLd does exhibit Life, incLude hunans, and so on. But these features, Like the present species of does eucaLgpts expLanations, or reLevant, cLasses of worids.)"^ and are RnusingLg, astroLogicaL and More converses hunan affairs; white under gerMane not the to extravagant anthropic principies are to astroLogg, ceiestiaL events infLuence anthropic hunan anaLogue, affairs infLuence CeiestiaL events and processes incLude those of the sun. Moon events ceiestiaL its are abstracted fron in seLecting expLanatorg Recording other. each of wonbats, grazing of whereabouts and and other pLanets (especiaLLg). Rnd these certaintg appear to have an (indirect) weak infLuence, especiaLLg through the soLar atMosphere and pLanetarg Large pLasMas, on terrestriaL phenoMena (Fegerabend, p.93). The anthropic converse, in this forM danagingtg anthropocentric and exhibiting an excess of hubris, is Much further froM the truth. Not just the anthropocentric, but the eMphasis of nuMericat features. Rnd despite the bioLogicaL anaLogies, just Lt,ke explanation seLection without vaLues, so even Rs are there there is seLection without seLectors. More, RLthough seLection is sonetiMes accoMpiished through seLectors, often takes not is naturaL seLection. It is not seLection for, for fitness, survivaL, or whatever. Nor, More iMportant is it seLection bg, bg soMe agent. vaLues MispLaced. is insistence, Life is not essent-iaL in Mang worids Le^Lie Despite biocentric seLection without seLecters, randonig or otherwise - this tiMe as in naturaL pLace seLection, which does not require a personified Nature to do the have evoLutionarg theories as/oid ageneg. In avoiding ageneg, seLection is Like that seLecting, as enphasised. Such expLanation can straightforwardig of Darwinian evoLut- ionarg theorg; and seLection contrasts with direction as incLuded in aLternative evoLutionarg Though accounts (cf. DarLington, p.l^ff). anthropic principies coMe in a varietg of forMs, depending upon how the conditionaL scheMa ^nvoLved is fitted out, none of theM, then, does what is saud, none depends essentiaLLg on the presence of huMans, or of Life. SgntacticaLLg, theg etaborate usuaLLg status quo arguMents, of forM L), with factuaL fir^t preMis^ F concerning the state of the worLd LocaLLg (weak forM) whoLe (strong seLection forM). SenanticaLLg, or as a the factuaL preMisses function as worLd principies; theg serve to Mark out the cLass of phgsicaL wortds or to narrow then down to these or those, e.g. to those where heavier eieMents such as carbon occur, those where Long-Lived stars, such as the sun, appear. It is that carbon is sonetiMes taken to provide an "order-of-Magnitude" approxiMation for Life (that is the nearest Long-Lived star is supposed to to hunans provide that the the "approxinations" get); Life as the arguMents a steadg warMth required for the evoLution of Life (but Long-Lived stars, water, and heavier objects are as to true near need get). But these additionaL, and nore dubious, detaiis are unnecessarg for the Main thrust of status quo arguMents, as distinct -24- �from their anthropic 3nd biocentric augmentations. meet Given that the worids seiected are of this and that cast - in generai geophgsicai gross Less, up the to constraints — other features of them can be derived (more or standards rough accepted in and physics) in expLained, particuLar, how and that it is that certain (fundamentaL) physicaL constants Lie in restricted ranges, narrow and unexpected ranges. These arguments, duty fitted out, do provide exp Lanations, non-causat exp Lanations, of physicaL features of a contingent, mereLy LmprobabLe universe. Much there is, however, in these most ctaims, that has been contested, from the psycho LogicaL such of inadequacy a universe to the worth of such expLanations, if expLanations they are at aLL. objections to the cosmo-LogicaL synthesis; and finding unLikety, an in comfort and with Prob Lems mereLy universe. contingent, Somehow contingent universes have acquired the reputation of being coLd, remote and uncaring - a not habitat for sensitive creatures. But the reputation is undeserved, since fit contingency does not bear on any of these things. Mhat is contingent can be just as weLL as coLd or neither; caring or not, so far as the appLication sense aLL; at and hot makes so on. One can be warm and comfortabLe in bed on a wet and wintry night. One can be at home, comfortabLe in, in tune with, a tiny part of an improbabLe universe, as some tribaL peopLes are. None of these virtues are Ln any way undermined by contingency, matter of a necessary universe. or aLways assured by the quite separate a degree of harmony between us Furthermore, there can be, or have evoLved, and our surroundings , without principLes, as that our worse, that the universe is universe such exaggerated cLaims, on based anthropic are very speciaL and tuned to us' or, surroundings made for us'. Me humans can be in with tune the without having the universe tuned to us, as we can foLLow and ornament a song on the wind or in the woods. But so far, especiaLLy recentLy, we humans coLLectiveLy are not doing too weLL in attuning oursetves to the worLd. Rs this iLLustration begins to metaphysicaL and psychoLogicaL reveaL, predeLiction^ may pLay a not inconsiderabte rote in choice of, and ornamentation of, physicaL theory, especiaLLy of controvers LaL theories such as quantum theory and cosmoLogicaL theory. In the case of such theories there is a certain bag technicaL so to say tricks, tricks, equations and so on, which are de rigeur - a theory-skeLeton - and beyond that both an interpretation and setting for the bag integrating of theM and suppLying of with some sort of meaning, and them usuaLLy aLso some further formaLism connecting the tricks together or to a wider theoreticaL background. For exampLe, even in accounts of too much in the way of interpretation theory where is commonLy frowned upon, extensive correspondence ruLes Linking the formaLism with upon quantum cLassicaL physics are retied heaviLy. Rt Least for everything beyond the theory-skeLeton, which is what is appLied in most concrete day-to-day appLications of the theory, there is much room for rivaL fLeshing out of the skeLeton - Latitude -25- such as there is in �archeological reconstructions of peoples from some scattered bones. Recasting quantum theorg, as in the mang-worlds interpretation, offers not as merelg a basis for fleshing out the theorg non-idealisticallg, but for combining it with general to subject much of the criticism, much of it directed more broadlg at most Happilg as However such recasting, when not reLativitg. largelg ignored (the common fate of nonstandard theories), is criticism. well plural world theories in general, misses the neutral modification. There are firstlg a batch of aesthetic and ontological objections. These commonlg take off from the of unattractiveness duplication or replication of profligate such worLds. LJeLL, tastes and vaLues, Like intuitions, do varg with sub-cuLture. Some of us, who escaped over-exposure to worlds the ReaLitg do PrincipLe, stories illuminating and attractive, indeed verg inviting. So, next, the whole thing is said to be unbelievable: no one can reasonabLg existence believe worLds nonetheless, especiaLLg in explanation. these in (the these unlimited numbers of universes. Granted, we do not believe of) in this either. These other worLds do not exist; but we can make of neutral find heavg Load of objections carrging on about excess use extensive In this wag we avoid a baqgage. ontic also Ue main criticisms based on Occam s razor. (RLL these objections are short-circuit met, in much detail, in JB.) Linked to such Occamist protests are a batch of objections that are pictures worlds effect the to over-engineered, both too complex 3nd including too much baggage. Thus in thermodgnamics a smalt fluctuation producing some order is more LikeLg than one producing Lots of order, one galaxg more LikeLg than Lihg do similarlg we not find ourselves in a one galaxg universe, which is far more LikeLg? The answer is in part: because Less LikeLg contingencies hold. Is the ubiquitg No, (D p.123)? mgsterg instance, the on the commenting of of numbers approaches reasons. in these unwarranted presuppositions. The that the universe was set others Like be explained. For Dicke Thus and Peebles remark, in of the universe for a few conscious individuals, overdesign revealed well one of a thing is itself verg unlikelg. Find just special can, that a single galaxg cosmos might be ruled out bg the can observed galaxies in our universe ... therefore a such evolution further there mag be mang. up Mach's Moreover, principle. questions and remarks are based on various overdesign" for idea, for example, presupposes some individuals; but the worlds picture correctLg avoids thLS assumption. The things in this world that exist happen to be there, probable or not, and often, for reasons we can sometimes explain, not. But there is tittle solid evidence that theg are arranged, for us or others. In its original form the unfocussed "overdesign" objection was mainlg directed at cruder anthropic principles, as were unverifiabilitg and unfalsifiabilitg. a batch of objections The well-worn criticism, that notorious psgchoanalgtic and Marxist principles did too much, being so designed that covered everg protested that case, was redirected from against anthropic principles. it is hard to see how the anthropic principLe can be It used theg was to make testable predictions, because ang theorg inconsistent with our existence is �4 M3nLfestLg Not faLse . such protests been weakened bg avant garde have onLg phLLosophg of science, but, as Carter has poLnted out, anthropLc arguments couLd varLous Ln prLncLpLe have been used to predLct theg Rnd notLced. were faLsLfLcatLon, e.g. where erroneous that unLLkeLg assumptLons prLncLpLes, regards Rs fLrst). under but Ls worLd-sgnthesLs, aLL that worLds the whether Ln wLth cosmoLog Les and of verLfLcatLonLst seLectLon whLch semantLcs, or phgsLcs exLst, LnvoLved of themes objectLons do have some verLfLabLLLtg vLrtue of what Ls meant bg bg bg neutraLLsed ex Lsttng. But the force of these objectLons Ls theorg. as conversLon, object-theorg Granted LnterpretatLon. of Often, Lt (though of weaker forms wouLd be abandoned, other surrendered force agaLnst mang-worLds theories, assume derLved object Lons are LargeLg mLsdLrected, because what are at Lssue are phgsLcaL semantLcs, are coLncLdences premLss factuaL be wouLd verLfLabLLLtg not the anthropLc arguments do admLt of of 3ssumptLons the before coLncLdences numerLcaL neutraL worLds objectLons, the crLtLcLsms of mang-worLd such prLncLpLes anthropLc as geophgsLcaL or prLncLpLes are LntertwLned, and dLsentangLLng the crLtLcLsms Ls enough to partLg So them. def Late aLso wLth the reLated charge th3t the neutraL worLd- Ls Lt sgnthesLs theorg Ls unscLentLfLc or at much turns Least dubLousLg scLentLfLc.PLaLnLg on what Ls admLtted Lnto that esteemed categorg, scLentLfLc. But on most accounts, use of seLectLon prLncLpLes succeeds Ln gettLng LncLuded. Rnd so, pLaLnLg enough, does mang-worLds quantum theorg. Rfter 3LL, Lt has 3pproxLmateLg as the same sorts of predLcatLve and test capabLLLtLes more That fact of narrow empLrLcaL LndLstLnguLshabLLLtg mag be the source of theorg. other compLaLnts, but Lt gtves no ground for the charge worLd Ls seLectLon prLncLpLes excLuded! are It at hand. of scLentLfLc and theorLsLng experLmentLng true that some theoretLcaL and wouLd (per prefer LmpossLbLe) and wantLng to st Lek to a uLtLmate and unLfLed expLanatLons. No doubt such semantLcaL apparatus does faLL fouL of the the substance of the charge, consLder some of the crLterLa often beLng theLr theorg narrower sLmpLg reveaLs further serLous defects Ln such vLews. But to reach that vLews: fuLLer the narrower (hgpothetLco-deducttve) methodoLogg, are uneasg wLth worLds seLectLon, sureLg But phgsLcLsts, and mang phLLosophers, LosLng sLght of what enters Lnto range quantum orthodox scLentLfLc. UnfaLsLfLabLe? SureLg set down for Ln areas where the framework Ls not pLnned down bg phgsLcaL theorg. OvercompLLcated and LnsuffLcLentLg gLven what the worLds theorg Ls Lntended to accompLLsh sLmpLe? Not (e.g. the semantLcaLLg theoretLcaL work Lt Ls aLso put to Ln areas such 3s LLnguLstLcs). Etc., etc. Perhaps the most teLLLng theorLes LLke worLd—sgntheses objectLons whLch agaLnst LncLude status quo arguments, and them, concern theLr expLsnatorg capacLtg. StrangeLg theg have been condemned both as expLaLntng too much - ang thLng at aLL can be brought out Ln some worLd - and as expLaLnLng too LLttLe and beLng trLvLaL. Not both these objectLons are LLkeLg to succeed, as theg tend to undercut one another. IndependentLg, Lt seems cLear that the arguments do provLde expLanatLons, for LnvoLved Lnstance, of the strength of the strong nucLear force. It aLso seems cLear that the expLanatLons afforded are of vargLng -27- depth, �+ depending in part on the depth of the underlying physicaL theory invoLved, this and the pLausibiLity of the further assumptions made in the arguments. Better exempiific3tions of status quo arguments in physics satisfy not oniy more ordinary requirements for expLanation; they aLso meet assembLed conditions considerable time, by HempeL, mainstream the which conditions on position demanding for represented, some what counted as a scientific expLanation. Furthermore, the chief objections to have more the HempeLian the account that emerged have been to the effect that it is too rigorous, not that it faiLs to provide jointLy sufficient conditions for expLanation. To make a prima facie case that better status quo arguments do provide exp Lanations, it is enough then show to expLanation LogicaL HempeL s that conditions on the (p.2t+7ff) have been met. By contrast conditions design with scientific of the arguments, 3re satisfied. The expLanandum T is a LogicaL adequacy of pattern basic consequence of the physicaL argument eLaborating the schemas F, if F then T; the expLanans has empiricaL content, at Least in the shape of expLanans F; which connection if F then T, provides expLanans are true, Uere a foLLows from arguments using physicaL Laws. FinaLLy, the demanding empiricaL condition of adequacy, that the premisses used in the is satisfied in better status quo arguments. the basic pattern aLso necessary for scientific expLanation, it wouLd be an easy coroLLary that many poorer status quo arguments fait to provide expianations (beginning with Carter s and Descartes is there the and contains general, Laws which are actuaLLy used in the derivation. For, in better status quo arguments, the conditionaL schema, Law Like premiss much quo status that such Cogito arguments), and that arguments cannot presentLy expLain decentLy, '^ncLuding such major puzzLes as Life and inteLLigence in the LocaL worLd. It can be independentLy argued, moreover, that poorer status quo arguments, which patentLy (or short meeting HempeLian conditions, fait to generate satisfactory of satisfying) expianations. TriviaL, dogmatic, forms, such as that things 3re the way they are because that is how they are, represent a virtuaLLy worse of sort. this But possibie. weakening to principte, that what The universe is inhabitabie, because we are here, because ask Forrest so is aLso humans inhabit The universe is suited to inteLLigent Life because there are peopLe such questions upon). focusses inferences, is sLightLy embroidered, are arguments with connecting principLes Such, the earth , case better, or more informative, are those arguments scarceLy which appLy the possibility Like faLL (exampies adapted from the sorts of anthropic arguments These short; patentLy faLL arguments, which they LnvoLve offer no aimost immediate further appropriate basic (HempeLian) argumentation making use of generaL Laws. Given that better status quo arguments do afford scientific expianations, and given further that the arguments do serve to remove and not without predictive force, why have they been genuine puzzLement fauLted as expianations, and sometimes criticised 3S not providing expianations are at aLL (e.g. Forrest)? The main reason offered, that back-to-front , these "expianations" are appears to rest on the assumption that aLL genuine expLanation -28- �shouLd be broadLg causaL, and accordingLg exhibit (time-) the direction or controi. Status quo expLanations are certainLg not causaL, and mag causation weLL run counter to causaL direction, expLaining features of the earig the through of distribution present universe of eLements. That is, however, perfectLg in order. For satisfactorg expLanation is not causaLLg restricted either ordinariLg or scientificaLLg. HempeL suppLies severaL different sorts of pattern basic of causaLLg or controL directed (pp.352-3). EspeciaLLg striking in this exampLe opticaL straightforward his of his which are not causaL expLanation or expLanation scientific exampLes regard is a particuLar event...satisfactoriLg of expLained bg reference to subsequent occurrences'; but his exampLe of two-wag where the period of a penduLum serves to expLain the Length of the expLanation, penduLum as weLL as converseLg, is aLso highLg re Levant. For it is too expiaining commonLg assumed numericaL that shouLd coincidences be the presence of water, carbon and the Like in the universe, not vice versa. But there is no iLLuminating reason quo status whg direction shouLd expLanation the instead not in run the as weLL as, vice versa. That of, iLLuminating direction is after aLL from the famiLiar to the much Less famiLiar, and more in need of expLanation. such It is true of course that more simpig means that status quo expLanations ad hominem stgLe of status quo expLanation, for are. Like expLanations, most further unreasonabLg stop deeper expLanation. The expLanation-stopping forms are and form: contraposed inquirers verg for expLanation if it weren t so gou woutdn t be here to ask the question. However such put-downs (in the envisaged persistent Legitimate the those (which Forrest discusses) where the response to a request for the Long. wouLd contexts) not more charge, damaging feature of the universe, Then PF. seLecting worLds where PF hoLds. But the theorg. the then, is that worLd-sgnthesis can expLain too much. The charge is backed up bg the foLLowing sort of consideration. puzzLing deter Theg wouLd be awag in search of further expLanations, such as better status quo arguments mag furnish (at Least for t ime be ing). The not begin in the middLe wag. Nor do theg, except in speciaL, rather theg uLtimate: takes famiLiar, the presence of water and carbon, aLso caLLs for expLanation; but that as quest the charge it Take ang can be expLained simpig bg misrepresents worLd-sgnthesis There is more to it than this. There is a cruciaL argumentative Linkage aLso invoLved, between PF and gross geophgsicaL features of the worLds (near factuaL worLd T) which are seLected. Or, put differentig, the seLection does not take pLace on basis the of PF, but (mereLg) under the constraint of gross geophgsicaL features; accordingLg if the argumentative Linkage from satisfactorg status quo arguments worLd-sgnthesis. is missing, PF is not to be expLained through In short, then, worLd-sgnthesis theorg offers expLanations when bg and then the expLanations mag varg greatLg in quaLitg depending on the depth of the phgsicaL the framework is suitabLg fLeshed out phgsicaL theorg; information invoLved in the argumentative Linkage. EssentiaLLg the same points undermine Forrest's further objection to such -2?- �many-worLds explanation, truths; contingent have we aLL do to coaches easiLy as the pumpkins of turning numericsL coincidences. But there is no such free as seLection of phusicaL worLds - which do not incLude worLds vaLidating magicaL as faiL, can schema connecting arbitrary and practices. Status quo expianations may not be easy transformations at aLL, but physicaLLy comp Lex, they are not atways and they as is to posit suitabLy many and varied (p.9). Thus the theory is aLLeged to expLain worLds into that it "expLains" contingent faLsehoods as easiiy an when assumption invoLved easiLy avaiLabte, and the eLaboration of the in , and the argumentative schema issues in a contingent faiLs faLsehood. For a necessary condition that a status quo expianation be successfuL is that the argument be correct; but then given that the argument form is vaiid, the cone Lus ion cannot be simpiy f aLse. is It that satisfactory expianations, with conforming to such conditions of adequacy as deductive vaiidity in and quo status expianations winning in expianations differ from decisiveLy design which are sometimes seen as on an expianatory LeveL competition with status quo and expianations their piuraL-worLds setting (thus e.g. LesLie), and sometimes even confused with them. Design arguments characteristicaLLy take the deductiveLy invaLid abductive modus toLLens form: Things are (surprisingLy) so and so F If a design hypothesis heLd (e.g. the universe anticipated observers, a design-force operated), things woutd be (unsurprisingLy) so and so. If H then F Therefore, a design hypothesis (probabLy) hoLds. .. H Nor in design arguments is the connecting schema normaLLy eLaborated by appropriate scientific argument; nor, where God is invoked, i§; there any way of suitabLy confining the argument scientificaLLy. Thus support first the LesLie's of Larger cLaims is faLse:- the LiorLd EnsembLe hypothesis rather than the God hypothesis. !^e do not have...strong evidence of an EnsembLe' (LI, p.150). for Science does not their existence No branch of physics in a way commanding wide acceptance (LI, p.S3). The main reason is that the Bod hypothesis is not part of a physicaL theory that many-worLd theory is caLLs in the way of quantum theory (thus, e.g., there is no physics text corresponding to DeLiitt and Graham for the God hypothesis), [^hiie the Last cLaim is true, it does not teLL against the truth of neutraL many-worLds theory. Uhat science supports is science, not the the metaphysics it presupposes. Physics is not however aLL of science by any means, and even science doesn't do everything, onLy a rather narrow seLection of things. Richard SyLvan -30- 11 �RPPENDIX 1. Some Rncient Rntecedents The Non-Limited is the originaL materiaL of existing things; further the source] from which existing things derive their existence is a iso that to which they' return at their destruction, according to necessity [for reparation]... —----- So, in the 6th Century B.C., said Rnaximander, perhaps among the first aLso to set down a story of the evoLution of humankind.Something the same was said in text, though on the favoured taLe a Heideggerean and Taoist touch was Lent, the with Nothingness repLacing the Non-Limited. In the on beginning, there was nothing; and uLtimateLy, too, there wiLL be nothing. have been paid. The p3raLLeL with Rnaximander can be pressed further. In account origins, of of worLd the contemporary charged pairs of particLes are created in the oppositeLy 'the order, wiLL Reparation process of pair formation from the vacuum; white in Rnaximander's story formation story, this opposites the of which are present Ln the one [the Non-Limited], are separated out from it' (but 'the "opposites" are the hot, coLd, the dry the , the moist, and the rest : see Robinson p.25). There is aLso a phenomenon which corresponds to some Limited extent to the Big Bang, nameLy Vortex. the It seems cLear, however, from the materiaL Burnet assembLes, that Rnaximander's position amounted to the first Less satisfactory resoiution, matter or substance aLways. For the BoundLess or Infinite was a materiaL cause, -^*-*dstance (p. 5k<); it is eternaL and ageLess is brought about the origin of the worids. did — Further, according to SimpLicius, not ascribe the origin of things to any aLteration of matter, but said that the oppositions separated encompasses aLL worids substance". RLso there is in it eternaL motion, in which which makes it a queer he and out . If in that the substratum was which a boundLess body, were is right — and it may not be, especiaLLy given Later ontotogicaL infLuences (cf. p.61) - then the matter is cLear. Rnaximander beiieved there were innumerabLe worids (p.58). These worids were concurrent, not successive. coex istent remains uncLear, but Later in the Whether Bound Less" they tradition (biassed) took them exist, making Rnaximander's position a many-existent-wortds theory. The to Law of compensation, under which for borrowing or variation reparation must be made, becomes the Law of repayment aLL were of conservation. The reparation paraLLeLs the borrowed" mass-energy. The more generaL steering of aLL things - overarching order in naturaL processes - becomes the Laws of nature which govern (reguLate) the processes. 'The orderLiness ... is grounded in the nature of things as such . Rnaximander's account represents an immenseLy -31- important stage in the �transition from world-order is myth from science. to first to ... Last 'Hesiod's account of the origin of the anthropomorphic. account Rnaximanders represents, in principLe, a complete break with this mode of thought (Robinson p.27). From this angle the anthropic and idealistic fixes of contemporary science show marked regression. That transition, beyond anthropic creation stories, is also accomplished in the main philosophical essentials of the favoured resolution can where Taoism, be found. Something flowed from nothing, in a seemingly paradoxical way? but not through ang creation or agency. There was a the before time when beginning nothing at aLL existed. The problem of Laws (of nature) was also recognised, and resolved. did Laws not exist (independently at least of things that did) but were exhibited in in things that did exist. So it seems to follow that, stage at restricted property to duty what separated, and was mainly Lacking ascriptions Taoism Such nothing. a and deep in cosmogonic tales, then, from the ^.th C. B.C. until the 20th C., was a plausible explanatory story as to how come from together. of does exist. (Fuller details of Taoist cosmology, under this type of interpretation, are ventured in ecology', written with D. Bennett.) Mhat the which nothing existed, the taws could hold without having 3ny sort of existence, i.e. truth and existence were existence at story a few something could humans are Just beginning to piece NOTES Thi^ passage from Misner, Thorne and Uheeter, p.1212, is given an appropriately grander setting Ln the text. The passage Ls also quoted by DavLes, G p.222, who Lt to Wheeler. In Davies the idea of ascribes foundations for cosmology simple and unassailable Logical is given a different exposure, and is then linked with restrictions, to zero, on God s range of choice of universe to make. 2 Especially by those whose inquisitiveness and sense of blunted or destroyed by the mainstream culture and its wonder h3s educational not been practices, practices much mainstream philosophy reinforces and tries to justify. 3 Indolent philosophers tend to assign those of these questions that they write off (e.g. as semantically defective or as betraying philosophical uonfuslon or hang—upz?) to science. But they are not Just a matter for and scientists tend to come up with philosophically loaded, naive, theories scientists remain, insofar as they address the cannot questions and at often science; enough all. Too many Like too many RustraLian phiLosophers, in the grips of awfuL metaphysics, such as narrow empiricism and/or physicaiism. -32- �^The anaLysis semantical It of naturaL a is Law is that' Law-constrained worLds, naturaL worids. The interpretation ruLe for necessity. Terra, appLy but to Like is It shouLd be noted that geophysicaL features, appLied in seLecting worLds, are not of course confined to systems. in terns of geophysicaL pLanetary other "Rn eLaboration of this type of answer can be further expLoited to heLp why actuaL the standard ot worLd is science expLain comparativeLy so that simpLe, mathematicaLLy tractabLe, etc. HameLy, it is convenientLy so because the actuaL worLd seLection invoLved impLicitLy to render it so, by choice of a serves worLd with the compLexity of richer worLds removed and onLy tractabLe ideaL etements (such as scientific universaLs) adjoined. &RLtern3tiveLy, through quantum and borrowing positive feedback, a massive firebaLL forms. The story admits of much variation. ? The prob Lems, as the questions of the Lattice in diagram 2 indicate, what expLaining phiLosophers does exist, Lie with what does not. In a reLated way, 3LL those not papers on the prob Lems nonexistence of and nonexistents have misjudged the prob Lernatic, and misconceived the onus of proof. For commonLy the probLems concern existents and their behaviour; nonexistents, especiaLLy those functioning in expLanatory rotes as regards existentiai often behaviour, are very weLL behaved by comparison with existents. It has been suggested, by D. Lewis, that the underLying theory of items (of JB) renders everything exists. But it nonexistent, is and makes it 3 reaL probLem, how anything patentiy faLse that the theory of items render everything nonexistent. There are criteria for existence, which are often JB, chapter 9). Every thing nominaLists normaLLy take to satisfied (cf. exist satisfies the to be justified; it cannot (with any pretension to satisfactoriness) just be cLaimed, in the fashion of so many phiLosophers. In any case, Lewis can be simuLated: whatever ind iv idua Ls exist criteria. Beyond that existence has in Lewis worLds wiLL exist in worids-seLection theory. Rnd it is. a genuine phiLosophicaL probLem how anything exists. g in 19t+6; see his cosmoLogicaL text. Llhitrow aLso appLied, more than RpparentLy a quarter of a century ago, PrincipLe , in his what has now been eLevated to the Rnthropic answer to why the dimensions of space are three; nameLy, th3t this atone permits the evoLution of Nan, the formuiator of the probLem'. However 'Uhitrow's reasons concern not mankind but stabLe pLanetary orbits and compLex neurai networks' (LI, p.!^). g Compare the binding energy which keeps etectrons bound to a nucLeus, where correiativeiy energy stored up in overcoming forces of repuLsion is positive. -33- �e a story couLd be totd to bring Laws within the expLanation framework. However It wouid teLLing invoLve Laws first evoLved or happened to hoLd, the how before vacuum fLuctuations. (For some interesting specuLation, from which the ontic and anthropic commitment can be removed without totaL Loss, see Barrow pp. 151-2, where "chaotic gauge theory" is considered.) The issue of uLtimate is expLanation again up taken seLf-justifying postulate as serving refLexive, expLanation. Note that in UQ, to the resoLve the matter the especiaLLy of probLem uLtimate, PostuLate Characterisation a of of object-theory is an initiaLLy promising candidate for such a principte. issue is that, on the story as toLd, quantum phenomena assume Another serious decidedLy they course Of macro-dimensions. may, Schrodinger s cat iLLustrates, but perhaps not in the parabLe the as supposed of catastrophic form. In the absence of any approved quantization of general, reLativity, there onLy are Lax physicaL controis on what is in and what is out in specuLation here. Rnd, of course, the second story couid There are other mechanisms for the sudden be rise in eLaborsted other ways. e.g. white mass-energy, of ho Les in geometrodynamics. In his second paper, Tryon makes a rather casuaL beginning on meeting some of difficuLties the with the vacuum fLuctuation theory the cosmos, and of expLains the advantages of combining the theory with that of a (stiLL probLematic) "infLationary" universe, to boost the fLuctuation. But the theory stiLL awaits aporopriateLy detaiLed deveiopment and modeLLing. 12 There are various other issues concerning the physicaL constants, incLuding the question of the (sLow) evoLution of "constants" over time. LJeLL, do evoLve, the they if same sort of probLems arise for the parameters which repLace them (L.e. at each time t, for c(t)). There are putative arguments to the effect that there can be no very grand unified theory, and no finaL eLimination of constants, because any such theory wouid do too much in determ in ing the worLd (and things). But it is unctear at present how such an argument gets duty eLaborated. R tight argument uneLiminabiLity of some physicaL constants from physicaL principLes for the wouLd be of much interest. 13 Th',s is what is reaLLy accompLLshed in Carter. To some extent we have emerging in this area a contemporary scientific numeroLogy. 1L Convergence arguments, e.g. for such things as the Church-Turing thesis, underLying connections, but not co-operation. l^Even Less, seemingLy, is the universe an accident, 'an event proceeding from an unknown cause; something unexpected; a casuaLty, a mishap, l&If however the worLd reaLLy were necessary, such improbabiLity must be grossLy -34- �reduced. How can that be: how can these contingencies be not what theg seem? 1? How M3ng worLds? ContinuousLg mang worLds? There is no reason whg not. But the answer is: as mang at Least as required. In object-theorg numbers don t short matter though much, so difficuLties technccaL controL Ls advantage. an are There as to measures, e.g. of fewness, in infinite modeLLings. Yet the notions are Ln order, e.g. among the naturaL numbers primes are few. 18 point, ThL^, and the inestimabLLitg specific of probabLLLties Ln (e.g. Ls argued, though in insufficient detaiL, bg TouLmLn among others meteoroLogg) Bg the wag, sureLg a creator wouLd have increased probabLLitLes bg seeing to a unLverse for fit decent habitation; a variation upon the argument from evLL infiltrates itseLf Ln probabiLitg guise here. 13 worked There are in fact mang proposed soLutions, most of them not theg (because far verg out have onLg few proponents), most of them not comprehensive certainLg (but it couLd be argued that this is a faLse ideaL), severaL of them discussed bg Everett, DeMLtt, Lande and others. 20 MheeLer s sequentiaL modeL another, so satisfgLng the theorg (Like certain offers a simitar range of worLds, but one after 'reaLLtg principLe". EarLLer MheeLer had adopted cosmoLogies) Eastern with in muLtLpLLcitg a both sequent La LLg and Lnto the possibLe; but recent Lg he has abandoned dimen^Lon^,, the Latter, partig on erroneous ontoLogLcaL grounds. 21 It Ls of course not the onLg reaLLstLc-stgie LnterpretatLon whLch does thLs: envisage everu Lande s LnterpretatLon is another. 22 From a neutraL viewpoint, Lt ts entLreLg taLse that atom ... as Me must constantLg engaging in this tgpe of scattering sctLvitg, therebg spLLtting the worLd again and again Lnto a stupendous number carbon-copLes of of LtseLf. The unLverse must therefore be LLkened to a tree, whLch branches 3nd (D p.I25). Nor Ls rebranches universe. 23 To anticipate, schemas of what the form, happens "if the tree-structured sgstern of universes the is as foLLows:- The antecedents of "anthropic" there exist so and so [e.g. observers] then ang phgsLcaL worLds must be such and such", are appLLed to phgsLcaL worLds. Rs there certainLg do exist so and so, narrow ctass the phgsLcaL worLds of are restricted to those that are such and such. gL It cs stLLL reasonabLe to 3sk whg - indeed to e.g. whg do we inhabit it?, whence a Long pose' severaL whg questions, evoLutionarg storg. Mhg are the constants those theg are?, then aLternative answers, LncLudLng brute fact, are among the possibiLities. -35- �roundLg defeated Shapiro. 26 bg the sorts considerations advanced bg Feinberg and of Davies aLso suggests that mang-worLds theorg can provide a pLausibLe phgsicaL (as opposed to phiLosophicaL) justification for the strong principte (D p.122 middLe). In fact he never reaLLg shows this satisfactoriig (nor can it be so shown), and in pointing to the power of the m3ng—universe theorg he undermines the strong principte, showing it otiose. 2? arguments are presented in modat form, with the connecting quo status Often scheme set in either necessitated form, if F that) (e.g. T if exist there necessaritg then (it if possibLe modaLities are de dicto and and that invoLved cLaims the It such). if F then T. The modaLitg invoLved is not one of LogicaL contingent nomic of that strength, but can be adequateLg NecessariLg, necessitg, an The error. argument guarantee the concLusion, NecessariLg T, nor does it pretend form these or even in Lowest common denominator form. To attach the (reLative) modaLitg simpig to consequent T wouLd be second is 'it is more than mereLg rather reads that seems represented, as usuaL, through a necessitated connecting schema, one F form, (e.g. what is the case LocaLLg (what observers observe, T etc.) is onLg possibLe if phgsics is such aLwags be and so, then the universe must have, or so conform to, such and such features), or, in quasi-transcendentaL onLg must to do does not so. The is a LittLe more probLematic; but it appears to assert that F is inconsistent with not-T, and so, through obvious connections, the same as the rectified first form. 28 Mhat we have are devices, that fragments of theories, ruLes thumb, of appear to work in a range of cases. and caLcuLating It is these parts that mag generate successfuL technoiogg. The picture is Like engineering. 29 R main charge made bg LesLie against mang-worid cosmoLogies, e.g. LI, p.l^Sff. It is a surprising turn, given the popuLaritg of hgpothetico-deductive methodoLogg, to have it aLso objected that mang-worLd theorg voids induction. Putting chance in controL of inter-worLd differences erodes confidence in our sampLe of ReaLitg, on which our inductions are based' (LI, p.1^.3). this objection gets off the ground (it is transparentLg Insofar cLear as that it does), it depends on assuming the reaLitg of the entire worLd ensembLe. So Lt not Lapses against a neutraL theorg. 30 R reLated phitosophicaLLg important exampLe where the schema does so far is in Moore s proof of an externaL worLd, noted above. The reason is that the existence of arbitrarg materiaL objects, such as hands or does f3it not guarantee that the requirements (order, isoLated unitg, cabbages, coherence, mcnd-cndependence, etc.) for an externaL worLd are satisfied. 31 Rn earLier version of this paper was presented at the RustraLasian Rssociation of PhiLosophg Conference, Rugust 138^. The -36- heLpfuL comments bg David �Rrmstrong, Brian Ellis and David Lewis, unreferenced above, were the discussion. commentaries; Both several made during John Leslie and Jack Smart supplied me with worthwhile their points have been incorporated, but some have of been resisted. The initial Univerity preprint series. version W3S published in an Rustralian National 32^ See Freeman, p.IS. for fuller discussion of need for reparation, see Burnet. Rnaximander's on position; the REFERENCES J.D. Barrow, Rnthropic definitions', Quarterly Journal of Royal the Rstroncmical Society 21^ ( 1983) lt+6-153 H. Bondi, Cosmology, Second edition, Cambridge University Press, I960. R, Brout, F. Englert and F. Gunzig, The creation of the universe as a quantum phenomenon' RnnaIs of Physics 115 (1978) 78-106. J. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, Fourth edition, Rdam & Charles Black, London, 1930. B. Carter, Large number coincidence and the anthropcc principle is in Longair, 291-98. B. Carter, The anthropic principle and its implications cosmology', biological for evolution , Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London (1983) St* 7-363. C.B. Collins and S.U. Hawk eng, Uhy is the universe isotrophic?', 19310 Rstrophqsics Journal 180 (1973) 317. C.D. Darlington, Darwin's Place in History, Blackwell, Oxford, 1959. P. Davies, The Rccidental Universe, Cambridge Universitu Press, Cambridge, 1982; referred to as D. P. Davies, God and the New Physics, Dent, London,1983; B.S. DeUitt referred to as G. and N. Graham, The Many-Uorlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1973. R.H. Dicke and P.J.E. Peebles, in S.U. Hawking and U. The big bang cosmology - enigmas and nostrums , Israel, eds, Genera 1 relativity: an Einstein centenary survey, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979, pp. 501^-517. -37- �G.F.R. ELLis, 'is the universe expanding?', GeneraL Reiativitg and Gravitation 9(2) (L973) 87-9L. G. Feinberg and R. Shapiro, Life Beyond Earth, Morrow, New York, 1980. P. Feyerabend, Science Ln a Free Society, New Left Books, London, 1978. 'RnthropLc answers and the existence of P. Forrest, Proceedings God', of the Russet Lan Society, University of Sydney, 7 (1982) 1-13. K. Freeman, RncLLLa to the Pre-Socratic Phitosophers, BLackweLL, Oxford, 1971. N. Griffin and R. SyLvan, Provisionai Rnswers to ULtimate Questions, typescript, Canberra, 1981}.; referred to as UQ. S. Hawking and G.F. ELiis, The Large-Scaie Structure of Space-time, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973. M. Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics, (trans. R. Mannheim), YaLe University Press, New Haven, 1959. C.G. HempeL, Rspects of Scientific Exp LanatLon, Free Press, New York, 1965. Lande, The Laws behLnd the quantum Laws , BrLtLsh JournaL for the PhiLosophu of Science 27 (1976) 27-^3. J. L^sLLe, RnthropLc prLncLpLe, worLd ensembLe, desLgn , RmerLcan PhLLosophLcaL QuarterLy, 19 (1982) l^l-lSl; referred to as LI. J. LesLLe, Cosmo Logy, probabLLity and the need to exp La Ln LLfe', Ln ScLentLfLc ExpLanatLon and UnderstandLng (ed. N. Rescher), UnLversLty Press of RmerLea, MaryLand, M.S. LongaLr 1983, 53-82; referred to as L2. (ed.), Confrontat Lon of Cosmo Log LeaL Theories wLth ObsservatLonaL Data, ReLdeL, Dordrecht, 1971}.. C.U. MLsner, K.S. Thorne and J.R. UheeLer, GravLtatLon, Freeman, San 1973. G.E. Moore, PhLLosophLcaL Papers, RLLen and UnwLn, London, FrancLsco, 1959. R. RobLnson, Essays Ln Greek PhLLosophg, CLarendon Press, Oxford, 1969. R. RoutLey, ExpLorLng MeLnong's JungLe and Beyond, Research SchooL ScLences, RustraLLan NatLonaL UnLversity, 1980; referred to as JB. -38- of SociaL �Sagan Broca's Brain: Ref Leet ions on the Romance of Science, New York, Random House, 1973. S.Tou Lm in, The Return to CosmoLogy: Postmodern Nature, University of CaLifornia Press, BerkeLey Ca., 1982. Is the universe a vacuum fLuctuation?', Nature 2^6 (1973) 396-7 E.P. Tryon, E.P. Tryon, Science and the Theo Logy of *Mhat made the worLd?', New Scientist 101 (198!+) It+00, 1!+-16 FLN. Mhitehead, Process and ReaLity, Cambridge University Press, 1929. 6.H. Uhitrow, The Structure and Evo Lution of the Universe, Harper, New York, 1959. Second edition, � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document RBSTRRCT The proposed syntheses Ls set Mithin generat object-theorg. tde3 The undertging the sgnthesis ts that the 3tternative Mortds sewantics - arrived 3t tn of pursuit of a tnctudtng senanttes universat ones) retevant and, semantics generat (a as connectedLg, part for of att a Languages, comprehensive object-theorg - be apptted atso tn fundamentat phgstcs, Most importanttg to the natter of the ortgtn, htstorg, 3nd phgstcat features of the cosmos, but as Mett, agatn connectedtg, theorg. etseMhere, Ln particutar Ln the LnterpretatLon of quantum a The unLversat semantics Ls a mang Mortds - theorg. The poLnt of such apptgLng an mang nonexistent Mortds - LnterpretatLon Ln cosmotogg atso Ls exptained bg Mag of examp Les, concernLng the understandLng of the contLngencg of exLstence and of present arrangements. improbabititg the R resotutton of the basLc question, sketched, a as Marm-up exerctse 'Nhg does angthLng at for exLst?' att questions as to Mhg various other the prominent features of the universe are as theg are, notabtg Mhg the constants of phgstcs appear to have. have the fundamentat parttcutar surprtstngtg senstttve vatues theg Chauvinistic ansMers through anthroptc prLnctptes are crLttcattg Ln favour of resotutLon bg Mag of Mortd sgntactLcattg, status quo arguments, MhLch use setection^ and gross rejected, correspondLng features geophgsLcat thLs and neLghbourLng unLverses to exp La Ln the surprLsLng vatues of The character of the Mortd—sgnthests resotutton - reaLLg a resotutton Ls ts of constants. frameMork fLLLed out Ln the course of countering a Mide SMeep of objections, and of exp La LnLng Mhg the resotutton frameMork invotving seLeet ion satisfactorg of the main tgpes LLLustrated in the four-fotd: is the most IMPROVED CO3MO-LOCICRL 3YMTHE3I3 TOWRRD RH There Logicai is a foundations tradition persistent - impiging simpLe and get undiscovered - for the whoLe of cosmoLogg. The as tradition, which peaked in modern rationaiism, continues strong in cosmoLogicai specuLation. unassaiiabLe Thus, contemporarg for exampLe, recent rationaiistic theories of the universe, ambitiousLg aimed at mathematico-iogicai expression and capture of nature. Thus, of MheeLer: for exampLe, the bottom Line to the mang theoreticaL enterprises LittLe astonishment shouLd there be, therefore, if the description of nature carries one in the end to Logic, the ethereat egrie at the center of mathematics. If, as one beiieves, aLL mathematics reduces to the mathematics of Logic, and aLL phgsics reduces to mathematics, what aLtemative is there but for aLL phgsics to reduce to the mathematics of Log ic ? Logic is the ontg branch of mathematics that can think about itse Lf'. Logic reassumes its ancient roLe 3S the fundamentaL science; the Mord expresses a LogicaL recipe. Even white abandoning some of the it Lus ions of grand reduct ion istic schemes, and undermining the EnLightenment power guest for the LogicaL the theoreticaL capture and can The sgnthesis outiined in setting. contribute what foLLows LiberaLised bg are semantics and to the organisation of a unified fits into this more modest It is achieved bg suitabig reLocating cosmoLogg as a part of semantics (generousig construed, for exampie, to admit contextuaL eLements). then, to controt of the universe, there is much of a more modest character that recent LogicaL theorg, as nonstandard sgstematisation, worid picture. kegs universaL So unified, semantics, re Levant semantics and cosmoLogg, as suggested in a preLiminarg wag in diagram 1. RCTURL X L ORLD(S) GEOPHYSICRL SYSTEMS SUBSPRCE PHYSICRL SYSTEMS SUBSPRCE RELEVRHT SYSTEMS SUBSPRCE MORLD SPRCE Comment. The subspaces are Marked out by ctosure and other requirements, that of by cLosure of each worLd under deducibiLity (reLevant deriva— systems reLevant biLity), that of physicaL systems by cLosure aLso under physicaL Laws formuLated terMS Ln (suitabLy of condLtLonaLs) and perhaps factuaL constraints as weLL. actuaL (or better t3ctuai) worLd Ls a seLect coMMon worLd the to nested spaces. The underLytng Lde3 of the synthesis is siMpiy this: a subspace of is aLso a suitabLe framework for cosmoLogy, for an interpret— semantics worids neutrai *3 L Lon of the Log iceL theory of the universe as a whoLe. In Less condensed form, the ide3 is that the aLternative worids semantics arrived at in the pursuit of a semantics universaL part connectedLy, as semantics comprehensive (a theory the of aLL of for aLL be objects, Languages) and, aLso appLied physics - most importantiy to the matter of the origin, history and fundamentaL physicaL features of this cosmos, but 3S weLL eLsewhere, in interpretation theory. quantum of particuLar Ln That stripping. ontoLogicai of Load MorLd-ensembLe terms of nonexistent Mortds. Hot surprisingiy, in the recasting the in theory j^s for is, the theory can be recast in existentiaLLy neutraL terms, wcthout the originaL object ionabLe theory, the Rnd in the case of quantum theory there is aLready, most convenientiy, a many-universe or worLd-ensembLe theory, ready neutrai in (e.g. changed unobservabLe the spiitting worLd of the Everett other worids interpretation gives way to future— directed worLd branching). The setting in terms of do which objects not exist, especiaLLy, is essentiaL. For one reason, the idea grew out of investigation (with Griffin for the provisionaL but so far nonexistent book UQ) of what is normaLLy taken to be a phiLosophicaL question, indeed by some such as as the fundamentaL question of metaphysics, nameLy exist? . Reset in worLd terms this becomes a question worLd such Mhy does anything at aLL of seiection the - a contains be to taken exist. For then the oLd circLe is simpiy reentered, expiaining existence in terms of more existents. Here the circLe is metaphysics: 3 much more tractabLe question. But the recasting Loses expLanatory merit shouLd aLL the worids invoived objectionabie of that we find ourseLves in which contains something existent (us as among other existent things) as opposed to an aLternative worLd, which nothing Heidegger cf. JB broken, as it is eLsewhere (particuLarLy in chapter 2), by expiaining what exists by way of what does not. It is the faiLure to duty aLLow for and -2- acknowLedge this pattern of expLsnatLons, though Lt represents coMMon practLce Ln the theoretLcaL sciences, that has wade Lssues LLke the Lntractab Le. In fact quest Lons Lihg Hetdeggerean the concernLng does angthLng quest Lon onLg Ls exLst? question LLke Lt so ftrst of a LattLce of the the character and nature of the cosMos Ln whLch Me happen to be, that are LLabLe to be asked , questLons ascendLng to (Just) seen Ls? ; questLons Uhg Ls thLs cosMos Mhtch MorLd ModeLLLngs wag fruLtfuLLg be to appLLed, as an Lwportant fLrst step Ln eLLcLtLng sone ansMers. (Bounded) LattLce of questLons. DIRGRRM 2. 7 Uhg does Mhg does angthLng evergthLng at aLL exLst? exLst as Lt Uhg do 7 Hhg do eLectrons Lihg does Lnte L L Lgent ex Lst? (Ln LLf e LLfe forns the nunbers exLst? (Ln the ex Lst? theg do?) forM Lt does?) In the reorLentatLon of MorLds senantLcs fron Languages to cosnoLog Les, f row Language to the MorLd, there are certaLn features that shouLd be kept fLrriLg Ln vLeM - apart fron such notorLous features as that anong the MorLds of the node L L Lngs are a range of bLzarre, absurd, LncoMpLete and MaverLck MorLds, and that each (nonexLstent) MorLd has a LncLudes donaLn of objects though Lt a subdoMatn (perhaps nuLL) of ent Lt Les, tgpLcaLLg contaLns nonexLstent objects, both posstbLe and not, phgsLcaLLg reaLLsabLe and the MhLch, feature of not. In partLcuLar, MorLd seLectLon shouLd not be Lost sLght of. For Lnstance, Ln assessing truth, a factuaL MorLd T Ls seLected - Ln one Mag or' another, but tgpLcaLLg bg a choLce functLon on a cLrcunscrLbed evaLuatLons are Morked out (recursLveLg) at I. cLass NaturaLLg and ho LdLng the assessnent of truth MLLL generaLLg Lead begond MorLd T LtseLf. For (reLevant) <deducLbLLLtg a subsgstew of dertvatLonaLLg cLosed MorLds Ls defLned; for poss Lb L L Ltg a subsgsteM coMprLsLng consLstent MorLds Ls Marked out; for naturaL LaMLLkeness a subsgsteM of phgsLcaL MorLds Ls dLstLnguLshed^; and so on for other cases of subsgstew and group seLectLon. $I- The Mang MorLds approach to the "Uhg does angthLng at aLL exLst?" quest Lon. -3- There ere Many canvassed answers to thts questton, and stLLL More Mays of trytng to dtsMtss Lt. RLL dtsposat the atteMpts are defective, 3nd Most of the canvassed answers are unsattsfytng (so Grtfftn and I devote a good deat of space tn UQ to showtng). One approach that ts not inadequate — but perMtts however devetopMent tn severat dtfferent dtrecttons - ts the Many wortds approach. It ts true (and argued eLsewhere, e.g. JB) that R) SoMe thtngs extst. Thts truth enjoys a Modat status, that of conttngency tn fact. weaker ctatM sufftees, naMety But, to begtn, a C) It ts conttngentty true that sone thtngs extst. For the extstence that Most thtngs enjoy or regret ts conttngent. The obvious truth of the More controverstat ctatM that nothtng necessartty Left open for the present. extsts, can be NeutraL wortds ModeLLtng of theMe C) yteLds dtreetty a Many wortds picture, wtth soMe wortds, tnctudtng the actuat wortd T, contatntng extstents, and wtth soMe posstbte wortds contatntng no extstents (but perhaps soMe nonextstents). Likened to a dtsp Lay of baLLoons: DIRGRRH 3. Static pteture of a 0 : 0 : 0 Object doMatns contatn 0 ____ _________ extstents 0 0 : 0 0 worLds ModeLLtng for theMe 0). 0 : 0 0 It can be 0 00 DoMatns contatn no 0 extstents posstbte worLds Such a neutraL nodeLLLng begs no sertous onto Log teat questions, invotves no ontoLogtcaL prodtgaLLty. For tt ts not assuMed that any of these Ln worLds extst, any way. (It ts not dtfftcuLt to represent what does not extst.) Nor need Lt prejudtee Matters unduty agatnst necesstty theMes such even were Lt Lf Lnterpretatton MistakenLy Lnststed, as as agatnst God-hypotheses. the For stratghtforward of C), whtch aLLows Lt ts necessartty true (under soMe necesstty deterMtnabLe) that soMe thtngs extst, a retated Many worLds pteture woutd resuLt; the dashed LLne woutd stMpty Move down the diagraM). But Let us st Lek wtth what ts rtght, C. It ts More reveattng to take theMe C) as tensed - after aLL extstence ts existence now (JB chapter 2) - and to tntroduce, what further Lnvesttgatton wLLL require, dynaMtcat ModeLLLngs. Then, wtth soMe evtdent eMbrotdery, the foLLowtng sort of pteture eMerges: -4- Dgnantc ptcture untverses. DIRGRRfl t*. MorLds of nodeLLLng of thene C), ML th sanpLe t 3 EXI5TEHTS (FULL CONSERVRTION) RLse and faLL of HD ] A Lt SOMET IME EXISTENTS^ R NULL LJORLD f* ExternaL ttne scats (tsLgnLfLes the Locat present) Consents. r-bjch Ls presupposed Ln the wag the pLcture Ls draMn (e.g. that sone Measure of exLstents C3n be obtained, bg Mag of partLcLe nunbers)^ but these presupposLtLons can be nodLfLed or renoved. The such as sane sort nodeLLLng serves aLso to vaLLdate thenes LLnked to C), of D) There mag have been a tLne Mhen nothLng exLsted. ConsLder seLectLon, noM (or done Ln terns of of the cructat wetter of T-seLectLon, L.e. factuat Mortd 6-seLectLon, L.e. referentLaL sub-Mortd seLectLon). ThLs Ls certaLn features these Mortds have, such as contaLnLng entttLes, LncLudLng observers, exhLbLtLng LLfe, nanLfestLng LnteLLLgence or wLnd - to antLcLpate features conLng up and sonetLnes proposed for MorLd seLectLon. Such seLectLon pLcks out thts MorLd fron the ensenbLe of MorLds (our Mortd aLso, as Lt happens). Rnd the Mortd thus seLected LncLudes exLstents. Mhg does angthLng at aLL exLst? Because thts MorLd, T, LncLudes, happens to LncLude, extstent objects. To thts extent Lt Ls -5- a natter of fortune - qood it night be hazarded, since the worLd exhibits enough that is good 3nd fortune, enough potentiaL for good. Rs a contingent Matter, this worLd contains (in its object donain) '.tens that exist. So T-setection deLivers a worLd n3king it true objectiveLg that sone things exist.^ The answer Mag seeM trite; that but is in Measure Large because the and answer are taken in isoLation, apart froM issues as to the detaiLs question of the process, the how questions, such as H) How does it happen that soMething exists? The issue can be considered in uLtinateLg exists is question terns this of of nass-energg, since evergthing that kind (so it is argued in JB chapter 9). To the H ) How does it happen that sone Mass-energg exists? tMo sorts of answer are possibte. FirstLg, there is the conservative answer: sone atwags existed. There is an end Less ongoing sea of Mass-energg, which sinpLg fLuctuates, Moves, recgcLes, etc. There are pLentg of probLens with this answer; for instance, phgsicaL prob Lens, such as how did the Big Bang of standard cosMOLogg occur, what was happening before it? But there are aLternative MatheMaticai stories now being toLd, for instance, of a Massive singuLaritg Located in space (rather than at phgsic3t tine t = 0 as with the Big Bang), which trg to offer a phgsicaL account of a continuous universe (see e.g. G. ELLis). Rnd the singuLaritg stories offered can be enriched (aiong Lines rather Like what wiLL be ventured in the case of the second answer). RLnost aLL traditionaL phiiosophicai and theoLogicat accounts, aLL v^rtuaLLg honage paging to ontoLogicaL assunptions, shouLd be inciuded aMong the conservative, existence-aiwags answers. But the nonnateriaLLst accounts anong these characteristicaLLg invoLve LeveL shifts^^Thei is back to the existence of God or the (uLtinate) One, who, on a higher LeveL, serves as eternaL sustainer, and perhaps fashioner, of the MateriaL universe. The conceptual and other probtens of such answers are sufficientLg notorious. SecondLg, there is stage nothcng existed. The energg. the Rt More appeaiing and siMpLe radicaL answer: at sone that difficuLtg before tiMe, the that anccent Long-received probLeM orthodox of how prejudice, sonething that nchLi fct, is invariabLg reinforced bg again Bang, there was no for this picture is how Mass-energg ever appeared froM the MacroscopicaLLg tranquiL sea of nothingness. past Big can It is no great feat to get coMe froM nothing. The froM nothing nothing cones, ex nihiLo Mistaken ontoLogicaL assunptions (see JB chapter 2). Yet even when these ontoLogicaL assunptions are set aside, there is the awkward natter of C3usai nechanisn. But an unLikeig storg can be toLd, a ngth retated, expLaining how sonething -6- a may (suddenly) emerge from nothing, jet of mass-energy the from sea of nothingness. The story borrows from the quantum theory of the vacuum (or rather, ot suitabie vacuums). There is suddeniy an avaianche of energy borrowing , 3nd mass creation of particies in a concentrated area.& This is the beginning of the Big Bang (at internaL time zero). It is unigue (in experience) because such a singuiarity is very improbabte. (Even a SmaLL Bang wouid be rather improbabie.) The net energy "borrowed" is borrowed on a very Long term (at high interest?), with a gradu3i repLayment pLan. This ties concerning the run-down eventuaL eventuaLLy (though perhaps over this of very a with principLes universe. protracted of thermodynamics, On this story, it wiLL time) subside back into From nothing everything existent originaLLy came; into nothingness everything existent wiLL uitimateLy process. nothingness. It is one thing to such devise 3 story, or rather the (or outLine scaffoLding) of a story; it is another to condense it into science. before But scorn is poured on such a story, Let it be noted that the story is Less bizarre, more and informative, than other extant phiiosophicaL stories. For exampLe, it appears more piausibie than the ideaList story of the construction of the physicaL worid from idea, or than the set-theoreticaL myth of the construction of the entire universe from the nuLL set - undoubtedLy a it as earLy encompasses existent individuaLs, construction, insofar of something existent from nothing, not since, despite orthodox cLaims to the contrary, the nuLL set certainty does exist (JB 9.9). There are reasons for much preferring the second styLe of story to the first - though it may appear to some to viotate conservation principLes such that mass-energy: of as in fact it need not. One is that the end Less mass-energy story faits to account for the presence of mass-energy. By contrast, nothingness does not reguire expLanation: it is, so to speak, the rest position. In terms of the range of possibiiities here, existence is what is unusuaL, what is atypicaL, what especiaLLy caLLs for expLanation, not nonexistence.? Hence the expLanatory superiority of the radicaL answer. Rs one might expect in varying such an obvious and ancient story, and as is easity discovered, scientific condensation and assessment has begun, especiaLLy in the Last decade. The idea that the totaL energy of the universe is zero was considered a human generation ago by Mhitrow&, refLecting on Flach s phiLosophy of motion. More recentLy, Tryon has argued the zero totaL energy theme, assuming a cLcsed universe and appeaLing the standard treatment of gravitationai to If the universe contains just enough potentiaL energy as negative energy. mass to cLose it, then the negative energy must more or Less exactLy canceL the energy (mc^) invoLved in the existence of that mass. Hence, the argument runs, even a a cosmos as impressiveLy Large and ancient as this universe couLd exist as deveLopment quantum vacuum through in borrowing fLuctuation on a a zero-energy vacuum, that is, through grand scaLe in a reiativistic setting. Such vacuum fLuctuations can occur by dispensation of the AE.At --h; when the mass-energy AE of a physicaL object -7- uncertainty principLe approaches zero, its LLfe,tLMe At can becoMe verg targe. OnLg the Merest begLnnLng on reMOvtng certaLn object Lons and to wore scLenttfLc storg MtLL be atteMpted. FLrstLg, there are, LnevLtabLg a such obstacLes Lt seews, onto Log LeaL and verLfteat Lontst object Lons. Hang of these turn hoMever on assuMtng that a vacuuM and ewptg space Must soMehoM exLst, at Least bg Mag of sort of exLstLng contaLner or structure. Such assuMpttons are wtstaken: no (pre-) exLstence need be assuwed. Such objects 3s vacuuws and unoccupLed space sone nonexLstent are and dLstLnctLve Mtth objects assessLbLe MatheMatLcaLLg propertLes. Though theg nag not be access LbLe to observatton, and Ln thLs narroM respect are outsLde the range of experLence, then concernLng tnvesttgattons exactLng for there to LnfornatLon Ls suffLcLent be Made of theLr features. SLnLLar potnts teLL agaLnst the objection that Lt Ls Mrong to Lwpose an externat spatLaL or tewporaL Measure on (Mass-energg) cLosed space-tLMe; for exawpLe, Mhat happened before the BLg Bang, or to ewbed the curved space-ttMe of LnquLre the unLverse Ln a Larger spatLaL or tenporaL settLng. Rs a Matter of fact, cosMOLogLsts wang exh Lb Lt no unease Ln ashLng Mhat happened before the BLg Bang even Mhen assuwLng no Matter before that, though verLftcattonLsM MouLd no doubt such to ruLe guesttons out as weanLngLess or otherMtse out of order. More to the potnt, bounded Metrtcs can atMags be extended (HubbLe ttMe Ls just wtstahe though fruLtfuLLg, soMettnes bounds vertfLcatLontst one are exaMpte), exceeded. and Rnother has been to assuwe that NothLng, stnee nonexLstent, Ls entLreLg Mtthout structure or organLsatton and ungoverned. Indeed tMo dtaMetrtcaLLg opposed poLar v,eMS of Lt have prevented, and even been run together: of NothLng chaottc, as and so excessLveLg rtch, and of Nothing as entLreLg bLank, and so excessLveLg tMpovertshed. Both are Lnadequate. R More tnteresttng ontoLogtcaL objeetton (ratsed bg Rrwstrong) Ls that such an account of the ortgtn of the unLverse takes granted for exLstence the naturaL LaMS, and so does not expLaLn hoM sowethLng ex Latent cane frow objecttons Such confuse truth neo-PLaton Law. LaMS hoLd, but do not vteMs, Mhere LaMS Mtth exLstence, exLst - bg after contrast Mtth nothLng. fashLon the of of neo-PLatonLc reLatLons of unLversaLs, MhLch exLst. On object-theorg are (such as that of JB), hoMever, unLversaLs do not exLst, and so LaMS are not thus extstentLaLLg Loaded. Once truth Ls duLg separated frow exLstence, there Ls of course the further questton of Mhg the LaMS that hoLd or evoLve do hoLd. But thts Ls a separate, and vextng, questton of uLttMate expLanatton.^ SecondLg, are there More technLcaL adwLttedLg shakg phgstcaL account; for quantuM nuwbers of objeettons, instance, that dtrected But Lt the Mtth the the vacuuw MtLL constst equaLLg of Matter and antt-Matter, and qutckLg vantsh agatn, Mhereas features of the unLverse perstst tMbaLance. agaLnst fLuctuattons and suggest noM seeMs that a verg sLLght (and, so Lt Ls satd, deLLcate) tMbaLance earLg Ln the evoLutton of the unLverse after the BLg Bang Ls just Mhat Ls required for present perMLtted features of the unLverse; and such an LMbaLance, on recent (GUT) theorLes, catastrophtc fLuctuatton hardLg excLudes. R thLrd connected obstacLe used to be sertous: Lt -8- has been presupposed that a state can be assigned to the whoLe universe.^ But that is now aLright; quantuM according for neutraL to of) (adaptation the Everett Many-universe interpretation of quantuM theory, a state function i covers the behaviour of the P worLds phgsicaL I (with P c K), which presuMabig evoLve according to a e reLativised Schrodinger equation of the fom SE(T). To soMe expLain of the recent appeaL of this sort of wortd-ensewbLe interpretation, it is worth turning to the interesting and curious business of the phgsicaL constants. The §2. of constants of phgsics and sone of their neat interreLations. natter The interesting cLaiM is that the setting or adjustMent of certain constants surprisingLg deLicate, and if the constants (and soMe of their constant that ratios) were different bg ontg sMaLL Margins, then the actuaL universe woutd very is be with the resuLt, aMong Mang other things, that we shoutdn't be different, here to observe ang of its LocaL passing show. Now the possibiLity of exp Lanation of the specific vaLues of these the in terMS of phgsicaL theory itseLf is not so far exciuded. Perhaps no constants constants in physics are uLtiMateLy fundaMentai, Various ways eiiMinating of constants though seeMS that unLikeLy. are now faMitiar, e.g. soMe represent new scaie factors and are eiiMinated by re-scaLing or choice of coordinates. Others are reMoved by More radicaL ways of reLooking at things, as in Einstein s treatMent of gravitation. But sone resist eiiMination - so far. in For, phgsicaL any theory, what case, fundaMentai is depends and soMe previousLg fundaMentat constants (such as Rvogadro s nuMber) have turned out to be derivative as theory constants on the given shape of advanced new and (deeper) were introduced. There is the reMote possibiLity, obviousLy cherished that bg soMe scientists, that in the end aLL phgsicaL constants can be reMoved, a constant-free (very grand unified) theorg in which aLL constants can be reMoved wiLL resuLt. This is not obviousLg iMpossibLe in the wag that a coMpLete eiiMination of LogicaL constants froM Log teat theorg is, that a finat triuMphant reMovat of the Scheffer stroke froM cLassicaL propositionaL Logic is iMpossibLe. However, it is too Much to expect that a "deep MatheM3tic3i anaLgsis" aLways do the job. For one thing, exp Lanations of this sort do give is an arguMent for this out. can There froM the backward proceeding character of deductive expLanations to More generaL preMisses (appLging the content-incLusion character of deduction proper). There are no MatheMaticaL anaigses without assuMptions, without a systeM of postutates. The hope (expressed by MatheMaticat Carter and others), that generaLLy deeper underlying theories can be found, wiLL not 3iwags be fuLfiLLed, of necessity. Since transforMations, such as seating, aLter or reMove constants, can transfer the Big Bang back to Minus-infinity, and so on, there is no soLid to expLain, underLying the ELLis, for one, aLLegedLy probLeMatic nuMericaL features (so data B. contends). UhiLe it is true that which constants feature, and what their vaLues are, wiLL depend on initiaL choice of units, whatever that at Least some of the constants wiLL emerge. Thus there wiLL be features choice, and vatues which require expianation, and exptanation of the however transforming the done. is For S3me broad tgpe, the present, 3nd immediate future at Least, there is no getting rid of the constants, and white theg to continue figure their numericaL vatues and ratios set some trickg prob Lems. There is the probtem, first of aLL, of describing the reLevant phgsicat data neutraL non—prejudiciaL fashion. The facts of the matter are more or Less a Ln as foLLows:- Present phgsicat theories incLude mang (phgsicaL) constants, which occur in the formutation of Laws and principtes. R number of these constants are fundamentsL, in that theg are not derived from other constants (or deduced from deeper phgsicat theorg). Two things have been noticed concerning fundamentat constants of present phgsicat theorg, both of which caLL for expLanation:If 1) the of certain constants Lag outside a rather narrow band (sur­ vatues rounding their perhaps universe wouLd be ascertained vatue), gross features of the geophgsicaL different. this - hopefuttg without CaLL prejudice, since its contra­ position represents the substantiat core of the anthropic poss ib Le principte - the sens i t iv i tg numer teat f eature. va Lues For record, the the geophgsicaL principte resuLting from contraposition takes the foLLowing form: certain gross features of the geophgsicaL universe are onLg possibie in present form if the numericaL vatues of certain constants Lie within a narrow sensitivitg band. Examptes of such gross features are isLand gataxies, Long-Lived stars, ptanets, recognised ittustrate, water, hgdrogen, heavg carbon, metats. RLL the forces, for instance, exhibit the sensitivitg features. To phgsicat the strong nuctear force were marginattg stronger, nuctei coutd if grow much begond the present Limits and att hgdrogen woutd Long have ago been converted to heLium, with the resutt that there wouLd be no Long-Lived stars (of present tgpe) and no water. On the other side, a decrease in the strong force wouLd prevent the formation of nucLei of heavg metaLs. R dozen further and more of simitar phgsics Literature. sensitivitg mag be assembLed from the re Levant easiLg 2) The Pgthagorean feature. Large numbers arrived at in ions famous turn of Eddington s out these to coincide Large reLation, exampLes astronomicaL computat­ (to within order of magnitudes). Perhaps the most number stating coincidences', the universe is the inverse square of the number as theg are mostLg caLLed, of gravitationaL other exampLes are assembLed in Bondi.) -10- particLes coupLing in the constant. is visibLe (Mang These two nunericaL features sensitivitg features co inc idences. are are (or can be) These nunericaL features are cited LaMs) conservation of inportanttg that in Large exptain to used nunber as evidence Justifging the introduction of various exotic theories (e.g. invoLving phgsicaL Most interconnected, departures exaMpies earLg Mhich froM accepted norMaLLg Mere the "verging G theories of Dirac and Jordan . So Mrites Carter, Mho appeais to soMe differentig exotic principies, anthropic principtes, Mithin features in order froM far opposite the phgsics Bang) thesis: (GeneraL cosMoLogg and Mhich couLd in principLe have been used to unsurprisingLg, the order of the dag in Mag and be great fun. It cosnoLogg. course Of that the is distiLLation specuLation is is Mith the conversion of this stuff to in received MisdoM, or even knoMLedge, that caveats shouLd be Mhen cLaiM froM evidentLg estabLished. But Large cLains on fLinsg foundations are, far fine, i.e. ReLativistic predict theM 3LL in advance of their observation' (p.291) - 3 Large is nuMericat evidence in favour of exotic theories these coincidences being shouLd rather be considered as confirMing "conventionat" Big the noM received cosMoiogicai setting. Mith the heLp of these the anthropic principies he canvasses, as he puts it, that expLain to prejudiciaL, in e.g. that entered, especiaLLg it points to favoured cone Lus ions such as priviLege or design (for huMans) in the universe. Much capitaL has aireadg been Made of the nuMericat features, of Mhat is referred to - gou C3n see the Loading straightaMag - as a cataLogue of extra­ ordinarg phgsicaL coincidence and apparentig accidentsL co-operation' (0 p.110). Here is a tgpicaL beat-up, bg Davies: The structure of the phgsicaL MorLd is deiicsteig dependent on a varietg of apparent nunericaL accidents. hang of the rather basic features of the universe are deternined in essence bg the vaLues that are assigned to the fundanentaL constants of nature, such as G, a, Mp and so on, and these features MouLd be drasticsLLg aLtered if the constants assuned even noderateig different vaLues. ... for nature to produce a cosnos even renoteLg resenbLing our own, Mang apparentLg unconnected branches of phgsics have to co-operate to a renarkabLe degree (D p.lll; sone of the prejudiciaL terninoLogg is under L ined). The part Last is particuiarig Meak: so our ignorance of interconnections is disclosed, ignorance Me Might have forestaLLed froM arguMent theorg integrated resist apparentLg fitting of unreLated phgsics: together. the topics' present if Carter serves is right. RLL the to reveaL is Lack of an theorg is bits and pieces, Mhich Nor do Large nunber coincidences point to ang hidden co-operation, but rather to over Looked connections Mhich can be argued toHards (as bg Dicke, Carter and others) using fairLg conventionaL phgsicaL equations.^ Rs for the hidden purpose terMinotogg, for nature to produce ...', MeLL, the Justificatorg case for its use is not Mereig not evident, but entireLg The sane appLies to other Lacking. terns Mhich Davies and others infiLtrate, such as -11- * 'conspire' (Dp.Ill), 'fine-tuned', deiicateiy baianced', 3ii of which suggests agents with certain purposes. Re Lated happening not objections te rm ino Logy, be some against Lodged accident , it accidentaL; be shouLd of the improbab Le coincidence , etc. R contingent worLd need is not accidentaL that Griffin Lives in Troy, Ontario, though it is contingent certainty. Rn improbabLe worLd need not be accidentaL either. RccidentaL means, according to the Concise EngLish Dictionary (CED), Occurring by chance, unexpectedLy, not according to the usuaL order of non-essentiaL'. The misp Laced for the actuaL worLd; and adventitious, th ings; generaL thrust of the notion is decidedLy accidentaL universe is a misdescription.^ To be sure, there is some considerabLe sLackness in terms Like accidentaL', wh Lch can come cLose aLso, when appLied as in schoLastic theory, to meaning contingent. The term vac i L La t ion, as its of condition dictionary coinciding; concurrence nicety coincidence' a definition remarkabLe iLLustrates makes instance the The pLain: of we L L-known act, fact or apparentLy fortu itous Large-number The coincidences are of the first type; there is LittLe case for making them out as of the second type. argue, To however, that the actuaL worLd is not mereLy contingent, but improbabLe, Lt is hardLy necessary to go so far afieLd as advanced physics. Some more homeiy exampies have managed ho Les wiLL do, such as the matter of aLL the Lucky goLfers who in one. consider Or foLLowing the from argument contingencies, to the improbabiLity of the actuaL worLd. Take some contingency, e.g. that person 1 in some ordering of the audience <^s wearing a green top. She might have been wearing any other cotour. Say there are 100 shades to choose from in the cLothing coLour cards. Then the probabiLity that she is in green is no more than 1 in 100. eut the same sort of probabiLity hoids for every other person on the earth presentLy wearing 3 top, and these probabiLities are LargeLy independent, say in I(US) bit Lion cases, i.e. 10^ cases. That is, the probabiLity of the present array of tops is no more than 1 in loH. That aLready makes present arrangements exceedingiy unLikeLy, before we go into the coLours of other bits of appareL peopie are customariLy bedecked in, the coLours towards 16 improbabLe. Lead of the NonetheLess, of motor cars and so on. So even surface contingencies books, cone Lus ion that the worLd actuaL is astronomicaLLu the situation with the fundamentaL constants does differ. Rn important difference between these day-to-day improbabilities, such as have the spouses we do, and those the constants induce is things these this:- Even that if aLL (coLours, e.g.) had been different, the worLd wouLd not be a very different pLace. Contrast the constants: their significant variation wouLd the we make worLd a very different pLace. Is there a difference in kind, with 3 radicaL improbabiLity appearing as regards the constants, degree? OnLy in degree, picture wiLL serve for the bridging range exampies of cases, or tend for -12- mereLy a difference in to suggest. The same broad everyday and cosmoLogicaL contingencg. §3- Back to mang worLds: improbabiLities and the universaL quantum theorg. Mhere that broad - Leads picture so sgnthesis sought the suggests, as does an increasing amount of cosmoLogicaL theorg - is to the mang-worLds of interpretation Quite evidentLg, worLds semantics are not the onLg semantics improbabiLitg. that can be offered for probabiLitg. few But other offer semantics simitar universaLLtg and informativeness, and some of the aLLeged competitors (not to be taken too serioustg as face damaging circuLaritg in this area, e.g. rivaLs) probabiListic semantics, urn semantics. The idea of the modeLLing naturaLLg It is improbabLe that gou have the spouse gou have , is true bg virtue of this: fact the is that in onLg a few worLds of the modeLLing, incLuding the actuaL one, do gou have gour current spouse; mostLg (insofar as gou occur) gou do not. In preciseLg the same improbabiLities, cosmic wag such particuLar as numericaL vaLues for phgsicaL constants, Lead to mang universe modeLLings. is argument to mang-universes from improbabiLities . The description of the the situation phgsicaL coincidence of probabiListic requires remarkabLe constants, notions, features', e.g. etc. extraordinarg semantics But probabiListic notions caLLs for aLternative worLds. (Thus Davies archerg Les Lie s and This goLf exampLe Of course Davies tends to see worLds used for exampLe). probabiLities as a conceptuaL device (D p.128); Everett invariabLg sees them That reaL. is, what we have emerging is repLag then do improbabiLities the as of universaLs issue! But universaLs do not exist, and nor do these expLanatorg worLds (cf. JB onLg of 8.8). Not Lead to a mang-nonexistent-worLds picture; converseLg the muLti-universe theorg expLains the improbabiLities. envisaged modeL contains ref Leet a huge coLLection of certain intervaL of accuracg); thus worLds the range of (naturaL) vaLues of the fundamentaL constants. RLL initiaL arrangements of matter and motion are refLected in worLds is The worLds. the chances of the present smaLL, exceedingig which expLains (at Least within universe a resuLting various improbabiLities. Does it than matter that we can t normaLLg quantifg these improbabiLities? Rng more we can quantifg the (Large) probabiLitg of nucLear war? No; there is something offensive about the repeated demand for quantification.^ Quantum theorg circumscribed affords situations, a the aLternative phgsicaL situations. actuaL worLd - is seLected, simiLar state mang worLds function is On measurement, one apparentLg at random picture. Least Rt for a superposition of severaL particuLar worLd - the (D p.12!*). This approach enab Les immediate resoLution of an important prob Lem in orthodox quantum theorg. R standing probLem with a compLete universe state function is that sgstem we must have some measuring apparatus that is sgstem. ... Mhen the not itseLf to measure a part of the sgstem is the entire universe, the notion of a piece of externaL measuring apparatus is meaningLess (D p.I2t+). So emerges the famiLiar conundrum for quantum theorg presented aLong orthodox (von Neumann) Lines: If there is nothing Left with which to measure [or otherwise interfere with] the -13- state the of how universe, universe the can transition from a the make superposition of many possibLe worids to one, concrete, actu3t wortd?' (D p.12^) is, There asserts, Davies interpretation many-universes one oniy - which comprehensive however a resoLution 'accept[s] simuitaneous the reaiity of aLL the possibte atternative universes' (D p.I2i+). But, given the route we have come, it is easy to ontccaLLy atternative neutrai this, to direct that see from there an is object-theory. atternative assumes many universes atso, but onty some at any stage are This actuat. It is obvious enough is that the probabilistic spread of quantum states does not require existent states, any more than the range of atternative dress states for someone probabty attired in requires green, the existence of the person in different ctothes. Measurement now shows which wortd/state an object such as etectron or person in. actuatty is an In these terms it does not cotLapse the probabiLity wave packet, or set of worLds, but marks one out. Lihat isn't known measurement is which worLd (or narrower set of worLds) is actuaL (or the before actuat etectron is in). quantum description, Uhen nothing the entire cosmos encompassed is the within Left to coLLapse the wave' (D p,12S). Rather is nothing in the way of externat measurements is avaiLabLe to determine which is the actuaL worLd; however internaL information can be made use of in the usuaL experimentaL ways. To set interpretations many-worids Everett the quantum of theory and in the contrasting neutrai worLds perspective, here (adapting OeLJitt and Graham) are some Leading features: i) R separate cLassicaL sphere externaL to any and every is not required; quantum set-up it makes sense to consider and investigate a state vector for the whoLe universe. ii) The state vector covering the totaL system never universes) (of coLLapses, and so the totatity it describes can be deterministic. iii) LJhat is described through variabLes dynamicaL the jointLy, comprehensive is not aLL equaLLy reaL; vector and the the actuaL worLd but a system comprising many worLds. (On the Everett are state interpretation on the neutraL worLds these interpretation they are not, other worLds than actuaL ones Lacking of any sort of reaLity.) iv) Through chronoLogicaL deveLopment of the dynamicaL the state vector decomposes naturaLLy ref Leeting a progressing branching of the into system orthogonaL universe worLds) into a set of mutuaLLy unobservabLe worLds. variabLes, (and (On account this is described as a continuaL spLitting into vectors system the of Everett equaLLy reaL worLds; but not in neutraL theory which disposes of this reLativism.) v) In each worLd good" measurements yieLd definite resuLts, and in many -14- worLds, incLuding the actuaL, famiLiar statisticaL quantum Laws hoLd, indeed C3n be derived or approximated. *- -^ince the neutraL version directLg avoids mang of the to theorg, what is the case for the Everett form? In main part it consists Everett simptg of mistaken ontoLogicaL assumptions, as such objections the what that ReaLitg overactive an principte, has phgsicaL properties must exist.The further argument that aLL branches must be equaLLg reaL, is not compeLLing. Thus DeMitt contends: Because there exists neither a mechanism within the framework of the formaiism nor, bg definition, an entitg outside of the universe that can designate which branch of the grand superposition is the reaL worLd, aLL branches must be regarded as equaLLg reaL (p.178). But we can easiLg incLude actuaL worLd seLection (as group worLd seLection) within cone Lus ion does not foLLow. the weLL and framework; other as given difficuLties the Everett specific, there is, Ln the first pLace, reaList theories such Everett's. as permissive regarding such worLds. In reaList-reLativist a demarcation SecondLg, fact, the however, interpretation theorg avoids. To be faced prob Lem not neutraL theorg the of this the intended It has been objected (e.g. bg Lewis) that the neutraL worLd encounters kinds neutraL bg is too theorg is restrictive about worLds; and few or none of worLds of contemporarg reaLists (^uch as Lewis) get into the picture, since aLL such worLds incLude as existents certain universaLs. OnLg neutraLised anaLogues of such worLds appear fn case, the theorg can be as restrictive as is appropriate about ang In 7). aLso (see which worLds are phgsLeaL, or phgsicaLLg possible. Requisite subcLasses such worLds phgsicaL can marked be out conform tig to phgsicaL Laws and through framework requirements (e.g. that the ensembLe forms a HLLbert space). it is an iLLusion that reaLism as Moreover soLves the reLevant demarcation probLem. It simpLg covers it up, in an unsatisfactorg wag. highLight To us varg a in stock of coupLe pertations, some of what is different in a neutraL iLLustrations of reaListic interpretation, the ontic mang-worLds Let inter- the famiLLar two sLit interfer­ wag. Consider first ence affair. On a straightforward the neutraL approach, we appear forced to concLude that each eLectron traverses both sLits in a wave Like form' (Les Lie LI, p.I!+6), is to the dcaLectic interpretation that the eLectron goes through that both sLits. The mang- worLds approach avoids such contradiction^, aLLowing eLectron to traverse just one sLit in the actuaL worLd - onLg in another branching from this, the the worLd, eLectron traverses the other sLit, therebg inducing probabiListic interference with the actuaL-case eLectron. The wave function provides a superposition of two such possibLe cases, not two actuaL cases. In the transition other worLds are not mang-worLds theorg). from phgsicaL (or potentiaL) worLds to the actuaL one, 'destroged' (as LesLie suggests in his criticism of Nor is the interaction of worLds causaL. There are few or -15- no causaL effects even on the Everett reaLity version; is spiitting thus not not actuaity observed (cf. virtuai worLds, reLations, etc.). Though there seen, are transworLd interreLations on object-theory these do further criticaL point is that physicaL worLds are not probabiListicaLLy The entities. as exist not independent. But that s aLright; since probabiLity is an natter, intensionaL probabiListic interference is unprobLenatic (cf. "possibiLity" interference). scattering exanpLe where an eLectron is Consider next Davies at fired a proton. The probabiLity wave in such scattering represents a set of worLds for the eLectron. 'The quantun wave provides a Measure of the probabiLity of finding the eLectron 3t the Location: where the eLectron is Most LikeLy to be found ation, and disturbance is greatest there the wave (D p.l2i*). Fleasurenent deterMines the Loc­ so aLters the probabiLities, thus on the orthodox view reducing the wave. Recording to the Everett on however, interpretation, neasurenent the universe divides into two, ... one containing a right Moving eLectron ... Each worLd is equaLLy rest inhabiting each since it is not The observer conscious upon that MeasureMent down-right is spiitting so thus, by occurs; the for there certain a is so near­ probabiLities, anending scattering, that, possibie the because of the uncertainties physicaL states of universe, corres­ ponding to the probabiLity wave, are increased. Lihere there was one for the actuaL possibLities). worLd in possibiLity regard, now there are N Many (N Mirroring the this R nany-worids interpretation of physicaL theory provides a naturaL for neutraL a new state function resuits, appearing to coLLapse 'the wave. since RLL that happens wuth worLd branching is guaranteed copy worLds. But onLy one worLd is actuaL, and represents the (reaL) of universe. Heasurenent can deterMine which this is, and one spLits, MisLeading. There is no spiitting; rather in quantuM processes worLd-branching takes pLace, rep Licat ion atso wortd . Even on the Everett interpretation this is inaccurate, it interpretation ... principLes which aMong seLect detinit or wortds, as setting what are caLLed anthropic principLes, and aLso non-chauvinistic reptaceMents for then such as geophysicaL principLes, can serve to do.^ Rnd in this setting expLanations, of a sort and of varying adequacy, The of aLL the nunericaL features can be furnished. under Lying reason is not (siMpty) that there wiLL aLways be sone universes, which are duty seLected, where the nuMbers coMe out right, but that sone and universes conditions (for of the right sort are aLso decent physicaL universes (a Much More difficuLt requirenent to satisfy). sone such coincidences) It is as these, furtherMore, that are observed (by us), contain universes carbon and water LocaLLy, and so forth. It is then no surprise that we perceive a universe to which so Many speciaL conditions pertain, for we have seLected fron the enseMbLe onLy by our very existence' (0 p.126). But it again, taLk of our seLecting is MisLeading (though taLk of seLection, or naturaL seLection, is not). It is rather that, as a contingent natter, we happen to inhabit such universes^. Rnd such taLk negLects the iMportant point that further work is required, for satisfactory expianation - that piausibte argunents, not invoLving us, but connecting gross geophysicaL features with nuMericaL features, have aLso -16- to be suppLLed. In thts Mag, ustng the MorLd-ensembLe hgpothests ... [but] MLth[out] the Meak anthropLc prLncLpLe, Lt Ls possLbte to discover pLausLbLe arguments to pLn doMn the vaLues of aLmost aLL of the fundamentaL parameters p.129, a centraL part of hLs cLatm). Indeed DavLes hotds out the negatLng but (D prospect of beLng abte to do much more, constraLnLng the dtmensLonaLttg of space and ttme, the number of quarks and Leptons, numbers of fundamentaL forces, That reaLLg MouLd a sgnthesLs of consLderabLe poMer. It Ls a sgnthesLs, gtve moreover, MhLch can be absorbed or sLmuLated MLth Ln a upon mang-MorLds neutraLLsLng prLncLpLes MorLd bg etc. quantum seLectLon theorg prLncLpLes. and cosmo-Log LeaL repLacLng NonetheLess sgnthesLs, the anthropLc DavLes, the LLke maLnstream phgsLcLsts he artLcuLateLg represents, Ls uncomfortabLe MLth ang such that he LndLcates, ang such grand pLcture, and rLghtLg so, as the 3S sgnthesLs anthropLc expLanattons LnvoLved are far from entLreLg satLsfactorg. HostLg he seems to hope Lnstead that contLngencLes MLLL aLL be expLaLned as necessLtLes of (proposLtLons phgsLcs grand a pLcture, necessarg grand at Least Ln foLLoMLng Log LeaLLg from another theorg). But the hope Ls mLspLaced; Ln Large unLfLed measure Lt represents 17thC ratLonaLLsm over agatn. SometLmes, hoMever, he seems to feet desLgn Ln the untverse. - Ls Mhat features: to supposed emerge, and does emerge, from the numerLcaL Mhat anthropLc prLncLpLes vs. MorLd seLectLon prLncLpLes. Uhat Ls supposed to emerge depends upon hoM the matter Ls set up, hoM the pLcture emphasLaed. Ls Mhat presented, For exampLe, DavLes and LesLLe both set thtngs up so onLg tMo optLons are supposed to be open. In hLs Preface to Da^Le^ Ls The RcctdentaL UnLverse, suggests the sgstematLc aLternatLves are eLther reLLgLon or an anthropLc prLncLpLe. R sLmLLar cLaLm appears Ln LesLLe, Mho puts the aLternatLves as (ethtcaL) necessttg or anthropLc assumptLons. Thus hLs concLusLon (to L2, p.81) The cosmotogLcaL evidence can suppLg __ forcefut grounds for vLeMLng at Least one of these thtngs ss true. (1) God Ls reaL, though presumabLg as a creattve ethtcaLrequtrement rather than as a dtvtne person Mho LLteraLLg destgned our LLfe-contaLntng cosmos. [So the unLverse extsts because Lt shouLd.J (2) There extsts a Mortd EnsembLe [so the condtttons LeadLng to Ltfe are bound to occur someMhere (L2, p.55)J - and the attempt to dertve aLL the fundamentaL charactertstLcs of our cosmos from some untfted FLeLd Theorg Ls tn error. DavLes LnsLnuates that the obvtous Lnference from the cat3Logue of numerLcaL features Ls thts: a htdden prLncLpLe seems to be at Mork, organLstng the cosmos Ln a coherent Mag (p.110). Thts runs paraLLeL to argument from desLgn, hardLg an Lmprovement. One of the prLncLpLes htdden Ls hgpothests; but another Mhtch DavLes (unLtke LesLLe) generaLLg anthropLc prLncLpLe, to LncredLbLe accuracg 3nd Ls some sort of God favours Ls the a gutdtng prLncLpLe Mhtch serves to fLne-tune the cosmos for us (humans) - or Ltfe, or Ltfe-supportLng sgstems, or __ ? Or for observers,or LnteLLLgence, or not for angthtng. The chotce offered Ls reaLLg then an oLd famLLLar one, faced bg thtnkers at Least stnee the (so-caLLed) EnLtghtenment: God or Han, or after a recent ftrst correctton and Mtth a different emphasts, Humans -17- or God. In fact burted under duaLitg, this is aLreadg as (Science) or Hunans or God. However the a nang tenpts favoured which option, Phgsics excLuded, in error . Rnd it is we as seen: have (coMprehensive) phgsics without netaphgsics, no scientific theorg no is Much scientist and phiLosopher, is increasinqLg seen as excLuded, as forbidden fruit or even as there at Least a three-wag choice: Phgsics giinpsed, without Large assunptions - which stands on its own. But further afieLd there is get is which option, another not excLuded: option here canvassed. The ciain to be eLaborated is this: no (deep-ecoLogicaL) principies of a tgpe not aLreadg required for Low LeveL senanticaL purposes worLd seLection principies) are caLLed for in expiaining the nunericaL (naMeig, features at Least as satisfactoriig as nor huMans Neither principies, gods such be upon popuiarig aLreadg foreshadowed, doing. in More in reMoving huMans features god-Like (and, universe. the principLe cones in a varietg of anthropic verg precise (incLuding Barrow's biocentric reforMutations). SoMe exaMptes give the inpression:- The existence as observers seLection bioLogicaL (D to the own used be can existence a as constants' (ibid). This presents severaL for renoving underiging ngsterg is verg different fron nunericat of expLanation, our p.viii); effect, ... to expLain the otherwise Mgsterious nuMericat disentangie; expLat,ning wiLL idea is to reiate basic worLd features to our own vaLues of the fundanentaL phgsicaL issues as such coLourfuL for nainstreaM phgsicists, atMost none of then prettg MostLg the upon hunans, associated inteLLigence) fron a new speciaL pLace Rs succeed options other the are essenti3t. Since gods do not figure in anthropic wiLL focus the incidentaLLg, forMS, object-theoru far-out the features. sorts, various or Rnd nag these turn in have further theg Mag be siMpig contingent, refLecting seLection without specific purpose. Sone phgsicists go so far as to ciain: our existence constrains the structure of the universe, indeed it even it (0 p-112), for to us , quote froM Hawking and CoLLins. connection in this sweeping context h3s been dubbed this j^s Davies the does, have nothing specificaLLg to do inteLLigence, or with Life, etc. The Dicke argunent, for Eddington-Dirac expLain coincidence, is based of principLe : anthropic the show with what work the or hunans, with designed exanpLe, to onig on the presence of heavg eieMents, and so gives but a hint of bioLogg, if that. So reversaL Invoking the huMan forMuLaticn of the principLe (D p.112)! But quite generaLLg the argunents advanced, which do principLe seLects reaLLg there is no spirit of the Copernican revoLution' in this fashion (pace D p.115, barter, and others). The conditionaL principLe estabLished bg the Dicke arguMent is essentiaLLg J) If [because, g^ven] there exist heavg eieMents, then the universe is such that the Eddington-Dirac coincidence ho ids. The fuLL expLanatorg argunent conprises, as weLL as the detaiLed phgsics that goes toward J), the nodus ponens inference: -18- The Eddington-Dirac coincidence hotds. There exist heavy eLements, J) More generaLiy, the anthropic way gives principie to physicatiy a argued conditionai scheme of the enthymematic form K) if F then T, or its contrapositive K ) if not-F then not-T, where F is a hard factuai ciaim or more commoniy its existentiat reiativety generaiisation , and T is a more theoretic3i ciaim concerning typicaity features of the worLd, such as numericai features. The short form of anthropic exp Lanation, or better status quo expLanation, is then the argument form F, if F then T L) . .T. famiLiar ontoLogicaL proofs, for instance of an externaL worLd from the Moore s fact that exist, hands arguments. such omit typicaLLy proofs phiLosophers just are difference The is that the soLid argumentation that goes into estabLishing the conditionai schemes of status quo expianations; for instance, makes LittLe effort in this direction, and the required entaiLment rather Moore evidentLy faiLs to hoLd (see fn 30). Other formutations of the anthropic principie in the Literature are than better those hardLy 3tready exhibited. LesLie, who at Least (Like Barrow) moves humans a LittLe off centre stage, puts it in this counterfactuaL way: if our universe had been [everywhere] hostiie to Life then nobody wouLd be observing it (L2, p.66). If the consequent simpiy contextuaLLy impiies that something a Live is doing the observing, then the principie is ana Lytic, and scarceLy up to the intended expLanatory tasks (without requisite information that the the universe contains Life, and much eLse being separateLy pumped in). MhiLe if does not require this, it appears fatse; the Latest seeing-eye robot consequent did survive the hoLocaust, or did just happen as a resuLt of the quantum fLuctuation. In such as Dicke's most purported argument. offers faces reLated difficuLties: worLd appLications of the anthropic The other version of the principie LesLie NecessariLy we conscious beings observe a which is Life-containing (LI, p.lt+1). Rs it stands, this is faLse; for we mightn t exist. Nor wiLL appropriate deLetion consciousness retain we' of fix things. the worLd is, Me might but not be observers, aLL being in vats. But repaired the version is pretty use Less. It bears onLy tangentiaLLy (through that vacuum any case the formuiation Lacks sufficient generaLity; it faiLs to connect appropriateLy with scheme, the but contingency, Life its consequent, containing) on what is at issue concerning numericaL features. The materiaL on us, on observers and the Like, is strictLy irreLevant, a hang-over again presumabLy constructions of quantum theory. -1?- from bad ideaList * The that the Copernican principte has suffered some sort of set-b3ck idea because of the essentiai rote of anthropic principies in explaining Large-number can be traced back through Carter, who heLped popuLarise the rote coincidences, between of anthropic principies and made the (rather obscure) distinction strong weak has been exaggerated subservience to the 'Copernican principte' [which is] that we must and not assume principies. anthropic gratuitoustg that we Recording to Carter, there occupg a priviLeged centraL position in the (C p.231). The regrettabLe tendency, he sags, has been to universe extend the to a most questionable dogma to the effect that our situation cannot principte be priviLeged in ang sense ... (in extreme form ... the 'perfect cosmoLogicaL principLe ...)'. The Latter assumption is certaintg untenabLe (as Dicke pointed because the universe is bg no means spatiaLLg homogeneous on a LocaL scaLe out) and speciaL conditions (of terrestrial temperature, chemicaL environment) do prevaiL on Earth. But its removaL does nothing to undercut Life the Copernican principLe, or to boost the anthropic principLe in the wag thinks Lt For does. is Carter his bracketed comment after his first formuiation of the anthropcc principle is that Lt for requisite aLthough our situation is not necessaritg centraL, inevitabLg priviLeged to some extent' (C p.291). It is doubtfuL that our position is centraL; whether it is so priviLeged depends on the intended contrast, but whatever the privilege is, it hardlg seems inevitabLe. Carter gives severaL non-equivaLent formuLations of the anthropic principLe, the first of which takes the quasi-anaLgtic but ambiguous form, LJhat we C3n expect to observe must be restricted bg the conditions necessarg for our presence as observers' (C p.291; repeated D p.119). This is certs inLg not the same as Davies condensation of it, what he caLLs the weak principLe, that observers construaL, restrict the observed'. On the obvious (but Less charitabLe) this is but rampant verificationism, of a tgpe verg familiar however from interpretations of quantum theorg. Uhat exists is independent of observers; and observers, especiaLLg remote ones, mag have no significant impact on what iL5 observed. The condensation is accordingLg false. So also, for different reasons, is what it condenses. For one thing, our expectations mag run astrag. True, what we observe is restricted bg the conditions for our doing just that, nameLg being as observers. But this tautologg imposes no phgsical constraints, being equaLLg true for Xing as observing; and no such connection is appeaied to in ang of the derivations of coincidences that Carter sketches. Once again aqain the present arguments never have angthing in detail to do with humans, or even "observers 4-c? -20- .2-1 (and surety animats observe). Fit best the arguments are directed to the presence of water or carbon 12 or some such - things sometimes erroneousiy equated Life, and often, rather dubiousty, said to be necessary for Life.^S The situation is of this sort with Carter's "iiiustration" of the weak better Locat) anthropic principte, which he formutates as foitows: 'we must (or be prepared to take account of the fact that our Location in observers universe is existence as the necessariLy priviLeged to the extent of being compatibLe with our p.233). In order to get to grips with this recondite formuiation (C Let us remove the initiaL intensionaL functors (which my empiricist friends to with assure are me not essentiaL in physics, despite ubiquity, and their physicists procLivities to modaLs). Now our position can hardLy be priviLeged (despite Carter s tru necessariLy since human-types just might be itaLicization), uniformLy distributed through the universe or again might not exist at aLL. LJhat necessity there is enters in a different way. LJhat we are Left de Let ion, with since misLeading, probabiListic arguments suitabLe for Life in the universe (some detaiLs justified is Like more something unique (though principte this need require of Hh3t may be met. In this humans we are Long-Lived stars Rnd stiLL much more than a weak is dragged in. It is enough, for seLeet ion, universe contains Locations, neighbourhood Sag3n). we're working at it); even on Terra much of the rest of the animat kingdom is simitarLy favoured. seLeet ion in priviLege of habitats miLLions suggest are to this: we are favoured in that the physicaL conditions for our existence, as observers, are hardLy due Our Location in the universe is priviLeged to the extent of is then: be',ng compatibLe with our existence as observers'. But this ciaim cs after in where fact heavy Like the earth, in the metaLs occur, and so on (for certain other pureLy geotogicaL features). BoLtzmann s expLanation of the present high degree of which Ls extremety improbabLe cosmic organisation (in a thermodynamicaL setting) is aiso said to appLy a weak anthropic principte ; witness this the onLy reason that we are priviLeged to exceedingLy untikeiy occurrence is that our very existence [etc.J -21- O.2.2.. * depends upon the condition which atone can be bg estabiished remarkabte that (D p.123). But again onLg gross phgsicaL organisationat principLes fLuctuation are seLected for; and no more than a weak seLection principte is required. beveraL expLained , so Carter and Davies ci3im, be cannot coincidences simpig bg a weak principte (at Least in the muLti-universes). of is made to the strong (or better gLobaL) principte: appeaL these absence The universe ... must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some in barter s (p.120). formuLation exist is for manifesttg faLse. So, Cartesian paraphrase Carter gives of the strong different cogito ergo mundus taLis est . The worLd wouLd presumabtg not be principte, verg theg is this appaLLing the necessarg; the universe does. Rnd since observers mag verg easiLg never given have evotved in the universe, reasons, stage R coroLLarg of the strong principte in this heaviLg necessitated guise is that observers are conditionaLLg must For so different were the contingent premiss faLse; and certainLg the premiss mag Least be true but the cone Lus ion faLse. But at Loading, necessitg gets and principte the appropriate conctusion. For, propertg ideaLLg this the inferentiaL form, with the into formuLated, abandons paraphrase scheme the as is before, Law Like conditionaL of basic form, if F then T, where however T is a a genuinetg gLobaL cLaim that the universe is such 3nd such (e.g. the universe now contains more matter than radiation). The scheme, so then, recast is feature distinctive some theoreticaL LocaL strong the that T is hoListic assertion 3bout the universe, incLuding essentiaL reference to it, not, as it mag be on about of the weak principte, of the universe, which can readiLg be features stated or restated without reference to the universe. But the distinction is not particuiarLg important. The robust, troubie is it from 3 worLd-seLection gives Lt a misLeading most LawLike Mag requisite within consequent. For exampLe, there is stiLL no (egocentric) thought matter; to phgsicaLLg without Descartes God to puLL him out. universe the taiLor-made is for framework of idea - in essence it cLaims a wag Living organisms are subsequentig assured of existence. [So it is]... akin mankind to inhabit. products secuLar expLanations. teteoLogicaL R duLg cLaims anthropic worLd for (D p.121). Such erroneous presentations have done much to encourage both a new anthropocentrism and the idea that are unLike habitation, 3nd that both the Laws of to traditionaL retigious expLanation of the worLd: that God made the are from Hard as it is to credit, Carter is phgsics and the initiaL conditions obLigingLg arrange themseLves in such that an procLivitg to ideaiism exceLLed bg Davies, who sags of the strong principte that that in route respectabLe Carter's (exhibited in C2)), he mag weLL get stuck in the argue to bounds to the intended phgsicaL given and of satisfactorg impression antecedents for the scheme, and makes it presentLg impossibLe appropriateLg verg perspective Carter's extravagant Cartesian paraphrase of the strong with that is principte nor on a par reformuLated Davies with, strong and in schema expLanations anthropic competition supports design with, none of the makes regarding the universe. Nor, as wiLL appear, expLanations, when made presentabLe, -22- akin to retigious features of the worLd. The expLanations take different LogicaL of explanations forms and LnvoLve quite different ingredients. To see what is reaLLy required for the strong schema to operate, it pays to Look at Then appLications. it becomes evident observercentric that considerations are strictLy irreLevant. Once again far stronger, and biocentric more dubious, conditions than are required for the estimates actuaLLy made been For introduced. instance, (BoLtamann) K, is a good exampLe of a prediction based on what strong' anthropic principLe' (C p.23^); (8) is as foLLows: K aLL f < that is 2 " Tl_ 5 have according to Carter, his condition (8), which imposes an order of magnitude upper bound on cosmoLogicaL But and constant may be termed the 3 ' "P , P invoLved in obtaining this bound, retevance, is the of assumption that ' the un iverse is not radiation dominated aLL its [finite] Life (i.e. that the matter contribution ... to the mean mass density ... becomes greater at some stage Insofar this as is than the necessary radiation (C ...)' contribution pp.233-^.). at aLL - since the estimates concern onLy very broad features, and not LocaL variations - it is 3s necessary for Lichen as for Larkspurs. DLL that is required is a sLightLy stronger worLd seLection principLe than mereLy that worLd contain heavier eLements at some stage; but stiLL the onLy a gLobaL geophysicaL principLe. Rnd this is aLL that here. The same set of points amounts to appLies to Carter's further use of the strong principLe, to estimate the Lower bound on K, which appLies the conventionaL that gaLax Les ... are formed by condensation, starting as reLativeLy hypothesis smaLL density fLuctuations in an otherwise homogeneous further The strength tendentious assumption in background (C p.2St+). this appiication is that gaiaxies are necessary for the formation of stars and hence of Life (C p.23!*). NonetheLess there are arguments for the strong anthropic principLe, though faLLacious ones obviousLy. They come firstLy from positivism. It is cLaimed that if the universe exists then it must be observabLe; so there must be observers - a modaL faLLacy. Davies (in his exposition of Barrow and not argues universe which from the faLse premiss that onLy what is observed exists, that a did then others) admit observers is meaningLess' (D p.I21). This is ideaListic garbage. They come secondLy from an aLLeged expianatory rote, in expLaining coincidences. But it is unnecessary for this purpose as initiaL worLd seLection wiLL serve. They come thirdLy from human chauvinism; thus, too human existence is said to be responsibLe for the very speciaL structure of the universe' (D p.121)! The connection is not however causaL; so what is it supposed There is be: teLeoLogicaL? thus a serious probLem as to how this responsibitity, hardLy evident, is exercised. FinaLLy a strong principLe might uniformity to - one principLe to cover be argued for on grounds of aLL cases. But better a weaker correct -23- principLe than a strong faLse or geophgsicaL principLe wouLd suffice Rnd principLe. dubious doubt no a weaker aLL phgsicaL constants. (Of course, for there reMains the natter of this worLd seLection. This worLd does exhibit Life, incLude hunans, and so on. But these features, Like the present species of does eucaLgpts expLanations, or reLevant, cLasses of worids.)"^ and are RnusingLg, astroLogicaL and More converses hunan affairs; white under gerMane not the to extravagant anthropic principies are to astroLogg, ceiestiaL events infLuence anthropic hunan anaLogue, affairs infLuence CeiestiaL events and processes incLude those of the sun. Moon events ceiestiaL its are abstracted fron in seLecting expLanatorg Recording other. each of wonbats, grazing of whereabouts and and other pLanets (especiaLLg). Rnd these certaintg appear to have an (indirect) weak infLuence, especiaLLg through the soLar atMosphere and pLanetarg Large pLasMas, on terrestriaL phenoMena (Fegerabend, p.93). The anthropic converse, in this forM danagingtg anthropocentric and exhibiting an excess of hubris, is Much further froM the truth. Not just the anthropocentric, but the eMphasis of nuMericat features. Rnd despite the bioLogicaL anaLogies, just Lt,ke explanation seLection without vaLues, so even Rs are there there is seLection without seLectors. More, RLthough seLection is sonetiMes accoMpiished through seLectors, often takes not is naturaL seLection. It is not seLection for, for fitness, survivaL, or whatever. Nor, More iMportant is it seLection bg, bg soMe agent. vaLues MispLaced. is insistence, Life is not essent-iaL in Mang worids Le^Lie Despite biocentric seLection without seLecters, randonig or otherwise - this tiMe as in naturaL pLace seLection, which does not require a personified Nature to do the have evoLutionarg theories as/oid ageneg. In avoiding ageneg, seLection is Like that seLecting, as enphasised. Such expLanation can straightforwardig of Darwinian evoLut- ionarg theorg; and seLection contrasts with direction as incLuded in aLternative evoLutionarg Though accounts (cf. DarLington, p.l^ff). anthropic principies coMe in a varietg of forMs, depending upon how the conditionaL scheMa ^nvoLved is fitted out, none of theM, then, does what is saud, none depends essentiaLLg on the presence of huMans, or of Life. SgntacticaLLg, theg etaborate usuaLLg status quo arguMents, of forM L), with factuaL fir^t preMis^ F concerning the state of the worLd LocaLLg (weak forM) whoLe (strong seLection forM). SenanticaLLg, or as a the factuaL preMisses function as worLd principies; theg serve to Mark out the cLass of phgsicaL wortds or to narrow then down to these or those, e.g. to those where heavier eieMents such as carbon occur, those where Long-Lived stars, such as the sun, appear. It is that carbon is sonetiMes taken to provide an "order-of-Magnitude" approxiMation for Life (that is the nearest Long-Lived star is supposed to to hunans provide that the the "approxinations" get); Life as the arguMents a steadg warMth required for the evoLution of Life (but Long-Lived stars, water, and heavier objects are as to true near need get). But these additionaL, and nore dubious, detaiis are unnecessarg for the Main thrust of status quo arguMents, as distinct -24- from their anthropic 3nd biocentric augmentations. meet Given that the worids seiected are of this and that cast - in generai geophgsicai gross Less, up the to constraints — other features of them can be derived (more or standards rough accepted in and physics) in expLained, particuLar, how and that it is that certain (fundamentaL) physicaL constants Lie in restricted ranges, narrow and unexpected ranges. These arguments, duty fitted out, do provide exp Lanations, non-causat exp Lanations, of physicaL features of a contingent, mereLy LmprobabLe universe. Much there is, however, in these most ctaims, that has been contested, from the psycho LogicaL such of inadequacy a universe to the worth of such expLanations, if expLanations they are at aLL. objections to the cosmo-LogicaL synthesis; and finding unLikety, an in comfort and with Prob Lems mereLy universe. contingent, Somehow contingent universes have acquired the reputation of being coLd, remote and uncaring - a not habitat for sensitive creatures. But the reputation is undeserved, since fit contingency does not bear on any of these things. Mhat is contingent can be just as weLL as coLd or neither; caring or not, so far as the appLication sense aLL; at and hot makes so on. One can be warm and comfortabLe in bed on a wet and wintry night. One can be at home, comfortabLe in, in tune with, a tiny part of an improbabLe universe, as some tribaL peopLes are. None of these virtues are Ln any way undermined by contingency, matter of a necessary universe. or aLways assured by the quite separate a degree of harmony between us Furthermore, there can be, or have evoLved, and our surroundings , without principLes, as that our worse, that the universe is universe such exaggerated cLaims, on based anthropic are very speciaL and tuned to us' or, surroundings made for us'. Me humans can be in with tune the without having the universe tuned to us, as we can foLLow and ornament a song on the wind or in the woods. But so far, especiaLLy recentLy, we humans coLLectiveLy are not doing too weLL in attuning oursetves to the worLd. Rs this iLLustration begins to metaphysicaL and psychoLogicaL reveaL, predeLiction^ may pLay a not inconsiderabte rote in choice of, and ornamentation of, physicaL theory, especiaLLy of controvers LaL theories such as quantum theory and cosmoLogicaL theory. In the case of such theories there is a certain bag technicaL so to say tricks, tricks, equations and so on, which are de rigeur - a theory-skeLeton - and beyond that both an interpretation and setting for the bag integrating of theM and suppLying of with some sort of meaning, and them usuaLLy aLso some further formaLism connecting the tricks together or to a wider theoreticaL background. For exampLe, even in accounts of too much in the way of interpretation theory where is commonLy frowned upon, extensive correspondence ruLes Linking the formaLism with upon quantum cLassicaL physics are retied heaviLy. Rt Least for everything beyond the theory-skeLeton, which is what is appLied in most concrete day-to-day appLications of the theory, there is much room for rivaL fLeshing out of the skeLeton - Latitude -25- such as there is in archeological reconstructions of peoples from some scattered bones. Recasting quantum theorg, as in the mang-worlds interpretation, offers not as merelg a basis for fleshing out the theorg non-idealisticallg, but for combining it with general to subject much of the criticism, much of it directed more broadlg at most Happilg as However such recasting, when not reLativitg. largelg ignored (the common fate of nonstandard theories), is criticism. well plural world theories in general, misses the neutral modification. There are firstlg a batch of aesthetic and ontological objections. These commonlg take off from the of unattractiveness duplication or replication of profligate such worLds. LJeLL, tastes and vaLues, Like intuitions, do varg with sub-cuLture. Some of us, who escaped over-exposure to worlds the ReaLitg do PrincipLe, stories illuminating and attractive, indeed verg inviting. So, next, the whole thing is said to be unbelievable: no one can reasonabLg existence believe worLds nonetheless, especiaLLg in explanation. these in (the these unlimited numbers of universes. Granted, we do not believe of) in this either. These other worLds do not exist; but we can make of neutral find heavg Load of objections carrging on about excess use extensive In this wag we avoid a baqgage. ontic also Ue main criticisms based on Occam s razor. (RLL these objections are short-circuit met, in much detail, in JB.) Linked to such Occamist protests are a batch of objections that are pictures worlds effect the to over-engineered, both too complex 3nd including too much baggage. Thus in thermodgnamics a smalt fluctuation producing some order is more LikeLg than one producing Lots of order, one galaxg more LikeLg than Lihg do similarlg we not find ourselves in a one galaxg universe, which is far more LikeLg? The answer is in part: because Less LikeLg contingencies hold. Is the ubiquitg No, (D p.123)? mgsterg instance, the on the commenting of of numbers approaches reasons. in these unwarranted presuppositions. The that the universe was set others Like be explained. For Dicke Thus and Peebles remark, in of the universe for a few conscious individuals, overdesign revealed well one of a thing is itself verg unlikelg. Find just special can, that a single galaxg cosmos might be ruled out bg the can observed galaxies in our universe ... therefore a such evolution further there mag be mang. up Mach's Moreover, principle. questions and remarks are based on various overdesign" for idea, for example, presupposes some individuals; but the worlds picture correctLg avoids thLS assumption. The things in this world that exist happen to be there, probable or not, and often, for reasons we can sometimes explain, not. But there is tittle solid evidence that theg are arranged, for us or others. In its original form the unfocussed "overdesign" objection was mainlg directed at cruder anthropic principles, as were unverifiabilitg and unfalsifiabilitg. a batch of objections The well-worn criticism, that notorious psgchoanalgtic and Marxist principles did too much, being so designed that covered everg protested that case, was redirected from against anthropic principles. it is hard to see how the anthropic principLe can be It used theg was to make testable predictions, because ang theorg inconsistent with our existence is 4 M3nLfestLg Not faLse . such protests been weakened bg avant garde have onLg phLLosophg of science, but, as Carter has poLnted out, anthropLc arguments couLd varLous Ln prLncLpLe have been used to predLct theg Rnd notLced. were faLsLfLcatLon, e.g. where erroneous that unLLkeLg assumptLons prLncLpLes, regards Rs fLrst). under but Ls worLd-sgnthesLs, aLL that worLds the whether Ln wLth cosmoLog Les and of verLfLcatLonLst seLectLon whLch semantLcs, or phgsLcs exLst, LnvoLved of themes objectLons do have some verLfLabLLLtg vLrtue of what Ls meant bg bg bg neutraLLsed ex Lsttng. But the force of these objectLons Ls theorg. as conversLon, object-theorg Granted LnterpretatLon. of Often, Lt (though of weaker forms wouLd be abandoned, other surrendered force agaLnst mang-worLds theories, assume derLved object Lons are LargeLg mLsdLrected, because what are at Lssue are phgsLcaL semantLcs, are coLncLdences premLss factuaL be wouLd verLfLabLLLtg not the anthropLc arguments do admLt of of 3ssumptLons the before coLncLdences numerLcaL neutraL worLds objectLons, the crLtLcLsms of mang-worLd such prLncLpLes anthropLc as geophgsLcaL or prLncLpLes are LntertwLned, and dLsentangLLng the crLtLcLsms Ls enough to partLg So them. def Late aLso wLth the reLated charge th3t the neutraL worLd- Ls Lt sgnthesLs theorg Ls unscLentLfLc or at much turns Least dubLousLg scLentLfLc.PLaLnLg on what Ls admLtted Lnto that esteemed categorg, scLentLfLc. But on most accounts, use of seLectLon prLncLpLes succeeds Ln gettLng LncLuded. Rnd so, pLaLnLg enough, does mang-worLds quantum theorg. Rfter 3LL, Lt has 3pproxLmateLg as the same sorts of predLcatLve and test capabLLLtLes more That fact of narrow empLrLcaL LndLstLnguLshabLLLtg mag be the source of theorg. other compLaLnts, but Lt gtves no ground for the charge worLd Ls seLectLon prLncLpLes excLuded! are It at hand. of scLentLfLc and theorLsLng experLmentLng true that some theoretLcaL and wouLd (per prefer LmpossLbLe) and wantLng to st Lek to a uLtLmate and unLfLed expLanatLons. No doubt such semantLcaL apparatus does faLL fouL of the the substance of the charge, consLder some of the crLterLa often beLng theLr theorg narrower sLmpLg reveaLs further serLous defects Ln such vLews. But to reach that vLews: fuLLer the narrower (hgpothetLco-deducttve) methodoLogg, are uneasg wLth worLds seLectLon, sureLg But phgsLcLsts, and mang phLLosophers, LosLng sLght of what enters Lnto range quantum orthodox scLentLfLc. UnfaLsLfLabLe? SureLg set down for Ln areas where the framework Ls not pLnned down bg phgsLcaL theorg. OvercompLLcated and LnsuffLcLentLg gLven what the worLds theorg Ls Lntended to accompLLsh sLmpLe? Not (e.g. the semantLcaLLg theoretLcaL work Lt Ls aLso put to Ln areas such 3s LLnguLstLcs). Etc., etc. Perhaps the most teLLLng theorLes LLke worLd—sgntheses objectLons whLch agaLnst LncLude status quo arguments, and them, concern theLr expLsnatorg capacLtg. StrangeLg theg have been condemned both as expLaLntng too much - ang thLng at aLL can be brought out Ln some worLd - and as expLaLnLng too LLttLe and beLng trLvLaL. Not both these objectLons are LLkeLg to succeed, as theg tend to undercut one another. IndependentLg, Lt seems cLear that the arguments do provLde expLanatLons, for LnvoLved Lnstance, of the strength of the strong nucLear force. It aLso seems cLear that the expLanatLons afforded are of vargLng -27- depth, + depending in part on the depth of the underlying physicaL theory invoLved, this and the pLausibiLity of the further assumptions made in the arguments. Better exempiific3tions of status quo arguments in physics satisfy not oniy more ordinary requirements for expLanation; they aLso meet assembLed conditions considerable time, by HempeL, mainstream the which conditions on position demanding for represented, some what counted as a scientific expLanation. Furthermore, the chief objections to have more the HempeLian the account that emerged have been to the effect that it is too rigorous, not that it faiLs to provide jointLy sufficient conditions for expLanation. To make a prima facie case that better status quo arguments do provide exp Lanations, it is enough then show to expLanation LogicaL HempeL s that conditions on the (p.2t+7ff) have been met. By contrast conditions design with scientific of the arguments, 3re satisfied. The expLanandum T is a LogicaL adequacy of pattern basic consequence of the physicaL argument eLaborating the schemas F, if F then T; the expLanans has empiricaL content, at Least in the shape of expLanans F; which connection if F then T, provides expLanans are true, Uere a foLLows from arguments using physicaL Laws. FinaLLy, the demanding empiricaL condition of adequacy, that the premisses used in the is satisfied in better status quo arguments. the basic pattern aLso necessary for scientific expLanation, it wouLd be an easy coroLLary that many poorer status quo arguments fait to provide expianations (beginning with Carter s and Descartes is there the and contains general, Laws which are actuaLLy used in the derivation. For, in better status quo arguments, the conditionaL schema, Law Like premiss much quo status that such Cogito arguments), and that arguments cannot presentLy expLain decentLy, '^ncLuding such major puzzLes as Life and inteLLigence in the LocaL worLd. It can be independentLy argued, moreover, that poorer status quo arguments, which patentLy (or short meeting HempeLian conditions, fait to generate satisfactory of satisfying) expianations. TriviaL, dogmatic, forms, such as that things 3re the way they are because that is how they are, represent a virtuaLLy worse of sort. this But possibie. weakening to principte, that what The universe is inhabitabie, because we are here, because ask Forrest so is aLso humans inhabit The universe is suited to inteLLigent Life because there are peopLe such questions upon). focusses inferences, is sLightLy embroidered, are arguments with connecting principLes Such, the earth , case better, or more informative, are those arguments scarceLy which appLy the possibility Like faLL (exampies adapted from the sorts of anthropic arguments These short; patentLy faLL arguments, which they LnvoLve offer no aimost immediate further appropriate basic (HempeLian) argumentation making use of generaL Laws. Given that better status quo arguments do afford scientific expianations, and given further that the arguments do serve to remove and not without predictive force, why have they been genuine puzzLement fauLted as expianations, and sometimes criticised 3S not providing expianations are at aLL (e.g. Forrest)? The main reason offered, that back-to-front , these "expianations" are appears to rest on the assumption that aLL genuine expLanation -28- shouLd be broadLg causaL, and accordingLg exhibit (time-) the direction or controi. Status quo expLanations are certainLg not causaL, and mag causation weLL run counter to causaL direction, expLaining features of the earig the through of distribution present universe of eLements. That is, however, perfectLg in order. For satisfactorg expLanation is not causaLLg restricted either ordinariLg or scientificaLLg. HempeL suppLies severaL different sorts of pattern basic of causaLLg or controL directed (pp.352-3). EspeciaLLg striking in this exampLe opticaL straightforward his of his which are not causaL expLanation or expLanation scientific exampLes regard is a particuLar event...satisfactoriLg of expLained bg reference to subsequent occurrences'; but his exampLe of two-wag where the period of a penduLum serves to expLain the Length of the expLanation, penduLum as weLL as converseLg, is aLso highLg re Levant. For it is too expiaining commonLg assumed numericaL that shouLd coincidences be the presence of water, carbon and the Like in the universe, not vice versa. But there is no iLLuminating reason quo status whg direction shouLd expLanation the instead not in run the as weLL as, vice versa. That of, iLLuminating direction is after aLL from the famiLiar to the much Less famiLiar, and more in need of expLanation. such It is true of course that more simpig means that status quo expLanations ad hominem stgLe of status quo expLanation, for are. Like expLanations, most further unreasonabLg stop deeper expLanation. The expLanation-stopping forms are and form: contraposed inquirers verg for expLanation if it weren t so gou woutdn t be here to ask the question. However such put-downs (in the envisaged persistent Legitimate the those (which Forrest discusses) where the response to a request for the Long. wouLd contexts) not more charge, damaging feature of the universe, Then PF. seLecting worLds where PF hoLds. But the theorg. the then, is that worLd-sgnthesis can expLain too much. The charge is backed up bg the foLLowing sort of consideration. puzzLing deter Theg wouLd be awag in search of further expLanations, such as better status quo arguments mag furnish (at Least for t ime be ing). The not begin in the middLe wag. Nor do theg, except in speciaL, rather theg uLtimate: takes famiLiar, the presence of water and carbon, aLso caLLs for expLanation; but that as quest the charge it Take ang can be expLained simpig bg misrepresents worLd-sgnthesis There is more to it than this. There is a cruciaL argumentative Linkage aLso invoLved, between PF and gross geophgsicaL features of the worLds (near factuaL worLd T) which are seLected. Or, put differentig, the seLection does not take pLace on basis the of PF, but (mereLg) under the constraint of gross geophgsicaL features; accordingLg if the argumentative Linkage from satisfactorg status quo arguments worLd-sgnthesis. is missing, PF is not to be expLained through In short, then, worLd-sgnthesis theorg offers expLanations when bg and then the expLanations mag varg greatLg in quaLitg depending on the depth of the phgsicaL the framework is suitabLg fLeshed out phgsicaL theorg; information invoLved in the argumentative Linkage. EssentiaLLg the same points undermine Forrest's further objection to such -2?- many-worLds explanation, truths; contingent have we aLL do to coaches easiLy as the pumpkins of turning numericsL coincidences. But there is no such free as seLection of phusicaL worLds - which do not incLude worLds vaLidating magicaL as faiL, can schema connecting arbitrary and practices. Status quo expianations may not be easy transformations at aLL, but physicaLLy comp Lex, they are not atways and they as is to posit suitabLy many and varied (p.9). Thus the theory is aLLeged to expLain worLds into that it "expLains" contingent faLsehoods as easiiy an when assumption invoLved easiLy avaiLabte, and the eLaboration of the in , and the argumentative schema issues in a contingent faiLs faLsehood. For a necessary condition that a status quo expianation be successfuL is that the argument be correct; but then given that the argument form is vaiid, the cone Lus ion cannot be simpiy f aLse. is It that satisfactory expianations, with conforming to such conditions of adequacy as deductive vaiidity in and quo status expianations winning in expianations differ from decisiveLy design which are sometimes seen as on an expianatory LeveL competition with status quo and expianations their piuraL-worLds setting (thus e.g. LesLie), and sometimes even confused with them. Design arguments characteristicaLLy take the deductiveLy invaLid abductive modus toLLens form: Things are (surprisingLy) so and so F If a design hypothesis heLd (e.g. the universe anticipated observers, a design-force operated), things woutd be (unsurprisingLy) so and so. If H then F Therefore, a design hypothesis (probabLy) hoLds. .. H Nor in design arguments is the connecting schema normaLLy eLaborated by appropriate scientific argument; nor, where God is invoked, i§; there any way of suitabLy confining the argument scientificaLLy. Thus support first the LesLie's of Larger cLaims is faLse:- the LiorLd EnsembLe hypothesis rather than the God hypothesis. !^e do not have...strong evidence of an EnsembLe' (LI, p.150). for Science does not their existence No branch of physics in a way commanding wide acceptance (LI, p.S3). The main reason is that the Bod hypothesis is not part of a physicaL theory that many-worLd theory is caLLs in the way of quantum theory (thus, e.g., there is no physics text corresponding to DeLiitt and Graham for the God hypothesis), [^hiie the Last cLaim is true, it does not teLL against the truth of neutraL many-worLds theory. Uhat science supports is science, not the the metaphysics it presupposes. Physics is not however aLL of science by any means, and even science doesn't do everything, onLy a rather narrow seLection of things. Richard SyLvan -30- 11 RPPENDIX 1. Some Rncient Rntecedents The Non-Limited is the originaL materiaL of existing things; further the source] from which existing things derive their existence is a iso that to which they' return at their destruction, according to necessity [for reparation]... —----- So, in the 6th Century B.C., said Rnaximander, perhaps among the first aLso to set down a story of the evoLution of humankind.Something the same was said in text, though on the favoured taLe a Heideggerean and Taoist touch was Lent, the with Nothingness repLacing the Non-Limited. In the on beginning, there was nothing; and uLtimateLy, too, there wiLL be nothing. have been paid. The p3raLLeL with Rnaximander can be pressed further. In account origins, of of worLd the contemporary charged pairs of particLes are created in the oppositeLy 'the order, wiLL Reparation process of pair formation from the vacuum; white in Rnaximander's story formation story, this opposites the of which are present Ln the one [the Non-Limited], are separated out from it' (but 'the "opposites" are the hot, coLd, the dry the , the moist, and the rest : see Robinson p.25). There is aLso a phenomenon which corresponds to some Limited extent to the Big Bang, nameLy Vortex. the It seems cLear, however, from the materiaL Burnet assembLes, that Rnaximander's position amounted to the first Less satisfactory resoiution, matter or substance aLways. For the BoundLess or Infinite was a materiaL cause, -^*-*dstance (p. 5k<); it is eternaL and ageLess is brought about the origin of the worids. did — Further, according to SimpLicius, not ascribe the origin of things to any aLteration of matter, but said that the oppositions separated encompasses aLL worids substance". RLso there is in it eternaL motion, in which which makes it a queer he and out . If in that the substratum was which a boundLess body, were is right — and it may not be, especiaLLy given Later ontotogicaL infLuences (cf. p.61) - then the matter is cLear. Rnaximander beiieved there were innumerabLe worids (p.58). These worids were concurrent, not successive. coex istent remains uncLear, but Later in the Whether Bound Less" they tradition (biassed) took them exist, making Rnaximander's position a many-existent-wortds theory. The to Law of compensation, under which for borrowing or variation reparation must be made, becomes the Law of repayment aLL were of conservation. The reparation paraLLeLs the borrowed" mass-energy. The more generaL steering of aLL things - overarching order in naturaL processes - becomes the Laws of nature which govern (reguLate) the processes. 'The orderLiness ... is grounded in the nature of things as such . Rnaximander's account represents an immenseLy -31- important stage in the transition from world-order is myth from science. to first to ... Last 'Hesiod's account of the origin of the anthropomorphic. account Rnaximanders represents, in principLe, a complete break with this mode of thought (Robinson p.27). From this angle the anthropic and idealistic fixes of contemporary science show marked regression. That transition, beyond anthropic creation stories, is also accomplished in the main philosophical essentials of the favoured resolution can where Taoism, be found. Something flowed from nothing, in a seemingly paradoxical way? but not through ang creation or agency. There was a the before time when beginning nothing at aLL existed. The problem of Laws (of nature) was also recognised, and resolved. did Laws not exist (independently at least of things that did) but were exhibited in in things that did exist. So it seems to follow that, stage at restricted property to duty what separated, and was mainly Lacking ascriptions Taoism Such nothing. a and deep in cosmogonic tales, then, from the ^.th C. B.C. until the 20th C., was a plausible explanatory story as to how come from together. of does exist. (Fuller details of Taoist cosmology, under this type of interpretation, are ventured in ecology', written with D. Bennett.) Mhat the which nothing existed, the taws could hold without having 3ny sort of existence, i.e. truth and existence were existence at story a few something could humans are Just beginning to piece NOTES Thi^ passage from Misner, Thorne and Uheeter, p.1212, is given an appropriately grander setting Ln the text. The passage Ls also quoted by DavLes, G p.222, who Lt to Wheeler. In Davies the idea of ascribes foundations for cosmology simple and unassailable Logical is given a different exposure, and is then linked with restrictions, to zero, on God s range of choice of universe to make. 2 Especially by those whose inquisitiveness and sense of blunted or destroyed by the mainstream culture and its wonder h3s educational not been practices, practices much mainstream philosophy reinforces and tries to justify. 3 Indolent philosophers tend to assign those of these questions that they write off (e.g. as semantically defective or as betraying philosophical uonfuslon or hang—upz?) to science. But they are not Just a matter for and scientists tend to come up with philosophically loaded, naive, theories scientists remain, insofar as they address the cannot questions and at often science; enough all. Too many Like too many RustraLian phiLosophers, in the grips of awfuL metaphysics, such as narrow empiricism and/or physicaiism. -32- ^The anaLysis semantical It of naturaL a is Law is that' Law-constrained worLds, naturaL worids. The interpretation ruLe for necessity. Terra, appLy but to Like is It shouLd be noted that geophysicaL features, appLied in seLecting worLds, are not of course confined to systems. in terns of geophysicaL pLanetary other "Rn eLaboration of this type of answer can be further expLoited to heLp why actuaL the standard ot worLd is science expLain comparativeLy so that simpLe, mathematicaLLy tractabLe, etc. HameLy, it is convenientLy so because the actuaL worLd seLection invoLved impLicitLy to render it so, by choice of a serves worLd with the compLexity of richer worLds removed and onLy tractabLe ideaL etements (such as scientific universaLs) adjoined. &RLtern3tiveLy, through quantum and borrowing positive feedback, a massive firebaLL forms. The story admits of much variation. ? The prob Lems, as the questions of the Lattice in diagram 2 indicate, what expLaining phiLosophers does exist, Lie with what does not. In a reLated way, 3LL those not papers on the prob Lems nonexistence of and nonexistents have misjudged the prob Lernatic, and misconceived the onus of proof. For commonLy the probLems concern existents and their behaviour; nonexistents, especiaLLy those functioning in expLanatory rotes as regards existentiai often behaviour, are very weLL behaved by comparison with existents. It has been suggested, by D. Lewis, that the underLying theory of items (of JB) renders everything exists. But it nonexistent, is and makes it 3 reaL probLem, how anything patentiy faLse that the theory of items render everything nonexistent. There are criteria for existence, which are often JB, chapter 9). Every thing nominaLists normaLLy take to satisfied (cf. exist satisfies the to be justified; it cannot (with any pretension to satisfactoriness) just be cLaimed, in the fashion of so many phiLosophers. In any case, Lewis can be simuLated: whatever ind iv idua Ls exist criteria. Beyond that existence has in Lewis worLds wiLL exist in worids-seLection theory. Rnd it is. a genuine phiLosophicaL probLem how anything exists. g in 19t+6; see his cosmoLogicaL text. Llhitrow aLso appLied, more than RpparentLy a quarter of a century ago, PrincipLe , in his what has now been eLevated to the Rnthropic answer to why the dimensions of space are three; nameLy, th3t this atone permits the evoLution of Nan, the formuiator of the probLem'. However 'Uhitrow's reasons concern not mankind but stabLe pLanetary orbits and compLex neurai networks' (LI, p.!^). g Compare the binding energy which keeps etectrons bound to a nucLeus, where correiativeiy energy stored up in overcoming forces of repuLsion is positive. -33- e a story couLd be totd to bring Laws within the expLanation framework. However It wouid teLLing invoLve Laws first evoLved or happened to hoLd, the how before vacuum fLuctuations. (For some interesting specuLation, from which the ontic and anthropic commitment can be removed without totaL Loss, see Barrow pp. 151-2, where "chaotic gauge theory" is considered.) The issue of uLtimate is expLanation again up taken seLf-justifying postulate as serving refLexive, expLanation. Note that in UQ, to the resoLve the matter the especiaLLy of probLem uLtimate, PostuLate Characterisation a of of object-theory is an initiaLLy promising candidate for such a principte. issue is that, on the story as toLd, quantum phenomena assume Another serious decidedLy they course Of macro-dimensions. may, Schrodinger s cat iLLustrates, but perhaps not in the parabLe the as supposed of catastrophic form. In the absence of any approved quantization of general, reLativity, there onLy are Lax physicaL controis on what is in and what is out in specuLation here. Rnd, of course, the second story couid There are other mechanisms for the sudden be rise in eLaborsted other ways. e.g. white mass-energy, of ho Les in geometrodynamics. In his second paper, Tryon makes a rather casuaL beginning on meeting some of difficuLties the with the vacuum fLuctuation theory the cosmos, and of expLains the advantages of combining the theory with that of a (stiLL probLematic) "infLationary" universe, to boost the fLuctuation. But the theory stiLL awaits aporopriateLy detaiLed deveiopment and modeLLing. 12 There are various other issues concerning the physicaL constants, incLuding the question of the (sLow) evoLution of "constants" over time. LJeLL, do evoLve, the they if same sort of probLems arise for the parameters which repLace them (L.e. at each time t, for c(t)). There are putative arguments to the effect that there can be no very grand unified theory, and no finaL eLimination of constants, because any such theory wouid do too much in determ in ing the worLd (and things). But it is unctear at present how such an argument gets duty eLaborated. R tight argument uneLiminabiLity of some physicaL constants from physicaL principLes for the wouLd be of much interest. 13 Th',s is what is reaLLy accompLLshed in Carter. To some extent we have emerging in this area a contemporary scientific numeroLogy. 1L Convergence arguments, e.g. for such things as the Church-Turing thesis, underLying connections, but not co-operation. l^Even Less, seemingLy, is the universe an accident, 'an event proceeding from an unknown cause; something unexpected; a casuaLty, a mishap, l&If however the worLd reaLLy were necessary, such improbabiLity must be grossLy -34- reduced. How can that be: how can these contingencies be not what theg seem? 1? How M3ng worLds? ContinuousLg mang worLds? There is no reason whg not. But the answer is: as mang at Least as required. In object-theorg numbers don t short matter though much, so difficuLties technccaL controL Ls advantage. an are There as to measures, e.g. of fewness, in infinite modeLLings. Yet the notions are Ln order, e.g. among the naturaL numbers primes are few. 18 point, ThL^, and the inestimabLLitg specific of probabLLLties Ln (e.g. Ls argued, though in insufficient detaiL, bg TouLmLn among others meteoroLogg) Bg the wag, sureLg a creator wouLd have increased probabLLitLes bg seeing to a unLverse for fit decent habitation; a variation upon the argument from evLL infiltrates itseLf Ln probabiLitg guise here. 13 worked There are in fact mang proposed soLutions, most of them not theg (because far verg out have onLg few proponents), most of them not comprehensive certainLg (but it couLd be argued that this is a faLse ideaL), severaL of them discussed bg Everett, DeMLtt, Lande and others. 20 MheeLer s sequentiaL modeL another, so satisfgLng the theorg (Like certain offers a simitar range of worLds, but one after 'reaLLtg principLe". EarLLer MheeLer had adopted cosmoLogies) Eastern with in muLtLpLLcitg a both sequent La LLg and Lnto the possibLe; but recent Lg he has abandoned dimen^Lon^,, the Latter, partig on erroneous ontoLogLcaL grounds. 21 It Ls of course not the onLg reaLLstLc-stgie LnterpretatLon whLch does thLs: envisage everu Lande s LnterpretatLon is another. 22 From a neutraL viewpoint, Lt ts entLreLg taLse that atom ... as Me must constantLg engaging in this tgpe of scattering sctLvitg, therebg spLLtting the worLd again and again Lnto a stupendous number carbon-copLes of of LtseLf. The unLverse must therefore be LLkened to a tree, whLch branches 3nd (D p.I25). Nor Ls rebranches universe. 23 To anticipate, schemas of what the form, happens "if the tree-structured sgstern of universes the is as foLLows:- The antecedents of "anthropic" there exist so and so [e.g. observers] then ang phgsLcaL worLds must be such and such", are appLLed to phgsLcaL worLds. Rs there certainLg do exist so and so, narrow ctass the phgsLcaL worLds of are restricted to those that are such and such. gL It cs stLLL reasonabLe to 3sk whg - indeed to e.g. whg do we inhabit it?, whence a Long pose' severaL whg questions, evoLutionarg storg. Mhg are the constants those theg are?, then aLternative answers, LncLudLng brute fact, are among the possibiLities. -35- roundLg defeated Shapiro. 26 bg the sorts considerations advanced bg Feinberg and of Davies aLso suggests that mang-worLds theorg can provide a pLausibLe phgsicaL (as opposed to phiLosophicaL) justification for the strong principte (D p.122 middLe). In fact he never reaLLg shows this satisfactoriig (nor can it be so shown), and in pointing to the power of the m3ng—universe theorg he undermines the strong principte, showing it otiose. 2? arguments are presented in modat form, with the connecting quo status Often scheme set in either necessitated form, if F that) (e.g. T if exist there necessaritg then (it if possibLe modaLities are de dicto and and that invoLved cLaims the It such). if F then T. The modaLitg invoLved is not one of LogicaL contingent nomic of that strength, but can be adequateLg NecessariLg, necessitg, an The error. argument guarantee the concLusion, NecessariLg T, nor does it pretend form these or even in Lowest common denominator form. To attach the (reLative) modaLitg simpig to consequent T wouLd be second is 'it is more than mereLg rather reads that seems represented, as usuaL, through a necessitated connecting schema, one F form, (e.g. what is the case LocaLLg (what observers observe, T etc.) is onLg possibLe if phgsics is such aLwags be and so, then the universe must have, or so conform to, such and such features), or, in quasi-transcendentaL onLg must to do does not so. The is a LittLe more probLematic; but it appears to assert that F is inconsistent with not-T, and so, through obvious connections, the same as the rectified first form. 28 Mhat we have are devices, that fragments of theories, ruLes thumb, of appear to work in a range of cases. and caLcuLating It is these parts that mag generate successfuL technoiogg. The picture is Like engineering. 29 R main charge made bg LesLie against mang-worid cosmoLogies, e.g. LI, p.l^Sff. It is a surprising turn, given the popuLaritg of hgpothetico-deductive methodoLogg, to have it aLso objected that mang-worLd theorg voids induction. Putting chance in controL of inter-worLd differences erodes confidence in our sampLe of ReaLitg, on which our inductions are based' (LI, p.1^.3). this objection gets off the ground (it is transparentLg Insofar cLear as that it does), it depends on assuming the reaLitg of the entire worLd ensembLe. So Lt not Lapses against a neutraL theorg. 30 R reLated phitosophicaLLg important exampLe where the schema does so far is in Moore s proof of an externaL worLd, noted above. The reason is that the existence of arbitrarg materiaL objects, such as hands or does f3it not guarantee that the requirements (order, isoLated unitg, cabbages, coherence, mcnd-cndependence, etc.) for an externaL worLd are satisfied. 31 Rn earLier version of this paper was presented at the RustraLasian Rssociation of PhiLosophg Conference, Rugust 138^. The -36- heLpfuL comments bg David Rrmstrong, Brian Ellis and David Lewis, unreferenced above, were the discussion. commentaries; Both several made during John Leslie and Jack Smart supplied me with worthwhile their points have been incorporated, but some have of been resisted. The initial Univerity preprint series. version W3S published in an Rustralian National 32^ See Freeman, p.IS. for fuller discussion of need for reparation, see Burnet. Rnaximander's on position; the REFERENCES J.D. Barrow, Rnthropic definitions', Quarterly Journal of Royal the Rstroncmical Society 21^ ( 1983) lt+6-153 H. Bondi, Cosmology, Second edition, Cambridge University Press, I960. R, Brout, F. Englert and F. Gunzig, The creation of the universe as a quantum phenomenon' RnnaIs of Physics 115 (1978) 78-106. J. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, Fourth edition, Rdam & Charles Black, London, 1930. B. Carter, Large number coincidence and the anthropcc principle is in Longair, 291-98. B. Carter, The anthropic principle and its implications cosmology', biological for evolution , Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London (1983) St* 7-363. C.B. Collins and S.U. Hawk eng, Uhy is the universe isotrophic?', 19310 Rstrophqsics Journal 180 (1973) 317. C.D. Darlington, Darwin's Place in History, Blackwell, Oxford, 1959. P. Davies, The Rccidental Universe, Cambridge Universitu Press, Cambridge, 1982; referred to as D. P. Davies, God and the New Physics, Dent, London,1983; B.S. DeUitt referred to as G. and N. Graham, The Many-Uorlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1973. R.H. Dicke and P.J.E. Peebles, in S.U. Hawking and U. The big bang cosmology - enigmas and nostrums , Israel, eds, Genera 1 relativity: an Einstein centenary survey, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979, pp. 501^-517. -37- G.F.R. ELLis, 'is the universe expanding?', GeneraL Reiativitg and Gravitation 9(2) (L973) 87-9L. G. Feinberg and R. Shapiro, Life Beyond Earth, Morrow, New York, 1980. P. Feyerabend, Science Ln a Free Society, New Left Books, London, 1978. 'RnthropLc answers and the existence of P. Forrest, Proceedings God', of the Russet Lan Society, University of Sydney, 7 (1982) 1-13. K. Freeman, RncLLLa to the Pre-Socratic Phitosophers, BLackweLL, Oxford, 1971. N. Griffin and R. SyLvan, Provisionai Rnswers to ULtimate Questions, typescript, Canberra, 1981}.; referred to as UQ. S. Hawking and G.F. ELiis, The Large-Scaie Structure of Space-time, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973. M. Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics, (trans. R. Mannheim), YaLe University Press, New Haven, 1959. C.G. HempeL, Rspects of Scientific Exp LanatLon, Free Press, New York, 1965. Lande, The Laws behLnd the quantum Laws , BrLtLsh JournaL for the PhiLosophu of Science 27 (1976) 27-^3. J. L^sLLe, RnthropLc prLncLpLe, worLd ensembLe, desLgn , RmerLcan PhLLosophLcaL QuarterLy, 19 (1982) l^l-lSl; referred to as LI. J. LesLLe, Cosmo Logy, probabLLity and the need to exp La Ln LLfe', Ln ScLentLfLc ExpLanatLon and UnderstandLng (ed. N. Rescher), UnLversLty Press of RmerLea, MaryLand, M.S. LongaLr 1983, 53-82; referred to as L2. (ed.), Confrontat Lon of Cosmo Log LeaL Theories wLth ObsservatLonaL Data, ReLdeL, Dordrecht, 1971}.. C.U. MLsner, K.S. Thorne and J.R. UheeLer, GravLtatLon, Freeman, San 1973. G.E. Moore, PhLLosophLcaL Papers, RLLen and UnwLn, London, FrancLsco, 1959. R. RobLnson, Essays Ln Greek PhLLosophg, CLarendon Press, Oxford, 1969. R. RoutLey, ExpLorLng MeLnong's JungLe and Beyond, Research SchooL ScLences, RustraLLan NatLonaL UnLversity, 1980; referred to as JB. -38- of SociaL Sagan Broca's Brain: Ref Leet ions on the Romance of Science, New York, Random House, 1973. S.Tou Lm in, The Return to CosmoLogy: Postmodern Nature, University of CaLifornia Press, BerkeLey Ca., 1982. Is the universe a vacuum fLuctuation?', Nature 2^6 (1973) 396-7 E.P. Tryon, E.P. Tryon, Science and the Theo Logy of *Mhat made the worLd?', New Scientist 101 (198!+) It+00, 1!+-16 FLN. Mhitehead, Process and ReaLity, Cambridge University Press, 1929. 6.H. Uhitrow, The Structure and Evo Lution of the Universe, Harper, New York, 1959. Second edition,  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 57, Item 2: Draft of Toward an improved cosmo-logical synthesis Subject The topic of the resource Typescript draft, correction version. Paper published, Sylvan R (1985) 'Toward an improved cosmo-logical synthesis', Grazer philosophische Studien, 25:135-179. Description An account of the resource Unnumbered paper from collection, item number assigned by library staff. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 57, Item 2 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource <span>This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, </span><a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a><span>.</span> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [40] leaves. 33.04 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:991d123">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:991d123</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1983 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant n/a - location not listed in manuscript finding aid Box 57: Miscellaneous Logic https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/bc6906f973b58155fcdff1d8fbf5c13e.pdf cdee1d9f8cd9703c694e69ab3507018e PDF Text Text IS The UNIVERSE THE argument design HRTERHUTP existence of a designer, a planner, a God, the for RN (LIKE) regularly deploys the model of the universe as an artefact, A noteworthy part of plants from universe, the planets on through naturally evolved systems, If the whole arrangement Is an artefact, contrasts with artefacts. 'artefact' has been and Its contexts, etc., and to lose both Its normal contrasts, place, much stretched, e.g. of then, firstly tools applied by external living external creatures, and secondly, the relevant features are extremely well hidden. In the face of elaboration of these points the artefact claim Is eroded or weakened to-, the universe like an artefact. Is like In having a maker. Is usually meant, 'like' some are There It s as If It were an artefact, etc. And by features curious about Wilkinson s argument In his universe Is artefact'. The usual moves to the artefact model the Intelligibility universe the of e.g. (thus premissed are Heynell). But concentrates on the limits to human knowledge and the apparent extent the universe product on Wilkinson which to not Intelligible to us and may never be. Wilkinson however Is Is Idealism: not arguing for design In the universe, but for a kind of the The nature as of the human mind! The traditional case for design In the universe Is strangely subverted Into an argument for Idealism. God's. Everything Intended by It Is our not artefact, tells against this: but redefinition Is artefact one order of the day In philosophical argument. Consider first Mrs. four arguments, none decvscve, but all with to limits to knowledge, human limits severe practical limits to etc. equipment, ascertaining larger And that limits 1. Levels of detail. There are Is. very the also, appeal, such Size small. as and spaceship cost earth, of men s lifetimes, etc. (One experiment-careers). 2. forces? Variety The (and number) of forces. How many (1) Ignorance lead us Into l> super-weak , «« super-strong ” Issue of completeness Is serious here (as with Kant s philosophy). As with forces, so with objects, NB. It major laws, etc. of an (undiscovered) moderating or compensating force could about error features world, of e.g. Into postulating granularity of space and time. (2) Classlf Icatlon of forces In sort of periodic table, and then deeper explanation. 3. Limits to human conception? Macro-objects of our dimensions can have no conceptions of very small (micro seconds) Involves a slide from or very no real personal experience large. to No?? The argument no Imagination of to no conception of . Argues for limits to conception In both tIme and space. Goes on to suggest limits to description using everyday -1- household language, but �the argument Is bad: It depends on standard (Copenhagen) quantum theory. Ideas that limits of' conception tied to limits of language. 4-. Human nature and Its essential prejudice-, limits to what we are prepared to accept or understand. Set of prejudices, etc., e.g. prejudices In of favour numbers (In a fuaay world). Our constitution prevents understanding of world. Wilkinson's further argument Is that In view of limits we humans cannot but value to resort 'in reaching his judgements as to how the natural world Is - constructed, man cannot ultimately do more than say this Is how It has to be (p.96). Value ImposItIon, has to be', lie know that whether or [whether 'should be', quarks No, (p.98): Is here like Leslie? not we This Is how It get can good' feel at quarks we shall continue to talk about them and discuss their exist] (p.97). Nature Is going to be what the mind anatomy and domestic economy It me this makes the same makes of [our] theory with the thing confusion theorised that pervades Idealistic approaches. Wilkinson also to wants (as above and especially from orthodox proceed quantum theory) to reject any theme of the closure of nature to mind. He contends (p.80) that objectivity - looking at nature from outside - dissolves to be replaced by something Involving man essentially. The natural world depends on man for Its definition: hence the universe as an artefact. But this Is In no way established. The argument depends on the fallacy of of theory nature again, find nature equating with the It makes the erroneous assumption that the only criteria for theory selection are at bottom those of value or feeling. R question Wilkinson suggests, but sets aside (In the too-hard basket) Is: How It Is that we manage to understand the universe, or It s e.g. the much of It? mostly good luck. Historically rather different answers were favoured, universe Intelligible, Is natural, the world Is Intelligible. It's Since sufficiently Intelligent creatures can come to understand It. The Intelligibility theme Is not lacking for exponents. Here, In summary. Is Heynell argues for and applies It: R. If the It would not be that we can In world were not Intelligible, principle come to know. But the world Is that which we can In principle come to know. Therefore the world Is Intelligible. B. If Very like: We don't; or, So far as we different repsonses quickly suggest themselves, do so there were not something analogous to human Intelligence In the constitution of the world? the world would not be Intelligible. Therefore there Is something analogous to human Intelligence In constitution of the world (68). -2- the how �The preMiss first of B is flat out false, but present concern is with fl. The Minor preMiss of fl is false, by virtue of llMltatlon arguments such as those Wilkinson and elsewhere take an analytical shape is suffIclently (e.g. a of Routley). find the Major preMiss, though it can distortion. For Instance, the world May be intelligible for us to come to understand what we do of It without being completely intelligible. -3- �f~. i— i— i— r—i f— k i r^. ez. r- ez. r*--. ez. i -i H. fl e g n e 11, London, The Intelligible Universe r— «~- ez. - -=• A cosMologlcal arguwent , flacwll I an, 1982. D.H. Ullklnson, The universe as an artefact Models and Han, Clarendon, Oxford, In H. 1976, 88-98. -4- Harris (ed. ) Sc tent itto �Lj / 1 -\ L/ A C'T'Zf^ £ X J -/■■».*> -K f. / (/ W7 e (/ 7^77 sy J e 4^-?'')'? ] '^7' 4~r>l*'< > & '' ( //// O ' a � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document IS The UNIVERSE THE argument design HRTERHUTP existence of a designer, a planner, a God, the for RN (LIKE) regularly deploys the model of the universe as an artefact, A noteworthy part of plants from universe, the planets on through naturally evolved systems, If the whole arrangement Is an artefact, contrasts with artefacts. 'artefact' has been and Its contexts, etc., and to lose both Its normal contrasts, place, much stretched, e.g. of then, firstly tools applied by external living external creatures, and secondly, the relevant features are extremely well hidden. In the face of elaboration of these points the artefact claim Is eroded or weakened to-, the universe like an artefact. Is like In having a maker. Is usually meant, 'like' some are There It s as If It were an artefact, etc. And by features curious about Wilkinson s argument In his universe Is artefact'. The usual moves to the artefact model the Intelligibility universe the of e.g. (thus premissed are Heynell). But concentrates on the limits to human knowledge and the apparent extent the universe product on Wilkinson which to not Intelligible to us and may never be. Wilkinson however Is Is Idealism: not arguing for design In the universe, but for a kind of the The nature as of the human mind! The traditional case for design In the universe Is strangely subverted Into an argument for Idealism. God's. Everything Intended by It Is our not artefact, tells against this: but redefinition Is artefact one order of the day In philosophical argument. Consider first Mrs. four arguments, none decvscve, but all with to limits to knowledge, human limits severe practical limits to etc. equipment, ascertaining larger And that limits 1. Levels of detail. There are Is. very the also, appeal, such Size small. as and spaceship cost earth, of men s lifetimes, etc. (One experiment-careers). 2. forces? Variety The (and number) of forces. How many (1) Ignorance lead us Into l> super-weak , «« super-strong ” Issue of completeness Is serious here (as with Kant s philosophy). As with forces, so with objects, NB. It major laws, etc. of an (undiscovered) moderating or compensating force could about error features world, of e.g. Into postulating granularity of space and time. (2) Classlf Icatlon of forces In sort of periodic table, and then deeper explanation. 3. Limits to human conception? Macro-objects of our dimensions can have no conceptions of very small (micro seconds) Involves a slide from or very no real personal experience large. to No?? The argument no Imagination of to no conception of . Argues for limits to conception In both tIme and space. Goes on to suggest limits to description using everyday -1- household language, but the argument Is bad: It depends on standard (Copenhagen) quantum theory. Ideas that limits of' conception tied to limits of language. 4-. Human nature and Its essential prejudice-, limits to what we are prepared to accept or understand. Set of prejudices, etc., e.g. prejudices In of favour numbers (In a fuaay world). Our constitution prevents understanding of world. Wilkinson's further argument Is that In view of limits we humans cannot but value to resort 'in reaching his judgements as to how the natural world Is - constructed, man cannot ultimately do more than say this Is how It has to be (p.96). Value ImposItIon, has to be', lie know that whether or [whether 'should be', quarks No, (p.98): Is here like Leslie? not we This Is how It get can good' feel at quarks we shall continue to talk about them and discuss their exist] (p.97). Nature Is going to be what the mind anatomy and domestic economy It me this makes the same makes of [our] theory with the thing confusion theorised that pervades Idealistic approaches. Wilkinson also to wants (as above and especially from orthodox proceed quantum theory) to reject any theme of the closure of nature to mind. He contends (p.80) that objectivity - looking at nature from outside - dissolves to be replaced by something Involving man essentially. The natural world depends on man for Its definition: hence the universe as an artefact. But this Is In no way established. The argument depends on the fallacy of of theory nature again, find nature equating with the It makes the erroneous assumption that the only criteria for theory selection are at bottom those of value or feeling. R question Wilkinson suggests, but sets aside (In the too-hard basket) Is: How It Is that we manage to understand the universe, or It s e.g. the much of It? mostly good luck. Historically rather different answers were favoured, universe Intelligible, Is natural, the world Is Intelligible. It's Since sufficiently Intelligent creatures can come to understand It. The Intelligibility theme Is not lacking for exponents. Here, In summary. Is Heynell argues for and applies It: R. If the It would not be that we can In world were not Intelligible, principle come to know. But the world Is that which we can In principle come to know. Therefore the world Is Intelligible. B. If Very like: We don't; or, So far as we different repsonses quickly suggest themselves, do so there were not something analogous to human Intelligence In the constitution of the world? the world would not be Intelligible. Therefore there Is something analogous to human Intelligence In constitution of the world (68). -2- the how The preMiss first of B is flat out false, but present concern is with fl. The Minor preMiss of fl is false, by virtue of llMltatlon arguments such as those Wilkinson and elsewhere take an analytical shape is suffIclently (e.g. a of Routley). find the Major preMiss, though it can distortion. For Instance, the world May be intelligible for us to come to understand what we do of It without being completely intelligible. -3- f~. i— i— i— r—i f— k i r^. ez. r- ez. r*--. ez. i -i H. fl e g n e 11, London, The Intelligible Universe r— «~- ez. - -=• A cosMologlcal arguwent , flacwll I an, 1982. D.H. Ullklnson, The universe as an artefact Models and Han, Clarendon, Oxford, In H. 1976, 88-98. -4- Harris (ed. ) Sc tent itto Lj / 1 -\ L/ A C'T'Zf^ £ X J -/■■».*> -K f. / (/ W7 e (/ 7^77 sy J e 4^-?'')'? ] '^7' 4~r>l*'< > & '' ( //// O ' a  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 7, Item 792: Is the universe (like) an artefact? Subject The topic of the resource Computer printout with handwritten amendments, and handwritten notes on scrap paper. Description An account of the resource Note, one item digitised from item 792. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 7, Item 792 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [4] leaves + [1] leaf. 2.68 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:acc747a">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:acc747a</a> Australian National University Office Box 7: Environmental Ethics Como House > Shelves > Bottom > Pile 3 https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/581b87e4d67a33473f084886196c0964.pdf 9c80f2dae98c9b0e7076149ee0387602 PDF Text Text ON THE ALLEGED INCONSISTENCY AND MORAL INSENSITIVITY OF PACIFISM Pacifism , despite its.revival lit the nonviolent action movement A respectable philooophieg-1 press. another, the within tradition Catholic church , It is commonly portrayed characteristically as as inconsistent. as a continues to have a bad incoherent in one way or Even philosophical defences of pacifism are liable to be extremely defensive, conceding only that consistent, and pacifism is but insisting otherwise that^is as false as a moral position can be 2 and morally insensitive . What follows challenges the prevailing wisdom put out in the philosophical press, but using its approved analytic methods. §1. Slide arguments to inconsistency;and arguments from irresponsibili ty and from rights. In an influential and widely disseminated series of articles attacking . pacficism3 , Narveson says that the pacifist's position is not only that [Tl] violence is evil but also that [T2] it is morally wrong to use force [violence] to resist, punish, or prevent violence. This further step makes pacifism a radical moral doctrine. What I shall try to establish below is that it is in fact, more than merely radical - it is actually incoherent because self-contradictory (p.408, italics added). Subsequently (p.414) he characterises pacifism by way of T2, though it would better characterised by P2. be A It is morally wrong to use violence. However T2 captures the cases that orthodox opposition. The separate comprehensive pacifism from the main form of pacifism under investigation is called 'comprehensive' to distinguish it from standard pacifism, in the usual 1 narrower �sense which is restricted to certain theses concerning (state) order, notably opposition to (violence in) war, and does not rule necessarily out violence elsewhere. Narveson's location of incoherence in pacifism depends on several connected slides, all of which the pacifist should resist - without force. The initial slide is from the theme T2 italicised above to what results by deletion the of crucial phase 'to use force', or as it should be 'to use violence', namely R2. It is morally wrong to resist, punish, or prevent violence - and similarly from special and related cases of T2 to special and related of R2 (e.g. from T2S, It is forbidden to use force to resist violence, to R2S, forbidden It is cases to violence). resist The slide is illegitimate because commitment to T2 does not entail commitment to the rejected proposition R2; for one thing there are many ways of confronting, reducing and controlling violence, worked out by pacifists and others, which do not involve use of violence (or perhaps force). The initial slide is however that assault on pacifism (after clearing Narveson several exploits confusions, explain the popularity of pacifism, out of the way). irresponsibility of pacifism, in This his first main which he takes to argument, from the does not actually lead to contradiction, but it does suggest that there is a serious tension between pacifism and any method maintaining social order, so serious that pacifism is socially irresponsible: ... to hold the pacifist position as a genuine full-blooded moral principle is to hold nobody has a right to fight back when attacked ... It means that we are all mistaken in supposing that we have the right of self-protection ... It appears to mean, for instance, that we have no right to punish criminals, that all our machinery of criminal justice is, in fact, unjust. Robbers, murderers, rapists, and miscellaneous delinquents ought, on 2 of �this [irresponsible] theory, to be let loose (pp.415-6). Since one can protect oneself and avoid and resist aggression back violence), (with pacifism unless a slide is made. (tentatively) by Nor does T1 and theses does without fighting not mean what Narveson claims it means, comprehensive .pacifism, T2 , imply that we as characterised have no right to punish criminals, but simply that such punishment will not apply violent methods. Nor does it imply that all the conventional machinery of criminal justice therefore is unjust, but only that some - perhaps a good deal - of that machinery is. One hardly needs to be a comprehensive pacifist to coherently think the latter. All this provides some confirmation for the key point, which is that far at there is, so least, no inconsistency evident in maintaining that those who hold that violent methods are morally legitimate are mistaken. The next slide is closely connected with, and really generalises upon, initial slide. The stunt is to imbue a range of more neutral terms with the connotation of -------------------------------------violence, or at least of -----------------------force which Narveson proceeds to with violence. Thus from among admissible pacifist methods. of force is taken to by implied in R2. resist cannot excluded be Hence the conflation of T2 and R2; Hence too Narveson’s assumption Hence (p.415). also Narveson’s that against attack' (pp.417-8). use a unwarranted "recharacterisation" of pacifism as the position that 'no one ought ever defended equate such activities as resisting, punishing, preventing, and defending are taken to imply (use of) force or violence, and so to pacifist the to be If the stunt were got away with, it would deprive pacifism of, for instance, the general methods of nonviolent action and defensible position. But resistance, and so render pacifism a much less positions can be defended, as in this paper or on the field, 3 without violence. �Things be can resisted, even things like arrest, without violence (e.g. sliding out of handcuffs and running away). by Force can be applied, as in opening Violence implies force, but not vice versa; and it is violence, not all applications of force, that.comprehensive pacifists are a jam jar, without violence. bound to exclude. The attempt nonviolent castrate to depriving It enjoys some popularity even any case indefensible. and by it of among those of advocating expansion of nonviolent methods, who no doubt want: to distance themselves from older standard pacifism, whose methods they see as confined to mediation, negotiation, and including the granting of concessions . compromise, But nothing in standard, range the is not confined to those who (want to) think pacifism in practices, development pacifism, so the characterisation its limits of pacifism, admissible methods: whether comprehensive or nothing exclude^ uncompromising methods and imposition of sanctions which offer no concessions. ? It is simply that standard pacifism has not yet developed its fuller potential, especially in conflict resolution. Subsequent slides in the elaboration of the argument against just variations qualifier. in those pacifism are given, writing violence-involving in as an internal Thus the measure of a person’s opposition to something in terms of ’the amount of effort he is willing to put forth against it’ is taken - somewhat perversely - to be violence-involving effort or opposition in the pacifist’s ’opposition to violence'. If this slide were pacifist would be caught in an elementary inconsistency since in case of the permissible any being opposed to violence, by definition, he is prepared to use violence and so is not opposed �Even Narveson ’cannot make too much* of this inconsistency, though to violence. it not so far removed from the alleged inconsistencies he does want to make is much of in his main inconsistency argument. A similar slide, together with a further slide, Is made in the argument based inconsistency the on to notion of rights, especially as it figures in the pacifist’s thesis as transformed to the claim that no one has a right to indulge in violence (p.418). Narveson violence in the notion of right. tries to incorporate the right to indulge in The initial move is to work in assumptions of defence from breaches of a right and of preventative action against infringement Because ’a right just is a status of it. preventative action ... does follow logically is that one has a right to whatever may be necessary what to justifying prevent necessary’ infringements of right' his (p.419). That 'whatever may be out to include force, now very generously construed - here is turns the further slide - to incorporate such things as social pressure. Moreover ’it is a logical truth, not merely a contingent one, that what might be necessary is force’ (p.421). of preventative For the presupposed logical transformations to work, the notion action must have the notion of violence built into it. argument accordingly begs the question against pacifism. it enough is for preventative To block the The argument action associated with rights to be, or to be limited to, nonviolent action. How the argument from rights leads to inconsistency is summed up thus (p.421): SAI. ’If we have any rights at all then we have a right to use force to prevent the deprivation of the thing to which we are said to have a right’. �SA2. We have, according to the pacifist ’the right not to have violence done to us’, as have the a consequence of the obligation to avoid violence. right self-contradictory, to use both violence, granting so the pacifist’s position Narveson is that 'our standard concept of rights' yields SAI (cf. right can be sustained by right-supporting or right-defending require that that action is violent. is and not granting the right to use violence. The argument fails because SAI is readily rejected. claiming But, therefore, we mistaken p.423). action in That a does not Pacifists can provide an adequate analysis of rights - essentially the usual one - without letting themselves in for SAI by 6 simply rejecting the Narveson slide . What appears in place of SAI is something like SAI#. If we have any rights at all then we have a right to uphold them. But the right to uphold them, defend them, protect them, etc., give facto, an entitlement to the use of violence. no dilemma for the pacifist. does not, ipso Without the slide there is The "pacifist's dilemma" and Narveson’s slide are two aspects of the one thing. The arguments from lesser §2. argument violence and evil. lesser In outline the - which is independent of the notion of rights - is that the pacifists must admit, in terms of their own principles, that there are cases where the use of violence those where Inconsistency would be morally permissible and morally justified. some is use of immediate violence by T2. would prevent evil, some greater violence. More explicitly, and in Narveson’s terms which also import the notion of evil, pacifists have lesser much The cases are to admit both that the use of evil, is admissible, in preventing greater evil, and that it is not admissible, because it involves violence. 6 Narveson summarizes an �argument like this as follows It seems to me logically true, in any moral theory whatever, that [LI] the lesser evil must be preferred to the greater. If the use of force by me, now, is necessary to avoid the use of more physical force (by others, perhaps) later, then to say that physical force is the supreme (kind of) evil is precisely to say that under these circumstances I am committed to the use of physical force'7. Now there are several somewhat different arguments snarled up in these sketches, p It is important to get them unsnagged , especially if a clearer view of the ethical role pacifism can assume is to result. lesser The basic argument, from violence, goes as follows Cl. There are cases where use of violence would prevent greater violence. C2. One ought to minimize violence. Therefore C3. There are cases where one ought to use violence, since in this way, in any arbitrary one of the cases indicated, violence is minimized. Therefore ~P2. It is not (always) morally wrong to use violence, contradicting the pacifist principle, P2, according which to it is morally wrong, always, to resort to violence. All the ingredients premisses, can be of argument, this together with pulled together from Narveson’s work. support for He not only expouses C2, but suggests two distinct arguments for it, the first of which connects argument with the lesser evil argument El. (Use of) violence is an evil. E2. Evil should be minimized. 9 The second argument to C2 is simply from the pacifist premiss, varying P2, 7 the the �E3. One ought not to undertake violence - period; that the is, level of violence ought to be zero. Neither argument is decisive; of that reference both in fact begin easing.pacifists into a should they resist, where moral absolutes are warped into moral relatives, where obligations give, way to obligations all, and says nothing about minimizing it when one compatible being does it. into got has E3 is directives quite different from minimization where violence is with involved, e.g. E3 things other In any event E3 only directs one not to get involved in violence at equal, etc. Thus frame rooting it out which may involve strategies. non-minimization not entail E2, and commitment to E3 does not commit pacifists to C2. Nor do El and E2 entail C2; so neither does commitment, by to El and E2 oblige them to accept C2. instance, 10 , e.g. evil-perpetrating but argument Narveson's well-known Such nonviolent fails for similar some as cases hypothetical dictators. for For in particular violence is not the only evil and (so) evil may sometimes be reduced by violence pacifists Regan’s increases in slaying of the reconstruction of Regan argues from premisses reasons. concerning the ranking of evil and a premiss like E2, specifically 3. 4. The use of force is a substantive evil. Therefore, a lesser quuantity of force must great quantity of force (Rp.79). The argument is invalid: ordering of an ordering of evils force, even though force is an evil. increasing force may still reduce evil, and so, on be preferrable \ 8 does be preferred not induce to a a similar It is enough to observe that Regan-Narveson assumptions, �Resort to the theme that Elt, Violence is an irredeemable evil in (proposed by Regan by investigated his Narveson, Np.118) irredeemable evil is figuratively (lesser or evils) whites pacifism, of "defence" promises so black Rp.80, and subsequently a way around the difficulty. that no combination (goods) will lighten its hue; with An grays it always dominates. Elt together with E2 will yield C2, but now the problem with Che argument shifts to What are the grounds for that? Elt. not widely acceptable, most people being amount of As Narveson points out (Np.119), it is prepared to countenance violence in exchange for considerable goods. some (But then, not so long ago, most people were tolerant of cruelty to animals so long as it was gross.) small /not too Moreover, so Narveson implies, appeal to Elt does not get. pacifists out of the argument from lesser violence; underwriting C2. indeed it seems to get them in deeper, by for it removes Cl and, more importantly, It does not however; the corresponding premiss of the more difficult argument from lesser evil, which starts from DI. There are cases where the use of violence would avoid greater evil. For given, by Elt, that use of greater evil than that cases such as DI requires. Rp.80ff.), which however violence is irredeemably with violence; tainted evil, there is no and there are accordingly no This is the core of Regan's defence in pacifism (see he sees as converting pacifism into a 'bizarre and vaguely ludicrous’ position (Rp.86), extreme pacifism, some of the 12 which he outlines 9 features of �The approach through violence as an irredeemable evil is mistaken a (utilitarian inspired) attempt to get at moral absolutes, which is what pacifism is, like other deontological positions, grounded upon. But such absolutes expressed in such commandments as, One ought not to commit violence, adequately meaning thereby, as it says, ought not, not just for the time being, or so as reasons prima are facie, otherwise don’t arise, or other things being equal, or acting for ought but long come not what may, period. old-fashioned Such deontological, moral absolutist positions such as pacifism is at bottom, collide head-on with utilitarianism both that pacifism'. For the moral ’utilitarianism 'that utility will be ... who is incompatible brought out by doing some violence may be greater than that produced by any alternative' he like positions and Regan (at the time) were working from. Narveson The reason for collision is simply that with malleable highly fashionable, more (Np.121) 13 . So acccording to the utilitarian-commandment to maximize utility may acts sometimes commit violence, contravening pacifist principles. On its own inconsistency with a false doctrine such as utilitarianism shows little: position every suffers inconsistency with very many false doctrines. Narveson does have another (small) argument to the effect that pacifism is at odds with contractarianism. correct, if other the the ethical positions he presents, libertarianism and But this argument would only carry weight, were it. positions were suitably exhaustive; including no deeper ecological position for instance. is more also otherwise however they are not, What has happened which insidious, however, is that utilitarian thinking has permeated much of the rest of ethical thought, thus helping to establish a climate unfavourable to incompatible ethical positions such as pacifism. 10 There are two more specific �features. damaging consequentalist Firstly, as more approaches have we of consequentialist Secondly, facie prima principles positions out utilitarianism, of This is entirely mistaken. The is a theory-saving device, designed to get difficulties such dilemmas. moral as consequentialist positions tend to suggest that only consequentialist reasons carry argumentative weight, and so try to ease rival positions, such pacifism, and generally, have made it seem as if no deontic principle were firm, but all are provisional. theory seen, into as sometimes incongruous consequential support for their offering themes. Narveson takes such procedures a assumptions upon violence is that it These (p.425). thus pacifists: produces stage further, and foists utilitarian says that the pacifist's 'objection to he suffering, unwanted pain, in the recipients' incongrous utilitarian grounds are something of a travesty of pacifists' reasons for objecting to violence, which concern rather the action involved and what it does, not astonishing such of only or always at all in the way of suffering, to the perpetrators as well as those in whom it is more type inflicted. Even utilitarian-style considerations are supposed to commit the pacifist to the follow three statements, one of which however he must deny (!): [N]l. To will the end (as mostly good) is to will the means to it (at least pjotTce prima facie). [N]2. Other things being equal, the lesser evil is to be preferred to the greater. [N]3. There are no "privileged" moral persons ... (p.425^ ' . 'These three principles' which appear in Narveson's 'sum up [of] the problem', 11 pacifist's �among them imply, as far as I can see, both the commitment to force when it is necessary to prevent more violence and also the conception of a right as an entitlement to defense. And they therefore leave pacifism, as a moral doctrine, in a logically untenable position (p.425). consequences out of the substantive terms such as implicans; otherwise but logic, It would take not merely statements ’violence’ the deal good a of magic, coax to given. For implications to hold the , /''I <</<<-</ ,■/" < F^ and ’right’ must also figure , in the just fail implications on formal grounds. intended argument to the "commitment to force” conclusion appears however to some for e.g. The be of variant, on the lesser violence argument, with N2 replacing, as it sort may C2. such (N3 and N1 then have oblique roles, N3 to stop exceptions being made oneself, N1 to ensure that violence adopted as a means has its full import, in as reflected in Cl, construction work the ethical an end). But, without need not worry pacifists; arguments much further they hardly leave pacifism as untenable. Much more threatening is the argument from lesser evil, which has yet to be This countered. is argument from DI (cases of violence to avoid greater the evil) and N2 or E2 (minimization of evil) to C3 (admissibility of violence) inconsistency in comprehensive stock examples concern murder, What are these cases^? pacifism. one of them being the Narveson’s situation where (Narveson in fact) must kill the (potential) mass-murderer B (Np.119). is the moral situation here? Narveson ought to prevent but mass-murder, that of a paradigmatic moral In fact the example is dilemma, that of very similar also The to Pedro and Jim, where Pedro volunteers to call off his firing squad about to shoot several captives 12 one But what Narveson ought not to kill B, because that is murder and involves violence. situation is that of a moral dilemma. and if Jim �one shoots Now almost everything turns on what account is given of What a comprehensive pacifist does moral dilemmas. trouble, coherence . of them is to take do, not inadequate utilitarian line of trying to the explain moral dilemmas away, as if they didn’t ever, occur an than initial intuitive negotiable, etc., etc. is as level), wants he unless if (at at least other all obligations were prime facie, The conflicting obligations stand. What is to done be however a very consequentialist thing, to try to determine the best thing to do in the circumstances. action In trying to determine what circumstances is a satisfied. violent sense this the best e.g. Narveson had better a fix. Narveson dilemma, but no B. shoot (not a deontic one) evil should be minimized; not ought circumstances, he had better do so moral of 17 . to the in course Granted, it is preferable to minimize follow that Narveson ought to resort to violence. remains course best that Suppose one, inconsistency in pacifism follows. in the principles like N2 and its mate, N2M, that it is preferrable to minimize evil, will presumably be and is evil, it does not On the contrary the situation shoot B, but in the appalling There is the real-life complication of inconsistency No a through arguments like that from lesser evil. Narveson’s jackpot question, entangled in his discussion from rights, can now be met. of the argument The question presents a dilemma: If force is the only way to prevent violence in a given case, use justified in that case? (p.420) is its Narveson is thinking of cases where one is about to be murdered, Regan where one is to be raped. qualified No: Given that force again entails violence, the pacifist answer is No, it is not deontically 13 justified 18 . It is certainly not �morally it is not justified in the sense of ’justified* which and obligatory, reflects its deontic origin in ’making right*. may and because just some might force in solution, a making to amount dilemma be out But justification is The response is qualified then a case. consequentially situation. ambiguous, as justified, a second-best Narveson, proposes on the contrary, that enough violence for the given occasion is morally justified - it can go at least as as killing another person - but he presents no back-up argument, taking far his proposal as evident. jackpot the question As it is not - the pacifist can simply does not dispute it to a decisive a^rument against pacifism lead (though Narveson gives the impression that it does, e.g. , p.423). What it can lead to is the argument from lesser evil over again. The charge of moral insensitivity. §3. This is less argument an than a damaging charge: A person committed to an extreme pacifism, though he need make no logical mistake, yet lacks a fully developed moral sensitivity to the vagaries and complexities of human existence (Rp.86). The smear is not without basis. is applied avert to greater Regan is envisaging situations evil; where violence and he points to what he takes to be the evident moral permissibility of a woman's using ’what physical power she has free herself from an Interestingly, Regan has not aspiring rapist* (Rp.86). described the situation in a way which is incompatible with there is violence, which implies What is at issue the intentional, non-negligible damage, including pain, injury or (cf. a pacifist stand: nothing in that to prevent a woman wriggling free (even in a way that involves some force) and fleeing. using to is (or death, the permissibility of infliction of wilful) by forceful means / Np.110), that is, which involves much more than mere use of physical force �And it is by no means so or power. violence inflict upon evident A rapist. aspiring the the that woman is entitled to can hardly now be pacifist accused, in a way that can be made to stick, of crass moral insensitivity. More generally, arguments pacifism, the on like Regan’s the to insensitivity moral of basis of pacifists' not taking obvious steps to prevent evil I occurrences, depend upon a confusion of passivity and pacifity. Narveson p.425) (e.g. Both Regan and assume that pacifism is a passive do-nothing position. 20 This is far from true, as the variety of nonviolent action methods groups has made plain. comprehend the real possibilities of considered or adopted by Neither Regan nor Narveson correctly nonviolent action. Otherwise, Narveson would hardly be able to assert, in the automatic (but carping) way he does, that the pacifist is Narveson's standing negative later 'not by doing assessment does not change the situation: anything about’ violence (p.425). of what he calls 'poslLlve nonviolence' for this positive approach is simply nonviolence practised in an exemplary way, as by Christ, in the hope that others will follow suit, and fails to recognise the potential of nonviolent training and the and effectiveness when assembled 21 , of nonviolent practices. much reduce the impact scope Fuller details of these practices, of the argument from social irresponsiblity, which is part of what lies behind the change of insensitivity. Pacifism, however, like most positions, has them 22 its weaknesses, one of undoubtedly derives from the fact that violence is a quantitative matter and there is no sharp cut-off point at the bottom end of the amounts and of violence greater than zero. Yet scale with minute (non-foot-in-the-door ) amounts do not seem to matter all that much morally, at least compared with 15 small the �that evils gross us confront on most sides when we look. Morally sensitive pacifists will not focus or fixate on small quantities of violence to the of exclusion larger moral They problems. give certainly will understood that by ’violence' in principles such as. P2 mean they it undue to be 'non-trivial violence'. §4. and The argument from radical political corollaries The corollaries. out war by definition. so clear. Although War situations? normally would Standard war always would be what excluded, be morally counted brought progressively then second dilemma the impermissible, best but in thing to closer to Comprehensive pacifism can of course extreme principles emphasizing the evil of violence. weighing of Comprehensive pacifism thus does not include standard A strange pacifism! pacifism, in contrast to extreme pacifism. be pacifism But the position of comprehensive pacifism is not exceptional extenuating circumstances it might be the (second-) do. awkward of extreme pacifism would certainly eliminate war. practice For war involves violence, typically on an extensive scale. takes other from best choices will pacifism, in practice, through If evil is given a suitably yield the large same results as extreme A pacifism does (deontically), and entirely exclude war. Now it can hardly be cogently argued that it tells against pacifism that it would eliminate wars, since wars are exchanges that should certainly be avoided at all reasonable costs; nor therefore can an argument Wz/Acuf desirability fHur/l of war as an institution against pacifism,! mounted from the or Cldc. However wars are by no be means the only social arrangements or institutions which dispense^ or rely u violence extensively. The state and many of its institutions, most obviously �police inadmissibility of characteriscally are contraposition do. also forces, coercive 23 institutions and hence ; pacifism Comprehensive it as such implies police anarchism provides no refutation of pacifism.. the implies 24 moral forces and states But once again For anarchism itself is (to 25 stick with a bold claim) irrefutable Pacifism as an ideal brought not is .down by its political corollaries. Pacifism yields not only a qualified anarchism but qualified vegetarianism. While does it not eating of meat, it does morally forbid violence to forbid animals. At least it does this so long as what normally counts as violence, animals, continues to rank as valence, and is not removed from the category by restriction of the application of violence to humans little good for however basis corollaries naturally spread suicide, capt^al euthenasia, (or such a chauvinistic restriction. several into punishment, controversial indeed There persons). is The radical moral, wherever to e.g. areas, violence plays a significant role in many cases'1. The sheer moral power of pacifism is one reason /7j Qc4> for giving it some pause. And there are others. / One is that, like vegetarianism, it runs counter to "natural" behaviour of creatures to which the principles are supposed to apply. Aggression is a fairly S' X common feature of animal and human behavioZur, and it sometimes (though by no means so often is as made out) involves violence. /Ze /cVXC o/1 //>£ Ao'jje.tjw enable ct/ony Ac /Aggression is assumed to be an evolutionary adaption /ZeSG- creatures offspring) in their artificial h to be better natural environments fitted environment. substantially 17 developed to for survival (of themselves and their most humans removed from now live situations in for rather which �there is no way they are evolution gradually adapted their features: adapt in time to absorb massive doses of radiation for instance. have substantially living their adjusted adjust environment, along so with ^oing to Much as humans should they it their social practices - including aggressive and violent practices, now ill-adapted to their situation and mostly counter productive. There is a residual problem, practices of living creatures like in that confronting natural (relatively) vegetarianism. conditions, such as predators and tribal people, to be condemned as morally wrong when they Sometimes, violence? involve when the violence grossly exceeds what is required yes, Though a way can be beaten around the given the end to be attained; but always? edge of this problem Are 26 it is an unsatisfactory way. What this suggests is that <u t be^t nonviolence is not an absolute but^an ideal. The arguments for nonviolence which are mostly violence and do not strictly suggest a to apply since it in creatures natural surroundings opens door the a approaches would categorically exclude. chink to other options The further suggestion that emerges is that moral thinking and associated principles in this area are pretty primitive aimed, among principles state; other than P2. and what - But the suggestion is a dangerous one, sort of conclusion. similar practically at least, nonviolent arguments which do not exclude occasional uses of practical is things, at sharper, This is to in a called for is much more investigation more concede an sensitive, attentuated and less charge insensitivity against comprehensive pacifism so long as P2 remains blanket of moral unqualified. There is no reason however why a genuine pacifism (making for real peace) should not be built on a modified version of P2 which permits such natural phenomena as predation. Nothing logically rules 18 out such a genuine and more sensitive �pacifism 27 There are other requiriments the position to be worked out should meet. in should, particular, be integrated into a Larger framework of nondestructive practices, which are involve violence, e.g. a of a practices metaphorically, damaging wild nonviolent* practices. are practices But, except destructive to the environment, for instance, do not such river, with piece things dumping vandalism. wastes toxic But mining strip as extended sense, which gets beyond the confines these It of in a valley, fertile in streams and oceans. the property In an picture, all even metaphorically, vandalism does not such cover violence against persons (and certainly not nonphysical violence as I "psychological violence"). What is sought /is an appropriate synthesis of these notions covering destructive practices - and better than 'vandolence'. an Then P2 is superseded accompanying synthetic term, 4/Z2°. It is morally wrong to use vandolence./ It remains to characterise the cluster of destructive practices (/V that count as vandolence and to try to justify the principle - no easy tasks. FOOTNOTES 1. ’a valid Christian According to the US Catholic Bishops, pacifism is to Christ and the early long tradition going back position’, with a lifestyle: see Origins Christians who were committed to a nonviolent pp.310-311. 2. Thus, in particular, T. Regan ’A defence of pacifism', Canadian Journal of Philosophy 11 (1972) 73-86. Page references to this article are prefixed by _ 3. J. Narveson 'Pacifism: a philosophical analysis’, Ethics 75 (1968) and ’Is pacifism consistent’, Ethics 78 (1868). The first article is reprinted in War and Morality (ed. R. Wasserstrom) Wadsworth, Belmont, California, T97O7 pp.63-77. The first article is also rewritten and combined with part of the second in 'Pacifism: a philosophical analysis’, Moral Problems (ed. 19 77ju / /A ZAC A IZ(M2 �J. Rachels), Third Edition, Harper .Row, New York, 1979, pp.408-425. Page references without further citation are to this latter article. Narveson's theme that pacifism is incoherent is headlined and further elaborated in his ’Violence and war’, Matters of Life and Death (ed. T. Regan), Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1980, pp.109-147. Page references prefixed by 'N' are to this article. 4. Pacifism, as involving the active use of defensive methods, can be traced back as far as the Mohist philosophers of ancient China. On modern methods see especially G. Sharp, Exploring Nonviolent Alternatives, Boston, 1971. As will emerge, it is important to distinguish fas Narveson does not in his earlier work) force from violence; they not equivalent. /\ 5. Thus, e.g., G. Sharp in several works: see for instance the unduly narrow definition of pacifism given in Social Power and Political Freedom, Porter Sargent Publishers, Boston, 1980, p.198. 6. Narveson, in responding to a suggestion of Armour (pp.423-4) sees nothing between (0) defence of rights, with the slide to violence in, and (1) nothing really answering to rights at all, where words like 'rights’ occur without stuffing. This shows a serious blindspot. What lies in between are a range of notions which do not guarantee the slide to violence. An account of rights which will serve is that given in R. and V. Routley ’Human chauvinism and environment ethics' in Environmental Philosophy (ed. D. Mannison and others) Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 1980; see especially p. Narveson 'Is pacifism inconsistent' Ethics 78 (1968) p.148. 7. J. 8. Without getting into the level of complication, not to say epicycling, that Regan lands himself in: he is obliged to distinguish three mirage-like senses of 'lesser evil': quantitative, qualitative, and resultant (Rp.78). 9. See Np.127 where it is asserted that violence as a source of evil should be minimized, and Np.119> where the point is put in terms of absolute evil. That way of putting it already starts to give the game away, since Narveson is all too evidently interested in negotiable evil which can be traded off against other evils. 10. An argument like the argument from lesser violence itself would appear to undercut the argument for El and E2 to premiss 02 for the argument for lesser violence. 11. That is by no means the onlyelement in Regan's torturous reformulation of Narveson's argument that can be faulted. Consider, for example, premiss '5. If any given action, A, is necessary to bring about a lesser rather than a greater quantity of qualitatively equivalent evil, then one's obligation is to do A.' While the premiss has considerable appeal as a principle of supererogation, there is little reason to accept it as one supplying obligations. 20 �12. Extreme pacifism can be seen as taking the rule that one ought never to use violence as having priority over all other moral rules - which Is indeed an extreme position even if a consistent one. Such a priority rule is an unsatisfactory way to deal with moral dilemmas. 13. To show what Narveson goes on to claim that people are sometimes justified in using force rather more is required, as Regan points out, Rp 85, n.18. It has also to be shown that there are cases of these types (as in Cl) and that agents can know that use of force will increase utility, reduce evil, etc. A pacifist, rightly sceptical of utilitarian tracing of consequences, and fond of noting that violence begets violence, could, with a small dose of scepticism also, dig in at this point and claim that because no one can be sure that use of force will reduce evil, so no one is justified in using force. This is sceptically-based pacifism. 14. Narveson also wants to contend that ’all of these may be defended on purely logical or "meta-ethical" grounds’. This is likely false, especially the claim as to logical status, since some of the principles are rejected in substantive ethical theories. 15. A surprising feature of Narveson’s argument, also Regan’s "reconstruction", is that these cases are nowhere in sight, as if again one got to conclusions logically out of the air, without any of the hard work the cases involve. 16. The example was first discussed in B. 17. This terminology matches the account of moral dilemma, given in much more technical detail in R. Routley and V. Plumwood ’Moral dilemmas and the logic of deontic notions’ in Paraconsistent Logic (ed. G. Priest and others) 1983, to appear. 18. An extreme pacifist would answer with an unqualified No. 19. Directed against other creatures and more generally against ecological systems such as ecosystems which can be hurt. There is a difference here between live(go al-direct ed")~systerns and property, and comprehensive pacifism does not necessarily exclude wilful damage to property. Thus eco-pacifists may destroy, or at least disable, bulldozers but not harm those who use bulldozers to destroy habitat. However sensitive eco-pacifists will not condone "violent" destruction of property either: disab^ling of equipment is different. 20. The methods also include anticipatory action, e.g., the policemen going off to enact violence find their vehicles won’t start, e.g. because components have been removed 21 the peace movement should be preparing for B. Martin ’How See e.g of Peace Proposals 13 (1982) 149-159, and references Bulletin war ’ nuclear cited therein pp.152-3. Williams, //.( Zc (V, /, ( 1 J n l »' /? o C-, / / /' /\ <. ? / < / / i ’'i *7 z* //4 ’Conflict: of values’. �22. Another comes from the necessary circumscription of permissible nonviolent action, to ensure that it does not include actions worse than nontrivial violent action. 23. These organisations may be ruled out directly as violence-dispensing or else because they have individuals, delegates, who effect violence on their behalf. 24. In the sufficiently comprehensive form that the coercive state is without moral basis or legitimacy. Of course the "state" may have nonviolent methods available to it; it may not be a purely voluntary arrangement. 25. See R. Routley and V. Alternatives, (1982). 26. As Singer has in the analogous case of vegetarianism. 27. The position has been called 'pacificism*. Plumwood 'The irrefutability of 22 anarchism’, Social �On the alleged impracticality of pacifism in the real world. Appendix §5. Even if it is conceded that pacifism is a viable moral ideal, that it does not fall down as incoherent or ludicrous, still the feasibility of pacifism as a sensible practice to live by will bo contested - despite, or perhaps because of, major examples such as Christ and Gandhi. And it has to be admitted that the real world, with all its horror and squalor, does put pacifism to severe tests. Nowhere is the practice of nonviolence than in replacing war \ succeed usually been given a dress rehearsal. defence of a region can vary convention observed is or less likely to Yet nonviolent defence methods, to replace the 2 detail , usual violent methods, have been described in some never thought though they have The prospects for success of nonviolent significantly, depending upon whether the war If the convention Is observed then pacifism not. stands reasonable prospects of success. The difficult cases are where the war convention unleashed, perhaps broken, is in massive ways, on noncombatants. his superficially sympathetic sketch and assessment of resistance, 'success ... may all sorts of this: According to Walzer, in nonviolent defence and This is presumably false. that The invaders may give up and depart reasons, some of them irrelevant, e.g., they needed a quick decisive victory, they got homesick. like is attained - there is never any guarantee of it, without or with be war - even if some conventions are flouted. for violence is possible only if the invaders are committed to the 3 war convention - and they won’t always be’ (Wp.331~). Success and sufficiently What Walzer no doubt ruthless invaders sufficient time and sufficient support lines, etc. 23 means is something in sufficient numbers with can eventually succeed. But �sort of thing is also true even if the defending side resorts to violence. that The difference lies in the pattern of events; is more difficult and costly for if the defence is invaders the to well-armed it with and easier start afterwards than with well-prepared civil resistance-. Walzer is thinking, however, like many who jump to the that conclusion nonviolent defence cannot succeed when the war convention is abandoned, in terms of inappropriate examples. command, total in the He is thinking of an extreme totalitarian state, way the Nazis were in Germany, the Jews of Germany The providing the model of the enslaved population, the ’‘resistance". is highly misleading. picture The Nazis, who never invaded Germany, were in control of all the infrastructure and had the cooperation (at least) of the bulk of the For Walzer‘s comparison to work, there would have to be an enormous population. occupying army which took over and managed all key infrastructure. island With such as Australia it is not even so clear that this is logistically territories feasible against a largely united and actively resisting of impression in the acquiscence (e.g. resistance Walzer's population. fragmenting and the populace moving into dulled Wp.332) might have got things the wrong way around, the test with 4 disbelieving and frustrated soldiers ready to leave . Nonviolent resistance is however unlikely to be put adequate way in present state-determined prepared to risk training its populace (civil defence the police: is different). in to any No state would be circumstances. full in action nonviolent techniques It would then be. all to easy for them to "rout" civil obedience, for example, could no longer customary violent means. 24 be ensured by the �FOOTNOTES The replacement of the state is considered op.cit. For example, in Sharp, op.cit. given there. See also in Routley Martin, All page references prefixed by ’W’ are to M. Allen Lane, London, 1977. and op.cit., Plumwood, and 82, references Walzer, Just and Unjust: Wars, The argument suggested in Walzer (e.g. p.333) that nonviolent methods would increase evil, or at least its distribution, is weak. It is countered by Sharp’s observation that the suffering likely to be induced is less than in comparable wars. �§6. On the positive case for pacifism. defensive, meeting itself is revealing. deviations enough: a The argument thus far has been largely That in of objections to comprehensive pacifism. range Pacifism is the rest position from it are what require explanation. and state) (inertial -The reason for this is simple violence is, on most ethical systems, at least a prima facie evil, so use of it has to be justified. Positive arguments for pacifdism position and merely try supposed to be justified. violent opponent: to can advantage take of privileged dispose of "exceptional cases" where violence is The favourite exception is self-defence against a the case is curious in that the defender (person or nation) is already in a morally-excluded situation, since the attacker moral bounds. its has overstepped Still the defender is not normally committed to violence whatever he does - as in a dilemma situation. And since it is at least facie prima wrong, and he does not have to use it, he should not resort to it. An elementary syllogistic argument, given by Narveson (Np.117), can be adapted to give a similar result:Violence is (intrinsically) wrong Violence in any excepted cases (e.g. self-defence) is still violence Violence in any excepted cases is still (intrinsically) wrong. Naturally those opposed to pacifism will challenge the first premiss, and a dialectic already glimpsed will begin. None of the arguments are arguments for pacifism are conclusive, since even where deductively tight assumptions can be challenged (as above). are all the arguments for pacificism particularly good ones. 26 One of the Nor poorer �positive arguments for pacifism, for example, makes similar assumptions to those of the classic theory of war, namely that once war is embarked upon it cannot be limited, the e.g. that hope or nuclear selectively and restrictively is an illusion, (moral) limits in Although the chances overstated. war - of whatever they eXcalation are exchanges Limited escalation are be used inevitable. The weapons chemical is will - are bound to be overstepped. often real enough, and confrontation are possible. more social arrangements and much more conventional than the the case is Wars are much theory classical Wars can, for example, be started and stopped in midstream should more allows. important things intervene (e.g. pollution a crisis affecting other neighbouring states). The main reasons for pacifism are, inevitably, those for nonviolence. They include (as support for the first premiss above) a range of consequentialist and practical reasons, e.g. suffering of modern industrial societies, the broader popular avoidance and anguish of support base obtained None of these well-known types are separately decisive, but their cumulative effect is considerable. ' Cz/ // Z'1 1 Is Ct' i L> ) s' *4 / / 27 — > A by of violence, the desirable social consequences of nonviolence such as a more open, less furtive, society. ) violent futility and counterproductiveness of violence within the setting the methods, the cost in pain, ? . z.. z . of reason � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ON THE ALLEGED INCONSISTENCY AND MORAL INSENSITIVITY OF PACIFISM Pacifism , despite its.revival lit the nonviolent action movement A respectable philooophieg-1 press. another, the within tradition Catholic church , It is commonly portrayed characteristically as as inconsistent. as a continues to have a bad incoherent in one way or Even philosophical defences of pacifism are liable to be extremely defensive, conceding only that consistent, and pacifism is but insisting otherwise that^is as false as a moral position can be 2 and morally insensitive . What follows challenges the prevailing wisdom put out in the philosophical press, but using its approved analytic methods. §1. Slide arguments to inconsistency;and arguments from irresponsibili ty and from rights. In an influential and widely disseminated series of articles attacking . pacficism3 , Narveson says that the pacifist's position is not only that [Tl] violence is evil but also that [T2] it is morally wrong to use force [violence] to resist, punish, or prevent violence. This further step makes pacifism a radical moral doctrine. What I shall try to establish below is that it is in fact, more than merely radical - it is actually incoherent because self-contradictory (p.408, italics added). Subsequently (p.414) he characterises pacifism by way of T2, though it would better characterised by P2. be A It is morally wrong to use violence. However T2 captures the cases that orthodox opposition. The separate comprehensive pacifism from the main form of pacifism under investigation is called 'comprehensive' to distinguish it from standard pacifism, in the usual 1 narrower sense which is restricted to certain theses concerning (state) order, notably opposition to (violence in) war, and does not rule necessarily out violence elsewhere. Narveson's location of incoherence in pacifism depends on several connected slides, all of which the pacifist should resist - without force. The initial slide is from the theme T2 italicised above to what results by deletion the of crucial phase 'to use force', or as it should be 'to use violence', namely R2. It is morally wrong to resist, punish, or prevent violence - and similarly from special and related cases of T2 to special and related of R2 (e.g. from T2S, It is forbidden to use force to resist violence, to R2S, forbidden It is cases to violence). resist The slide is illegitimate because commitment to T2 does not entail commitment to the rejected proposition R2; for one thing there are many ways of confronting, reducing and controlling violence, worked out by pacifists and others, which do not involve use of violence (or perhaps force). The initial slide is however that assault on pacifism (after clearing Narveson several exploits confusions, explain the popularity of pacifism, out of the way). irresponsibility of pacifism, in This his first main which he takes to argument, from the does not actually lead to contradiction, but it does suggest that there is a serious tension between pacifism and any method maintaining social order, so serious that pacifism is socially irresponsible: ... to hold the pacifist position as a genuine full-blooded moral principle is to hold nobody has a right to fight back when attacked ... It means that we are all mistaken in supposing that we have the right of self-protection ... It appears to mean, for instance, that we have no right to punish criminals, that all our machinery of criminal justice is, in fact, unjust. Robbers, murderers, rapists, and miscellaneous delinquents ought, on 2 of this [irresponsible] theory, to be let loose (pp.415-6). Since one can protect oneself and avoid and resist aggression back violence), (with pacifism unless a slide is made. (tentatively) by Nor does T1 and theses does without fighting not mean what Narveson claims it means, comprehensive .pacifism, T2 , imply that we as characterised have no right to punish criminals, but simply that such punishment will not apply violent methods. Nor does it imply that all the conventional machinery of criminal justice therefore is unjust, but only that some - perhaps a good deal - of that machinery is. One hardly needs to be a comprehensive pacifist to coherently think the latter. All this provides some confirmation for the key point, which is that far at there is, so least, no inconsistency evident in maintaining that those who hold that violent methods are morally legitimate are mistaken. The next slide is closely connected with, and really generalises upon, initial slide. The stunt is to imbue a range of more neutral terms with the connotation of -------------------------------------violence, or at least of -----------------------force which Narveson proceeds to with violence. Thus from among admissible pacifist methods. of force is taken to by implied in R2. resist cannot excluded be Hence the conflation of T2 and R2; Hence too Narveson’s assumption Hence (p.415). also Narveson’s that against attack' (pp.417-8). use a unwarranted "recharacterisation" of pacifism as the position that 'no one ought ever defended equate such activities as resisting, punishing, preventing, and defending are taken to imply (use of) force or violence, and so to pacifist the to be If the stunt were got away with, it would deprive pacifism of, for instance, the general methods of nonviolent action and defensible position. But resistance, and so render pacifism a much less positions can be defended, as in this paper or on the field, 3 without violence. Things be can resisted, even things like arrest, without violence (e.g. sliding out of handcuffs and running away). by Force can be applied, as in opening Violence implies force, but not vice versa; and it is violence, not all applications of force, that.comprehensive pacifists are a jam jar, without violence. bound to exclude. The attempt nonviolent castrate to depriving It enjoys some popularity even any case indefensible. and by it of among those of advocating expansion of nonviolent methods, who no doubt want: to distance themselves from older standard pacifism, whose methods they see as confined to mediation, negotiation, and including the granting of concessions . compromise, But nothing in standard, range the is not confined to those who (want to) think pacifism in practices, development pacifism, so the characterisation its limits of pacifism, admissible methods: whether comprehensive or nothing exclude^ uncompromising methods and imposition of sanctions which offer no concessions. ? It is simply that standard pacifism has not yet developed its fuller potential, especially in conflict resolution. Subsequent slides in the elaboration of the argument against just variations qualifier. in those pacifism are given, writing violence-involving in as an internal Thus the measure of a person’s opposition to something in terms of ’the amount of effort he is willing to put forth against it’ is taken - somewhat perversely - to be violence-involving effort or opposition in the pacifist’s ’opposition to violence'. If this slide were pacifist would be caught in an elementary inconsistency since in case of the permissible any being opposed to violence, by definition, he is prepared to use violence and so is not opposed Even Narveson ’cannot make too much* of this inconsistency, though to violence. it not so far removed from the alleged inconsistencies he does want to make is much of in his main inconsistency argument. A similar slide, together with a further slide, Is made in the argument based inconsistency the on to notion of rights, especially as it figures in the pacifist’s thesis as transformed to the claim that no one has a right to indulge in violence (p.418). Narveson violence in the notion of right. tries to incorporate the right to indulge in The initial move is to work in assumptions of defence from breaches of a right and of preventative action against infringement Because ’a right just is a status of it. preventative action ... does follow logically is that one has a right to whatever may be necessary what to justifying prevent necessary’ infringements of right' his (p.419). That 'whatever may be out to include force, now very generously construed - here is turns the further slide - to incorporate such things as social pressure. Moreover ’it is a logical truth, not merely a contingent one, that what might be necessary is force’ (p.421). of preventative For the presupposed logical transformations to work, the notion action must have the notion of violence built into it. argument accordingly begs the question against pacifism. it enough is for preventative To block the The argument action associated with rights to be, or to be limited to, nonviolent action. How the argument from rights leads to inconsistency is summed up thus (p.421): SAI. ’If we have any rights at all then we have a right to use force to prevent the deprivation of the thing to which we are said to have a right’. SA2. We have, according to the pacifist ’the right not to have violence done to us’, as have the a consequence of the obligation to avoid violence. right self-contradictory, to use both violence, granting so the pacifist’s position Narveson is that 'our standard concept of rights' yields SAI (cf. right can be sustained by right-supporting or right-defending require that that action is violent. is and not granting the right to use violence. The argument fails because SAI is readily rejected. claiming But, therefore, we mistaken p.423). action in That a does not Pacifists can provide an adequate analysis of rights - essentially the usual one - without letting themselves in for SAI by 6 simply rejecting the Narveson slide . What appears in place of SAI is something like SAI#. If we have any rights at all then we have a right to uphold them. But the right to uphold them, defend them, protect them, etc., give facto, an entitlement to the use of violence. no dilemma for the pacifist. does not, ipso Without the slide there is The "pacifist's dilemma" and Narveson’s slide are two aspects of the one thing. The arguments from lesser §2. argument violence and evil. lesser In outline the - which is independent of the notion of rights - is that the pacifists must admit, in terms of their own principles, that there are cases where the use of violence those where Inconsistency would be morally permissible and morally justified. some is use of immediate violence by T2. would prevent evil, some greater violence. More explicitly, and in Narveson’s terms which also import the notion of evil, pacifists have lesser much The cases are to admit both that the use of evil, is admissible, in preventing greater evil, and that it is not admissible, because it involves violence. 6 Narveson summarizes an argument like this as follows It seems to me logically true, in any moral theory whatever, that [LI] the lesser evil must be preferred to the greater. If the use of force by me, now, is necessary to avoid the use of more physical force (by others, perhaps) later, then to say that physical force is the supreme (kind of) evil is precisely to say that under these circumstances I am committed to the use of physical force'7. Now there are several somewhat different arguments snarled up in these sketches, p It is important to get them unsnagged , especially if a clearer view of the ethical role pacifism can assume is to result. lesser The basic argument, from violence, goes as follows Cl. There are cases where use of violence would prevent greater violence. C2. One ought to minimize violence. Therefore C3. There are cases where one ought to use violence, since in this way, in any arbitrary one of the cases indicated, violence is minimized. Therefore ~P2. It is not (always) morally wrong to use violence, contradicting the pacifist principle, P2, according which to it is morally wrong, always, to resort to violence. All the ingredients premisses, can be of argument, this together with pulled together from Narveson’s work. support for He not only expouses C2, but suggests two distinct arguments for it, the first of which connects argument with the lesser evil argument El. (Use of) violence is an evil. E2. Evil should be minimized. 9 The second argument to C2 is simply from the pacifist premiss, varying P2, 7 the the E3. One ought not to undertake violence - period; that the is, level of violence ought to be zero. Neither argument is decisive; of that reference both in fact begin easing.pacifists into a should they resist, where moral absolutes are warped into moral relatives, where obligations give, way to obligations all, and says nothing about minimizing it when one compatible being does it. into got has E3 is directives quite different from minimization where violence is with involved, e.g. E3 things other In any event E3 only directs one not to get involved in violence at equal, etc. Thus frame rooting it out which may involve strategies. non-minimization not entail E2, and commitment to E3 does not commit pacifists to C2. Nor do El and E2 entail C2; so neither does commitment, by to El and E2 oblige them to accept C2. instance, 10 , e.g. evil-perpetrating but argument Narveson's well-known Such nonviolent fails for similar some as cases hypothetical dictators. for For in particular violence is not the only evil and (so) evil may sometimes be reduced by violence pacifists Regan’s increases in slaying of the reconstruction of Regan argues from premisses reasons. concerning the ranking of evil and a premiss like E2, specifically 3. 4. The use of force is a substantive evil. Therefore, a lesser quuantity of force must great quantity of force (Rp.79). The argument is invalid: ordering of an ordering of evils force, even though force is an evil. increasing force may still reduce evil, and so, on be preferrable \ 8 does be preferred not induce to a a similar It is enough to observe that Regan-Narveson assumptions, Resort to the theme that Elt, Violence is an irredeemable evil in (proposed by Regan by investigated his Narveson, Np.118) irredeemable evil is figuratively (lesser or evils) whites pacifism, of "defence" promises so black Rp.80, and subsequently a way around the difficulty. that no combination (goods) will lighten its hue; with An grays it always dominates. Elt together with E2 will yield C2, but now the problem with Che argument shifts to What are the grounds for that? Elt. not widely acceptable, most people being amount of As Narveson points out (Np.119), it is prepared to countenance violence in exchange for considerable goods. some (But then, not so long ago, most people were tolerant of cruelty to animals so long as it was gross.) small /not too Moreover, so Narveson implies, appeal to Elt does not get. pacifists out of the argument from lesser violence; underwriting C2. indeed it seems to get them in deeper, by for it removes Cl and, more importantly, It does not however; the corresponding premiss of the more difficult argument from lesser evil, which starts from DI. There are cases where the use of violence would avoid greater evil. For given, by Elt, that use of greater evil than that cases such as DI requires. Rp.80ff.), which however violence is irredeemably with violence; tainted evil, there is no and there are accordingly no This is the core of Regan's defence in pacifism (see he sees as converting pacifism into a 'bizarre and vaguely ludicrous’ position (Rp.86), extreme pacifism, some of the 12 which he outlines 9 features of The approach through violence as an irredeemable evil is mistaken a (utilitarian inspired) attempt to get at moral absolutes, which is what pacifism is, like other deontological positions, grounded upon. But such absolutes expressed in such commandments as, One ought not to commit violence, adequately meaning thereby, as it says, ought not, not just for the time being, or so as reasons prima are facie, otherwise don’t arise, or other things being equal, or acting for ought but long come not what may, period. old-fashioned Such deontological, moral absolutist positions such as pacifism is at bottom, collide head-on with utilitarianism both that pacifism'. For the moral ’utilitarianism 'that utility will be ... who is incompatible brought out by doing some violence may be greater than that produced by any alternative' he like positions and Regan (at the time) were working from. Narveson The reason for collision is simply that with malleable highly fashionable, more (Np.121) 13 . So acccording to the utilitarian-commandment to maximize utility may acts sometimes commit violence, contravening pacifist principles. On its own inconsistency with a false doctrine such as utilitarianism shows little: position every suffers inconsistency with very many false doctrines. Narveson does have another (small) argument to the effect that pacifism is at odds with contractarianism. correct, if other the the ethical positions he presents, libertarianism and But this argument would only carry weight, were it. positions were suitably exhaustive; including no deeper ecological position for instance. is more also otherwise however they are not, What has happened which insidious, however, is that utilitarian thinking has permeated much of the rest of ethical thought, thus helping to establish a climate unfavourable to incompatible ethical positions such as pacifism. 10 There are two more specific features. damaging consequentalist Firstly, as more approaches have we of consequentialist Secondly, facie prima principles positions out utilitarianism, of This is entirely mistaken. The is a theory-saving device, designed to get difficulties such dilemmas. moral as consequentialist positions tend to suggest that only consequentialist reasons carry argumentative weight, and so try to ease rival positions, such pacifism, and generally, have made it seem as if no deontic principle were firm, but all are provisional. theory seen, into as sometimes incongruous consequential support for their offering themes. Narveson takes such procedures a assumptions upon violence is that it These (p.425). thus pacifists: produces stage further, and foists utilitarian says that the pacifist's 'objection to he suffering, unwanted pain, in the recipients' incongrous utilitarian grounds are something of a travesty of pacifists' reasons for objecting to violence, which concern rather the action involved and what it does, not astonishing such of only or always at all in the way of suffering, to the perpetrators as well as those in whom it is more type inflicted. Even utilitarian-style considerations are supposed to commit the pacifist to the follow three statements, one of which however he must deny (!): [N]l. To will the end (as mostly good) is to will the means to it (at least pjotTce prima facie). [N]2. Other things being equal, the lesser evil is to be preferred to the greater. [N]3. There are no "privileged" moral persons ... (p.425^ ' . 'These three principles' which appear in Narveson's 'sum up [of] the problem', 11 pacifist's among them imply, as far as I can see, both the commitment to force when it is necessary to prevent more violence and also the conception of a right as an entitlement to defense. And they therefore leave pacifism, as a moral doctrine, in a logically untenable position (p.425). consequences out of the substantive terms such as implicans; otherwise but logic, It would take not merely statements ’violence’ the deal good a of magic, coax to given. For implications to hold the , /''I <</<<-</ ,■/" < F^ and ’right’ must also figure , in the just fail implications on formal grounds. intended argument to the "commitment to force” conclusion appears however to some for e.g. The be of variant, on the lesser violence argument, with N2 replacing, as it sort may C2. such (N3 and N1 then have oblique roles, N3 to stop exceptions being made oneself, N1 to ensure that violence adopted as a means has its full import, in as reflected in Cl, construction work the ethical an end). But, without need not worry pacifists; arguments much further they hardly leave pacifism as untenable. Much more threatening is the argument from lesser evil, which has yet to be This countered. is argument from DI (cases of violence to avoid greater the evil) and N2 or E2 (minimization of evil) to C3 (admissibility of violence) inconsistency in comprehensive stock examples concern murder, What are these cases^? pacifism. one of them being the Narveson’s situation where (Narveson in fact) must kill the (potential) mass-murderer B (Np.119). is the moral situation here? Narveson ought to prevent but mass-murder, that of a paradigmatic moral In fact the example is dilemma, that of very similar also The to Pedro and Jim, where Pedro volunteers to call off his firing squad about to shoot several captives 12 one But what Narveson ought not to kill B, because that is murder and involves violence. situation is that of a moral dilemma. and if Jim one shoots Now almost everything turns on what account is given of What a comprehensive pacifist does moral dilemmas. trouble, coherence . of them is to take do, not inadequate utilitarian line of trying to the explain moral dilemmas away, as if they didn’t ever, occur an than initial intuitive negotiable, etc., etc. is as level), wants he unless if (at at least other all obligations were prime facie, The conflicting obligations stand. What is to done be however a very consequentialist thing, to try to determine the best thing to do in the circumstances. action In trying to determine what circumstances is a satisfied. violent sense this the best e.g. Narveson had better a fix. Narveson dilemma, but no B. shoot (not a deontic one) evil should be minimized; not ought circumstances, he had better do so moral of 17 . to the in course Granted, it is preferable to minimize follow that Narveson ought to resort to violence. remains course best that Suppose one, inconsistency in pacifism follows. in the principles like N2 and its mate, N2M, that it is preferrable to minimize evil, will presumably be and is evil, it does not On the contrary the situation shoot B, but in the appalling There is the real-life complication of inconsistency No a through arguments like that from lesser evil. Narveson’s jackpot question, entangled in his discussion from rights, can now be met. of the argument The question presents a dilemma: If force is the only way to prevent violence in a given case, use justified in that case? (p.420) is its Narveson is thinking of cases where one is about to be murdered, Regan where one is to be raped. qualified No: Given that force again entails violence, the pacifist answer is No, it is not deontically 13 justified 18 . It is certainly not morally it is not justified in the sense of ’justified* which and obligatory, reflects its deontic origin in ’making right*. may and because just some might force in solution, a making to amount dilemma be out But justification is The response is qualified then a case. consequentially situation. ambiguous, as justified, a second-best Narveson, proposes on the contrary, that enough violence for the given occasion is morally justified - it can go at least as as killing another person - but he presents no back-up argument, taking far his proposal as evident. jackpot the question As it is not - the pacifist can simply does not dispute it to a decisive a^rument against pacifism lead (though Narveson gives the impression that it does, e.g. , p.423). What it can lead to is the argument from lesser evil over again. The charge of moral insensitivity. §3. This is less argument an than a damaging charge: A person committed to an extreme pacifism, though he need make no logical mistake, yet lacks a fully developed moral sensitivity to the vagaries and complexities of human existence (Rp.86). The smear is not without basis. is applied avert to greater Regan is envisaging situations evil; where violence and he points to what he takes to be the evident moral permissibility of a woman's using ’what physical power she has free herself from an Interestingly, Regan has not aspiring rapist* (Rp.86). described the situation in a way which is incompatible with there is violence, which implies What is at issue the intentional, non-negligible damage, including pain, injury or (cf. a pacifist stand: nothing in that to prevent a woman wriggling free (even in a way that involves some force) and fleeing. using to is (or death, the permissibility of infliction of wilful) by forceful means / Np.110), that is, which involves much more than mere use of physical force And it is by no means so or power. violence inflict upon evident A rapist. aspiring the the that woman is entitled to can hardly now be pacifist accused, in a way that can be made to stick, of crass moral insensitivity. More generally, arguments pacifism, the on like Regan’s the to insensitivity moral of basis of pacifists' not taking obvious steps to prevent evil I occurrences, depend upon a confusion of passivity and pacifity. Narveson p.425) (e.g. Both Regan and assume that pacifism is a passive do-nothing position. 20 This is far from true, as the variety of nonviolent action methods groups has made plain. comprehend the real possibilities of considered or adopted by Neither Regan nor Narveson correctly nonviolent action. Otherwise, Narveson would hardly be able to assert, in the automatic (but carping) way he does, that the pacifist is Narveson's standing negative later 'not by doing assessment does not change the situation: anything about’ violence (p.425). of what he calls 'poslLlve nonviolence' for this positive approach is simply nonviolence practised in an exemplary way, as by Christ, in the hope that others will follow suit, and fails to recognise the potential of nonviolent training and the and effectiveness when assembled 21 , of nonviolent practices. much reduce the impact scope Fuller details of these practices, of the argument from social irresponsiblity, which is part of what lies behind the change of insensitivity. Pacifism, however, like most positions, has them 22 its weaknesses, one of undoubtedly derives from the fact that violence is a quantitative matter and there is no sharp cut-off point at the bottom end of the amounts and of violence greater than zero. Yet scale with minute (non-foot-in-the-door ) amounts do not seem to matter all that much morally, at least compared with 15 small the that evils gross us confront on most sides when we look. Morally sensitive pacifists will not focus or fixate on small quantities of violence to the of exclusion larger moral They problems. give certainly will understood that by ’violence' in principles such as. P2 mean they it undue to be 'non-trivial violence'. §4. and The argument from radical political corollaries The corollaries. out war by definition. so clear. Although War situations? normally would Standard war always would be what excluded, be morally counted brought progressively then second dilemma the impermissible, best but in thing to closer to Comprehensive pacifism can of course extreme principles emphasizing the evil of violence. weighing of Comprehensive pacifism thus does not include standard A strange pacifism! pacifism, in contrast to extreme pacifism. be pacifism But the position of comprehensive pacifism is not exceptional extenuating circumstances it might be the (second-) do. awkward of extreme pacifism would certainly eliminate war. practice For war involves violence, typically on an extensive scale. takes other from best choices will pacifism, in practice, through If evil is given a suitably yield the large same results as extreme A pacifism does (deontically), and entirely exclude war. Now it can hardly be cogently argued that it tells against pacifism that it would eliminate wars, since wars are exchanges that should certainly be avoided at all reasonable costs; nor therefore can an argument Wz/Acuf desirability fHur/l of war as an institution against pacifism,! mounted from the or Cldc. However wars are by no be means the only social arrangements or institutions which dispense^ or rely u violence extensively. The state and many of its institutions, most obviously police inadmissibility of characteriscally are contraposition do. also forces, coercive 23 institutions and hence ; pacifism Comprehensive it as such implies police anarchism provides no refutation of pacifism.. the implies 24 moral forces and states But once again For anarchism itself is (to 25 stick with a bold claim) irrefutable Pacifism as an ideal brought not is .down by its political corollaries. Pacifism yields not only a qualified anarchism but qualified vegetarianism. While does it not eating of meat, it does morally forbid violence to forbid animals. At least it does this so long as what normally counts as violence, animals, continues to rank as valence, and is not removed from the category by restriction of the application of violence to humans little good for however basis corollaries naturally spread suicide, capt^al euthenasia, (or such a chauvinistic restriction. several into punishment, controversial indeed There persons). is The radical moral, wherever to e.g. areas, violence plays a significant role in many cases'1. The sheer moral power of pacifism is one reason /7j Qc4> for giving it some pause. And there are others. / One is that, like vegetarianism, it runs counter to "natural" behaviour of creatures to which the principles are supposed to apply. Aggression is a fairly S' X common feature of animal and human behavioZur, and it sometimes (though by no means so often is as made out) involves violence. /Ze /cVXC o/1 //>£ Ao'jje.tjw enable ct/ony Ac /Aggression is assumed to be an evolutionary adaption /ZeSG- creatures offspring) in their artificial h to be better natural environments fitted environment. substantially 17 developed to for survival (of themselves and their most humans removed from now live situations in for rather which there is no way they are evolution gradually adapted their features: adapt in time to absorb massive doses of radiation for instance. have substantially living their adjusted adjust environment, along so with ^oing to Much as humans should they it their social practices - including aggressive and violent practices, now ill-adapted to their situation and mostly counter productive. There is a residual problem, practices of living creatures like in that confronting natural (relatively) vegetarianism. conditions, such as predators and tribal people, to be condemned as morally wrong when they Sometimes, violence? involve when the violence grossly exceeds what is required yes, Though a way can be beaten around the given the end to be attained; but always? edge of this problem Are 26 it is an unsatisfactory way. What this suggests is that <u t be^t nonviolence is not an absolute but^an ideal. The arguments for nonviolence which are mostly violence and do not strictly suggest a to apply since it in creatures natural surroundings opens door the a approaches would categorically exclude. chink to other options The further suggestion that emerges is that moral thinking and associated principles in this area are pretty primitive aimed, among principles state; other than P2. and what - But the suggestion is a dangerous one, sort of conclusion. similar practically at least, nonviolent arguments which do not exclude occasional uses of practical is things, at sharper, This is to in a called for is much more investigation more concede an sensitive, attentuated and less charge insensitivity against comprehensive pacifism so long as P2 remains blanket of moral unqualified. There is no reason however why a genuine pacifism (making for real peace) should not be built on a modified version of P2 which permits such natural phenomena as predation. Nothing logically rules 18 out such a genuine and more sensitive pacifism 27 There are other requiriments the position to be worked out should meet. in should, particular, be integrated into a Larger framework of nondestructive practices, which are involve violence, e.g. a of a practices metaphorically, damaging wild nonviolent* practices. are practices But, except destructive to the environment, for instance, do not such river, with piece things dumping vandalism. wastes toxic But mining strip as extended sense, which gets beyond the confines these It of in a valley, fertile in streams and oceans. the property In an picture, all even metaphorically, vandalism does not such cover violence against persons (and certainly not nonphysical violence as I "psychological violence"). What is sought /is an appropriate synthesis of these notions covering destructive practices - and better than 'vandolence'. an Then P2 is superseded accompanying synthetic term, 4/Z2°. It is morally wrong to use vandolence./ It remains to characterise the cluster of destructive practices (/V that count as vandolence and to try to justify the principle - no easy tasks. FOOTNOTES 1. ’a valid Christian According to the US Catholic Bishops, pacifism is to Christ and the early long tradition going back position’, with a lifestyle: see Origins Christians who were committed to a nonviolent pp.310-311. 2. Thus, in particular, T. Regan ’A defence of pacifism', Canadian Journal of Philosophy 11 (1972) 73-86. Page references to this article are prefixed by _ 3. J. Narveson 'Pacifism: a philosophical analysis’, Ethics 75 (1968) and ’Is pacifism consistent’, Ethics 78 (1868). The first article is reprinted in War and Morality (ed. R. Wasserstrom) Wadsworth, Belmont, California, T97O7 pp.63-77. The first article is also rewritten and combined with part of the second in 'Pacifism: a philosophical analysis’, Moral Problems (ed. 19 77ju / /A ZAC A IZ(M2 J. Rachels), Third Edition, Harper .Row, New York, 1979, pp.408-425. Page references without further citation are to this latter article. Narveson's theme that pacifism is incoherent is headlined and further elaborated in his ’Violence and war’, Matters of Life and Death (ed. T. Regan), Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1980, pp.109-147. Page references prefixed by 'N' are to this article. 4. Pacifism, as involving the active use of defensive methods, can be traced back as far as the Mohist philosophers of ancient China. On modern methods see especially G. Sharp, Exploring Nonviolent Alternatives, Boston, 1971. As will emerge, it is important to distinguish fas Narveson does not in his earlier work) force from violence; they not equivalent. /\ 5. Thus, e.g., G. Sharp in several works: see for instance the unduly narrow definition of pacifism given in Social Power and Political Freedom, Porter Sargent Publishers, Boston, 1980, p.198. 6. Narveson, in responding to a suggestion of Armour (pp.423-4) sees nothing between (0) defence of rights, with the slide to violence in, and (1) nothing really answering to rights at all, where words like 'rights’ occur without stuffing. This shows a serious blindspot. What lies in between are a range of notions which do not guarantee the slide to violence. An account of rights which will serve is that given in R. and V. Routley ’Human chauvinism and environment ethics' in Environmental Philosophy (ed. D. Mannison and others) Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 1980; see especially p. Narveson 'Is pacifism inconsistent' Ethics 78 (1968) p.148. 7. J. 8. Without getting into the level of complication, not to say epicycling, that Regan lands himself in: he is obliged to distinguish three mirage-like senses of 'lesser evil': quantitative, qualitative, and resultant (Rp.78). 9. See Np.127 where it is asserted that violence as a source of evil should be minimized, and Np.119> where the point is put in terms of absolute evil. That way of putting it already starts to give the game away, since Narveson is all too evidently interested in negotiable evil which can be traded off against other evils. 10. An argument like the argument from lesser violence itself would appear to undercut the argument for El and E2 to premiss 02 for the argument for lesser violence. 11. That is by no means the onlyelement in Regan's torturous reformulation of Narveson's argument that can be faulted. Consider, for example, premiss '5. If any given action, A, is necessary to bring about a lesser rather than a greater quantity of qualitatively equivalent evil, then one's obligation is to do A.' While the premiss has considerable appeal as a principle of supererogation, there is little reason to accept it as one supplying obligations. 20 12. Extreme pacifism can be seen as taking the rule that one ought never to use violence as having priority over all other moral rules - which Is indeed an extreme position even if a consistent one. Such a priority rule is an unsatisfactory way to deal with moral dilemmas. 13. To show what Narveson goes on to claim that people are sometimes justified in using force rather more is required, as Regan points out, Rp 85, n.18. It has also to be shown that there are cases of these types (as in Cl) and that agents can know that use of force will increase utility, reduce evil, etc. A pacifist, rightly sceptical of utilitarian tracing of consequences, and fond of noting that violence begets violence, could, with a small dose of scepticism also, dig in at this point and claim that because no one can be sure that use of force will reduce evil, so no one is justified in using force. This is sceptically-based pacifism. 14. Narveson also wants to contend that ’all of these may be defended on purely logical or "meta-ethical" grounds’. This is likely false, especially the claim as to logical status, since some of the principles are rejected in substantive ethical theories. 15. A surprising feature of Narveson’s argument, also Regan’s "reconstruction", is that these cases are nowhere in sight, as if again one got to conclusions logically out of the air, without any of the hard work the cases involve. 16. The example was first discussed in B. 17. This terminology matches the account of moral dilemma, given in much more technical detail in R. Routley and V. Plumwood ’Moral dilemmas and the logic of deontic notions’ in Paraconsistent Logic (ed. G. Priest and others) 1983, to appear. 18. An extreme pacifist would answer with an unqualified No. 19. Directed against other creatures and more generally against ecological systems such as ecosystems which can be hurt. There is a difference here between live(go al-direct ed")~systerns and property, and comprehensive pacifism does not necessarily exclude wilful damage to property. Thus eco-pacifists may destroy, or at least disable, bulldozers but not harm those who use bulldozers to destroy habitat. However sensitive eco-pacifists will not condone "violent" destruction of property either: disab^ling of equipment is different. 20. The methods also include anticipatory action, e.g., the policemen going off to enact violence find their vehicles won’t start, e.g. because components have been removed 21 the peace movement should be preparing for B. Martin ’How See e.g of Peace Proposals 13 (1982) 149-159, and references Bulletin war ’ nuclear cited therein pp.152-3. Williams, //.( Zc (V, /, ( 1 J n l »' /? o C-, / / /' /\ <. ? / < / / i ’'i *7 z* //4 ’Conflict: of values’. 22. Another comes from the necessary circumscription of permissible nonviolent action, to ensure that it does not include actions worse than nontrivial violent action. 23. These organisations may be ruled out directly as violence-dispensing or else because they have individuals, delegates, who effect violence on their behalf. 24. In the sufficiently comprehensive form that the coercive state is without moral basis or legitimacy. Of course the "state" may have nonviolent methods available to it; it may not be a purely voluntary arrangement. 25. See R. Routley and V. Alternatives, (1982). 26. As Singer has in the analogous case of vegetarianism. 27. The position has been called 'pacificism*. Plumwood 'The irrefutability of 22 anarchism’, Social On the alleged impracticality of pacifism in the real world. Appendix §5. Even if it is conceded that pacifism is a viable moral ideal, that it does not fall down as incoherent or ludicrous, still the feasibility of pacifism as a sensible practice to live by will bo contested - despite, or perhaps because of, major examples such as Christ and Gandhi. And it has to be admitted that the real world, with all its horror and squalor, does put pacifism to severe tests. Nowhere is the practice of nonviolence than in replacing war \ succeed usually been given a dress rehearsal. defence of a region can vary convention observed is or less likely to Yet nonviolent defence methods, to replace the 2 detail , usual violent methods, have been described in some never thought though they have The prospects for success of nonviolent significantly, depending upon whether the war If the convention Is observed then pacifism not. stands reasonable prospects of success. The difficult cases are where the war convention unleashed, perhaps broken, is in massive ways, on noncombatants. his superficially sympathetic sketch and assessment of resistance, 'success ... may all sorts of this: According to Walzer, in nonviolent defence and This is presumably false. that The invaders may give up and depart reasons, some of them irrelevant, e.g., they needed a quick decisive victory, they got homesick. like is attained - there is never any guarantee of it, without or with be war - even if some conventions are flouted. for violence is possible only if the invaders are committed to the 3 war convention - and they won’t always be’ (Wp.331~). Success and sufficiently What Walzer no doubt ruthless invaders sufficient time and sufficient support lines, etc. 23 means is something in sufficient numbers with can eventually succeed. But sort of thing is also true even if the defending side resorts to violence. that The difference lies in the pattern of events; is more difficult and costly for if the defence is invaders the to well-armed it with and easier start afterwards than with well-prepared civil resistance-. Walzer is thinking, however, like many who jump to the that conclusion nonviolent defence cannot succeed when the war convention is abandoned, in terms of inappropriate examples. command, total in the He is thinking of an extreme totalitarian state, way the Nazis were in Germany, the Jews of Germany The providing the model of the enslaved population, the ’‘resistance". is highly misleading. picture The Nazis, who never invaded Germany, were in control of all the infrastructure and had the cooperation (at least) of the bulk of the For Walzer‘s comparison to work, there would have to be an enormous population. occupying army which took over and managed all key infrastructure. island With such as Australia it is not even so clear that this is logistically territories feasible against a largely united and actively resisting of impression in the acquiscence (e.g. resistance Walzer's population. fragmenting and the populace moving into dulled Wp.332) might have got things the wrong way around, the test with 4 disbelieving and frustrated soldiers ready to leave . Nonviolent resistance is however unlikely to be put adequate way in present state-determined prepared to risk training its populace (civil defence the police: is different). in to any No state would be circumstances. full in action nonviolent techniques It would then be. all to easy for them to "rout" civil obedience, for example, could no longer customary violent means. 24 be ensured by the FOOTNOTES The replacement of the state is considered op.cit. For example, in Sharp, op.cit. given there. See also in Routley Martin, All page references prefixed by ’W’ are to M. Allen Lane, London, 1977. and op.cit., Plumwood, and 82, references Walzer, Just and Unjust: Wars, The argument suggested in Walzer (e.g. p.333) that nonviolent methods would increase evil, or at least its distribution, is weak. It is countered by Sharp’s observation that the suffering likely to be induced is less than in comparable wars. §6. On the positive case for pacifism. defensive, meeting itself is revealing. deviations enough: a The argument thus far has been largely That in of objections to comprehensive pacifism. range Pacifism is the rest position from it are what require explanation. and state) (inertial -The reason for this is simple violence is, on most ethical systems, at least a prima facie evil, so use of it has to be justified. Positive arguments for pacifdism position and merely try supposed to be justified. violent opponent: to can advantage take of privileged dispose of "exceptional cases" where violence is The favourite exception is self-defence against a the case is curious in that the defender (person or nation) is already in a morally-excluded situation, since the attacker moral bounds. its has overstepped Still the defender is not normally committed to violence whatever he does - as in a dilemma situation. And since it is at least facie prima wrong, and he does not have to use it, he should not resort to it. An elementary syllogistic argument, given by Narveson (Np.117), can be adapted to give a similar result:Violence is (intrinsically) wrong Violence in any excepted cases (e.g. self-defence) is still violence Violence in any excepted cases is still (intrinsically) wrong. Naturally those opposed to pacifism will challenge the first premiss, and a dialectic already glimpsed will begin. None of the arguments are arguments for pacifism are conclusive, since even where deductively tight assumptions can be challenged (as above). are all the arguments for pacificism particularly good ones. 26 One of the Nor poorer positive arguments for pacifism, for example, makes similar assumptions to those of the classic theory of war, namely that once war is embarked upon it cannot be limited, the e.g. that hope or nuclear selectively and restrictively is an illusion, (moral) limits in Although the chances overstated. war - of whatever they eXcalation are exchanges Limited escalation are be used inevitable. The weapons chemical is will - are bound to be overstepped. often real enough, and confrontation are possible. more social arrangements and much more conventional than the the case is Wars are much theory classical Wars can, for example, be started and stopped in midstream should more allows. important things intervene (e.g. pollution a crisis affecting other neighbouring states). The main reasons for pacifism are, inevitably, those for nonviolence. They include (as support for the first premiss above) a range of consequentialist and practical reasons, e.g. suffering of modern industrial societies, the broader popular avoidance and anguish of support base obtained None of these well-known types are separately decisive, but their cumulative effect is considerable. ' Cz/ // Z'1 1 Is Ct' i L> ) s' *4 / / 27 — > A by of violence, the desirable social consequences of nonviolence such as a more open, less furtive, society. ) violent futility and counterproductiveness of violence within the setting the methods, the cost in pain, ? . z.. z . of reason  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 59, Item 680: Draft of On the alleged inconsistency and moral insensitivity of pacifism Subject The topic of the resource Computer printout (photocopy), with emendations and annotations. Paper published, Routley R (1984) 'On the alleged inconsistency, moral insensitivity and fanaticism of pacifism', Inquiry (Oslo), 27(1): 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201748408602030. Description An account of the resource Note, one of four papers digitised from item 680. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 59, Item 680 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [27] leaves. 12.83 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:6b11360">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:6b11360</a> Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Como - Cupboard - Pile 3 Box 59: Nuclear Como House Como House > Cupboard > Pile 3 https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/65f3e2936d457cb014383be187407f8d.pdf 0a542b3e86e1dad187a99b772d2f6c88 PDF Text Text - • 00681 ' ' {; /) f¼i:<:LL I f ~sif0l J �IN DEFENCE OF CANNIBALISM I. TYPES OF ADMISSIBLE AND INADMISSIBLE CANNIBALISM Richard Routley Philosophy Department Research School of Social Sciences Australian National University and Environmental Studies University of Victoria Canada �IN DEFENCE OF CANNIBALISM~ It is a commonplace of mainstream Western thought that cannibalism - the eating of human flesh by humans, and, more generally, the feeding of animals on members of their own species is, at least in the human case, morally outrageous. © Ri chard Routley, 1982 This repugnan cy thesis appears to be a legacy especially (but not only) of Christianity, probably derived from Jewish teaching, which went much further and excluded the eating of pig, for instance, as well as "long pig". Also in this series: It is a thesis reinforced by the substitution of Man for God of the World rainforest destruction - the social factors "Enlightenment" and consequent elevation and separation of humans Semantical foundations for value theory from other creatures. Unravelling the meanings of life substantially undermined, have for the most part been observed to Nihilisms and nihilist logics rest on a tangle of false views and prejudices about the world, its Nuclear power - ethical, social and political dimensions origin, evolution and purposes , and about the creatures that inl~bit Now that all these positions have been it, their separateness, and their order (in an a lleged chain of be in g ) Disappearing species and vanishing rainforests: wrong directions and the philosophical roots of the problem with humans at the apex, it is past time that major moral theses that these positions have sustained are re-examined and reassessed. The irrefutability of anarchism, enlarged Up for re-examination are, in particular, all theses that Roles and limits of paradigms in environmental thought and action depend essentially on the common but mistaken assumption that there is something morally very special or distinctive about simply being a human, that Homo sapiens as a species deserves special treatment. On the contrary, there is no morally relevant distinction between humans and all other creatures. Of course there are various morally relevant distinctions between things, but none concerns the biological species Homo sapiens. What holds rather is an annular 1 model which can be depicted schematically as follows:- �3 instance in removing the idea that the wrongness of such practices 2 as cannibalism is not even open to question 3 . Diagram 1: High in a list of inherited moral assumptions that are ripe ANNULAR PICTURE OF MORAL RINGS IN OBJECT SPACE (and the position of humans). of sapiens for reassessment are those concerning the almost universal ~oral prohibition of and repugnance to cannibalism, a practice that used to be extremely widespread, but that has now been almost e;.tirely extirpated 4 with the very successful cultural conquest of the world by Western thought. But instead of the re-examination that should follow the intellectual erosion of mainstream Western social thought, the growing recognition of its theoretical inadequacy, not to say ~:Notional labels for the interiors of such morally relevant rings (or ellipses), from outer to inner: Objects of value, objects of moral concern Objects having well-being Preference havers, choice makers Rights holders Obligation holders, responsibility bearers Contractual obligation makers poverty, what has followed is the often shoddy defence of many of its leading moral theses, mostly on anthropocentric grounds, but sometimes on other grounds, some of them drawn from contemporary philosophy (e.g. the conventionalistic rejection of cannibalism of Diamond, considered below). Many of the defences preferred of total prohibition of There are also more comprehensive philosophical reasons cannibalism are ludicrously weak, and withstand little examination. for the periodic intellectual review of deeper assumptions (and Consider, to illustrate, the main argument in (what was until very prejudices), reasons furnished by dialectics in combination with recently one of the few books in English on cannibalism) Hogg, the theory of objects. namely 'the innate repugnance of contemporary man to touch human According to the theory of objects there is no assumption that has to be held,that cannot be disbelieved, flesh' (p . 188, also earlier) . while according to dialectics proper every assumption is open to represented as a matter of fact, it does not appear to hold generally, questioning and reconsideration by its methods , and assumptions in and may be largely a matter of background and conditioning. order to be rationally maintained should withstand such critical scrutiny. imply 2 Naturally these (methodological) considerations do not that assumptions under examination do not (frequently) withstand critical discussion, or that there are not (or never could be) good reasons for adhering to them. But the considerations are important in opening larger moral assumptions to due reconsideration, for Insofar as the repugnance is There is no evidence that - what seems unlikely given the former prevalence of cannibalism - it is innate; and insofar as it is a matter of fact it does not support moral prohibition of eating human flesh, any more than the apparently very widespread repugnance of urban Americans �5 4 as observed, it has recently been argued, successfully, that this to eating raw snake underwrites a moral prohibition on consumption of raw snake meat. distinction will not carry very much of the moral weight that has been imposed upon it. 7 On the other hand, if the repugnance in With the breakdown of this sharp moral distinction question is (intended to be) warranted moral repugnance, then the argument is trivially circular, the premiss assuming the point at between humans and other species.orthod ox anthropocentr ic options, which sanction human consumption of animals other than humans but issue. never humans, collapse. One reason why the proferred defences look weak is that it has not been thought necessary to provide any defence; for 'Directly daylight falls on the habit it withers away' 5 - the "daylight" is that of contemporary Western civilization. appears in Langton (initial page): A similar theme cannibalism is 'a custom that of civilization' - or, one might say, before the triumph of human (pure) vegeta!ian options and on the other, cannibal(istic ) options (mixes of these options which allow some human flesh eating will it will be seen that by no means all forms of cannibalism are morally inadmissable. present exercise. Showing as much is the main object of the Though the results arrived at are part of the process of elaborating a non-chauvinis tic ethics, and accordingly have implications for policy, no policy conclusions are drawn in what no recommendatio ns for the implementation , or institution- The vegetarian options face, it certainly seems, insuperable difficulties, especially concerning such issues as animal predation (which is an important, immensely frequent, and often _<!~~rab.!!'_, What will be argued is that, on the contrary, when some daylight does penetrate to the issues concerning cannibalism, follows: (at least as regards "higher" creatures) are, on the one side fall under the latter head). must soon become extinct all over the world before the great march chauvinism. Among the important options left open ecological fact), and concerning the reduction in numbers of animals, especially introduced animals, which build up to "pest proportions" (some reduction is often required for vegetable growing to operate successfully) . But it is unnecessary to elaborate these and connected points here because there are cases where consumption of human flesh is perfectly admissible. The main argument advanced is modelled upon simple inductive arguments: a base case is argued, and this base is expanded step by step to cover other cases. alisation, of cannibalistic practices are made 6. Hardly necessary to say, better defences of the mainstream anti-cannibal istic tradition can be devised or pieced together from the literature than those so far alluded to. for example, on the assumption of sanctity Such defences - based, of all human life, on the theme that cannibalism is a brutalising experience, which puts humans in the same category as the brutes - characteristic ally rely on a sharp distinction between humans and other creatures. But, §1. The Base Cases: Eating the Dead. In setting out the first of these cases it is taken for granted that the practice in some American states and Canadian provinces of allowing accident victims (e.g. those of automobile casualties) to consent to the use of parts of their bodies for organ transplants and also for other medical purposes is admissible, and that the use itself in such cases is �Restricted forms of cannibalism in the interests of 6 survival are now quite widely accepted as admissible. admissible 8. Then, is there any good reason why persons should So there is really nothing extravagant at all in contending that sometimes not similarly consent to the use of their bodies for food upon cannibalism is perfectly alright: their death? fact that the admissible cases lead, naturally and coherently, once For food transfusions, instead of blood or transfuslons · or transplants. plasma And if they do, or so bequeath their bodies, why should their bodies not be eaten? What differences human chauvinism is properly cases. any extravagance is due to the left behind, to much more controversial There are several examples of human cannibalism undertaken there are in the types of cases can be minimized, and those that for survival, which have won establishment approval, from remain seem not to make much - or any relevant - moral difference. or church hierarchies. For example, in order for human parts to be intially taken and used, of members of a Uruguayan rugby party who survived an airplane crash the bodies have to be more or less butchered; in the high Andes (dramatised by Read). but then they may be in much less pretty shape after a serious accident. Again, in each typ e of case, the parts may - or may not - be supplied to people who are in genuine need; etc. Nor does internal ingestion appear to differ, in any way that matters morally, from internal connection, from organ transplantation. It could be objected that with an organ transplant a specific organ is required, whereas with a starving or undernourished person alternative sources of food are - or ought legal A striking recent example is the cannibalism Their eating of dead companions, evidently necessary for survival, was condoned by the Catholic Church of Uruguay and by other prominent Catholic thinkers. Interestingly, Rubio, Auxiliary Bishop of Montevideo, justified such cannibalism, necessary for survival, through a medical transplant comparison 10 .•• Eating someone who has died in order to survive is incorporating their substance, and it is quite possible to compare this with a graft. Flesh survives when assimilated by someone in extreme need, to be - available. But where the parts are used for nonspecific just as it does when an eye or heart of a dead man is grafted onto a living man ••. (as quoted in Read, p. 308). medical testing, e.g. cell culture, or just disposed of (e.g. by But the Bishop tactfully rejected, except 'as a source of inspiration', incineration) without any other use, the specific need consideration the equivalence, appealed to by some members of the team, between does not work. Anyway what would it show? eating the flesh of their friends and participating in communion, as The claim staked is accordingly this:_ where the human initiated by Christ at the Last Supper, where he (figuratively) shared eaten is dead, and certain other conditions are satisfied, cannibalism his flesh and blood with his apostles (Read, p.309; is admissr e. also p. 299). The other conditions~ comprise such things as Exactly why this correlation, which undoubtedly helped the survivors, the following: that the whole thing is done decently (in ways, gets discounted, remains tantalisingly obscure. that is . LO be spelled out specifically); that the person eaten consented (or, differently, would consent) to being eaten, perhaps by the parties concerned, or more strongly that the person directed tha t he or .;he be eaten (or otherwise used); or differently again, tha t the ~onsumption was necessary for survival or well-being. etc. seems worth pursuing further. The correlation For though survival was not a problem �9 Suc h d es pi cable motives as those of the ge t-even s yndrome ("we'll 8 fix the ba s t a rd, we'll eat him") are pointl ess (as well as stup id l y for the apostles at the Last Supper (so destroying a strict correlation), survival is not the only basis justifying the eating of human flesh. As with blood, the gift relation is another v i ndi c tiv e ) wh e re the part y is already dead. It can be argued that eating certain pieces of human flesh out of respect is an exceptional case (like eating a fellow creature to avoid starvation), and that a general principle of respect for important basis. A consent or bequeathal clause 11 is important in under- the dead overrides any consent that may be given. The short cutting various objections to the consumption of dead humans, for answe r to this is, firstly, that grantin g of exceptional cases alr eady in s tance, that it is an affront to human dignity, that it is a mark allows that some cases of cannibalism are admissible, and secondly , of total d isr espec t, that the 'sanctity of the human being' is that no general principle applies in a decisive way to exclude the compl e tely disregarded (Hp. 186), that it is impious (Dp. 467). exampl es alr ea dy considered. Fo r if the person consents it can hardly be an affront to that general principles can always be thwarted, it is instructive to consider per s on's dignity, or violate that person's sanctity (as seen from one po int of view). Nor is it an affront to the dignity of creatures of an irreligious cast, for whom a dead body whether of a human or an animal is a d ead body - though perhaps a dead body of a fellow creature o r of a friend. So it is an affront only to those of particular ( religious) groups, perhaps the same groups for whom dead human bodies are sacred and their disfigurement by humans (whether for medical or 5 other purposes) impious . Just as it is legitimate for one to discount the often illfounded views of such groups - insofar as the views are int ended to have universal applicability - as regards medical use of (forme rly ) consenting humans, as regards sexual relations, abortion, e uthanasia, and so forth, so it is legitimate to discount them in the case at hand. Dev ine ' s argument against cannibalism, namely as a paradigmatic applica tion of his overflow principle. On the contrary, the eating of certain parts of the bodies of dead humans was, amon g certain tribes who used to practice cannibalism, for it was thought that in that way the eaters could acquire or participate in some of the (former) virtues o f the dead , e. g . wisdom, strength, hunting skills, etc. still be, that eating is not disrespectful: So it can what is sometimes dis- respectful is raising for food nnd killing, e.g. in order to ent. The overflow principle~ formed -chiefly to cope with the treatment of animals, is this: Act towaPds that which, while not itself a pePson, is clos ely associated with pePsonhood in a way cohePent with an attitude of Pespect fop pePsons (Vp . 503) . Instead of arguing directly for the principle, Devine suggests firstl y that it may be argued for in rule-cons equ e ntial fashion, secondly tha t it may be made plausible as part of a way of life having respect for persons at its centre, and thirdly that th e prin ciple is well ensconced in the moral consciousness of the plain man. Each of these suggestions can be faulted both in general and as regards the relevant application. For instance, plain men mostly do not object to the bulldozing of old cemeteries to make way for a development. Nor need the eating of a dead human be a mark of disrespect. an act of consider a ble res pect; To illustrate how application of suc h On the other hand, the principle can be rendered analytic by taking up the slack in "associated with" and "coherent with" appropriately - only then it won't yield the relevant substantive application. In application of the principle Devine makes two alternative moves. First, �11 It is by no means obvious, however, that a cons~n 10 is required. similarly if it is going to be incinerated and the ashes s pread, it might better be carefully composted. The point ma de does not exclude organ transplants, eating, and so ecological alternatives to burial or cremation. The most the overflow principle The suggestion that the already dead can, at least in s e ems to show, under this move, is - what does not exclude consumption, certain circumstances, be eaten without moral qualm, innocuous though and what one may well concur with - that the dead (and not merely the human dead) ought to be eaten respectfully; it is, is liable to spark off a series of protests. and even this much some ugly scenes could result i f "long pig" caught on; is not shown if the tense change, the transformation from alive to dead, destroys the requisite closeness of association. outback Australia) competing to pick up "accident" victims. ambulances or tow trucks, are readily enough avoided (by suitable body, which forms the visible aspect of the bulk of persons with whom we are acquainted, and which persists when the person ceases to exist in death. (Vp. 593) organization), and more respectful practices adopted. would, if the objection is to have force - lead to what is normally a~sumcs, overflow to the subsequently dead body (which is no longer inadmissible, for example, to a perverse lust for human flesh, and And again respectful eating be marketable commodities, if there was commerce not just in human flesh. but in bags, shoes, and belts made from human hides, decorations from human bones and teeth, glue and fertilizer from other parts and so on 12 in the way that there is commerce in animal parts? Perhaps, disre sp ec t wo uld be an outcome, but perhaps for the wrong re aso ns. What s ee ms clear is that giving human flesh to the ne edful, s ~y , i s one thing, a llowing commerce in human parts is another. More serious is the objection that such "admissible cannibalism" could - or rather ov e rflow to thl' llvlng body docs not however guarantee, what Devine Wouldn't disrespect be inevitable if human parts become But these types of scenes, which can already occur with competing ... respect for persons overflows to the human to dead bodies. e.g. the the way that refrigerated trucks follow the kangaroo shooters in some heavy assumptions as to features of persons, reveals: could, it appears, be coherent with the alleged overflow of respect It is true that spectacle of the refrigerated vans patrolling the highways (in much Devine assumes it does not, as his second move which begins to buy into the "visible aspect" of a person). so in nci cher case is value diminished, it seems, by (respectful) cannibalism or ordinary garbage (in the literal sense) is not eaten (except in desperation, etc.). A dead body does nee have the value of the person whose body it is in life; Garbage is commonly thrown away, things in these end uses are mostly not; For i f a body is going to be buried and "eat,~" by bacteria, or various carnivores, it might as well be eaten; although a dead body is not a person, still the fact that it (so to speak) was a person means that it ought not to be treated like ordinary garbage (Vp. 503). forth. clause perhaps, thereby to the deliberate killing of humans for food. Hogg makes much of the first of these points, the (unintended) impression he gives being that human flesh is so delicious that it is highly addictive. Whether this is so or not (it would seem unlikely with a preponderance of older stringier humans, though the number of "battery humans" is increasing).it appears not to matter, unless it does lead to what would be more disconcerting, e.g. the establishment of a black market or the like in human flesh, with inputs from killer or Mafia syndicates. But the problem is not substantially different �13 12 of our unwillingness to kill people for food or other purposes, from problems that already arise with the treatment of animals (e.g. traffic in rare species), and over the distribution of dangerous drugs to humans, and can be met in similar ways, i.e. through a similar range of political or organizationa l options. The usual utilitarian defence of vegetarianism based on suffering, pain, and the like caused in raising and killing creatures for food, co llapses. 13 For no direct suff~ring, pain or the like occurs, with the creatures eaten already dead; and any sorts of suffering that might be marshalled among some of the still living who are pained by the consumption can be more than compensated for by th e alleviation of suffering of the meat consumers, for a suitable and secondly not a (direct) consequence of our unwillingness to cause distress to people - not that it always would (contrary to Diamond's assumption) - but rather 'what conditions our attitude to not dining on ourselves is the view that a person is not something The argument turns however on a slide on the mi.ddl.e term 'something to eat' which is ambiguous between (i) something that may be eaten and (ii) something that is eaten; In the second sense the justification given of the fact dead people are not eaten, namely people are not eaten, while in a sense "logically adequate" is trivial, and proves no requisite grounding, and the "justification " does not imply that dead people may not be eaten. In the first sense, a nontrivial justification is offered, that it is impermissible choice of consumers. to eat people,but in this case we cend to repeat the initial question; Some vegetarians however (rightly) reject utilitarian defenses; Diamond, in particular, tries to argue that they involve 'fundamental confusions about the moral relations between people and people and between people and animals ' (Dp. 465), and introduces instead convent ionalist arguments - unfortunately of wide philosophical appea l - against eating people. Some of the reasons for not eating people, she subsequently argues, extend to grounds for not eating animals either. Diamond's argument begins from certain quite central facts ... We do not eat our dead, even when they have died in auto- mobile accidents or been struck by lightning • .. (Dp. 467) An immediate objection is that this is little more than a local fact, Why is it? Diamond has a surprising answer: in effect that it is analytic on, or at least a consequence of, our notion of what a person or human being is. ••• it is not respect for our interests which is involved in our not eating each other . These are all things which go to determine what sort of concept 'human being' is it is one of those things which go to build our notion of human beings (Opp. 469-70). But such a thing as not eating other people is certainly not part of the concept 'human being', indeed it is not merely ~ot analytic or normic (near-analytic ) of human beings,it is not even true of them - good for certain ' we ' but by no means generally, as the history of given that, on well-authentic ated evidence, cannibalism was formerly canniba lism shows. widespread, and that it still persists in isolated place s today. It is equally a fact in the context of quite extensive groups, that .EE~L2o not eat l'i~.· So either the central fact has to be morally grounded or has to have moral consequences. The second option would involve a prescriptive fallacy (deduction of an ought from an is); followin g fashion:- in any case, Diamond tries the first, in the The fact is, firstly, not a (direct) consequence The answer is, in short, radically unsatisfactory . That this is �15 Tt may s eem ... I should find myself havin g t o jus tify slav e ry. For do we not learn - if 14 we liv e in a slav e soci e ty - what slaves ar e the answer Diamond is offering is however at once confirmed by how she goes on (writing in speciesist assumptions 15 in the same revolting fashion): and what masters are through the structure of a life in which we are here and do this, and they are there and do that? Do we not learn the difference between a master and a slave that way? (Dp. 470) Diamond does not manage to escape these difficulties, though sh e And so too - very much so - [built into the notion] the idea of the difference between human beings and animals. We learn what a human being is in - among other things sitting at a table where WE eat THEM. We 16 are around the table and they are on it (Dp. 470) . While we may learn something about what some human beings - not makes various attempts (p. 470 and especially pp. 476-7): the notion of a slave or an enemy or an outlaw assumes a background of response to persons, and recognition that what happens in these cases is that we have something which ;;;;-;;,::-e not treating as what it - in a way - is ( Dp. 476). vegetarians - are like in this way, in the way we can learn what But this is to assume a background of norms, of how things morally some other human beings are like from cannibal feasts where 11 we" are, that a person is not something to enslave, etc. (and to attempt are on the table as well as around it, we learn little of the once more to build a presupposed morality into conv entional facts). notion of human being in this way. Nor does what correct information Furthermore, as this reveals, the same ploy could be worked in the we acquire in this way provide a firm basis for moral judgements case of animals, namely that in hunting them, killing them, serving about the possibility of eating humans, though Diamond appears to them up for dinner, we are ~ treating them as what - in a way think that it does; for she later says that the source of moral they are (or, more accurately, as they mora lly deserve treating). life derives from ways in which we mark what human life is (Dp. 418), Such comparisons make it evident then what Diamond is about, and that another move which involves a prescriptive fallacy, as well as he r conventionalistic approach fails. obvious anthropoce ntri cit y . However, to remove objections to eating the already dead, Indeed many of the sorts of conventional patterns of response under specified conditions, is simply to avoid, rather than face up a nd conventional facts that Diamond alludes to are a fairly direct to, the real opposition to even qualified cannibalism. For an o utcome of human chauvinism, e.g. that drivers mostly stop for important part of the real opposition to qualified canniba lism relies injured humans, not for injured animals, that humans are commonly upon illicit assimilation of cases of eating already dead people given funerals, animals mostly not. Diamond needs to say, and with killing humans for food, and, differently again, rearing some proceeds to say, that these sorts of differences are appropriate, but that is to slide to a value judgement which concedes to he rself part of what is at issue. Diamond's approach encounters serious difficulties when applied to such matters as slavery, the treatment of outlaws and enemies of them, e.g. certain infants, for food . and in an obvious sense ! .!1.~~~., Thus Devine's ambiguous, �17 what is entire l y different, permitting the killin g of humans for 16 food, or to, what is different again, the deliberate raisin g of human s for food. claim that 'a meat diet requires that animals be killed' (Vp. 483). And thus Diamond again, the cases are entirely different. involved both rearing and slaughtering Swift's "proposal" of children for food. Nor is the base position so far reached a new one, but an ancient proposition. it i s one thin g morally to eat an already dead deer, another to let a deer die and then eat it, another again to shoo t What we should be going against in adopting Swift 's "Modest proposal" is something one should be going against in salvaging the dead, more generally useful organs for transplantation, and the rest for supper or the compost heap. (Dp. 469) 17 Not a t all: animals: The differences are already clea r as rega rds For instance, Chrysippus, the Stoic, in his or otherwise kill it and then (perhaps) eat it, and yet another to eat a deer raised (in one or another of very different ways) for food. Within each of these different categories, it is important to distinguish cases. For while eating a dead human, even after it has been allowed to die (by omission), may be admissible, killing humans for food is often not, and raising a human for food (and other goods) is, it is now generally assumed by humans, certainly not. treatise On Justice, 'permitt ed eating of the corpses of the dead• 18 There are several separate issues here, in particular the So also apparently did Diogenes in his Republic, Zeno in his Republic, ~~ban~ or raising for food issue, on which much literature on and Cleanthes, all of whom may have authorised cannibalism on a the moral basis of vegetarianism has in fact focussed, and the broader scale. general l?I~'!_ati~ issue, which includes matters of killing and letting die. Limited extensions of cannibalism beyond the base cases, where humans are allowed to die or are killed . eat ing of (certain of) their parts . Eating dead humans involves But if eating such parts is (often) The issues are separate because creatures may be killed for food, e.g . in hunting, though they are not raised for food, and conversely creatures may be raised for food (or treated as slaves) without, for one reason or another, being killed. Cases of humans admiss ibl e , then so also presumably is consumption of such parts when raising humans for food have apparently never occurred, though humans they are (irrevocably or freely) severed from a living human, e.g. have sometimes been fed up for the pot (e.g. in the Aztec empire and in Fiji). ea ting the amputated limb of a friend or enemy or drinking the blood Humans are the only creatures we in fact know who might (having l ost consider- donated by another, able touch with the natural world) just adopt such a practice: These rather special cases, involving (what is no other ca lled, for s h o r t ) ~ human parts, provide a first set of extensions animals ever raise creatures for food, not did cannibalistic cu ltures of the base cases. ever apparently raise humans for food. These extensions include some bizarre cases, in particular where the part concerned is one's own. However, allowing the eating of dead humans and nonlive hum~ n parts under certai n conditions offers no slippery slide to, It is a serious and difficult question (to which moral philosophers have not sufficiently addressed themselves) why it is that if humans are not under !!.!!i'. conditions entitled to raise other humans for food, they are entitled under many �19 18 th e gene ral i ss ue as to wh e n, or wh e n prec i se l y , killin g f o r food i s jus tifiable can be largely skirt ed. For it is justifiable , it is conditions - indeed, it is often assumed, under a sweeping ra~ th e n claimed, whe n and only when killing itself i s justified, whe ne ve r of factory conditions - to raise other animals for food? that is. They can only be justified in so doing if there are significant and While one half of the italicised equivalence is uncontrover s ial - relevant differences between humans and other creatures raised, if killing for food (or for purpose P) is permissible, so is what it or that might be raised, for human or animal food. involves, killing - the converse is not. Yet there are, For consider some circum- it has already been pointed out, no such appropriate species-wide stances (assuming you can find them) where killing of person x is differences. justifie d, e.g. in war, in retribution, in self-defence, in r e ducin g g reat A fresh start can be made on the issue from a cannibalistic perspective. evil. Since it is not eating human f l e s h ~ that is Th e n killing x for these reasons is not killing for food, even if x is in fact subsequently eaten. There is an important intensional wrong, what is it that is wrong, if anything, with raising humans difference, so that being justified in killing x for some crime say , or other creatures for food? does not justify killing him for food, much as thinking of killing him or is it both? both. Is it the raising, or is it the killing, The answer is, of course, that trouble lies with for the one reason is very different from thinking of killing him for Raising of creatures frequently has one or both of two dama ging features accompanying it: first, the other purpose. deprivation of the What can be argued given the permissibility of- eating dead rai s ed creatures, and secondly, treatment of the raised animal humans, is that where killing of z is permissible, cannibalism of z merely as a means (not as an end). is also IN FACT permissible. The second, attitudinal, difference may have little or no impact beyond the first. For example, if infanticide i s alri ght under certain conditions (as Tooley contends, and others have hinted), And the first may be avoided, e.g. whe re the creatures stay by choice but then in fact cannibalism of infants is alright also under the given could depart if they wished. conditions (but the issues as regards the raising of infants for fo od Kept geese, for instance, may be in that position; they are seemingly not deprived, but may live in rather are, of course, not thereby resolved). natural conditions (except that migration and much that goes with it is permissible can, to this limited extent, be bypassed. II has been lost). Thus the issue of when killing It is worth elaborating these points, since important Killing involves something different again: extensions - not the only extensions - of cannibalism beyond the base all that goes with removing of a life, the termination of projects, purposes, cases depend upon them, and since - very differently - they furnish associations of value, etc. (and also the definitive end of con- clear cases of inadmissible cannibalism. sciousness, etc.). of situations to distinguish:- With the predation issue also, a central issue ls as to when killing an animal for food is permissible. It may be thought indeed that the killing for food issue just is, or is t a ntamount to, the general issue of killing, and that accordingly • There are several clas se s �21 survive themselves, the survivors of an aircrash in a remote area, 20 people on a life raft, etc. Such examples, where defensible, as they sometimes are, provide a further class of examples of admissible la. Killing , causing to die, is impermissible. cannibalism - what might be called exceptional cannibalism, since the lb. Letting die (passive killing, as it is sometimes misleadingly , but conveniently , called) is circumstances are, at present anyway, among higher mammals, rather impermissible . exceptional . Then, in either case , killing or letting die for eating or followed by An important and often times questionable practice, which eating is also impermissible, by preceding principles (essentially can in principle at any rate, deliver exceptional examples 20 , is ~Pp ➔ ~P (p & q)), hunting (in the intransitive form, which involves capture or killing So in particular it is where the creature is of the same species. That is, cannibalism is in these cases inadmissible . But some of these cases are clear; for instance, where creature (or if the object sought is duly located). Men continue to hunt in the French fields, and sometimes still their own species 21 , not at present human) x is leading a worthwhile nonaggressive independent and pro- in the shape of enemy soldiers , but those cast as outlaws (manhunts) . ductive life in a peaceful countryside. (Intransitive) Hunting divides into several types, according to its 2a. Killing is permissible. 2b. Letting die is permissible. end purpose, for sport , for food, for extermination, for capture. Hunting humans for sport (hunting for "sport " , so called, typically In common reckoning there are many examples of both second classes, involves killing) is a practice that has persisted well into this "passive" infanticide, suicide and gambling with life, euthanasia, century, in Australia for example . killing or allowing to die to maximise community values where there though it can be given philosophical support by chauvinistic theories are large numbers of people or choices between them, execution and such as a limited and racially prejudiced group-utilitarianism or by assassination, self-defence , killing in war (the list follows roughly appeal to the "ideal" of pure subspecies (the stud ideal). t he later chapter headings in Glover, where these well-known types such hunting is impermissible, so, for the same sorts of reasons, is of examp les are set out in some detail). the hunting of many animals for sport . In all these types of cases, It has nothing to recommend it, But if Hunting otherwise, except for death can be followed by eating, provided the base class conditions capture, is a restricted form of killing, and to what extent it is are satisfied . permissible turns on when that sort of killing is permissible . In such cases, henceforth called de facto extensions, cannibalism is also in fact admissible . The position arrived at thus far is pulled together in rhe Almost always the killing or letting die in 2a and 2b is not spec ifically for eating. conjoined: Eating the resulting dead is simply th e source of food is adventitious. Sometimes, however, in unusual circumstances some members of a party of the one species kill certain members of the party or allow them to die in order to fo ll owing diagram, which subsequent sections (and parts) endeavol1r to fil l out and render more precise:- �23 §3. 22 Unavoidable detours: when is killing a creature wrong, and when is letting a creature die wrong? It is not necessary, nor is it easy or desirable, to avoid entirely the issues of when killing Diagram 2: TYPES OF ADMISSIBLE AND INADMISSIBLE CANNIBALISM is wrong and when killing for food is wrong, and when such kinds of l( ,- killing are not wrong . Type 1 cases (exemplified e.g. in hunting for sport) - - -- ___ _] Base case I ,< conditions fail I X other than rather weak or circular principles. had seemed to be clear turn out on further reflection to be much l ess ,< obvious. \ ESSENTIAL / ,-...__ _ _ _ _ _'-! \ PREDATION..,, For example, it had seemed evident that the onus of jus tification (where this makes sense) characteristically lay with the WATERSHED J(. XCEPTIONAL EXTENSIONS Worse, things chat INADMISSIBLE ADMISSIBLE BASE CASES But it is not so easy to elicit or to defend action-taking party; \t 'I,( that it is the killing or removal of life that muse be justified, not the letting live. Some things, however, are clearer . 'J{ NONLIVE EXTENSIONS First and foremost, a satisfacto ry (nonchauvinistic) a c count K -J KILLING BOUNDARY of when and why killing a creature is wrong won't make exceptions for REARING FOR SLAUGHTER BOUNDARY humans and, more generally, won't contain the term 'human' or logical So far, in considering examples of killing, issue has not equivalents. This important requirement disposes of much of the been taken with enlightened conventional wisdom, with the result chat philosophical literature. a serious , and perhaps unwarranted, discrepancy between the treatment (9p. 135-9), which refer to the (contractual) conditions for human dished out to animals and that accorded humans is beginning to emerge. social life (the mixed account given should be faulted on several other So the judgements made tend to follow conventional practice: grounds as well). killing It wipes out, for example, Ewin's attempts Similarly it removes the main condition eventually humans for food is admitted but happens only in exceptional circumstances, achieved in Glover (a whole text devoted to moral issues concerning killing killing, which fails to present, or seriously address, the matter of animals for food is a pervasive practice. More generally, killing animals for food is considered permissible in a wide range of circumstances where killing humans is not , yet on what solid grounds? . As regards killing, even enlightened conventional moral wisdom returns us to the heartlands of human chauvinism. necessary and sufficient conditions for when killing is wrong) . The first main condition Glover arrives at is that ' taking human life is normally directly wrong: that most acts of killing people would be J/ To avoid it, the matter of wrong in the absence of harmful side-effects' (Gp . 42), i.e . so long killing and letting die will have (like most moral issues) to be as 'the best total outcome' does not involve killing (cf. p . 286), to reconsidered, nonchauvinistically. set down the underlying utilitarian recipe . Other conditions Glover outlines - similarly unacceptable even to their author when 'animal' replaces 'human' - are likewise faulted as damagingly cha,·vinistic, �25 24 for instance that it is wrong to kill a human whose life is worth l iv i ng (Gp . 53) , whenever that is. e . g. burning a collection of seeds (er seedlings) is one thing, burning Secondly , unremarkably, most of the recipes suggested in the a forest is another, slicing up or eating a raw egg is one thing, slicing literature are defective, first among them utili t arian proposals , which, as is well-known can sanction unjust killing. 22 up or eating an eagle is another, etc. Other (non- utilitarian) potential ys me rit the same consideration as ys, as if th ey we r e ys. recipes are also problematic, as a proposal by Young, wh i ch will he l p Call the r.esult of making the required deletio n, th e us on our way, serves to indicate: modified proposal . . . . what makes killing another person [more genera lly a considered . realisation either of the victim's life purposes or of such life- purposes as the victim may reasonably have been narrower utilitarian frameworks and induces a decided circularity, The proposa l requires some brief explanation. The term ' unjust ' , which takes the proposal outside is qualified in the final proposal (p.519) by 'maximally' , the point expected to resume or to come to have (Yp.518; repeated p.519 with 'maximally ' included). of which (though it is not fully explained) is to permit killing or The qualifying term sacrificing of one person in order to save others . 'irrevocable' is inserted to separate killing from life imprisonment I It is the modified proposal that will be chiefly creature] wrong on occasions is its characte r as an irrevocable, [maximally] unjust preventing of their I It is a popular fallacy that which may, as a matter of fact , defeat the prisoner ' s purposes . The long some members of a group (on a lifeboat or from a remote airplane crash) final disjunction is designed to delegitimize killing of sometime comatose are sacrificed for, or by, others of the group . persons (it also would include people undergoing reform programs) - -,hat is ac counled [maximally] unjust. an additional clause is required - and killing of potential future in way, and almost (but not) captial punishment. debatable judgements , such as that in the common case (on Young ' s ified' (p . 528) , ified. 23 from which it follows that abortion is commonly unjust- The disjunct should, it certainly seems, be deleted - especially since what justifies the main part of Young ' s proposal, considerations of what has value, does not justify the final disjunct, because merely potential persons do not appear to have requisite value, though they might (or might not) come to have such. Generally, potential ys do not have the same range of features (including acquired value, etc.) ll Similarly what one is entitled t o do , or feels like doing with r espect to them may differ; If , however, there are no just wars then most killing in war is wrong; and if punishment by death is sometimes just , capital punishment is sometimes not wr.ong. If, for instance, a person's life purposes are sufficiently evil~ e.g. they include genocide, then their fulfilment is certainly pro1, ~ rJ y , justly, thwarted. 0 1· Thus some proviso as to the chara c t e r or qua lit y of life purposes , such as the term 'unjustly ' obliquely supplies , is essential (but often omitted in ethical discussions) . It is not evident however that killing such a person (as distinct, e.g. from imprisonment , re-education, etc.) is permissible, exc ept perhaps in worst cases. ~ • what they become if their potential is realised . For example, Young claims (Ypp.520-1) that the proposal lets through various types of killing persons such as infants and foetl1ses - thereby writing in some very has only 'morally trivial or no moral support abortion will be unjust- But generally what the proposal permits and what it excludes depends critically upon cases already apparently covered, so that it is not obvious that such construal of 'moral') where the expressed wish of the pregnant woman The qualification makes way for certain cases of cannibalism, for instance those where �I 26 Ther e is no good r eason to restrict the proposal to persons , and Young does not intend to. 27 Many killings of animals constitute , he t ells us (Yp.526), maximally unjust prevention of their realisation of life purposes, and accordingl y are wrong. ' Killing such animals for food is only justifiable when no adequate of other crea tures). acts are avoided. food supply is available and food i s needful' (Yp . 526), in which event, presumably, justice prevails. A characteris tic remnant of Further it is simply assumed - though it could no doubt be argued (rather as below) - that requisite unjust Young's proposal as applied has bite; human chauvinism also intrudes , with Young a ppealing to the ' greater eschewing killing of creatures for food. 25 range of life-purpose s normally human beings have' (Yp.527, italics that the modified proposal has bite: amended) ; 24 and thereby smuggling in a greater value assumptio n as regards humans. Here, as elsewl1ere also , the account of when killin g is wrong is progressive ly l oaded , almost manipulated , to yield the sought r esults : in particular , what is unjust - including which killings are unjust and which class of life-purpos es are more valuable relevant to det e rmining maximal injustice - are bot h open to rigging. These points help to bring out too how back of Young's accoun t and application s of his proposal lie more basic consideratio ns of justice and value (and it is to such considera tions that we should no doubt eventually turn). Consider, for instance, the route to the permissibil ity of systematic cullings of a herd. Wants , now substituting for li fe -purpose s , are simply supposed to be summed up utilitarian- fashion, except th at (somewhat as with Mill ' s utilitariani sm) a weighting is imposed to reflect the respective values of different wants (those of humans, e . g ., as opposed to those It is an illusion however the bite all turns on Young's cunning application , since the modified proposal itself reduces to near tautologous ness. purposes occur? taken. For when does irrevocable prevention of a life's When, and only when (since it is irrevocable) that life is So the modified proposal reduces effectively to AP. Killing x is wrong iff taking x's life is maximally unjust. But killing x is, according to OED, causing the death of x, which is tantamount, in terms of sense, to taking the life of x. And what is wrong is, according to OED again, what is unjust, and would be, if the OED were sharpened 1,1p a little, what is maximally unjust. Whence the adjusted proposal, AP. The proposal does not rule out killings which have the effect overall of fostering th e wants of the largest subset of some group like a wild herd where otherwise the wants of an even larger subset will be thwarted. Systematic cullings in the absence of feasible alternative s, therefore, may be morally pe rmissible. (Yp.527) for example, it would oblige most of us to adopt a largely vegetarian life-style We have come round a circle, but much was glimpsed on the way, so the circuitous route was not without its rewards. By working through other l ess chauvinistic accounts of the wrongness of killing (e.g. the nonchauvin istic base of Ewin's account) we can come a similar circular way and arrive at the same fairly stable result. Moveover, in the adjusted proposal we do have an account, not yet a hi ghly usable account, since circular, but an account nonetheless . In terms of this account clear cases where cannibalism is morally inadmissable can be distinguishe d, for example as follows: Cannibalism of x is wrong wherever it involves maximally unjust taking of x's life. Conversely, there are many cases where �28 the killing of one creature by another creature is, because not maximally unjust, quite permissible; 29 e.g. certain instances of killing in self-defenc e, exceptional cannibalism , abortion, etc . But if the creature is killed, then it is dead, so by the earli er Now let x and y be of the same species, say Homo Sapiens: argument it is permissible to eat it (under certain conditions) . CAP provides exact conditions for when cannibalism is wrong, in So there are many cases where killing a creature and then eating it, cases where cannibalism involves killing. or its then being eaten, are permissible . conditions are satisfied; If some of the many cases of permissible killing are, as they seem to be, cases of killing a then Sometimes these often they are not. Sorting out when they are, and when they are not, will occupy many a controversi al creature of the same species, then active cannibalism involving killing is, in such cases, permissible . The argument needs of course filling out in crucial respects, especially by some enumeration of types of cases where killing is permissible , and a sub-listing of cases where these are intra-specie s killings. Would this suffice? However, it of the) distinction between killing and letting die, by blurring or rejecting the distinction on which it is based~ that betweem omission and One question is whether the account determines (even in its circular way) the precise conditions under which killing for food can permissibly occur. Letting die is not the same as (active) killing . has recently become fashionable to try to remove the (moral significance The question reduces commission (or else it is pretended that it is frightfully difficl1lt to make this distinction s out, etc.). Rejection of the omission/ commission distinction appears to rest on a mix of fallacious moves:- to the logical issue of whether AP as a strong logical equivalence FMl. A some to all argument, warrants intersubsti tutivity in more highly intensional frames such FM2. A confusion of the thesis that the distinction is morally as those declaring purposes. Though I've tended to vacillate on this issue, my feeling increasingly is that substitutiv ity is warranted, important with the quite different thesis that only commi.ssions can be morally blameworthy and that omissions are morally guiltless (the the reason being that the equivalence of AP is of virtually synonymity position reportedly held by some religious groups in the past). strength, which legitimates replacement in all but quotational (type) FM3. An extensional approach to nonextensio nal differences . sentence contexts. But purpose sentence contexts, such as' ... for eating' are not quotational . FAP. Hence it follows using AP that Killing x for food purposes is wrong iff taking x's life for food is maximally unjust, heavily upon the fact that there are some cases where it is morally difficult to distinguish between certain commissions and certain and that CAP. These points are considered briefly in turn:- ad FMl. Those attempting to discredit the distinction usually rely y's killing x for (and followed by) eating is wrong iff y's taking x's life for eating is maximally unjust. omissions, e.g. that in appropriate circumstanc es exposing the baby may be little different morally from directly smothering it. (The Greeks believed it wasn't but that was because exposure gave the gods a chance to intervene and save from death those who were fated to perform especially important tasks). �r JO But the fact that there a r c ~ cases where the JI distinctio n is not of great moral significan ce does not show that it is dispensabl e. In order to show that lt is dispensabl e it is extension ality assumption which removes scope. The principle necessa ry to show that there are no cases where it is needed, that appears to be that failing to provide a condition which would have for all cases failing to provide a condition which would prevent been causally responsibl e for preventing x is morally equivalent to ~x is (morally) equivalent to providing a condition for x. providing a condition which is causally responsibl e for x . But Moral it is easy to produce some cases where the distinctio n seems to be equivalenc e requires interchang eability witin deonitic contexts, essential if we are to account for what we wish intuitivel y to say. indeed it could be characteri sed in terms of such substituti bility . For example, to take a case those who wish to abolish the distinctio n The equivalenc e yielded is of the form -F-x are fnnd nf appealing to, we may wish to say that the people who did commonly falls, especially where Fis not extensiona l. not attempt to help in the Kitty Genovese case were morally culpable, moveover that the causal responsib ility functor is not extension al, perhaps to a high degree, but few of us would wish to say that their and that such a principle fails for it. moral culpabilit y was exactly the same or of exactly the same kind as that of the murderer, and that they should equally be brought to trial on murder ch~rges. Or, to take another case, placing poison in your husband ' s tea is not the moral equivalent of failing to give him the antidote when he has placed it in himself. In order to say +-> Fx. But such a principle It is clear Though letting die differs significan tly, then, from killing, conditions upon when it is wrong may be reached in similar ways. How the condition for letting die correspond ing to AP should go becomes rather more obvious if the righthand side of AP is expanded to: taking (the) action which terminates x's life is maximally unjust. what is evident in such cases, some equivalent of the omission/c ommission The parallel passive condition can th en presumably be formulated distinctio n is needed . thus:- ad FM2. But the thesis that the distinctio n is needed and is morally DP. significan t in many, or at l e a s t ~ , cases must be clearly dis- which continues x ' s life is maximally unjust. 26 tinguished from the very much stronger thesis that all omissions are blameless, and that any commission s are morally open ~o blame - or praisewort hy. This thesis is, rather plainly, indefensib le, yet has been responsibl e for much of the bad light in which appeal to distinctio n appears . ad FMJ. Then in turn, substituti on principles again yield clauses EDP and CDP, correspond ing to EAP and CAP, special cases of which yield conditions under which cannibalism is wrong where it involves letting die. Principle CDP which supplies this condition, where x and y are of the same species, runs as follows:- The principle of moral symmetry between omissions and commission s is in fact refutable. Letting x die is wrong iff refraining from taking (the) action It appears to be based on an CDP. y ' s letting x die for eating purposes is wrong iff y's refraining from taking (the) action which continues x's life, for purposes of eating x, is maximally unjust. Since letting die is, for the most �32 part, less heinous than killing, cannibalism involving letting die 33 i s more widely permissible than cannibalism involving killing . 27 §4 . The matter of predation, and important cases of l egit imat e killing and letting die for food. One tempting model that underlies the conflict picture of Paradigmatic examples of legitimate predation, of predation as basically undesirable but an unavoidable killing are provided by predation, where bis prey of a and a depen ds fact, a model that leads to human vegetarianism, is the following (essentially) for its livelihood, indeed for its survival, on eating kind of atomistic axiological theory (or utilitarianism):- bs.28 Such predat ion i s a n essential part of any su ffici e ntl y rich ecosystem . Essential pr eda tio n i s pre dation which is essent i a l to according to the initial positive value thesis, every living creature (every sentient creature , every higher animal , etc .) has an initial positive the nor,~11 livelihood of tl1e predat or , and where the prcd alor takes non-instrumental value which it retains unless it does something to for itself no more than it requires for it s livelihood. forf eit that value. carn.ivores , such as the big cats , but some humans, such traditional Eskimos, are essential predators. Not only ilS some (On the even simpler position of biospheric egalitarianism, discussed below, all living things have equal worth, The fact that humans ar e part of the natural predatory food chains should not be lost s i g ht o[ . Observe that the argument to permissibility of essential pre- in some nontrivial sense.) These positive values just sum ; and maximisation of value (or suitably averaged value) is, of course , the (or an) ethical objective . Then killing is generally undesirable , dation does ~ take the invalid form: such predation is a fact (a fact because it results in a reduction in net value, and survival is generally of life), therefore it is permissible. That arguments of this type , desirable. 29 The exceptions occur when a creature has forfeited its selectively relied upon by Diamond and (earlier) Hegel, are inval id is value, e . g . it per sists in value-reducing behaviour, so that killing well-enough known (they commit a prescriptive fallacy), and is evident it would prevent a further decline in net value or lead to increase in from such fallacious arguments as the diplomacists' argument, e.g. it is total value . a fact of life that Indonesia has occupied (absorbed) East Timar; when it leads to an overall reduction in value . the re- The underlying theme is that killing is unjustifiable The onus of proof, fore it is pe rfectly alright that Indonesia occupied (absorbed) East Timar. when it can be assigned, lies with those who make the exceptions, who Naturally it would be decidedly awkward if the fact of essential predation do or license the killing . turned out to be impermissible: since, with one item of value consuming another item of value, it trouble. the whole natural order would be in moral This brings us to another defect of the argument from· "facts", Predation now appears as an awkward fact , leads to an overall reduction in value. Since inessential preda tion that it suggests that essential predation is really, at base, something is inessential, it is ruled out as inadmissible. pretty undesirable, but nonetheless something we have to live with - in (nonindigenous) humans for whom predation is, it is plausibl~ argu ed , Thus in particular, contrast with predation, in its associated meaning, as plunder, which we iness en tial, are not entitled to kill for f ood : do n't, or rather oughtn 't to, have to live with morally, and which is usual rai si ng of animals for food, etc . are all excluded in one st r oke , commonly reprehensible. and a l eading feature of vegetarianism imposed . therewith hunting, �34 35 Essential predation is not so satisfactorily dispos ed o f, but introduces conflict. For either one creature, the prey, is sacrificed or another creature, the predator, is: value de c lines . Similar objections apply against biological egalitarianism, either way tot 8 1 In the interim, while vegetarian scientists work even when it is qualified as in Drengson and Naess by an in principle 30 on new diets and new lifestyles for predators, there is an obvious clause. recipe to be applied, which while not eliminating conflict, minimises that predation is rather suboptimal: its effe c t: is strictly ruled out as a general practice. just as steam gives way to sail, so the less valuable gives way to t h e ~ valuable. Thus if humans are reckoned to be It is not (or not only) that it is taken for granted the trouble is that predation Since each lion and each antelope is assigned one unit of whatever is assigned equally, mo re valuable than polar bears - the usual human evaluation - then there is no way of justifying the lifestyle of a lion that consumes polar bea rs are not going to be entitled to prey on humans, in the sens e several antelopes. at least that their predation is not justified. Any equalitarian approach that is E££ atomistic is liable Application of the recip e 31 presupposes a value ranking on creatures under which some are more valuabl e to further incoherence, as Drengson's holism reveals. than others: some living system of living things, e.g . the Earth as on the Gaia otherwise if all are equal, predation is never admissible, and Lets be essential predators just die out - at least that is the simple ethical pic t - hypothesis (p. 233). ure. least of the living things that comprise it, has the same value as This points up one of the many problems for biological egaltarianism. But the picture presented so far is too simple, and tl1e recipes suggested dubious. Then s, which should(?) have the value at each of them (in effect 1 = n, for n>l). Some of t~e ecological consequences of implementing the For if the matter is properly considered not at a given time, but over a time interval, dynamically and not suggested recipes, and reform of essential predators, can now be just statically, it is not so simple, and a rather different result gauged. emerges . the chains of predation are long and complex; One predator takes, over a typical lifetime, rather a lot of prey . Unless the predator ranks very much more highly than Massive environmental interference would be required, since distortions especially in lower-level prey would occur, with resulting the prey, the value of the sum of the prey will exceed that of the ecological instability and often catastrophe. predator. that is, are ecologically highly undesirable. These considerations, in combination with a positive and gross population The consequences, What this and the value thesis, suggest a very different result, that predators should summation problems begin to reveal is that the initial atomistic be allowed to, or encouraged to, die out - unless they are somehow, value distribution picture is inadequate because it leaves out systems what seems improbable for predators that remain wild, converted to and systemic connections such as a more ecological approach would vegetarianism, include, The dynamic picture resorted to is still too simple in one important respect, that over a time interval, prey, which would often exceed natural (and sometimes reasonable) population levels without predation, are replaced. Where population of a preyed-upon species of creature is at an ecological limit, and minor culling of the sort �36 natural predation induces does not, owing to replacement, reduce 37 population levels significantly below that limit, predation has no significant effect on total value, So results yet another, different, recipe, one which is a little nearer the ecologica l mark. 32 farm animals (all of them) can be appropriately filled out, to Some utilitarians, Singer in particular, have recognised exclude replacement of animals with unusual or special properties, the role of replacement a·,1d made some allowance for it (at a serious cost to Singer ' s vegetarianism , it should be added), e.g. those carrying valuable genes, and to allow slaughter, without Singer now allows for killing and replacement of nonselfconscious life, but advances a nonreplaceabllity thesis for self-conscious life. Furthermore, even if a replacement thesis for free-range shorter-term replacement, of those carrying damaging diseases or genes - as it no doubt can, in a modified replacement thesis - still For the basic division Singer appeals to 'Tooley 's distinction' between a nonreplacement thesis fails to allow even for essential predation of selfconscious creatures, and accordingly should be scrapped, beings that are merely conscious and ••• those that Since this pronouncement is likely to be disputed, at least are also self -conscious, in the sense of being able to conceive of themselves as distinct entities, existing by some vegetarians, it is worth trying to indicate why essential over time with a past and a future (Sp.151), At the same time it can be In fact most of the sorts of free-range farmyard animals that Singer predation is perfectly admissible, seems to be envisaging as nonselfconscious, and accordingly replaceable, explained what is still wrong with the tempting dynamic picture and creatures, for instance geese and hens, appear to satisfy Tooley's the initial positive value thesis. tests for selfconsciousness. what is put in as what is left out, Geese are certainly aware of themselves they value members of their own community ; trees, and inanimate such as rocks and buildings,~ have initial and they remember value, but that complexes and wholes, in particular ecosystems, may elements of their past and, in things like nest building (practice), anticipate the future. More important, what has selfconsciousness (reflex- ive consciousness), or consciousness to do with the moral dimension? Until well have initial value, The reduction assumptions underlying value decomposition thereof, itself, because by no means all consciousness of conscious life is _ 32 a to atoms fail , Singer's theses lack foundation and look, while perhaps convenient for that it cannot be duly explained; There are grounds for anticipating for instance, being too valuable to be Such wholes may have value furthermore which is not dissolvable into values of component parts, or atoms this is duly explained - it is not satisfactorily explained as valuable in some traditional farmers, rather ad hoe, What is left out is not just that objects other than living creatures, both animate such as plants and as distinct entities, and of geese as distinct from (and superior to) hens; What is wrong is not So much In terms of the value of wholes such as ecosystems, one of the arguments for essential predation is disarmingly elementary . It takes the form: (sufficiently) rich (natural) ecosystems are Predation is an essential part of these systems . simply replaced, in the sense of having irreplaceable experiences, worth- very valuable, while projects, etc., does not have the requisite linkage with self- What is an essential part of what is very valuable is admissible. consc iousness. Therefore, predation is admissible. Such predation, which may be argued for in other ways , admits of extension by the following principle : �38 EP. If something is entitled to kill for food under certain 39 conditions, e.g. respectfully and when in need, then so are others under the same conditions. §5. The argument for EP is of the same type as that for other Postscript . The paper is very incomplete . It fails to address several issues intimately connected with cannibalism, such as hunting similar indifference, or interchangeability, principles in ethics. of humans and other animals, in particular for food, and as raising It follows from EP and essential predation that, since a tiger may humans and other animals, especially defective infants, for food. when in need kill a cow to eat, then so may humans in need. If Worse, it is evasive on some fundamental issues, and it fails to penetrate very taking the cow's life is not maximally unjust in the one case, nor deeply into some of the issues it does begin to consider, such as is it in the other, since the circumstances are similar. predation, or as the necessary and/or sufficient conditions for admiss- The results reached may be alternatively argued for using principle CP. 33 Perhaps Singer is also on the right track, though he has latched onto the wrong distinction. Perhaps there is a (descriptive) condition q (or a condition qs for each sorts of agent), appropriately ible killing. position. It is little consolation that others are in the same Hopefully some of these deficiencies will be compensated for in subsequent parts. At the same time several themes will be developed that may tied with causing to die, such that while killing creatures without q not have been evident so far, e.g. that in under suitable conditions is permissible, killing creatures with q is far too much killing taken much too lightly, but far too little is not, except under special conditions . 34 general experience of killing and death when it does occur, that is Given that q is 11 modern 11 societies there appropriately morally connected such a procedure would fit into the except usually among small groups mostly of inured professionals, annular picture (given earlier: q would mark out the interior of the which "shield" most humans from the phenomena involved. dotted elipse). Nor need the distinction be chauvinistic, because it cuts across species in a morally defensible way. anything, is q? located? made good? But, what, if Can a suitable morally-unloaded category-based distinction And how disconcerting would it be if some such distinction could no Wait for the next exciting episode . 35 �' 40 FOOTNOTES 41 It was singularly appropriate that this paper should have otained its first (and only) public presentation at the Alfred E. Packer Memorial Center, University of Colorado. I am indepted to several members of the audience for comments and references, and in particular for the first extension of the base case . It is noticeable how people who have never been cannibals despise the horrible thing; and how quickly it disappears when a cannibal tribe comes into contact with a wider world than that Directly merely of their own bush village. daylight falls on the habit, it Withers away . This is remarkable when we remember the sanctity The cannibal of it in primitive man's eyes . is not necessarily a hopelessly degraded brute, but-;-man who has not yet lived out of the dark obscurity of bush tribalism, and so had bli~dly_ followed a practice deep-rooted in the sacrificial These themes are defended, and the annular model explained, in The themes are also defended in HC, p. 103ff., and in AHC. other recent work, e.g. by Tooley and Singer. As the schematic diagram shows, humans do not occupy a central ring. Thus adoption of the model does not imply, what Pickering assumes (p. 374), that 'humans are more~ntral ' or, for that matter, that 'humans are owed more extensive moral consideration Nothing in the model itself depends on humans . than plants'. The model is not species based, or biologically based, but category basect";-and designed to reflect the different sorts of things there are, e . g. things capable of entering into contracts conferring obligations, and things not so capable, things that can have preferences and make choices as opposed to things that cannot (truly, or significantly), things, including systems and Nor, therefore, organisations, with a telos and things without. does the model write in a new type of chauvinism, or confer privilege or moral advantage on things in more central rings. Indeed, things in central rings will have obligations and commitments, and be subject to limitations on what they do, in ways that things further out cannot be; so there will be some As this moral disadvantages in occupying a more central place. indicates, the categories selected are intended to have moral And different sorts of behaviour are morally linkages . appropriate with respect to the different categories of objects. 2. 3. 4. The popular view that dialectics and adoption fraction of assumption themes are dangerous is partly based on a modal fallacy, For the fallacy e.g. that what can be believed is believed . in operation in more intellectually respectable quarters see WW. the Epilogue of Harris Some dialectics are accordingly recommended for anyone convinced that cannibalism must be wrong. The investigations undertaken in this paper alwshare other features with (classic) dialectics: there are many loose ends, and in several crucial areas firm conclusions are not reached. Later parts of the paper will take care of some of these things. Thus Hogg (p. 188), Cannibalism . .. can hardly be said to exist in There may be isolated the world of today. pockets of survival in the heart of New Guinea and among some of the tribes in the remotest corner of South America or African jungles; but they will be no more than the rarest of phenomena. 5. Hopkins, given the last word by Hogg, p. 192. quote from Hopkins is of passing interest: The whole ideas common to man the world over from his earliest days. 6. Some of the advantages of institutionalisation of certain cannibalistic practices are evident, e.g. a_much enh~nced Various disadvantages if not evident should supply of protein. become so in the course of the text. 7. See again in HC and similar. Although the human/nonhuman distinction is not, so it is argued, one of moral significance, not all Other distinctions of moral importance distinctions vanish. - those of the annular model - naturally remain. 8. Of coures, this practice is (still) controversial, and But a offensive to various religious and other groups. great advantage of a pluralistic society is t~at it can acconnnodate (better than alternatives) such differences Issues such as human_ . over the morality of practices . burial and restricted cannibalism, however, make the limits of present pluralism evident . 9. Or else did not incur official establishment disapproval, though the acts strictly appeared to infringe the Every s~~ond_ra~onteur has prevailing law of the land. examples of cannibals not brought to Justice . 10. . This clearly anticipates an initial argument of this My thanks to W. Berryman for drawing my attention paper. to the attitude of the Catholic Church, as presented in Read. 11. Consent in principle will carry the requisited load, and for this it is normally enough that the person would consent. This indicates one logical route to the liberalisation, and removal, of the consent clause. 12. There would (so far) be no trophies, e.g. Z's head ~n the hall, Y's skull on a stand, because trophies involve hunting and killing (for which see below). 13. As some vegetarians would freely admit; other 11 vegetar i ans II f rther and regard the killing of certain (nonself) an1•mals for food as admissible provided no suffering u, go i conscious is incurred and that the animals are replaced. . But it s true that usually 'vegeta;ians do not touch the issue of our attitudes to the dead (D., p.9) . �42 14. 15. In a like vein it is suggested that Singer and Regan do not see that 'a cow is not something to eat; (for them) it is only that one must not help the process along' (D., p. 468). The latter incidentally would not exclude the use of dead creatures for food, leather goods, etc.; things that animal liberationists like Singer definitely exclude. 43 21. Diamond recognizes this objection, p. 471, but does not meet Pace K. Bell, according to whom, Men have always hunted in the fields around Potigny and Falaise . They still do, but no longer their it. own species. 16. 17. 18. In similar ways we are said to gain the concept of an animal; s~~ p. 476. -Diamond introduces this piece of serious confusion in the course of emphasizing why the 'assumption that we all agree that it is morally wrong to raise people for meat ... is not, or not merely, ... too weak' (D.• p . 469). Diogenes Laertius, vol. 11, p. 297. Some of the complex issues concerning hunting will be considered in subsequent parts, others elsewhere. 22. See, e.g., Henson, and also Ewin and RKU . 23. A notable piece of male chauvinism also slides through, in the suggestion that, in Lhe absence of more weighty moral backing, the expressed wish of a pregnant woman is morally trivial. And Sayre reports (p. 25), Cannibalism (uv0pwno~ayCa) is alleged to have been a practice of the Cynics by Philodemus and by Theophilus Antiochenus; but, if so, it must have been confined to their early history, for they had a number of critics during the Christian era who would have mentioned it if they had known of it. Both Philodemus and Theophilus were biassed and we must remember that similar stories were told of the early Christians. However, cannibalism is said to have been authorized by the Republic and Thyestes (or Atreus) attributed to Diogenes and also by the Republic of Zeno and by Cleanthes and Chrysippus (Philodemus, On the Stoics; Theophilus Antiochenus, Ad. Autolycum 3, 5; D.L. 6, 73; Ibid. 7, 188; cf. 28th Letter of Diogenes; Dio Chrysostom 8, 14). As Diogenes Laertius goes on to explain, that 'Chrysippus did countenance the eating of dead humans was one of the points brought against him by those who 'ran him down as having written much in a tone that was gross and indecent'. As regards such attitudes to the dead, times have not changed that much. The (idea of) eating "the dead" (dead humans, of course), under ~ circumstances, is still widely regarded as scandalous, and highly newsworthy (see Read, p . 296 ff). 19. Cannibalism which involves explicit killing for food is a kind of reflexive predation, but generally (cases of) cannibalism and predation only properly overlap. 20. An example would be where some of the survivors of a crash or wreck hunt other "survivors" in order to survive; cf. W. Golding, Lord of the Flies. 24. But one's life-purposes are diminished lhow can this be on Young's picture?) if they jeopDrdise those of others. Hence Young's preparedness to let Amin be killed by the stampeding horses, Yp. 527. 25 . Indeed it leads, as Young interprets it, to a more sensible vegetarianism than Singer's initial position (in Animal Liberation, not as significantly modified in Sp.153). neither culling nor predation are simply ruled out. 26. For Action and taking action should be construed in a wide, but common enough fashion, e.g. the action taken may amount to doing nothing or getting-the-hell-out-of-it. 27. It is tempting to try to prove this on the basis of a proper inclusion assumption, that where letting die is wrong so is killing, but not conversely. The assumption may, however, need qualification; e . g. killing may sometimes be preferable to letting died in a lingering way . 28. 'Predation" is a singularly unfortunate word to be stuck with to describe this universal phenomenon. It is unfortunate both because of its etymology, and because of its other meaning . At to the first, ' predation' derives from praedari, 'to plunder', which derives in turn from praedo, 'booty', As to the second, 'predation' also means a 'practice or addiction to plunder or robbery'. Both carry strong negative connotations. There is a similar damaging duality in the expressions 'prey' and 'prey upon'. 29. These defective considerations also lead to a maximisati~n of population of creatures of the base class assigned values, up to the limit - if any (on frontier philosophers there are none) where declining returns set in . Where, further, humans are typically, but erroneously, assigned greater value than other creatures, the considerations support the rapid biassing of terrestial fauna! population in favour of humans that we are witnessing. The second point does not apply, in that form, . against biol0gical egalitarianism, and the first objection fails where total value is replaced, as under some utilitarianisms (with what justification is less clear, since surely we want to maximise value so far as constraints permit: see RKU), by average value, average value per (base class) life lived, etc. �44 The argument in the text is not affected materially by switching from value analogues of total utilitarianism to analogues of some form of average utilitarianism. On some of the serious problems with these utilitarianisms, see Jamieson. 30. Drengson, following Naess and others, espouses 'biospheric egalitarianism and the intrinsic value of all life' (p. 222). According to the theory, each (living) being has intrinsic value (pp.233-4), and hence each presumably has equal worth (and is entitled, in Singer's terms, to equal consideration , if not equal treatment). In Naess and Drengson this biospheric egalitarianism is qualified by an in principle clause. According to Naess, 'The 'in principle' clause is inserted because any realistic praxis necessitates some killing, exploitation and suppression' (p.95), and according to Drengson, 'This qualification is made with the simple recognition that we cannot live without affecting the world to some degree' (the latter claim is inadequate, because it is not just 'we' who are involved). 31. Axiological approaches that are atomistic have other problems, some reminiscent of those Wittgenstein discusses for logical atomism. In particular, how do we locate the atoms to which value is supposed to adhere fundamentally. A first bad feature of this approach is invariance failure: it matters for final summations how the atoms are chosen, for different choices will assign complexes quite different values. Secondly (Wittgenstein's question), why are some things said to be atoms not complexes, and vice versa. A third group of problems, brought out in HC, concerns the choice of a base class. 32. An environmental ethic s:1oul.:l. also be an ccologic:1 I et!dc, sense of an ecologically realistic ethic. facts are certainly relevant. 32a. A detailed case for this claim 33. j:1 t lH· In this resepct too the appears in Routley and Griffin. Thus rp can be made to yield a good deal more than Young's application of his proposal (for which he offers no proper justification): A creature is entitled to kill another creature of lesser value when its life (and so all its functions, prospects, etc.) depends on it and when it does not kill more creatures than it needs for these purposes. And the dubious business of imposing such order rankings on creatures can be bypassed. 34. The qualifications are necessary. If the latter exceptional conditions clause were not adjoined, the prospe ct of finding a condition q would be wiped out by such cases of essential predation as exceptional human cannibalism. The qualifications, although they enhance the prospects of locating such a q, do not appear to make it analytic or near analytic that such a descriptive q can be found. 45 35. Not only are there many proposals for q to sift through - most of which however seem to fail for reasons already indicated in the text - but also there are apparent options to finding such a distinction, such as resetting the problem, in a less individualistic way, in the framework of (ecological) communities. �REFERENCES K. Bell, Not in Vain, University of Toronto Press, 1973, REFERENCES CONTINUED P.E, Devine, 'The moral basis of vegetarianism ', Philosophy 53 (1978) · 481-505 . (all references prefixed with 'V' are to this article) , C. Diamond, ' Eating meat and eating people', Philosophy (references hereto are prefixed by 'D'). 53 (1978) 465-77, Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (edited, with English translation, by R. D. Hicks), Heinemann , London, 1925, A.R . Drengson, ' Shifting paradigms: from the Technocratic to the PersonPlanetary', Environmental Ethics 2 (1980) 221-40, R. E. Ewin, ' What is wrong with killing people? ' Philosophical Quarterly tl..<. (197;t) 126-39. M, Harris, Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches, Fontana, London , 1977 (hereafter prefixed by 'W.W.'). M, Harris, Cannibals and Kings , Collins , London, 1978 (hereafter prefixed by ' CK '), R. Henson, ' Utilitarianism and the wrongness of killing', Philosophical Review 80 (1971) :1.u,- n7. D. Jamieson,'Utilitarianis m and the value of life', typescript, University of Colorado, 1981. J, Glover, Causing Death and Saving Lives, Penguin, Middlesex, England, 1977 . L.P. Pickering, Review of ' Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century ', Environmental£.£,.~-~ 2 (1980) 373-78 . G. Hogg , Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, Robert Hale, London, 1958. (references hereto are prefixed by 'H'), R. and V. Routley, 'Against the inevitability of human chauvinism ' in Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century, eds , K, E. Goodpaster and K. M. Sayre, University of Notre Dame Press, 1979, (Hereafter prefixed by ' AHC') . J. Langton, Cannibal Feast, Herbert Joseph, London, 1937. L, Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell, Oxford, 1953. A. Naess, 'Self-realisation in a mixed community of humans ·, bears, sheep and wolves', Inquiry 22 (1971) 231-41 , A. Naess, ' The shallow and the deep . long-range ecology movement. Inquiry A s11mmr1ry'~ 16 (1':173) 95-100. P.P, Read, Alive, Avon, New York, 1974. R. and V. Routley, 'An expensive repair kit for utilitarianism', typescript 1976 (hereafter referred to as ' RKU ' ). R. and V, Routley, ' Human chauvinism and environmental ethics' in Environmental Philos~ (ed. D. Mannison, M. McRobbie and R. Routley), RSSS , Australian National University , 1980 (the article is referred to as ' HC' , the book as ' EP ' ), F. Sayre, Diogenes of Sinope , A study of Greek Cynicism, Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, 1938. P. Singer, 'Killing humans and killing animals', Inquiry 22 (1979) 146- 56, (references hereto are prefixed by ' S '). R. Tannahill, Flesh and Blood. A History of the Cannibal Complex , Hamilton , London, 1975 . Hamish M. Tooley , Abortion and Infanticide, typescript, Australian National University, 1980, R. Young, ' What is so wrong with killing people?' Philosophy 5¥ (1979) (all references prefixed with ' Y' are to this article) , 515-528 R. Routley and N. Griffin, 'Unravelling the meanings of life', available in this series , 1982. �) /.o,..,.,,,, l. ~ / , . ~ tA-- ~ <'"'1 ---- 3/ }o/t/v/~}~4--( ~~ ·~~O·\o ~ --..., \0~'203.l\. <;c..c.tt.,. ~ ~ a.I) . ~~ ~✓:. ,;,,tf �~ .r. ..... ---,(7> o-,.J /' ,,,((; 11 / c, ~ I ( _ ///,;.,/ /c/ (',.,./// 1' ,. ~ L: 1 -=y' 1/ ,/L ~ -=~ t<..,(' •.r<-- <-r-? ,r"'t, 7 ; /4... I ~,. �/J/4/,JJ ( 0 -/4, -;IL l r~ rk . rr_!j, ~lb f f.o fvr-~ ~tf?>J ;_/.. « ~ YL r1.M- ~~ J'fM~J Cif ~✓ ,/.~ ) . <=<- ,,._., wh ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ?/;1 ~ ~~ rry~t ~ ,t(!__ 16;=,·~--f:; ~ h ~ ¥,-I- ..<-D /4 ~ :f f/-L -. J,¥i~~ f 9~ (3/-~~) (I ~~ 1- h,c>_~ x /~~ -/2-(;:L r J,?-- l ~re:- )( 07A~ c/4;t-~ ,4,,.~ 7' ~rrvf j e1~,k 'U"- 0 ~ vl'f.. /411-1 ~~ 1 ,...~,._£.~ I~ 7"Y-'? ,• or ' 7 ,/.tL~ =- #--~✓ " -,/ ~~ "'~ e.~.,__,,., ..l<A--C- , 7 l'/4~ (k/v( ~ A-Ld , c-£-{,~.,.,. t-/~r;;,;-,,.:__ , C, - ~1 < "'t: ~ 4- 7,1; ,..~~ I �/Jo N T T,,f'/c,- y•1 1//;rE r,vt{l. /2 <",I!.,.. '::.. {-,A/ j,._~ __:_ /,._,_ 'd / ~~-;. ,, 11 o,r ;i'a '7 .~/2 ?,(_ C/ I /;,(if'-:J;J__(;1:,-· J',(J; JJ;<~'r;b,f'/ ... Y ,1,f; ;,;--,ftlfr -~, £' .r.::._/, /•;· /''"/.' f.// / /, (cf,,,_;..,<-f (,_) :y;-._7 ,//<--"f .j•,/7 • C ~ • ~.:!__,,_ •-v, f//dl#l£ , < ~, r/ • 1,-e.--., t. ~ �#J tq- 7' : ~ , ,.':_ J/'C4(. ~ &nJltJ[e "71fLt..H "1/'~ c~ "4 C/1 .. 't ,.,. ... ~;: .. t.t..4 r~ c~ /~J I~ ~~ ,H" ._ ~t/ ~l-d_ I (' rt-lrC , I ,,I, /.,_,.. .,.,.____ /4-..- C- ,,,,_ ~ , /4,L._ '-- . ,.__,_ te(A~ / 4 ~ , , fc. ~,;,,d~ t;, ~~7Y24~ h /c r n.., ,W·r ht<I I t!l"--vv-t_. t : - ;{ c.--<- u....., ( , It ~'-? I 1 ,JKc} ~ ~-✓f ;,z.. M~ / tkl-· .:I- / 1 t.~ ,.,e1 ;,-,:. ~ ~"7 f cjrl; ~ I_;.,_ 1 L,,3:-:r;-,1 •-v->-1- • 4, pS,.,(£-.,-. . ftr~ J/4. /red-,~ , _;, ~·~/~<l ' /""= cd/7 ;/ ~<¥<- J,r 7""° 1,/,,:,A -z/1.,/h/7 /,(~ • t:i.C.1 / /d'tr 7 ;:. rJ- ~:,,1 "l j 1 ( ,"'p> '(. f (,~ 0 11/'- 1 t<~ ~ ~ 4-7/J t /2-c. ) 7 /~ ?'~J 1/)):-/. ( / ~r,,.,,__,, ~,:,,..,,...,~ . l)';•.:Z:~-e-M-;I /fa ! ") ;; ,' ~ ~~ L ' A-7~ J~j 1/ ~ ~£" v:_._i eye- ,c. y),6 7 ) \ d,; ~ 1 a,___ r/ d't .ru), Cl»,~ ' ~L �The following has been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. Cutting, Scholfield B (17 August 1988) 'A human role for the pig', The Weekly Times, 14. (1 leaf) �- / / / . -7 / <et ? -·- -·-- C:; /~ ~, u / f l ~ Jc,._ '? ~ (,, ?0_/~ c c:i--l 7 ,5'<.. / 17 -~ ,..-tt'!' . : . - - - ---- ·-- - · · - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~oc-. r-c- a., r..,_,/- t .)I~ , ) / ~ ?! / . / c..rc.v ~~ //._ J �OAJ 77/c /~/?t:J/f??pvc~ c:>~ 77rr" , I /}(,ifth('i/l'J7lt>p)( ;T//VC/73 ,v - cJ,,,C ~E ./,PH/6:-J ,,f/t;I~ I �The following have been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. • • Typescript, with handwritten emendations and annotation. Two reference reports on Cannibalism I. (2 leaves) Cutting (photocopy) of 'Necessity as a common law doctrine? [6.40] R v Dudley and Systems', The system of criminal law: cases and materials, 544-551. (4 leaves) ��The following have been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. • • • Cutting (photocopy) of 20 pages from unidentified publication on Pioneers-Donner Party-The Mormons, 526-545. (10 leaves) Letter, Bill to Richard, 7 Oct 1981 re feedback on Richard Sylvan's paper on cannibalism. (2 leaves) Letter, Robert to Richard, 7 Oct 1981 re feedback on Richard Sylvan’s paper on cannibalism. (2 leaves) �I I - I :/.,, f. - - - -- ----------------- - - - - - ----- ---- ----- ___________, --------- ----------·------------- - - ----- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -- ------ - - - - - - - - --- $ ~ /~ .2Z- - - - --- - _ _L __ /4 r<./ ...---a~ l 2, ck?- _.:., t';_.~ ~ o_ _s_ ,,. .,/:,_ ~ , {- ~ M7-e;:__ /4?-l, _:., /.: ~ / ; ~ / /--/ ,a-~~ ,4d - - ~ c 1 /dLC4'--=·- - C4--~ _,t:?~7 ,-4,-,/4._ / - /2.; ~<"F' �§5 . Raising humans and other animals for food. Humans have lit tle compuncti on, for the most part, in rearing other animals for food . Since healthy animals that are raised for food often excell humans, especially humans that are "defective " in one way or another , little , except considera tions of species , seems to stand in the way of raising such humans for food . We are in the region of Swift ' s modest proposal again . What distinguis hes creatures humans (and other creatures capable of animal husbandry) are entitled to raise for food from creatures that they are not? It is not difficult to state some constrain ts on t he solution of this problem, which also rule out usual solutions . First , the distinctio n should be independe nt of reference to particula r species , especially of reference to the human species , and also indirect reference thereto, by way of phrases such as ' standard ... ' , ' normal ... . ' 'potential ... ' . Secondly - and this furnishes the ground of the first requireme nt the basis of the distinctio n should be morally relevant i n the way that mere zoologica l distinctio ns are not: otherwise chauvinism is not avoided . ' The replaceme nt principle Singer adopts for benign farmyard husbandry fails on this score , among others (the others being that many farmyard animals seem to satisfy the requireme nts for being selfconsci ous beings) . Not being selfconsc ious , which is supposed to justify replaceme nt, under ideal farming condition s , lacks requisite moral linkage . Singer ' s move does however emphasi ze �' 31. two important things . First , the familiar objections to animal husbandry, e.g. on grounds of cruelty or deprivation to animals, are remove.e\ by considering only (ideal) free-range individualised farmyard husbandry . Secondly, some distinction (fit to take its place in the annular picture) with requisite moral linkage is what is sought . Any distinction that is going to work will have to involve the capacities of the creatures concerned , in such a way that the capacities tie with moral features . The capacities concerned are, obviously, capacities connected with being aware of being raised for food . But this is not sufficiently general, being raised for killing or for cartage or for skin or fur or feathers would be similar, and similarly bad or whatever; lacks moral connection . and it still What all the cases have in common which is general, one which has (as already noted) moral connections , is being used as a means . The sought distinction is accordingly made in terms of creatures that are capable of being aware of their case primarily as means for other, for their food , etc. U-creatures, say, as opposed to A-creatures . 21 no means all, are A-creatures: infants are not . Many humans, but Why this distinction? 21 There are probably other requir e ments as we ll: e . g. that not in midst of present worthwhile projects; e.g. Mrs. Goose is not raising young, etc. �The following have been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. • • • • • Photocopy of Young R (1979) 'What is so wrong with killing people?', Philosophy, 54(21):515-528, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100063531. (8 leaves) Cutting, Ewin R (1972) 'What is so wrong with killing people?', The Philosophical Quarterly, 22(87): 126-139, https://doi.org/10.2307/2217540. (14 leaves) Typescript (carbon copy) of untitled paper attached to Ewin cutting. (18 leaves) Photocopy of Singer P (1979) 'Killing humans and killing animals', Inquiry, 22:1-4, 145156, https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747908601869. (6 leaves) Photocopy of one page (157) from Lockwood M (1979) 'Singer on killing and the preference for Life', Inquiry, 22:1-4, 157-170, https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747908601870. (1 leaf) �t . • �~ /,o.R-,4-.. ~t ~,, ,,_,;L ~ C~"'1 /C'.tt---? ,.... ,._._ ~ e.-;- __ jf1~ ~ rur 6 ""efc7'/ ~ ,,,<e,,,.,;z,r4? ~ c,,__,,,- .1 ------~ ,,-v-9"' ~ "'-<- r = c:e/4 /4--,- ~/~~-~ P.f.?4 ,..,.,,PE' r e ~ 7~~ y?f /2 ~c;k__/"7'/~ 7 ~ / 7~ / /,..,;,, ~ ,?£ / ~J" r-tr= / t:t_ ~7, /9-7 r~ o-/4-~ ,.ve- / _,/~,/ ;:7'/ /re-v -~ (~ ,,{~9 C'l<-,r /4 ~vr,, 1~ /c{. rL r ,' ~ ,~ 7-£ ~ - - ~ ~ . , , ~; / " ' - - /c~V-- ~ ~ -~ ~ L <r7J\ _0 / ~ ~~ 0 - ~ 7L 7 C-£-..,/,4c,.~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /.? ~ ~ =,/---6-- ~ . ~(' ~ ~ cv;·n! ' To -J~ > /~&:, -6-,e> ~ ~ ~7f 7~ ~ /~~ ~,,,_7 ,;,_~ 4/ ~/ C ~~ o/· //4- ~ / ~ /~ 7~ �~ ?¼_ 11 ~ M,- '--+-€- /~1) / ~ ,~ --/?~/ 4:- ..,,.,,,, ,,./" &-"'7/<" c, /4 Ye-/ U.:.... ~ ;/ / 7'~L. . ~ ~,, i 7,2 ~ ~ .,/4 /< ; e-.,, ' ~ ;,I'£ .Y CJ/-?!' , ,_, ·/,,.r.,.-........-,. , ,,__ s « ~ ?< 0~ /~L,, ,4_._ / Cb- i,_,.__1 c-.r r~ /2 re:_ ~ h'L 7 '---71J r-"-"- 3-.. d..-. ~~:; d:....-../ ~ ~_/~ �The following have been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. • • • • • • Photocopy of Diamond C (1978). 'Eating meat and eating people', Philosophy, 53(206): 465-479, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3749876. (8 leaves) Photocopy from The Encyclopedia Americana (1978) 'Cannibalism', The Encyclopedia Americana, 2: 543-544. (2 leaves) Photocopy from Britannica Encyclopedia (1969) 'Cannibalism', Britannica Encyclopedia, 4: 785. (1 leaf) Photocopy from Chambers's Encyclopaedia (1966) 'Cannibalism', Chambers's Encyclopaedia, 3: 50. (1 leaf) Photocopy of Naess A (1979) 'Self‐realization in mixed communities of humans, bears, Sheep, and Wolves', Inquiry, 22:1-4, 231-241, https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747908601874. (6 leaves). Photocopy of one page (2273) from unidentified dictionary, Pre-collection to Predecree. (1 leaf) �r)I':, t; 1 ·-et I r o-f 6 ?\/ih'i I Jet ~t·.?t'cc If33 •• 11t1;,.,_4,, ;; w ; ~ ) ~,,c._! / //,,,,.---: J:~w ~ J/4 ~"~t New- f'-w1r- > ~:/~4-;-, L 1/75 /I ~-~erY �/, • ,I J �Lcz ~ ' d cc c e::es ,f c::::e.. ~ �.. . -1~ ~~ ;/w,;.,L;:;,',,,._ ,;/ a,~}:z;:__ dL-0~ " 7 1 f,t} 0 ~ ~ A. ~~ - 7'~ - . ' -f ~i,t;i,:___ ~✓~ ~~ . - - /z;j/M?!, ,<4 n/41"? r - / ·~ ·7 - Jo - ~ C:~~ - ~..,;t,J;j,,. - ... c.-C~1/~ - 7"1(~ /'<d~ ..£.... ,;:_~ 74::,,,'~ /k,,. ~~ ~ -4- . ~/17 '_ ~ �1IIE !1i l/lL/7? . ··• .,. Men have always hunted in the fields around They still do, but no • longer their own species. (K. Bell, Not in Vain, University of ~oronto Press, 1973) .,, Petigny and Falaise . � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document - • 00681 ' ' {; /) f¼i:<:LL I f ~sif0l J IN DEFENCE OF CANNIBALISM I. TYPES OF ADMISSIBLE AND INADMISSIBLE CANNIBALISM Richard Routley Philosophy Department Research School of Social Sciences Australian National University and Environmental Studies University of Victoria Canada IN DEFENCE OF CANNIBALISM~ It is a commonplace of mainstream Western thought that cannibalism - the eating of human flesh by humans, and, more generally, the feeding of animals on members of their own species is, at least in the human case, morally outrageous. © Ri chard Routley, 1982 This repugnan cy thesis appears to be a legacy especially (but not only) of Christianity, probably derived from Jewish teaching, which went much further and excluded the eating of pig, for instance, as well as "long pig". Also in this series: It is a thesis reinforced by the substitution of Man for God of the World rainforest destruction - the social factors "Enlightenment" and consequent elevation and separation of humans Semantical foundations for value theory from other creatures. Unravelling the meanings of life substantially undermined, have for the most part been observed to Nihilisms and nihilist logics rest on a tangle of false views and prejudices about the world, its Nuclear power - ethical, social and political dimensions origin, evolution and purposes , and about the creatures that inl~bit Now that all these positions have been it, their separateness, and their order (in an a lleged chain of be in g ) Disappearing species and vanishing rainforests: wrong directions and the philosophical roots of the problem with humans at the apex, it is past time that major moral theses that these positions have sustained are re-examined and reassessed. The irrefutability of anarchism, enlarged Up for re-examination are, in particular, all theses that Roles and limits of paradigms in environmental thought and action depend essentially on the common but mistaken assumption that there is something morally very special or distinctive about simply being a human, that Homo sapiens as a species deserves special treatment. On the contrary, there is no morally relevant distinction between humans and all other creatures. Of course there are various morally relevant distinctions between things, but none concerns the biological species Homo sapiens. What holds rather is an annular 1 model which can be depicted schematically as follows:- 3 instance in removing the idea that the wrongness of such practices 2 as cannibalism is not even open to question 3 . Diagram 1: High in a list of inherited moral assumptions that are ripe ANNULAR PICTURE OF MORAL RINGS IN OBJECT SPACE (and the position of humans). of sapiens for reassessment are those concerning the almost universal ~oral prohibition of and repugnance to cannibalism, a practice that used to be extremely widespread, but that has now been almost e;.tirely extirpated 4 with the very successful cultural conquest of the world by Western thought. But instead of the re-examination that should follow the intellectual erosion of mainstream Western social thought, the growing recognition of its theoretical inadequacy, not to say ~:Notional labels for the interiors of such morally relevant rings (or ellipses), from outer to inner: Objects of value, objects of moral concern Objects having well-being Preference havers, choice makers Rights holders Obligation holders, responsibility bearers Contractual obligation makers poverty, what has followed is the often shoddy defence of many of its leading moral theses, mostly on anthropocentric grounds, but sometimes on other grounds, some of them drawn from contemporary philosophy (e.g. the conventionalistic rejection of cannibalism of Diamond, considered below). Many of the defences preferred of total prohibition of There are also more comprehensive philosophical reasons cannibalism are ludicrously weak, and withstand little examination. for the periodic intellectual review of deeper assumptions (and Consider, to illustrate, the main argument in (what was until very prejudices), reasons furnished by dialectics in combination with recently one of the few books in English on cannibalism) Hogg, the theory of objects. namely 'the innate repugnance of contemporary man to touch human According to the theory of objects there is no assumption that has to be held,that cannot be disbelieved, flesh' (p . 188, also earlier) . while according to dialectics proper every assumption is open to represented as a matter of fact, it does not appear to hold generally, questioning and reconsideration by its methods , and assumptions in and may be largely a matter of background and conditioning. order to be rationally maintained should withstand such critical scrutiny. imply 2 Naturally these (methodological) considerations do not that assumptions under examination do not (frequently) withstand critical discussion, or that there are not (or never could be) good reasons for adhering to them. But the considerations are important in opening larger moral assumptions to due reconsideration, for Insofar as the repugnance is There is no evidence that - what seems unlikely given the former prevalence of cannibalism - it is innate; and insofar as it is a matter of fact it does not support moral prohibition of eating human flesh, any more than the apparently very widespread repugnance of urban Americans 5 4 as observed, it has recently been argued, successfully, that this to eating raw snake underwrites a moral prohibition on consumption of raw snake meat. distinction will not carry very much of the moral weight that has been imposed upon it. 7 On the other hand, if the repugnance in With the breakdown of this sharp moral distinction question is (intended to be) warranted moral repugnance, then the argument is trivially circular, the premiss assuming the point at between humans and other species.orthod ox anthropocentr ic options, which sanction human consumption of animals other than humans but issue. never humans, collapse. One reason why the proferred defences look weak is that it has not been thought necessary to provide any defence; for 'Directly daylight falls on the habit it withers away' 5 - the "daylight" is that of contemporary Western civilization. appears in Langton (initial page): A similar theme cannibalism is 'a custom that of civilization' - or, one might say, before the triumph of human (pure) vegeta!ian options and on the other, cannibal(istic ) options (mixes of these options which allow some human flesh eating will it will be seen that by no means all forms of cannibalism are morally inadmissable. present exercise. Showing as much is the main object of the Though the results arrived at are part of the process of elaborating a non-chauvinis tic ethics, and accordingly have implications for policy, no policy conclusions are drawn in what no recommendatio ns for the implementation , or institution- The vegetarian options face, it certainly seems, insuperable difficulties, especially concerning such issues as animal predation (which is an important, immensely frequent, and often _<!~~rab.!!'_, What will be argued is that, on the contrary, when some daylight does penetrate to the issues concerning cannibalism, follows: (at least as regards "higher" creatures) are, on the one side fall under the latter head). must soon become extinct all over the world before the great march chauvinism. Among the important options left open ecological fact), and concerning the reduction in numbers of animals, especially introduced animals, which build up to "pest proportions" (some reduction is often required for vegetable growing to operate successfully) . But it is unnecessary to elaborate these and connected points here because there are cases where consumption of human flesh is perfectly admissible. The main argument advanced is modelled upon simple inductive arguments: a base case is argued, and this base is expanded step by step to cover other cases. alisation, of cannibalistic practices are made 6. Hardly necessary to say, better defences of the mainstream anti-cannibal istic tradition can be devised or pieced together from the literature than those so far alluded to. for example, on the assumption of sanctity Such defences - based, of all human life, on the theme that cannibalism is a brutalising experience, which puts humans in the same category as the brutes - characteristic ally rely on a sharp distinction between humans and other creatures. But, §1. The Base Cases: Eating the Dead. In setting out the first of these cases it is taken for granted that the practice in some American states and Canadian provinces of allowing accident victims (e.g. those of automobile casualties) to consent to the use of parts of their bodies for organ transplants and also for other medical purposes is admissible, and that the use itself in such cases is Restricted forms of cannibalism in the interests of 6 survival are now quite widely accepted as admissible. admissible 8. Then, is there any good reason why persons should So there is really nothing extravagant at all in contending that sometimes not similarly consent to the use of their bodies for food upon cannibalism is perfectly alright: their death? fact that the admissible cases lead, naturally and coherently, once For food transfusions, instead of blood or transfuslons · or transplants. plasma And if they do, or so bequeath their bodies, why should their bodies not be eaten? What differences human chauvinism is properly cases. any extravagance is due to the left behind, to much more controversial There are several examples of human cannibalism undertaken there are in the types of cases can be minimized, and those that for survival, which have won establishment approval, from remain seem not to make much - or any relevant - moral difference. or church hierarchies. For example, in order for human parts to be intially taken and used, of members of a Uruguayan rugby party who survived an airplane crash the bodies have to be more or less butchered; in the high Andes (dramatised by Read). but then they may be in much less pretty shape after a serious accident. Again, in each typ e of case, the parts may - or may not - be supplied to people who are in genuine need; etc. Nor does internal ingestion appear to differ, in any way that matters morally, from internal connection, from organ transplantation. It could be objected that with an organ transplant a specific organ is required, whereas with a starving or undernourished person alternative sources of food are - or ought legal A striking recent example is the cannibalism Their eating of dead companions, evidently necessary for survival, was condoned by the Catholic Church of Uruguay and by other prominent Catholic thinkers. Interestingly, Rubio, Auxiliary Bishop of Montevideo, justified such cannibalism, necessary for survival, through a medical transplant comparison 10 .•• Eating someone who has died in order to survive is incorporating their substance, and it is quite possible to compare this with a graft. Flesh survives when assimilated by someone in extreme need, to be - available. But where the parts are used for nonspecific just as it does when an eye or heart of a dead man is grafted onto a living man ••. (as quoted in Read, p. 308). medical testing, e.g. cell culture, or just disposed of (e.g. by But the Bishop tactfully rejected, except 'as a source of inspiration', incineration) without any other use, the specific need consideration the equivalence, appealed to by some members of the team, between does not work. Anyway what would it show? eating the flesh of their friends and participating in communion, as The claim staked is accordingly this:_ where the human initiated by Christ at the Last Supper, where he (figuratively) shared eaten is dead, and certain other conditions are satisfied, cannibalism his flesh and blood with his apostles (Read, p.309; is admissr e. also p. 299). The other conditions~ comprise such things as Exactly why this correlation, which undoubtedly helped the survivors, the following: that the whole thing is done decently (in ways, gets discounted, remains tantalisingly obscure. that is . LO be spelled out specifically); that the person eaten consented (or, differently, would consent) to being eaten, perhaps by the parties concerned, or more strongly that the person directed tha t he or .;he be eaten (or otherwise used); or differently again, tha t the ~onsumption was necessary for survival or well-being. etc. seems worth pursuing further. The correlation For though survival was not a problem 9 Suc h d es pi cable motives as those of the ge t-even s yndrome ("we'll 8 fix the ba s t a rd, we'll eat him") are pointl ess (as well as stup id l y for the apostles at the Last Supper (so destroying a strict correlation), survival is not the only basis justifying the eating of human flesh. As with blood, the gift relation is another v i ndi c tiv e ) wh e re the part y is already dead. It can be argued that eating certain pieces of human flesh out of respect is an exceptional case (like eating a fellow creature to avoid starvation), and that a general principle of respect for important basis. A consent or bequeathal clause 11 is important in under- the dead overrides any consent that may be given. The short cutting various objections to the consumption of dead humans, for answe r to this is, firstly, that grantin g of exceptional cases alr eady in s tance, that it is an affront to human dignity, that it is a mark allows that some cases of cannibalism are admissible, and secondly , of total d isr espec t, that the 'sanctity of the human being' is that no general principle applies in a decisive way to exclude the compl e tely disregarded (Hp. 186), that it is impious (Dp. 467). exampl es alr ea dy considered. Fo r if the person consents it can hardly be an affront to that general principles can always be thwarted, it is instructive to consider per s on's dignity, or violate that person's sanctity (as seen from one po int of view). Nor is it an affront to the dignity of creatures of an irreligious cast, for whom a dead body whether of a human or an animal is a d ead body - though perhaps a dead body of a fellow creature o r of a friend. So it is an affront only to those of particular ( religious) groups, perhaps the same groups for whom dead human bodies are sacred and their disfigurement by humans (whether for medical or 5 other purposes) impious . Just as it is legitimate for one to discount the often illfounded views of such groups - insofar as the views are int ended to have universal applicability - as regards medical use of (forme rly ) consenting humans, as regards sexual relations, abortion, e uthanasia, and so forth, so it is legitimate to discount them in the case at hand. Dev ine ' s argument against cannibalism, namely as a paradigmatic applica tion of his overflow principle. On the contrary, the eating of certain parts of the bodies of dead humans was, amon g certain tribes who used to practice cannibalism, for it was thought that in that way the eaters could acquire or participate in some of the (former) virtues o f the dead , e. g . wisdom, strength, hunting skills, etc. still be, that eating is not disrespectful: So it can what is sometimes dis- respectful is raising for food nnd killing, e.g. in order to ent. The overflow principle~ formed -chiefly to cope with the treatment of animals, is this: Act towaPds that which, while not itself a pePson, is clos ely associated with pePsonhood in a way cohePent with an attitude of Pespect fop pePsons (Vp . 503) . Instead of arguing directly for the principle, Devine suggests firstl y that it may be argued for in rule-cons equ e ntial fashion, secondly tha t it may be made plausible as part of a way of life having respect for persons at its centre, and thirdly that th e prin ciple is well ensconced in the moral consciousness of the plain man. Each of these suggestions can be faulted both in general and as regards the relevant application. For instance, plain men mostly do not object to the bulldozing of old cemeteries to make way for a development. Nor need the eating of a dead human be a mark of disrespect. an act of consider a ble res pect; To illustrate how application of suc h On the other hand, the principle can be rendered analytic by taking up the slack in "associated with" and "coherent with" appropriately - only then it won't yield the relevant substantive application. In application of the principle Devine makes two alternative moves. First, 11 It is by no means obvious, however, that a cons~n 10 is required. similarly if it is going to be incinerated and the ashes s pread, it might better be carefully composted. The point ma de does not exclude organ transplants, eating, and so ecological alternatives to burial or cremation. The most the overflow principle The suggestion that the already dead can, at least in s e ems to show, under this move, is - what does not exclude consumption, certain circumstances, be eaten without moral qualm, innocuous though and what one may well concur with - that the dead (and not merely the human dead) ought to be eaten respectfully; it is, is liable to spark off a series of protests. and even this much some ugly scenes could result i f "long pig" caught on; is not shown if the tense change, the transformation from alive to dead, destroys the requisite closeness of association. outback Australia) competing to pick up "accident" victims. ambulances or tow trucks, are readily enough avoided (by suitable body, which forms the visible aspect of the bulk of persons with whom we are acquainted, and which persists when the person ceases to exist in death. (Vp. 593) organization), and more respectful practices adopted. would, if the objection is to have force - lead to what is normally a~sumcs, overflow to the subsequently dead body (which is no longer inadmissible, for example, to a perverse lust for human flesh, and And again respectful eating be marketable commodities, if there was commerce not just in human flesh. but in bags, shoes, and belts made from human hides, decorations from human bones and teeth, glue and fertilizer from other parts and so on 12 in the way that there is commerce in animal parts? Perhaps, disre sp ec t wo uld be an outcome, but perhaps for the wrong re aso ns. What s ee ms clear is that giving human flesh to the ne edful, s ~y , i s one thing, a llowing commerce in human parts is another. More serious is the objection that such "admissible cannibalism" could - or rather ov e rflow to thl' llvlng body docs not however guarantee, what Devine Wouldn't disrespect be inevitable if human parts become But these types of scenes, which can already occur with competing ... respect for persons overflows to the human to dead bodies. e.g. the the way that refrigerated trucks follow the kangaroo shooters in some heavy assumptions as to features of persons, reveals: could, it appears, be coherent with the alleged overflow of respect It is true that spectacle of the refrigerated vans patrolling the highways (in much Devine assumes it does not, as his second move which begins to buy into the "visible aspect" of a person). so in nci cher case is value diminished, it seems, by (respectful) cannibalism or ordinary garbage (in the literal sense) is not eaten (except in desperation, etc.). A dead body does nee have the value of the person whose body it is in life; Garbage is commonly thrown away, things in these end uses are mostly not; For i f a body is going to be buried and "eat,~" by bacteria, or various carnivores, it might as well be eaten; although a dead body is not a person, still the fact that it (so to speak) was a person means that it ought not to be treated like ordinary garbage (Vp. 503). forth. clause perhaps, thereby to the deliberate killing of humans for food. Hogg makes much of the first of these points, the (unintended) impression he gives being that human flesh is so delicious that it is highly addictive. Whether this is so or not (it would seem unlikely with a preponderance of older stringier humans, though the number of "battery humans" is increasing).it appears not to matter, unless it does lead to what would be more disconcerting, e.g. the establishment of a black market or the like in human flesh, with inputs from killer or Mafia syndicates. But the problem is not substantially different 13 12 of our unwillingness to kill people for food or other purposes, from problems that already arise with the treatment of animals (e.g. traffic in rare species), and over the distribution of dangerous drugs to humans, and can be met in similar ways, i.e. through a similar range of political or organizationa l options. The usual utilitarian defence of vegetarianism based on suffering, pain, and the like caused in raising and killing creatures for food, co llapses. 13 For no direct suff~ring, pain or the like occurs, with the creatures eaten already dead; and any sorts of suffering that might be marshalled among some of the still living who are pained by the consumption can be more than compensated for by th e alleviation of suffering of the meat consumers, for a suitable and secondly not a (direct) consequence of our unwillingness to cause distress to people - not that it always would (contrary to Diamond's assumption) - but rather 'what conditions our attitude to not dining on ourselves is the view that a person is not something The argument turns however on a slide on the mi.ddl.e term 'something to eat' which is ambiguous between (i) something that may be eaten and (ii) something that is eaten; In the second sense the justification given of the fact dead people are not eaten, namely people are not eaten, while in a sense "logically adequate" is trivial, and proves no requisite grounding, and the "justification " does not imply that dead people may not be eaten. In the first sense, a nontrivial justification is offered, that it is impermissible choice of consumers. to eat people,but in this case we cend to repeat the initial question; Some vegetarians however (rightly) reject utilitarian defenses; Diamond, in particular, tries to argue that they involve 'fundamental confusions about the moral relations between people and people and between people and animals ' (Dp. 465), and introduces instead convent ionalist arguments - unfortunately of wide philosophical appea l - against eating people. Some of the reasons for not eating people, she subsequently argues, extend to grounds for not eating animals either. Diamond's argument begins from certain quite central facts ... We do not eat our dead, even when they have died in auto- mobile accidents or been struck by lightning • .. (Dp. 467) An immediate objection is that this is little more than a local fact, Why is it? Diamond has a surprising answer: in effect that it is analytic on, or at least a consequence of, our notion of what a person or human being is. ••• it is not respect for our interests which is involved in our not eating each other . These are all things which go to determine what sort of concept 'human being' is it is one of those things which go to build our notion of human beings (Opp. 469-70). But such a thing as not eating other people is certainly not part of the concept 'human being', indeed it is not merely ~ot analytic or normic (near-analytic ) of human beings,it is not even true of them - good for certain ' we ' but by no means generally, as the history of given that, on well-authentic ated evidence, cannibalism was formerly canniba lism shows. widespread, and that it still persists in isolated place s today. It is equally a fact in the context of quite extensive groups, that .EE~L2o not eat l'i~.· So either the central fact has to be morally grounded or has to have moral consequences. The second option would involve a prescriptive fallacy (deduction of an ought from an is); followin g fashion:- in any case, Diamond tries the first, in the The fact is, firstly, not a (direct) consequence The answer is, in short, radically unsatisfactory . That this is 15 Tt may s eem ... I should find myself havin g t o jus tify slav e ry. For do we not learn - if 14 we liv e in a slav e soci e ty - what slaves ar e the answer Diamond is offering is however at once confirmed by how she goes on (writing in speciesist assumptions 15 in the same revolting fashion): and what masters are through the structure of a life in which we are here and do this, and they are there and do that? Do we not learn the difference between a master and a slave that way? (Dp. 470) Diamond does not manage to escape these difficulties, though sh e And so too - very much so - [built into the notion] the idea of the difference between human beings and animals. We learn what a human being is in - among other things sitting at a table where WE eat THEM. We 16 are around the table and they are on it (Dp. 470) . While we may learn something about what some human beings - not makes various attempts (p. 470 and especially pp. 476-7): the notion of a slave or an enemy or an outlaw assumes a background of response to persons, and recognition that what happens in these cases is that we have something which ;;;;-;;,::-e not treating as what it - in a way - is ( Dp. 476). vegetarians - are like in this way, in the way we can learn what But this is to assume a background of norms, of how things morally some other human beings are like from cannibal feasts where 11 we" are, that a person is not something to enslave, etc. (and to attempt are on the table as well as around it, we learn little of the once more to build a presupposed morality into conv entional facts). notion of human being in this way. Nor does what correct information Furthermore, as this reveals, the same ploy could be worked in the we acquire in this way provide a firm basis for moral judgements case of animals, namely that in hunting them, killing them, serving about the possibility of eating humans, though Diamond appears to them up for dinner, we are ~ treating them as what - in a way think that it does; for she later says that the source of moral they are (or, more accurately, as they mora lly deserve treating). life derives from ways in which we mark what human life is (Dp. 418), Such comparisons make it evident then what Diamond is about, and that another move which involves a prescriptive fallacy, as well as he r conventionalistic approach fails. obvious anthropoce ntri cit y . However, to remove objections to eating the already dead, Indeed many of the sorts of conventional patterns of response under specified conditions, is simply to avoid, rather than face up a nd conventional facts that Diamond alludes to are a fairly direct to, the real opposition to even qualified cannibalism. For an o utcome of human chauvinism, e.g. that drivers mostly stop for important part of the real opposition to qualified canniba lism relies injured humans, not for injured animals, that humans are commonly upon illicit assimilation of cases of eating already dead people given funerals, animals mostly not. Diamond needs to say, and with killing humans for food, and, differently again, rearing some proceeds to say, that these sorts of differences are appropriate, but that is to slide to a value judgement which concedes to he rself part of what is at issue. Diamond's approach encounters serious difficulties when applied to such matters as slavery, the treatment of outlaws and enemies of them, e.g. certain infants, for food . and in an obvious sense ! .!1.~~~., Thus Devine's ambiguous, 17 what is entire l y different, permitting the killin g of humans for 16 food, or to, what is different again, the deliberate raisin g of human s for food. claim that 'a meat diet requires that animals be killed' (Vp. 483). And thus Diamond again, the cases are entirely different. involved both rearing and slaughtering Swift's "proposal" of children for food. Nor is the base position so far reached a new one, but an ancient proposition. it i s one thin g morally to eat an already dead deer, another to let a deer die and then eat it, another again to shoo t What we should be going against in adopting Swift 's "Modest proposal" is something one should be going against in salvaging the dead, more generally useful organs for transplantation, and the rest for supper or the compost heap. (Dp. 469) 17 Not a t all: animals: The differences are already clea r as rega rds For instance, Chrysippus, the Stoic, in his or otherwise kill it and then (perhaps) eat it, and yet another to eat a deer raised (in one or another of very different ways) for food. Within each of these different categories, it is important to distinguish cases. For while eating a dead human, even after it has been allowed to die (by omission), may be admissible, killing humans for food is often not, and raising a human for food (and other goods) is, it is now generally assumed by humans, certainly not. treatise On Justice, 'permitt ed eating of the corpses of the dead• 18 There are several separate issues here, in particular the So also apparently did Diogenes in his Republic, Zeno in his Republic, ~~ban~ or raising for food issue, on which much literature on and Cleanthes, all of whom may have authorised cannibalism on a the moral basis of vegetarianism has in fact focussed, and the broader scale. general l?I~'!_ati~ issue, which includes matters of killing and letting die. Limited extensions of cannibalism beyond the base cases, where humans are allowed to die or are killed . eat ing of (certain of) their parts . Eating dead humans involves But if eating such parts is (often) The issues are separate because creatures may be killed for food, e.g . in hunting, though they are not raised for food, and conversely creatures may be raised for food (or treated as slaves) without, for one reason or another, being killed. Cases of humans admiss ibl e , then so also presumably is consumption of such parts when raising humans for food have apparently never occurred, though humans they are (irrevocably or freely) severed from a living human, e.g. have sometimes been fed up for the pot (e.g. in the Aztec empire and in Fiji). ea ting the amputated limb of a friend or enemy or drinking the blood Humans are the only creatures we in fact know who might (having l ost consider- donated by another, able touch with the natural world) just adopt such a practice: These rather special cases, involving (what is no other ca lled, for s h o r t ) ~ human parts, provide a first set of extensions animals ever raise creatures for food, not did cannibalistic cu ltures of the base cases. ever apparently raise humans for food. These extensions include some bizarre cases, in particular where the part concerned is one's own. However, allowing the eating of dead humans and nonlive hum~ n parts under certai n conditions offers no slippery slide to, It is a serious and difficult question (to which moral philosophers have not sufficiently addressed themselves) why it is that if humans are not under !!.!!i'. conditions entitled to raise other humans for food, they are entitled under many 19 18 th e gene ral i ss ue as to wh e n, or wh e n prec i se l y , killin g f o r food i s jus tifiable can be largely skirt ed. For it is justifiable , it is conditions - indeed, it is often assumed, under a sweeping ra~ th e n claimed, whe n and only when killing itself i s justified, whe ne ve r of factory conditions - to raise other animals for food? that is. They can only be justified in so doing if there are significant and While one half of the italicised equivalence is uncontrover s ial - relevant differences between humans and other creatures raised, if killing for food (or for purpose P) is permissible, so is what it or that might be raised, for human or animal food. involves, killing - the converse is not. Yet there are, For consider some circum- it has already been pointed out, no such appropriate species-wide stances (assuming you can find them) where killing of person x is differences. justifie d, e.g. in war, in retribution, in self-defence, in r e ducin g g reat A fresh start can be made on the issue from a cannibalistic perspective. evil. Since it is not eating human f l e s h ~ that is Th e n killing x for these reasons is not killing for food, even if x is in fact subsequently eaten. There is an important intensional wrong, what is it that is wrong, if anything, with raising humans difference, so that being justified in killing x for some crime say , or other creatures for food? does not justify killing him for food, much as thinking of killing him or is it both? both. Is it the raising, or is it the killing, The answer is, of course, that trouble lies with for the one reason is very different from thinking of killing him for Raising of creatures frequently has one or both of two dama ging features accompanying it: first, the other purpose. deprivation of the What can be argued given the permissibility of- eating dead rai s ed creatures, and secondly, treatment of the raised animal humans, is that where killing of z is permissible, cannibalism of z merely as a means (not as an end). is also IN FACT permissible. The second, attitudinal, difference may have little or no impact beyond the first. For example, if infanticide i s alri ght under certain conditions (as Tooley contends, and others have hinted), And the first may be avoided, e.g. whe re the creatures stay by choice but then in fact cannibalism of infants is alright also under the given could depart if they wished. conditions (but the issues as regards the raising of infants for fo od Kept geese, for instance, may be in that position; they are seemingly not deprived, but may live in rather are, of course, not thereby resolved). natural conditions (except that migration and much that goes with it is permissible can, to this limited extent, be bypassed. II has been lost). Thus the issue of when killing It is worth elaborating these points, since important Killing involves something different again: extensions - not the only extensions - of cannibalism beyond the base all that goes with removing of a life, the termination of projects, purposes, cases depend upon them, and since - very differently - they furnish associations of value, etc. (and also the definitive end of con- clear cases of inadmissible cannibalism. sciousness, etc.). of situations to distinguish:- With the predation issue also, a central issue ls as to when killing an animal for food is permissible. It may be thought indeed that the killing for food issue just is, or is t a ntamount to, the general issue of killing, and that accordingly • There are several clas se s 21 survive themselves, the survivors of an aircrash in a remote area, 20 people on a life raft, etc. Such examples, where defensible, as they sometimes are, provide a further class of examples of admissible la. Killing , causing to die, is impermissible. cannibalism - what might be called exceptional cannibalism, since the lb. Letting die (passive killing, as it is sometimes misleadingly , but conveniently , called) is circumstances are, at present anyway, among higher mammals, rather impermissible . exceptional . Then, in either case , killing or letting die for eating or followed by An important and often times questionable practice, which eating is also impermissible, by preceding principles (essentially can in principle at any rate, deliver exceptional examples 20 , is ~Pp ➔ ~P (p & q)), hunting (in the intransitive form, which involves capture or killing So in particular it is where the creature is of the same species. That is, cannibalism is in these cases inadmissible . But some of these cases are clear; for instance, where creature (or if the object sought is duly located). Men continue to hunt in the French fields, and sometimes still their own species 21 , not at present human) x is leading a worthwhile nonaggressive independent and pro- in the shape of enemy soldiers , but those cast as outlaws (manhunts) . ductive life in a peaceful countryside. (Intransitive) Hunting divides into several types, according to its 2a. Killing is permissible. 2b. Letting die is permissible. end purpose, for sport , for food, for extermination, for capture. Hunting humans for sport (hunting for "sport " , so called, typically In common reckoning there are many examples of both second classes, involves killing) is a practice that has persisted well into this "passive" infanticide, suicide and gambling with life, euthanasia, century, in Australia for example . killing or allowing to die to maximise community values where there though it can be given philosophical support by chauvinistic theories are large numbers of people or choices between them, execution and such as a limited and racially prejudiced group-utilitarianism or by assassination, self-defence , killing in war (the list follows roughly appeal to the "ideal" of pure subspecies (the stud ideal). t he later chapter headings in Glover, where these well-known types such hunting is impermissible, so, for the same sorts of reasons, is of examp les are set out in some detail). the hunting of many animals for sport . In all these types of cases, It has nothing to recommend it, But if Hunting otherwise, except for death can be followed by eating, provided the base class conditions capture, is a restricted form of killing, and to what extent it is are satisfied . permissible turns on when that sort of killing is permissible . In such cases, henceforth called de facto extensions, cannibalism is also in fact admissible . The position arrived at thus far is pulled together in rhe Almost always the killing or letting die in 2a and 2b is not spec ifically for eating. conjoined: Eating the resulting dead is simply th e source of food is adventitious. Sometimes, however, in unusual circumstances some members of a party of the one species kill certain members of the party or allow them to die in order to fo ll owing diagram, which subsequent sections (and parts) endeavol1r to fil l out and render more precise:- 23 §3. 22 Unavoidable detours: when is killing a creature wrong, and when is letting a creature die wrong? It is not necessary, nor is it easy or desirable, to avoid entirely the issues of when killing Diagram 2: TYPES OF ADMISSIBLE AND INADMISSIBLE CANNIBALISM is wrong and when killing for food is wrong, and when such kinds of l( ,- killing are not wrong . Type 1 cases (exemplified e.g. in hunting for sport) - - -- ___ _] Base case I ,< conditions fail I X other than rather weak or circular principles. had seemed to be clear turn out on further reflection to be much l ess ,< obvious. \ ESSENTIAL / ,-...__ _ _ _ _ _'-! \ PREDATION..,, For example, it had seemed evident that the onus of jus tification (where this makes sense) characteristically lay with the WATERSHED J(. XCEPTIONAL EXTENSIONS Worse, things chat INADMISSIBLE ADMISSIBLE BASE CASES But it is not so easy to elicit or to defend action-taking party; \t 'I,( that it is the killing or removal of life that muse be justified, not the letting live. Some things, however, are clearer . 'J{ NONLIVE EXTENSIONS First and foremost, a satisfacto ry (nonchauvinistic) a c count K -J KILLING BOUNDARY of when and why killing a creature is wrong won't make exceptions for REARING FOR SLAUGHTER BOUNDARY humans and, more generally, won't contain the term 'human' or logical So far, in considering examples of killing, issue has not equivalents. This important requirement disposes of much of the been taken with enlightened conventional wisdom, with the result chat philosophical literature. a serious , and perhaps unwarranted, discrepancy between the treatment (9p. 135-9), which refer to the (contractual) conditions for human dished out to animals and that accorded humans is beginning to emerge. social life (the mixed account given should be faulted on several other So the judgements made tend to follow conventional practice: grounds as well). killing It wipes out, for example, Ewin's attempts Similarly it removes the main condition eventually humans for food is admitted but happens only in exceptional circumstances, achieved in Glover (a whole text devoted to moral issues concerning killing killing, which fails to present, or seriously address, the matter of animals for food is a pervasive practice. More generally, killing animals for food is considered permissible in a wide range of circumstances where killing humans is not , yet on what solid grounds? . As regards killing, even enlightened conventional moral wisdom returns us to the heartlands of human chauvinism. necessary and sufficient conditions for when killing is wrong) . The first main condition Glover arrives at is that ' taking human life is normally directly wrong: that most acts of killing people would be J/ To avoid it, the matter of wrong in the absence of harmful side-effects' (Gp . 42), i.e . so long killing and letting die will have (like most moral issues) to be as 'the best total outcome' does not involve killing (cf. p . 286), to reconsidered, nonchauvinistically. set down the underlying utilitarian recipe . Other conditions Glover outlines - similarly unacceptable even to their author when 'animal' replaces 'human' - are likewise faulted as damagingly cha,·vinistic, 25 24 for instance that it is wrong to kill a human whose life is worth l iv i ng (Gp . 53) , whenever that is. e . g. burning a collection of seeds (er seedlings) is one thing, burning Secondly , unremarkably, most of the recipes suggested in the a forest is another, slicing up or eating a raw egg is one thing, slicing literature are defective, first among them utili t arian proposals , which, as is well-known can sanction unjust killing. 22 up or eating an eagle is another, etc. Other (non- utilitarian) potential ys me rit the same consideration as ys, as if th ey we r e ys. recipes are also problematic, as a proposal by Young, wh i ch will he l p Call the r.esult of making the required deletio n, th e us on our way, serves to indicate: modified proposal . . . . what makes killing another person [more genera lly a considered . realisation either of the victim's life purposes or of such life- purposes as the victim may reasonably have been narrower utilitarian frameworks and induces a decided circularity, The proposa l requires some brief explanation. The term ' unjust ' , which takes the proposal outside is qualified in the final proposal (p.519) by 'maximally' , the point expected to resume or to come to have (Yp.518; repeated p.519 with 'maximally ' included). of which (though it is not fully explained) is to permit killing or The qualifying term sacrificing of one person in order to save others . 'irrevocable' is inserted to separate killing from life imprisonment I It is the modified proposal that will be chiefly creature] wrong on occasions is its characte r as an irrevocable, [maximally] unjust preventing of their I It is a popular fallacy that which may, as a matter of fact , defeat the prisoner ' s purposes . The long some members of a group (on a lifeboat or from a remote airplane crash) final disjunction is designed to delegitimize killing of sometime comatose are sacrificed for, or by, others of the group . persons (it also would include people undergoing reform programs) - -,hat is ac counled [maximally] unjust. an additional clause is required - and killing of potential future in way, and almost (but not) captial punishment. debatable judgements , such as that in the common case (on Young ' s ified' (p . 528) , ified. 23 from which it follows that abortion is commonly unjust- The disjunct should, it certainly seems, be deleted - especially since what justifies the main part of Young ' s proposal, considerations of what has value, does not justify the final disjunct, because merely potential persons do not appear to have requisite value, though they might (or might not) come to have such. Generally, potential ys do not have the same range of features (including acquired value, etc.) ll Similarly what one is entitled t o do , or feels like doing with r espect to them may differ; If , however, there are no just wars then most killing in war is wrong; and if punishment by death is sometimes just , capital punishment is sometimes not wr.ong. If, for instance, a person's life purposes are sufficiently evil~ e.g. they include genocide, then their fulfilment is certainly pro1, ~ rJ y , justly, thwarted. 0 1· Thus some proviso as to the chara c t e r or qua lit y of life purposes , such as the term 'unjustly ' obliquely supplies , is essential (but often omitted in ethical discussions) . It is not evident however that killing such a person (as distinct, e.g. from imprisonment , re-education, etc.) is permissible, exc ept perhaps in worst cases. ~ • what they become if their potential is realised . For example, Young claims (Ypp.520-1) that the proposal lets through various types of killing persons such as infants and foetl1ses - thereby writing in some very has only 'morally trivial or no moral support abortion will be unjust- But generally what the proposal permits and what it excludes depends critically upon cases already apparently covered, so that it is not obvious that such construal of 'moral') where the expressed wish of the pregnant woman The qualification makes way for certain cases of cannibalism, for instance those where I 26 Ther e is no good r eason to restrict the proposal to persons , and Young does not intend to. 27 Many killings of animals constitute , he t ells us (Yp.526), maximally unjust prevention of their realisation of life purposes, and accordingl y are wrong. ' Killing such animals for food is only justifiable when no adequate of other crea tures). acts are avoided. food supply is available and food i s needful' (Yp . 526), in which event, presumably, justice prevails. A characteris tic remnant of Further it is simply assumed - though it could no doubt be argued (rather as below) - that requisite unjust Young's proposal as applied has bite; human chauvinism also intrudes , with Young a ppealing to the ' greater eschewing killing of creatures for food. 25 range of life-purpose s normally human beings have' (Yp.527, italics that the modified proposal has bite: amended) ; 24 and thereby smuggling in a greater value assumptio n as regards humans. Here, as elsewl1ere also , the account of when killin g is wrong is progressive ly l oaded , almost manipulated , to yield the sought r esults : in particular , what is unjust - including which killings are unjust and which class of life-purpos es are more valuable relevant to det e rmining maximal injustice - are bot h open to rigging. These points help to bring out too how back of Young's accoun t and application s of his proposal lie more basic consideratio ns of justice and value (and it is to such considera tions that we should no doubt eventually turn). Consider, for instance, the route to the permissibil ity of systematic cullings of a herd. Wants , now substituting for li fe -purpose s , are simply supposed to be summed up utilitarian- fashion, except th at (somewhat as with Mill ' s utilitariani sm) a weighting is imposed to reflect the respective values of different wants (those of humans, e . g ., as opposed to those It is an illusion however the bite all turns on Young's cunning application , since the modified proposal itself reduces to near tautologous ness. purposes occur? taken. For when does irrevocable prevention of a life's When, and only when (since it is irrevocable) that life is So the modified proposal reduces effectively to AP. Killing x is wrong iff taking x's life is maximally unjust. But killing x is, according to OED, causing the death of x, which is tantamount, in terms of sense, to taking the life of x. And what is wrong is, according to OED again, what is unjust, and would be, if the OED were sharpened 1,1p a little, what is maximally unjust. Whence the adjusted proposal, AP. The proposal does not rule out killings which have the effect overall of fostering th e wants of the largest subset of some group like a wild herd where otherwise the wants of an even larger subset will be thwarted. Systematic cullings in the absence of feasible alternative s, therefore, may be morally pe rmissible. (Yp.527) for example, it would oblige most of us to adopt a largely vegetarian life-style We have come round a circle, but much was glimpsed on the way, so the circuitous route was not without its rewards. By working through other l ess chauvinistic accounts of the wrongness of killing (e.g. the nonchauvin istic base of Ewin's account) we can come a similar circular way and arrive at the same fairly stable result. Moveover, in the adjusted proposal we do have an account, not yet a hi ghly usable account, since circular, but an account nonetheless . In terms of this account clear cases where cannibalism is morally inadmissable can be distinguishe d, for example as follows: Cannibalism of x is wrong wherever it involves maximally unjust taking of x's life. Conversely, there are many cases where 28 the killing of one creature by another creature is, because not maximally unjust, quite permissible; 29 e.g. certain instances of killing in self-defenc e, exceptional cannibalism , abortion, etc . But if the creature is killed, then it is dead, so by the earli er Now let x and y be of the same species, say Homo Sapiens: argument it is permissible to eat it (under certain conditions) . CAP provides exact conditions for when cannibalism is wrong, in So there are many cases where killing a creature and then eating it, cases where cannibalism involves killing. or its then being eaten, are permissible . conditions are satisfied; If some of the many cases of permissible killing are, as they seem to be, cases of killing a then Sometimes these often they are not. Sorting out when they are, and when they are not, will occupy many a controversi al creature of the same species, then active cannibalism involving killing is, in such cases, permissible . The argument needs of course filling out in crucial respects, especially by some enumeration of types of cases where killing is permissible , and a sub-listing of cases where these are intra-specie s killings. Would this suffice? However, it of the) distinction between killing and letting die, by blurring or rejecting the distinction on which it is based~ that betweem omission and One question is whether the account determines (even in its circular way) the precise conditions under which killing for food can permissibly occur. Letting die is not the same as (active) killing . has recently become fashionable to try to remove the (moral significance The question reduces commission (or else it is pretended that it is frightfully difficl1lt to make this distinction s out, etc.). Rejection of the omission/ commission distinction appears to rest on a mix of fallacious moves:- to the logical issue of whether AP as a strong logical equivalence FMl. A some to all argument, warrants intersubsti tutivity in more highly intensional frames such FM2. A confusion of the thesis that the distinction is morally as those declaring purposes. Though I've tended to vacillate on this issue, my feeling increasingly is that substitutiv ity is warranted, important with the quite different thesis that only commi.ssions can be morally blameworthy and that omissions are morally guiltless (the the reason being that the equivalence of AP is of virtually synonymity position reportedly held by some religious groups in the past). strength, which legitimates replacement in all but quotational (type) FM3. An extensional approach to nonextensio nal differences . sentence contexts. But purpose sentence contexts, such as' ... for eating' are not quotational . FAP. Hence it follows using AP that Killing x for food purposes is wrong iff taking x's life for food is maximally unjust, heavily upon the fact that there are some cases where it is morally difficult to distinguish between certain commissions and certain and that CAP. These points are considered briefly in turn:- ad FMl. Those attempting to discredit the distinction usually rely y's killing x for (and followed by) eating is wrong iff y's taking x's life for eating is maximally unjust. omissions, e.g. that in appropriate circumstanc es exposing the baby may be little different morally from directly smothering it. (The Greeks believed it wasn't but that was because exposure gave the gods a chance to intervene and save from death those who were fated to perform especially important tasks). r JO But the fact that there a r c ~ cases where the JI distinctio n is not of great moral significan ce does not show that it is dispensabl e. In order to show that lt is dispensabl e it is extension ality assumption which removes scope. The principle necessa ry to show that there are no cases where it is needed, that appears to be that failing to provide a condition which would have for all cases failing to provide a condition which would prevent been causally responsibl e for preventing x is morally equivalent to ~x is (morally) equivalent to providing a condition for x. providing a condition which is causally responsibl e for x . But Moral it is easy to produce some cases where the distinctio n seems to be equivalenc e requires interchang eability witin deonitic contexts, essential if we are to account for what we wish intuitivel y to say. indeed it could be characteri sed in terms of such substituti bility . For example, to take a case those who wish to abolish the distinctio n The equivalenc e yielded is of the form -F-x are fnnd nf appealing to, we may wish to say that the people who did commonly falls, especially where Fis not extensiona l. not attempt to help in the Kitty Genovese case were morally culpable, moveover that the causal responsib ility functor is not extension al, perhaps to a high degree, but few of us would wish to say that their and that such a principle fails for it. moral culpabilit y was exactly the same or of exactly the same kind as that of the murderer, and that they should equally be brought to trial on murder ch~rges. Or, to take another case, placing poison in your husband ' s tea is not the moral equivalent of failing to give him the antidote when he has placed it in himself. In order to say +-> Fx. But such a principle It is clear Though letting die differs significan tly, then, from killing, conditions upon when it is wrong may be reached in similar ways. How the condition for letting die correspond ing to AP should go becomes rather more obvious if the righthand side of AP is expanded to: taking (the) action which terminates x's life is maximally unjust. what is evident in such cases, some equivalent of the omission/c ommission The parallel passive condition can th en presumably be formulated distinctio n is needed . thus:- ad FM2. But the thesis that the distinctio n is needed and is morally DP. significan t in many, or at l e a s t ~ , cases must be clearly dis- which continues x ' s life is maximally unjust. 26 tinguished from the very much stronger thesis that all omissions are blameless, and that any commission s are morally open ~o blame - or praisewort hy. This thesis is, rather plainly, indefensib le, yet has been responsibl e for much of the bad light in which appeal to distinctio n appears . ad FMJ. Then in turn, substituti on principles again yield clauses EDP and CDP, correspond ing to EAP and CAP, special cases of which yield conditions under which cannibalism is wrong where it involves letting die. Principle CDP which supplies this condition, where x and y are of the same species, runs as follows:- The principle of moral symmetry between omissions and commission s is in fact refutable. Letting x die is wrong iff refraining from taking (the) action It appears to be based on an CDP. y ' s letting x die for eating purposes is wrong iff y's refraining from taking (the) action which continues x's life, for purposes of eating x, is maximally unjust. Since letting die is, for the most 32 part, less heinous than killing, cannibalism involving letting die 33 i s more widely permissible than cannibalism involving killing . 27 §4 . The matter of predation, and important cases of l egit imat e killing and letting die for food. One tempting model that underlies the conflict picture of Paradigmatic examples of legitimate predation, of predation as basically undesirable but an unavoidable killing are provided by predation, where bis prey of a and a depen ds fact, a model that leads to human vegetarianism, is the following (essentially) for its livelihood, indeed for its survival, on eating kind of atomistic axiological theory (or utilitarianism):- bs.28 Such predat ion i s a n essential part of any su ffici e ntl y rich ecosystem . Essential pr eda tio n i s pre dation which is essent i a l to according to the initial positive value thesis, every living creature (every sentient creature , every higher animal , etc .) has an initial positive the nor,~11 livelihood of tl1e predat or , and where the prcd alor takes non-instrumental value which it retains unless it does something to for itself no more than it requires for it s livelihood. forf eit that value. carn.ivores , such as the big cats , but some humans, such traditional Eskimos, are essential predators. Not only ilS some (On the even simpler position of biospheric egalitarianism, discussed below, all living things have equal worth, The fact that humans ar e part of the natural predatory food chains should not be lost s i g ht o[ . Observe that the argument to permissibility of essential pre- in some nontrivial sense.) These positive values just sum ; and maximisation of value (or suitably averaged value) is, of course , the (or an) ethical objective . Then killing is generally undesirable , dation does ~ take the invalid form: such predation is a fact (a fact because it results in a reduction in net value, and survival is generally of life), therefore it is permissible. That arguments of this type , desirable. 29 The exceptions occur when a creature has forfeited its selectively relied upon by Diamond and (earlier) Hegel, are inval id is value, e . g . it per sists in value-reducing behaviour, so that killing well-enough known (they commit a prescriptive fallacy), and is evident it would prevent a further decline in net value or lead to increase in from such fallacious arguments as the diplomacists' argument, e.g. it is total value . a fact of life that Indonesia has occupied (absorbed) East Timar; when it leads to an overall reduction in value . the re- The underlying theme is that killing is unjustifiable The onus of proof, fore it is pe rfectly alright that Indonesia occupied (absorbed) East Timar. when it can be assigned, lies with those who make the exceptions, who Naturally it would be decidedly awkward if the fact of essential predation do or license the killing . turned out to be impermissible: since, with one item of value consuming another item of value, it trouble. the whole natural order would be in moral This brings us to another defect of the argument from· "facts", Predation now appears as an awkward fact , leads to an overall reduction in value. Since inessential preda tion that it suggests that essential predation is really, at base, something is inessential, it is ruled out as inadmissible. pretty undesirable, but nonetheless something we have to live with - in (nonindigenous) humans for whom predation is, it is plausibl~ argu ed , Thus in particular, contrast with predation, in its associated meaning, as plunder, which we iness en tial, are not entitled to kill for f ood : do n't, or rather oughtn 't to, have to live with morally, and which is usual rai si ng of animals for food, etc . are all excluded in one st r oke , commonly reprehensible. and a l eading feature of vegetarianism imposed . therewith hunting, 34 35 Essential predation is not so satisfactorily dispos ed o f, but introduces conflict. For either one creature, the prey, is sacrificed or another creature, the predator, is: value de c lines . Similar objections apply against biological egalitarianism, either way tot 8 1 In the interim, while vegetarian scientists work even when it is qualified as in Drengson and Naess by an in principle 30 on new diets and new lifestyles for predators, there is an obvious clause. recipe to be applied, which while not eliminating conflict, minimises that predation is rather suboptimal: its effe c t: is strictly ruled out as a general practice. just as steam gives way to sail, so the less valuable gives way to t h e ~ valuable. Thus if humans are reckoned to be It is not (or not only) that it is taken for granted the trouble is that predation Since each lion and each antelope is assigned one unit of whatever is assigned equally, mo re valuable than polar bears - the usual human evaluation - then there is no way of justifying the lifestyle of a lion that consumes polar bea rs are not going to be entitled to prey on humans, in the sens e several antelopes. at least that their predation is not justified. Any equalitarian approach that is E££ atomistic is liable Application of the recip e 31 presupposes a value ranking on creatures under which some are more valuabl e to further incoherence, as Drengson's holism reveals. than others: some living system of living things, e.g . the Earth as on the Gaia otherwise if all are equal, predation is never admissible, and Lets be essential predators just die out - at least that is the simple ethical pic t - hypothesis (p. 233). ure. least of the living things that comprise it, has the same value as This points up one of the many problems for biological egaltarianism. But the picture presented so far is too simple, and tl1e recipes suggested dubious. Then s, which should(?) have the value at each of them (in effect 1 = n, for n>l). Some of t~e ecological consequences of implementing the For if the matter is properly considered not at a given time, but over a time interval, dynamically and not suggested recipes, and reform of essential predators, can now be just statically, it is not so simple, and a rather different result gauged. emerges . the chains of predation are long and complex; One predator takes, over a typical lifetime, rather a lot of prey . Unless the predator ranks very much more highly than Massive environmental interference would be required, since distortions especially in lower-level prey would occur, with resulting the prey, the value of the sum of the prey will exceed that of the ecological instability and often catastrophe. predator. that is, are ecologically highly undesirable. These considerations, in combination with a positive and gross population The consequences, What this and the value thesis, suggest a very different result, that predators should summation problems begin to reveal is that the initial atomistic be allowed to, or encouraged to, die out - unless they are somehow, value distribution picture is inadequate because it leaves out systems what seems improbable for predators that remain wild, converted to and systemic connections such as a more ecological approach would vegetarianism, include, The dynamic picture resorted to is still too simple in one important respect, that over a time interval, prey, which would often exceed natural (and sometimes reasonable) population levels without predation, are replaced. Where population of a preyed-upon species of creature is at an ecological limit, and minor culling of the sort 36 natural predation induces does not, owing to replacement, reduce 37 population levels significantly below that limit, predation has no significant effect on total value, So results yet another, different, recipe, one which is a little nearer the ecologica l mark. 32 farm animals (all of them) can be appropriately filled out, to Some utilitarians, Singer in particular, have recognised exclude replacement of animals with unusual or special properties, the role of replacement a·,1d made some allowance for it (at a serious cost to Singer ' s vegetarianism , it should be added), e.g. those carrying valuable genes, and to allow slaughter, without Singer now allows for killing and replacement of nonselfconscious life, but advances a nonreplaceabllity thesis for self-conscious life. Furthermore, even if a replacement thesis for free-range shorter-term replacement, of those carrying damaging diseases or genes - as it no doubt can, in a modified replacement thesis - still For the basic division Singer appeals to 'Tooley 's distinction' between a nonreplacement thesis fails to allow even for essential predation of selfconscious creatures, and accordingly should be scrapped, beings that are merely conscious and ••• those that Since this pronouncement is likely to be disputed, at least are also self -conscious, in the sense of being able to conceive of themselves as distinct entities, existing by some vegetarians, it is worth trying to indicate why essential over time with a past and a future (Sp.151), At the same time it can be In fact most of the sorts of free-range farmyard animals that Singer predation is perfectly admissible, seems to be envisaging as nonselfconscious, and accordingly replaceable, explained what is still wrong with the tempting dynamic picture and creatures, for instance geese and hens, appear to satisfy Tooley's the initial positive value thesis. tests for selfconsciousness. what is put in as what is left out, Geese are certainly aware of themselves they value members of their own community ; trees, and inanimate such as rocks and buildings,~ have initial and they remember value, but that complexes and wholes, in particular ecosystems, may elements of their past and, in things like nest building (practice), anticipate the future. More important, what has selfconsciousness (reflex- ive consciousness), or consciousness to do with the moral dimension? Until well have initial value, The reduction assumptions underlying value decomposition thereof, itself, because by no means all consciousness of conscious life is _ 32 a to atoms fail , Singer's theses lack foundation and look, while perhaps convenient for that it cannot be duly explained; There are grounds for anticipating for instance, being too valuable to be Such wholes may have value furthermore which is not dissolvable into values of component parts, or atoms this is duly explained - it is not satisfactorily explained as valuable in some traditional farmers, rather ad hoe, What is left out is not just that objects other than living creatures, both animate such as plants and as distinct entities, and of geese as distinct from (and superior to) hens; What is wrong is not So much In terms of the value of wholes such as ecosystems, one of the arguments for essential predation is disarmingly elementary . It takes the form: (sufficiently) rich (natural) ecosystems are Predation is an essential part of these systems . simply replaced, in the sense of having irreplaceable experiences, worth- very valuable, while projects, etc., does not have the requisite linkage with self- What is an essential part of what is very valuable is admissible. consc iousness. Therefore, predation is admissible. Such predation, which may be argued for in other ways , admits of extension by the following principle : 38 EP. If something is entitled to kill for food under certain 39 conditions, e.g. respectfully and when in need, then so are others under the same conditions. §5. The argument for EP is of the same type as that for other Postscript . The paper is very incomplete . It fails to address several issues intimately connected with cannibalism, such as hunting similar indifference, or interchangeability, principles in ethics. of humans and other animals, in particular for food, and as raising It follows from EP and essential predation that, since a tiger may humans and other animals, especially defective infants, for food. when in need kill a cow to eat, then so may humans in need. If Worse, it is evasive on some fundamental issues, and it fails to penetrate very taking the cow's life is not maximally unjust in the one case, nor deeply into some of the issues it does begin to consider, such as is it in the other, since the circumstances are similar. predation, or as the necessary and/or sufficient conditions for admiss- The results reached may be alternatively argued for using principle CP. 33 Perhaps Singer is also on the right track, though he has latched onto the wrong distinction. Perhaps there is a (descriptive) condition q (or a condition qs for each sorts of agent), appropriately ible killing. position. It is little consolation that others are in the same Hopefully some of these deficiencies will be compensated for in subsequent parts. At the same time several themes will be developed that may tied with causing to die, such that while killing creatures without q not have been evident so far, e.g. that in under suitable conditions is permissible, killing creatures with q is far too much killing taken much too lightly, but far too little is not, except under special conditions . 34 general experience of killing and death when it does occur, that is Given that q is 11 modern 11 societies there appropriately morally connected such a procedure would fit into the except usually among small groups mostly of inured professionals, annular picture (given earlier: q would mark out the interior of the which "shield" most humans from the phenomena involved. dotted elipse). Nor need the distinction be chauvinistic, because it cuts across species in a morally defensible way. anything, is q? located? made good? But, what, if Can a suitable morally-unloaded category-based distinction And how disconcerting would it be if some such distinction could no Wait for the next exciting episode . 35 ' 40 FOOTNOTES 41 It was singularly appropriate that this paper should have otained its first (and only) public presentation at the Alfred E. Packer Memorial Center, University of Colorado. I am indepted to several members of the audience for comments and references, and in particular for the first extension of the base case . It is noticeable how people who have never been cannibals despise the horrible thing; and how quickly it disappears when a cannibal tribe comes into contact with a wider world than that Directly merely of their own bush village. daylight falls on the habit, it Withers away . This is remarkable when we remember the sanctity The cannibal of it in primitive man's eyes . is not necessarily a hopelessly degraded brute, but-;-man who has not yet lived out of the dark obscurity of bush tribalism, and so had bli~dly_ followed a practice deep-rooted in the sacrificial These themes are defended, and the annular model explained, in The themes are also defended in HC, p. 103ff., and in AHC. other recent work, e.g. by Tooley and Singer. As the schematic diagram shows, humans do not occupy a central ring. Thus adoption of the model does not imply, what Pickering assumes (p. 374), that 'humans are more~ntral ' or, for that matter, that 'humans are owed more extensive moral consideration Nothing in the model itself depends on humans . than plants'. The model is not species based, or biologically based, but category basect";-and designed to reflect the different sorts of things there are, e . g. things capable of entering into contracts conferring obligations, and things not so capable, things that can have preferences and make choices as opposed to things that cannot (truly, or significantly), things, including systems and Nor, therefore, organisations, with a telos and things without. does the model write in a new type of chauvinism, or confer privilege or moral advantage on things in more central rings. Indeed, things in central rings will have obligations and commitments, and be subject to limitations on what they do, in ways that things further out cannot be; so there will be some As this moral disadvantages in occupying a more central place. indicates, the categories selected are intended to have moral And different sorts of behaviour are morally linkages . appropriate with respect to the different categories of objects. 2. 3. 4. The popular view that dialectics and adoption fraction of assumption themes are dangerous is partly based on a modal fallacy, For the fallacy e.g. that what can be believed is believed . in operation in more intellectually respectable quarters see WW. the Epilogue of Harris Some dialectics are accordingly recommended for anyone convinced that cannibalism must be wrong. The investigations undertaken in this paper alwshare other features with (classic) dialectics: there are many loose ends, and in several crucial areas firm conclusions are not reached. Later parts of the paper will take care of some of these things. Thus Hogg (p. 188), Cannibalism . .. can hardly be said to exist in There may be isolated the world of today. pockets of survival in the heart of New Guinea and among some of the tribes in the remotest corner of South America or African jungles; but they will be no more than the rarest of phenomena. 5. Hopkins, given the last word by Hogg, p. 192. quote from Hopkins is of passing interest: The whole ideas common to man the world over from his earliest days. 6. Some of the advantages of institutionalisation of certain cannibalistic practices are evident, e.g. a_much enh~nced Various disadvantages if not evident should supply of protein. become so in the course of the text. 7. See again in HC and similar. Although the human/nonhuman distinction is not, so it is argued, one of moral significance, not all Other distinctions of moral importance distinctions vanish. - those of the annular model - naturally remain. 8. Of coures, this practice is (still) controversial, and But a offensive to various religious and other groups. great advantage of a pluralistic society is t~at it can acconnnodate (better than alternatives) such differences Issues such as human_ . over the morality of practices . burial and restricted cannibalism, however, make the limits of present pluralism evident . 9. Or else did not incur official establishment disapproval, though the acts strictly appeared to infringe the Every s~~ond_ra~onteur has prevailing law of the land. examples of cannibals not brought to Justice . 10. . This clearly anticipates an initial argument of this My thanks to W. Berryman for drawing my attention paper. to the attitude of the Catholic Church, as presented in Read. 11. Consent in principle will carry the requisited load, and for this it is normally enough that the person would consent. This indicates one logical route to the liberalisation, and removal, of the consent clause. 12. There would (so far) be no trophies, e.g. Z's head ~n the hall, Y's skull on a stand, because trophies involve hunting and killing (for which see below). 13. As some vegetarians would freely admit; other 11 vegetar i ans II f rther and regard the killing of certain (nonself) an1•mals for food as admissible provided no suffering u, go i conscious is incurred and that the animals are replaced. . But it s true that usually 'vegeta;ians do not touch the issue of our attitudes to the dead (D., p.9) . 42 14. 15. In a like vein it is suggested that Singer and Regan do not see that 'a cow is not something to eat; (for them) it is only that one must not help the process along' (D., p. 468). The latter incidentally would not exclude the use of dead creatures for food, leather goods, etc.; things that animal liberationists like Singer definitely exclude. 43 21. Diamond recognizes this objection, p. 471, but does not meet Pace K. Bell, according to whom, Men have always hunted in the fields around Potigny and Falaise . They still do, but no longer their it. own species. 16. 17. 18. In similar ways we are said to gain the concept of an animal; s~~ p. 476. -Diamond introduces this piece of serious confusion in the course of emphasizing why the 'assumption that we all agree that it is morally wrong to raise people for meat ... is not, or not merely, ... too weak' (D.• p . 469). Diogenes Laertius, vol. 11, p. 297. Some of the complex issues concerning hunting will be considered in subsequent parts, others elsewhere. 22. See, e.g., Henson, and also Ewin and RKU . 23. A notable piece of male chauvinism also slides through, in the suggestion that, in Lhe absence of more weighty moral backing, the expressed wish of a pregnant woman is morally trivial. And Sayre reports (p. 25), Cannibalism (uv0pwno~ayCa) is alleged to have been a practice of the Cynics by Philodemus and by Theophilus Antiochenus; but, if so, it must have been confined to their early history, for they had a number of critics during the Christian era who would have mentioned it if they had known of it. Both Philodemus and Theophilus were biassed and we must remember that similar stories were told of the early Christians. However, cannibalism is said to have been authorized by the Republic and Thyestes (or Atreus) attributed to Diogenes and also by the Republic of Zeno and by Cleanthes and Chrysippus (Philodemus, On the Stoics; Theophilus Antiochenus, Ad. Autolycum 3, 5; D.L. 6, 73; Ibid. 7, 188; cf. 28th Letter of Diogenes; Dio Chrysostom 8, 14). As Diogenes Laertius goes on to explain, that 'Chrysippus did countenance the eating of dead humans was one of the points brought against him by those who 'ran him down as having written much in a tone that was gross and indecent'. As regards such attitudes to the dead, times have not changed that much. The (idea of) eating "the dead" (dead humans, of course), under ~ circumstances, is still widely regarded as scandalous, and highly newsworthy (see Read, p . 296 ff). 19. Cannibalism which involves explicit killing for food is a kind of reflexive predation, but generally (cases of) cannibalism and predation only properly overlap. 20. An example would be where some of the survivors of a crash or wreck hunt other "survivors" in order to survive; cf. W. Golding, Lord of the Flies. 24. But one's life-purposes are diminished lhow can this be on Young's picture?) if they jeopDrdise those of others. Hence Young's preparedness to let Amin be killed by the stampeding horses, Yp. 527. 25 . Indeed it leads, as Young interprets it, to a more sensible vegetarianism than Singer's initial position (in Animal Liberation, not as significantly modified in Sp.153). neither culling nor predation are simply ruled out. 26. For Action and taking action should be construed in a wide, but common enough fashion, e.g. the action taken may amount to doing nothing or getting-the-hell-out-of-it. 27. It is tempting to try to prove this on the basis of a proper inclusion assumption, that where letting die is wrong so is killing, but not conversely. The assumption may, however, need qualification; e . g. killing may sometimes be preferable to letting died in a lingering way . 28. 'Predation" is a singularly unfortunate word to be stuck with to describe this universal phenomenon. It is unfortunate both because of its etymology, and because of its other meaning . At to the first, ' predation' derives from praedari, 'to plunder', which derives in turn from praedo, 'booty', As to the second, 'predation' also means a 'practice or addiction to plunder or robbery'. Both carry strong negative connotations. There is a similar damaging duality in the expressions 'prey' and 'prey upon'. 29. These defective considerations also lead to a maximisati~n of population of creatures of the base class assigned values, up to the limit - if any (on frontier philosophers there are none) where declining returns set in . Where, further, humans are typically, but erroneously, assigned greater value than other creatures, the considerations support the rapid biassing of terrestial fauna! population in favour of humans that we are witnessing. The second point does not apply, in that form, . against biol0gical egalitarianism, and the first objection fails where total value is replaced, as under some utilitarianisms (with what justification is less clear, since surely we want to maximise value so far as constraints permit: see RKU), by average value, average value per (base class) life lived, etc. 44 The argument in the text is not affected materially by switching from value analogues of total utilitarianism to analogues of some form of average utilitarianism. On some of the serious problems with these utilitarianisms, see Jamieson. 30. Drengson, following Naess and others, espouses 'biospheric egalitarianism and the intrinsic value of all life' (p. 222). According to the theory, each (living) being has intrinsic value (pp.233-4), and hence each presumably has equal worth (and is entitled, in Singer's terms, to equal consideration , if not equal treatment). In Naess and Drengson this biospheric egalitarianism is qualified by an in principle clause. According to Naess, 'The 'in principle' clause is inserted because any realistic praxis necessitates some killing, exploitation and suppression' (p.95), and according to Drengson, 'This qualification is made with the simple recognition that we cannot live without affecting the world to some degree' (the latter claim is inadequate, because it is not just 'we' who are involved). 31. Axiological approaches that are atomistic have other problems, some reminiscent of those Wittgenstein discusses for logical atomism. In particular, how do we locate the atoms to which value is supposed to adhere fundamentally. A first bad feature of this approach is invariance failure: it matters for final summations how the atoms are chosen, for different choices will assign complexes quite different values. Secondly (Wittgenstein's question), why are some things said to be atoms not complexes, and vice versa. A third group of problems, brought out in HC, concerns the choice of a base class. 32. An environmental ethic s:1oul.:l. also be an ccologic:1 I et!dc, sense of an ecologically realistic ethic. facts are certainly relevant. 32a. A detailed case for this claim 33. j:1 t lH· In this resepct too the appears in Routley and Griffin. Thus rp can be made to yield a good deal more than Young's application of his proposal (for which he offers no proper justification): A creature is entitled to kill another creature of lesser value when its life (and so all its functions, prospects, etc.) depends on it and when it does not kill more creatures than it needs for these purposes. And the dubious business of imposing such order rankings on creatures can be bypassed. 34. The qualifications are necessary. If the latter exceptional conditions clause were not adjoined, the prospe ct of finding a condition q would be wiped out by such cases of essential predation as exceptional human cannibalism. The qualifications, although they enhance the prospects of locating such a q, do not appear to make it analytic or near analytic that such a descriptive q can be found. 45 35. Not only are there many proposals for q to sift through - most of which however seem to fail for reasons already indicated in the text - but also there are apparent options to finding such a distinction, such as resetting the problem, in a less individualistic way, in the framework of (ecological) communities. REFERENCES K. Bell, Not in Vain, University of Toronto Press, 1973, REFERENCES CONTINUED P.E, Devine, 'The moral basis of vegetarianism ', Philosophy 53 (1978) · 481-505 . (all references prefixed with 'V' are to this article) , C. Diamond, ' Eating meat and eating people', Philosophy (references hereto are prefixed by 'D'). 53 (1978) 465-77, Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers (edited, with English translation, by R. D. Hicks), Heinemann , London, 1925, A.R . Drengson, ' Shifting paradigms: from the Technocratic to the PersonPlanetary', Environmental Ethics 2 (1980) 221-40, R. E. Ewin, ' What is wrong with killing people? ' Philosophical Quarterly tl..<. (197;t) 126-39. M, Harris, Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches, Fontana, London , 1977 (hereafter prefixed by 'W.W.'). M, Harris, Cannibals and Kings , Collins , London, 1978 (hereafter prefixed by ' CK '), R. Henson, ' Utilitarianism and the wrongness of killing', Philosophical Review 80 (1971) :1.u,- n7. D. Jamieson,'Utilitarianis m and the value of life', typescript, University of Colorado, 1981. J, Glover, Causing Death and Saving Lives, Penguin, Middlesex, England, 1977 . L.P. Pickering, Review of ' Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century ', Environmental£.£,.~-~ 2 (1980) 373-78 . G. Hogg , Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice, Robert Hale, London, 1958. (references hereto are prefixed by 'H'), R. and V. Routley, 'Against the inevitability of human chauvinism ' in Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century, eds , K, E. Goodpaster and K. M. Sayre, University of Notre Dame Press, 1979, (Hereafter prefixed by ' AHC') . J. Langton, Cannibal Feast, Herbert Joseph, London, 1937. L, Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, Blackwell, Oxford, 1953. A. Naess, 'Self-realisation in a mixed community of humans ·, bears, sheep and wolves', Inquiry 22 (1971) 231-41 , A. Naess, ' The shallow and the deep . long-range ecology movement. Inquiry A s11mmr1ry'~ 16 (1':173) 95-100. P.P, Read, Alive, Avon, New York, 1974. R. and V. Routley, 'An expensive repair kit for utilitarianism', typescript 1976 (hereafter referred to as ' RKU ' ). R. and V, Routley, ' Human chauvinism and environmental ethics' in Environmental Philos~ (ed. D. Mannison, M. McRobbie and R. Routley), RSSS , Australian National University , 1980 (the article is referred to as ' HC' , the book as ' EP ' ), F. Sayre, Diogenes of Sinope , A study of Greek Cynicism, Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore, 1938. P. Singer, 'Killing humans and killing animals', Inquiry 22 (1979) 146- 56, (references hereto are prefixed by ' S '). R. Tannahill, Flesh and Blood. A History of the Cannibal Complex , Hamilton , London, 1975 . Hamish M. Tooley , Abortion and Infanticide, typescript, Australian National University, 1980, R. Young, ' What is so wrong with killing people?' Philosophy 5¥ (1979) (all references prefixed with ' Y' are to this article) , 515-528 R. Routley and N. Griffin, 'Unravelling the meanings of life', available in this series , 1982. ) /.o,..,.,,,, l. ~ / , . ~ tA-- ~ <'"'1 ---- 3/ }o/t/v/~}~4--( ~~ ·~~O·\o ~ --..., \0~'203.l\. <;c..c.tt.,. ~ ~ a.I) . ~~ ~✓:. ,;,,tf ~ .r. ..... ---,(7> o-,.J /' ,,,((; 11 / c, ~ I ( _ ///,;.,/ /c/ (',.,./// 1' ,. ~ L: 1 -=y' 1/ ,/L ~ -=~ t<..,(' •.r<-- <-r-? ,r"'t, 7 ; /4... I ~,. /J/4/,JJ ( 0 -/4, -;IL l r~ rk . rr_!j, ~lb f f.o fvr-~ ~tf?>J ;_/.. « ~ YL r1.M- ~~ J'fM~J Cif ~✓ ,/.~ ) . <=<- ,,._., wh ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ?/;1 ~ ~~ rry~t ~ ,t(!__ 16;=,·~--f:; ~ h ~ ¥,-I- ..<-D /4 ~ :f f/-L -. J,¥i~~ f 9~ (3/-~~) (I ~~ 1- h,c>_~ x /~~ -/2-(;:L r J,?-- l ~re:- )( 07A~ c/4;t-~ ,4,,.~ 7' ~rrvf j e1~,k 'U"- 0 ~ vl'f.. /411-1 ~~ 1 ,...~,._£.~ I~ 7"Y-'? ,• or ' 7 ,/.tL~ =- #--~✓ " -,/ ~~ "'~ e.~.,__,,., ..l<A--C- , 7 l'/4~ (k/v( ~ A-Ld , c-£-{,~.,.,. t-/~r;;,;-,,.:__ , C, - ~1 < "'t: ~ 4- 7,1; ,..~~ I /Jo N T T,,f'/c,- y•1 1//;rE r,vt{l. /2 <",I!.,.. '::.. {-,A/ j,._~ __:_ /,._,_ 'd / ~~-;. ,, 11 o,r ;i'a '7 .~/2 ?,(_ C/ I /;,(if'-:J;J__(;1:,-· J',(J; JJ;<~'r;b,f'/ ... Y ,1,f; ;,;--,ftlfr -~, £' .r.::._/, /•;· /''"/.' f.// / /, (cf,,,_;..,<-f (,_) :y;-._7 ,//<--"f .j•,/7 • C ~ • ~.:!__,,_ •-v, f//dl#l£ , < ~, r/ • 1,-e.--., t. ~ #J tq- 7' : ~ , ,.':_ J/'C4(. ~ &nJltJ[e "71fLt..H "1/'~ c~ "4 C/1 .. 't ,.,. ... ~;: .. t.t..4 r~ c~ /~J I~ ~~ ,H" ._ ~t/ ~l-d_ I (' rt-lrC , I ,,I, /.,_,.. .,.,.____ /4-..- C- ,,,,_ ~ , /4,L._ '-- . ,.__,_ te(A~ / 4 ~ , , fc. ~,;,,d~ t;, ~~7Y24~ h /c r n.., ,W·r ht<I I t!l"--vv-t_. t : - ;{ c.--<- u....., ( , It ~'-? I 1 ,JKc} ~ ~-✓f ;,z.. M~ / tkl-· .:I- / 1 t.~ ,.,e1 ;,-,:. ~ ~"7 f cjrl; ~ I_;.,_ 1 L,,3:-:r;-,1 •-v->-1- • 4, pS,.,(£-.,-. . ftr~ J/4. /red-,~ , _;, ~·~/~<l ' /""= cd/7 ;/ ~<¥<- J,r 7""° 1,/,,:,A -z/1.,/h/7 /,(~ • t:i.C.1 / /d'tr 7 ;:. rJ- ~:,,1 "l j 1 ( ,"'p> '(. f (,~ 0 11/'- 1 t<~ ~ ~ 4-7/J t /2-c. ) 7 /~ ?'~J 1/)):-/. ( / ~r,,.,,__,, ~,:,,..,,...,~ . l)';•.:Z:~-e-M-;I /fa ! ") ;; ,' ~ ~~ L ' A-7~ J~j 1/ ~ ~£" v:_._i eye- ,c. y),6 7 ) \ d,; ~ 1 a,___ r/ d't .ru), Cl»,~ ' ~L The following has been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. Cutting, Scholfield B (17 August 1988) 'A human role for the pig', The Weekly Times, 14. (1 leaf) - / / / . -7 / <et ? -·- -·-- C:; /~ ~, u / f l ~ Jc,._ '? ~ (,, ?0_/~ c c:i--l 7 ,5'<.. / 17 -~ ,..-tt'!' . : . - - - ---- ·-- - · · - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~oc-. r-c- a., r..,_,/- t .)I~ , ) / ~ ?! / . / c..rc.v ~~ //._ J OAJ 77/c /~/?t:J/f??pvc~ c:>~ 77rr" , I /}(,ifth('i/l'J7lt>p)( ;T//VC/73 ,v - cJ,,,C ~E ./,PH/6:-J ,,f/t;I~ I The following have been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. • • Typescript, with handwritten emendations and annotation. Two reference reports on Cannibalism I. (2 leaves) Cutting (photocopy) of 'Necessity as a common law doctrine? [6.40] R v Dudley and Systems', The system of criminal law: cases and materials, 544-551. (4 leaves) The following have been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. • • • Cutting (photocopy) of 20 pages from unidentified publication on Pioneers-Donner Party-The Mormons, 526-545. (10 leaves) Letter, Bill to Richard, 7 Oct 1981 re feedback on Richard Sylvan's paper on cannibalism. (2 leaves) Letter, Robert to Richard, 7 Oct 1981 re feedback on Richard Sylvan’s paper on cannibalism. (2 leaves) I I - I :/.,, f. - - - -- ----------------- - - - - - ----- ---- ----- ___________, --------- ----------·------------- - - ----- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -- ------ - - - - - - - - --- $ ~ /~ .2Z- - - - --- - _ _L __ /4 r<./ ...---a~ l 2, ck?- _.:., t';_.~ ~ o_ _s_ ,,. .,/:,_ ~ , {- ~ M7-e;:__ /4?-l, _:., /.: ~ / ; ~ / /--/ ,a-~~ ,4d - - ~ c 1 /dLC4'--=·- - C4--~ _,t:?~7 ,-4,-,/4._ / - /2.; ~<"F' §5 . Raising humans and other animals for food. Humans have lit tle compuncti on, for the most part, in rearing other animals for food . Since healthy animals that are raised for food often excell humans, especially humans that are "defective " in one way or another , little , except considera tions of species , seems to stand in the way of raising such humans for food . We are in the region of Swift ' s modest proposal again . What distinguis hes creatures humans (and other creatures capable of animal husbandry) are entitled to raise for food from creatures that they are not? It is not difficult to state some constrain ts on t he solution of this problem, which also rule out usual solutions . First , the distinctio n should be independe nt of reference to particula r species , especially of reference to the human species , and also indirect reference thereto, by way of phrases such as ' standard ... ' , ' normal ... . ' 'potential ... ' . Secondly - and this furnishes the ground of the first requireme nt the basis of the distinctio n should be morally relevant i n the way that mere zoologica l distinctio ns are not: otherwise chauvinism is not avoided . ' The replaceme nt principle Singer adopts for benign farmyard husbandry fails on this score , among others (the others being that many farmyard animals seem to satisfy the requireme nts for being selfconsci ous beings) . Not being selfconsc ious , which is supposed to justify replaceme nt, under ideal farming condition s , lacks requisite moral linkage . Singer ' s move does however emphasi ze ' 31. two important things . First , the familiar objections to animal husbandry, e.g. on grounds of cruelty or deprivation to animals, are remove.e\ by considering only (ideal) free-range individualised farmyard husbandry . Secondly, some distinction (fit to take its place in the annular picture) with requisite moral linkage is what is sought . Any distinction that is going to work will have to involve the capacities of the creatures concerned , in such a way that the capacities tie with moral features . The capacities concerned are, obviously, capacities connected with being aware of being raised for food . But this is not sufficiently general, being raised for killing or for cartage or for skin or fur or feathers would be similar, and similarly bad or whatever; lacks moral connection . and it still What all the cases have in common which is general, one which has (as already noted) moral connections , is being used as a means . The sought distinction is accordingly made in terms of creatures that are capable of being aware of their case primarily as means for other, for their food , etc. U-creatures, say, as opposed to A-creatures . 21 no means all, are A-creatures: infants are not . Many humans, but Why this distinction? 21 There are probably other requir e ments as we ll: e . g. that not in midst of present worthwhile projects; e.g. Mrs. Goose is not raising young, etc. The following have been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. • • • • • Photocopy of Young R (1979) 'What is so wrong with killing people?', Philosophy, 54(21):515-528, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100063531. (8 leaves) Cutting, Ewin R (1972) 'What is so wrong with killing people?', The Philosophical Quarterly, 22(87): 126-139, https://doi.org/10.2307/2217540. (14 leaves) Typescript (carbon copy) of untitled paper attached to Ewin cutting. (18 leaves) Photocopy of Singer P (1979) 'Killing humans and killing animals', Inquiry, 22:1-4, 145156, https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747908601869. (6 leaves) Photocopy of one page (157) from Lockwood M (1979) 'Singer on killing and the preference for Life', Inquiry, 22:1-4, 157-170, https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747908601870. (1 leaf) t . • ~ /,o.R-,4-.. ~t ~,, ,,_,;L ~ C~"'1 /C'.tt---? ,.... ,._._ ~ e.-;- __ jf1~ ~ rur 6 ""efc7'/ ~ ,,,<e,,,.,;z,r4? ~ c,,__,,,- .1 ------~ ,,-v-9"' ~ "'-<- r = c:e/4 /4--,- ~/~~-~ P.f.?4 ,..,.,,PE' r e ~ 7~~ y?f /2 ~c;k__/"7'/~ 7 ~ / 7~ / /,..,;,, ~ ,?£ / ~J" r-tr= / t:t_ ~7, /9-7 r~ o-/4-~ ,.ve- / _,/~,/ ;:7'/ /re-v -~ (~ ,,{~9 C'l<-,r /4 ~vr,, 1~ /c{. rL r ,' ~ ,~ 7-£ ~ - - ~ ~ . , , ~; / " ' - - /c~V-- ~ ~ -~ ~ L <r7J\ _0 / ~ ~~ 0 - ~ 7L 7 C-£-..,/,4c,.~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /.? ~ ~ =,/---6-- ~ . ~(' ~ ~ cv;·n! ' To -J~ > /~&:, -6-,e> ~ ~ ~7f 7~ ~ /~~ ~,,,_7 ,;,_~ 4/ ~/ C ~~ o/· //4- ~ / ~ /~ 7~ ~ ?¼_ 11 ~ M,- '--+-€- /~1) / ~ ,~ --/?~/ 4:- ..,,.,,,, ,,./" &-"'7/<" c, /4 Ye-/ U.:.... ~ ;/ / 7'~L. . ~ ~,, i 7,2 ~ ~ .,/4 /< ; e-.,, ' ~ ;,I'£ .Y CJ/-?!' , ,_, ·/,,.r.,.-........-,. , ,,__ s « ~ ?< 0~ /~L,, ,4_._ / Cb- i,_,.__1 c-.r r~ /2 re:_ ~ h'L 7 '---71J r-"-"- 3-.. d..-. ~~:; d:....-../ ~ ~_/~ The following have been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. • • • • • • Photocopy of Diamond C (1978). 'Eating meat and eating people', Philosophy, 53(206): 465-479, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3749876. (8 leaves) Photocopy from The Encyclopedia Americana (1978) 'Cannibalism', The Encyclopedia Americana, 2: 543-544. (2 leaves) Photocopy from Britannica Encyclopedia (1969) 'Cannibalism', Britannica Encyclopedia, 4: 785. (1 leaf) Photocopy from Chambers's Encyclopaedia (1966) 'Cannibalism', Chambers's Encyclopaedia, 3: 50. (1 leaf) Photocopy of Naess A (1979) 'Self‐realization in mixed communities of humans, bears, Sheep, and Wolves', Inquiry, 22:1-4, 231-241, https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747908601874. (6 leaves). Photocopy of one page (2273) from unidentified dictionary, Pre-collection to Predecree. (1 leaf) r)I':, t; 1 ·-et I r o-f 6 ?\/ih'i I Jet ~t·.?t'cc If33 •• 11t1;,.,_4,, ;; w ; ~ ) ~,,c._! / //,,,,.---: J:~w ~ J/4 ~"~t New- f'-w1r- > ~:/~4-;-, L 1/75 /I ~-~erY /, • ,I J Lcz ~ ' d cc c e::es ,f c::::e.. ~ .. . -1~ ~~ ;/w,;.,L;:;,',,,._ ,;/ a,~}:z;:__ dL-0~ " 7 1 f,t} 0 ~ ~ A. ~~ - 7'~ - . ' -f ~i,t;i,:___ ~✓~ ~~ . - - /z;j/M?!, ,<4 n/41"? r - / ·~ ·7 - Jo - ~ C:~~ - ~..,;t,J;j,,. - ... c.-C~1/~ - 7"1(~ /'<d~ ..£.... ,;:_~ 74::,,,'~ /k,,. ~~ ~ -4- . ~/17 '_ ~ 1IIE !1i l/lL/7? . ··• .,. Men have always hunted in the fields around They still do, but no • longer their own species. (K. Bell, Not in Vain, University of ~oronto Press, 1973) .,, Petigny and Falaise .  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 59, Item 681: Notes and cuttings on predation (for Cannibalism II) Subject The topic of the resource Typescripts and handwritten notes. Includes copies of published works by other authors and letters. Description An account of the resource Published works and letters redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 59, Item 681 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [119] leaves. 30.57 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Notes and cuttings Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:de64185">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:de64185</a> Box 59: Nuclear Como House Como House > Cupboard > Pile 3 https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/979159be0f3d1109bd5b22759db1f0fd.pdf 249a2a5345757b3734cdd80aed300e08 PDF Text Text WORKING DRAFT 1'l}l' T1 1,,i··) CULTURE, PHILOSOPHY, AND APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT - AN AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE Many of you know that Canberra was originally designed by Walter Burley 'lO Griffin. This talk is dedicated to him. You may not know that Griffin, an c111,d l,ee,tJ>,, I! a ,~cJ/2...ru/.1t-l/ '";~1/n,-,l,c1... American who migrated to Australia in 1913, was not simply an architect and A lantlscape designer_, but one of Australia's early deeper ecologists. key elements of the Western industrial paradigm, especially on making nature the servant of man', 'land to be accorded the 'concentration and discerned instead elements of a different 'consciousness' (the word is his). took the He rejected His approach was holistic, and respect he due to a highly developed and perfected living organism not to be exterminated or treated as dead material, or as a mere section of a map'. Canberra, now no mere section of map, is still, for all its deficiencies, perhaps the best approximation anywhere .eco~osic-.w, city; but it is not only removed from Griffin's original conception but far from deep ecological ideals. * * *3 * * * * The objective of the larger investigation, of which this part, is to gauge the extent to which Australian contrasted with American culture, contains developable will underpin a under which many suffers. talk sketches a culture, especially as elements (seeds) which different political framework from the bastardised capitalism people presently labour and local environment frequently It is not necessary to see the present political arrangements and the political course interested to in charted as environmentally alternative structures: socially disastrous to be it is enough, for example, to view them r ,i,v~c~ntL..:f- [.<-ol"l,-" hd<--t r7' <-.~ .::.. P,r~t- f tl. /~J 1 or J I C-IJll·A-r~u... ) ~ tn "S. �those as far from satisfactory, or very far from the of best to be interested in the prospects of turning things around somewhat, to worlds, increasing ecological resistance [negative action] against vandalism and like, and ecological construction [direct positive action]. the grounds give remarkable level of environmental activism that has the especially hope, damage, environment There are several distinctive features of Australian culture that for attainable of somehow emerged among the people. It is worth trying to pull together some of these features of the culture, to look at ways of furthering the valuable parts, and increasing the level of concern and activism. the towards practices, and attitudes different approaches, different 1 Indeed appreciation of, environment. have cultures different Without doubt practices towards, and respect for the natural environment are highly culturally dependent: and where they still survive uncorrupted still have - nonimperial cultures had much exploitative less whose North, industrial exploitation approaches to practices not vandalism and the environment merely environmental but to a marked extent depend upon such practices. control" their of local typically under the missionary, colonial or imperial domination. in But occasionally, notably retained the of those than gross permit Mostly these more benign cultures have however "lost environments, Most American Jews and American Indians. instance, for compare, sufficient autonomy the to adjacent Pacific, regional cultures 2 have slow or even halt environmental destruction. Thus, for example, rainforest damaging projects have been delayed or blocked in Melanesia largely through Melanesian attitudes to the land. One important way then to try to slow environmental degradation, especially in the South, is to foster certain both sweepingly, regional cultural autonomy; socialism and indigenous for cultural instance land rights movements. 2 differences to support and, more Melanesian For, where the cultures have �not been excessively corrupted by Northern influences, this is rapid way of paradigms. in the a cultural differences can also serve Antipodes, in particular in Australia, to at least assist in transition to different Such comparatively activating alternative paradigms to the dominant Northern social The question arises whether elsewhere a less environmentally exploitative social paradigms. transition is unlikely to occur unless it is based on the culture. Can features of the culture and the social life be used to foster and make requisite differences? In the case of Australia, a basis culture, is there both in the land and the and things appear sufficiently different from those in the cultures of the industrialised North to allow (some hope) for cultural differentiation. the need for change, at least if the natural environment is to retain some It semblance of integrity, there is little doubt. that there is, in is becoming platitudinous the longer run not much prospect for the integrity of many local natural environments and ecosystems loose Of 3 unless we in the Antipodes break from the damaging cultural assumptions and practice of the industrialised North and work destructive towards establishment of a less in some parts, rising tide war. of For despite environmental the industrialised North still appears in the grip of established forces and unlikely to budge in time - short of nuclear environmentally culture, towards a certain regional cultural autonomy. elements of regionalism in the North, despite a concern different disaster, such Though we who seek change can count on some support from minority movements in the North, nonetheless if we are to achieve changes, we must go largely alone. Nor is the Australia because as well as the location, the advantage of the ground and its southern seeds of cultural difference are already there and growing. cultivation. Such a it task of paradigm transition entirely hopeless in like most new and more fragile developments they need attention and speedy as careful But if task is rendered urgent also by other matters of 3 �environmental and human concern, not just the gathering signs but colossal biological losses through of nuclear rapid destruction of, e.g. war, tropical rainforests, indeed mounting evidence of environmental decline almost everywhere humans now establish. How does philosophy fit into the strategy of harnessing regional culture to alter approaches to the environment? As in the title of the talk it operates in the middle, not as an idle middleman, but more like and design culture. principles A working picture that the main components of the discussion together - a picture that also like most images of the more abstract distorts across organising of the dynamic linkage in a good suspension bridge, which lifts the environmental way on the ropes of regional links the is that of a suspension the gap often separating people from the natural environment. bridge There are people, and the environment, and approaches by bridges to the environment, like so:- approach ➔ Natural Environment People (Of course people may be part of the natural environment: the picture doesn't exclude that important overlap.) The connecting bridges may be of very different sorts, ranging from rustic bridges good for careful foot traffic, through the monumental suspension bridge at Middle Harbour, to modern high-tech bridges able to carry nuclear tanks and bulldozers over large spans. of But it is the structure all these types of bridges carrying the approaches that matter particularly. The spans are carried by the ropes of culture, and the pylons of culture if 4 you �will. ~ {dC"' CULTURE l (--.__ APPROACH ~ ____,___.- ·'--- So with approaches. different ------- ----- - cultures, different carrying bridges different It is better to see the link component in the middle - philosophy, but it might almost as well be sociology - not as part of the nuts and bolts and rivets of the structures. types, bridges, but rather It has its analytical computing the loads and as parts, the design looking stresses at on them; and engineering of the the components, and it also has its more holistic elements, considering the bridges themselves and of them their - the social paradigms embedded in the cultures. select substructures Philosophy, the link subject, is then the architecture and engineering of the business. Less figuratively, assumptions of a philosophy replacement, or marxist philosophies. deep ecology, asks deeper assumptions of all and and assumptions paradigms. the operative for example of free Philosophy, especially metaphysics and not deeper questions, extracting the fundamental other subjects and assembling the intellectual assumptions embodied in a culture or social way of life, i.e. social assembles culture applied in environmental practices, the assumptions, that is, to be considered for enterprise isolates In what are sometimes called the this respect philosophy - which includes much more than conceptual analysis - is first among the intellectual subjects, as logic, the science of reasoning, is the first among the sciences, investigating the form of arguments and methodology of all other sciences. philosophical investigation extracts, 5 The deeper assumptions such when put together yield a philosophy in �the more popular sense (as e.g. enterprise philosophy): in philosophy of life or again the free in any case the result will be a philosophical theory or the rudiments of a philosophical paradigm, depending on how it is done. By largely philosophical investigation then, assumptions of the techniques we try contrasted base. with operative to test apparent we trace and Northern social paradigms; the adequacy social of the organise the and by sociological assemblage, especially as alternatives with some environmental support So much has already been accomplished, in a rough and ready way, and some results are illustrated in diagram 1. Details of other positions, the old culture (as positions typically offer environmental a projected), transition alternative. are from And and new left and the counter included in the diagram because these the while the dominant it may Western appear paradigm to indeed is - a long political way from the dominant paradigm to the environmental alternative, of the intermediate taken one at a time. details steps is not so great; To illustrate the way transitions can of the first line (row) in macro-economic form. construed as representing package typically includes environment, so the in components each and the steps can, and have, been be made, consider The dominant objective is to maximize some economic package of goods and services being such as GDP, a rough way standard of living. minimal to quality of life this But the and and pollution, and perhaps with additions for non-material features excluded in dominant consciousness. this way we arrive at New Left thinking with the objective to considerable reservations, X(RR). of material goes back to Greek philosophy; 6 In growth The real break however comes with members of the counterculture, the Hippies and Yippies for example, idea the objective function to be maximized gets much complicated, with subtractions for externalities such as noise subject the though the namely, the abandonment of growth and �maximization objectives altogether, for less material nonmaximizing the macroeconomic steady-state objective or will level, for economy, something economists have so far sketched. which Daly for At the idea gets partially represented by the goal of a sustainable be goals. example though the alternative environmental much less inflexible and nationalistic than In fact the "emerging steady-state advocates, paradigm", affords only a shallow alternative to the dominant paradigm, differing only as to growth and reserves themes. But a fuller diagram of paradigms would include - among others such advanced corporate capitalism the higher-dimensional steady state position; involve would However, the higher dimensional how a better argued transition can be made; diagram essentially by combining steady-state arguments against macroeconomic growth and stocks assumptions the Left-socialist combination, which framework would a diagram, and remove the convenient ~simplification of the two dimensional left-right transition. indicates it so case does not against microeconomic themes. touch human relations, a with Even so, even with the narrower anthropocentric have been left behind, deeper environmental concern would have only began to enter. Reaching behind the dominant Western paradigm so outlined to the underlying social model takes us towards the following familiar picture: society consists of a set of individual humans of decidedly impoverished type, e.g. they are not genuinely interrelated, so they are isolated, and, though they are the only sort of items that have intensional (mental) features, they have (e.g. a certain ability to calculate). but few of these At bottom, these individuals have utilities, reflecting preferences or self-interests, which they aim to maximize; and so they are competitive (by virtue of scarcity). that they are possessive, and possess capital. The distinctive the feature means of Their other feature is production, e.g. land, of the American model is of course is that individuals can separately accumulate the means of production. 7 To ensure their �rABLI J. COMPLll NG SOC IAL l'ARAD IGMS <ENVIRONMENTALLY - OR I [ifl [D REPRESEIITAT IONJ .... RIGHT - LEFT POLITICAL ORIENTAT!Otl DOMINANT (XJ WESTERN PARADIGM CORE THEMES ECONOMIC ORGANISATIONAL POLITICAL FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIAL (ECONOMIC) GROWTH DOMINANCE OVER NATURE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT A RESOURCE MARKET FORCES (MINIMALLY REGULATED, PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFIT MAXIMIZING) PREDOMINANTLY PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTIVE MEANS I ND IV I DUALI ST I c/ COMPETITIVE ETHOS ELITIST/REWARDS FOR APPROVED ACHIEVEMENT CONSUMERISM ENCOURAGED URBAN-INDUSTRIAL COMMODITY/CULTURAL PACKAGING CENTRALISED : URBAN CENTRED LARGE-SCALE: ORDERED (POWER-) HIERARCHICAL HUMAN RELATIONS SECONDARY /OLD 1LEFT /NEW LEFT 1 I X 1X<R) X X I X IX 1X<RRl I y IX<R) I X ➔ Y 1X<Rl I X(RR) !COMMAND SYSTEM I I I I y y I y :X(Q) I y I X I X(Q) I X I X xrn> 1 IX :x-v I X X<R) I X-'>Y NATIONAL FOCUS; MILITARY DEFENCE X I I X ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURES (POWER-BROKERS AND EXPERTS PROMINENT) LAW AND ORDER; LEGAL REGULATION, POLICE BACKED X X 1X<Q> IX(Q) i X I ly(R) FAITH IN SCIENCE: HIGH TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS SEPARATION OF REASON/ EMOTION, FACT/VALUE, SCIENTIFIC/UTILITARIAN RATIONALITY; ANALYTIC REDUCTIONISTIC y ly(Q) I AMPLE RESERV~S (OR (SUBSTITUTES) [NVIRONMENTAL CONTROLLABLE! y IXCQ) I X->Y I I Y<Q> I y I I v Y X<R) y /HUMAN RELATIONS !PRIMARY 'v<Q> I X X·->Y y y 'xrn> 'x<R> y X I 1X<R) X I X X X I X IX X :x<R> y X I X y X I X I RATIONALITY I I I /REJECTED I IDEEP ECOLOGY 1DISTINGU!Sfl[D I I !GREATER VALUE ASSUMPTIOt-j /REJECTED (FOR BIOSPECIES /IMPART I ALI TY) /TRADITIONAL MARKETS WITHIN PUBLIC INTEREST / FRAMEWORK LIMITED OWNERSHIP OF / PRODUCTIVE MEANS jDECENTRALISED: I I I Y/NON OWNERSHIP COMMUNAL I I /SMALL-SCALE; FLEXIBLE NON-(POWER)HIERARCHJCAL /HUMAN RELATIONS WITHIN / ECO-COMMUN I TY REGIONAL/NEIGHBOURHOOD I FOCUS; SOCIAL (NON- /VIOLENT) DEFENCE / PARTICIPATIVE STRUCTURES l(cJTIZEN-WORKER I INVOLVEMENT) /LIBERATION; SOCIAL /REGULATION /EARTH SUPPLIES LIMITED y /NATURE DELICATELY BALANCED 1NATURE BENIGN /OTHER ANIMALS ALSO INTENTIONAL X➔Y I /COLLECTIVE ETHOS/ ,soCJAL PROVISION EGALITARIAN/INCOME NEED I RELATED / CAREFUL USE/RECYCLING ' /Y(ES SENT IAL) LOCALIS~LF-MANAGEMENT /PRODUCT/CULTURE EMPHASIS/ y y ? !ALTERNATIVE (Y) ENVIRONMENTAL PAR.4DIGM 1 / LE SS MATERIAL GOALS (E,G, SELF- REALISATION) /HARMON Y WITH NATURE /NATURAL ENVIRONMENT VALUED FOR ITSELF I y I y I I ICOUNTER 1CULTURE I I I STATE lowNERSHIP X X X NATURE HOSTILE/NEUTRAL NONHUMANS ESSENTIALLY ME CHAN I ST! C EPISTEMIC/ PHILOSOPHIC DOMINANT ISTATE I SOCIALIST ... I LIMITS TO SCIENCE: IAPPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY ! INTEGRATION OF REASON/ EMOTION, FACT/VALUE , , , I~/J DER RATIONALITY (OR) REJECTION OF NARROWER; /HOLi ST IC IV /NATURAL AS TELEOLOGICAL I I ..• • I �entitlement to this is the initial argument, on this model, for the coercive apparatus of the (minimal) state. natural, this about self-interested Features There is nothing compulsory, or Individuals picture. competing individuals are matter of these nurture, abstract not nature. of the American economic archtype are a matter of culture, a result of training, not human nature, as a comparison where approximating particularly individuals are not like this, individuals embody rationality either: with helps other traditional show. cultures, Nor do these archtypal only a question-begging argument leads to the American model as something naturally required. The transitions to the left already go beyond the American model. certain introduces human The relations. chauvinistic (anthropocentric) but they do left not models omit are social The left still human relations: the further big step to the environmental alternative is to widen these relations to full community relations, independent value. recognising That is a creatures and nonhuman things as of bigger step, a step that no Western political institutions make requisite allowance for, and that mainstream underpinning Western value theories do not accommodate. The arguments from traditional cultures can also be illustrated paradigms and cultures such as those the of models Melanesia that and directed underlie Polynesia, them. many of against the In traditional the operative assumptions of the Northern social paradigms are, very reasonably, not accepted. Where these cultures still prevail with some measure of regional autonomy, there is good prospect of thwarting more environmentally destructive practices. Features of the local culture can be immediately harnessed. But much of the inhabited and there are already New governed and by environmentally less unscathed World peoples of predominantly European stock. distinctive features 8 observable in New World is now Although cultures, �assumptions of the dominant Northern paradigms have hardly been sufficiently questioned, let alone overthrown, especially among the manag~rial other, or even lesser, features of surprisingly leave out There are cultures significant as artistic and intellectual usually cultural industrial culture, though economically dominated accompanying other conspicuous The incomplete social paradigms outlined do not exhaust features of the accompanying rather to be icing. discerned, features. sure, This does affords European culture. This alternatives. a discrepancies. established have an somewhat as that in romanticism and a significant feature of American Indian gives *l but Northern precarious foothold for an aesthetic approach to the environment, such evidenced So the cultures will have to be invoked if change in approach is to be hastened in this way. cultural features to be considered. classes. But the basis there of are the as aesthetic well more route to important environmental omissions and In particular, the dominant American paradigm omits reference to religion; also neglected are many of the connected older and formerly more prominent values of American culture. The American search for environmentally acceptable alternatives has regularly turned to these omitted features of American culture, and religious or spiritual elements, and associated past values 4 • establish "the gospel of ecology" and displace the dominant paradigm have taken a spiritual route, a quasi-religious way. and Indeed the primary attempts to representative new environmentalism: (For example, Nash provides a sample list of the books he considers important in the rise of the virtually all that proceed beyond ecology depend on an appeal to religious elements, to divine or sacred features of natural things.) In the context of American culture the appeal something to be said for it. to religious features has For, firstly, a high proportion of the American population profess some active religious commitment; • 9 and, unlike Australia, a �substantial do proportion act response. And, secondly, religious values do clash with dominant Northern paradigm. This sort of socially that with accordance in conflict precepts the was approved of perceived, considerable puzzlement, by colonised cultures, as Lini reports in the case the with of Melanesian society (p.9): The fabric of this society, with its inherent communal discipline was torn by the arrival of European commercial practices which ••• carried with it the message of materialism, together with the creed of Both aspects were a direct contradiction enlightened self-interest. of Melanesian values and priorities. The introduction to Melanesia of Christianity added a further element of division and confusion in the While the Christian religion was widely minds of the people. compatible with the ethics and principles of Melanesian communalism, with its emphasis on mutuality, compassion and caring for one another, it was a practice that very few of the Europeans appeared to follow. and individualism of religion It ran also contrary to the self-interest, which not just (had) more important exponents, but was followed by the majority of Europeans ••• It is something a a puzzle how the assimilation of elements of the dominant paradigm with prospects of Christianity is pulled off, though achieved Northern There is it certainly is in a great many Northerners, and too many Antipodeans. a compartmentalisation. partial answer: Religion for most is a separate thing fitted into a Sunday morning box, important elements of which do not the upset standard penetrate deep. business to Thus for most believers religion does not week. Only for a minority does it directly such as human poverty: escape touch immediate matters why should we expect it to work for the Environment? Nonetheless widespread real adoption of religious perceptions within the American population, and reflected in the Administration, would presumably alter things. But even if some of the effects of a religious return would beneficial, and to nature domination highly be welcomed, it is also true that some of the effects of a narrow fundamentalism would be highly undesirable. of be were Unless moreover the position abandoned in favour of one of the lesser religious traditions the environmental effects would 10 be negative (as Watt testifies). �Religion could be more of a drawback than an asset. Religion in America has lost out to with any depth to it appears most unlikely. the There existence of God, the fallaciousness of the arguments involved, etc. no But nor is the so-called scientific front-end-in. cannot account for; it is that this perspective, a paradigm, a richer more intellectually satisfactory rivals (e.g. view). such great the incorporates There are it is far from uniquely determined. So paradigm. social dominant in view world is not just that there is much that this sort of view leaves out or It shape. is view with these sorts of weaknesses the to return to trying in virtue rival Consider, for instance, the matter of the view could explain. scientific much for world view was seriously deficient and it did not account more the case for its In part it failed deservedly: view". world scientific "the In any case such a reversal intensional scientific These rivals allow for value and wonder in natural things without taking a theological way. character quasi-religious reasons of set second There is a of some sort, for not endeavouring Christian, strongly These on turn the irreligious character of the culture, where an appeal through religion is unlikely to have much as understood a (the Australia, success. first) post-Christian it has been irreligious character the of understanding much else about the culture, society e.g. 'best is said, society, in which religion (is) barely relevant culturally'. *4 Even if that formulation is an generally a Pantheistic or Jewish, whatever, on deeper environmental approaches in Australia. impose to exaggeration the is a fact and is the key to the curious extent of the state's protrusion into Australian social life. If an approach through religion is accordingly ruled out as a main approach to hastened paradigm transition - and a related approach through mysticism or transcendentalism excluded for analogous reasons and because of 11 the earthiness �of the culture - what alternatives are open? There are other significant features of the culture running against major elements of the dominant paradigm, effectively which can perhaps applied be much quasi-religious approaches to turn matters around. more Western than To indicate the prospects of applying features of the culture to detach from dominant paradigms, consider how Australian culture contrasts with American. Australian mainstream culture transition from the dominant is already American political left has much stronger support in difficult to some culture. Australia way It along the leftward is not merely that the than USA. It is not indicate features of the Australian cultural situation which show its left-displacement from the dominant Western paradigm. some elements of the contrast:- 12 The next table lists �TABLE 2. CONTRASTING ELEMENTS IN AUSTRALIAN AND AMERICAN CULTURE SCALE OF INCREASE *2 individualistic ethos inacceptability of socialist institutions inegalitarian attitudes POSITIVE inegalitarian practices ITEMS (PER level of consumerism CAPITA maximization quest WHERE imperialist drive RELEVANT) extent of violence police and military commitment high technology involvement functional rationality environmental inactivism USA AUSTRALIA SCALE OF INCREASE level of urbanisation legal obstacles to environmental action NEGATIVE official opposition to environmental practices, such as dedication of ITEMS wilderness administrative delays in implementing environmental practices, such as pollution requirements, recycling, etc. 13 �Thus there are some offsetting negative items as well as positive items in the in the contrast. Since, however, most of these contrasting elements bear on first diagram of rival paradigms in a way favourable to Australian culture as opposed to American, it appears that prospects indeed better. themes for applying the culture are This important theme requires elaboration and confirmation. The task can profitably be combined with others: there is much work here both for environmental spectators with an empirical bent and for environmental activists. A first task is to separate out what is known, what requires and what ought to be done (ideologically). and their surrounds, distinguishing firstly theses: A weak confirmation, Let us focus on transition theses, factual and normative transition factual transition thesis, that Western (European) culture is undergoing a transition away from the dominant confirmed by several Northern sociologists (e.g. better results could be obtained in Australia; social Marsh). paradigm, has been Presumably similar or but appropriate samplings of the community have not been done, analysed and so on - environmental sociology being a neglected undoubtedly field also in Another Australia. weak factual transition thesis holds, namely that since 1960 a significant percentage of the each human community in specifiable advanced Western countries such as Australia have come to adopt main assumptions of the alternative environmental paradigm. But again comparative-figures sociological work are entirely of data to Though impressionistic tells us that environmental activism is greater in Australia than USA - indeed more intensive than piece lacking. anywhere else, an immensely build upon - we lack solid confirmation. sociogeographers to do. 14 important There is much for �Throughout, as you may have noticed, a normative transition thesis has been taken largely for granted, that Australian culture, indeed Western culture generally, ought to be undergoing a major paradigm Western paradigms and their away from dominant variations (such as those of advocated corporate capitalism and of the post-industrial society), transiting shift, and towards an environmental alternative. furthermore ought the arguments. It is also be That complex normative thesis is argued for in environmental philosophy, and fortunately there isn't repeat to time to argued against there, but, to sum up the opposition case cavalierly, unconvincingly. Given then that the transition is going on, indeed emerging are are clear doing environmental encourage enough. for it in Australia? example, directing action going be aiming swing major Preliminary against the to organisations. on, answers sources of They should increase their support bases, but not merely by membership They should be endeavouring to influence the dominant regional culture, for the potential appears to be there for a considerably greater change than has thus far been two be despoilation and the like, primarily industrial organisations and drives and environmental education. and to Not only should activists be continuing with what those supposed to regulate them, further (public) also ought ought then to be going on with greater rapidity, how is it hastened, how do environmental activists they and parts to this further practice which achieved. There are can run in tandem, a more negative and a more positive part: • More negatively, it involves cutting down and countering the flow of propaganda in favour of the dominant paradigms both locally but especially from the North. That is important in reversing the extent of Northern co-option. includes gently a range of activities some with solid bases in local culture, such as lopping anti-American It off the tall poppies pedalling and anti-Northern activities. 15 the stuff, and careful The latter practices (which should �not of course reduce merely to personally directed antagonism) fit in well other regional environmental with aims, such as independent and nonaligned defence policies. • More positively, it consists in promoting and adapting other also despised features of alternative paradigms. ambassadors, Australian It is culture that work directly towards themes of commonly are, of course, those Lawrence). like nonmaximizing making-do socialistic ones, appreciation Northern intellectuals of local natural the The features to be egalitarian, along environments. with the combines enough: cultural with promoted or anti-authoritarian, rapidly increasing Nonmaximizing, for example, is reflected in the She'll be right and It'll do approach often and and note, that are responsible for the low repute in which some of the cultural characters are held (e.g. adapted commonly taken to things, egalitarian methods as encapsulated in Fair go and Enough's consider the effects of these, decently applied, in economics, in local markets. As for mateship, sure it could use widening, a main problem being its restriction in practice to extension male relationships: to communities (including nonhumans). is there for deep cultural transformation: but why not encourage its So, to conclude, the potential we must help to realise it. FOOTNOTES 1. The term 'approaches' is intended to include both theory and both espoused ideology and behaviour. 2. They did not go under because of the weakness of their intellectual positions. At bottom their religious beliefs, for example, were no more ridiculous than those of Christianity. Typically they were much weakened by new diseases, and overwhelmed by new technology often applied in violent fashion. 3. By integrity is meant much more than retaining representative samples of this and that system or species; not representative southern sassafras, parma wallabies and Torres Strait Islanders, but sufficiently many. 16 practice, �4. Another past philosophical basis for environmental philosophy, American naturalism, seems to have been little developed, despite the promise some have seen in it. *1 The aesthetic route Highwater. is well-illustrated by the main approach in *2 Note well that it is not being claimed that Australian culture is egalitarian (in conformity with a popular myth); only that it is less inegalitarian than American. The hard data underlying the claim---ri assembled in 'Culture and the roots of political divergence'. *3 For Griffin's conception of Canberra - a much smaller Canberra, which included a rail loop - see, to start with, Birrell (still the best source on Griffin). The first quotation from Griffin is quoted in Birrell, p.178; the second is from Griffin's article in Australian Wild Life. *4 P. O'Farrell. REFERENCES J. Highwater, The Primal Mind. Vision Harper & Row, New York, 1981. J. Birrell, Walter Burley Griffin, Queensland U.P., 1964. W.B. Griffin, (,0· cc,,/' «.,PL'0"1 d I (on and Reality in Indian America, · __ ,.,.,, ja,n;~, Australian Wild Life J_ (f9Jt-f/), ty ·-J, W. Lini, Keynote Address, Australia and the South Pacific, Proceedings a Conference held at the Australian National University, 1982. P. O'Farrell, 'The cultural ambivalence of Australian religion', in Culture and the State in Australia, Australian Cultural History 1 (1982) Canberra. R. Nash, 'Rounding out the American revolution: ethical extension and the new environmentalism', typescript, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1982. A. Marsh, Protect and Political Consciousness, Sage Beverley Hills, 1977. s. Cotgrove, Catastrophe R. Routley, 'Roles and limits of paradigms action', in Elliot and Qlre, 260-293. R. Elliot and A. Gare, Environmental Philosophy. Readings, University of Queensland Press, 1983. or- aae Cornucopia, Wiley, 17 ~~J~rh , of 1982. in environmental thought A Collection and of �Job No. ................................................................................. . 7/J>/JVh SOCPAC PRINTERY Received ........................................................................... REQUEST FOR PRINTING 05471 No Research Schools of Social Sciences & Pacific Studies (/. I L tJC,;c_ )1 -1 Department ............................................................................................................................................ . rl Person Requiring Work ......... ?. 1-......... e.. . .<..t ... ./.. . . . ':l.............................. 5. . . .... . . . . ... ..... .... . . .... . . .. . .. . . .. . ... ... .. c c School ............................................................................................................................................................. . Date Required ...................!.......... ./. ..... Charging Code ................................................................................................................................ ...................................../· ......................................................................................................................................... (IF APPLICABLE) DEPARTMENTAL HEAD/ SECRETARY I PRINTING D D PHOTOCOPYING - PLEASE TICK APPROPRIATE BOX - JOB DESCRIPTION SEMINAR/WORKING PAPERS D THESIS D GENERAL D PUBLICATION D No. of Originals .............................................................................. Collated ................................................................................................................................................. No. of Coples .................................. Stapled ............ ............................................. ............................................................................................ Paper Size .............................................. .................................. Bound .................................... ............................... ................................................................................... Paper Type .................................... Cover Material .. D/S or S/S . ......................................................................................... Ink Colour . SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DECLARATION I certify that copying of the attached material by Canberra School Services does not constitute an infringement of the Copyright Act, 1968, as amended. Dated ....... ...'.f--···-/--········-::_······················ !.. . . ~. . . . ) ... ..:.. . ... . . . . . . . . . .... ... . . .. Please print name of Requisitioner here - .................................................. Signature ..................................................................................................................................... (REQUISITIONER/ DEPT: SECRETARY) NOTE: If papers submitted tor offset printing/photocopying contain copyright material other than Australian National University copyright Form COP-1 must accompany this request In lieu of the Declaration as above. �r r" WORKING DRAFT ·. , ' I · CULTURE, PHILOSOPHY, AND APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT - AN AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE Many of you know tha~ Canberra was originally Griffin. This talk is (, ,~ ,/ h (: (tJ m, , . designed by Walter Burley 'i.C to him. You may not know that Griffin, an dedicated / 1,• <, , ' ' ! I ·,/ .• r : , J,,--.T~- l, c :.... American who migrated to Australia in 1913, was not simply an architect and ,1 lantlscape designe ~ but one of Australia's early deeper ecologists. key elements of the Western industrial paradigm, especially on making nature the servant of man', 'land to be accorded the 'concentration and discerned instead elements of a different 'consciousness' (the word is his). took the He rejected His approach was holistic, and respect he due to a highly developed and perfected living organism not to be exterminated or treated as dead material, or as a mere section of a map'. Canberra, now no mere section of map, is still, ,.,i/f . ,:i:. for all its deficiencies, perhaps the best approximation anywhere ~~l-0gical city; * to * * * * * gauge the extent to which Australian contrasted with American culture, contains developable will underpin a under which many suffers. -,/ /h ,1 ;1 ~11._r talk sketches a culture, especially as elements (seeds) which different political framework from the bastardised capitalism people presently labour and local environment frequently It is not necessary to see the present political arrangements and the political course interested aeeper *3 The objective of the larger investigation, of which this is a but it is not only removed from Griffin's original conception but far from deep ecological ideals. part, to in charted as environmentally alternative structures: f) ' r ,nt 1 or socially disastrous to be it is enough, for example, to view them t__ ri __f. _________ ---1 n__ {- ,-; ,:_... --1 (. "'I n,l ._ 1 ,. (•✓ L / ~• • } ' <: l7' 1 •-rt,,,_ c, , /---5-0-J. i +- I~.,, )• I �as far from satisfactory, or very far from worlds, those of the best attainable to be interested in the prospects of turning things around somewhat, to increasing ecological resistance [negative action] against vandalism and the environment hope, damage, like, and ecological construction [direct positive action]. There are several distinctive features of Australian culture that for of especially the give grounds remarkable level of environmental activism that has somehow emerged among the people. It is worth trying to pull together some of these features of the culture, to look at ways of furthering the valuable parts, and increasing the level of concern and activism. Without doubt attitudes and different practices, cultures towards have the different environment. approaches, 1 different Indeed appreciation of, practices towards, and respect for the natural environment are highly culturally dependent: compare, for nonimperial cultures had much less North, exploitation and American Jews and American Indians. whose approaches to practices not vandalism the environment merely permit those of the environmental gross control" of their local typically under the missionary, colonial or imperial domination. But occasionally, notably retained than but to a marked extent depend upon such practices. Mostly these more benign cultures have however "lost environments, Most and where they still survive uncorrupted still have - exploitative industrial instance, sufficient in autonomy the to adjacent Pacific, regional cultures 2 have slow or even halt environmental destruction. Thus, for example, rainforest damaging projects have been delayed or blocked in Melanesia largely through Melanesian attitudes to the land. One important way then to try to slow environmental degradation, especially in the South, is to foster both certain sweepingly, regional cultural autonomy; socialism and indigenous for cultural instance land rights movements. 2 differences to support and, more Melanesian For, where the cultures have �not been excessively corrupted by Northern influences, this is rapid way of paradigms. in the a cultural differences can also serve Antipodes, in particular in Australia, to at least assist in transition to different Such comparatively activating alternative paradigms to the dominant Northern social The question arises whether elsewhere a less environmentally exploitative social paradigms. transition is unlikely to occur unless it is based on the culture. Can features of the culture and the social life be used to foster and make requisite differences? In the case of Australia, a basis culture, is there both in the land and and things appear sufficiently different from those in the cultures of the industrialised North to allow (some hope) for cultural differentiation . the need for change, at least there is, in It is becoming platitudinous the longer run not much prospect for the integrity of many local natural environments and ecosystems loose Of if the natural environment is to retain some semblance of integrity, there is little doubt. that 3 unless we in the Antipodes break from the damaging cultural assumptions and practice of the industrialised North and work destructive towards establishment of a concern in different less some parts, rising tide war. of For despite environmental the industrialised North still appears in the grip of established forces and unlikely to budge in time - short of nuclear environmentally culture, towards a certain regional cultural autonomy. elements of regionalism in the North, despite a disaster, such largely alone. Nor is the Australia because as well as the location, the as Though we who seek change can count on some support from minority movements in the North, nonetheless if we are to achieve changes, we must go advantage of the ground and its southern seeds of cultural difference are already there and growing. cultivation. Such a it task of paradigm transition entirely hopeless in like most new and more fragile developments they need attention and speedy the careful But if task is rendered urgent also by other matters of 3 �environmental and human concern, not just the gathering signs but colossal biological losses through of nuclear rapid destruction of, e.g. war, tropical rainforests, indeed mounting evidence of environmental decline almost everywhere humans now establish. How does philosophy fit into the strategy of harnessing regional culture to alter approaches to the environment? As in the title of the talk it operates in the middle, not as an idle middleman, but more like and design culture. principles A working picture that the main components of the discussion together - a picture that also like most images of the more abstract distorts across organising of the dynamic linkage in a good suspension bridge, which lifts the environmental way on the ropes of regional links the is that of a suspension the gap often separating people from the natural environment. bridge There are people, and the environment, and approaches by bridges to the environment, like so:- approach ➔ People Natural Environment (Of course people may be part of the natural environment: the picture doesn't exclude that important overlap.) The connecting bridges may be of very different sorts, ranging from rustic bridges good for careful foot traffic, through the monumental suspension bridge at Middle Harbour, to modern high-tech bridges able to carry nuclear tanks and bulldozers over large spans. of But it is the structure all these types of bridges carrying the approaches that matter particularly. The spans are carried by the ropes of culture, and the pylons of culture if 4 you �will. \ \ \ \ ) (......._ APPROACH _ .,__ _. So with approaches. different '-- --------- ---~ cultures, __,.;::;f --- different carrying bridges different It is better to see the link component in the middle - philosophy, but it might almost as well be sociology - not as part of the nuts and bolts and rivets of the structures. types, bridges, but rather It has its analytical computing the loads and as parts, the design looking stresses at on them; and engineering of the the components, and it also has its more holistic elements, considering the bridges themselves and of them their - the social paradigms embedded in the cultures. select substructures Philosophy, the link subject, is then the architecture and engineering of the business. Less figuratively, assumptions of a philosophy replacement, or marxist philosophies. deep ecology, asks deeper assumptions of all and and assumptions paradigms. the operative for example of free Philosophy, especially metaphysics and not deeper questions, extracting the fundamental other subjects and assembling the intellectual assumptions embodied in a culture or social way of life, i.e. social assembles culture applied in environmental practices, the assumptions, that is, to be considered for enterprise isolates In what are sometimes called the this respect philosophy - which includes much more than conceptual analysis - is first among the intellectual subjects, as logic, the science of reasoning, is the first among the sciences, investigating the form of arguments and methodology of all other sciences. philosophical investigation extracts, 5 The deeper assumptions such when put together yield a philosophy in �the more popular sense (as e.g. enterprise philosophy): in philosophy of life or again the free in any case the result will be a philosophical theory or the rudiments of a philosophical paradigm, depending on how it is done. By largely philosophical investigation then, assumptions of the techniques we try contrasted base. with operative to test apparent we trace and Northern social paradigms; the adequacy social of the organise the and by sociological assemblage, especially as alternatives with some environmental support So much has already been accomplished, in a rough and ready way, and some results are illustrated in diagram 1. Details of other positions, the old culture (as positions typically offer environmental a projected), transition alternative. are from And and new left and the counter included in the diagram because these the while the dominant it may Western appear paradigm to indeed is - a long political way from the dominant paradigm to the environmental alternative, of the intermediate taken one at a time. details steps is not so great; To illustrate the way transitions can of the first line (row) in macro-economic form. construed as representing package typically includes environment, so the in components be made, consider The dominant objective such as GDP, a rough way standard of living. minimal to quality of life this But the and and pollution, and perhaps with additions for non-material features excluded in dominant consciousness. this way we arrive at New Left thinking with the objective to considerable reservations, X(RR). of material goes back to Greek philosophy; 6 In growth The real break however comes with members of the counterculture, the Hippies and Yippies for example, idea the objective function to be maximized gets much complicated, with subtractions for externalities such as noise subject each and the steps can, and have, been is to maximize some economic package of goods and services being the though the namely, the abandonment of growth and �maximization objectives altogether, for less material nonmaximizing the macroeconomic steady-state objective or will level, for economy, something economists have so far sketched. which Daly for At the idea gets partially represented by the goal of a sustainable be goals. example though the alternative environmental much less inflexible and nationalistic than In fact the ''emerging steady-state advocates, paradigm", affords only a shallow alternative to the dominant paradigm, differing only as to growth and reserves But themes. a fuller diagram of paradigms would include - among others such advanced corporate capitalism the higher-dimensional steady position; state it would involve However, the higher dimensional how a better argued transition can be made; diagram essentially by combining steady-state arguments against macroeconomic growth and stocks assumptions the Left-socialist combination, which framework would a diagram, and remove the convenient oversimplification of the two dimensional left-right transition. indicates so case does not against microeconomic themes. touch human relations, a with Even so, even with the narrower anthropocentric have been left behind, deeper environmental concern would have only began to enter. Reaching behind the dominant Western paradigm so outlined to the underlying social model takes us towards the following familiar picture: society consists of a set of individual humans of decidedly impoverished type, e.g. they are not genuinely interrelated, so they are isolated, and, though they are the only sort of items that have intensional (mental) features, they have (e.g. a certain ability to calculate). but few of these At bottom, these individuals have utilities, reflecting preferences or self-interests, which they aim to maximize; and so they are competitive (by virtue of scarcity). that they are possessive, and possess capital. The distinctive the feature means of Their other feature is production, e.g. land, of the American model is of course is that individuals can separately accumulate the means of production. 7 To ensure their �T/\HLI 1. rnr·Al INCi SUC l/\L 1'/IRi\UIC,MS <lNVIRUNMINli\LLY-ORILiilrlJ REl'RESUH/\TION) "··· RIGllf - LEFT POLI T!Ci\L OHIUH/\l 10,J uo•;1NAtll m ~[STERN P/\RAD!GM LORE TII EM[ S Mr.TERIAL (ECONOMI C) GROWTH LJOMI NAN CE OVER NATURE NATUR,\L ENVIR ONM ENT A RESOURCE DOM! N/\N l ISTATE SOCI/\LI ST 1 IOLD INEW I COUNTE.R- I LffT I LEFT I CULTURE I ,X<Rl X 1 ' I X I X X X I ECONOMIC ORG.l\N[S/\T[ON/\L POLIT l CAL FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EPISTEMIC/ PHILOSOPHIC MARKET FORCES (MINIMALLY REGULATED, PRODU CT IVITY AN D PROFIT MAXIMIZING) PREDOMINANTLY PRIVATE OWNER SHIP OF PRODUCTIVE MEA NS [NDIVIDUALISTJC/ COMPETITIVE ETHOS EL IT IST/REWARDS FOR APPROVED ACHIEVEMENT CONSUMERISM ENCOURAGED URBAN-INDUSTRIAL co~~ODITYICULTURAL PACKAGING CENTRALISED: URBAN CE:;TRED Lr.RGE-SC ALE: ORDERED (POWER -) HIERARCHICAL HUMAr1 RE LAT I ONS SECONDARY I I y !COMMAND SYSTEM IX<Rl X<R) 1 I X<RR) y y y y y xrnJ ly(QJ X->Y X IX(Ql I I Y I Y I 1X<Q) X(Ql I 1 I I X(Q) 1X<QJ I X I X I X X I I X X<Rl X X X ly(R) NAT IONAL FOCUS; MILITARY DEFENCE X I I X ALTERN ATIVE STRUCTURES (POWER-BROKERS ANO EXPERTS PROMINENT) LAW AND ORDER; LEGAL REGULATION, POLICE BACKED X : X·➔Y I I X ➔Y X<R) X ➔Y I I Y<Q) y Y Y V IHUMAN RELATIONS jPRIMARY IY(Q) X X·->Y y y I y ITRADITIONAL MARKETS WITH IN PUBLIC INTEREST I FRAMEWORK LIMITED OWNERSHIP OF IPRODUCTIVE MEANS !DECENTRAL ISED: I COMMUNAL i 0 1REGIONALINEIGHBOURHOOD FOCUS; SOCIAL (NONIV IOLENT) DEFENCE I PARTICIPATIVE STRUCTURES J(c ITIZEN-WORKER I INVOLVEMENT) 1LIBERAT!O N; SOCIAL I IREGULATION I I X 1X<Rl I y JEARTH SUPPLIES LIMITED X I X y NATURE HOSTILE/NEUTRAL NoNHUMANS ESSENTIALLY ME CHAN l ST IC X X I X I X FAITH IN SCIENCE: HIGH TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS SEPARATION OF REASON/ EMOTION, FACT/VALUE, , , , ScIENTIF!C/UT!L!TARIAN RATIONALITY; ANALYTIC REDUCTIONISTIC X :x(R) iNATURE DELICATELY BALANCED 1NATURE BENIGN !OTHER ANIMALS ALSO INTENTIONAL y X IX y X IX I IRATIONALITY I REJECTED y X➔ Y ! 1SMALL-SCALE; FLEXIBLE NoN-(POWER)H!ERARCHJC,\L IHUMAN RELATIONS WITHIN IECO - COMMUN I TY 1 ? I o . ,:, ,u <r 4l1 n 1 lx<Rl AMPLE RESERV~S (OR (SUBSTITUTES) ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLLABLE I I ''' ' I Y/NON OWNERSHIP I !COLLECTIVE ETHOS/ !SOCIAL PROVISION EGALITARIAN/INCOME NEED IRELATED l(AREFUL USE/RECYCLING , 1Y(ESSENTIAL) LOCAL/SELF-MANAGEMENT !PRODUCT/CULTURE EMPHASIS! X x<R> IDEEP ECOLOGY , orsT[NGU[SIIED 1LE SS MATERIAL GOALS ' (E.G. SE LF-REALISATION) ! lir.RMONY WI TH NATURE ,NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IGREATER VALUE ' VALUED FOR ITSELF ASSUMPTIOrj !REJECTED (FOR I BIOSPEC I ES I IMPARTIALITY) X--"Y I I iALTERN/\TlVE (Y) !ENVIRONMENTAL P/\R.l\D!GM y x<RR) I STATE !OWNERSHIP " I LIMITS TO SCIENCE: !APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY JINTEGRATION OF REASON/ EMOTION, FACT/VALUE , , , !HIDER RATIONALITY (OR REJECTION OF NARROWER); IHOLISTIC IV/NATURAL AS TELEOLOGICAL I I �entitlement to this is the initial argument, on this model, for the coercive apparatus of the (minimal) state. natural, this about self-interested Features There is nothing compulsory, or picture. competing Individuals individuals are matter of these nurture, abstract not nature. of the American economic archtype are a matter of culture, a result of training, not human nature, as a comparison where approximating particularly individuals are not like this, individuals embody rationality either: with helps other traditional cultures, Nor do these archtypal show. only a question-begging argument leads to the American model as something naturally required. The transitions to the left already go beyond the American model. introduces certain relations. human chauvinistic (anthropocentric) but they The do left not models omit are social The left still human relations: the further big step to the environmental alternative is to widen these relations to full community relations, independent value. recognising That is a creatures and nonhuman things as of bigger step, a step that no Western political institutions make requisite allowance for, and that mainstream underpinning Western value theories do not accommodate. The arguments from traditional cultures can also be illustrated paradigms cultures such as those and of the models Melanesia that and directed underlie Polynesia, them. many against the In traditional of the operative assumptions of the Northern social paradigms are, very reasonably, not accepted. Where these cultures still prevail with some measure of regional autonomy, there is good prospect of thwarting more environmentally destructive practices. Features of the local culture can be immediately harnessed. But much of the inhabited and there are already New governed and by environmentally less unscathed World peoples of predominantly European stock. distinctive features 8 observable in New World is now Although cultures, �assumptions of the dominant Northern paradigms have hardly been sufficiently questioned, let alone overthrown, especially among the managerial other, or even lesser, features of surprisingly leave There are out cultures significant as artistic and intellectual usually cultural industrial culture, though economically dominated accompanying other conspicuous The incomplete social paradigms outlined do not exhaust features of the accompanying rather to be sure, does affords European culture. This alternatives. a discrepancies. established have an somewhat as that in romanticism and a significant feature of American Indian gives *l but Northern features. This icing. discerned, precarious foothold for an aesthetic approach to the environment, such evidenced So the cultures will have to be invoked if change in approach is to be hastened in this way. cultural features to be considered. classes. But the basis there of the as are aesthetic well more route to important environmental omissions and In particular, the dominant American paradigm omits reference to religion; also neglected are many of the connected older and formerly more prominent values of American culture. The American search for environmentally acceptable alternatives has regularly turned to these omitted features of American culture, and religious or spiritual elements, and associated past values 4 • establish "the gospel of ecology" and displace the dominant paradigm have taken a spiritual route, a quasi-religious way. and Indeed the primary attempts to representative (For example, Nash provides a sample list of the books he considers important in the rise of the new environmentalis m: virtually all that proceed beyond ecology depend on an appeal to religious elements, to divine or sacred features of natural things.) In the context of American culture the appeal something to be said for it. to religious features has For, firstly, a high proportion of the American population profess some active religious commitment; 9 and, unlike Australia, a �substantial proportion do act in accordance with that response. And, secondly, religious values do clash with dominant Northern paradigm. This sort of conflict socially the precepts was approved of perceived, considerable puzzlement, by colonised cultures, as Lini reports in the case the with of Melanesian society (p.9): The fabric of this society, with its inherent communal discipline was torn by the arrival of European commercial practices which carried with it the message of materialism, together with the creed of enlightened self-int-erest. Both aspects were a direct contradiction of Melanesian values and priorities. The introduction to Melanesia of Christianity added a further element of division and confusion in the minds of the people. While the Christian religion was widely compatible with the ethics and principles of Melanesian communalism, with its emphasis on mutuality, compassion and caring for one another, it was a practice that very few of the Europeans appeared to follow. It ran also contrary to the religion of individualism and self-interest, which not just (had) more important exponents, but was followed by the majority of Europeans ••• It is something a a puzzle how the assimilation of elements of the dominant Northern paradigm with prospects of Christianity is pulled off, though achieved it certainly is in a great many Northerners, and too many Antipodeans. a partial answer: compartmentalisation. Religion for most is a separate thing fitted into a Sunday morning box, important elements of which do not upset the standard penetrate deep. business week. escape to Thus for most believers religion does not Only for a minority does it directly such as human poverty: There is touch immediate matters why should we expect it to work for the Environment? Nonetheless widespread real adoption of religious perceptions within the American population, and reflected in the Administration, would presumably alter things. But even if some of the effects of a religious return would beneficial, and to nature domination highly be welcomed, it is also true that some of the effects of a narrow fundamentalism would be highly undesirable. of be were Unless moreover the position abandoned in favour of one of the lesser relig ious traditions the environmental effects would 10 be negative (as Watt testifies). �Religion could be more of a drawback than an asset. with any depth to it appears most unlikely. "the scientific world view". In any case such a reversal Religion in America has lost out to In part it failed deservedly: world view was seriously deficient and it did not account more scientific view could explain. the case for its for much the Consider, for instance, the matter of the existence of God, the fallaciousness of the arguments involved, etc. no virtue in front-end-in. shape. It trying return to the is world view in such great is not just that there is much that this sort of view leaves out or social it is that this perspective, a paradigm, paradigm. So incorporates it is far from uniquely determined. more intellectually satisfactory rivals (e.g. view). There view with these sorts of weaknesses But nor is the so-called scientific cannot account for; dominant to rival a richer intensional the There are scientific These rivals allow for value and wonder in natural things without taking a theological way. There is a second quasi-religious set character of of reasons some sort, for not endeavouring Christian, Jewish, whatever, on deeper environmental approaches in Australia. strongly impose a Pantheistic or These turn on the irreligious character of the culture, where an appeal through religion is unlikely to have much understood as a (the success. first) Australia, post-Christian it has been irreligious character of the understanding much else about the culture, society e.g. said, is 'best society, in which religion (is) barely relevant culturally'. *4 Even if that formulation is an generally to exaggeration the is a fact and is the key to the curious extent of the state's protrusion into Australian social life. If an approach through religion is accordingly ruled out as a main approach to hastened paradigm transition - and a related approach through mysticism or transcendentali sm excluded for analogous reasons and because of 11 the earthiness �of the culture what alternative s are open? There are other significant features of the culture running against major elements of the dominant paradigm, effectively which can perhaps be much applied quasi-relig ious approaches to turn matters around. more Western than To indicate the prospects of applying features of the culture to detach from dominant paradigms, consider how Australian culture contrasts with American. Australian mainstream culture transition from the dominant is already American political left has much stronger support in difficult to some culture. Australia way It along the leftward is not merely that the than USA. It is not indicate features of the Australian cultural situation which show its left-displac ement from the dominant Western paradigm. some elements of the contrast:- 12 The next table lists �TABLE 2. CONTRASTING ELEMENTS IN AUSTRALIAN AND AMERICAN CULTURE SCALE OF INCREASE *2 individualistic ethos inacceptability of socialist institutions inegalitarian attitudes POSITIVE inegalitarian practices ITEMS (PER level of consumerism CAPITA maximization quest WHERE imperialist drive RELEVANT) extent of violence police and military commitment high technology involvement functional rationality environmental inactivism AUSTRALIA USA SCALE OF INCREASE level of urbanisation legal obstacles to environmental action NEGATIVE official opposition to environmental practices, such as dedication of ITEMS wilderness administrative delays in implementing environmental practices, such as pollution requirements, recycling, etc. 13 �Thus there are some offsetting negative items as well as positive items in the in the contrast. Since, however, most of these contrasting elements bear on first diagram of rival paradigms in a way favourable to Australian culture as opposed to American, it appears that prospects indeed better. themes for applying the culture are This important theme requires elaboration and confirmation. The task can profitably be combined with others: there is much work here both for environmental spectators with an empirical bent and for environmental activists. A first task is to separate out what is known, what requires and what ought to be done (ideologically ). and their surrounds, distinguishing firstly theses: A weak confirmation, Let us focus on transition theses, factual and normative transition factual transition thesis, that Western (European) culture is undergoing a transition away from the dominant confirmed by several Northern sociologists (e.g. better results could be obtained in Australia; social Marsh). paradigm, has been Presumably similar or but appropriate samplings of the community have not been done, analysed and so on - environmental sociology being a neglected undoubtedly field also in Australia. Another weak factual transition thesis holds, namely that since 1960 a significant percentage of the each human community in specifiable advanced Western countries such as Australia have come to adopt main assumptions of the alternative environmental paradigm. But again comparative-fig ures sociological work are entirely of data to Though impressionistic tells us that environmental activism is greater in Australia than USA - indeed more intensive than piece lacking. anywhere else, an immensely build upon - we lack solid confirmation. sociogeographer s to do. 14 important There is much for �Throughout, · as you may have noticed, a normative transition thesis has been taken largely for granted, that Australian culture, indeed Western culture generally, ought to be undergoing a major paradigm Western paradigms and their away from dominant variations (such as those of advocated corporate capitalism and of the post-indus trial society), transiting shift, and towards an environmen tal alternative . furthermore ought the arguments. It is also be That complex normative thesis is argued for in environmen tal philosophy, and fortunately there isn't repeat to time to argued against there, but, to sum up the opposition case cavalierly, unconvincin gly. Given then that the transition is going on, indeed emerging are are clear doing environmen tal encourage enough. for it in Australia? example, directing action going be aiming swing major Preliminary against the to organisatio ns. on, answers sources of They should increase their support bases, but not merely by membership They should be endeavourin g to influence the dominant regional culture, for the potential appears to be there for a considerabl y greater change than has thus far been two be despoilatio n and the like, primarily industrial organisatio ns and drives and environmen tal education. and to Not only should activists be continuing with what those supposed to regulate them, further (public) also ought ought then to be going on with greater rapidity, how is it hastened, how do environmen tal activists they and parts to this further practice which achieved. There are can run in tandem, a more negative and a more positive part: • More negatively, it involves cutting down and countering the flow of propaganda in favour of the dominant paradigms both locally but especially from the North. That is important in reversing the extent of Northern co-option. includes gently a range of activities some with solid bases in local culture, such as lopping anti-Americ an It off the tall poppies pedalling and anti-Northe rn activities. 15 the stuff, and careful The latter practices (which should �. . not of course reduce merely to personall y directed antagonism ) fit in well other regional environm ental with aims, such as independe nt and nonaligne d defence policies. • More positivel y, it consists in promoting and adapting other also despised features of alternati ve paradigms . ambassado rs, Australia n It is culture that work directly towards themes of commonly Northern intellect uals Lawrence ). adapted like are, of course, those nonmaxim izing making-do socialist ic ones, of local natural the The features to be egalitari an, along environm ents. with the combines enough: cultural with promoted or anti-auth oritarian , rapidly increasin g Nonmaxim izing, for example, is reflected in the She'll be right and It'll do approach often and and note, that are responsib le for the low repute in which some of the cultural character s are held (e.g. appreciat ion commonly taken to things, egalitari an methods as encapsula ted in Fair go and Enough's consider the effects of these, decently applied, in economics , in local markets. As for mateship, sure it could use widening, a main problem being its restrictio n in practice to extension male relations hips: to communit ies (includin g nonhuman s). is there for deep cultural transform ation: but why not encourage its So, to conclude, the potential we must help to realise it. FOOTNOTES 1. The term 'approach es' is intended to include both theory and both espoused ideology and behaviour . 2. They did not go under because of the weakness of their intellect ual positions . At bottom their religious beliefs, for example, were no more ridiculou s than those of Christian ity. Typically they were much weakened by new diseases, and overwhelm ed by new technolog y often applied in violent fashion. 3. By integrity is meant much more than retaining represent ative samples of this and that system or species; not represent ative southern sassafras , parma wallabies and Torres Strait Islanders , but sufficien tly many. 16 practice, �4. Another past philosophic al basis for environmen tal philosophy, American naturalism, seems to have been little developed, despite the promise some have seen in it. *1 The aesthetic route Highwater. *2 Note well that it is not being claimed that Australian culture is egalitarian (in conformity with a popular myth); only that it is less inegalitari an than American. The hard data underlying the claim--rs assembled in 'Culture and the roots of political divergence '. *3 For Griffin's conception of Canberra - a much smaller Canberra, which included a rail loop - see, to start with, Birrell (still the best source on Griffin). The first quotation from Griffin is quoted in Birrell, p.178; the second is from Griffin's article in Australian Wild Life. *4 P. is well-illust rated by the main approach in O'Farrell. REFERENCES J. Highwater, The Primal Mind. Vision Harper & Row, New York, 1981. J. Birrell, Walter Burley Griffin, Queensland U.P., 1964. W.B. Griffin, -. ) , '\ and ,• Reality in Indian America, Australian Wild Life W. Lini, Keynote Address, Australia and the South Pacific, Proceedings a Conference held at the Australian National University, 1982. P. O'Farrell, 'The cultural ambivalence of Australian religion', in Culture and the State in Australia, Australian Cultural History 1 (1982) Canberra. R. Nash, 'Rounding out the American revolution: ethical extension and the new environmen talism', typescript, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1982. A. Marsh, Protect and Political Consciousne ss, Sage Beverley Hills, 1977. s. Cotgrove, Catastrophe and Cornucopia, Wiley, ,\,'. ~· , ,, R. Routley, 'Roles and limits of paradigms action', in Elliot and Gare, 260-293. R. Elliot and A. Ga:re, Environmen tal Philosophy. Readings, University of Queensland Press, 1983. of c- r- 17 , 1982. in environmen tal A thought Collection and of � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document WORKING DRAFT 1'l}l' T1 1,,i··) CULTURE, PHILOSOPHY, AND APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT - AN AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE Many of you know that Canberra was originally designed by Walter Burley 'lO Griffin. This talk is dedicated to him. You may not know that Griffin, an c111,d l,ee,tJ>,, I! a ,~cJ/2...ru/.1t-l/ '";~1/n,-,l,c1... American who migrated to Australia in 1913, was not simply an architect and A lantlscape designer_, but one of Australia's early deeper ecologists. key elements of the Western industrial paradigm, especially on making nature the servant of man', 'land to be accorded the 'concentration and discerned instead elements of a different 'consciousness' (the word is his). took the He rejected His approach was holistic, and respect he due to a highly developed and perfected living organism not to be exterminated or treated as dead material, or as a mere section of a map'. Canberra, now no mere section of map, is still, for all its deficiencies, perhaps the best approximation anywhere .eco~osic-.w, city; but it is not only removed from Griffin's original conception but far from deep ecological ideals. * * *3 * * * * The objective of the larger investigation, of which this part, is to gauge the extent to which Australian contrasted with American culture, contains developable will underpin a under which many suffers. talk sketches a culture, especially as elements (seeds) which different political framework from the bastardised capitalism people presently labour and local environment frequently It is not necessary to see the present political arrangements and the political course interested to in charted as environmentally alternative structures: socially disastrous to be it is enough, for example, to view them r ,i,v~c~ntL..:f- [.<-ol"l,-" hd<--t r7' <-.~ .::.. P,r~t- f tl. /~J 1 or J I C-IJll·A-r~u... ) ~ tn "S. those as far from satisfactory, or very far from the of best to be interested in the prospects of turning things around somewhat, to worlds, increasing ecological resistance [negative action] against vandalism and like, and ecological construction [direct positive action]. the grounds give remarkable level of environmental activism that has the especially hope, damage, environment There are several distinctive features of Australian culture that for attainable of somehow emerged among the people. It is worth trying to pull together some of these features of the culture, to look at ways of furthering the valuable parts, and increasing the level of concern and activism. the towards practices, and attitudes different approaches, different 1 Indeed appreciation of, environment. have cultures different Without doubt practices towards, and respect for the natural environment are highly culturally dependent: and where they still survive uncorrupted still have - nonimperial cultures had much exploitative less whose North, industrial exploitation approaches to practices not vandalism and the environment merely environmental but to a marked extent depend upon such practices. control" their of local typically under the missionary, colonial or imperial domination. in But occasionally, notably retained the of those than gross permit Mostly these more benign cultures have however "lost environments, Most American Jews and American Indians. instance, for compare, sufficient autonomy the to adjacent Pacific, regional cultures 2 have slow or even halt environmental destruction. Thus, for example, rainforest damaging projects have been delayed or blocked in Melanesia largely through Melanesian attitudes to the land. One important way then to try to slow environmental degradation, especially in the South, is to foster certain both sweepingly, regional cultural autonomy; socialism and indigenous for cultural instance land rights movements. 2 differences to support and, more Melanesian For, where the cultures have not been excessively corrupted by Northern influences, this is rapid way of paradigms. in the a cultural differences can also serve Antipodes, in particular in Australia, to at least assist in transition to different Such comparatively activating alternative paradigms to the dominant Northern social The question arises whether elsewhere a less environmentally exploitative social paradigms. transition is unlikely to occur unless it is based on the culture. Can features of the culture and the social life be used to foster and make requisite differences? In the case of Australia, a basis culture, is there both in the land and the and things appear sufficiently different from those in the cultures of the industrialised North to allow (some hope) for cultural differentiation. the need for change, at least if the natural environment is to retain some It semblance of integrity, there is little doubt. that there is, in is becoming platitudinous the longer run not much prospect for the integrity of many local natural environments and ecosystems loose Of 3 unless we in the Antipodes break from the damaging cultural assumptions and practice of the industrialised North and work destructive towards establishment of a less in some parts, rising tide war. of For despite environmental the industrialised North still appears in the grip of established forces and unlikely to budge in time - short of nuclear environmentally culture, towards a certain regional cultural autonomy. elements of regionalism in the North, despite a concern different disaster, such Though we who seek change can count on some support from minority movements in the North, nonetheless if we are to achieve changes, we must go largely alone. Nor is the Australia because as well as the location, the advantage of the ground and its southern seeds of cultural difference are already there and growing. cultivation. Such a it task of paradigm transition entirely hopeless in like most new and more fragile developments they need attention and speedy as careful But if task is rendered urgent also by other matters of 3 environmental and human concern, not just the gathering signs but colossal biological losses through of nuclear rapid destruction of, e.g. war, tropical rainforests, indeed mounting evidence of environmental decline almost everywhere humans now establish. How does philosophy fit into the strategy of harnessing regional culture to alter approaches to the environment? As in the title of the talk it operates in the middle, not as an idle middleman, but more like and design culture. principles A working picture that the main components of the discussion together - a picture that also like most images of the more abstract distorts across organising of the dynamic linkage in a good suspension bridge, which lifts the environmental way on the ropes of regional links the is that of a suspension the gap often separating people from the natural environment. bridge There are people, and the environment, and approaches by bridges to the environment, like so:- approach ➔ Natural Environment People (Of course people may be part of the natural environment: the picture doesn't exclude that important overlap.) The connecting bridges may be of very different sorts, ranging from rustic bridges good for careful foot traffic, through the monumental suspension bridge at Middle Harbour, to modern high-tech bridges able to carry nuclear tanks and bulldozers over large spans. of But it is the structure all these types of bridges carrying the approaches that matter particularly. The spans are carried by the ropes of culture, and the pylons of culture if 4 you will. ~ {dC"' CULTURE l (--.__ APPROACH ~ ____,___.- ·'--- So with approaches. different ------- ----- - cultures, different carrying bridges different It is better to see the link component in the middle - philosophy, but it might almost as well be sociology - not as part of the nuts and bolts and rivets of the structures. types, bridges, but rather It has its analytical computing the loads and as parts, the design looking stresses at on them; and engineering of the the components, and it also has its more holistic elements, considering the bridges themselves and of them their - the social paradigms embedded in the cultures. select substructures Philosophy, the link subject, is then the architecture and engineering of the business. Less figuratively, assumptions of a philosophy replacement, or marxist philosophies. deep ecology, asks deeper assumptions of all and and assumptions paradigms. the operative for example of free Philosophy, especially metaphysics and not deeper questions, extracting the fundamental other subjects and assembling the intellectual assumptions embodied in a culture or social way of life, i.e. social assembles culture applied in environmental practices, the assumptions, that is, to be considered for enterprise isolates In what are sometimes called the this respect philosophy - which includes much more than conceptual analysis - is first among the intellectual subjects, as logic, the science of reasoning, is the first among the sciences, investigating the form of arguments and methodology of all other sciences. philosophical investigation extracts, 5 The deeper assumptions such when put together yield a philosophy in the more popular sense (as e.g. enterprise philosophy): in philosophy of life or again the free in any case the result will be a philosophical theory or the rudiments of a philosophical paradigm, depending on how it is done. By largely philosophical investigation then, assumptions of the techniques we try contrasted base. with operative to test apparent we trace and Northern social paradigms; the adequacy social of the organise the and by sociological assemblage, especially as alternatives with some environmental support So much has already been accomplished, in a rough and ready way, and some results are illustrated in diagram 1. Details of other positions, the old culture (as positions typically offer environmental a projected), transition alternative. are from And and new left and the counter included in the diagram because these the while the dominant it may Western appear paradigm to indeed is - a long political way from the dominant paradigm to the environmental alternative, of the intermediate taken one at a time. details steps is not so great; To illustrate the way transitions can of the first line (row) in macro-economic form. construed as representing package typically includes environment, so the in components each and the steps can, and have, been be made, consider The dominant objective is to maximize some economic package of goods and services being such as GDP, a rough way standard of living. minimal to quality of life this But the and and pollution, and perhaps with additions for non-material features excluded in dominant consciousness. this way we arrive at New Left thinking with the objective to considerable reservations, X(RR). of material goes back to Greek philosophy; 6 In growth The real break however comes with members of the counterculture, the Hippies and Yippies for example, idea the objective function to be maximized gets much complicated, with subtractions for externalities such as noise subject the though the namely, the abandonment of growth and maximization objectives altogether, for less material nonmaximizing the macroeconomic steady-state objective or will level, for economy, something economists have so far sketched. which Daly for At the idea gets partially represented by the goal of a sustainable be goals. example though the alternative environmental much less inflexible and nationalistic than In fact the "emerging steady-state advocates, paradigm", affords only a shallow alternative to the dominant paradigm, differing only as to growth and reserves themes. But a fuller diagram of paradigms would include - among others such advanced corporate capitalism the higher-dimensional steady state position; involve would However, the higher dimensional how a better argued transition can be made; diagram essentially by combining steady-state arguments against macroeconomic growth and stocks assumptions the Left-socialist combination, which framework would a diagram, and remove the convenient ~simplification of the two dimensional left-right transition. indicates it so case does not against microeconomic themes. touch human relations, a with Even so, even with the narrower anthropocentric have been left behind, deeper environmental concern would have only began to enter. Reaching behind the dominant Western paradigm so outlined to the underlying social model takes us towards the following familiar picture: society consists of a set of individual humans of decidedly impoverished type, e.g. they are not genuinely interrelated, so they are isolated, and, though they are the only sort of items that have intensional (mental) features, they have (e.g. a certain ability to calculate). but few of these At bottom, these individuals have utilities, reflecting preferences or self-interests, which they aim to maximize; and so they are competitive (by virtue of scarcity). that they are possessive, and possess capital. The distinctive the feature means of Their other feature is production, e.g. land, of the American model is of course is that individuals can separately accumulate the means of production. 7 To ensure their rABLI J. COMPLll NG SOC IAL l'ARAD IGMS <ENVIRONMENTALLY - OR I [ifl [D REPRESEIITAT IONJ .... RIGHT - LEFT POLITICAL ORIENTAT!Otl DOMINANT (XJ WESTERN PARADIGM CORE THEMES ECONOMIC ORGANISATIONAL POLITICAL FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIAL (ECONOMIC) GROWTH DOMINANCE OVER NATURE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT A RESOURCE MARKET FORCES (MINIMALLY REGULATED, PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFIT MAXIMIZING) PREDOMINANTLY PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PRODUCTIVE MEANS I ND IV I DUALI ST I c/ COMPETITIVE ETHOS ELITIST/REWARDS FOR APPROVED ACHIEVEMENT CONSUMERISM ENCOURAGED URBAN-INDUSTRIAL COMMODITY/CULTURAL PACKAGING CENTRALISED : URBAN CENTRED LARGE-SCALE: ORDERED (POWER-) HIERARCHICAL HUMAN RELATIONS SECONDARY /OLD 1LEFT /NEW LEFT 1 I X 1X<R) X X I X IX 1X<RRl I y IX<R) I X ➔ Y 1X<Rl I X(RR) !COMMAND SYSTEM I I I I y y I y :X(Q) I y I X I X(Q) I X I X xrn> 1 IX :x-v I X X<R) I X-'>Y NATIONAL FOCUS; MILITARY DEFENCE X I I X ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURES (POWER-BROKERS AND EXPERTS PROMINENT) LAW AND ORDER; LEGAL REGULATION, POLICE BACKED X X 1X<Q> IX(Q) i X I ly(R) FAITH IN SCIENCE: HIGH TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS SEPARATION OF REASON/ EMOTION, FACT/VALUE, SCIENTIFIC/UTILITARIAN RATIONALITY; ANALYTIC REDUCTIONISTIC y ly(Q) I AMPLE RESERV~S (OR (SUBSTITUTES) [NVIRONMENTAL CONTROLLABLE! y IXCQ) I X->Y I I Y<Q> I y I I v Y X<R) y /HUMAN RELATIONS !PRIMARY 'v<Q> I X X·->Y y y 'xrn> 'x<R> y X I 1X<R) X I X X X I X IX X :x<R> y X I X y X I X I RATIONALITY I I I /REJECTED I IDEEP ECOLOGY 1DISTINGU!Sfl[D I I !GREATER VALUE ASSUMPTIOt-j /REJECTED (FOR BIOSPECIES /IMPART I ALI TY) /TRADITIONAL MARKETS WITHIN PUBLIC INTEREST / FRAMEWORK LIMITED OWNERSHIP OF / PRODUCTIVE MEANS jDECENTRALISED: I I I Y/NON OWNERSHIP COMMUNAL I I /SMALL-SCALE; FLEXIBLE NON-(POWER)HIERARCHJCAL /HUMAN RELATIONS WITHIN / ECO-COMMUN I TY REGIONAL/NEIGHBOURHOOD I FOCUS; SOCIAL (NON- /VIOLENT) DEFENCE / PARTICIPATIVE STRUCTURES l(cJTIZEN-WORKER I INVOLVEMENT) /LIBERATION; SOCIAL /REGULATION /EARTH SUPPLIES LIMITED y /NATURE DELICATELY BALANCED 1NATURE BENIGN /OTHER ANIMALS ALSO INTENTIONAL X➔Y I /COLLECTIVE ETHOS/ ,soCJAL PROVISION EGALITARIAN/INCOME NEED I RELATED / CAREFUL USE/RECYCLING ' /Y(ES SENT IAL) LOCALIS~LF-MANAGEMENT /PRODUCT/CULTURE EMPHASIS/ y y ? !ALTERNATIVE (Y) ENVIRONMENTAL PAR.4DIGM 1 / LE SS MATERIAL GOALS (E,G, SELF- REALISATION) /HARMON Y WITH NATURE /NATURAL ENVIRONMENT VALUED FOR ITSELF I y I y I I ICOUNTER 1CULTURE I I I STATE lowNERSHIP X X X NATURE HOSTILE/NEUTRAL NONHUMANS ESSENTIALLY ME CHAN I ST! C EPISTEMIC/ PHILOSOPHIC DOMINANT ISTATE I SOCIALIST ... I LIMITS TO SCIENCE: IAPPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY ! INTEGRATION OF REASON/ EMOTION, FACT/VALUE , , , I~/J DER RATIONALITY (OR) REJECTION OF NARROWER; /HOLi ST IC IV /NATURAL AS TELEOLOGICAL I I ..• • I entitlement to this is the initial argument, on this model, for the coercive apparatus of the (minimal) state. natural, this about self-interested Features There is nothing compulsory, or Individuals picture. competing individuals are matter of these nurture, abstract not nature. of the American economic archtype are a matter of culture, a result of training, not human nature, as a comparison where approximating particularly individuals are not like this, individuals embody rationality either: with helps other traditional show. cultures, Nor do these archtypal only a question-begging argument leads to the American model as something naturally required. The transitions to the left already go beyond the American model. certain introduces human The relations. chauvinistic (anthropocentric) but they do left not models omit are social The left still human relations: the further big step to the environmental alternative is to widen these relations to full community relations, independent value. recognising That is a creatures and nonhuman things as of bigger step, a step that no Western political institutions make requisite allowance for, and that mainstream underpinning Western value theories do not accommodate. The arguments from traditional cultures can also be illustrated paradigms and cultures such as those the of models Melanesia that and directed underlie Polynesia, them. many of against the In traditional the operative assumptions of the Northern social paradigms are, very reasonably, not accepted. Where these cultures still prevail with some measure of regional autonomy, there is good prospect of thwarting more environmentally destructive practices. Features of the local culture can be immediately harnessed. But much of the inhabited and there are already New governed and by environmentally less unscathed World peoples of predominantly European stock. distinctive features 8 observable in New World is now Although cultures, assumptions of the dominant Northern paradigms have hardly been sufficiently questioned, let alone overthrown, especially among the manag~rial other, or even lesser, features of surprisingly leave out There are cultures significant as artistic and intellectual usually cultural industrial culture, though economically dominated accompanying other conspicuous The incomplete social paradigms outlined do not exhaust features of the accompanying rather to be icing. discerned, features. sure, This does affords European culture. This alternatives. a discrepancies. established have an somewhat as that in romanticism and a significant feature of American Indian gives *l but Northern precarious foothold for an aesthetic approach to the environment, such evidenced So the cultures will have to be invoked if change in approach is to be hastened in this way. cultural features to be considered. classes. But the basis there of are the as aesthetic well more route to important environmental omissions and In particular, the dominant American paradigm omits reference to religion; also neglected are many of the connected older and formerly more prominent values of American culture. The American search for environmentally acceptable alternatives has regularly turned to these omitted features of American culture, and religious or spiritual elements, and associated past values 4 • establish "the gospel of ecology" and displace the dominant paradigm have taken a spiritual route, a quasi-religious way. and Indeed the primary attempts to representative new environmentalism: (For example, Nash provides a sample list of the books he considers important in the rise of the virtually all that proceed beyond ecology depend on an appeal to religious elements, to divine or sacred features of natural things.) In the context of American culture the appeal something to be said for it. to religious features has For, firstly, a high proportion of the American population profess some active religious commitment; • 9 and, unlike Australia, a substantial do proportion act response. And, secondly, religious values do clash with dominant Northern paradigm. This sort of socially that with accordance in conflict precepts the was approved of perceived, considerable puzzlement, by colonised cultures, as Lini reports in the case the with of Melanesian society (p.9): The fabric of this society, with its inherent communal discipline was torn by the arrival of European commercial practices which ••• carried with it the message of materialism, together with the creed of Both aspects were a direct contradiction enlightened self-interest. of Melanesian values and priorities. The introduction to Melanesia of Christianity added a further element of division and confusion in the While the Christian religion was widely minds of the people. compatible with the ethics and principles of Melanesian communalism, with its emphasis on mutuality, compassion and caring for one another, it was a practice that very few of the Europeans appeared to follow. and individualism of religion It ran also contrary to the self-interest, which not just (had) more important exponents, but was followed by the majority of Europeans ••• It is something a a puzzle how the assimilation of elements of the dominant paradigm with prospects of Christianity is pulled off, though achieved Northern There is it certainly is in a great many Northerners, and too many Antipodeans. a compartmentalisation. partial answer: Religion for most is a separate thing fitted into a Sunday morning box, important elements of which do not the upset standard penetrate deep. business to Thus for most believers religion does not week. Only for a minority does it directly such as human poverty: escape touch immediate matters why should we expect it to work for the Environment? Nonetheless widespread real adoption of religious perceptions within the American population, and reflected in the Administration, would presumably alter things. But even if some of the effects of a religious return would beneficial, and to nature domination highly be welcomed, it is also true that some of the effects of a narrow fundamentalism would be highly undesirable. of be were Unless moreover the position abandoned in favour of one of the lesser religious traditions the environmental effects would 10 be negative (as Watt testifies). Religion could be more of a drawback than an asset. Religion in America has lost out to with any depth to it appears most unlikely. the There existence of God, the fallaciousness of the arguments involved, etc. no But nor is the so-called scientific front-end-in. cannot account for; it is that this perspective, a paradigm, a richer more intellectually satisfactory rivals (e.g. view). such great the incorporates There are it is far from uniquely determined. So paradigm. social dominant in view world is not just that there is much that this sort of view leaves out or It shape. is view with these sorts of weaknesses the to return to trying in virtue rival Consider, for instance, the matter of the view could explain. scientific much for world view was seriously deficient and it did not account more the case for its In part it failed deservedly: view". world scientific "the In any case such a reversal intensional scientific These rivals allow for value and wonder in natural things without taking a theological way. character quasi-religious reasons of set second There is a of some sort, for not endeavouring Christian, strongly These on turn the irreligious character of the culture, where an appeal through religion is unlikely to have much as understood a (the Australia, success. first) post-Christian it has been irreligious character the of understanding much else about the culture, society e.g. 'best is said, society, in which religion (is) barely relevant culturally'. *4 Even if that formulation is an generally a Pantheistic or Jewish, whatever, on deeper environmental approaches in Australia. impose to exaggeration the is a fact and is the key to the curious extent of the state's protrusion into Australian social life. If an approach through religion is accordingly ruled out as a main approach to hastened paradigm transition - and a related approach through mysticism or transcendentalism excluded for analogous reasons and because of 11 the earthiness of the culture - what alternatives are open? There are other significant features of the culture running against major elements of the dominant paradigm, effectively which can perhaps applied be much quasi-religious approaches to turn matters around. more Western than To indicate the prospects of applying features of the culture to detach from dominant paradigms, consider how Australian culture contrasts with American. Australian mainstream culture transition from the dominant is already American political left has much stronger support in difficult to some culture. Australia way It along the leftward is not merely that the than USA. It is not indicate features of the Australian cultural situation which show its left-displacement from the dominant Western paradigm. some elements of the contrast:- 12 The next table lists TABLE 2. CONTRASTING ELEMENTS IN AUSTRALIAN AND AMERICAN CULTURE SCALE OF INCREASE *2 individualistic ethos inacceptability of socialist institutions inegalitarian attitudes POSITIVE inegalitarian practices ITEMS (PER level of consumerism CAPITA maximization quest WHERE imperialist drive RELEVANT) extent of violence police and military commitment high technology involvement functional rationality environmental inactivism USA AUSTRALIA SCALE OF INCREASE level of urbanisation legal obstacles to environmental action NEGATIVE official opposition to environmental practices, such as dedication of ITEMS wilderness administrative delays in implementing environmental practices, such as pollution requirements, recycling, etc. 13 Thus there are some offsetting negative items as well as positive items in the in the contrast. Since, however, most of these contrasting elements bear on first diagram of rival paradigms in a way favourable to Australian culture as opposed to American, it appears that prospects indeed better. themes for applying the culture are This important theme requires elaboration and confirmation. The task can profitably be combined with others: there is much work here both for environmental spectators with an empirical bent and for environmental activists. A first task is to separate out what is known, what requires and what ought to be done (ideologically). and their surrounds, distinguishing firstly theses: A weak confirmation, Let us focus on transition theses, factual and normative transition factual transition thesis, that Western (European) culture is undergoing a transition away from the dominant confirmed by several Northern sociologists (e.g. better results could be obtained in Australia; social Marsh). paradigm, has been Presumably similar or but appropriate samplings of the community have not been done, analysed and so on - environmental sociology being a neglected undoubtedly field also in Another Australia. weak factual transition thesis holds, namely that since 1960 a significant percentage of the each human community in specifiable advanced Western countries such as Australia have come to adopt main assumptions of the alternative environmental paradigm. But again comparative-figures sociological work are entirely of data to Though impressionistic tells us that environmental activism is greater in Australia than USA - indeed more intensive than piece lacking. anywhere else, an immensely build upon - we lack solid confirmation. sociogeographers to do. 14 important There is much for Throughout, as you may have noticed, a normative transition thesis has been taken largely for granted, that Australian culture, indeed Western culture generally, ought to be undergoing a major paradigm Western paradigms and their away from dominant variations (such as those of advocated corporate capitalism and of the post-industrial society), transiting shift, and towards an environmental alternative. furthermore ought the arguments. It is also be That complex normative thesis is argued for in environmental philosophy, and fortunately there isn't repeat to time to argued against there, but, to sum up the opposition case cavalierly, unconvincingly. Given then that the transition is going on, indeed emerging are are clear doing environmental encourage enough. for it in Australia? example, directing action going be aiming swing major Preliminary against the to organisations. on, answers sources of They should increase their support bases, but not merely by membership They should be endeavouring to influence the dominant regional culture, for the potential appears to be there for a considerably greater change than has thus far been two be despoilation and the like, primarily industrial organisations and drives and environmental education. and to Not only should activists be continuing with what those supposed to regulate them, further (public) also ought ought then to be going on with greater rapidity, how is it hastened, how do environmental activists they and parts to this further practice which achieved. There are can run in tandem, a more negative and a more positive part: • More negatively, it involves cutting down and countering the flow of propaganda in favour of the dominant paradigms both locally but especially from the North. That is important in reversing the extent of Northern co-option. includes gently a range of activities some with solid bases in local culture, such as lopping anti-American It off the tall poppies pedalling and anti-Northern activities. 15 the stuff, and careful The latter practices (which should not of course reduce merely to personally directed antagonism) fit in well other regional environmental with aims, such as independent and nonaligned defence policies. • More positively, it consists in promoting and adapting other also despised features of alternative paradigms. ambassadors, Australian It is culture that work directly towards themes of commonly are, of course, those Lawrence). like nonmaximizing making-do socialistic ones, appreciation Northern intellectuals of local natural the The features to be egalitarian, along environments. with the combines enough: cultural with promoted or anti-authoritarian, rapidly increasing Nonmaximizing, for example, is reflected in the She'll be right and It'll do approach often and and note, that are responsible for the low repute in which some of the cultural characters are held (e.g. adapted commonly taken to things, egalitarian methods as encapsulated in Fair go and Enough's consider the effects of these, decently applied, in economics, in local markets. As for mateship, sure it could use widening, a main problem being its restriction in practice to extension male relationships: to communities (including nonhumans). is there for deep cultural transformation: but why not encourage its So, to conclude, the potential we must help to realise it. FOOTNOTES 1. The term 'approaches' is intended to include both theory and both espoused ideology and behaviour. 2. They did not go under because of the weakness of their intellectual positions. At bottom their religious beliefs, for example, were no more ridiculous than those of Christianity. Typically they were much weakened by new diseases, and overwhelmed by new technology often applied in violent fashion. 3. By integrity is meant much more than retaining representative samples of this and that system or species; not representative southern sassafras, parma wallabies and Torres Strait Islanders, but sufficiently many. 16 practice, 4. Another past philosophical basis for environmental philosophy, American naturalism, seems to have been little developed, despite the promise some have seen in it. *1 The aesthetic route Highwater. is well-illustrated by the main approach in *2 Note well that it is not being claimed that Australian culture is egalitarian (in conformity with a popular myth); only that it is less inegalitarian than American. The hard data underlying the claim---ri assembled in 'Culture and the roots of political divergence'. *3 For Griffin's conception of Canberra - a much smaller Canberra, which included a rail loop - see, to start with, Birrell (still the best source on Griffin). The first quotation from Griffin is quoted in Birrell, p.178; the second is from Griffin's article in Australian Wild Life. *4 P. O'Farrell. REFERENCES J. Highwater, The Primal Mind. Vision Harper & Row, New York, 1981. J. Birrell, Walter Burley Griffin, Queensland U.P., 1964. W.B. Griffin, (,0· cc,,/' «.,PL'0"1 d I (on and Reality in Indian America, · __ ,.,.,, ja,n;~, Australian Wild Life J_ (f9Jt-f/), ty ·-J, W. Lini, Keynote Address, Australia and the South Pacific, Proceedings a Conference held at the Australian National University, 1982. P. O'Farrell, 'The cultural ambivalence of Australian religion', in Culture and the State in Australia, Australian Cultural History 1 (1982) Canberra. R. Nash, 'Rounding out the American revolution: ethical extension and the new environmentalism', typescript, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1982. A. Marsh, Protect and Political Consciousness, Sage Beverley Hills, 1977. s. Cotgrove, Catastrophe R. Routley, 'Roles and limits of paradigms action', in Elliot and Qlre, 260-293. R. Elliot and A. Gare, Environmental Philosophy. Readings, University of Queensland Press, 1983. or- aae Cornucopia, Wiley, 17 ~~J~rh , of 1982. in environmental thought A Collection and of Job No. ................................................................................. . 7/J>/JVh SOCPAC PRINTERY Received ........................................................................... REQUEST FOR PRINTING 05471 No Research Schools of Social Sciences & Pacific Studies (/. I L tJC,;c_ )1 -1 Department ............................................................................................................................................ . rl Person Requiring Work ......... ?. 1-......... e.. . .<..t ... ./.. . . . ':l.............................. 5. . . .... . . . . ... ..... .... . . .... . . .. . .. . . .. . ... ... .. c c School ............................................................................................................................................................. . Date Required ...................!.......... ./. ..... Charging Code ................................................................................................................................ ...................................../· ......................................................................................................................................... (IF APPLICABLE) DEPARTMENTAL HEAD/ SECRETARY I PRINTING D D PHOTOCOPYING - PLEASE TICK APPROPRIATE BOX - JOB DESCRIPTION SEMINAR/WORKING PAPERS D THESIS D GENERAL D PUBLICATION D No. of Originals .............................................................................. Collated ................................................................................................................................................. No. of Coples .................................. Stapled ............ ............................................. ............................................................................................ Paper Size .............................................. .................................. Bound .................................... ............................... ................................................................................... Paper Type .................................... Cover Material .. D/S or S/S . ......................................................................................... Ink Colour . SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DECLARATION I certify that copying of the attached material by Canberra School Services does not constitute an infringement of the Copyright Act, 1968, as amended. Dated ....... ...'.f--···-/--········-::_······················ !.. . . ~. . . . ) ... ..:.. . ... . . . . . . . . . .... ... . . .. Please print name of Requisitioner here - .................................................. Signature ..................................................................................................................................... (REQUISITIONER/ DEPT: SECRETARY) NOTE: If papers submitted tor offset printing/photocopying contain copyright material other than Australian National University copyright Form COP-1 must accompany this request In lieu of the Declaration as above. r r" WORKING DRAFT ·. , ' I · CULTURE, PHILOSOPHY, AND APPROACHES TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT - AN AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE Many of you know tha~ Canberra was originally Griffin. This talk is (, ,~ ,/ h (: (tJ m, , . designed by Walter Burley 'i.C to him. You may not know that Griffin, an dedicated / 1,• <, , ' ' ! I ·,/ .• r : , J,,--.T~- l, c :.... American who migrated to Australia in 1913, was not simply an architect and ,1 lantlscape designe ~ but one of Australia's early deeper ecologists. key elements of the Western industrial paradigm, especially on making nature the servant of man', 'land to be accorded the 'concentration and discerned instead elements of a different 'consciousness' (the word is his). took the He rejected His approach was holistic, and respect he due to a highly developed and perfected living organism not to be exterminated or treated as dead material, or as a mere section of a map'. Canberra, now no mere section of map, is still, ,.,i/f . ,:i:. for all its deficiencies, perhaps the best approximation anywhere ~~l-0gical city; * to * * * * * gauge the extent to which Australian contrasted with American culture, contains developable will underpin a under which many suffers. -,/ /h ,1 ;1 ~11._r talk sketches a culture, especially as elements (seeds) which different political framework from the bastardised capitalism people presently labour and local environment frequently It is not necessary to see the present political arrangements and the political course interested aeeper *3 The objective of the larger investigation, of which this is a but it is not only removed from Griffin's original conception but far from deep ecological ideals. part, to in charted as environmentally alternative structures: f) ' r ,nt 1 or socially disastrous to be it is enough, for example, to view them t__ ri __f. _________ ---1 n__ {- ,-; ,:_... --1 (. "'I n,l ._ 1 ,. (•✓ L / ~• • } ' <: l7' 1 •-rt,,,_ c, , /---5-0-J. i +- I~.,, )• I as far from satisfactory, or very far from worlds, those of the best attainable to be interested in the prospects of turning things around somewhat, to increasing ecological resistance [negative action] against vandalism and the environment hope, damage, like, and ecological construction [direct positive action]. There are several distinctive features of Australian culture that for of especially the give grounds remarkable level of environmental activism that has somehow emerged among the people. It is worth trying to pull together some of these features of the culture, to look at ways of furthering the valuable parts, and increasing the level of concern and activism. Without doubt attitudes and different practices, cultures towards have the different environment. approaches, 1 different Indeed appreciation of, practices towards, and respect for the natural environment are highly culturally dependent: compare, for nonimperial cultures had much less North, exploitation and American Jews and American Indians. whose approaches to practices not vandalism the environment merely permit those of the environmental gross control" of their local typically under the missionary, colonial or imperial domination. But occasionally, notably retained than but to a marked extent depend upon such practices. Mostly these more benign cultures have however "lost environments, Most and where they still survive uncorrupted still have - exploitative industrial instance, sufficient in autonomy the to adjacent Pacific, regional cultures 2 have slow or even halt environmental destruction. Thus, for example, rainforest damaging projects have been delayed or blocked in Melanesia largely through Melanesian attitudes to the land. One important way then to try to slow environmental degradation, especially in the South, is to foster both certain sweepingly, regional cultural autonomy; socialism and indigenous for cultural instance land rights movements. 2 differences to support and, more Melanesian For, where the cultures have not been excessively corrupted by Northern influences, this is rapid way of paradigms. in the a cultural differences can also serve Antipodes, in particular in Australia, to at least assist in transition to different Such comparatively activating alternative paradigms to the dominant Northern social The question arises whether elsewhere a less environmentally exploitative social paradigms. transition is unlikely to occur unless it is based on the culture. Can features of the culture and the social life be used to foster and make requisite differences? In the case of Australia, a basis culture, is there both in the land and and things appear sufficiently different from those in the cultures of the industrialised North to allow (some hope) for cultural differentiation . the need for change, at least there is, in It is becoming platitudinous the longer run not much prospect for the integrity of many local natural environments and ecosystems loose Of if the natural environment is to retain some semblance of integrity, there is little doubt. that 3 unless we in the Antipodes break from the damaging cultural assumptions and practice of the industrialised North and work destructive towards establishment of a concern in different less some parts, rising tide war. of For despite environmental the industrialised North still appears in the grip of established forces and unlikely to budge in time - short of nuclear environmentally culture, towards a certain regional cultural autonomy. elements of regionalism in the North, despite a disaster, such largely alone. Nor is the Australia because as well as the location, the as Though we who seek change can count on some support from minority movements in the North, nonetheless if we are to achieve changes, we must go advantage of the ground and its southern seeds of cultural difference are already there and growing. cultivation. Such a it task of paradigm transition entirely hopeless in like most new and more fragile developments they need attention and speedy the careful But if task is rendered urgent also by other matters of 3 environmental and human concern, not just the gathering signs but colossal biological losses through of nuclear rapid destruction of, e.g. war, tropical rainforests, indeed mounting evidence of environmental decline almost everywhere humans now establish. How does philosophy fit into the strategy of harnessing regional culture to alter approaches to the environment? As in the title of the talk it operates in the middle, not as an idle middleman, but more like and design culture. principles A working picture that the main components of the discussion together - a picture that also like most images of the more abstract distorts across organising of the dynamic linkage in a good suspension bridge, which lifts the environmental way on the ropes of regional links the is that of a suspension the gap often separating people from the natural environment. bridge There are people, and the environment, and approaches by bridges to the environment, like so:- approach ➔ People Natural Environment (Of course people may be part of the natural environment: the picture doesn't exclude that important overlap.) The connecting bridges may be of very different sorts, ranging from rustic bridges good for careful foot traffic, through the monumental suspension bridge at Middle Harbour, to modern high-tech bridges able to carry nuclear tanks and bulldozers over large spans. of But it is the structure all these types of bridges carrying the approaches that matter particularly. The spans are carried by the ropes of culture, and the pylons of culture if 4 you will. \ \ \ \ ) (......._ APPROACH _ .,__ _. So with approaches. different '-- --------- ---~ cultures, __,.;::;f --- different carrying bridges different It is better to see the link component in the middle - philosophy, but it might almost as well be sociology - not as part of the nuts and bolts and rivets of the structures. types, bridges, but rather It has its analytical computing the loads and as parts, the design looking stresses at on them; and engineering of the the components, and it also has its more holistic elements, considering the bridges themselves and of them their - the social paradigms embedded in the cultures. select substructures Philosophy, the link subject, is then the architecture and engineering of the business. Less figuratively, assumptions of a philosophy replacement, or marxist philosophies. deep ecology, asks deeper assumptions of all and and assumptions paradigms. the operative for example of free Philosophy, especially metaphysics and not deeper questions, extracting the fundamental other subjects and assembling the intellectual assumptions embodied in a culture or social way of life, i.e. social assembles culture applied in environmental practices, the assumptions, that is, to be considered for enterprise isolates In what are sometimes called the this respect philosophy - which includes much more than conceptual analysis - is first among the intellectual subjects, as logic, the science of reasoning, is the first among the sciences, investigating the form of arguments and methodology of all other sciences. philosophical investigation extracts, 5 The deeper assumptions such when put together yield a philosophy in the more popular sense (as e.g. enterprise philosophy): in philosophy of life or again the free in any case the result will be a philosophical theory or the rudiments of a philosophical paradigm, depending on how it is done. By largely philosophical investigation then, assumptions of the techniques we try contrasted base. with operative to test apparent we trace and Northern social paradigms; the adequacy social of the organise the and by sociological assemblage, especially as alternatives with some environmental support So much has already been accomplished, in a rough and ready way, and some results are illustrated in diagram 1. Details of other positions, the old culture (as positions typically offer environmental a projected), transition alternative. are from And and new left and the counter included in the diagram because these the while the dominant it may Western appear paradigm to indeed is - a long political way from the dominant paradigm to the environmental alternative, of the intermediate taken one at a time. details steps is not so great; To illustrate the way transitions can of the first line (row) in macro-economic form. construed as representing package typically includes environment, so the in components be made, consider The dominant objective such as GDP, a rough way standard of living. minimal to quality of life this But the and and pollution, and perhaps with additions for non-material features excluded in dominant consciousness. this way we arrive at New Left thinking with the objective to considerable reservations, X(RR). of material goes back to Greek philosophy; 6 In growth The real break however comes with members of the counterculture, the Hippies and Yippies for example, idea the objective function to be maximized gets much complicated, with subtractions for externalities such as noise subject each and the steps can, and have, been is to maximize some economic package of goods and services being the though the namely, the abandonment of growth and maximization objectives altogether, for less material nonmaximizing the macroeconomic steady-state objective or will level, for economy, something economists have so far sketched. which Daly for At the idea gets partially represented by the goal of a sustainable be goals. example though the alternative environmental much less inflexible and nationalistic than In fact the ''emerging steady-state advocates, paradigm", affords only a shallow alternative to the dominant paradigm, differing only as to growth and reserves But themes. a fuller diagram of paradigms would include - among others such advanced corporate capitalism the higher-dimensional steady position; state it would involve However, the higher dimensional how a better argued transition can be made; diagram essentially by combining steady-state arguments against macroeconomic growth and stocks assumptions the Left-socialist combination, which framework would a diagram, and remove the convenient oversimplification of the two dimensional left-right transition. indicates so case does not against microeconomic themes. touch human relations, a with Even so, even with the narrower anthropocentric have been left behind, deeper environmental concern would have only began to enter. Reaching behind the dominant Western paradigm so outlined to the underlying social model takes us towards the following familiar picture: society consists of a set of individual humans of decidedly impoverished type, e.g. they are not genuinely interrelated, so they are isolated, and, though they are the only sort of items that have intensional (mental) features, they have (e.g. a certain ability to calculate). but few of these At bottom, these individuals have utilities, reflecting preferences or self-interests, which they aim to maximize; and so they are competitive (by virtue of scarcity). that they are possessive, and possess capital. The distinctive the feature means of Their other feature is production, e.g. land, of the American model is of course is that individuals can separately accumulate the means of production. 7 To ensure their T/\HLI 1. rnr·Al INCi SUC l/\L 1'/IRi\UIC,MS <lNVIRUNMINli\LLY-ORILiilrlJ REl'RESUH/\TION) "··· RIGllf - LEFT POLI T!Ci\L OHIUH/\l 10,J uo•;1NAtll m ~[STERN P/\RAD!GM LORE TII EM[ S Mr.TERIAL (ECONOMI C) GROWTH LJOMI NAN CE OVER NATURE NATUR,\L ENVIR ONM ENT A RESOURCE DOM! N/\N l ISTATE SOCI/\LI ST 1 IOLD INEW I COUNTE.R- I LffT I LEFT I CULTURE I ,X<Rl X 1 ' I X I X X X I ECONOMIC ORG.l\N[S/\T[ON/\L POLIT l CAL FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL EPISTEMIC/ PHILOSOPHIC MARKET FORCES (MINIMALLY REGULATED, PRODU CT IVITY AN D PROFIT MAXIMIZING) PREDOMINANTLY PRIVATE OWNER SHIP OF PRODUCTIVE MEA NS [NDIVIDUALISTJC/ COMPETITIVE ETHOS EL IT IST/REWARDS FOR APPROVED ACHIEVEMENT CONSUMERISM ENCOURAGED URBAN-INDUSTRIAL co~~ODITYICULTURAL PACKAGING CENTRALISED: URBAN CE:;TRED Lr.RGE-SC ALE: ORDERED (POWER -) HIERARCHICAL HUMAr1 RE LAT I ONS SECONDARY I I y !COMMAND SYSTEM IX<Rl X<R) 1 I X<RR) y y y y y xrnJ ly(QJ X->Y X IX(Ql I I Y I Y I 1X<Q) X(Ql I 1 I I X(Q) 1X<QJ I X I X I X X I I X X<Rl X X X ly(R) NAT IONAL FOCUS; MILITARY DEFENCE X I I X ALTERN ATIVE STRUCTURES (POWER-BROKERS ANO EXPERTS PROMINENT) LAW AND ORDER; LEGAL REGULATION, POLICE BACKED X : X·➔Y I I X ➔Y X<R) X ➔Y I I Y<Q) y Y Y V IHUMAN RELATIONS jPRIMARY IY(Q) X X·->Y y y I y ITRADITIONAL MARKETS WITH IN PUBLIC INTEREST I FRAMEWORK LIMITED OWNERSHIP OF IPRODUCTIVE MEANS !DECENTRAL ISED: I COMMUNAL i 0 1REGIONALINEIGHBOURHOOD FOCUS; SOCIAL (NONIV IOLENT) DEFENCE I PARTICIPATIVE STRUCTURES J(c ITIZEN-WORKER I INVOLVEMENT) 1LIBERAT!O N; SOCIAL I IREGULATION I I X 1X<Rl I y JEARTH SUPPLIES LIMITED X I X y NATURE HOSTILE/NEUTRAL NoNHUMANS ESSENTIALLY ME CHAN l ST IC X X I X I X FAITH IN SCIENCE: HIGH TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS SEPARATION OF REASON/ EMOTION, FACT/VALUE, , , , ScIENTIF!C/UT!L!TARIAN RATIONALITY; ANALYTIC REDUCTIONISTIC X :x(R) iNATURE DELICATELY BALANCED 1NATURE BENIGN !OTHER ANIMALS ALSO INTENTIONAL y X IX y X IX I IRATIONALITY I REJECTED y X➔ Y ! 1SMALL-SCALE; FLEXIBLE NoN-(POWER)H!ERARCHJC,\L IHUMAN RELATIONS WITHIN IECO - COMMUN I TY 1 ? I o . ,:, ,u <r 4l1 n 1 lx<Rl AMPLE RESERV~S (OR (SUBSTITUTES) ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLLABLE I I ''' ' I Y/NON OWNERSHIP I !COLLECTIVE ETHOS/ !SOCIAL PROVISION EGALITARIAN/INCOME NEED IRELATED l(AREFUL USE/RECYCLING , 1Y(ESSENTIAL) LOCAL/SELF-MANAGEMENT !PRODUCT/CULTURE EMPHASIS! X x<R> IDEEP ECOLOGY , orsT[NGU[SIIED 1LE SS MATERIAL GOALS ' (E.G. SE LF-REALISATION) ! lir.RMONY WI TH NATURE ,NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IGREATER VALUE ' VALUED FOR ITSELF ASSUMPTIOrj !REJECTED (FOR I BIOSPEC I ES I IMPARTIALITY) X--"Y I I iALTERN/\TlVE (Y) !ENVIRONMENTAL P/\R.l\D!GM y x<RR) I STATE !OWNERSHIP " I LIMITS TO SCIENCE: !APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY JINTEGRATION OF REASON/ EMOTION, FACT/VALUE , , , !HIDER RATIONALITY (OR REJECTION OF NARROWER); IHOLISTIC IV/NATURAL AS TELEOLOGICAL I I entitlement to this is the initial argument, on this model, for the coercive apparatus of the (minimal) state. natural, this about self-interested Features There is nothing compulsory, or picture. competing Individuals individuals are matter of these nurture, abstract not nature. of the American economic archtype are a matter of culture, a result of training, not human nature, as a comparison where approximating particularly individuals are not like this, individuals embody rationality either: with helps other traditional cultures, Nor do these archtypal show. only a question-begging argument leads to the American model as something naturally required. The transitions to the left already go beyond the American model. introduces certain relations. human chauvinistic (anthropocentric) but they The do left not models omit are social The left still human relations: the further big step to the environmental alternative is to widen these relations to full community relations, independent value. recognising That is a creatures and nonhuman things as of bigger step, a step that no Western political institutions make requisite allowance for, and that mainstream underpinning Western value theories do not accommodate. The arguments from traditional cultures can also be illustrated paradigms cultures such as those and of the models Melanesia that and directed underlie Polynesia, them. many against the In traditional of the operative assumptions of the Northern social paradigms are, very reasonably, not accepted. Where these cultures still prevail with some measure of regional autonomy, there is good prospect of thwarting more environmentally destructive practices. Features of the local culture can be immediately harnessed. But much of the inhabited and there are already New governed and by environmentally less unscathed World peoples of predominantly European stock. distinctive features 8 observable in New World is now Although cultures, assumptions of the dominant Northern paradigms have hardly been sufficiently questioned, let alone overthrown, especially among the managerial other, or even lesser, features of surprisingly leave There are out cultures significant as artistic and intellectual usually cultural industrial culture, though economically dominated accompanying other conspicuous The incomplete social paradigms outlined do not exhaust features of the accompanying rather to be sure, does affords European culture. This alternatives. a discrepancies. established have an somewhat as that in romanticism and a significant feature of American Indian gives *l but Northern features. This icing. discerned, precarious foothold for an aesthetic approach to the environment, such evidenced So the cultures will have to be invoked if change in approach is to be hastened in this way. cultural features to be considered. classes. But the basis there of the as are aesthetic well more route to important environmental omissions and In particular, the dominant American paradigm omits reference to religion; also neglected are many of the connected older and formerly more prominent values of American culture. The American search for environmentally acceptable alternatives has regularly turned to these omitted features of American culture, and religious or spiritual elements, and associated past values 4 • establish "the gospel of ecology" and displace the dominant paradigm have taken a spiritual route, a quasi-religious way. and Indeed the primary attempts to representative (For example, Nash provides a sample list of the books he considers important in the rise of the new environmentalis m: virtually all that proceed beyond ecology depend on an appeal to religious elements, to divine or sacred features of natural things.) In the context of American culture the appeal something to be said for it. to religious features has For, firstly, a high proportion of the American population profess some active religious commitment; 9 and, unlike Australia, a substantial proportion do act in accordance with that response. And, secondly, religious values do clash with dominant Northern paradigm. This sort of conflict socially the precepts was approved of perceived, considerable puzzlement, by colonised cultures, as Lini reports in the case the with of Melanesian society (p.9): The fabric of this society, with its inherent communal discipline was torn by the arrival of European commercial practices which carried with it the message of materialism, together with the creed of enlightened self-int-erest. Both aspects were a direct contradiction of Melanesian values and priorities. The introduction to Melanesia of Christianity added a further element of division and confusion in the minds of the people. While the Christian religion was widely compatible with the ethics and principles of Melanesian communalism, with its emphasis on mutuality, compassion and caring for one another, it was a practice that very few of the Europeans appeared to follow. It ran also contrary to the religion of individualism and self-interest, which not just (had) more important exponents, but was followed by the majority of Europeans ••• It is something a a puzzle how the assimilation of elements of the dominant Northern paradigm with prospects of Christianity is pulled off, though achieved it certainly is in a great many Northerners, and too many Antipodeans. a partial answer: compartmentalisation. Religion for most is a separate thing fitted into a Sunday morning box, important elements of which do not upset the standard penetrate deep. business week. escape to Thus for most believers religion does not Only for a minority does it directly such as human poverty: There is touch immediate matters why should we expect it to work for the Environment? Nonetheless widespread real adoption of religious perceptions within the American population, and reflected in the Administration, would presumably alter things. But even if some of the effects of a religious return would beneficial, and to nature domination highly be welcomed, it is also true that some of the effects of a narrow fundamentalism would be highly undesirable. of be were Unless moreover the position abandoned in favour of one of the lesser relig ious traditions the environmental effects would 10 be negative (as Watt testifies). Religion could be more of a drawback than an asset. with any depth to it appears most unlikely. "the scientific world view". In any case such a reversal Religion in America has lost out to In part it failed deservedly: world view was seriously deficient and it did not account more scientific view could explain. the case for its for much the Consider, for instance, the matter of the existence of God, the fallaciousness of the arguments involved, etc. no virtue in front-end-in. shape. It trying return to the is world view in such great is not just that there is much that this sort of view leaves out or social it is that this perspective, a paradigm, paradigm. So incorporates it is far from uniquely determined. more intellectually satisfactory rivals (e.g. view). There view with these sorts of weaknesses But nor is the so-called scientific cannot account for; dominant to rival a richer intensional the There are scientific These rivals allow for value and wonder in natural things without taking a theological way. There is a second quasi-religious set character of of reasons some sort, for not endeavouring Christian, Jewish, whatever, on deeper environmental approaches in Australia. strongly impose a Pantheistic or These turn on the irreligious character of the culture, where an appeal through religion is unlikely to have much understood as a (the success. first) Australia, post-Christian it has been irreligious character of the understanding much else about the culture, society e.g. said, is 'best society, in which religion (is) barely relevant culturally'. *4 Even if that formulation is an generally to exaggeration the is a fact and is the key to the curious extent of the state's protrusion into Australian social life. If an approach through religion is accordingly ruled out as a main approach to hastened paradigm transition - and a related approach through mysticism or transcendentali sm excluded for analogous reasons and because of 11 the earthiness of the culture what alternative s are open? There are other significant features of the culture running against major elements of the dominant paradigm, effectively which can perhaps be much applied quasi-relig ious approaches to turn matters around. more Western than To indicate the prospects of applying features of the culture to detach from dominant paradigms, consider how Australian culture contrasts with American. Australian mainstream culture transition from the dominant is already American political left has much stronger support in difficult to some culture. Australia way It along the leftward is not merely that the than USA. It is not indicate features of the Australian cultural situation which show its left-displac ement from the dominant Western paradigm. some elements of the contrast:- 12 The next table lists TABLE 2. CONTRASTING ELEMENTS IN AUSTRALIAN AND AMERICAN CULTURE SCALE OF INCREASE *2 individualistic ethos inacceptability of socialist institutions inegalitarian attitudes POSITIVE inegalitarian practices ITEMS (PER level of consumerism CAPITA maximization quest WHERE imperialist drive RELEVANT) extent of violence police and military commitment high technology involvement functional rationality environmental inactivism AUSTRALIA USA SCALE OF INCREASE level of urbanisation legal obstacles to environmental action NEGATIVE official opposition to environmental practices, such as dedication of ITEMS wilderness administrative delays in implementing environmental practices, such as pollution requirements, recycling, etc. 13 Thus there are some offsetting negative items as well as positive items in the in the contrast. Since, however, most of these contrasting elements bear on first diagram of rival paradigms in a way favourable to Australian culture as opposed to American, it appears that prospects indeed better. themes for applying the culture are This important theme requires elaboration and confirmation. The task can profitably be combined with others: there is much work here both for environmental spectators with an empirical bent and for environmental activists. A first task is to separate out what is known, what requires and what ought to be done (ideologically ). and their surrounds, distinguishing firstly theses: A weak confirmation, Let us focus on transition theses, factual and normative transition factual transition thesis, that Western (European) culture is undergoing a transition away from the dominant confirmed by several Northern sociologists (e.g. better results could be obtained in Australia; social Marsh). paradigm, has been Presumably similar or but appropriate samplings of the community have not been done, analysed and so on - environmental sociology being a neglected undoubtedly field also in Australia. Another weak factual transition thesis holds, namely that since 1960 a significant percentage of the each human community in specifiable advanced Western countries such as Australia have come to adopt main assumptions of the alternative environmental paradigm. But again comparative-fig ures sociological work are entirely of data to Though impressionistic tells us that environmental activism is greater in Australia than USA - indeed more intensive than piece lacking. anywhere else, an immensely build upon - we lack solid confirmation. sociogeographer s to do. 14 important There is much for Throughout, · as you may have noticed, a normative transition thesis has been taken largely for granted, that Australian culture, indeed Western culture generally, ought to be undergoing a major paradigm Western paradigms and their away from dominant variations (such as those of advocated corporate capitalism and of the post-indus trial society), transiting shift, and towards an environmen tal alternative . furthermore ought the arguments. It is also be That complex normative thesis is argued for in environmen tal philosophy, and fortunately there isn't repeat to time to argued against there, but, to sum up the opposition case cavalierly, unconvincin gly. Given then that the transition is going on, indeed emerging are are clear doing environmen tal encourage enough. for it in Australia? example, directing action going be aiming swing major Preliminary against the to organisatio ns. on, answers sources of They should increase their support bases, but not merely by membership They should be endeavourin g to influence the dominant regional culture, for the potential appears to be there for a considerabl y greater change than has thus far been two be despoilatio n and the like, primarily industrial organisatio ns and drives and environmen tal education. and to Not only should activists be continuing with what those supposed to regulate them, further (public) also ought ought then to be going on with greater rapidity, how is it hastened, how do environmen tal activists they and parts to this further practice which achieved. There are can run in tandem, a more negative and a more positive part: • More negatively, it involves cutting down and countering the flow of propaganda in favour of the dominant paradigms both locally but especially from the North. That is important in reversing the extent of Northern co-option. includes gently a range of activities some with solid bases in local culture, such as lopping anti-Americ an It off the tall poppies pedalling and anti-Northe rn activities. 15 the stuff, and careful The latter practices (which should . . not of course reduce merely to personall y directed antagonism ) fit in well other regional environm ental with aims, such as independe nt and nonaligne d defence policies. • More positivel y, it consists in promoting and adapting other also despised features of alternati ve paradigms . ambassado rs, Australia n It is culture that work directly towards themes of commonly Northern intellect uals Lawrence ). adapted like are, of course, those nonmaxim izing making-do socialist ic ones, of local natural the The features to be egalitari an, along environm ents. with the combines enough: cultural with promoted or anti-auth oritarian , rapidly increasin g Nonmaxim izing, for example, is reflected in the She'll be right and It'll do approach often and and note, that are responsib le for the low repute in which some of the cultural character s are held (e.g. appreciat ion commonly taken to things, egalitari an methods as encapsula ted in Fair go and Enough's consider the effects of these, decently applied, in economics , in local markets. As for mateship, sure it could use widening, a main problem being its restrictio n in practice to extension male relations hips: to communit ies (includin g nonhuman s). is there for deep cultural transform ation: but why not encourage its So, to conclude, the potential we must help to realise it. FOOTNOTES 1. The term 'approach es' is intended to include both theory and both espoused ideology and behaviour . 2. They did not go under because of the weakness of their intellect ual positions . At bottom their religious beliefs, for example, were no more ridiculou s than those of Christian ity. Typically they were much weakened by new diseases, and overwhelm ed by new technolog y often applied in violent fashion. 3. By integrity is meant much more than retaining represent ative samples of this and that system or species; not represent ative southern sassafras , parma wallabies and Torres Strait Islanders , but sufficien tly many. 16 practice, 4. Another past philosophic al basis for environmen tal philosophy, American naturalism, seems to have been little developed, despite the promise some have seen in it. *1 The aesthetic route Highwater. *2 Note well that it is not being claimed that Australian culture is egalitarian (in conformity with a popular myth); only that it is less inegalitari an than American. The hard data underlying the claim--rs assembled in 'Culture and the roots of political divergence '. *3 For Griffin's conception of Canberra - a much smaller Canberra, which included a rail loop - see, to start with, Birrell (still the best source on Griffin). The first quotation from Griffin is quoted in Birrell, p.178; the second is from Griffin's article in Australian Wild Life. *4 P. is well-illust rated by the main approach in O'Farrell. REFERENCES J. Highwater, The Primal Mind. Vision Harper & Row, New York, 1981. J. Birrell, Walter Burley Griffin, Queensland U.P., 1964. W.B. Griffin, -. ) , '\ and ,• Reality in Indian America, Australian Wild Life W. Lini, Keynote Address, Australia and the South Pacific, Proceedings a Conference held at the Australian National University, 1982. P. O'Farrell, 'The cultural ambivalence of Australian religion', in Culture and the State in Australia, Australian Cultural History 1 (1982) Canberra. R. Nash, 'Rounding out the American revolution: ethical extension and the new environmen talism', typescript, University of California at Santa Barbara, 1982. A. Marsh, Protect and Political Consciousne ss, Sage Beverley Hills, 1977. s. Cotgrove, Catastrophe and Cornucopia, Wiley, ,\,'. ~· , ,, R. Routley, 'Roles and limits of paradigms action', in Elliot and Gare, 260-293. R. Elliot and A. Ga:re, Environmen tal Philosophy. Readings, University of Queensland Press, 1983. of c- r- 17 , 1982. in environmen tal A thought Collection and of  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 24, Item 1699: Working draft of Culture, philosophy and approaches to the natural environment - an Australian perspective Subject The topic of the resource Typescript of draft, with emendations and annotation, undated. Includes photocopy of draft. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 24, Item 1699 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [37] leaves. 37.68 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:f3f9764">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:f3f9764</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1983 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Australian National University - Filing Cabinet 1 - Top Drawer Australian National University Office Australian National University Office > Filing Cabinet 1 > Top Drawer Box 24: Files on Articles https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/4702be7f7ad689d9b8f0976dbfea321b.pdf 8ffeeac3fdaf406e7b76aa237ecb18fe PDF Text Text �DEEP ECOLOOY AHO OREEH POLITICS Deep Ecology ts an envtronMentaL theory or pLatforM wtth poLtttcaL stgntftcant wtth pLatforM LMpLtcattons. Green PoLtttcs ts a poLtttcaL envtronMentaL LMpLtcattons. Both arose tn Large part tn reactton to prevatLtng envtronMentaL practtces; but Deep Ecology concentrates rather on theorettcaL refLectton, Green PoLtttcs on practtcaL actton. Deep and tnvesttgatton questtontng of the underLytng doMtnant attttudes, seen as the Major source of ecoLogtcaL and other probLeMs, Led to arttcuLatton of the Deep Ecology pLatforM, partly outLtned tn "slogan" forM tn the foLLowtng table. TABLE 1. DEEP ECOLOGY CONTRASTED ~ITH OOMIHAHT ATTITUDES OOMrnAtn ATT HUDES (OOMrnAtH PARADIGM] DEEP ECOLOGY [RIVAL EttV IROHMEHTAL PARADIGM] Hature a Resource; Intrtnstc Value conftned to HuMans Natural EnvtronMent Valued for ltseLt; Btocentrtc E9aLttartantsM MatertaL EconoMtc Growth a predoMtnant goaL Hon-MatertaL Goals, espectaLLy ConsuMertsM Dotng wtth Enough/RecycLtng CoMpettttve LtfestyLe Cooperattve Ltfeway CentraLtzed/ Urban Centred/ DecentraLtzed/ Btoregtonat/ · Hetghbourhood focus tia t Lona L focus SeLf-ReaLtzatton Power structure HterarchtcaL Hon-hterarchtcaL/ Grassroots DeMocracy Htgh Technology Approprtate Technology ~htLe Deep Ecology grew froM the work of one envtronMentaL phtLosopher (Haess tn 1972), Green PoLtttcs arose (tn ~est GerMany stnce 1976) froM the synthests of several MoveMents - ecology, ctttzens, aLternattve, peace and other MoveMents. The platforM of Green PoLtttcs, whtch ts butlt around four ptllars soctaL responstbtltty, grassroots deMocracy, and non-vtoLence ecology, reflects these ortgtns. The ftrst of these ptLLars, ecology, ts based on the stMpLe theMe that LtMtted ecoLogtcaL systeMs cannot sustatn unltMtted econoMtc growth, or such questtonabLe types of growth as nuclear power, wtthout sertous rtsk of daMage and degeneratton. The Green atM ts to Move to systeMs of productlon and consuMptton whtch Matntatn and restore natural processes and cycles rather than doMtnate or destroy theM - a Move towards harMony wtth nature. The second ptllar of Green Poltttcs, soctal responstbtltty, tMpLtes opposttton to the tnequaltttes tn power and doMtnatton relattonshtps of present soctety, and reMovaL of dtscrtMtnatton, econoMtc hardshtp and explottatton, both regtonaLly and as regards the Thtrd ~orld. The Green atM - to be achteved prtMartly froM below, ts to butLd stable and just soctaL through those adversely affected arrangeMents, wtth coMprehenstve deMocrattc rtghts and freedoMs (both tn GerMany -1- �and where GerMan operatLons LMpLnge Ln the ThLrd ~orLd). These changes are to be brought about by grassroots deMocracy, the thLrd pLLLar, through Lncreased reaLLsatLon of dLrect decentraLLsed deMocracy. ThLs LnvoLves organLsatLon and coordLnatLon .of decentraLLsed basLc unLts (LocaL, coMMunLty and dLstrLct) whLch are 9Lven extensLve, but not coMpLete, autonoMy, as weLL as wLde use of referenda, deLegatLon practLces, and rotatLon of offLce-hoLders. The fourth and fLnaL pLLLar, non-vLoLence, LMpLLes the reMovaL of coercLve and aLso oppressLve practLces, not MereLy by More powerfuL peopLe, but especLaLLy by socLaL groups and states, and aLso, More posLtLveLy, actLve depoLyMent of varLous Methods of socLaL protest, resLstance and defence. The coMpatLbLLLty of Means wLth ends serves here as an LMportant underLyLng prLncLpLe: that a just, non-vLoLent, huMane• end-state cannot be satLsfactorLLy achLeved by unjust, vLoLent, LnhuMane Means. 1 Green PoLLtLcs offers then a broad prograM for socLaL change, whLch LncLudes the More specLfLc and ecoLogLcaLLy focussed Deep EcoLogy pLatforM as a quLte proper part. Put dLfferentLy, Green PoLLtLcs coMbLnes a wLder pLuraLLty of MoveMents of whLch Deep EcoLogy represents one LMportant strand. The Lnter-reLatLons are shown pLctorLaLLy at the second LeveL of the foLLowLng 12 dLagraM: DIAGRAM l. DOUBLE PYRAMID, SETTING DEEP ECOLOGY IN PLACE B p 1. Deep EcoLogy fundaMentaLs; e.g. BuddhLst (B), ChrLstLan (C) and (Eco)-Phi.LosophLc (P) uLtLMate bases C I 2 Exp Lana.t Lon DLrecti.on 2. Deep Ecology platforM 2C . ReforMi.st envLronMental posi.ti.on 2+. Vague fundaMentaLs of Green platforM Der Lvat Lon Di.recti.on j 3 . . General norMs and theMes, substantLaLLy derLved froM pLatforM ~- PartLcular norMs and concrete decLsLons, applyi.ng to relevant practLcaL sLtuatLons . The ecoLogLcaL coMponent of Green PolLtLcs May not 90 very deep; Lt May onLy be based upon reforM envLronMentaLLsM (or shaLLow ecoLogy as Lt used to be • Starred notes LndLcate poLnts at whLch readLngs wLth the correspondLng nuMbers May be Lnserted or undertaken. -2- �catted), whLch aLMs to reforM soMe of the worst abuses and excesses of the doMLnant posLtLon, such as gross pottutLon, extensLve despotLatLo n of land and takes and oceans, tLttte thought for the future, MLstreatMen t of anLMals, etc. On shallow ecology, nature Ls not valued for Ltsetf, but as a resource, that Ls LnstruMent atty, for what Lt can be used for by huMans. By contrast, Deep Ecology argues (e.g. froM preMLsses of level I) that the envLronMent Ls LntrLnsLcat ty valuable, that nature Ls valuable Ln and for Ltself; and that, LntrLnsLc value Ls equally dLstrLbuted . ThLs projectLon of furtherr,ore , egatLtarLan or Lr,partLatLt y prLncLptes, usually restrLcted to huMans, to the whole of tLfe Ln the natural world, gets dLgnLfLed by the tLtte, BLocentrLc EgalLtarLanL sM. The prLncLple, not part of Green PolLtLcs, Ls perhaps the Most controversL al of the central prLncLptes of Deep Ecology; but Lt or soMe substLtute for Lt Ls requLred, granted that the natural world contaLns value beyond that accruLng to huMans and theLr features, to explaLn how value Ls dLstrLbuted . Deep Ecology accounts for the dLstrLbutLo n through what Ls ' •3 . presented as a ' core der,ocracy Ln the b~osphere . Deep Ecology grew out of a phLtosophL cal dP~penLng of the new features of the scLence of ecology, whLch served to dLstance ecology froM the standard run of reductLonLs t scLences (through such features as holLsM; gestalt propertLes; systeMs whLch are More than the sur, of theLr ator,LstLc parts; eMergent eler,ents, tLke lLfe, organLsatLo n, etc.). Deep Ecology quLckly allLed Ltself wLth the subversLve features of unco-opted ecology, Ln partLcutar, the eMphasLs on the lLMLts, and ultLMate faLture of (atoMLstLc) reductLonLsM Ln scLence and phLlosophy. ~Lth such an orLgLn, Lt Ls not surpr~s~ng that there Ls lLttle dLrectty about such r,aLn pLllars of Green PotLtLcs as socLal responsLbLl Lty and non-vLotenc e Ln the platforM of Deep Ecology. However Deep Ecology Ls cor,patLble wLth these Green pLllar prLncLptes, and Lndeed perr,Lts theLr derLvatLon. ~hat Ls supposed to result are general norMs, lLke Ho exploLtatLo n, Ho subjectLon, Ho vLolence, at level 3. (Such a derLvatLon of a non-vLolenc e prLncLple froM the Deep Ecology prLncLple of r,axLMLzLng Self-realLs atLon Ls atter,pted by Haess Ln the frar,ework of hLs systeM of Eco-phLloso phy).•~ A MaLn focus of Deep Ecology Ls on changLng huMan relatLons wLth the natural envLronMen t, away froM doMLnant exploLtatLv e practLces. The natural envLronr,ent coMprLses Lter,s of LntrLnsLc value, LncludLng hur,ans (who are not above or separate fror, Lt), and accordLngty Ls to be treated wLth the care and respect valuable Lter,s warrant, and not LrresponsLb ly. Thus Lt would be contrary whLch to Deep Ecology to treat the envLronMent or Lts valued Lter,s vLolently such (consLder however Ls what Deep Ecology contends doMLnant practLces do wLdespread phenor,ena as "rape of the envLronMen t", ·of the land", •of the forests"). SLnce hur,ans are not apart fror, or superLor to nature, Lt follows froM the Deep Ecology platforr, that natural and proper relatLons also exclude vLolence towards other hur,ans or classes of huMans. Because Lt covers a pluralLty of posLtLons, LncludLng shallow ecologLcal posLtLons, Green PolLtLcs Ls Much More ar,elLoratLv e and reforMLst Ln character than Deep Ecology, whLch Ls further rer,oved froM dor,Lnant attLtudes, More hardLLne, and r,ore radLcat. ~hereas Deep Ecology goes to fundaMenta ts, and focusses on Ldeats and theory, Green PotLtLcs tends to concentrate on practLcal poLLtLcat probler,s of an envLronr,en tat or socLat kLnd, such as acLd raLn or rLver pottutLon or MLssLte deptoyMent, and (LLke the Peace Mover,ent Ln AustralLa) Ls not so Much concerned wLth refLnLng Lts rather vague prLncLples or workLng out an envLronMen tat (or peace) phLtosophy. Because of Lts envLronMen tal depth and natural world focus, Deep Ecology Ls concerned wLth a range of natural -3- �radLcaL the envLronMent Lssues, such as wLLderness, rare specLes, and transforMatLon of agrLcuLture, whLch are onLy of passLng Lnterest to a sMaLL MLnorLty Ln Green PoLLtLcs or are beyond Lts poLLtLcaL reach. Jn Lts reforMLst styLe Green PoLLtLcs does not venture far beyond prevLous Left-LeanLng poLLtLcaL MoveMents, except, fLrstLy, Ln Lts opposLtLon to envLronMent and aMenLty daMagLng LndustrLaLLsM and, secondLy, as regards non-vLoLence and Lts coMMLtMent to attaLnLng peace. Non-vLoLence Ls the Most controversLaL of the four pLLLars. For non-vLoLence ruLes out a range of poLLtLcaL actLon, LncLudLng typLcaL protests, confrontatLon and revoLutLons. Non-vLoLence aLso LMpLLes, what Ls very dLfferent froM current MLLLtary practLces, socLaL defence. WhLLe MaLn factLons Ln the Green MoveMent support non-vLoLent Methods and socLaL defence, other Lesser factLons hoLd that force Ls necessary to brLng about varLous necessary changes and for defence purposes. The Deep EcoLogy pLatforM LncLudes severaL prLncLpLes that wouLd be recognLsed by onLy a MLnorLty of the Green MoveMent. One of these prLncLpLes (whLch however, unLLke BLocentrLc EgaLLtarLanLsM, wouLd not be wLdeLy opposed by reforMLst Greens) Ls the core prLncLpLe of SeLf-reaLLsatLon, or More exactLy of MaxLML2Ln9 SeLf-reaLLsatLon. The notLon of seLf-reaLLsatLon of varLous reLLgLous posLtLons, of the fuLL unfoLdLng and deveLopMent of the person, Ls vastLy expanded Ln Deep EcoLogy to LncLude brLngLng to fuLL fruLtLon not MereLy one's own person, but aLL that one LdentLfLes wLth, that Ls the expanded SeLf, whLch Ls taken to be not MereLy one's faMLLy or feLLows or feLLow natLonaLs, nor MereLy ~as on huManLstLc ethLcs) the whoLe huMan race, but the whoLe naturaL 1 systeM. The SeLf-reaLLsatLon prLncLpLe, sprLngLng as Lt appears froM an enLLghtened personaL seLf-Lnterest prLncLpLe, has an exceLLent phLLosophLcaL pedLgree (at Least as appLLed to huMans or neLghbourLng cLasses of huMans). Thus rather than beLng argued for, a dLffLcuLt Matter Ln the case of uLtLMate prLncLpLes, SeLfreaLLsatLon Ls LMported froM syMpathetLc phLLosophLcaL or reLLgLous posLtLons at LeveL I of the doubLe pyraMLd, froM those that heLp sustaLn Deep EcoLogy. However the expansLon LnvoLved, the derLvatLon process froM narrow seLf to coMprehensLve SeLf, severs the usuaL justLfLcatory LLnks. It Ls hard to LdentLfy one's seLf-Lnterests wLth · those of a rock or an acorn. So the supposed LdentLfLcatLon - wLth soMe or aLL MountaLns, rLvers and raLnforests Ln the wLder reMaLns, LLke the assocLated extended EgaLLtarLan SeLf, Nature personLfLed prLncLpLe, decLdedLy probLeMatLc. Because Lt Ls assuMed that SeLf-reaLLsatLon Ls dLrected to ecoLogLcaL and spLrLtuaL ends, not at MaterLaL goods or Means, SeLf-reaLLsatLon Leads to the 16 AMong the raMLfLcatLons of the sLogan sLogan, "SLMpLe Ln Means, rLch Ln ends". one uses and where one LLves technoLogy of are those concernLng what kLnd (the Matter of dweLLLng Ln sLtuatLons of Lnherent vaLue and the LLke), what and how Much one consuMes, and so on. The doMLnant attLtudes, forMed around of econoMLc growth and econoMLc routes to happLness, have MaxLML2atLon eMphasLsed both MaterLaL goaLs and MaterLaL Means, partLcuLarLy personaL consuMerLsM. But Lf MaterLaL use and pure consuMptLon are to be reduced for envLronMentaL and other reasons, what LLfestyLes are approprLate? Deep EcoLogy, LLke Lts fundaMentaL sources, poLnts to experLentLaL and spLrLtuaL ends and eMphasL2es the rLchness of non-MaterLaL ends avaLLabLe. The resuLt, of course, Ls practLces whLch are sLMpLe, voluntary sLMpLLcLty, doLng wLth enough, and, More generaLLy, practLces whLch LLe LLght on the Land and the naturaL worLd. In a properLy ecoLogLcaL way of doLng thLngs, these wLLL be Lntegrated (Ln syMbLotLc and other naturaL styLes) wLth the naturaL systeMs LnvoLved, workLng wLth rather than agaLnst the naturaL fLow. The practLces, and organLsatLonaL approprLate to regLonaL wLLL accordLngLy be ecoregLonaL arrangeMents, -4- �ecologtcal grouptngs - or btoregtonal, as they have coNe to be called. • 7 Approprtate Means tnclude, tn turn, technLques approprLate to the practLce and theory .of Deep Ecology. HLgh technologLes such as nuclear power are not approprLate, even Ln advanced LndustrLal socLetLes, but LnapproprLate because of the envLronMental and socLal costs and rLsks such technologLcal forMs LMpose. On both deep and green perceptLons, what Ls requLred are relLable careful technologLes whLch are not ecologLcally daMagLng or socLally rLsky or otherwLse undesLrable; but the technologLes adMLtted wLll dLffer accordLng to the prLncLples of the posLtLons they answer back to (e.g . farMLng technLques wLlt need to be very dLfferent froM those prevaLtLng Ln rural GerMany to Meet such prLncLptes as bLospherLc egalLtarLanLsM). In each case the practLcat use of approprLate technology falls at the bottoM, actLon level, of the double . •a pyraN~d. WhLle Deep Ecology supplLes an appeatLng blueprLnt for dLfferent socLal and lLfe-ways, the questLon reMaLns: how Ls the proMLsed land reached? A MaLn part of the answer Ls taken to be gLven through a further crucLal feature of Deep Ecology: EcologLcal ConscLousness, a notLon agaLn expandLng upon conceptLons of other older LdeologLes (e.g. of relLgLous, or of revolutLonary, conscLousness). What Ls dLfferent Ls that spLrLtual or LdeologLcal conversLon Ls agaLn broadened froM the personal and socLat to coMprehend the full envLronMental predLcaMent. In thLs explanatLon, of how people get, and are got, to grasp Deep Ecology and Lts practLces, the pyraMLd Ls ascended, froM actLon to Ldeas, to deeper explanatory prLncLples. A thorough conversLon process Lnvolves elevatLon to the top livet, spLrLtuat transcendence of the daLly econoMLc and polLtLcat actLon level. 9 It Ls assuMed that, wLth enough converts and supporters, Deep Ecology wLlt be put Ln place, lLke Green PolLtLcs, by grassroots deMocratLc procedures. LLke the fundaMental sources upon whLch Lt draws, Deep Ecology prescrLbes practLces by whLch to achLeve such a conversLon and through whLch to arrLve at EcologLcal ConscLousness. SoMe of the MaLn practLces, such as MedLtatLon and conteMptatLon, are derLved froM the fundaMental sources. But other Methods whLch extend these, soMe of theM expandLng upon ecologLcat experLence, Lnclude value reorLentatLon and wLdened value perceptLon seeLng thLngs dLfferently, and coMLng to apprecLate the worth and well-beLng of other thLngs. Connected wLth these wLdened experLentLal bases, and LnforMLng theM, goes a holLstLc shLft Ln values and perceptLon, and an expanded LdentLfLcatLon, affordLng dLrect lLnkage wLth parts and wholes of the natural world. •IO By these Methods, a person May coMe to a deep and joyous apprecLatLon of the real world, a convert to Deep Ecology , a fellow and advocate of Lts Messages and lLfe-ways . ESSAY QUESTIOHS I. To what extent do Green PolLtLcs and Deep Ecology share the saMe values and address the saMe probleMs? CrLtLcally coMpare and contrast theLr proposa l s, especLally as regards the natural and the buLlt envLronMent. 2. Deep Ecology Ls soMetLMes assLgned four, levels. Try to descrLbe these, and to explaLn carefully the LnterrelatLons aMong these levels. Uhere does Green PolLtLcs fLt Lnto thLs probleMatLc scheMe? 3 . "BLocentrLc EgalLtarLanLsM - Ln prLncLple appears as a key theMe of Deep Ecology. CrLtLcally assess Lts adequacy. Shouldn't Green PolLtLcs Lnctude such a prLncLpte? 4. Is Non-vLolence an unstated prLncLple of Deep Ecology? ExplaLn why Deep Ecology Ls coMMLtted to non-vLolence to the degree Lt Ls? In your answers . take -5- \ �account of the foLLowLng dLffLcuLtLes: L. the contradLctLons between the use of vLoLence and the defence of the envLronMent; LL. the occurrence of vloLence Ln nature; ttt. the need for coerclve Methods to preserve the natural envtronMent. 5. Uhat justlfLes expandLng _seLf-reallsatLon to SeLf-reaLlsatlon? ExpLaLn the Meanlng and LMportance of SeLf-ReaLlsatLon for Deep Ecology and dLscuss Lts adequacy. Uhy does lt not feature ln Green PolLtlcs? 6. ExpLaLn the MeanLng of the deLLberateLy vague slogan ·slMple ln Means, rlch ln ends·, or of soMe other hlgh-lMpact slogan of Deep Ecology. Indlcate how the vagueness Mlght work for and agalnst the slogan, suggest how the slogan MLght be alternatLve LnterpretatLons, and lndlcate soMe of the suggest applled, alternattves. these of raMLflcatlons 7. OutLlne btoregtonaLL3M, lndlcatlng what practlcaL envlronMental probleMs bloreglonallsM lnduces. How Ln fact Ls bloreglonallsM derlved froM Deep Ecology? Conslder to what extent bloregLonallsM fLts wLth the slogan, •Thlnk globally, act LocaLly". deeper, or to any, envLronMental probLeMs? CoMpare and contrast the vlews of Deep Ecology and Green PolLtLcs on the role of varlous types of technology. 8~ Is More hLgh technology an unprobleMatLc soLutLon to 9. Uhat Ls EcoLogLcaL ConscLousness? And what Ls Lt supposed to do Ln and for Deep Ecology? If Lt ls so LMportant, why Ls Lt not a MaLn concern for Green PoLltlcs? 10. A reLatlonaL, total-fLeLd LMage of huMan reLatLonshLps wLth nature has been quletLy oMLtted froM the orLglnal pLatforM of Deep Ecology. Is thLs gestalt pLcture needed? Is Lt defensLbLe? Should Lt be reLnstated? READINGS 1: DEEP ECOLOGY AND GREEN POLITICS The Greens consLder theMseLves the poLltLcal voLce of the cLtLzens' MoveMents, that Ls, ecology, antl-nuclear-power, peace, feMLnLst, and others. Most MeMbers of the Green party are also actLvLsts Ln one or More of those MoveMents, and thLs dLverse orLentatLon Ls reflected Ln the wLngs, or factLons, of the party: the vLslonary/hollstlc Greens, the Eco-Greens, the peace-MoveMent Greens, and the radlcal-Left Greens. A great deaL of overlapplng occurs wlth any categor~z~ng of Green LdentltLes and soMe people say there are no actual factlons, but clearly there are dtfferent prtorltLes aMong the four clusters. The More that people perceLved the LnterconnectLons aMong prLncLpLes of ecologLcaL wlsdoM, a truly secure peace, an econoMy wLth a future, and a partLcLpatory deMocracy wLth power channeled dLrectly froM the grassroots Level, the More they notLces the absence of such LdeaLs aMong the exLsttng poLLtlcaL partles. [Green] pollcLes are gutded by long-terM v~s~ons for the future and are founded on four basLc prLncLples: ecology, socLal responsLbLLLty, grassroots deMocracy, and nonvLoLence. The fLrst of the ·four pLLlars, • ecology, has several MeanLngs Ln Green poLLtLcs. Green poLLtLcs, Ls Lnherently hoLLstLc Ln theory and practLce. It Ls based on ecoLogLcal, or ·network·, thLnkLng, a terM used frequently by the Greens. EcoLogLcaL thLnkLng also Lncludes the realLzatLon that the seeMLngLy -6- �rtgtd structures we percetve Ln our envLronMent are actually ManLfestatLons of underlytng processes, of nature's contLnual dynaMLc flux. Interrelatedness and ongoLng process are the lessons the Greens take froM and apply to the ecosysteMs surroundLng us. They support •soft" energy productLon (such as solar power) that works wLth the cycles of the sun, the water, and the wLnd, and the flow of the rLvers. They call for the developMent of approprLate technology that reflects our Lnterdependence wLth the Earth. They advocate regeneratLve agrLculture that replenLshes the soLl and Lncorporates natural Means of pest control. Above all, the Greens deMand a halt to our ravagLng of natural "resources" and our poLsonLng of the bLosphere through the duMpLng of toxLc wastes, the accuMulatLon of so-called acceptable levels of radLatLon exposure, and the pollutLon of the aLr. The broader applLcatLons of ecologLcal thLnkLng lead to ·socLal ecology, the perceptton of soctetal structures and huMan Lnteracttons as an Lntrtcate web of dynaMLc systeMs that are sLMultaneously Lnterrelated parts and coMplete Ln theMselves. That eMphasLs on relatLonshLps and Lnterconnecttons Ls the basts of the Greens' ecologtcal work that focuses specLfLcally on envLronMental protectLon. TheLr prograMs Ln thts area call for huMans to ftnd our place Ln the ecosysteMs: ~e defLne ecologLcal polLtLcs as those Measures that understand huMan betngs and our envLronMent as beLng part of nature. HuMan lLfe, too, Ls eMbedded Ln the lLfe cycles of the ecosysteMs; we Lnterfere wLth our actLons and thLs, Ln turn, acts back on us. ~e Must not destroy the stabLlLty of the ecosysteMs. In partLcular, ecologtcal polLtLcs presents an all-encoMpassLng rejectLon of an econoMy of exploLtatLon and plunderLng of natural resources and raw MaterLals, as well as the destructLve LnterventLon Lnto the cycles of nature's household. The second of the four pLllars, ·soctal responsLbLlLty, • Ls understood by Most Greens to Mean socLal justLce and assurance that the poor and the workLng class wLll not get hurt by prograMs to restructure the econoMy and our consuMer socLety ecologtcally. The radLcal-left Greens, however, read sozLal as a codeword for socLalLsM, that Ls, deMocratLc MarxLsM~ SLnce that polLtLcal Model Ls specLfLcally not what the vLsLonary, lLberal and conservatLve Greens have Ln MLnd, a battle developed over establLshLng the basLc prLncLples. The MajorLty wanted the new party to stand for possLbLlLtLes other than etther socLalLsM or the capLtalLst status quo. The radLcal-left contLngent, on the other hand, LnsLsted on not only Lncludtng socLalLsM but also on excludLng nonvLolence as a guLdLng prLncLple. So one of the four pLllars, lLke so Much else Ln the Green party, has a paradoxLcal character: Lt Means soMethLng dLfferent Ln dLfferent parts of the party. All factLons of the party concur that socLal, econoMLc and ecologLcal Lssues are Lnherently lLnked. The ecologLcal and socLal spheres belong Lnseparably together: the econoMy of nature Ls ltnked to the econoMy of huMans for better or worse . The thLrd pLllar, grassroots deMocracy, was LnspLred by the ~est GerMan cLtLzens' MoveMents throughout the 1970s, whLch Ln turn were Lnfluenced by the cLvLl rLghts, ecology, consuMer, and other MoveMents ~n the Un~ted States. OLrect, or partLcLpatory, deMocracy locates a greater aMount of power and control wLth the local groups, the grassroots. ThLs orLentatLon ~nforMs the structure of the Green party. An organLzatLon structured wtth partLcLpatory deMocracy sets Lts basLc polLcy accordLng to the votLng at large asseMblLes. It allows LndLvLduals access to all party offLcLals, and Lt eschews hLerarchLcal structure. Instead of allowtng power to be concentrated Ln a few people who -7- �reMaLn at the top of a hLerarchy for years, such groups generally elect steerLng coMMLttees. The fourth pLllar, nonvLolence, Means to the Greens the cessatLon of both personal vLolence and •structural vLolence, • that Ls, vLolence and oppress Lon LMposed by the state and by LnstLtutLons. (See ReadLng 4; Green PolLtLcs, pp.3-4, 29-43) The tenets of [the Deep Ecology] MoveMent Nay perhaps be roughly forNulated as follows: (1) The well-beLng of nonhuMan lLfe on Earth has value Ln Ltself. ThLs value Ls Lndependent of any LnstruNental usefulness for LLMLted huNan purposes. (2) RLchness and dLversLty Ln lLfe forMs contrLbute to thLs value and Lnterfere Ls a further value Ln Ltself. (3) HuMans have no rLght to destructLvely wLth nonhuMan lLfe except for purposes of satLsfyLng vLtal needs. (4) Present Lnterference Ls excessLve and detrLMental. (5) Present polLcLes Must therefore be changed. (6) The necessary polLcy changes affect basLc econoMLc and LdeologLcal structures and wLll be the More drastLc the longer Lt takes before sLgnLfLcant change Ls started. (7) The LdeologLcal change Ls MaLnly that of apprecLatLng lLfe qualLty (focusLng on sLtuatLons LnvolvLng Lnherent. value). (8) Those who subscrLbe to the foregoLng poLnts have an oblLgatLon dLrectly or LndLrectly to try to LMpleMent the necessary changes. (Defence, p.266) It should be fully apprecLated that the sLgnLfLcant tenets of the Deep Ecology MoveMent are clearly and forcefully norMatLve. They express a value prLorLty systeM only Ln part based on results (or lack of results) of scLentLfLc research. Today, ecologLsts try to Lnfluence polLcy-MakLng bodLes largely resource and through threats, through predLctLons concernLng pollutants depletLon, knowLng that polLcy-Makers accept at least certaLn MLnLMUM norMs concernLng health and just dLstrLbutLon. There are polLtLcal potentLals Ln thLs MoveNent whLch should not be overlooked and whLch have lLttle to do wLth pollutLon and resource depletLon. In plottLng possLble futures, the norMs should be freely used and elaborated. (Shallow and Oeep 1 p.99) A Major dLfference between the theorLes lLes Ln the dLstrLbutLon of values. Deep ecology, lLke sLMpler utLlLtarLanLsM, offers a unLque LnLtLal dLstrLbutLon: each lLvLng thLng Ls assLgned equal value and nothLng else has LntrLnsLc value. Value Ls assessed through soMe MLx of value-NakLng characterLstLcs, LncludLng such defeasLble ecologLcal unLversals as stabLlLty, resLlLence, naturalness, rLchness, scarcLty and so forth . But there are consLderable dLversLty, constraLnts on how thLs Ls done . . . . One constraLnt, that of LMpartLalLty whLch excludes certaLn types of class chauvLnLsM, a thLng cannot be ranked as valuable or ahead or another sLMply by vLrtue of belongLng to soNe specLes (e.g. beLng huNan) or favoured bLologLcal class; such class features are not Ln theMselves value-MakLng characterLstLcs. Such an account of how value Ls assessed reNaLn however far froM specLfLc, and soMetLMes of lLttle use Ln practLce. (CrLtLque, pp.59- 60) POINTS OF UNITY 1. NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. Ue base our phLlosophy on a proper understandLng of the purposes and workLngs of nature and do not try to LNpose an Ldeology upon Lt . Ue seek to transforM socLety based upon thLs understandLng. 2. CONSENSUS DEMOCRACY. Ue conduct all our MeetLngs accordLng to the prLncLples of consensus deNocracy, eNphasLzLng unanLMous or near-unanLMous agreeMent on all decLsLons. No representatLve May Make decLsLons on behalf of the Greens wLthout the approval of the entLre NeMbershLp. Ue encourage the use of consensus deMocracy Ln all socLal, econoMLc and polLtLcal LnstLtutLons. -8- �3. NONVIOLENCE AND FREEDOM. ~e oppose the threat or use of phystcal vtolence to resolve tnternatlonat, clvll, polltlcal and personal confllcts. ~e encourage the nonvlolent enforceMent of all prlvate and publlc rules and Laws. ~e recognlEe that a nonvlolent soclety would be a very free soclety and encourage tolerance of others' vlews and actlons. ~- SOCIAL ECOLOGY. ~e eMphaslze the connectton of doMlnatlon and vlolence toward the envlronMent and toward our fellow huMans. ~e seek a nonvlolent soclety ln whlch the needs of lndlvlduals, coMMunltles and bloreglons are balanced and lntegrated and ln whlch econoMtc resources are used consclousty, deMocratlcaLLy and approprlatety to further thls end. 5. STRATEGY. ~e wlLL oppose ecologlcatty and soclatty destructlve pollcles and dlsobedlence clvll and protest practlces through nonvlolent polltlcal actlvltles. ~e wlLL proMote alternatlve projects and lnstltutlons conslstent wlth our Green phllosophy. ~e wlLL cooperate ln solldarlty wlth all groups ln substantlal agreeMent wlth these polnts of unlty as partlclpants ln the lnternatlonal Green MoveMent. (Deep Ecology, pp.36-7). 2: DEEP ECOLOGY LEVELS In dlscusslng the relatlonshlp between deep ecology and Major tradltlons such as BuddhlsM and Chrlstlanlty, Naess stresses that people can agree broadly on a set of prlnctptes and dlsagree greatly on other aspects of ldeology and other tradttlons thusly: In order to factlttate dlscusslon lt May be helpful to dlsttngutsh a coMMon platforM (baste prlnclples) of deep ecology froM the fundaMentaL features of phllosophles and rellglons froM whlch that platforM (baste prlnctples) ls derlved, lf the platforM ls forMulated as a set of norMs and hypotheses lf . verballEed, are Buddhlst, (factual assuMptlons). The fundaMentals, or phllosophlc wlth persuaslons, rettgtous other Taolst, Chrtsttan or of afftnltles to the baste vlews of Splnoza, Uhltehead, Hetdegger, or others. The fundaMentals are Mutually More or Less lncoMpattble or at Least dtfflcult to coMpare l~ terMs of cognltlve contents. The tncoMpattblltty does not affect the deep ecology prlnclples adversely. The baste prlnclples wlthln the deep ecology MoveMent are grounded ln retlglon or phllosophy. In a Loose sense, tt May be sald to be dertved froM the fundaMentals. Because these are dtfferent, the sltuatlon only reMlnds us that very slMllar or even tdenttcal conclustons May be drawn froM dlvergent preMlses. The prlnclples (or platforM) are the . saMe, the fundaMentaL preMlses dtffer. In order to clartfy the dtscusston one Must avold Looktng for one deftntte phllosophy or rellgton aMong the supporters of the deep ecologlcal MoveMent. Fortunately there ls a rlch Manlfold of klnds of consequences dertved froM the prlnclples. The dtscusston has four Levels to take lnto account: verballzed fundaMentaL phllosophlcal and rellglous ldeas and lntultlons, the deep ecology baste prlnclples, the More or Less general consequences dertved froM the platforM Llfestytes and general pollcles of every klnd - and Lastly, descrlpttons of concrete sltuatlons and declstons Made ln theM. (See DlagraM 1) Arne Naess has atteMpted to provlde a Loglcal dlagraM or systeMatlzatlon of hls own verslon of deep ecology or ecosophy whtch he calls •Ecosophy r·. He -9- �caLLs thts a norMattve systeM whtch tncLudes both norMs (or baste values) and factual hypotheses_ The Lower norMs or actton stateMents are dertved froM the top norMs tn a Loosely LogtcaL sense_ The top or Most baste norMs are arrtved at by the deep questtontng Lntutttve process_ Naess stresses that Ecosophy T Ls onLy hts verston of deep ecology, and that Many versLons need to be worked out_ SoMe people NLght be crLtLcaL that Many of the norMs of deep ecology are heLd on an tntutttve basts, but Naess potnts out aLL theortes begtn soMewhere beyond LogtcaL constructtons_ (DEEP ECOLOGY, pp-225-7) In order to factLttate dtscusston about deep ecology aMong phtLosophers tt May be heLpfuL to dtsttngutsh a coMMon pLatforM of deep ecology froM the fundaMentaL features of phtLosophtes and reLtgtons froM whtch that pLatforM Ls derLved, tf tt ts forMuLated as a set of norMs and hypotheses (factual assuMpttons)_ The terM 'pLatforM' ts preferred to 'prtncLpLe' because the Latter May be NLsunderstood to refer to the uLtLMate fundaMentaLs_ FurtherMore, the forMuLatton of a pLatforM should be short and conctse (as a synopsts), whereas the fundaMentaLs, tf verbaLtzed, are Buddhtst, Taotst, ChrLstLan or of other reLtgtous ktnds, or they are phtLosophLc wtth afftntttes to the baste vtews of SpLnoza, ~hLtehead, HeLdegger, or others_ The fundaMentaLs are MutuaLLy More or Less LncoMpatLbLe or at Least dtffLcuLt to coMpare tn terMs of cognLttve contents_ Supporters of deep ecology May have great dLfftcuLttes understandtng each other's uLtLMate vLews_ The pLatforM of the deep ecology MoveMent Ls grounded tn reLtgLon or phLLosophy tncLudtng ethLcs_ It May be saLd to be derLved froM these fundaMentaLs_ As used here the terM 'dertved' ts open to a vartety of LnterpretatLons_ If the vaLLdLty of a norM or a hypothesLs Ls justLfLed by reference to one defLnLte set of assuMptLons of a phtLosophtcaL or reLLgtous ktnd, the norM or hypothests ts Ln a sense dertved froM those assuMpttons_ The set acquLres a character of preMLses for parttcuLar concLusLons_ But cLoseLy · sLMLLar or even tdenttcaL concLustons May be drawn froM sets of LncoMpatLbLe preMLses_ ThLs expLaLns the coMbLnatLon of 'bewLLderLng' dLverstty of vLews at the deepest LeveL wtth agreeMent of vtews at the next LeveL_ In assesstng constructLve crttLctsM of deep ecology Lt Ls useful to try to ftnd out whLch LeveL Ls LnvoLved_ An exaMpLe: In the tntroductLon to hLs The EthLcs of EnvtronMentaL Concern, (Oxford: BLackweLL 1983), Robtn AttfLeLd says: Yet I do not accept, wLth the so-caLLed 'deep, Long-range ecology MoveMent', the vtew that our prLncLpaL Loyalty should be focussed not on feLLow-huMans or feLLow creatures but on the bLosphere as an organtc whole, __ _ I suppose there are soMe supporters of the deep ecology MOVeMent who propose focusstng Loyalty on the bLosphere as an organLc whole Ln the sense suggested by AttfteLd_ The conceptLon of the bLosphere as an organLc whole and of such a kLnd of Loyalty belongs to the reaLM of fundaMentaLs, that Ls LeveL one, rather than to the other Levels_ Therefore that AttfLeLd does not accept the vtew he descrtbes ts not relevant tn arguMentatton for or agatnst deep ecology- One Matn potnt tn deep ecology ts tts deep arguMentatton, that ts, arguMentatton froM uLttMate (phLLosophLcaL, reLtgtous) preMtsses, but there Ls rooM for very dLfferent sets of such preMLsses_ A supporter of deep ecology May or May not have any conceptton of a prLMary Loyalty focussed on the bLosphere as an organtc whole_ [The] dtsttnctLon of Levels Ls useful when tryLng to ptn down exactly what a crttLcLsM Ls focusstng on_ The dLagraM furnLshes onLy a ktnd of stattc ModeL_ -10- �A supporter of deep ecology wLLL norMaLLy ModLfy the sentences at the dLfferent Levels froM tLMe to tLMe. Hew LnforMatLon May change any hypotheses and therefore also change norMs whLch Ln part have been justLfLed on the basLs of the hypotheses beLng changed. Renewed ethLcaL consLderatLon or new LnforMatLon May Make the supporter change a norM. If a norM Ls changed norMally new sets of hypotheses are Lnvolved, and old ones are dLscarded. ThLs agaLn wLLl cause reverberatLons Ln a sMaLLer or greater part of the fLeld. F roM a po Ln t of v Lew of no rMa t Lve sys teMa t t·~a t Lons what goes on when changes are Made at one or More Levels Ls rather coMpLLcated. But part of Lt Ls processes of derLvatLon. OLagraM l pretends only to Lllustrate LMportant dLfferences of the Levels of derLvatLon and the specLfLc character of Level 2. It represents a condensed forMulatLon of the deepest-Level norMs and hypotheses whLch supporters of the deep ecology MoveMent can agree upon. ThLs Level Ls LLLustrated as the penultLMate (next to ultLMate) Level of arguMentatLon characterLstLc of those supporters of deep ecology who try to artLculate theLr baste vLews. At the thLrd and fourth Level dLsagreeMents May arLse. At the fLrst Level supporters May dLsagree, or fLnd each others vLews' LncoMprehensLb le, or LncoMparable as to valLdLty. Ls not a Measure of value prLorLtLes or of A 'dLrectLon of derLvatLon ethLcaL prLorLtLes. And Lt does not LMply that what Ls derLved Ls a Means Ln relatLon to what Lt Ls derLved froM. A sLMple exaMple Ls enough to clarLfy thLs. FroM 'do not kLlL huMans! ·, follows, Lf you concede 'all Mothers are huMans' the conclusLon 'do not kLLL your Mother!'. ThLs rather concrete norM Ls here derLved froM the More general and abstract one. But thLs does not LMply that huMans Ln general have a hLgher value or a kLnd of prLorLty Ln relatLon to Mothers. It does not say that Ln a norM confLLct you should be More careful not to kLLL huMans than not to kLLL your Mother. An absurd posLtLon! And Lastly, Lt Ls rather strange to refraLn froM kLllLng your Mother as a Means to a goal, · naMely not to kLLL huMans. The forMulatLons of Level 2 have the character of proposals. It May turn out that proposals wLLL dLffer substantLaLLy or show a natural dLversLty of terMLnologLcal and conceptual LdLosyncracLes . UnhappLLy Lt Ls quLte coMMon to MLx the, Ln a broad sense, LogLcal relatLon of derLvatLon wLth other relatLons. These are at Least as LMportant, but nevertheless are dLfferent. (BASIC, pp.1-5) ScheMatLcally we May represent the total vLews LMpLLed Ln the MoveMent by and norMs streaMs of derLvatLon f roM 'h Lghest', L.e. Most fundaMentaL sLtuatLons. lLfe partLcular Ln descrLptLve assuMptLon, to partLcular decLsLons Answers to the deepest questLon, L.e. hLghest norMatLve prLncLples and basLc assuMptLons about the world MLddle range answers. Lower derLvatLonaL Level derLvatLons towards decLsLons Ln partLcular LLfe sLtuatLons. Level of actLon Ln concrete partLcular sLtuatLons. The LLLustratLon reseMbles those of hypothetLco-ded uctLve systeMs. One MaLn dLfference Ls that soMe sentences at the top Level are norMatLve, expressed by LMperatLves. ThLs Makes Lt possLble to furnLsh preferably LMperatLves at the Lowest derLvatLonaL Level, sentences such as ·Turn to the Left!" ·voteforN.N. !. Just as Ln hypothetLco-ded uctLve systeM, Let us say Ln physLcs, only the two upper Levels of the pyraMLd Ls thought of as part of physLcs as a systeM, only those parts are Ln norMatLve systeMs characterLstLc of the total systeM. -11- �The sentences change. Ln the Lowest part change froM day to day as LLfe sLtuatLons The above kLnd of presentLng the derLvatLonaL structure of a totaL vLew Must not be taken too serLousLy. SoMe wLLL absoLuteLy refuse even to consLder such a way of exposLtLon. And Lt does not Ln any Manner characterLze thLnkLng wLthLn the deep ecoLogLcaL MoveMents. SoMe of us wLth a professLonaL background of scLence and anaLytLcaL phLLosophy fLnd Lt heLpfuL, however. Arne Naess's systeMatLEatLon LLLustrates the reLatLonshLp of deep ecoLogy's basLc prLncLpLes or Lts "platforM" (LeveL 2), to varLous · possLbLe and relLgLous "fundaMentaL preMLsses on the one hand (LeveL 1) and varLous possLbLe theoretLcaL and practLcaL "consequences" on the other (LeveLs 3 and~). Althou~h thLs systeMatLzatLon Ls presented Ln terMs of "fundaMentaL preMLsses, consequences", and a dLrectLon of "derLvatLon• froM LeveLs (1) to(~), thLs should not be taken to Mean that a sentence at one Level Ls held to follow by vLrtue of necessLty or probabLLLty froN sentences at a prevLous Level L.e~, Naess Ls not proposLng a deductLve or an LnductLve systeM. As he coMMents hLMself, Lt Ls only Ln a "Loose sense• that the deep ecology pLatforM "May be saLd to be derLved froM fundaMentaLs·. In other words, derLvatLon or precLseness Ls a Matter of deLLMLtLng a range of possLble LnterpretatLons. For exaNpLe, we MLght proceed froN a fundaMentaL (L.e. Level 1) reLLgLous or phLLosophLcal preMLss such as "ALL Ls One" or the SpLnozLst Ldea that "there Ls onLy one 'substance• • and, Ln the sense descrLbed, "derLve" the (More precLse) central "plank" Ln the deep ecology "pLatforM" that "there are no boundarLes Ln the bLospherLcaL fLeld", or that "aLl entLtLes are constLtuted by theLr relatLonshLps" (LeveL 2). Further precLsatLon MLght express the realLsatLon that "the sense of oneself as a skLn encapsulated ego Ls not Ln accord wLth thLs ' seaMLess web' ontoLogy• (Level 3). None of the steps Ln the above exaMpLe Ls held to foLLow by necessLty (deductLve Lnference) or probabLLLty (LnductLve Lnference) froM sentences at a prevLous LeveL. ALL we have (Ln logLcaL terMs) Ls a chaLn of precLsatLons fLowLng Ln one or Many possLble dLrectLons of LnterpretatLon. Ue could have easLLy started froM the saMe vague, general fundaMentaL preMLss and proceeded to deveLop a chaLn of precLsatLons Ln a very dLfferent dLrectLon of LnterpretatLon. Thus, the "dLrectLon of derLvatLon· shown Ln the dLagraMMatLc LLlustratLon of Naess's systeMatLsatLon shouLd be understood as referrLng to both the leveL of precLsatLon and the dLrectLon of LnterpretatLon. The greater the Level of precLsatLon the More evLdent the dLrectLon of LnterpretatLon (or what Naess has prevLousLy referred to as the "defLnLteness of LntentLon")_ Uhat Ls the vaLue of tryLng to provLde a systeMatLsatLon of deep ecology (or any other faLrLy coMprehensLve vLew) when the connectLve LLnks between fundaMentaL preMLsses (LeveL I) and practLcaL consequences (Level~) are as weak as that of "possLbLe LnterpretatLon"? An LMportant answer Must be that such a systeNatLsatLon eMphasLses the contLnuaLLy-beLng-forgotten fact that our Most sophLstLcated and precLse, non-trLvLaL (L ~e. nontautoLogLcaL) reasonLngs are aLways eMbedded or grounded Ln a very generaL "underLyLng perceptLon of the way thLngs are." ThLs eMphasLs, thLs contLnual reMLndLng, constLtutes the Most sLgnLfLcant and dLstLnctLve structural feature of deep ecologLcaL thought. (GUIDING STARS, pp.203-4) OnLy LeveL one contaLns phLLosophLes (LncLudLng MetaphysLcs, of course) and expLLcLt reLLgLous foundations. There Ls, and hopefuLLy wLLL never be, Many sLgnLfLcant COMMon characterLstLcs on Level 1. The cLeanLng of 'rubbLsh' on thLs Level Ls a hazardous undertakLng froN MY poLnt of vLew. -12- �In a coMprehensLve phLLosophy of Level l, for lnstance ln an 'ecosophy' ln MY terMlnoLogy, every key terM of the pLatforM forMuLatlon, (Level 2), would have to be .coM"ented upon and elucLdated. ThLs "ay be seen as a clearLng up operatlon. A hlgher level of preclseness Ls achLeved and eLLMLnatlon of ph~Losoph~caLLy unsuLtable rhetorLcs. (HOTES ON SYLVAN, pp.8-9) 3: ON BIOCENTRIC EGALITARIANISM The Lntultlon of blocentrlc equaLlty ls that aLL thlngs Ln the blosphere have an equal rlght to Llve and bLossoM and to reach thelr own LndLvlduaL forMs of unfoLdLng and self-reaLlzatlon wlthln the Larger SeLf-reallzatlon. Thls basLc Lntultlon Ls that aLL organLsMs and entltles Ln the ecosphere, as parts of the lnterreLated whole, are equal Ln LntrlnsLc worth. Naess suggests that bLocentrlc equaLLty as an LntuLtlon Ls true ln prLncLpLe, although ln the process of LLvLng, aLL specLes use each other as food, shelter, etc. Mutual predatlon ls a b~ologLcal fact of lLfe, and "any of the world's relLgLons have struggled wLth the spLrltuaL lMpllcatlons of thts. SoMe anlMaL llberatlonLsts who atteMpted to sLde-step thLs probLeM by advocatlng vegetarLanlsM are forced to say that the entLre plant ktngdo" LncLudLng raLn forests have no rLght to thelr own exlstence. ThLs evaslon fLles ln the face of the basLc LntuLtlon of equalLty. Aldo Leopold expressed thLs Lntultlon when sald huMans are •pLaLn cLtlzens• of the btotlc coMMunlty, not Lord and Master over all other specLes. BlocentrLc equaLlty ls lntlMateLy related to the aLL-LnclusLve SeLfreaLlzatLon ln the sense that Lf we harM the rest of Nature then we are harMLng ourselves. There are no boundarles and everythlng ls lnterreLated. But Lnsofar as we percelve thlngs as LndLvLduaL organlsMs or entLtLes, the LnsLght draws us to respect aLL huMan and nonhuMan lndLvLduals ln theLr own rLght as parts of the whole wLthout feeLLng the need to set up hlerarchLes of specles wlth huMans at the top. The practlcaL LMpLlcatlons of thLs lntultlon or norM suggest that we should LLve wlthLn MlnLMuM rather than MaxlMUM lMpact on other specLes and on the Earth ln general. Thus we see another aspect of our guldlng prLnclpLe: ·slMpLe ln Means, rLch ln ends.• (Deep EcoLog~, pp.167-9) blospherLcaL egaLltarlanlsM Ln prlnclpLe' and certaln The abstract terM slMlLar terMs whlch I have used, do perhaps More harM than good. They suggest a posLtLve doctrLne, and that ls too Much. The LMportance of the LntultLon ls but MOMentary, only perhaps the rather lts capaclty to counteract, Less seeMs what towards attltude Lordly and consequentlaL, self-congratulatory developed, Less coMplex, Less MlracuLous. A rlch varLety of acceptable Motlves can be forMuLated for belng More reluctant to Lnjure of klLL a LLvLng beLng of klnd A than a beLng of klnd B. The cultural settlng ls dLfferent for each belng Ln each culture, furtherMore there are few general norMs, only vague guLdeLLnes. One factor: felt nearness, deterMlnes Largely our capactty to ldentLfy ourselves wlth a sort of beLng, to suffer when they suffer. One cannot put forth ethLcaL rules of conduct wlthout takLng such feeltngs and our lLMlted capacLtLes serLously. If Lt Ls dLffLcuLt to avotd klLLLng A because of Lts sMalLness, whereas klLLlng B ls easlLy avolded, we tend to protect B rather than A. Indeed we Llve wLth an obvLous dLversLty of obLlgatlons. Ue have speclaL oblLgatlons towards our own chLldren: Ln Most cultures any anlMaL May be kLLLed ln order to feed one's starvLng chlLd. ObLlgatLons toward specLes that have been MeMbers of our llfe coMMunLty for Long perLods are greater than toward accldentaL vlsltors. FurtherMore, we have the -13- �relevance of sufferLng: capacLty of sufferLng? Is the sufferLng of A less than that of B? Has A the The sLMpLe thLng I try to convey here L3 that an ethLcs concernLng dLfferences between non-huMan LLvLng beLngs Ls of a coMparable level of coMpLexLty to ethLcs concernLng dLfferent people and groups wLth whoM we have to do. (lntuLtLon, p.202) Those of us who procLaLM the rLght of all LLfe forMs to LLve and bLossoM thLnk of thLs rLght as an aspect of the 'value Ln LtseLf' whLch we attrLbute to the bLosphere wLth Lts closely Lnterconnected LLfe forMs. The procLaMatLon seeMs to steM froM an LntuLtLon for whLch a graduatLon Ls soMethLng foreLgn. If there Ls such a basLc rLght, Lf Lt can be gLven a faLrly precLse MeanLng, Lt Ls the naMe for all lLfe forMs. It Ls LMportant enough to be terMed bLospherLcaL egaLLtarLanLsM. But Lt Ls perhaps the best to abstaLn froM such Labels. They LnvLte a varLety of LnterpretatLons Most of whLch May be MLsLeadLng. As to the consequences of a posLtLve answer, I thLnk we can learn froM certaLn cultures of hunters and gatherers where bLg anLMaLs are only kLLled after elaborate cereMonLes and excuses'. There Ls acknowLedgeMent of equal rLght, but also of a rLght to kLlL Ln order to Meet vLtaL needs. There Ls a 'norM conflLct' whLch Ls solved through addLtLonal norMs: the perforMance of certaLn rLtes and behavLors of other kLnds. What I thLnk we need not proclaLM Ls that we as huMans are Most or More valuable, or have a hLgher rLght. ~e need not say '1 have a hLgher rLght to LLve and bLossoM than you have, obnoxLus MosquLto, so I kLLL you!' or 'BeLng Much More valuable than you are, I kLlL you and your offsprLng, dLrty rat!' In so far as we have vLtal needs to kLlL, and Ln so far as Lt Ls LnevLtabLe Ln practLce, we May justLfy thLs through varLous norMs whLch are Ln harMony wLth general ecoLogLcal thLnkLng. Do these words solve the relevant probLeMs? Of course not. ~hat I aM drLvLng at Ls the prLorLty of MaLntaLnLng a sort of egalLtarLanLsM Ln p~LncLple. How we can LLve thLs that prLncLpLe Ls a questLon of ethLcs Ln a very general sense, proceedLng froM Many prLncLples whLch LnevLtably Lead to norM confLLcts requLrLng adjustMents froM day to day. (PhLLosophLcaL Aspects, pp.27-9) AccordLng to Naess, a bLospherLc egaLLtarLan prLncLpLe, of equal value of to the all LLfe, Ls an LntuLtLveLy clear and obvLous value axLoM', at least aLMost ecoLogLcaL fLeLd-worker' (73, p96)!. But eMpLrLcaL surveys would certaLnLy not sustaLn Haess's claLMs. The prLncLpLe seeMs generally neLther LntuLtLve nor obvLous, and Ln several ways Lt appears LncoMpatLbLe wLth the wLder deep ecology pLatforM. It Ls not even obvLous that soMethLng has value by vLrtue of havLng LLfe. On the contrary, value seeMs, lLke yellowness, to be Much More patchLLy dLstrLbuted across the unLverse. SpecLal places, for Lnstance, are especLaLLy valuable. Hor Ls value always dLstrLbuted on LLvLng thLngs, but colours toMbs of the dead; and soMetLMes Lt flakes off consteLlatLons of LLvLng thLngs, for exaMpLe thLngs Ln excess, such as Locusts or rats Ln a plague. But even Lf every LLvLng thLng were assLgned value, Lt would not follow (Ln the way soMetLMes LnvaLLdLy argued) that every thLng has Lt equally. ~hLLe Lt could be saLd that thLngs are equal Ln havLng Lt, thLs Ls rather LLke pretendLng that people are equal Ln an LnegaLLtarLan socLety where all have soMe Money - a subterfuge. Indeed proposed prLncLpLes of deep ecology LnforM us, correctly, that soMe ecoLogLcaL LteMS are More valuable than others. For Lnstance, a certaLn sort of coMpLexLty Ls a vLrtue (Naess 73, prLncLpLe (6)), so presuMabLy an LteM wLth that coMpLexLty Ls More valuable than a sLMple bLoLogLcal LteM. SLMLLarLy, dLversLty of systeM Ls a vLrtue, a prLMe ground of value (prLncLpLe (2)). The upshot appears to be that a hLghly dLverse ecosysteM Ls More valuable -14- �than a sLMpLLfLed and LMpoverLshed one_ FurtherMore, bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM Ls LnconsLstent wLth the hoLLstLc, antL-reducLLonL3tLc, antL-LndLvLduaLL3tLc ethos whLch deep ecoLogy LMports froM hoLLstLc ecotogy. AnaLogous concLu3Lons can be reached for •equaL rLghts• forMuLatLons_ For one thLng, equaL rLghts are characterLstLcally based on equal MerLt or equal worth_ For another, arguMents lLke those gLven can be rerun wLth rLghts suppLantLng values_ As a theoretLcaL prLncLpLe, bLospherLc egalLtarLanLsM has to be scrapped_ The LMMense dLffLcuLtLes of such a prLncLpLe Ln practLce Naess had already partLally recognLsed, qualLfyLng egalLtarLanLsM to equalLty Ln prLncLple 'because any realLstLc praxLs necessLtates soMe kLllLng, exploLtatLon, and suppressLon' (p_95). The extent of erosLon Ln equalLty thLs affords reMaLns obscure; but Lt couLd be close to total, wLth theoretLcaL equaLLty LapsLng whenever confLLct of rLghts or values LooMed_ Such egaLLtarLanLsM would be LLke a MaxLM of honesty Ln prLncLpLe, whLch appLLed Ln practLce only when Lt was not LnconvenLent; that Ls, but an eMpty MaxLM_ ~hatever Naess's Lntended qualLfLcatLon, Lt stLLL seeMs to people wLth Much practLcaL experLence on the Land or Ln gardenLng, especLaLLy Ln places where the surroundLng natural envLronMent has not been totally transforMed, that he has consLderabLy underestLMated the extent of quaLLfLcatLon needed, and that the prLncLpLe. BLospherLc strangle to begLn does quaLLfLcatLon due theLr own shelter or supply not do who egaLLtarLanLsM Ln practLce Ls for people sustenance, but pass the busLness of ecosysteM Lnterference and ModLfLcatLon on to others (as they typLcaLLy pass the butchery of theLr Meat and the LLke on to others)_ Even were Lt desLrabLe, unLversaL hunter-gatherLng Ls no Longer possLbLe or feasLbLe, wLth so Many Mostly unsuLted and LLL-adapted huMans; and a substantLaL even hunter-gatherers terMLnate the LLves of Many creatures Lnterference wLth theLr rLghts to LLve and bLossoM - and, More LMportant, and dLrectty LnterferLng substantLaLLy ModLfy theLr envLronMents, thus LndLrectly wLth enorMous nuMbers of LLvLng thLngs_ ~hatever rLghts sLMpLer LLvLng organLsMs, especLaLLy ones such as bacterLa and vLruses, have to LLve and bLossoM, they have decLdedLy quaLLfLed and Much attentuated ones. ULth bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM (Ln prLncLpLe) the deep ecology MoveMent has Latched onto a prLncLple whLch Ls both too powerful, and yet, Lf the ·Ln prLncLpLe" quaLLfLcatLon Ls appLLed so as to cover typLcaL LLfestyLes of deep ecoLogLsts, a prLncLpLe so rLddLed wLth exceptLons as to barely hang together. But wLthout soMe of the Lntended force of bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM, deep ecology Ls Ln danger of coLLapsLng (LLke Many of Lts followers) Lnto an LnterMedLate posLtLon, as no other part of the pLatforM adequately sustaLns Lts LLMLted separatLon_ Part of what Ls sought wLth the egaLLtarLan prLncLpLe Lnterference, huMan Lnterference to an extent and on a scale far below that of theMe the Ls already afforded a basLs Ln presently prevaLLLng Ls what wLth values-Ln-nature and outsLde the huMan sphere, sLnce Lnterference of value Ls (Lpso facto) LLMLted. Such a prLncLpLe of LLMLted Interference deserves, Ln any case, separate forMuLatLon (whLch Lt usually gaLns Ln deep ecology pLatforMs)_ But even so Lt hardly achLeves the requLsLte separatLon, sLnce LnterMedLate posLtLons can, and do, grant or MaLntaLn soMe such prLncLpLe of lLMLted or reduced Lnterference (thus e-g- BLrch, AttfLeLd, SLnger)_ ~hat Ls requLred Ls a posLtLve equLvaLent of the separatLng feature, of the rejectLon of the greater vaLue assuMptLon, and therewLth of the rejectLon of huMan supreMacy, of the value pLcture of huMans as always nuMber one_ What Ls needed, More generaLLy, Ls a prLncLpLe teLLLng agaLnst the favourLng of one over others sLMpLy on the basLs of specLes, a specLes - huMans Ln partLcuLar -15- �prLncLple of bLospecLes LMpartLalLty, to gLve Lt a sLMLlar grandLose tLtle. There Ls soMe reason to suspect that, as elsewhere, a requLreMent of LMparttalLty has been hardened Lnto one of egalLtarLanLsM, that faLrness, because often dLfftcult to assess, has been MLstakenly taken to Lnvolve equaltty. BLospecLes LMpartLalLty LMplLes the avoLdance of specLes chauvLnLsM, that Ls the avotdance of unfaLr treatMent of LteMs outstde the gLven specLes. Because unfaLr, the treatMent concerned lacks any sufftctent justLfLcatLon. Hence, the avotdance of spectes chauvtnLsM Lnvolved Ls effectLvely that prevLously explaLned as a specLal case of class chauvLnLsM. SLMLlarly, the requLreMent of bLospecLes LMpartLalLty Ls a specLal case of the requlreMent of class (or natural group) LMpartlallty, for whlch the arguMents are the saMe as those for the avoldance of class chauvLnLsM. The danger of specLes partLalLty, of favourLng soMe specLes, Ls Much encouraged by a specles fallacy, whLch Ls coMMonly lnvoked ln favourlng huMans. ThLs Ls the error of concludLng that because a few MeMbers of the specles have accoMplLshed soMethtng of (LMMense) value, all MeMbers of the spectes therefore are (hlghly) valuable; all MeMbers of the specles Manage to free-load for the rtde, obtatned by a few MeMbers, so to say. The arguMent, once challenged, usually falls back on an arguMent that goes by way of capacltLes: the reMaLnLng MeMbers of the specles have the capactty to achleve these sorts of thlngs also. But, fLrstly, that Ls not true: LntellLgence, skLlls, and the lLke, vary soMewhat wtthLn specLes, and froM our narrow perspectLve, vary consLderably aMong huMans, soMe of whoM have no capacLty for advanced MatheMatLcs or MusLc. a Secondly, Lt requLres More than capacLty: Lt requLres cLrcuMstances, favourable envlronMent to exercLse theM (hence, ln part, the folly of More huMans ln conspLcuously suboptLMal cLtLes), together wLth a wlll and drlve actually to follow through approprLately on capacLtLes. (CrLtLque, pp.12-16) 4. NON-VIOLENCE The fourth plllar, nonvLolence, Means to the Greens the cessatLon of both personal vLolence and -structural vlolence·, that Ls, vLolence and oppresslon LMposed by the state and by Lnstltutlons. For these reasons the Greens support the concept of self-deterMlnatLon for lndLvLduals and groups. They also advocate peace educatLon Ln the schools, whLch would teach nonvLolent Means of conflLct resolutLon and show chLldren that the cult of the soldLer Ls a cultural, not a natural condltLon. The Greens also call for an end to the vLolence and oppressLon toward woMen, chLldren, and MLnorLty groups so coMMon Ln patrLarchal socLetLes. They want to develop a nonexploLtatlve econoMlc systeM Ln whLch eMployee-owned and -controlled busLnesses replace huge operatlons dLctated by or corporate lnterests. They want to transforM our vlolent state the relatLonshLp wlth nature lnto one of balance and respect. Petra Kelly expresses the centralLty of thLs prLncLple when she says, ·NonvLolence Ls the essentLal Lngredtent ln an ecologLcal socLety. • Most of the Greens eMphatLcally eMbrace the prLncLple of Although nonvLolence, they also realLze that Lts appllcatLon Ls often probleMatLc. Roland Vogt polnted out one of the areas of confll~tlng values: What we have not yet accoMplLshed Ls to say how we show ourselves to be nonvLolent at the MOMent when we partLcLpate Ln governMental functLons, because the state Ls Ltself an LnstLtutLon of vLolence. For exaMple, how wlll a Green cLty counctl act agalnst people who don't pay thelr rent, although they really could because they recelve welfare or because they earn enough. The norMal course Ls warnLng, warnLng, evLctLon notLce, and then evLctLon by force and by polLce. We haven't solved thLs. That Ls, there are stLll no thought-out concepts of how we can reconcLle the deMands of socLal -16- �responsLbLL Lty wLth the deMands of non vLoLence. The Greens extend theLr prLncLpLe of nonvLoLence to theLr actLve resLstance agaLnst the Most MassLve and potentLaLLy deadly "anLfestatL on of structural vLoLence: the nuclear arMs race proMoted by the MLLLtary-L ndustrLaL coMpLex and the governMent. In theLr natLonaL headquarter s Ln Bonn the Greens have a poster of OandhL s adage "there Ls no way to peace; peace Ls the way• and one of Thoreau 0 Those who eMbrace nonvLoLent cLvLL dLsobedLenc e, coMMLttLng breaches of Law on the grounds of conscLence, are prepared to suffer · vLoLence or punLshMent theMseLves rather than LnfLLct vLoLence or LnjustLce on others or share responsLbLL Lty for such acts by reMaLnLng passLve. •1,, however, the Law Ls so proMuLgated that Lt of necessLty Makes you an agent of LnjustLce agaLnst another, then I say to you: Break the Law." The MajorLty of Greens strongly endorse - and lLve - the concept of actLve, nonvLoLence resLstance. However, the MarxLst-orL ented MeMbers of the party have never been fully supportLve of that prLncLpLe. They vLew Lt "ereLy as a ·MoralLstLc " tactLc that should be abandoned Ln favor of escaLatLng resLstance Lf Lt does not prove suffLcLentL y effectLve. Petra Kelly's account of the LeftLsts' attLtude on thLs Lssue was sLMLlar to what we had heard froM Many other Greens: They do not understand that nonvLolent actLon Ls an extre"ely subversLve force. They thLnk Lt's harMLess, Ls a for" of obedLence, and changes nothLng, that Lt's LLke beggLng froM the state. ·1t's just a tactLc, a toot," they say. To theM everythLng Ls to be used. But there are soMe thLngs you should never "Lsuse - or even use. They are sLMpLy LntegraL. NonvLoLence cannot be coMproMLsed. Although Many of the advocates of nonvLoLent . resLstance argued that ·such a course cannot be dLsMLssed as "Merely MoraLLstLc" sLnce Lt Ls also absolutely ratLonaL (that Ls, hLstory shows that vLoLence breeds vLolence - structural as welt as personal - so we "ust fLnd another way to effect change, especLaLLy Ln the nuclear age). For Most MeMbers of the greens the choLce was clear, as expressed wLth a cLtatLon froM MartLn Luther KLng: •~e no Longer have a choLce or nonvLoLence between vLoLence and nonvLoLence . The choLce Ls eLther nonexLsten ce." (Green PoLLtLcs, pp.~3-7) Deeply coMMLtted persons Ln the ecology Move"ent sense the vuLnerabLLL ty of natural processes to huMan LnterventLo n, and the fundaMentaL necessLty of MaLntaLnLng bLologLcal dLversLty. AffLrMatLon of the LntegrLty of ecosysteMs frequently LnvoLves a caMpaLgn to save froM developMent soMe rLver of canyon or wLLderness area. In a real sense, ecologLcaL resLstance LnvoLves beco"Lng frLends wLth another specLes or a rLver or a MountaLn, for exaMpLe. In general, the resLster takes up the burden of responsLbLl Lty, the burden of wLtnessLng for the other as Self. ThLs process of befrLendLng "ay be based on ArLstotle's crLterLa for frLendshLp: the proMotLon of the other's good for the other's own sake. Or frLendshLp can be the extensLon of self. When OandhL was asked Lf hLs good deeds Ln a vLLLage expressed hLs huManLtarLa nLsM, he repLLed he worked "to serve no • GandhL s stateMent defLned MaturLty. ALtruLsM was one else but Myself unnecessary because hLs self eMbraced the whole vLLLage. 0 There are Many dLfferent tactLcs of LndLvLduaLs and organL2atLo ns Ln save the Earth•, but or poLLtLcaL caMpaLgns whLch seek to ·save the rLver -17- �there Ls one overrLdLng or baste norM of ecoLogLcaL resLstLng: non-vLoLence. Ecology teaches us that MankLnd Ls not the center of LLfe on the planet. Ecology has taught us that the whole earth Ls part of our "body" and that we Must Learn to respect Lt as we respect ourselves. As we feel for ourselves, we Must feel for aLL forMs of LLfe - the whales, the seals, the forests, the seas. The treMendous beauty of ecoLogLcaL thought Ls that Lt shows us a pathway back to an understandLng and an apprecLatLon of LLfe LtseLf - an understandLng and apprecLatLon that Lt Ls LMperatLve to that very way or LLfe. As wLth the whales and the seals, LLfe Must be saved by nonvLoLent confrontatLons, by what the Quakers caLL "bearLng wLtness•. A person bearLng wLtness Must accept responsLbLLLty for beLng aware of an LnjustLce. The person May then choose to do soMethLng or stand by, but he May not turn away Ln Lgnorance. The Greenpeace ethLc Ls not onty to personally bear wLtness to atrocLtLes agaLnst lLfe; Lt Ls to take dLrect actLon to prevent theM. ~hLLe actLon Must be dLrect, Lt Must also be non-vLoLent. Ue Must obstruct a wrong wLthout offerLng personal vLoLence to Lts perpetrators. Ue Must know that our greatest strength Ls LLfe LtseLf, and the coMMLtMent to dLrect our lLves to prbtect others. EcoLogLcaL resLstLng could be defLned as keepLng the peace of the neLghborhood. Rarely are vandals or vLolent neLghbors welcoMe Ln the neLghborhood. Uhen the neLghbors Lnclude rLvers and MountaLns, seashores and prarLes, then the LntegrLty of the ecosysteM Ls MaLntaLned. In hLs explLcatLon of GandhL's theory of nonvLoLence, Arne several norMs of nonvLoLent potLtLcat caMpaLgns. These Lnctude: Naess lLsts l. Announce your case and the goal of your caMpaLgn explLcLtty and clearly, dLstLnguLshLng essentLaLs froM nonessentLats. 2. Seek personal contact wLth your opponent and be avaLLable to hLM. · BrLng confLLctLng groups Lnto personal contact. 3. Turn your opponent Lnto a beLLever Ln and supporter of your case, but do not coerce or expLoLt hLM. ~- You provoke your opponent Lf you deLLberateLy or carelessly destroy hLs property. of ecoLogLcaL resLstLng denounce theorLsts LeadLng nonvLoLence as tactLcs. But as Rober ALtken RoshL wrote: vLoLence versus Non-vLoLence Ls not just a tactLc for people who Make Lt a practLce ... The end Ls the Means, Ln other words. Look at poLLtLcaL hLstory or at the hLstory of any MoveMents. Uhen we work for certaLn goals, those goals tend to betray us. Ue defeated L.B. Johnson only to get RLchard NLxon. Ue got rLd of the B-1 BoMber (teMporarLLy) and the CruLse MLssLle appeared. Ue have to Make our actLon the goal. Our actLon Must LtseLf be the truth. Our actLon Must be Lts own defense, Lts own procLaMatLon, Lts own purpose. (Letter to the author, June 1982) Both on practLcaL and ethLcaL grounds, vLoLence Ls rejected as a Mode of ecotogLcal resLstance. TerrorLst attacks on nuclear plants or MLssLle sLtes could cause ·red" alerts and vLolent responses froM governMent agencLes. PLacLng one's own LLfe at rLsk, such as sLttLng Ln front of bulldozers or polLce cars at a deMonstratLon to protest destructLon of the raLn forest, May be LLLegaL but not vLoLent. And spontaneous acts such as the decoMMLssLonLng of a power generator or bulldozer May draMatLze the contLnuLng destructLon of a -18- �spectal ecosysteM. Ecologtcal reststance also Means defendtng natural dtverstty through educatLon, publLc speakLng, and use of lawsuLts; tryLng to convert publtc opLnton to the cause; and tnforMLng poltttctans and dectsLon Makers. ResLstance Ls another naMe for afftrMatLon - joyful affLrMatton of the tntegrLty of Nature, natural dLversLty, and MLnLMuM huMan LMpact on place. (Deep Ecolo9H, pp.16-17) The Deep Ecology MOVeMent and peace MoveMent. Ftfteen years ago close cooperatton between supporters of deep ecology and actLvtsts Ln the peace MoveMent was out of reach. Rather suddenly thts sttuatton Ls totally changed. SoMe of us, ltke Myself, favour unLlateral dtsarMaMent and establtshMent of MtlLtant, but unherotc, non-vtolent defence. At thts potnt Lt ts tMportant for actLvtsts to stress the dtstLnctLon between actLon, caMpaLgn and MOVeMent. They May be tllustrated by three concentrLc cLrcles. The LnnerMost coMprLse the dLrect actLons wLthLn a caMpatgn, for Lnstance, a dated deMonstratLon at a parttcular locatLon agatnst the butldtng of a daM, or the non-vtolent obstructton of the transport of the MachLnery on the way to the daM sLte. ThLs May be part of a ten year old caMpaLgn to save a rtver (LncludLng of course tts ecosysteM) froM developMent of soMe sort. Ten dLrect acttons May be fatlure, but nevertheless theLr LMpact May conflLct, contrtbute to vLctory of the caMpaLgn. (Or May polarLze the antt-actLvtsts Many what Ls That contrLbutLng to the faLlure of the caMpatgn? MaLntaLn.) The rLver caMpaLgn together wLth other analogous caMpaLgns May be seen as part of a MoveMent of greater or lesser generaltty. A MoveMent to save rtvers, or More generally a conservatton MoveMent. Many caMpatgns May be fatlures, but the MOVeMent goes on. (Hates on Poltttcs, pp.l~-JS) Gandhtan and other forMs of non-vtolence are wtdely found wLthtn the deep ecologLcal MoVeMent. There Ls a reluctance to accept destructLon of MachLnery Ln efforts to stop destructton even of holy places. There Ls soMe dtsagreeMent on thts and related subjects. I do not thtnk that the coMpletely general norMs of care and consLderatLon should be looked upon as part of the specLftc platforM of the deep ecology MoveMent . . (PhLlosophLcal Aspects, p.31) In suM, the paradtgM of deep ecology Ls revolutLonary tn tts MetaphysLcs, epLsteMology, and cosMology, but deep ecologLsts do not seek to overthrow governMents by force of arMs or to Lssue anythLng lLke a coMprehensLve, alleMbracLng polLtLcal prograM for brLngLng about the new order. The conteMporary deep ecology MoveMent seeMs to be what Robert NLsbet has called a "wLthdrawal and renewal" MoveMent such as has perLodLcally arLsen .Ln ~estern socLety sLnce the fall of the RoMan EMpLre. There ts no poltttcal party of "deep ecology,· no cadre of poltttcal revoluttonarte s. Thts ts not an approprtate approach for deep ecologtsts. No frontal confrontatLons wLth reforMLst envLronMental tsts or wLth the doMLnant socLal/polttLc al order Ls destred. It would be counter-product Lve by Maktng people More defensLve of thetr LdeologLcal posLtLon. Deep ecology Ls not an atteMpt to add one More tdeology Ln the crowded fLeld of Modern LdeologLes. Deep ecologLsts are questLng for ways to lLberate and cultLvate the ecologLcal conscLousness. FroM ecologtcal conscLousness wtll naturally flow an ecologtcal reststance. (Deep Ecology MoveMent, pp.316-17) 5: ON SELF-REALIZATION Naess: Self-realtzatLo n ts the realtzatLon of -19- the potentLaltttes of ltfe. �OrganLsMs that dLffer froM each other Ln three ways gLve us Less dLversLty than organLsMs that dLffer froM each other Ln one hundred ways. Therefore, the selfreaLLzatLon we experLence when we LdentLfy wLth the unLverse Ls heLghtened by an Lncrease Ln the nuMber of ways Ln whLch LndLvLduals, socLetLes, and even specLes and lLfe forMs realLze theMselves. The greater the dLversLty, the, the greater the self-realLzatLon. ThLs seeMLng duaLLty between LndLvLduaLs and the totalLty Ls encoMpassed by what I call the Self and the ChLnese call the Tao. Most people Ln deep ecology have had the feelLng - usually, but not always, Ln nature - that they are connected wLth soMethLng greater than theLr ego, greater than theLr naMe, theLr faMLLy, theLr specLaL attrLbutes as an LndLvLdual - a feelLng that Ls often called oceanLc because Many have Lt on the ocean. ULthout that LdentLfLcatLon, one Ls not easLLy drawn to becoMe LnvoLved Ln deep ecology. Many people have thLs feeLLng when they see a death struggle - for Lnstance tLny anLMaLs LLke fLtes or Mosquttoes fLghtLng for thetr ltves. Uhen they see anLMals sufferLng, they May LdentLfy wLth LLfe forMs they usually don't LdentLfy wLth. Such sLtuatLons offer us an opportunLty to develop a More Mature poLnt of vLew. Insofar as thLs conversLon, these deep feelLngs are reLLgLous, deep ecology has a reLLgLous coMponent, and those people who have done the Most to Make socLetLes aware of the destructLve way Ln whLch we LLve Ln reLatLon to natural settLngs have had such relLgLous feeLLngs. Rachel Carson, for exaMpLe, says that we cannot do what we do, we have no reLLgLous or ethLcaL justLfLcatLon for behavLng as we do toward nature. Her arguMent Ls not calculated or reasonable Ln the usual sense, sayLng that, Lf we contLnue poLsonLng nature, we wLLl be Less healthy, or wLLL have fewer resources, and so on. She Ls sayLng that we are sLMply not perMLtted to behave Ln that way. SoMe wLll say that nature Ls not Man's property, Lt's the property of God; others wLLL say Lt Ln other ways. The MaLn poLnt Ls that deep ecology has a reLLgLous coMponent, fundaMental LntuLtLons that everyone Must cuLtLvate Lf he or she Ls to have a LLfe based on values and not functLon LLke a coMputer. Uhereas shallow ecology, Lf taken to Lts logLcaL extreMe, Ls lLke a coMputerLzed, cost-benefLt anaLysLs for huMans. (SLMpLe tn Means, p.11) If the terM seLf-reaLLzatLon Ls applLed, Lt should be kept Ln MLnd that Me", "ego , and self have shLftLng denotatLons. NothLng Ls evLdent and •1·, LndLsputabLe. Even that we are Ls debatable Lf we Make the questLon dependent upon answertng what we are. Self-realLzatLon Ln Lts absolute MaxLMUM Ls, as I see Lt, the Mature experLence of oneness Ln dLversLty as depLcted Ln the above verse. The MLnLMUM Ls the seLf-reaLL2atLon by More of Less consLstent egotLsM - by the narrowest experLence of what constLtutes one's self and a MaxLMUM of alLentatLon. As eMpLrLcaL beLngs we dweLL soMewhere Ln between, but Lncreased MaturLty LnvoLves tncrease of the wLdeness of the self. The seLf-reaLtzatton MaxLMuM should not necessarLLy be conceLved as a MystLcal or MedLtattonaL state. ·ey MedLtatLon soMe perceLve the Self tn the self by the self; others by the path of knowledge and stLLl others by the path of work (karMa-yoga) [Gtta: Chapter 13,, verse 2~]. GandhL was a karMa-yoga, reaLLzLng hLMseLf through socLaL and poLLtLcaL actLon. The terMs MystLcal unLon and MystLcLsM are avoLded here for three reasons: Ftrst, strong Mysttcal tradLtLons stress the dtssolutLon of Lndtvtdual selves Lnto a nondLversLfLed supreMe whole. Both froM cultural and ecoLogLcaL poLnt of vtew dLversLty and LndLvtdualLty are essentLaL. Second, there Ls a strong terMLnoLogtcaL trend wtthtn sctenttftc coMMuntttes to assoctate MysttcLsM wtth MystLcs tend to agree that MysttcaL ThLrd, confuston. and vagueness conscLousness Ls rarely sustatned under norMal, everyday condLttons. But strong, -20- �w~de LdentLfLcatLon can color experLence under such condLtLons. GandhL was only MargLnally concerned wLth 'nature'. In hLs ashraM poLsonous snakes were perMLtted to tLve LnsLde and outsLde huMan dwettLngs. AntL-poLson MedLcLnes were frowned upon~ GandhL LnsLsted that trust awakens trust, and that snakes have the saMe rLght to tLve land btossoM as the huMans. (IdentLfLcatLon, pp.259-6) In keepLng wLth the spLrLtual tradLtLons of Many of the worlds s retLgLons, the deep ecology norM of setf-reatL2atLon goes beyond the Modern western self hedonLstLc whLch Ls defLned as an Lsotated ego strLvLng prLMarLly for gratLfLcatLon or for a narrow sense of LndLvLduat satvatLon Ln thLs tLfe or the next. ThLs socLatty prograMMed sense of the narrow self or socLat self dLslocates us, and leaves us prey to whatever fad or fashLon Ls prevalent Ln our socLety or socLat reference group. Ue are thus robbed of be9LnnLn9 the search for our unLque spLrLtuat/b.LologLcal personhood. SpLrLtual growth, or unfotdLng, begLns when we cease to understand or see ourselves as Lsolated and narrow coMpetLng egos and begLn to LdentLfy wLth other huMans forM our faMLly and frLends to, eventually, our specLes. But the deep ecology sense of self requLres a further MaturLty and growth, an LdentLfLcatLon whLch goes beyond huManLty to Lnclude the nonhuMan world. Ue Must see beyond our narrow conteMporary cultural assuMptLons and values, and the conventLonat wLsdoM of our tLMe and place, and thLs Ls best achLeved by the MedLtatLve deep questLonLng process. Only Ln thLs way can we hope to attaLn full Mature personhood and unLqueness. A nurturLng nondoMLnatLng socLety can help Ln the "real work" of becoMLng a whole person. The ·real work• can be suMMarLzed syMbolLcally as the realLzatLon of "self-Ln-Self- where ·setf· stands for organLc wholeness. ThLs process of the full unfoldLng of the self can also be SUMMarLzed by the phrase, •No one Ls saved untLt we are all saved,· where the phrase •one• Lncludes not only Me, an LndLvLduat huMan, but all huMans, whales, grLzzly bears, whole raLn forest ecosysteMs, MountaLns and rLvers, the tLnLest MLcrobes Ln the soLt, and so on. (Deep Ecology, pp.66-7) of norM SubscrLbLng to these prLncLples, Naess asserts, coMes froM the self-realLzatLon, that ·.~. wLth MaturLty, huMan beLngs wLtl experLence joy and sorrow when other tLfe forMs experLence sorrow. Not only wLll we feet sad when our brother or the dog or cat feels sad, but we wLll grLeve when lLvLng beLngs, LncludLng landscapes, are destroyed. In our cLvLlLzatLon, we have vast Means' of destructLon at our dLsposal but extreMely lLttle MaturLty Ln our feelLngs. Only a very narrow range of feetLngs have Lnterested Most huMan beLngs untLt now.• ThLs deepenLng of feetLngs seeMs to run counter . to the trend Ln Modern socLety toward superfLcLat relatLonshLps . . . . Arne Naess asserts that ·setfrealLzatLon cannot develop far wLthout sharLng joys and sorrows wLth others, or More fundaMentalty, wLthout the developMent of the narrow ego of the sMall chLld Lnto the coMprehensLve structure of a Self that coMprLses all huMan beLngs. The ecologLcal MoveMent -- as Many earlLer phLlosophLcat MoveMents -- takes a step further and asks for developMent such that, there Ls a deep LdentLfLcatLon of LndLvLduals wLth all lLfe." I suggest that the leaders of the ecology MoveMent devetopMent theLr ethLcs after they had Moved along thLs path of Self-reatLzatLon. (Stone/Sky, pp.6-7) But what Ls wrong wLth the wLdely applauded atteMpt, runnLng through Much LdeatLstLc and Eastern thLnkLng, to explLcate value through self-realLsatLon? FLrstly, lLke utLlLtarLan explLcatLons, such as those through happLness and satLsfactLon, Lt Ls Much too experLentLal. It renders value a feature of those -21- �who exper~ence value - roughly of valuers - rather than of what ~s valued, and bears value. It Ls lLke sayLng that colour Ls a Matter of those (huMans) who perceLve colour, not of the (coMposLtLon of) thLngs that are coloured. And reMove the experLences, those undertakLng self-realLsatLon, as Ln the days before lLfe appears and value dLsappears. And that too Ls wrong. Secondly, even Lf self-realLsatLon were always worthwhLle and never tLed to by contrast wLth lLfe - there are exaMpLes of value whLch fall beyond evLl (Ln presented often seLf-reaLLsatLon. A certaLn sort of dLrectLon Ls bLocheMLstry texts Lnterested Ln explaLnLng lLfe) as a MLnLMal condLtLon of lLfe of an organLsr1 or syster1: caLL that dLrectLon, s·eLf-dLrecti.on. Thus, deep ecology, Lnsofar as Lt values (just) LLfe, values (just) self-dLrectLon. In these terMs, the contractLon froM seLf-dLrectLon to self-realLsatLon, as Ln Ecosophy T, Looks LLke a M~stake. A s~r1LLar M~stake appears to underLLe contractLons to ecologLcal conscLousness (as Ln Devall); for self-realLsatLon Looks rer1arkabLy L~ke consc~ous seLf-d~rectLon, roughly an LntersectLon of seLf-dLrectLon wLth conscLousness. The argur1ents asser1bLed thus underMLne both of what Devall presents as the uLtLMate norMs of deep ecology', nar1eL~eLf-reaLLsatLon and bLocentrLsM. 'These are not proved but "felt"' (83, p.5). But they are not felt, at least by those who perceLve value beyond what lLves; rather they are dLsproved, by a serLes of counterexar1ples to each as uLtLr1ate norr1s. (CrLtLque, pp.2~-5) In partLcular presentatLons of a partLcular phLLosophy froM whLch the Naess-SessLon platforM Ls derLved, naMely Ecosophy r' I use a Model where 'Self-realLzaHon!' and sLr1LLar short forr1uLatLons are taken to express a top norr1 of a norr1atLve systeM. ~e r1ay artLcuLate 'r1odeLs' of a very cor1prehensLve norr1atLve syster1, and use Lt to explore the LnterrelatLons of our own vLews and those of others. I have extensLvely used a Model of a cor1prehensLve yLew I call 'Ecosophy r ·' and I use only one top norM whLch on the Most crude ser1antLcaL Level Ls expressed by a one word sentence 'seLf-realLzatLon! '. A r1aLn LnspLratLon for - the choLce cor1es froM the use of the terN by GandhL. Another MaLn LnspLratLon Ls the strong trend Ln Uestern LndustrLaL states towards an LndLvLdualLsM favourLng lLfe as a Long ego-trLp full of 'happenLngs' . In France there Ls a group of 'egologLsts' , the nar1e beLng chosen as a contrast to 'ecologLsts ' : ~hatever the reLatLons between LndLvLdual beLngs, huMan nature Ls such that the egocentred Lnterests of each of us Ls stronger than any other. To foster the kLnds of soLLdar~ty the pol~t~cal left ~s taLkLng about, or the soLLdarLty wLth other lLfe forMs wh~ch . ecologLsts (the greens) preach, w~ll therefore never succeed and ~s apt to hurt the LndLvLduaL . ' seLf-reaL~zatLon!' Ls a norM that LnLtLaLLy arLses vLvLd Lnterest aMong those who are LnfLuenced by the ego-trLp trend, but are then astonLshed and bewLLdered by the d~stLnctLons between ego, self and Self. Th~s ~s new to Most of theM and they are often Led to recons~der theLr LndLvLduaL~st posLtLon. ThLs reconsLderLng Ls for Me a confLrMatLon of the SocratLc value of the choLce of forr1ulatLon. The r1aLn poLnt Ln thLs connectLon Ls that huMans undergo a r1aturLn9 process, and only Lf thLs process coMes to a 'prer1ature' halt, LndentLfLcatLon wLth others and solLdarLty faLL to develop. If we, as I do, add the SpLnozLst (courageous) hypothes~s that the joy and equLMLndedness you exper~ence as a Mature person ~s deeper and rLcher than that you exper~ence as an ~r1r1ature grown 'reaLLzaHon of the (wLde) Self!' gets to be an ~nstructi.ve and ~nsp~rLng up, -22- �forMu l,a. The Self-realLzatLo n norM proposed by Me has been taken too serLously as Lf one, two or three world expressLons were adequate phLLosophLcaL expressLons of a hL9hest' norM. An adequate expressLon LMplLes that the LntrLcate subject ego, se Lf, Se Lf ', that Ls, b Lo Log Lea L, soe La L and Hetaphys Lea L se Lf ar·e dLstLnguLshed. Only Ln relatLon to a faLrly Large body of phLlosophLcaL analysLs we can forMulate adequate phLlosophLcal prLncLples. It has always been that way. (Notes on Sylvan, pp.17-19) HY 0 6: OH LIFESTYLE The deep ecologLcal MoveMent Ls recruLted froM people who do not look upon natural surroundLngs as a Means for recreatLon and repaLr. LLfe and work Ln natural surroundLngs Ls a vLtal concern. The rLchness of that LLfe Ls so vast, and the Means are so sLMple, that they have dLffLculty understandLng why others seeM to need Means on a level of coMplLcatLon and sophLstLcatLon that Ls unLque Ln the hLstory of [huMan]kLnd. They cannot but fLght agaLnst the acceleratLng destructLon of nature due to the MaLntaLnLng and expandLng the productLon of such Means. They do not thLnk people who serLousLy reflect upon the reLatLon between Means and ultLMate LntrLnsLc values can justLfy the present polLcLes. As an LllustratLon of dLfferent Means/end ratLos, coMpare the dLrect and LndLrect technologLcal requLreMent of a faMLly wLth MeMbers froM 8 to 80 years old lLvLng Ln a natural surroundLng and goLng cross-country skLLng together, wLth that of a faMLly doLng slaloM at a bLg fashLonable skL resort. (PhLlosophLcal. Aspects, pp.35-6) 0 RLch Ln ends, sLMple Ln Means!.' HuMan Lnterference Ln the ecosphere can only be reduced to tolerable levels Lf people, and especLally the average (or econoMLcally above average) people of the LndustrLal states adopt lLfe styles requLrLng sLMple MaterLal Means. ThLs Ls coMpatLble wLth or even favourable towards rLchness of goals. 'Increase the sensLtLvLty to and apprecLatLon of what there Ls suffLcLent of for all!' The educatLonal slogan fLghts agaLnst the confusLon of value wLth Market value and prLce. A way to MaxLMLze our abLlLty to derLve deep satLsfactLon froM the goods of whLch there stLll, Ls, or coul.d be, enough. The present lLfe style of average people Ln LndustrLal socLetLes cannot be a global lLfe style wLthout LrreversLble, colossal destructLon of condLtLons of LLfe on Earth. (Hotes on PolLtLcs, p.2) It ' s a shLft froM beLng doMLnated by Means, LnstruMents, gadgets, all the Many thLngs we thLnk wLLl gLve us pleasure or Make us happy or perfect. The shLft coMes about when we serLously ask ourselves, In what sLtuatLons do I experLence the MaxLMUM satLsfactLon of MY whole beLng? and fLnd that we need practLcally nothLng of what we are supposed to need for a rLght and fuLfLlLLng LLfe. And Lf we Make that shLft toward a LLfe sLMple Ln Means but rLch Ln goals, we are not threatened by the plans elaborated by envLronMentalL sts. For Lnstance, we can see that, Lnstead of an ene~gy cr~s~s, we have a crLsLs of consuMptLon - we have More than enough energy. There Ls no reason to contLnue LncreasLng our consuMptLon of energy or of any of the other MaterLaL aspects of lLfe. In countrLes lLke the UnLted States the crLsLs Ls rather one of LLfestyle, of our tradLtLons of thoughtlessness and confusLon, or our LnabLLLty to questLon what Ls and Ls not worthwhLLe Ln l,Lfe. ULthLn fLfty years, eLther we wLl,l, need a dLctatorshLp to save what Ls Left of the dLversLty of LLfe forMs, or we wLLl have a shLft of values, a shLft of our total vLew such that no dLctatorshLp wLLL -23- �be . needed. It Ls thoroughly natural to stop doMLnatLng and expLoLtLng and destroyLng the planet. A "sMooth" ~ay, LnvoLvLng harMonLous LLvLng wLth nature, or a "rough" way, LnvoLvLng dLctatorshLp and coercion - those are the optLdns. I tell people that, Lf they Make clear theLr fundaMentaL assuMptLons about what Ls needed for a LLfe sLMpLe Ln Means and rLch Ln ends, they wLLL necessarLLy coMe to the conctusLon that Lt Ls not tack of energy consuMptLon that Makes theM unhappy. They can then oppose nuclear power wLthout havLng read thLck books and wLthout knowLng the MyrLad facts that are used Ln newspapers and perLodLcaLs. And they Must also fLnd others who feel the saMe and forM cLrcLes of frLends who gLve one another confidence and support Ln lLvLng Ln a way that the MajorLty fLnds rLdLcuLous, naLve, stupLd, and sLMpt~stLc. But Ln order to do that, one Must already have enough seLf-confLdenc e to follow one's LntuLtLon - a quaLLty very Much LackLng Ln broad sectLons of the populace. Most people follow the trends and advertLseMents and becoMe phLLosophLcaL and ethLcaL crLpples. I thLnk that, Ln the long run, Ln order to joyfully and wholeheartedly partLcLpate Ln the deep ecology MoveMent you have to take your own LLfe very seriously. People who successfully MaLntaLn a Low MaterLaL standard of lLvLng and successfully cultLvate a deep, Lntense Lnner lLfe are Much better able to consLstentLy MaLntaLn a deep ecoLogLcat vLew and to act on behalf of Lt. As 1· sLt down and breathe deeply and just feel where I aM, I can ask Myself where and when I really enjoy MY LLfe and what would be the MLnLMuM Means necessary to MaLntaLn those enjoyable feelLngs and sLtuatLons. For exaMpLe, I Myself have too eager to go cLLMbLng Ln the HLMaLayas, whereas the pecutLar been satLsfactLon I have as a MountaLneer could be had Ln Norway . If you concentrate on what gLves you satLsfactLon, you wLLL fLnd that Lt can be obtaLned Much More easLly and sLMply than we are educated to belLeve Ln our socLety, where bL99er, More elaborate and More expensLve are always consLdered better. The deveLopMent of sensLtLvLty toward the good thLngs whLch we already have Ln suffLcLent quantLty Ls the true goal of educatLon. Not that we need to LLMLt our desLres. I'M not for the sLMple lLfe, except Ln the sense of a tLfe sLMpLe Ln Means but rLch Ln goals and values. I have treMendous aMbLtLon. Only the best Ls good enough for Me. I LLke rLchness, and I feel rLcher than the rLchest person when I'M Ln MY cottage Ln the country wLth water I've carrLed froM a certaLn well and wood I've gathered froM the forest. Uhen you take a heLLcopter to the SUMMLt of a MountaLn,° the vLew Looks LLke a postcard, and, Lf there ' s a restaurant on the top, you wLll coMplaLn that the food Ls not properly Made. ~hereas Lf you struggle up froM the bottoM, you have thLs deep feeLLng of satLsfactLon, and even sandwLches MLxed wLth skL wax and sand taste fantastLc. (SLMple Ln Means, pp . 11-12) (1) Use of s LMple Means, avoidance of unnecessary coMplLcated LnstruMents and other sorts of Means. (2) ChoLce of actLvLtLes Most dLrectLy servLng values Ln theMselves and havLng LntrLnsLc value. AvoLdance of actLvLtLes whLch are Merely auxLlLary, havLng no LntrLnsLc value , or beLng Many stages away froM fundaMentaL goals. (3) AntL-consuMerLs M . ThLs negatLve attLtude follows froM (1) and (2). (~) Endeavour to MaLntaLn and Lncrease the sensLtLvLty and apprecLatLon of goods of whLch there Ls enough for all to enjoy. ' (5) Absence or low degree of novophLLL - the love of what Ls new Merely because Lt Ls new. (6) Effort to dwell Ln sLtuatLons of LntrLnsLc value and to act rather than beLng busy . (7) ApprecLatLon of ethnLc and cultural differences aMon9 people, not feelLn9 theM as threats . (8) Concern about the sLtuatLon of the thLrd and fourth world and atteMpt to -24- �avoLd a standard of LLvLng too Much dLfferent froM and hLgher than the needy. (Global soLLdarLt y of LLfe style). (9) ApprecLat Lon of LLfe styles whLch are unLversaL LzabLe, whLch are not blatantly LMpossLbLe to sustaLn wLthout LnjustLce toward fellow huMans or other specLes. (10) To go for depth and rLchness of experLenc e rather than LntensLty . (11) To apprecLat e and choose, when possLbLe, MeanLngfuL work rather than just MakLng a LLvLng. (12) To Lead a coMpLex, not a coMpLLca ted LLfe, tryLn9 to reaLLze as Many aspects of posLtLve experLenc es as possLbLe wLthLn each tLMe-Lnte rvaL. (13) CuLtLvatL ng LLfe Ln coMMunLty (GeMeLns chaft) rather than Ln socLety (OeseLLs chaft}. sMaLL scale Ln prLMary productLo n (14) ApprecLat Lon of or partLcLpa tLon agrLcuLtu re, forestry, fLshLng. (15) Effort to satLsfy vLtaL needs rather than desLres. (Paradox, pp.57-8) In soMe Eastern tradLtLon s, the student Ls presented wLth a koan, a sLMpLe story or stateMent whLch May sound paradoxLc aL or nonsensLc aL on the surface but as the student turns and turns Lt Ln hLs or her MLnd, authentLc understan dLng eMerges. ThLs dLrect actLon · of turnLng and turnLn9, seeLn9 froM dLfferent perspectL ves and froM dLfferent depths, Ls requLred for the cuLtLvatL on of conscLou sness. The koan-LLke phrase for deep ecology, suggested by proMLnen t NorwegLan phLLosoph er Arne Naess Ls: ·sLMpLe Ln Means, rLch Ln ends.· (Deep Ecology, p.10) The LdeoLogLcaL change Ls MaLnLy that of apprecLat Lng LLfe quaLLty Ln sLtuatLon s of Lnherent value) rather than adherLng to an (dweLLLng LncreasLn gLy hLgher standard of LLvLng. There wLLL be a profound awareness of the dLfferenc e between bLg and great. SoMe econoMLs ts crLtLcLze the terM "quaLLty of LLfe" because Lt Ls supposed to be vague. But on closer LnspectLo n, what they consLder to be vague Ls actuaLLy the non-quan tLtatLve nature of the terM. One cannot quantLfy adequatel y what Ls LMportant for the quaLLty of LLfe as dLscussed here, and there Ls no need to do so. There Ls aMple rooM for dLfferent op~n~ons about prLorLtLe s: what should be done fLrst, what next? What Cs Most urgent? What Ls necessary as opposed to what Ls hL9hLy desLrabLe ? But the dLfferenc es do not exclude vLgorous cooperatL on. ~hat Ls gaLned froM tentatLve Ly forMuLatL ng basLc vLews shared today by Most or all supporter s of the deep ecology MoveMent? Hopefully Lt Makes Lt a LLttLe easLer to LocaLLze the MoveMent aMong the Many 'aLternat Lve' MoveMents. Hopefully thLs does not Lead to LsoLatLon but rather to even better cooperatL on wLth Many other aLternatL ve MoveMents. It MLght also Make soMe of us More clear about where we stand, and More clear about whLch dLsagreeM ents MLght profLtabL y be reduced and whLch ones MLght profLtabL y be sharpened . After aLL dLversLt y!' Ls a hLgh Level norM! (BasLc, p.6,9) 0 A set of platforM forMulatL on should be vague and aMbLguous enough to be capable or rather dLfferen t phLLosoph LcalLy relevant Lnterpret atLons. The prLncLpLe s of Lnterpret atLon of pLatforMs of MoveMents reseMbLe those of Lnterpret atLon of Laws. Vagueness Ls here essentLaL prLMarLLy because those appLyLng the Laws Must have soMe freedoM Ln adaptLng theM to ever changLng cLrcuMst ances, but also because the forMuLatL on Must slur over, or abstract froM MLnor dLfferenc es of relevant opLnLon aMon9 those who have supported the Lssue of the Law. On the other hand, the Lnterpret atLon of the text of a phLLosop her reseMbLes that of a testaMent ( 'wLLL' ). Exactly what the testator Lntends Ls the -25- �sole crLterLon of correctness of the LnterpretatLon . Uhether hLs or her terMLnology Ls abhorent or crazy Ls Lrrelevant. (Hates on Sylvan, pp.10-11) 7: ON BIOREGIOHALISM The central eleMent of bLoregLon Ls the LMportance gLven to natural systeMs "both as the source of physLcal nutrLtLon and as the body of Metaphors froM whLch our spLrLts draw sustenance. To understand natural systeMs Ls to begLn an understandLng of the self." A second eleMent of bLoregLon Ls setf-regulatLo n: •anarchy doesn't Mean out Lt Means out of theLr control.• Local coMMunLtLes LnspLred by a control; of shared concern for the bLoregLon, for "tettLng be• the plants and natLve anLMals of that place, ~an Make decLsLons concernLng LndLvLduat and coMMunat actLons whLc respect the LntegrLty of natural processes Ln that place. CarLng for a place Means avoLdLng exptoLtatLon. thLrd eleMent coMposLng the bLoregLonal notLon Ls spLrLt. • There Ls no sLngle relLgLous practLce for thLs sense of bLoregLonat spLrLt. It can be ChrLstLan, BuddhLst, NatLve AMerLcan or others; based on deep ecologLcal LnsLghts, Lt can be expressed Ln nuMerous ways. (Deep Ecology, pp.21-22) ·A UhLte the bLoregLonal, MLnorLty tradLtLon seeMs approprLate to us for cuttLvatLng ecotogLcal conscLousness, atlowLng for bLologLcat dLversLty wLth sLMplLcLty of Means, there are tough, practLcat decLsLons to Make. ConsLstent wLth our uttLMate norMs, Lt seeMs that one prLncLple Ls protectLon of endangered specLes of plants and anLMals as part of the general norM of unLty Ln dLversLty. Another norM Ls bLoregLonal responsLbLlLty . The local coMMunLty Ls the place for decLsLons. However, what happens when a local COMMunLty's needs conflLct wLth the norM of protectLng specLes dLversLty? Such a sLtuatLon occurred on the north slope of Alaska where natLve EskLMos were huntLng bowhead whales Ln the 1970s. The InternatLonat UhatLng Co~MLssLon ruled that thLs was an endangered specLes of whale and consLdered a total ban on the kLttLng of bowhead. However, the natLve EskLMos pleaded that Lt was part of theLr tradLtLon to kLtt whales. TheLr Myths and tLfestyle were dependent on Lt. It they dLdn't kLll whales they would be More dependent on canned Meat froM the "tower forty-eLght": gLven theM by welfare departMents. ThLs soMewhat sptLt the envLronMentalL sts . Many groups supported a total ban on the kLllLng of bowheads untLl ecologLsts deterMLned that theLr poputatLon had "suffLcLently Lncreased, • but FrLends of the Earth took the posLtLon that EskLMos be allowed to take a regulated nuMber of bowheads usLng theLr tradLtLonal Methods (no advanced technology for kLtlLng theM was allowed). Arne Haess provLdes an exaMple froM the bLoregLon ·of northern Horway where farMers and herders, through expansLon of farMs and nuMber of sheep , were rapLdty encroachLng on habLtat of wolves and bears. SoMe suggested kLllLng all bears sLnce a few bears seeMed to be eatLng soMe sheep. But others suggested LdentLfyLng the probleM More carefully. Uas a specLfLc bear becoMLng More and More Lnterested Ln sheep? Could that bear be entLced to refraLn froM eatLng sheep? Could Lt be reMoved to another tocat(on? Could the farMers agree to keep theLr sheep out of areas where bears were known to have dens or graze? Only as a last resort would the coMMunLty consLder the optLon of kLllLng that bear. ThLs approach Ls Ln great contrast wLth that favoured by soMe ranchers and such as wolves, farMers Ln the AMerLcan Uest . Uhen a •predator" Ls defLned to elLMLnate Lt, undertaken are efforts systeMLc then etc. coyotes, eagles, poLson •1oso", of spreadLng LncludLng aerLal huntLng of wolves (Ln Alaska), -26- �shootLn g eagles wLth hLgh-po wered rLfles and destroyL ng habLtat (dennLng areas, rLparLan habLtat of rats, etc.). (Deep Ecology , pp.148- 9) DasMann wrLtes about "bLoregL onalLsM " and •ecodeve lopMent " for the peoples of of AfrLca and the South PacLfLc , and refers approvL ngly to the concept Ln are ("~e House Lynn and e 6orslLn "future prLMLtL ve• develop ed by Jerry another to ve prLMLtL transLtL on froM one condLtL on of syMbLot Lc balance - the a whLch we wLll call future prLMLtLve ... a condLtL on havLng the attrLbu tes of Mature ecosyste M: stable, dLverse , Ln syMbLot Lc balance agaLn") . OasMann dLstLng uLshes between what he calls ecosyste M people and bLosphe re people: "Ecosyst eM people lLve wLthLn a sLngle ecosyste M, or at Most two or three M adjacen t and closely related ecosyste Ms. They are depende nt upon that ecosyste BLosphe re people draw theLr support , not froM the for theLr survLva l resource s of any one ecosyste M, but froM the entLre bLosphe re. BLosphe re people can exert LncredL ble pressure upon an ecosyste M they wLsh to exploLt , and create great devastat Lon - soMethL ng that would be LMpossLble or unthLnk able for people who were depende nt upon that partLcu lar ecosyste M ... BLosphe re people create a natLona l parks. Ecosyste M people have always lLved Ln the equLval ent of at natLona l park ... I propose that the future belongs to those who can regaLn, a hLgher level, the old sense of balance and belon9Ln 9 between Man and nature (ecosyst eM people) .· (SessLo ns, pp-~18- 19) A bLoregL on Ls a part of earth's surface whose rough boundar Les are deterML ned by natural rather than huMan dLctate s, dLstLng uLshable froM other and areas by attrLbu tes of flora, fauna, water, clLMate , soLls, and land-for Ms, The to. rLse the huMan settleM ents and culture s those attrLbu tes have gLven borders between such areas are usually not rLgLd - Nature works wLth More flexLbL lLty and fluLdLty than that - but the general contour s of the regLons theMselv es are not hard to LdentLfy , and Lndeed wLll probabl y be felt, and understo od, sensed, or Ln soMe way known to Many of the LnhabLt ants, , partLcu larly those rooted Ln the land, farMers , rancher s, hunters and fLshers n, AMerlca of face the across foreste rs and botanLs ts, and Most especLa lly, the trlbal Indlans, those stLll Ln touch wLth a culture that for centurl es knew earth as sacred and Lts well-beL ng as LMperat Lve. The wLdest regLon, takLng Lts charact er froM the broades t Measure s of natLve vegetatL on and soLl contour s, May be called the ecore9Lo n and wLll general ly cover several hundred thousand s of square Mlles. But wlthln these ecoregL ons Lt Ls easy to dLstLngu Lsh other coheren t terrLtor Les that defLne a theMselv es prLMarL ly by theLr surface feature s - a watersh ed, or rLver basLn, the valley, a desert, a plateau , a MountaLn range - and whLch we May all call stLll locate often can one turn, Ln 9eore9L on. And wLthLn these 9eore9L ons, sMaller areas, of perhaps several thousand square MLles dLscret e and Ldentof LfLable wLth theLr own topograp hLes and LnhabLt ants, theLr own varLatLo ns huMan culture and agrLcul ture, to whLch we May gLve the · naMe vLtaregL on. Uhether we speak of ecoregL on or 9eore9Lo n or vLtaregL on, after all, we speak of bLoregLons , and Lt Ls that essentL al archetyp e that Ls Most LMporta nt to coMprehend. For once that Ls done on any sLgnLfL cant scale then the Matter of MakLng to dLstLnc tLons and creatLn g huMan LnstLtut Lons to Match theM can be safely left best. theM the LnhabLt ants, the dweller s on the land, who wLll always know The econoMy that coMes lnto belng wlthln a charact er froM the condLtL ons, the laws of Nature. what we can be sald to know wLth soMe surety llvlng on the soLl has been cogently SUMMarLsed as be dLstLng uLshed, froM the laws of TherMod ynaMLcs . The flrst law ls that conserv atlon, bloreglo n also derlves lts Our Lgnoranc e Ls LMMense, but after these Many centurL es of the laws of EcodynaMLcs - to preserv atlon, -27- sustena nce, ls the �central goat of the natural world, hence Lts fundaMentat resLstance to largescale structural change; the second law Ls that, far froM beLng entropLc Nature Ls Lnherently stable, workLng Ln all tLMes and places toward that ecology calls a ctLMax, that Ls, a balanced, harMonLous, LntegratLve state of MaturLty whLch, once reached, Ls MaLntaLned for prolonged perLods. FroM thLs Lt follows that a bLoregLonal econoMy would seek to MaLntaLn rather than exploLt the natural world, accoMModate to the envLronMent, rather than resLst Lt; Lt would atteMpt to create condLtLons for a clLMax, a balance, for what soMe econoMLsts have recently taken to callLng a "steady state," rather than for perpetual change and contLnuat growth, Ln servLce to "progress", a false and delusory goddess Lf ever there was one. It would, Ln practLcat terMs, MLnLMLse resource use, eMphasLse conservatLon and recyclLng, avoLd poltutLon and waste. It would adopt Lts systeMs to the gLven bLoregLonal resources - energy based on wLnd, for exaMple, where Nature catted for that, or wood where that was approprLate, and food based on what the regLon Ltself - partLcularly Ln Lts natLve, pre-agrLcutturat state could grow. And thus Lt would be based, above all, on the Most eleMentat and Most elegant prLncLpte of the natural world, that of setf-suffLcLency. Just as Nature does not depend on trade, does not create elaborate networks of contLnentat for the dependency, so the bLoregLon would fLnd all Lts needed resources Lts own wLthLn luxury Manufacture, craft, energy, food, shelter, clothLng, thus beLng envLronMent. And far froM Lt beLng deprLved, far froM Lt LMpoverLshed, Lt would gaLn Ln every Measure of econoMLc health. It would be More stable, free froM booM-and-bust cycles and dLstant potLtLcat crLses; Lt would be able to plan, to allocate at the safest pace, Ln the Most ecotogLcal Manner_ It would not be at the Mercy of dLstant and uncontrollable natLonal bureaucracLes and transnatLonal governMents, and thus More self regardLng, More cohesLve, developLng a sense of place, of COMMunLty of coMradeshLp, and the prLde that coMes froM stabLlLty, control, coMpetence, and Lndependence. In one of hLs More prescLent perceptLons FrLtz SchuMacher reatLsed that the Market econoMy of twentLeth century capLtatLsM erred fundaMentatty, because Lt erred repeatedly, agaLnst Nature. "It Ls Lnherent Ln the Methodology of econoMLcs to Lgnore Man's dependence on the natural world," he wrote. "The Market represents only the surface of socLety and Lts sLgnLfLcance relates to the MOMentary sLtuatLon as Lt exLsts there and then. There Ls no probLng Lnto the depths of thLngs, Lnlo the natural or socLat facts that lLe behLnd theM. • And thLs Ls why, as he poLnts out, conventLonal econoMLcs Makes no dLstLnctLons at all between prLMary goods, "whLch Man has to wLn froM nature," and secondary goods Manufactured froM theM, or between renewable or nonrenewable resources, or the envLronMental and socLal costs of developLng one agaLnst the other. A bLothese regLonal econoMy, Ln sharpest contrast, Makes - Ln fact Ls grounded Ln vLtal dLstLnctLons. PolLtLcal prLncLples on a bLoregLonal scale are also grounded Ln the dLctates presented by Nature, Ln whLch what Ls forever valued are not the LMperatLves of gLgantLsM, centralLzatLon, hLerarchy, and MonolLthLcLty, but rather, Ln starkest contraposLtLon, those of scale, decentralLsatLon, dLvLsLon, and dLversLty. The lessons are obvLous, and suggest LMMedLately the desLgn for a bLoregLon as for a contLnent of bLoregLons. Each unLt, of the sL2e that the natural settLngs proMote, May be unLfLed and cohesLve - startLng froM the base up wLth a neLghbourhood, a coMMUnLty, a sMatl town, att tLvLng sLde-by-sLde wLth others Ln settled and Mutual pattern, together wLth coMprLsLng a vLtare9Lon; and that a vLtaregLon May have Lts own unLfLcatLon and cohesLveness, Lts own Method of governance, and yet lLve sLde-by-sLde wLth other regLons, organLsed as they May -28- �see fLt; and so on, outward, Ln selfsuffLcLent collaboratLon, unLt upon unLt, for so long as the natural boundarLes May perMLt and the natural affLnLtLes be kept Lntact. SLMLlar lessons May be derLved froM the patterns of huHan nature. Thus throughout all huMan hLstory people have tended to lLve Ln separate and Lndependent groups, a "fragMentatLon of huMan socLety· that Harold Isaccs has descrLbed as soMethLng akLn to •a pervasLve force Ln huMan affaLrs and always has been.• Even when natLons and eMpLres have arLsen, he notes, they have no stayLng power agaLnst the Lnnate huMan drLve to fragMentatLon. In a bLoregLonal socLety, the dLvLsLon between urban and rural, LndustrLal and agrLcuttural, populatLon and resources, would be replaced by an equLLLbrLuM, a syMbLosLs. On the one hand, the cLty would be necessary as a producer of certaLn kLnds of goods, as a centre of artLstLc culture, as a source of the asseMbled cLvLc vLrtues, though the cLty need not be of LMMense sLze - Lndeed, no larger than 50,000 or 100,000 people - and Ln fact Ldeally would replLcate rather than grow so that Lnstead of a sLngle MetropolLs there would be a MultLplLcLty of cLtLes of Modest sLzes scattered throughout the bLoregLon. On the other hand, the country would be necessary as the prLMe source of food and water and the HaterLals of shelter and clothLng and artLsanshLp and trade, and especLatty as the eMbodLHent of the bLoregLonal spLrLt of Gaea, whose presence should be felt daLly by the LnhabLtants of every settleMent, of whatever sLze. BLoregLonalLsM Ls no More than the Modern versLon of a very old perceptLon of the world held not Merely by the Greeks but by vLrtually every prelLterate socLety of whLch we have knowledge. (Sate, 167-72) 8: TECHNOLOGY The qualLty of huMan exLstence and huMan welfare should not be Measured of products. Technology Ls returned to Lts ancLent place as an quantLty by only approprLate tool for huMan welfare, not an end Ln Ltself. There should be a rapLd MoveMent toward "soft• energy paths and "approprLate technology~ and toward lLfestytes whLch wLll result Ln drastLc decrease Ln per capLta energy consuMptLon Ln advanced LnductrLal socLetLes whLcl LncreasLng approprLate energy Ln decentralLzed vLllages Ln so-called "thLrd world" natLons. Deep ecologLst5 are coMMLtted to rapLd MOVeMent to a •steady-state• or •conservor socLety· both froH ethLcal prLncLples of har~onLous LntegratLon of huMans wLth nature and froM apprecLatLon of ecologLcal realLtLes. IntegratLon of sophLstLcated, elegant, unobtrusLve, ecologLcalty sound, approprLate technology wLth greatly scaled down, dLversLfLed, organLc, labor-LntensLve agrLculture, huntLng, and gatherLng Ls another goal. (Deep Ecology pp.311-12) QuestLonLng technology Ls a process of dLrect actLon that anyone can develop. It Ls one of the Host serLous act Lons that can ·be taken Ln a technocratLc socLety where the assuMptLon that •technology wLll solve all probleMs• Ls so deeply held. as a systeM or as a specLfLc devLce such as a To questLon technology coMputer - can often arouse hostLlLty, defena certaLn type of vehLcle or sLveness, LrrLtatLon, and resentMent Ln lLsteners. Anyone who questLons technology can be branded a "LuddLte" or antLModernLst. A person who says ·no to any technologLcal devLce Ls often charged as beLng antLprogressLve. Yet Ls crucLat to questLon technology, Ln spLte of these crLtLcLsMs. ~e need technology whLch Ls coMpatLble wLth the growth of autonoMous, selfdeterMLnLng LndLvLduats Ln nonhLerarchLcal coMHunLtLes. ~e need prLncLples that wLll help us escape the trap of technocratLc socLety, where technology Ls the -29- �central LnstLtutLon. Technology can be crLtLcLzed and evaluated based on general prLncLples, scale or structure. The followLng questLons can be asked of any technologLcal devLce or systeM: I. Does thLs technologLcal devLce serve vLtal needs? 2. ls thLs devLce or systeM of the sort that can be LMMedLately understood by nonexperts? 3. Does Lt have a hLgh degree of flexLbLlLty and MutabLlLty or does Lt LMpose a perManent, rLgLd, LrreversLble LMprLnt on the lLves of cLtLzens? local ~- Does thLs technologLcal devLce or systeM foster greater autonoMy of coMMunLtLes or greater dependency on soMe centralLzed "authorLty"? 5. ls thLs devLce or systeM ecologLcally destructLve or conducLve to a deep ecology way of lLfe? 6. Does thLs devLce or systeM enhance the LndLvLdualLty of persons or does Lt lead to bureaucratLc hLerarchLes? 7. Does thLs devLce or systeM encourage people to behave and thLnk lLke MachLnes? A fully LnforMed, approprLate technology Ls a MeetLng ground of ethLcs , polLtLcs, MechanLcal understandLng and deep ecologLcal conscLousness. As Langdon WLnner concludes Ln AutonoMous Technology, "If one lacks a clear and knowledgeable sense of what Means are approprLate lo the cLrcuMstances at hand, one's These Means do not choLce of Means can easLly lead to excesses and danger. Lnvolve just narrow utLlLty or effLcLency of productLon or profLt Ln soMe short-terM calculatLon. Indeed, the narrow eMphasLs upon effLcLency of Means drLves us away froM the larger Lssues of envLronMental ethLcs asnd LndLvLdual responsLbLlLty for the consequences of our actLons. (Deep Ecology, pp.35-6) Shallow approach: AcceptLng LndustrLalLzatLon of the kLnd ManLfested Ln the West as the natural goal for developLng countrLes. Low estLNatLon of deep cultural dLfferences wLth sLgnLfLcant devLatLons froM Western standards. Deep approach: SocLal and cultural dLversLty of dLfferent specLes Ls an essentLal IntensLfLed Measures to part of general rLchness and varLatLon of lLfe forMs. exLstLng non-LndustrLal stLll lLMLt the LMpact of Western technology upon cultures . Defence of the fourth world agaLnst cultural foreLgn doMLnatLon. PolLtLcal and econoMLc polLcLes Ln favour of subcultures and MLnorLtLes Ln LndustrLalLzed socLetLes. Support of local and soft technologLes as a Means to MaLntaLn baste cultural assessMent of technLcal LnnovatLon. Due regard to anLMal socLetLes and cultures. SurvLval of populatLons does not ensure survLval of socLal LnstLtutLons . QuestLonLng whether so-called advanced, Modern technologLes are approprLate relatLve to levels of pollutLon, resources, populatLon and as subordLnate part of general culture. (PhLlosophLcal Aspects, pp.12-13) Technology Ls More helpless than ever because the technology beLng produced doesn ' t fulfLll baste huNan needs, such as MeanLngful work Ln a MeanLngful envLronMent . TechnLcal progress Ls shaM progress because the terM technLcal progress Ls a cultural, not a technLcal, terM . Our culture Ls the only one Ln the hLstory of MankLnd Ln whLch the culture has adjusted Ltself to the technology, rather than vLce versa. (SLMple ' Ln Means, p.11) Once the scLentLfLc probleMs have been solved, once Lt Ls understood how a partLcular forM of pollutLon arLses and Ln what Lts danger consLsts, the next probleM Ls technologLcal : to dLscover a Method of reducLng thLs LncLdence. That Lnvolves decLdLng, Ln the fLrst place, whLch of the causatLve factors Lt wLll be easLest to control . KnowLng, for exaMple, that the Los Angeles sMog Ls a joLnt product of the sLtLng of Los Angeles, Lts hours of sunlLght and the exhaust -30- �fuMes froM the LnternaL coMbustLon engLne, Lt Ls at once apparent that onLy the thLrd of these Lf controLLabLe at a toLerabLe cost. So what has to be Lnvented Ls a devLce whLch wLLL reduce the output of hydrocarbons Ln exhaust fuMes. ThLs constLtutes a technoLogLcaL probLeM, the soLutLon to whLch LLes Ln the LnventLon of a devLce whLch wouLd satLsfy partLcuLar technLcaL specLfLcatLons . (The word devLce' Ls h~re beLng used Ln a very broad sense; an LnsectLcLde Ls a devLce and so Ls the sterLLLsLng of Lnsects as a Means of bLoLogLcaL control.) 0 The Ldea of a 'technoLogLcaL soLutLon' Ls, however, a good deaL Less straLghtforward than Lt at fLrst appears to be, as the phrase I used above 'at a toLerabLe cost' aLready hLnts. It Ls very easy to thLnk up technLcaL soLutLons of ecoLogLcaL probLeMs Lf we consLder theM Ln LsoLatLon~ and Lf we defLne a technLcaL soLutLon, wLthout any reference to costs, as one whLch descrLbes a way of freeLng ourselves froM the ecoLogLcaL condLtLon whLch concerns us. Such a soLutLon Ls soMetLMes saLd to be 'practLcaL' but not 'operatLonal'. So Los AngeLes sMog could be reduced Ln LntensLty by roofLng over the entLre cLty, or by MakLng everybody use pubLLc transport, or by substLtutLng fuel-ceLls, Ln theLr present state of developMent, for Lnternal coHbustLon engLnes. But few wouLd serLousLy advance these proposals as 'solutLons', as satLsfactory ways of deaLLng wLth the sMog probleM. ~hy not? SLMply because the costs, or so Lt Ls w~deLy beLLeved, wouLd be too great, costs of varLous sorts, socLal, ecologLcal, econoMLc and poLLtLcaL. In so far as ecologLcaL probleMs can be solved only wLth the help of scLentLfLc dLscovery and technoLogLcaL LnventLon, they can be soLved only wLthLn the ~estern ratLonal tradLtLons. That Much Ls obvLous. MystLcaL conteMplatLon wLlL not reveal to the cheMLst the orLgLns of the Los Angeles sMog or enabLe the engLneer to desLgn an effectLve devLce for reducLng Lts LntensLty. But Lt Ls a enthusLasM proper crLtLcLsM of ~estern socLety that, Ln Lts - often chLldLsh for technoLogLcaL 'advance', Lt has faLled adequateLy to consLder the costs of LntroducLng new devLces and has defLned 'costs' far too narrowly. ThLs objectLon can be dLrected, even, agaLnst antL-pollutLon devLces. The Manufacture of such devLces wLLL norMaLLy create · More polLutLon. It May, by ModLfyLng the character of the poLlutant, Lntroduce new dangers - reducLng the percentage of carbon MonoxLde Ln exhaust fuMes whLle LncreasLng the percentage of the no Less dangerous nLtrogen dLoxLde. Or Lt May shLft the LncLdence of the poLLutLon froM a weaLthLer to a poorer coMMunLty - ManufacturLng sMokeless fueLs Ln an LndustrLaL town to Make the London aLr cLeaner - wLthout reducLng Lts total voLuMe. Any technoLogLcal LnnovatLon, furtherMore, LnvoLves an eleMent of ecoLoe LcaL rLsk; Lt Ls LMpossLbLe to calculate all Lts consequences Ln every possLbLe cLrcuMstance. The best the technologLst can do Ls to exclude effects whLch are already known to be dangerous and to LnvestLgate further effects whLch are suspect . That Ls why, as I saLd earLLer, caLlLng upon the technologLst to save us Ls so often equated wLth caLLLng Ln the devLL as an exorcLst. But Lt wouLd be quLte wrong to conclude that for the reasons just advanced the technologLcaL Method of overcoMLng ecoLogLcaL probleMs would be abandoned, that what ~estern socLetLes should do Ls to shut down factorLes, Let us say, rather than LnsLst on theLr reducLng, by technoLogLcal Means, theLr eMLssLon of pollutants. For econoMLc and socLaL rLsks ~ and, Ln the end, greater ecoLogLcal rLsks Lf the socLaL resentMent engendered by the closure Ls dLrected agaLnst the whoLe systeM of ecoLogLcaL controls. It, too, May do no More than shLft the LncLdence of poLLutLon froM rLcher to poorer regLons, as the factory-owner takes hLs capLtal elsewhere. To gLve up takLng any rLsks would be to gLve up actLng . Every actLon costs soMethLng, rLsks soMethLng. Uhat can properLy be deManded Ls not that Men should cease to act Ln ways whLch LnvoLve ecologLcal rLsks - there are no such ways, as Matters now stand, whatever the sLtuatLon Ln the Garden of -31- �Eden - but rather that they shouLd take More account of the ecoLogLcaL costs and benefLts of theLr actLon. And thLs Means, once agaLn, that they wLLL hav~ to Make fuLLer use of ratLonaL Western-type Methods, cost benefLt anaLyses or decLsLon-procedures. (PassMore, pp.~8-50) EcoLogLcaL resLsters do not accept that there are onLy narrow technLcaL soLutLons to narrowLy defLned socLal probLeMs (such as aLr poLLutLon). These probLeMs are seen onLy as syMptoMs of the Larger Lssues. There are three MaLn dangers to technocratLc soLutLons. FLrst Ls the danger Ln beLLevLng there Ls a coMpLete or acceptabLe soLutLon usLng Modern doMLnant LdeoLogLes and technoLogy. The second danger Ls the presentatLon of an LMpressLon that soMethLng Ls beLng done when Ln fact the reaL probLeM contLnues. reaL work". FLnaLLy, there Ls the danger of TLnkerLng dLstracts froM the assuMLng there wLLL be new experts - such as professLonaL ecoLogLsts - who wLLL provLde the soLutLon but who May Ln fact be constraLned to be pubLLc reLatLons spokespersons for the agenda of profLt or power of soMe corporatLon or agency. EcoLogLcaL resLstance Ls actLon froM centraL prLncLpLes of doLng what Ls necessary, of wLtnessLng nonvLoLentLy. It arLses froM a shLft Ln conscLouness. EcoLogLcaL resLstLng Ls deeper, soMe wouLd say More radLcaL,. than just reforMLsM. SoMe of the reforMLst actLons to MLtLgate soMe of the worse forMs of aLr and water poLLutLon (due to auto exhaust, for exaMpLe) are MotLvated by concern onLy for huMan heaLth and safety and not by the LntrLnsLc vaLues of the bLosphere. But th LLMLts of reforMLSM are by now weLL known. (Deep EcoLog~, pp.195-6) In tryLng to exaMLne technoLogy and productLon, we encounter a curLous paradox. ~e are deepLy rLven by a great sense of proMLse about technLcaL LnnovatLon, on the one hand, and by a thorough sense of dLsenchantMent wLth Lts resuLts, on the other. ThLs duaL attLtude not onLy refLects a confLLct Ln the popuLar LdeologLes concernLng technoLogy but aLso expresses strong doubts about the nature of the Modern technologLcaL LMagLnatLon LtseLf. We are puzzLed that the very LnstruMents our MLnds have conceLved and our hands have created can be so easLly turned agaLnst us, wLth dLsastrous resuLts for our weLL-beLng Lndeed, for our very survLval as a specLes. Techne, Moreover, covered a wLder scope of experLence than the Modern word technLcs. The goaL of techne Ls not restrLcted to MereLy "LLvLng weLL. or lLvLng wLthLn the lLMLt. Techne LncLudes LLvLng an ethLcaL LLfe accordLng to an orLgLnatLve and orderLng prLncLple conceLved as "potency". VLewed even Ln an LnstruMental sense, techne thus encoMpasses not MereLy raw MaterLaLs, tooLs, MachLnes, and products but aLso the producer - Ln short, a hLghly sophLstLcated subject froM whLch aLL eLse orLgLnates. To ArLstotle, the "Master-craftsMan" Ls dLstLnguLshed subjectLveLy froM hLs apprentLces or assLstants by vLrtue of honor, a sense of "why" products are created, and generaLLy a wLsdoM of thLngs ArLstotLe subject, and phenoMena. By startLng wLth the ratLonaLLty of productLon the to estabLLshes a poLnt of departure for brLngLng ratLonaLLzatLon of the object. Modern LndustrLaL productLon functLons Ln precLseLy the opposLte way. Not only Ls the Modern LMage of techne LLMLted to Mere technLcs Ln the LnstruMentaL sense of the terM, but aLso Lts goaLs are LnextrLcabLy tLed to unLLMLted Ls conceLved as LLMLtLess consuMptLon wLthLn the productLon. "LLvLng weLL fraMework of a totaLLy unethLcaL, prLvatLzed LeveL of seLf-Lnterest. TechnLcs, not the producer and hLs or her ethLcaL standards LncLudes Moreover, (proLetarLans, after aLL, servLce the Modern LndustrLal apparatus Ln totaL anonyMLty) but the product and Lts constLtuLnts. The technLcaL focus shLfts froM -32- �the subject to the object, froM the producer to the product, froM the creator to the created. Honor, a sense of •why," and any generaL wLsdoM of thLngs and phenoMena have no pLace Ln the worLd requLred by Modern Lndustry. ~hat reaLLy counts Ln technLcs Ls effLcLency, quantLty, and an LntensLfLcatLon of the Labor process. The specLous ratLonaLLty LnvoLved Ln producLng the object Ls foLsted on the ratLonaLLzatLon of the subject to a poLnt where producer's subjectLvLty Ls totally atrophLed and reduced to an object aMong objects. (BookchLn, pp.219-22) 9: ON ECOLOGICAL CONSCIOUSNESS Deep ecoLogy Ls eMergLng as a way of developLng a new balance and harMony between LndLvLduaLs, coMMunLtLes and aLl of Nature. It can potentLaLLy satsLfy our deepest yearnLngs: faLth and trust Ln our Most basLc LntuLtLons; courage to take dLrect actLon; joyous confLdence to dance wLth the sensuous harMonLes dLscovered through spontaneous, playfuL Lntercourse wLth the rhythMs of our bodLes, the rhythMs of fLowLng water, changes Ln the weather and seasons, and the overaLL processes of LLfe on Earth. The deep ecology MoveMent Lnvolves workLng on ourselves, what poetphLLosopher Gary Snyder caLls "the reaL work,• the work of reaLLy LookLng at ourselves, of becoMLng More real. ThLs Ls the work we call cultLvatLng ecoLogLcaL conscLousness. ThLs process LnvoLves becoMLng More aware of the actuaLLty of rocks, wolves, trees, and rLvers - the cultLvatLon of the LnsLght that everythLng Ls connected. CultLvatLng ecologLcal conscLousness Ls a process of learnLng apprecLate sLLence and solLtude and redLscoverLng how to lLsten. It Ls learnLng how to be More receptLve, trustLng, holLstLc Ln perceptLon, and Ls grounded Ln a vLsLon of nonexploLtLve scLence and technology. ThLs process Lnvolves beLng honest wLth ourselves and seekLng clarLty Ln our LntuLtLons, then actLng froM cLear prLncLpLes, practLcLng seLf-dLscLpLLne and workLng honestLy wLthLn our coMMunLty. It Ls sLMpLe but not easy work. Henry DavLd Thoreau, nLneteenth-century naturalLst and wrLter, adMonLshes us, ·Let your lLfe be a frLctLon agaLnst the MachLne. • CuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcal conscLousness Ls correlated wLth the cultLvatLon of conscLence. CuLtural hLstorLan Theordore Roszak suggests Ln Person/PLanet conscLousness, how LnstructLve the overLappLng and "conscLence (1978), sLMLLarLty of those two words Ls. FroM the new conscLousness we are gaLnLng of ourseLves as persons perhaps we wLLL yet create a new conscLence, one whose ethLcaL sensLtLvLty Ls at Least tuned to a sLgnLfLcant good, a sLgnLfLcant evLL. We beLLeve that huMans have a vLtaL need to cuLtLvate ecologLcaL conscLousness and that thLs need Ls related to the needs of the planet. At the saMe tLMe, huMans need dLrect contact wLth untraMMeLed wLLderness, places undoMestLcated for narrow huMan purposes. Many people sense the needs of the pLanet and the need for wLLderness preservatLon. But we need not be technLcal experts Ln order to cultLvate ecotogLcal conscLousness, as Thoreau saLd, cuLtLvatLng ecotogLcaL conscLousness requLres that "we front up to the facts and deterMLne to lLve our lLves delLberately, or not at all." We belLeve that people can clarLfy theLr own LntuLtLons, and act froM deep prLncLpLes. Deep ecology Ls a process of even-deeper questLonLng of ourselves, the assuMptLons of the doMLnant worLdvLew Ln our culture, and the MeanLng and truth Ln our realLty. We cannot change conscLousness by only lLstenLng to others, we Must Lnvolve ourselves. We Mu~t take dLrect actLon. -33- �One hopeful poLLtLcaL MoveMent wLth deep ecology as a base Ls the Uest GerMan Green poLLtLcaL party. They have as theLr slogan, "ue are neLther Left nor rLght, we are Ln front.· Green poLLtLcs Ln Uest GerMany, and to soMe extent Ln Great BrLtaLn, BeLgLuM and AustraLLa Ln the 1980s, goes beyond the conventLonaL, tLberaL defLnLtLon of a party, coMbLnLng personal work (that Ls, work on cLarLfyLng one's own character) and polLtLcal actLvLsM. The Greens present a proMLsLng poLLtLcaL strategy because they encourage the cultLvatLon of personal ecoLogLcaL conscLousness as well as address Lssues of pubLLc polLcy. If the Greens propogate the bLocentrLc perspectLve - the Lnherent worth of other specLes besLdes huMans - then they can help change the current vLew whLch says we should use Nature only to serve narrow huMan Lnterests. CuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcaL conscLousness Ln conteMporary socLetLes, however, Ls a two-edged sword. Ue Must not be MLsLed by our zeaL for change so that we are concerned only wLth the narrow self or ego. If we seek only personal redeMptLon we could becoMe soLLtary ecologLcal saLnts aMong the Masses of those we MLght cLassLfy as "sLnners" who contLnue to pollute. Change Ln persons requLres a change Ln culture and vLce versa. We cannot Lgnore the personal arena nor the socLaL, for our project Ls to enhance harMony wLth each other, the planet and ourselves. (Deep Ecology, pp.7-1~) ~e began by suggestLng a varLety of specLfLc actLons whLch people can take dLrected at reforMLng publLc polLcy, developLng bLoregLonal coMMunLtLes, and cuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcaL conscLousness. Ue return to the theMe of dLrect actLon. ~e have deMonstrated that deep ecology Ls not just a gaMe of ~bstract theorLzLng. As a perspectLve Lt Ls lLved, danced, celebrated. It has resonance. Ln part, cuLtLvatLng what CuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcaL conscLousness Means, Ls engaged Ln the LnteLLect RhapsodLc Theodore Roszak caLLs rhapsodLc LntelLect. process of LntegratLng LntelLect, body, and joyous eMotLon. Based on the LnsLghts, uLtLMate norMs, prLncLples and theorLes of deep ecology, the central practLcaL questLon Ls how do we becoMe More Mature persons, gLven the constraLnts of th~s culture? Ue suggest there Ls an LnterpLay between outward dLrect actLon and Lnward dLrect actLon, between actLng on one's self and actLng Ln the world, wLth the result of further and deeper MaturLty Ln the deep ecologLcaL sense of LdentLfLcatLon wLth alL LLfe. There Ls no sharp break between Lnward and outward. People take dLrectLon actLon froM dLrect ecoLogLcal prLncLpLes and they becoMe More Mature through dLrect actLon. The Label we use for the type of dLrect actLon Ln Lts outward forM Ls ecoLogLcaL resLstLng. (Deep Ecology, p.19~) 'Deep ecology', an envLronMental scLence broadsheet tells us, Ls Naess's expressLon for an ecologLcaL awareness or conscLousness' . SpeLLLng deep ecology out then becoMes a Matter of settLng down the types of conscLousness and awareness and recognLtLon LnvoLved, SOMethLns that Ls done Ln a thoroughly anthropocentrL c way, begLnnLng as foLLows: 'a conscLousness of the LMplLcatLons of ecology for huMan beLng'. It Ls all Ln fact done Ln terMs of huMan responses, fundaMentaLLy Ls approach the AccordLn9Ly capacLtLes and psychology. MLsconceLved. For deep ecology Ls not so anthropocentrL c, and Ls no More a Matter of envLronMentaL psychology than Ls the value theory or MetaphysLcs whLch are part of Lt. The psychoL09LcaL conversLon Ls LLke cLaLMLng that 'MarxLsM' Ls an expressLon for socLaLLst conscLousness, or 'MusLc' for MusLco-LogLcal awareness. -34- �The conversLon of deep ecology Lnto awareness psychology, Lnto a certaLn sort of exercLse Ln self-realLsatLon or 'lLberatLng ecologLcal conscLousness, or conscLousness raLsLng', Ls open to sLMLlar objectLons. Ecology, deep or shallow or systeMatLc, Ls not ego-trLppLng or a personal thLng. Granted those who do have and share certaLn attLtudes and feelLngs to natural envLronMents are "uch More lLkely to becoMe actLve supporters or followers of deep ecology or to adopt a deeper ecologLcal stance. Even so such states as self-realLsatLon or ecologLcal conscLousness are neLther necessary nor suffLcLent for thLs. Such subjectLve states are not necessary because soMeone can beco"e a supporter of deep ecology wLthout havLng attaLned, or Made any effort to attaLn, these states. Thus consLder soMeone, a dedLcated naturalLst for Lnstance, who has no deep Lnterest Ln or understandLng of huMan psychology or socLology so far as these bear on the envLronMent. Such a person Ls a deep ecologLst, but lacks ecologLcal conscLousness as Lt Ls explaLned. The case of Peter SLnger Ln the anLMal lLberatLon "oveMent Ls LnstructLve; for SLnger goes out of hLs way to explaLn hLs dLsLnterest, hLs coMparatLve lack of zoologLcal conscLousness, that he does not LdentLfy wLth anLMals and so on, yet hLs LMpact for anLMal lLberatLon has been Most sLgnLfLcant. Analogously, a Deeper SLnger need not be Ln love wLth the Earth but feel rather Lsolated froM Lt and feel rLghtly that Most of Lts LnhabLtants dLslLke hLM or are frLghtened by hLM. He May have lLttle Ldea what Lt Ls lLke to be one of theM or a MountaLn, ... ; but he "ay have the rLght values, adhere to the rLght phLlosophy and undertake the rLght sorts of actLon and lLfestyle. GenuLnely and specLfLcally deep ecologLcal conscLousness has not been well descrLbed and Ls not partLcularly well defLned. And soMe of the requLreMents LMposed upon Lt, whatever Lt aMounts to, render Lt LMpossLble. Thus Fox, echoLng others, claLMs that 'to the extent that we perceLve boundarLes, we fall short of a deep ecologLcal conscLousness'. Then we all fall short, sLnce we are regularly confronted by, and perceLve, terrLtorLal boundarLes and a wLde range of other deMarcatLon lLnes and contrasts. Indeed fallLng short Ls LnevLtable; for hence and perceptLon necessarLly Lnvolves selectLon and dLscrLMLnatLon, separatLon and boundarLes. Deep conscLousness Ls also rendered LMpossLble by soMe of the LdentLfLcatLon requLreMents, drawn froM nature MystLcLsM, whLch are LMposed upon Lt. It Ls one thLng to be Ln tune wLth the unLverse (a Metaphor that can be spelled out), quLte another, and LMpossLble, feat to be LdentLcal wLth Lt, sLnce then a proper part would be LdentLcal wLth a whole contaLnLng Lt. SoMe explLcatLon of LdentLfLcatLon (trans-specLes and other) Ls LMportant for the elaboratLon of deep ecology, but the relatLon Lnvolved (though Lt concerns shared features, such as perhaps experLences) Ls not one of LdentLty or MakLng LdentLcal, as sLMplLstLc etyMology May suggest. Other requLreMents coMMonly placed on deep conscLousness, whLle they do not exclude Lt, render Lt unduly anthropocentrLc. (CrLtLque, pp.30-2) Deep ecologLsts agree wLth BLrch and Cobb's LnsLght that "huMan beLngs are More deeply Moved by the way they experLence theLr ~orld than by the claLMs ethLcs Makes on theM." Thus, where conteMporary envLronMental phLlosophy Ls doMLna~ed by the questLon "How do we construct an adequate envLron"ental ethLc? , deep ecology asks the questLon "How do we cultLvate a deep ecologLcal conscLousness?" The forMer questLon looks to conceptual answers, the latter to experLentLal answers. In seekLng to change the way Ln whLch we experLence the world, deep ecologLsts place theLr prLMary eMphasLs upon changLng our ·underlyLng perceptLon of the way thLngs are" (L.e. changLng our ontology) rather than upon what we MLght terM the "conceptual fLx• approach of "bL99er and better" ethLcs. ThLs atteMpt to shLft the prLMary focus of envLronMental phLlosophLcal concern froM ethLcs to ontology clearly constLtutes a fundaMental or revolutLon- -35- �ary chaLLenge to norMaL envLronMentaL phLLosophy. It Ls (and should be) deep ecology's guLdLng star. (GuLdLng Stars, p.204) 10: ON HOLISM AccordLng to deep ecology: A new cosMLc/ecoLogLcaL MetaphysLcs whLch stresses the LdentLty (I/thou) of huMans wLth non-huMan nature Ls a necessary condLLons for a vLabLe approach to buLLdLng an eco-phLLosophy. In deep ecology, the wholeness and LntegrLty of a person/planet together wLth the prLncLpLe of what Arne Naess caLLs "bLoLogLcaL egaLLtarLanLsM" are the Most LMportant Ldeas. Man Ls an LntegraL part of nature, not over or apart froM nature. Man Ls a "pLaLn cLtLzen· of the bLosphere, not Lts conqueror or Manager .. There should be a "deMocracy of aLL God's creatures" accordLng to St. FrancLs; or as SpLnoza saLd, Man Ls a "teMporary and dependent Mode of the whole of God/Nature.· Man flows wLth the systeM of nature rather than atteMptLng to control aLL of the rest of nature. The hand of Man LLes LLghtLy on the Land. Man does not perfect nature, nor Ls Man's prLMary duty to Make nature More effLcLent. A new psychology Ls needed to Lntegrate the MetaphysLcs Ln the MLnd fLeLd of post-LndurtrLaL socLety. A Major paradLgM shLft results froM psychoLogLcaL changes of perceptLon. The new paradLgM requLres rejectLon of subject/object, Man/nature duaLLsMs and wLLL requLre a pervasLve awareness of total LnterMLngLLng of the planet earth. Psychotherapy seen as adjustMent to eco-orLented socLety Ls replaced by a new LdeaL of psychotherapy as spLrLtuaL deveLopMent. The new MetaphysLcs and psychology Leads LogLcaLLy to a posture of bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM and LLberatLon Ln the sense of autonoMy, physoLogLcaL/eMotLona L freedoM of the LndLvLduaL, spLrLtuaL deveLopMent of HoMo sapLens, and the rLght of other specLes to pursue theLr own evoLutLonary destLnLes. (Deep Ecology MoveMent, pp.310-11) RejectLon of the Man-Ln-envLronMent LMage Ln favour of the reLatLonaL, totaL-fLeLd LMage. OrganLsMs as knots Ln the bLospherLcaL net or fLeLd of LntrLnsLc reLatLons. As LntrLnsLc reLatLon between two thLngs ~ and B Ls such that the reLatLon belongs to the defLnLtLons or basLc constLtutLons of A and ~• so that wLthout a reLatLon, ~and~ are no Longer the saMe thLngs. The totaLfLeLd Model dLssoLves not only the Man-Ln-envLronMent concept, but every coMpact thLng-Ln-MLLLeu concept - except when taLkLng at a superfLcLaL or preLLMLnary Level of coMMunLcatLon. (Shallow and Deep, p.95) Shallow envLronMentaLLsM atteMpts to curb soMe of the Most gLarLng envLronMentaL abuse such as poLLutLon and resource depLetLon whLLe caLLLng for no basLc change Ln the anthropocentrLc urban-LndustrLaL socLaL paradLgM. Naess descrLbes Lts central objectLve as "the health and affluence of people Ln the developed countrLes." The Deep Ecology MoveMent, on the other hand, gathers LnspLratLon froM the fLeLd ecoLogLst and Ls a rejectLon of the Man-Ln-envLronMent LMage Ln favor of the reLatLonaL, totaL-fLeLd LMage. OrganLsMs are knots Ln the bLospherLcaL net or fLeLd of LntrLnsLc reLatLons. w (SessLons, p . 398) 0 Because they cannot conceLve Man apart' they experLence no dLffLcuLty Ln attrLbutLng LntrLnsLc value to nature. In so far as they conceLve theMseLves as havLng such value, the LnabLLLty to separate theLr selves froM nature, LnescapabLy Leads to thLnkLng of "Man" and ·envLronMent' as a whole. (Gestalt thLnkLng.) In thLs century the reactLon agaLnst conceLvLng the LndLvLduaL self as soMethLng separable froM the socLaL settLng has been Largely successful, but not the paraLLeL reactLon agaLnst the separabLLLty froM the natural settLng. (PhLLosophLcaL Aspects, p.35) By subtractLng your own self-centred and seLf-servLng -36- thoughts froM the �world you coMe to reaLLze that "the other Ls none other than yourself: that the fundaMentaL deLusLon of huManlty ls to suppose I aM here and you are out there_· ThLs understandLng perMeates the MystLcaL tradLtLons and Ls exeMpLLfLed Ln the TaoLst advLce to "LdentLfy yourself wLth non-dLstLnctLon_ • It ls now becoMlng coMMonpLace to polnt to the fundaMentaLLy slMlLar cosMoLogLes eMobdLed Ln the MystLcaL tradLtLons on the one hand and the 'new physlcs' on the other_ What Ls structurally sLMllar about these cosMoLogLes Ls that they reveal a 'seaMLess web' vLew of the unLverse_ Both the MystLcaL tradLtLons and the new physLcs' serve to generate Lnter aLLa, what we MLght now caLL 'ecoLoglcaL awareness', .that Ls, awareness of the fundaMentaL LnterreLatedne~s of aLL thLngs or, More accurately, aLL events_ The theoretlcaL physLclst Frltjof Capra has been quLte expLlcLt about thls: "1 thLnk what physLcs can do Ls help to generate ecoLogLcaL awareness_ You see, Ln MY vLew now Ln the Western versLon of MystLcaL awareness, our versLon of BuddhLsM or TaoLsM, wLLl be ecologLcal awareness_" Where the physLcLst, the Mystlc, and the deep ecologLst (as phLlosopher) dLffer Ls Ln theLr Means of arrLvLng at 'ecologLcal awareness ' ___ _ The deep ecologLst's conceptLon of unLty Ln process' need not LMpLy that, at any gLven MOMent, all 'knots' (L_e_ organLsMs) Ln the 'bLospherLcal net' are constLtuted of equally coMpLex reLatLons_ To the extent that value Lnheres Ln coMplexLty of relatLons, and to the extent that coMplexLty of reLatLons Ls evLdenced Ln the degree of an organLsM's central organLzatLon (and therefore capacLty for rLchness of experLence), then organLsMs are entLtLed to Moral consLderatLon coMMensurate wLth theLr degree of central organLzatLon (or capaclty for rlchness of experlence) for the duratlon of thelr exlstence - as transLent as that May be Ln terMs of evolutLonary tLMe_ In pursulng theLr central LntuLtLon of 'unLty' (L_e_ of no boundarLes Ln the bLospherLcal fLeLd), deep ecoLogLsts have possLbly Lost sLght of the sLgnLfaspect of theLr 'unLty Ln process' MetaphysLcs_ Lcance of the 'Ln process AttentLon to thLs Latter aspect suggests that any process contLnuousLy produces LMperManent, uneven dLstrLbutLons (L_e_, dLfferent values) of varLous attrLbutes (and Ln the process of the world these attrLbutes May be Money, LnforMatLon, coMplexLty of relatLons, and so on)_ If thLs were not so then we would have no process but a perfectly unLforM, hoMogenous and, therefore, LLfeless fLeld_ The only unLverse where value Ls spread evenly across the fLeLd Ls a dead unLverse _ RecognLsLng thLs, we should be clear that the central LntuLtLon of deep ecology does not entaLl the vLew that LntrLnsLc value Ls spread evenly across the MeMbershLp of the bLotLc coMMunLty_ Moreover, Ln sLtuatLons of genuLne value conflLct, justLce Ls better served by not subscrLbLng to the vLew of ecoLogLcal -egaLLtarLanLsM_ (Fox, pp-196-200) An arctLc Landscape May superfLcLaLly Look rather dead Ln wLnter. In sprLng Lt May Look overwheLMLngLy aLLve_ It would take a Long traLnLng to force perceptLon to dLstLnguLsh organLsM froM non-organLsMs Ln such a LLve Landscape_ Even Ln wLnter the Lover of the Landscape sees abundance of LndLvLduaL LLfe forMs and also hLgher order gestaLts_ Why Ls the gestalt ontology not MentLoned Ln the platforN forMulatLon_ A Landscape wLth organLsMs - and aLL Landscapes have organLsMs Ln MLcro-organLsMs are counted - Ls a hLgh order, natural gestalt_ The separatLon of organLsMs and non-organLsMs Ls very unnatural Ln gestalt thLnkLng and apperceptLon. But the concepts of 9estaLt-thlnkln9 are too specLaL for pLatforM forMuLatLons- Only a MLnorLty of supporters of deed ecology are acadeMLcs_ (Notes on Sylvan, p-7) -37- �BIBLIOGRAPHY Sources used 0 S. BodLan, S LMple Ln Means, rLch Ln ends: A conversatLon wLth Arne Naess', Ten DLrectLons, SuMMer/Fall, 1982, 7,10-12; referred to as SLMple Ln Means. M. BookchLn, The Ecology of FreedoM, CheshLre, Londong, 1982; referred to as F. Capra and C. Spretnak, Green PolLtLcs, HutchLnson, London, 198~; referred as Green PolLtLcs. to Bookch i,n. B. Devall, 'The Deep Ecology MoveMent', Natural Resources Journal 20, 1980, 299-322; referred to as Deep Ecology MoveMent. B. Devall, 'stone/Sky: ReflectLons on the 'Real ~ork' of Deep Ecology', paper delLvered at EnvLronMent, EthLcs and Ecology Conference, Canberra, August 1983, 20ff.; referred to as Stone/Sky . 8. Devall and G. SessLons, Deep Ecology, PeregrLne SMLth, Layton, Utah, 1985; referred to as Deep Ecology. U. Fox, Deep Ecology: A new phLlosophy 194-200; referred to as Fox. of our tLMe', EcologLst 1~, 1984, U. Fox, 'on guLdLng stars to Deep Ecology', EcologLst 14, 1984, 203-4; to as GuLdLng Stars. A. Naess, 'The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology MoveMent. InquLry 18, 1973, 95-100; referred to as Shallow and Deep. A. Naess, 'PhLlosophLcal Aspects of Deep Ecology ' , unpublLshed 1983, 35ff.; referred to as PhLlosophLcal Aspects. A. N.3 ess, • IntuLtLon, LntrLnsLc value and Deep 201-3; referred to as IntuLtLon. Ecology', referred A SUMMary. paper, EcologLst 14, Oslo, 1984, A. Naess, Notes on the PolLtLcs of the Deep Ecology MoveMent ' , unpublLshed paper, Canberra, 1984, 17ff.; referred to as PolLtLcs of the Deep Ecology MoveMent. A. Naess, 'What Ls basLc to Deep Ecology?', unpublLshed paper, 12ff . ; referred to as BasLc. A. Naess, A defence of the Deep Ecology 1984, 265-70; referred to as Defence. MoveMent', Canberra, 1984, EnvLronMental EthLcs A. Naess, 'The paradox of envLronMentalLsM' SyMposLuM ProceedLngs, (ed.), York UnLversLty, 1984, 57-60; referred to as Paradox. N. S, Everden A. Naess, 'IdentLfLcatLon as a source of Deep EcologLcal attLtudes', Deep Ecology, M. TobLas (ed.), Avant Books, San DLego, 1985, s256-70; referred to as ldentLfLcatLon. A. Naess, Notes on Professor Sylvan's crLtLque of the Deep Ecology MoveMent, unpublLshed paper, Olso, 1985, 19ff.; referred to as Notes on Sylvan. J. PassMore, Man's ResponsLb~lLty For Nature, 2nd ed., Duckworth, London, 1980; -38- �referred to as PassMore. A new way to treat the Land', EcoLogLst 14, 1984, BLoregLonaLLsM K. Sale, 167-73; referred to as Sale. the ph~Losoph~cal and Deep Ecology: A rev~ew of 'shallow G. Sess~ons, EcoLogLcaL (eds.), Hughes J.D. and Ln R.C. Schultz unfortune', UnLvers~ty Press of AMer~ca, ~ash~ngton, D.C., 1981, Consc~ousness, 391- 4 62; referred to as Sess~ons. R. Sylvan, A Cr~t~que of Deep Ecology, Research School of SocLaL AustraLLan Hat~onaL Un~vers~ty, 1985; referred to as Cr~t~que. ScLences, Further Read~ngs R.F. OasMann, Env~ronMentaL Conservat~on, 5th ed., ~LLey, New York, 1984. A. Leopold, A Sand Country ALManac, CheshLre, New York, 1966. E. PapadukLs, The Green MoveMent Ln ~est GerMany, Croon HeLM, London, 1984. -39- �DEEP ECOLOGY AHO GREEN POLITICS Deep Ecology Ls an envLronMe~tal theory or platforM wLth polLtLcal sLgnLfLcant wLth pLatforM i..MplLcatLons. Breen PoLLtLcs Ls a poLi..tLcaL envLronMentaL LMpLLcatLons. Both arose Ln Large part Ln reactLon to prevaLLLng envi..ronMentaL practLces; but Deep Ecology concentrates rather on theoretLcal reflectLon, Green PolLtLcs on practLcaL actLon . Deep and LnvestLgatLon questLoni..ng of the underlyLng doMi,nant attLtudes, seen as the Major source of ecoL09Lcal and other probLeMs, Led to artLcuLatLon of the Deep EcoLogy pLatforM, partLy outLi..ned Ln ·slogan" forM Ln the foLLowi..ng tabLe. ). TABLE 1. DEEP ECOLOGY CONTRASTED WITH DOMINANT ATT ITIJOES DOMINANT ATTITUDES [OOMIHAHT PARADIGM] DEEP ECOLOGY [RIVAL EHVIRONMEHTAL PARADIGM] OoMi..nati..on over Nature Nature a Resource; IntrLnsLc VaLue confi..ned to HuMans NaturaL EnvLronMent VaLued for Itself; Bi..ocentri..c EgaLi..tari..ani..sM AMp Le Reso1J rces/Subs t i.. tu tes Earth SuppLLes Li..MLted MaterLaL EconoMLc Growth a predoMLnant goaL Non-MaterLaL GoaLs, especLaLLy SeLf-ReaLi..zati..on ConsuMer i,sM DoLng wLth Enough/RecycLLng CoMpetLti..ve Li..festyLe Cooperati..ve Li..feway CentraLLzed/ Urban Centred/ Hati..onaL focus Decentral.i..zed/ Bi..oregi..onaL/ Nei..ghbourhood focus Power structure Hi..erarchLcaL Non-h i,erarch Lea L/ Grass roots DeMocrac!::I HLgh TechnoL09y Appropri..ate Technology Whi..Le Deep Ecol.og!::j grew froM the work of one envLronMentaL phi..Losopher (Naess Ln 1872), Green PolLtLcs arose (Ln West GerMany sLnce 1876) froM the synthesLs of several. MoveMents - ecol.09!::j, cLtLzens, aLternatLve, peace and other MoveMents. The pLatforM of Green PoLLtLcs, whLch Ls buLLt around four pLLLars socLaL responsLbLLLty, grassroots deMocracy , and non-vLoLence ecology, refLects these orLgLns. The fLrst of these pLLLars, ecoLog!::j, Ls based on the sLMpLe theMe that LLMLted ecoLogi..caL systeMs cannot sustai..n unLi..MLted econoMi..c growth, or such questi..onabLe types of growth as nucLear power, wi..thout serLous rLsk of daMage and degeneratLon. The Green aLM Ls to Move to S!::jsteMs of producti..on and consuMptLon whLch MaLntai..n and restore natural processes and C!::fCLes rather than doMLnate or destroy theM - a Move towards harMony wLth nature. The second pi..LLar of Green PoLLtLcs, socLaL responsLbLLLt!::j, LMpLLes opposi..tLon to the LnequaLLti..es i..n power and doMLnati..on reLati..onshi..ps of present soci..ety, and reMovaL of di..scri..Mi..nati..on, econoMLc hardshi..p and exploi..tati..on, both regi..onally and as regards the ThLrd ~orLd. The Green aLM - to be achi..eved pri..Mari..Ly froM below, Ls to bui..ld stable and just soci..al through those adversely affected arrangeMents, wLth coMprehensLve deMocrati..c rLghts and freedoMs (both i..n 6erMan~ -1- �and where GerMan operatLons LMpLnge Ln the ThLrd WorLd). These changes are to be brought about by grassroots deMocracy, the thLrd pLLLar, through Lncreased reaLLsatLon of dLrect decentraLLsed deMocracy. ThLs LnvoLves organLsatLon and coordLnatLon of decentraLLsed basLc unLts (Local, COMMunLty and dLstrLct) whi..ch are gLven extensLve, but not coMpLete, autonoMy, as weLL as wLde use of : referenda, deLegatLon practLces, and rotatLon of offLce-hoLders. The fourth and fLnaL pLLLar, non-vLoLence, LMpli..es the reMovaL of coercLve and aLso oppressLve practLces, not Merely by More powerful people, but especLaLLy by socLaL groups and states, and also, More posLtLveLy, acti..ve depoLyMent of varLous Methods of socLal protest, resLstance and defence . The coMpatLbLlLty of Means wLth ends serves here as an LMportant underlyLng prLncLple: that a just, non-vLolent, huMane end-state cannot be satLsfactorLLy achLeved by unjust, vi..oLent, LnhuMane Means . • l Gr een PolLtLcs offers then a broad prograM for socLal change, whLch LncLudes the More specLfLc and ecologLcalLy focussed Deep Ecology platforM as a quLte proper part. Put dLfferentLy, Green PoLLtLcs coMbLnes a wLder pLuraLLty of The strand. LMportant MoveMents of whLch Deep Ecology represents one Lnter-relatLons are shown pLctorLaLly at the second level of the foLlowLng 12 dLagraM: DIAGRAM 1. DOUBLE PYRAMID, SETTING DEEP ECOLOGY IM PLACE p B \ '\ I 2C ] ~ Oer Lva ti..on Di,recti,on 2+ ExpLanatLon Oi,recti..on 2. Deep Ecology pLatforM 2C. ReforMLst envLronMentaL 2 p1Jsi.. t i.,Qn 2+. Vague fundaMentaLs of Green pLatforM -/ //' ;/ e.g. Buddhi..st (B), ChrLstLan (C) and (Eco)-PhLLosophLc (P) ultLMate bases j / -\,r - [ 1. Deep Ecology fundaMentaLs; C \ \ \ 3. s \ General norMs and theMes , substanti,ally derLved froM pl,atforM PartLcuLar norMs and concrete decLsLons , appLyLng to reLevant practLcal sLtuatLons. The ecologLcaL coMponent of Green PolLtLcs May not go very deep; Lt May on l y be based upon reforM envLronMentalLsM (or shallow ecology as i,t used to be I Starred notes LndLcate poi..nts at wh i..ch readLngs wi..th the correspondLng nuMbers May be Lnserted or undertaken . -2- �caLLed), whLch aLM3 to reforM 30Me of the wor3t abuse3 and exces3e3 of the doMLnant posLtLon, such as gross poLLutLon, extensLve despoLLatLon of Land and Lakes and oceans, LLttLe thought for the future, MLstreatMent of anLMals, etc_ On shaLlow ecology, nature Ls not valued for Ltself, but as a resource, that Ls LnstruMentalLy, for what Lt can be used for by huMans_ By contrast, Deep Ecology argues (e_g_ froM preMLsses of Level I) that the envLronMent Ls LntrLnsLcaLLy valuable, that nature Ls valuable Ln and for Ltself; and that, furtherMore, LntrLnsLc value Ls equally dLstrLbuted_ ThLs projectLon of egsLLtarLan or LMpartLalLty prLncLpLes, usually restrLcted to huMans, to the whole of lLfe Ln the natural worLd, gets dLgnLfLed by the tLtle, BLocentrLc EgalLtarLanLsM_ The prLncLple, not part of Green PoLLtLcs, Ls perhaps the Most controversLal of the central prLncLpLes of Deep Ecology; but Lt or soMe substLtute for Lt Ls requLred, granted that the natural world contaLns value beyond that accruLng to huMans and theLr features, to expLaLn how value Ls dLstrLbuted_ Deep Ecology accounts for the dLstrLbutLon through what Ls . . presented as a core deMocracy ~n the bLosphere . _•3 Deep Ecology grew out of a phLlosophLcal deepenLng of the new features of the scLence of ecology, whLch served to dLstance ecology froM the standard run of reductLonLst scLences (through such features as holLsM; gestalt propertLes; systeMs whLch are More than the suM of theLr atoMLstLc parts; eMergent eleMents, lLke lLfe, organLsatLon, etc_ )_ Deep Ecology quLckLy aLLLed Ltself wLth the subversLve features of unco-opted ecology, Ln partLcuLar, the eMphasLs on the lLMLts, and ultLMate faLlure of (atoMLstLc) reductLonLsM Ln scLence and phLlosophy_ WLth such an orLgLn, Lt Ls not surprLsLng that there Ls lLttle dLrectLy about such MaLn pLllars of Green PolLtLcs as socLaL responsLbLLLty and non-vLoLence Ln the pLatforM of Deep Ecology- However Deep Ecology Ls coMpatLbLe wLth these Green pLlLar prLncLpLes, and Lndeed perMLts theLr derLvatLon_ ~hat Ls supposed to resuLt are generaL norMs, LLke No exploLtatLon, No subjectLon, No vLoLence, at leveL 3_ (Such a derLvatLon of a non-vLoLence prLncLpLe froM tne Deep Ecology prLncLpLe of MaxLMLzLng Self-reaLLsatLon Ls atteMpted by Naess Ln the fraMework of hLs systeM of Eco-phLLosophy)_•l A MaLn focus of Deep Ecology Ls on changLng huMan reLatLons wLth the natural envLronMent, away froM doMLnant expLoLtatLve practLces_ The naturaL envLronMent coMprLses LteMs of LntrLnsLc value, LncludLng huMans (who are not above or separate froM Lt), and accordLn9ly Ls to be treated wLth the care and respect valuable LteMs warrant, and not LrresponsLbLy_ Thus Lt would be contrary to Deep Ecology to treat the envLronMent or Lts valued LteMs vLolently whLch however Ls what Deep Ecology contends doMLnant practLces do (consLder such wLdespread phenoMena as "rape of the envLronMent", "of the Land", "of the forestsu)_ SLnce huMans are not apart froM or superLor to nature, Lt follows froM the Deep Ecology pLatforM that natural and proper relatLons also exclude vLoLence towards other huMans or classes of huMans_ Because Lt covers a pluraLLty of posLt~ons, LncludLng shaLLow ecoLogLcaL posLtLons, Green PolLtLcs Ls Much More aMelLoratLve and reforMLst Ln character than Deep Ecology, whLch Ls further reMoved froM doMLnant attLtudes, More hardLLne, and More radLcaL_ ~hereas Deep Ecology goes to fundaMentaLs, and focusses on Ldeals and theory, Green PolLtLcs tends to concentrate on practLcal polLtLcal probleMs of an envLronMental or socLal kLnd, such as acLd raLn or rLver pollutLon or MLssLle deplo8Ment, and (lLke the Peace MoveMent Ln AustralLa) Ls not so Much concerned wLth refLnLng Lts rather vague prLncLpLes or wor~Lng out an env~ronMentaL (or peace) ph~Losophy_ Because of Lts envLronMentaL depth and natural world focus, Deep Ecology Ls concerned wLth a range of natural envLronMent Lssues, such as wLlderness, rare specLes, and the radLcal -3- �transforMatLon of agrLcuLture, whLch are onLy of passLng Lnterest to a sMaLL MLnorLty Ln Green PoLLtLcs or are beyond Lts poLLtLcaL reach. Jn Lts reforMLst styLe Green PoLLtLcs does not venture far beyond prevLous Left-LeanLng poLLtLcaL MoveMents, except, fLrstLy, Ln Lts opposLtLon to envLronMent and aMenLty daMa9Ln9 LndustrLaLLsM and, secondLy, as regards non-vLolence and Lts coMMLtMent to attaLnLng peace. Non-vLoLence Ls the Most controversLaL of the four pLLLars. For non-vLoLence ruLes out a range of poLLtLcal actLon, LncLudLn9 typLcal protests, confrontatLon and revoLutLons. Non-vLolence also LMplLes, what Ls very dLfferent froM current MLLLtary pra~tLces, socLal defence. WhLLe MaLn factLons Ln the Green MoveMent support non-vLolent Methods and socLal defence, other Lesser factLons hold that force Ls necessary to brLn9 about varLous necessary changes and for defence purposes. The Deep EcoLogy platforM Lncludes severaL prLncLpLes that would be recognLsed by onLy a MLnorLty of the Green MoveMent. One of these prLncLples (whLch however, unlLke BLocentrLc EgalLtarLanLsM, would not be wLdeLy opposed by reforMLst Greens) Ls the core prLncLpLe of SeLf-reaLLsatLon, or More exactLy of MaxLMLzLng SeLf-reaLLsatLon. The notLon of self-realLsatLon of varLous relLgLous posLtLons, of the full unfoldLng and developMent of the person, Ls vastly expanded Ln Deep EcoLogy to Lnclude brLngLng to fuLl fruLtLon not MereLy one's own person, but all that one LdentLfLes wLth, that Ls the expanded Self, whLch Ls taken to be not Merely one's faMLLy or feLlows or fellow natLonals, nor Merely ~as on huManLstLc ethLcs) the whole huMan race, but the whole naturaL 1 systeM. The SeLf-realLsatLon prLncLpLe, sprLngLng as Lt appears froM an enLLghtened personal self-Lnterest prLncLple, has an excellent phLlosophLcaL pedLgree (at Least as applLed to huMans or neL9hbourLn9 classes of huMans). Thus rather than beLng argued for, a dLffLcult Matter Ln the case of ultLMate prLncLples, SeLfrealLsatLon Ls LMported froM syMpathetLc phLlosophLcal or reLLgLous posLtLons at Level 1 of the double pyraMLd, froM those that help sustaLn Deep Ecology. However the expansLon Lnvolved, the derLvatLon process froM narrow self to coMprehensLve Self, severs the usual justLfLcatory lLnks. It Ls hard to LdentLfy one's self-Lnterests wLth those of a rock or an acorn. So the supposed LdentLfLcatLon - wLth soMe or aLL MountaLns, rLvers and raLnforests Ln the wLder reMaLns, LLke the assocLated extended EgaLLtarLan Self, Nature personLfLed prLncLpLe, decLdedLy probLeMatLc. Because Lt Ls assuMed that SeLf-reaLLsatLon Ls dLrected to ecoLogLcal and spLrLtual ends, not at MaterLaL goods or Means, SeLf-reaLLsatLon Leads to the 16 AMong the raMLfLcatLons of the slogan slogan, USLMpLe Ln Means, rLch Ln endsn. are those concernLng what kLnd of technology one uses and where one lLves (the Matter of dwellLng Ln sLtuatLons of Lnherent value and the lLke), what and how Much one consuMes, and so on. The doMLnant attLtudes, forMed around of econoMLc growth and econoMLc routes to happLness, have MaxLMLzatLon eMphasLsed both MaterLal goals and MaterLal Means, partLcuLarly personal consuMerLsM. But Lf MaterLaL use and pure consuMptLon are to be reduced for envLronMentaL and other reasons, what LLfestyles are approprLate? Deep Ecology, LLke Lts fundaMentaL sources, poLnts to experLentLal and spLrLtuaL ends and eMphasLzes the rLchness of non-MaterLaL ends avaLlabLe. The result, of course, Ls practLces whLch are sLMpLe, voluntary sLMpLLcLty, do~ng wLth enough, and, More 9enerall8, practLces whLch lLe lLght on the Land and the naturaL world. In way of d0Ln9 thLngs, these wLLL be Lnte9rated (Ln ~ properly ecoLogLcaL syMbLotLc and other naturaL styles) wLth the natural systeMs LnvoLved, workLng wLth rather than agaLnst the natural fLow. The practLces, and organLsatLonaL approprLate to regLonaL wLLl accordLngly be ecoregLonaL arrangeMents, 17 to be caLLed. coMe have they as bLore9LonaL, ecoL09LcaL 9roupLn9s - or -4- �ApproprLate Means LncLude, Ln turn, technLques approprLate to the practLce and theory of Deep Ecology- HLgh technoL09Les such as nuclear power are not approprLate, even Ln advanced LndustrLaL socLetLes, but LnapproprLate because of the envLronMentaL and socLaL costs and rLsks such technoLogLcaL forMs LMpose_ On both deep and green percept i,ons, wh-3 t Ls requ Lred a re re LLab Le c-:1 ref u L technoLogLes whLch are not ecoLogLcaLLy daMa9Ln9 or socLaLLy rLsky or otherwLse undesLrabLe; but the technoLogi,es adl"li,tted wLLl dLffer accordLng to the prLncLpLes of the posLtLons they answer back to (e_g_ farMLng technLques wLLL need to be very dLfferent froM those prevaLLLng Ln rural GerMany to Meet such prLncLpLes as bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM )_ In each case the practLcaL use of approprLate technoLogy faLLs at the bottoM, actLon Level, of the doubLe pyral"I ,,"d _•8 WhLLe Deep Ecology suppLLes an appeaLLng bLueprLnt for dLfferent socLaL and LLfe-ways, the questLon reMaLns: how Ls the proMLsed Land reached? A MaLn part of the answer Ls taken to be gLven through a further crucLaL feature of Deep Ecology: EcoLogLcaL ConscLousness, a notLon agaLn expandLng upon conceptLons of other oLder LdeoLogLes (e_g_ of reLL9Lous, or of revoLutLonary, conscLousness)_ What Ls dLfferent Ls that spLrLtuaL or LdeoLogLcaL conversLon Ls agaLn broadened froM the personaL and socLaL to coMprehend the fuLL envLronMentaL predLcaMent_ In thLs expLanatLon, of how peopLe get, and are got, to grasp Deep Ecology and Lts practLces, the pyraMLd Ls ascended, froM actLon to Ldeas, to deeper explanatory prLncLpLes_ A thorough conversLon process LnvoLves eLevatLon to the top LiveL, spLrLtuaL transcendence of the daLLy econoMLc and poLLtLcaL actLon LeveL. 9 It Ls assuMed that, wLth enough converts and supporters, Deep Ecology wLLL be put Ln place, LLke Green PoLLtLcs, by grassroots deMocratLc procedures_ LLke the fundaMentaL sources upon whLch Lt draws, Deep Ecology prescrLbes practLces by whLch to achLeve such a conversLon and through whLch to arrLve at EcoLogLcaL ConscLousness_ SoMe of the MaLn practLces, such as MedLtatLon and conteMpLatLon, are derLved frol"I the fundaMentaL sources_ But other Methods whLch extend these, soMe of theM expandLng upon ecoLogLcaL experLence, LncLude value seeLng thLngs dLfferentLy, and reorLentatLon and wLdened value perceptLon of other thLngs - Connected wLth weLL-beLng and worth the coMLng to apprecLate goes a hoLLstLc shLft Ln theM, these wLdened experLentLaL bases, and LnforMLng vaLues and perceptLon, and an expanded LdentLfLcatLon , affordLng dLrect LLnkage wLth parts and whoLes of the natural worLd_•IO By these Methods, a person May coMe to a deep and joyous apprecLatLon of the reaL world, a convert to Deep Ecology, a feLLow and advocate of Lts Messages and LLfe-ways. ESSAY QUESTIONS }_ To what extent do Green PoLLtLcs and Deep Ecology share the saMe values and address the sal"le probLel"ls? CrLtLcaLLy coMpare and contrast theLr proposals, especLaLLy as regards the naturaL and the buLLt envLronMent_ 2_ Deep Ecology Ls soMetLMes assLgned four Levels. Try to descrLbe these, and to expLaLn carefuLLy the LnterreLatLons aMong PoLLtLcs fLt Lnto thLs probLeMatLc scheMe? these Levels. Where does Green Ln prLncLpLe" appears as a key theMe of Deep Eco~ogy. Cri.tLcaLLy assess Lts adequacy_ Shouldn't Green PoLLtLcs LncLude such a pri.nci.pLe? 3_ ·sLocentrLc EgaLLtarLanLsM - Non-vLo~ence an unstated pr~nc~p~e of Deep Ecoiog~? Expia~n why Deep Ecology Ls coMMLtted to non-vLoLence to the degree i.t Ls? In your answers take account of the foLLowLng dLffLcuLtLes: L. the contradLcti.ons between the use of I+- 1:5 -5- �vLolence and the defence of the envLronMent; LL. the occurrence of vLolence Ln nature; LLL. the need for coercLve Methods to preserve the natural envLronMent. 5. What justLfLes expandLng self-realLsatLo n to Self-realLsatLo n? ExpLaLn the MeanLng and LMportance of SeLf-ReaLLsatL on for Deep EcoLogy and dLscuss Lts adequacy. Why does Lt not feature Ln Green PolLtLcs? 6. ExplaLn the MeanLng of the delLberateLy vague slogan °SLMple Ln Means, rLch Ln ends", or of soMe other hLgh-LMpact sLogan of Deep EcoLogy. IndLcate how the vagueness MLght work for and a9aLnst the slogan, suggest how the slogan MLght be alternatLve LnterpretatLon s, and LndLcate soMe of the suggest applLed, aLternatLves. these of raMLfLcatLons 7. OutLLne bLoregLonalLsM , LndLcatLng what practLcaL envLronMentaL probLeMs bLoregLonalLsM Lnduces. How Ln fact Ls bLoregLonalLsM derLved froM Deep EcoLogy? ConsLder to what extent bLoregLonalLsM fLts wLth the sLogan, ·rhLnk globally, act locally·. 8. Is More hLgh technology an unprobLeMatLc solutLon to deeper, or to any, envLronMental probLeMs? CoMpare and contrast the vLews of Deep Ecology and Green PoLLtLcs on the role of varLous types of technoLogy. 9. What Ls Ecolo9Lcal ConscLousness? And what Ls Lt supposed to do Ln and for Deep Ec0Lo9y? If Lt Ls so LMportant, why Ls Lt not a MaLn concern for Green PoLLtLcs? A reLatLonaL, total-fLeLd LMa9e of huMan reLatLonshLps wLth nature has been quLetLy oMLtted froM the orLgLnaL pLatforM of Deep Ecology. Is thLs gestalt pLcture needed? Is Lt defensLbLe? Should Lt be reLnstated? 10. -6- � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document DEEP ECOLOOY AHO OREEH POLITICS Deep Ecology ts an envtronMentaL theory or pLatforM wtth poLtttcaL stgntftcant wtth pLatforM LMpLtcattons. Green PoLtttcs ts a poLtttcaL envtronMentaL LMpLtcattons. Both arose tn Large part tn reactton to prevatLtng envtronMentaL practtces; but Deep Ecology concentrates rather on theorettcaL refLectton, Green PoLtttcs on practtcaL actton. Deep and tnvesttgatton questtontng of the underLytng doMtnant attttudes, seen as the Major source of ecoLogtcaL and other probLeMs, Led to arttcuLatton of the Deep Ecology pLatforM, partly outLtned tn "slogan" forM tn the foLLowtng table. TABLE 1. DEEP ECOLOGY CONTRASTED ~ITH OOMIHAHT ATTITUDES OOMrnAtn ATT HUDES (OOMrnAtH PARADIGM] DEEP ECOLOGY [RIVAL EttV IROHMEHTAL PARADIGM] Hature a Resource; Intrtnstc Value conftned to HuMans Natural EnvtronMent Valued for ltseLt; Btocentrtc E9aLttartantsM MatertaL EconoMtc Growth a predoMtnant goaL Hon-MatertaL Goals, espectaLLy ConsuMertsM Dotng wtth Enough/RecycLtng CoMpettttve LtfestyLe Cooperattve Ltfeway CentraLtzed/ Urban Centred/ DecentraLtzed/ Btoregtonat/ · Hetghbourhood focus tia t Lona L focus SeLf-ReaLtzatton Power structure HterarchtcaL Hon-hterarchtcaL/ Grassroots DeMocracy Htgh Technology Approprtate Technology ~htLe Deep Ecology grew froM the work of one envtronMentaL phtLosopher (Haess tn 1972), Green PoLtttcs arose (tn ~est GerMany stnce 1976) froM the synthests of several MoveMents - ecology, ctttzens, aLternattve, peace and other MoveMents. The platforM of Green PoLtttcs, whtch ts butlt around four ptllars soctaL responstbtltty, grassroots deMocracy, and non-vtoLence ecology, reflects these ortgtns. The ftrst of these ptLLars, ecology, ts based on the stMpLe theMe that LtMtted ecoLogtcaL systeMs cannot sustatn unltMtted econoMtc growth, or such questtonabLe types of growth as nuclear power, wtthout sertous rtsk of daMage and degeneratton. The Green atM ts to Move to systeMs of productlon and consuMptton whtch Matntatn and restore natural processes and cycles rather than doMtnate or destroy theM - a Move towards harMony wtth nature. The second ptllar of Green Poltttcs, soctal responstbtltty, tMpLtes opposttton to the tnequaltttes tn power and doMtnatton relattonshtps of present soctety, and reMovaL of dtscrtMtnatton, econoMtc hardshtp and explottatton, both regtonaLly and as regards the Thtrd ~orld. The Green atM - to be achteved prtMartly froM below, ts to butLd stable and just soctaL through those adversely affected arrangeMents, wtth coMprehenstve deMocrattc rtghts and freedoMs (both tn GerMany -1- and where GerMan operatLons LMpLnge Ln the ThLrd ~orLd). These changes are to be brought about by grassroots deMocracy, the thLrd pLLLar, through Lncreased reaLLsatLon of dLrect decentraLLsed deMocracy. ThLs LnvoLves organLsatLon and coordLnatLon .of decentraLLsed basLc unLts (LocaL, coMMunLty and dLstrLct) whLch are 9Lven extensLve, but not coMpLete, autonoMy, as weLL as wLde use of referenda, deLegatLon practLces, and rotatLon of offLce-hoLders. The fourth and fLnaL pLLLar, non-vLoLence, LMpLLes the reMovaL of coercLve and aLso oppressLve practLces, not MereLy by More powerfuL peopLe, but especLaLLy by socLaL groups and states, and aLso, More posLtLveLy, actLve depoLyMent of varLous Methods of socLaL protest, resLstance and defence. The coMpatLbLLLty of Means wLth ends serves here as an LMportant underLyLng prLncLpLe: that a just, non-vLoLent, huMane• end-state cannot be satLsfactorLLy achLeved by unjust, vLoLent, LnhuMane Means. 1 Green PoLLtLcs offers then a broad prograM for socLaL change, whLch LncLudes the More specLfLc and ecoLogLcaLLy focussed Deep EcoLogy pLatforM as a quLte proper part. Put dLfferentLy, Green PoLLtLcs coMbLnes a wLder pLuraLLty of MoveMents of whLch Deep EcoLogy represents one LMportant strand. The Lnter-reLatLons are shown pLctorLaLLy at the second LeveL of the foLLowLng 12 dLagraM: DIAGRAM l. DOUBLE PYRAMID, SETTING DEEP ECOLOGY IN PLACE B p 1. Deep EcoLogy fundaMentaLs; e.g. BuddhLst (B), ChrLstLan (C) and (Eco)-Phi.LosophLc (P) uLtLMate bases C I 2 Exp Lana.t Lon DLrecti.on 2. Deep Ecology platforM 2C . ReforMi.st envLronMental posi.ti.on 2+. Vague fundaMentaLs of Green platforM Der Lvat Lon Di.recti.on j 3 . . General norMs and theMes, substantLaLLy derLved froM pLatforM ~- PartLcular norMs and concrete decLsLons, applyi.ng to relevant practLcaL sLtuatLons . The ecoLogLcaL coMponent of Green PolLtLcs May not 90 very deep; Lt May onLy be based upon reforM envLronMentaLLsM (or shaLLow ecoLogy as Lt used to be • Starred notes LndLcate poLnts at whLch readLngs wLth the correspondLng nuMbers May be Lnserted or undertaken. -2- catted), whLch aLMs to reforM soMe of the worst abuses and excesses of the doMLnant posLtLon, such as gross pottutLon, extensLve despotLatLo n of land and takes and oceans, tLttte thought for the future, MLstreatMen t of anLMals, etc. On shallow ecology, nature Ls not valued for Ltsetf, but as a resource, that Ls LnstruMent atty, for what Lt can be used for by huMans. By contrast, Deep Ecology argues (e.g. froM preMLsses of level I) that the envLronMent Ls LntrLnsLcat ty valuable, that nature Ls valuable Ln and for Ltself; and that, LntrLnsLc value Ls equally dLstrLbuted . ThLs projectLon of furtherr,ore , egatLtarLan or Lr,partLatLt y prLncLptes, usually restrLcted to huMans, to the whole of tLfe Ln the natural world, gets dLgnLfLed by the tLtte, BLocentrLc EgalLtarLanL sM. The prLncLple, not part of Green PolLtLcs, Ls perhaps the Most controversL al of the central prLncLptes of Deep Ecology; but Lt or soMe substLtute for Lt Ls requLred, granted that the natural world contaLns value beyond that accruLng to huMans and theLr features, to explaLn how value Ls dLstrLbuted . Deep Ecology accounts for the dLstrLbutLo n through what Ls ' •3 . presented as a ' core der,ocracy Ln the b~osphere . Deep Ecology grew out of a phLtosophL cal dP~penLng of the new features of the scLence of ecology, whLch served to dLstance ecology froM the standard run of reductLonLs t scLences (through such features as holLsM; gestalt propertLes; systeMs whLch are More than the sur, of theLr ator,LstLc parts; eMergent eler,ents, tLke lLfe, organLsatLo n, etc.). Deep Ecology quLckly allLed Ltself wLth the subversLve features of unco-opted ecology, Ln partLcutar, the eMphasLs on the lLMLts, and ultLMate faLture of (atoMLstLc) reductLonLsM Ln scLence and phLlosophy. ~Lth such an orLgLn, Lt Ls not surpr~s~ng that there Ls lLttle dLrectty about such r,aLn pLllars of Green PotLtLcs as socLal responsLbLl Lty and non-vLotenc e Ln the platforM of Deep Ecology. However Deep Ecology Ls cor,patLble wLth these Green pLllar prLncLptes, and Lndeed perr,Lts theLr derLvatLon. ~hat Ls supposed to result are general norMs, lLke Ho exploLtatLo n, Ho subjectLon, Ho vLolence, at level 3. (Such a derLvatLon of a non-vLolenc e prLncLple froM the Deep Ecology prLncLple of r,axLMLzLng Self-realLs atLon Ls atter,pted by Haess Ln the frar,ework of hLs systeM of Eco-phLloso phy).•~ A MaLn focus of Deep Ecology Ls on changLng huMan relatLons wLth the natural envLronMen t, away froM doMLnant exploLtatLv e practLces. The natural envLronr,ent coMprLses Lter,s of LntrLnsLc value, LncludLng hur,ans (who are not above or separate fror, Lt), and accordLngty Ls to be treated wLth the care and respect valuable Lter,s warrant, and not LrresponsLb ly. Thus Lt would be contrary whLch to Deep Ecology to treat the envLronMent or Lts valued Lter,s vLolently such (consLder however Ls what Deep Ecology contends doMLnant practLces do wLdespread phenor,ena as "rape of the envLronMen t", ·of the land", •of the forests"). SLnce hur,ans are not apart fror, or superLor to nature, Lt follows froM the Deep Ecology platforr, that natural and proper relatLons also exclude vLolence towards other hur,ans or classes of huMans. Because Lt covers a pluralLty of posLtLons, LncludLng shallow ecologLcal posLtLons, Green PolLtLcs Ls Much More ar,elLoratLv e and reforMLst Ln character than Deep Ecology, whLch Ls further rer,oved froM dor,Lnant attLtudes, More hardLLne, and r,ore radLcat. ~hereas Deep Ecology goes to fundaMenta ts, and focusses on Ldeats and theory, Green PotLtLcs tends to concentrate on practLcal poLLtLcat probler,s of an envLronr,en tat or socLat kLnd, such as acLd raLn or rLver pottutLon or MLssLte deptoyMent, and (LLke the Peace Mover,ent Ln AustralLa) Ls not so Much concerned wLth refLnLng Lts rather vague prLncLples or workLng out an envLronMen tat (or peace) phLtosophy. Because of Lts envLronMen tal depth and natural world focus, Deep Ecology Ls concerned wLth a range of natural -3- radLcaL the envLronMent Lssues, such as wLLderness, rare specLes, and transforMatLon of agrLcuLture, whLch are onLy of passLng Lnterest to a sMaLL MLnorLty Ln Green PoLLtLcs or are beyond Lts poLLtLcaL reach. Jn Lts reforMLst styLe Green PoLLtLcs does not venture far beyond prevLous Left-LeanLng poLLtLcaL MoveMents, except, fLrstLy, Ln Lts opposLtLon to envLronMent and aMenLty daMagLng LndustrLaLLsM and, secondLy, as regards non-vLoLence and Lts coMMLtMent to attaLnLng peace. Non-vLoLence Ls the Most controversLaL of the four pLLLars. For non-vLoLence ruLes out a range of poLLtLcaL actLon, LncLudLng typLcaL protests, confrontatLon and revoLutLons. Non-vLoLence aLso LMpLLes, what Ls very dLfferent froM current MLLLtary practLces, socLaL defence. WhLLe MaLn factLons Ln the Green MoveMent support non-vLoLent Methods and socLaL defence, other Lesser factLons hoLd that force Ls necessary to brLng about varLous necessary changes and for defence purposes. The Deep EcoLogy pLatforM LncLudes severaL prLncLpLes that wouLd be recognLsed by onLy a MLnorLty of the Green MoveMent. One of these prLncLpLes (whLch however, unLLke BLocentrLc EgaLLtarLanLsM, wouLd not be wLdeLy opposed by reforMLst Greens) Ls the core prLncLpLe of SeLf-reaLLsatLon, or More exactLy of MaxLML2Ln9 SeLf-reaLLsatLon. The notLon of seLf-reaLLsatLon of varLous reLLgLous posLtLons, of the fuLL unfoLdLng and deveLopMent of the person, Ls vastLy expanded Ln Deep EcoLogy to LncLude brLngLng to fuLL fruLtLon not MereLy one's own person, but aLL that one LdentLfLes wLth, that Ls the expanded SeLf, whLch Ls taken to be not MereLy one's faMLLy or feLLows or feLLow natLonaLs, nor MereLy ~as on huManLstLc ethLcs) the whoLe huMan race, but the whoLe naturaL 1 systeM. The SeLf-reaLLsatLon prLncLpLe, sprLngLng as Lt appears froM an enLLghtened personaL seLf-Lnterest prLncLpLe, has an exceLLent phLLosophLcaL pedLgree (at Least as appLLed to huMans or neLghbourLng cLasses of huMans). Thus rather than beLng argued for, a dLffLcuLt Matter Ln the case of uLtLMate prLncLpLes, SeLfreaLLsatLon Ls LMported froM syMpathetLc phLLosophLcaL or reLLgLous posLtLons at LeveL I of the doubLe pyraMLd, froM those that heLp sustaLn Deep EcoLogy. However the expansLon LnvoLved, the derLvatLon process froM narrow seLf to coMprehensLve SeLf, severs the usuaL justLfLcatory LLnks. It Ls hard to LdentLfy one's seLf-Lnterests wLth · those of a rock or an acorn. So the supposed LdentLfLcatLon - wLth soMe or aLL MountaLns, rLvers and raLnforests Ln the wLder reMaLns, LLke the assocLated extended EgaLLtarLan SeLf, Nature personLfLed prLncLpLe, decLdedLy probLeMatLc. Because Lt Ls assuMed that SeLf-reaLLsatLon Ls dLrected to ecoLogLcaL and spLrLtuaL ends, not at MaterLaL goods or Means, SeLf-reaLLsatLon Leads to the 16 AMong the raMLfLcatLons of the sLogan sLogan, "SLMpLe Ln Means, rLch Ln ends". one uses and where one LLves technoLogy of are those concernLng what kLnd (the Matter of dweLLLng Ln sLtuatLons of Lnherent vaLue and the LLke), what and how Much one consuMes, and so on. The doMLnant attLtudes, forMed around of econoMLc growth and econoMLc routes to happLness, have MaxLML2atLon eMphasLsed both MaterLaL goaLs and MaterLaL Means, partLcuLarLy personaL consuMerLsM. But Lf MaterLaL use and pure consuMptLon are to be reduced for envLronMentaL and other reasons, what LLfestyLes are approprLate? Deep EcoLogy, LLke Lts fundaMentaL sources, poLnts to experLentLaL and spLrLtuaL ends and eMphasL2es the rLchness of non-MaterLaL ends avaLLabLe. The resuLt, of course, Ls practLces whLch are sLMpLe, voluntary sLMpLLcLty, doLng wLth enough, and, More generaLLy, practLces whLch LLe LLght on the Land and the naturaL worLd. In a properLy ecoLogLcaL way of doLng thLngs, these wLLL be Lntegrated (Ln syMbLotLc and other naturaL styLes) wLth the naturaL systeMs LnvoLved, workLng wLth rather than agaLnst the naturaL fLow. The practLces, and organLsatLonaL approprLate to regLonaL wLLL accordLngLy be ecoregLonaL arrangeMents, -4- ecologtcal grouptngs - or btoregtonal, as they have coNe to be called. • 7 Approprtate Means tnclude, tn turn, technLques approprLate to the practLce and theory .of Deep Ecology. HLgh technologLes such as nuclear power are not approprLate, even Ln advanced LndustrLal socLetLes, but LnapproprLate because of the envLronMental and socLal costs and rLsks such technologLcal forMs LMpose. On both deep and green perceptLons, what Ls requLred are relLable careful technologLes whLch are not ecologLcally daMagLng or socLally rLsky or otherwLse undesLrable; but the technologLes adMLtted wLll dLffer accordLng to the prLncLples of the posLtLons they answer back to (e.g . farMLng technLques wLlt need to be very dLfferent froM those prevaLtLng Ln rural GerMany to Meet such prLncLptes as bLospherLc egalLtarLanLsM). In each case the practLcat use of approprLate technology falls at the bottoM, actLon level, of the double . •a pyraN~d. WhLle Deep Ecology supplLes an appeatLng blueprLnt for dLfferent socLal and lLfe-ways, the questLon reMaLns: how Ls the proMLsed land reached? A MaLn part of the answer Ls taken to be gLven through a further crucLal feature of Deep Ecology: EcologLcal ConscLousness, a notLon agaLn expandLng upon conceptLons of other older LdeologLes (e.g. of relLgLous, or of revolutLonary, conscLousness). What Ls dLfferent Ls that spLrLtual or LdeologLcal conversLon Ls agaLn broadened froM the personal and socLat to coMprehend the full envLronMental predLcaMent. In thLs explanatLon, of how people get, and are got, to grasp Deep Ecology and Lts practLces, the pyraMLd Ls ascended, froM actLon to Ldeas, to deeper explanatory prLncLples. A thorough conversLon process Lnvolves elevatLon to the top livet, spLrLtuat transcendence of the daLly econoMLc and polLtLcat actLon level. 9 It Ls assuMed that, wLth enough converts and supporters, Deep Ecology wLlt be put Ln place, lLke Green PolLtLcs, by grassroots deMocratLc procedures. LLke the fundaMental sources upon whLch Lt draws, Deep Ecology prescrLbes practLces by whLch to achLeve such a conversLon and through whLch to arrLve at EcologLcal ConscLousness. SoMe of the MaLn practLces, such as MedLtatLon and conteMptatLon, are derLved froM the fundaMental sources. But other Methods whLch extend these, soMe of theM expandLng upon ecologLcat experLence, Lnclude value reorLentatLon and wLdened value perceptLon seeLng thLngs dLfferently, and coMLng to apprecLate the worth and well-beLng of other thLngs. Connected wLth these wLdened experLentLal bases, and LnforMLng theM, goes a holLstLc shLft Ln values and perceptLon, and an expanded LdentLfLcatLon, affordLng dLrect lLnkage wLth parts and wholes of the natural world. •IO By these Methods, a person May coMe to a deep and joyous apprecLatLon of the real world, a convert to Deep Ecology , a fellow and advocate of Lts Messages and lLfe-ways . ESSAY QUESTIOHS I. To what extent do Green PolLtLcs and Deep Ecology share the saMe values and address the saMe probleMs? CrLtLcally coMpare and contrast theLr proposa l s, especLally as regards the natural and the buLlt envLronMent. 2. Deep Ecology Ls soMetLMes assLgned four, levels. Try to descrLbe these, and to explaLn carefully the LnterrelatLons aMong these levels. Uhere does Green PolLtLcs fLt Lnto thLs probleMatLc scheMe? 3 . "BLocentrLc EgalLtarLanLsM - Ln prLncLple appears as a key theMe of Deep Ecology. CrLtLcally assess Lts adequacy. Shouldn't Green PolLtLcs Lnctude such a prLncLpte? 4. Is Non-vLolence an unstated prLncLple of Deep Ecology? ExplaLn why Deep Ecology Ls coMMLtted to non-vLolence to the degree Lt Ls? In your answers . take -5- \ account of the foLLowLng dLffLcuLtLes: L. the contradLctLons between the use of vLoLence and the defence of the envLronMent; LL. the occurrence of vloLence Ln nature; ttt. the need for coerclve Methods to preserve the natural envtronMent. 5. Uhat justlfLes expandLng _seLf-reallsatLon to SeLf-reaLlsatlon? ExpLaLn the Meanlng and LMportance of SeLf-ReaLlsatLon for Deep Ecology and dLscuss Lts adequacy. Uhy does lt not feature ln Green PolLtlcs? 6. ExpLaLn the MeanLng of the deLLberateLy vague slogan ·slMple ln Means, rlch ln ends·, or of soMe other hlgh-lMpact slogan of Deep Ecology. Indlcate how the vagueness Mlght work for and agalnst the slogan, suggest how the slogan MLght be alternatLve LnterpretatLons, and lndlcate soMe of the suggest applled, alternattves. these of raMLflcatlons 7. OutLlne btoregtonaLL3M, lndlcatlng what practlcaL envlronMental probleMs bloreglonallsM lnduces. How Ln fact Ls bloreglonallsM derlved froM Deep Ecology? Conslder to what extent bloregLonallsM fLts wLth the slogan, •Thlnk globally, act LocaLly". deeper, or to any, envLronMental probLeMs? CoMpare and contrast the vlews of Deep Ecology and Green PolLtLcs on the role of varlous types of technology. 8~ Is More hLgh technology an unprobleMatLc soLutLon to 9. Uhat Ls EcoLogLcaL ConscLousness? And what Ls Lt supposed to do Ln and for Deep Ecology? If Lt ls so LMportant, why Ls Lt not a MaLn concern for Green PoLltlcs? 10. A reLatlonaL, total-fLeLd LMage of huMan reLatLonshLps wLth nature has been quletLy oMLtted froM the orLglnal pLatforM of Deep Ecology. Is thLs gestalt pLcture needed? Is Lt defensLbLe? Should Lt be reLnstated? READINGS 1: DEEP ECOLOGY AND GREEN POLITICS The Greens consLder theMseLves the poLltLcal voLce of the cLtLzens' MoveMents, that Ls, ecology, antl-nuclear-power, peace, feMLnLst, and others. Most MeMbers of the Green party are also actLvLsts Ln one or More of those MoveMents, and thLs dLverse orLentatLon Ls reflected Ln the wLngs, or factLons, of the party: the vLslonary/hollstlc Greens, the Eco-Greens, the peace-MoveMent Greens, and the radlcal-Left Greens. A great deaL of overlapplng occurs wlth any categor~z~ng of Green LdentltLes and soMe people say there are no actual factlons, but clearly there are dtfferent prtorltLes aMong the four clusters. The More that people perceLved the LnterconnectLons aMong prLncLpLes of ecologLcaL wlsdoM, a truly secure peace, an econoMy wLth a future, and a partLcLpatory deMocracy wLth power channeled dLrectly froM the grassroots Level, the More they notLces the absence of such LdeaLs aMong the exLsttng poLLtlcaL partles. [Green] pollcLes are gutded by long-terM v~s~ons for the future and are founded on four basLc prLncLples: ecology, socLal responsLbLLLty, grassroots deMocracy, and nonvLoLence. The fLrst of the ·four pLLlars, • ecology, has several MeanLngs Ln Green poLLtLcs. Green poLLtLcs, Ls Lnherently hoLLstLc Ln theory and practLce. It Ls based on ecoLogLcal, or ·network·, thLnkLng, a terM used frequently by the Greens. EcoLogLcaL thLnkLng also Lncludes the realLzatLon that the seeMLngLy -6- rtgtd structures we percetve Ln our envLronMent are actually ManLfestatLons of underlytng processes, of nature's contLnual dynaMLc flux. Interrelatedness and ongoLng process are the lessons the Greens take froM and apply to the ecosysteMs surroundLng us. They support •soft" energy productLon (such as solar power) that works wLth the cycles of the sun, the water, and the wLnd, and the flow of the rLvers. They call for the developMent of approprLate technology that reflects our Lnterdependence wLth the Earth. They advocate regeneratLve agrLculture that replenLshes the soLl and Lncorporates natural Means of pest control. Above all, the Greens deMand a halt to our ravagLng of natural "resources" and our poLsonLng of the bLosphere through the duMpLng of toxLc wastes, the accuMulatLon of so-called acceptable levels of radLatLon exposure, and the pollutLon of the aLr. The broader applLcatLons of ecologLcal thLnkLng lead to ·socLal ecology, the perceptton of soctetal structures and huMan Lnteracttons as an Lntrtcate web of dynaMLc systeMs that are sLMultaneously Lnterrelated parts and coMplete Ln theMselves. That eMphasLs on relatLonshLps and Lnterconnecttons Ls the basts of the Greens' ecologtcal work that focuses specLfLcally on envLronMental protectLon. TheLr prograMs Ln thts area call for huMans to ftnd our place Ln the ecosysteMs: ~e defLne ecologLcal polLtLcs as those Measures that understand huMan betngs and our envLronMent as beLng part of nature. HuMan lLfe, too, Ls eMbedded Ln the lLfe cycles of the ecosysteMs; we Lnterfere wLth our actLons and thLs, Ln turn, acts back on us. ~e Must not destroy the stabLlLty of the ecosysteMs. In partLcular, ecologtcal polLtLcs presents an all-encoMpassLng rejectLon of an econoMy of exploLtatLon and plunderLng of natural resources and raw MaterLals, as well as the destructLve LnterventLon Lnto the cycles of nature's household. The second of the four pLllars, ·soctal responsLbLlLty, • Ls understood by Most Greens to Mean socLal justLce and assurance that the poor and the workLng class wLll not get hurt by prograMs to restructure the econoMy and our consuMer socLety ecologtcally. The radLcal-left Greens, however, read sozLal as a codeword for socLalLsM, that Ls, deMocratLc MarxLsM~ SLnce that polLtLcal Model Ls specLfLcally not what the vLsLonary, lLberal and conservatLve Greens have Ln MLnd, a battle developed over establLshLng the basLc prLncLples. The MajorLty wanted the new party to stand for possLbLlLtLes other than etther socLalLsM or the capLtalLst status quo. The radLcal-left contLngent, on the other hand, LnsLsted on not only Lncludtng socLalLsM but also on excludLng nonvLolence as a guLdLng prLncLple. So one of the four pLllars, lLke so Much else Ln the Green party, has a paradoxLcal character: Lt Means soMethLng dLfferent Ln dLfferent parts of the party. All factLons of the party concur that socLal, econoMLc and ecologLcal Lssues are Lnherently lLnked. The ecologLcal and socLal spheres belong Lnseparably together: the econoMy of nature Ls ltnked to the econoMy of huMans for better or worse . The thLrd pLllar, grassroots deMocracy, was LnspLred by the ~est GerMan cLtLzens' MoveMents throughout the 1970s, whLch Ln turn were Lnfluenced by the cLvLl rLghts, ecology, consuMer, and other MoveMents ~n the Un~ted States. OLrect, or partLcLpatory, deMocracy locates a greater aMount of power and control wLth the local groups, the grassroots. ThLs orLentatLon ~nforMs the structure of the Green party. An organLzatLon structured wtth partLcLpatory deMocracy sets Lts basLc polLcy accordLng to the votLng at large asseMblLes. It allows LndLvLduals access to all party offLcLals, and Lt eschews hLerarchLcal structure. Instead of allowtng power to be concentrated Ln a few people who -7- reMaLn at the top of a hLerarchy for years, such groups generally elect steerLng coMMLttees. The fourth pLllar, nonvLolence, Means to the Greens the cessatLon of both personal vLolence and •structural vLolence, • that Ls, vLolence and oppress Lon LMposed by the state and by LnstLtutLons. (See ReadLng 4; Green PolLtLcs, pp.3-4, 29-43) The tenets of [the Deep Ecology] MoveMent Nay perhaps be roughly forNulated as follows: (1) The well-beLng of nonhuMan lLfe on Earth has value Ln Ltself. ThLs value Ls Lndependent of any LnstruNental usefulness for LLMLted huNan purposes. (2) RLchness and dLversLty Ln lLfe forMs contrLbute to thLs value and Lnterfere Ls a further value Ln Ltself. (3) HuMans have no rLght to destructLvely wLth nonhuMan lLfe except for purposes of satLsfyLng vLtal needs. (4) Present Lnterference Ls excessLve and detrLMental. (5) Present polLcLes Must therefore be changed. (6) The necessary polLcy changes affect basLc econoMLc and LdeologLcal structures and wLll be the More drastLc the longer Lt takes before sLgnLfLcant change Ls started. (7) The LdeologLcal change Ls MaLnly that of apprecLatLng lLfe qualLty (focusLng on sLtuatLons LnvolvLng Lnherent. value). (8) Those who subscrLbe to the foregoLng poLnts have an oblLgatLon dLrectly or LndLrectly to try to LMpleMent the necessary changes. (Defence, p.266) It should be fully apprecLated that the sLgnLfLcant tenets of the Deep Ecology MoveMent are clearly and forcefully norMatLve. They express a value prLorLty systeM only Ln part based on results (or lack of results) of scLentLfLc research. Today, ecologLsts try to Lnfluence polLcy-MakLng bodLes largely resource and through threats, through predLctLons concernLng pollutants depletLon, knowLng that polLcy-Makers accept at least certaLn MLnLMUM norMs concernLng health and just dLstrLbutLon. There are polLtLcal potentLals Ln thLs MoveNent whLch should not be overlooked and whLch have lLttle to do wLth pollutLon and resource depletLon. In plottLng possLble futures, the norMs should be freely used and elaborated. (Shallow and Oeep 1 p.99) A Major dLfference between the theorLes lLes Ln the dLstrLbutLon of values. Deep ecology, lLke sLMpler utLlLtarLanLsM, offers a unLque LnLtLal dLstrLbutLon: each lLvLng thLng Ls assLgned equal value and nothLng else has LntrLnsLc value. Value Ls assessed through soMe MLx of value-NakLng characterLstLcs, LncludLng such defeasLble ecologLcal unLversals as stabLlLty, resLlLence, naturalness, rLchness, scarcLty and so forth . But there are consLderable dLversLty, constraLnts on how thLs Ls done . . . . One constraLnt, that of LMpartLalLty whLch excludes certaLn types of class chauvLnLsM, a thLng cannot be ranked as valuable or ahead or another sLMply by vLrtue of belongLng to soNe specLes (e.g. beLng huNan) or favoured bLologLcal class; such class features are not Ln theMselves value-MakLng characterLstLcs. Such an account of how value Ls assessed reNaLn however far froM specLfLc, and soMetLMes of lLttle use Ln practLce. (CrLtLque, pp.59- 60) POINTS OF UNITY 1. NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. Ue base our phLlosophy on a proper understandLng of the purposes and workLngs of nature and do not try to LNpose an Ldeology upon Lt . Ue seek to transforM socLety based upon thLs understandLng. 2. CONSENSUS DEMOCRACY. Ue conduct all our MeetLngs accordLng to the prLncLples of consensus deNocracy, eNphasLzLng unanLMous or near-unanLMous agreeMent on all decLsLons. No representatLve May Make decLsLons on behalf of the Greens wLthout the approval of the entLre NeMbershLp. Ue encourage the use of consensus deMocracy Ln all socLal, econoMLc and polLtLcal LnstLtutLons. -8- 3. NONVIOLENCE AND FREEDOM. ~e oppose the threat or use of phystcal vtolence to resolve tnternatlonat, clvll, polltlcal and personal confllcts. ~e encourage the nonvlolent enforceMent of all prlvate and publlc rules and Laws. ~e recognlEe that a nonvlolent soclety would be a very free soclety and encourage tolerance of others' vlews and actlons. ~- SOCIAL ECOLOGY. ~e eMphaslze the connectton of doMlnatlon and vlolence toward the envlronMent and toward our fellow huMans. ~e seek a nonvlolent soclety ln whlch the needs of lndlvlduals, coMMunltles and bloreglons are balanced and lntegrated and ln whlch econoMtc resources are used consclousty, deMocratlcaLLy and approprlatety to further thls end. 5. STRATEGY. ~e wlLL oppose ecologlcatty and soclatty destructlve pollcles and dlsobedlence clvll and protest practlces through nonvlolent polltlcal actlvltles. ~e wlLL proMote alternatlve projects and lnstltutlons conslstent wlth our Green phllosophy. ~e wlLL cooperate ln solldarlty wlth all groups ln substantlal agreeMent wlth these polnts of unlty as partlclpants ln the lnternatlonal Green MoveMent. (Deep Ecology, pp.36-7). 2: DEEP ECOLOGY LEVELS In dlscusslng the relatlonshlp between deep ecology and Major tradltlons such as BuddhlsM and Chrlstlanlty, Naess stresses that people can agree broadly on a set of prlnctptes and dlsagree greatly on other aspects of ldeology and other tradttlons thusly: In order to factlttate dlscusslon lt May be helpful to dlsttngutsh a coMMon platforM (baste prlnclples) of deep ecology froM the fundaMentaL features of phllosophles and rellglons froM whlch that platforM (baste prlnctples) ls derlved, lf the platforM ls forMulated as a set of norMs and hypotheses lf . verballEed, are Buddhlst, (factual assuMptlons). The fundaMentals, or phllosophlc wlth persuaslons, rettgtous other Taolst, Chrtsttan or of afftnltles to the baste vlews of Splnoza, Uhltehead, Hetdegger, or others. The fundaMentals are Mutually More or Less lncoMpattble or at Least dtfflcult to coMpare l~ terMs of cognltlve contents. The tncoMpattblltty does not affect the deep ecology prlnclples adversely. The baste prlnclples wlthln the deep ecology MoveMent are grounded ln retlglon or phllosophy. In a Loose sense, tt May be sald to be dertved froM the fundaMentals. Because these are dtfferent, the sltuatlon only reMlnds us that very slMllar or even tdenttcal conclustons May be drawn froM dlvergent preMlses. The prlnclples (or platforM) are the . saMe, the fundaMentaL preMlses dtffer. In order to clartfy the dtscusston one Must avold Looktng for one deftntte phllosophy or rellgton aMong the supporters of the deep ecologlcal MoveMent. Fortunately there ls a rlch Manlfold of klnds of consequences dertved froM the prlnclples. The dtscusston has four Levels to take lnto account: verballzed fundaMentaL phllosophlcal and rellglous ldeas and lntultlons, the deep ecology baste prlnclples, the More or Less general consequences dertved froM the platforM Llfestytes and general pollcles of every klnd - and Lastly, descrlpttons of concrete sltuatlons and declstons Made ln theM. (See DlagraM 1) Arne Naess has atteMpted to provlde a Loglcal dlagraM or systeMatlzatlon of hls own verslon of deep ecology or ecosophy whtch he calls •Ecosophy r·. He -9- caLLs thts a norMattve systeM whtch tncLudes both norMs (or baste values) and factual hypotheses_ The Lower norMs or actton stateMents are dertved froM the top norMs tn a Loosely LogtcaL sense_ The top or Most baste norMs are arrtved at by the deep questtontng Lntutttve process_ Naess stresses that Ecosophy T Ls onLy hts verston of deep ecology, and that Many versLons need to be worked out_ SoMe people NLght be crLtLcaL that Many of the norMs of deep ecology are heLd on an tntutttve basts, but Naess potnts out aLL theortes begtn soMewhere beyond LogtcaL constructtons_ (DEEP ECOLOGY, pp-225-7) In order to factLttate dtscusston about deep ecology aMong phtLosophers tt May be heLpfuL to dtsttngutsh a coMMon pLatforM of deep ecology froM the fundaMentaL features of phtLosophtes and reLtgtons froM whtch that pLatforM Ls derLved, tf tt ts forMuLated as a set of norMs and hypotheses (factual assuMpttons)_ The terM 'pLatforM' ts preferred to 'prtncLpLe' because the Latter May be NLsunderstood to refer to the uLtLMate fundaMentaLs_ FurtherMore, the forMuLatton of a pLatforM should be short and conctse (as a synopsts), whereas the fundaMentaLs, tf verbaLtzed, are Buddhtst, Taotst, ChrLstLan or of other reLtgtous ktnds, or they are phtLosophLc wtth afftntttes to the baste vtews of SpLnoza, ~hLtehead, HeLdegger, or others_ The fundaMentaLs are MutuaLLy More or Less LncoMpatLbLe or at Least dtffLcuLt to coMpare tn terMs of cognLttve contents_ Supporters of deep ecology May have great dLfftcuLttes understandtng each other's uLtLMate vLews_ The pLatforM of the deep ecology MoveMent Ls grounded tn reLtgLon or phLLosophy tncLudtng ethLcs_ It May be saLd to be derLved froM these fundaMentaLs_ As used here the terM 'dertved' ts open to a vartety of LnterpretatLons_ If the vaLLdLty of a norM or a hypothesLs Ls justLfLed by reference to one defLnLte set of assuMptLons of a phtLosophtcaL or reLLgtous ktnd, the norM or hypothests ts Ln a sense dertved froM those assuMpttons_ The set acquLres a character of preMLses for parttcuLar concLusLons_ But cLoseLy · sLMLLar or even tdenttcaL concLustons May be drawn froM sets of LncoMpatLbLe preMLses_ ThLs expLaLns the coMbLnatLon of 'bewLLderLng' dLverstty of vLews at the deepest LeveL wtth agreeMent of vtews at the next LeveL_ In assesstng constructLve crttLctsM of deep ecology Lt Ls useful to try to ftnd out whLch LeveL Ls LnvoLved_ An exaMpLe: In the tntroductLon to hLs The EthLcs of EnvtronMentaL Concern, (Oxford: BLackweLL 1983), Robtn AttfLeLd says: Yet I do not accept, wLth the so-caLLed 'deep, Long-range ecology MoveMent', the vtew that our prLncLpaL Loyalty should be focussed not on feLLow-huMans or feLLow creatures but on the bLosphere as an organtc whole, __ _ I suppose there are soMe supporters of the deep ecology MOVeMent who propose focusstng Loyalty on the bLosphere as an organLc whole Ln the sense suggested by AttfteLd_ The conceptLon of the bLosphere as an organLc whole and of such a kLnd of Loyalty belongs to the reaLM of fundaMentaLs, that Ls LeveL one, rather than to the other Levels_ Therefore that AttfLeLd does not accept the vtew he descrtbes ts not relevant tn arguMentatton for or agatnst deep ecology- One Matn potnt tn deep ecology ts tts deep arguMentatton, that ts, arguMentatton froM uLttMate (phLLosophLcaL, reLtgtous) preMtsses, but there Ls rooM for very dLfferent sets of such preMLsses_ A supporter of deep ecology May or May not have any conceptton of a prLMary Loyalty focussed on the bLosphere as an organtc whole_ [The] dtsttnctLon of Levels Ls useful when tryLng to ptn down exactly what a crttLcLsM Ls focusstng on_ The dLagraM furnLshes onLy a ktnd of stattc ModeL_ -10- A supporter of deep ecology wLLL norMaLLy ModLfy the sentences at the dLfferent Levels froM tLMe to tLMe. Hew LnforMatLon May change any hypotheses and therefore also change norMs whLch Ln part have been justLfLed on the basLs of the hypotheses beLng changed. Renewed ethLcaL consLderatLon or new LnforMatLon May Make the supporter change a norM. If a norM Ls changed norMally new sets of hypotheses are Lnvolved, and old ones are dLscarded. ThLs agaLn wLLl cause reverberatLons Ln a sMaLLer or greater part of the fLeld. F roM a po Ln t of v Lew of no rMa t Lve sys teMa t t·~a t Lons what goes on when changes are Made at one or More Levels Ls rather coMpLLcated. But part of Lt Ls processes of derLvatLon. OLagraM l pretends only to Lllustrate LMportant dLfferences of the Levels of derLvatLon and the specLfLc character of Level 2. It represents a condensed forMulatLon of the deepest-Level norMs and hypotheses whLch supporters of the deep ecology MoveMent can agree upon. ThLs Level Ls LLLustrated as the penultLMate (next to ultLMate) Level of arguMentatLon characterLstLc of those supporters of deep ecology who try to artLculate theLr baste vLews. At the thLrd and fourth Level dLsagreeMents May arLse. At the fLrst Level supporters May dLsagree, or fLnd each others vLews' LncoMprehensLb le, or LncoMparable as to valLdLty. Ls not a Measure of value prLorLtLes or of A 'dLrectLon of derLvatLon ethLcaL prLorLtLes. And Lt does not LMply that what Ls derLved Ls a Means Ln relatLon to what Lt Ls derLved froM. A sLMple exaMple Ls enough to clarLfy thLs. FroM 'do not kLlL huMans! ·, follows, Lf you concede 'all Mothers are huMans' the conclusLon 'do not kLLL your Mother!'. ThLs rather concrete norM Ls here derLved froM the More general and abstract one. But thLs does not LMply that huMans Ln general have a hLgher value or a kLnd of prLorLty Ln relatLon to Mothers. It does not say that Ln a norM confLLct you should be More careful not to kLLL huMans than not to kLLL your Mother. An absurd posLtLon! And Lastly, Lt Ls rather strange to refraLn froM kLllLng your Mother as a Means to a goal, · naMely not to kLLL huMans. The forMulatLons of Level 2 have the character of proposals. It May turn out that proposals wLLL dLffer substantLaLLy or show a natural dLversLty of terMLnologLcal and conceptual LdLosyncracLes . UnhappLLy Lt Ls quLte coMMon to MLx the, Ln a broad sense, LogLcal relatLon of derLvatLon wLth other relatLons. These are at Least as LMportant, but nevertheless are dLfferent. (BASIC, pp.1-5) ScheMatLcally we May represent the total vLews LMpLLed Ln the MoveMent by and norMs streaMs of derLvatLon f roM 'h Lghest', L.e. Most fundaMentaL sLtuatLons. lLfe partLcular Ln descrLptLve assuMptLon, to partLcular decLsLons Answers to the deepest questLon, L.e. hLghest norMatLve prLncLples and basLc assuMptLons about the world MLddle range answers. Lower derLvatLonaL Level derLvatLons towards decLsLons Ln partLcular LLfe sLtuatLons. Level of actLon Ln concrete partLcular sLtuatLons. The LLLustratLon reseMbles those of hypothetLco-ded uctLve systeMs. One MaLn dLfference Ls that soMe sentences at the top Level are norMatLve, expressed by LMperatLves. ThLs Makes Lt possLble to furnLsh preferably LMperatLves at the Lowest derLvatLonaL Level, sentences such as ·Turn to the Left!" ·voteforN.N. !. Just as Ln hypothetLco-ded uctLve systeM, Let us say Ln physLcs, only the two upper Levels of the pyraMLd Ls thought of as part of physLcs as a systeM, only those parts are Ln norMatLve systeMs characterLstLc of the total systeM. -11- The sentences change. Ln the Lowest part change froM day to day as LLfe sLtuatLons The above kLnd of presentLng the derLvatLonaL structure of a totaL vLew Must not be taken too serLousLy. SoMe wLLL absoLuteLy refuse even to consLder such a way of exposLtLon. And Lt does not Ln any Manner characterLze thLnkLng wLthLn the deep ecoLogLcaL MoveMents. SoMe of us wLth a professLonaL background of scLence and anaLytLcaL phLLosophy fLnd Lt heLpfuL, however. Arne Naess's systeMatLEatLon LLLustrates the reLatLonshLp of deep ecoLogy's basLc prLncLpLes or Lts "platforM" (LeveL 2), to varLous · possLbLe and relLgLous "fundaMentaL preMLsses on the one hand (LeveL 1) and varLous possLbLe theoretLcaL and practLcaL "consequences" on the other (LeveLs 3 and~). Althou~h thLs systeMatLzatLon Ls presented Ln terMs of "fundaMentaL preMLsses, consequences", and a dLrectLon of "derLvatLon• froM LeveLs (1) to(~), thLs should not be taken to Mean that a sentence at one Level Ls held to follow by vLrtue of necessLty or probabLLLty froN sentences at a prevLous Level L.e~, Naess Ls not proposLng a deductLve or an LnductLve systeM. As he coMMents hLMself, Lt Ls only Ln a "Loose sense• that the deep ecology pLatforM "May be saLd to be derLved froM fundaMentaLs·. In other words, derLvatLon or precLseness Ls a Matter of deLLMLtLng a range of possLble LnterpretatLons. For exaNpLe, we MLght proceed froN a fundaMentaL (L.e. Level 1) reLLgLous or phLLosophLcal preMLss such as "ALL Ls One" or the SpLnozLst Ldea that "there Ls onLy one 'substance• • and, Ln the sense descrLbed, "derLve" the (More precLse) central "plank" Ln the deep ecology "pLatforM" that "there are no boundarLes Ln the bLospherLcaL fLeld", or that "aLl entLtLes are constLtuted by theLr relatLonshLps" (LeveL 2). Further precLsatLon MLght express the realLsatLon that "the sense of oneself as a skLn encapsulated ego Ls not Ln accord wLth thLs ' seaMLess web' ontoLogy• (Level 3). None of the steps Ln the above exaMpLe Ls held to foLLow by necessLty (deductLve Lnference) or probabLLLty (LnductLve Lnference) froM sentences at a prevLous LeveL. ALL we have (Ln logLcaL terMs) Ls a chaLn of precLsatLons fLowLng Ln one or Many possLble dLrectLons of LnterpretatLon. Ue could have easLLy started froM the saMe vague, general fundaMentaL preMLss and proceeded to deveLop a chaLn of precLsatLons Ln a very dLfferent dLrectLon of LnterpretatLon. Thus, the "dLrectLon of derLvatLon· shown Ln the dLagraMMatLc LLlustratLon of Naess's systeMatLsatLon shouLd be understood as referrLng to both the leveL of precLsatLon and the dLrectLon of LnterpretatLon. The greater the Level of precLsatLon the More evLdent the dLrectLon of LnterpretatLon (or what Naess has prevLousLy referred to as the "defLnLteness of LntentLon")_ Uhat Ls the vaLue of tryLng to provLde a systeMatLsatLon of deep ecology (or any other faLrLy coMprehensLve vLew) when the connectLve LLnks between fundaMentaL preMLsses (LeveL I) and practLcaL consequences (Level~) are as weak as that of "possLbLe LnterpretatLon"? An LMportant answer Must be that such a systeNatLsatLon eMphasLses the contLnuaLLy-beLng-forgotten fact that our Most sophLstLcated and precLse, non-trLvLaL (L ~e. nontautoLogLcaL) reasonLngs are aLways eMbedded or grounded Ln a very generaL "underLyLng perceptLon of the way thLngs are." ThLs eMphasLs, thLs contLnual reMLndLng, constLtutes the Most sLgnLfLcant and dLstLnctLve structural feature of deep ecologLcaL thought. (GUIDING STARS, pp.203-4) OnLy LeveL one contaLns phLLosophLes (LncLudLng MetaphysLcs, of course) and expLLcLt reLLgLous foundations. There Ls, and hopefuLLy wLLL never be, Many sLgnLfLcant COMMon characterLstLcs on Level 1. The cLeanLng of 'rubbLsh' on thLs Level Ls a hazardous undertakLng froN MY poLnt of vLew. -12- In a coMprehensLve phLLosophy of Level l, for lnstance ln an 'ecosophy' ln MY terMlnoLogy, every key terM of the pLatforM forMuLatlon, (Level 2), would have to be .coM"ented upon and elucLdated. ThLs "ay be seen as a clearLng up operatlon. A hlgher level of preclseness Ls achLeved and eLLMLnatlon of ph~Losoph~caLLy unsuLtable rhetorLcs. (HOTES ON SYLVAN, pp.8-9) 3: ON BIOCENTRIC EGALITARIANISM The Lntultlon of blocentrlc equaLlty ls that aLL thlngs Ln the blosphere have an equal rlght to Llve and bLossoM and to reach thelr own LndLvlduaL forMs of unfoLdLng and self-reaLlzatlon wlthln the Larger SeLf-reallzatlon. Thls basLc Lntultlon Ls that aLL organLsMs and entltles Ln the ecosphere, as parts of the lnterreLated whole, are equal Ln LntrlnsLc worth. Naess suggests that bLocentrlc equaLLty as an LntuLtlon Ls true ln prLncLpLe, although ln the process of LLvLng, aLL specLes use each other as food, shelter, etc. Mutual predatlon ls a b~ologLcal fact of lLfe, and "any of the world's relLgLons have struggled wLth the spLrltuaL lMpllcatlons of thts. SoMe anlMaL llberatlonLsts who atteMpted to sLde-step thLs probLeM by advocatlng vegetarLanlsM are forced to say that the entLre plant ktngdo" LncLudLng raLn forests have no rLght to thelr own exlstence. ThLs evaslon fLles ln the face of the basLc LntuLtlon of equalLty. Aldo Leopold expressed thLs Lntultlon when sald huMans are •pLaLn cLtlzens• of the btotlc coMMunlty, not Lord and Master over all other specLes. BlocentrLc equaLlty ls lntlMateLy related to the aLL-LnclusLve SeLfreaLlzatLon ln the sense that Lf we harM the rest of Nature then we are harMLng ourselves. There are no boundarles and everythlng ls lnterreLated. But Lnsofar as we percelve thlngs as LndLvLduaL organlsMs or entLtLes, the LnsLght draws us to respect aLL huMan and nonhuMan lndLvLduals ln theLr own rLght as parts of the whole wLthout feeLLng the need to set up hlerarchLes of specles wlth huMans at the top. The practlcaL LMpLlcatlons of thLs lntultlon or norM suggest that we should LLve wlthLn MlnLMuM rather than MaxlMUM lMpact on other specLes and on the Earth ln general. Thus we see another aspect of our guldlng prLnclpLe: ·slMpLe ln Means, rLch ln ends.• (Deep EcoLog~, pp.167-9) blospherLcaL egaLltarlanlsM Ln prlnclpLe' and certaln The abstract terM slMlLar terMs whlch I have used, do perhaps More harM than good. They suggest a posLtLve doctrLne, and that ls too Much. The LMportance of the LntultLon ls but MOMentary, only perhaps the rather lts capaclty to counteract, Less seeMs what towards attltude Lordly and consequentlaL, self-congratulatory developed, Less coMplex, Less MlracuLous. A rlch varLety of acceptable Motlves can be forMuLated for belng More reluctant to Lnjure of klLL a LLvLng beLng of klnd A than a beLng of klnd B. The cultural settlng ls dLfferent for each belng Ln each culture, furtherMore there are few general norMs, only vague guLdeLLnes. One factor: felt nearness, deterMlnes Largely our capactty to ldentLfy ourselves wlth a sort of beLng, to suffer when they suffer. One cannot put forth ethLcaL rules of conduct wlthout takLng such feeltngs and our lLMlted capacLtLes serLously. If Lt Ls dLffLcuLt to avotd klLLLng A because of Lts sMalLness, whereas klLLlng B ls easlLy avolded, we tend to protect B rather than A. Indeed we Llve wLth an obvLous dLversLty of obLlgatlons. Ue have speclaL oblLgatlons towards our own chLldren: Ln Most cultures any anlMaL May be kLLLed ln order to feed one's starvLng chlLd. ObLlgatLons toward specLes that have been MeMbers of our llfe coMMunLty for Long perLods are greater than toward accldentaL vlsltors. FurtherMore, we have the -13- relevance of sufferLng: capacLty of sufferLng? Is the sufferLng of A less than that of B? Has A the The sLMpLe thLng I try to convey here L3 that an ethLcs concernLng dLfferences between non-huMan LLvLng beLngs Ls of a coMparable level of coMpLexLty to ethLcs concernLng dLfferent people and groups wLth whoM we have to do. (lntuLtLon, p.202) Those of us who procLaLM the rLght of all LLfe forMs to LLve and bLossoM thLnk of thLs rLght as an aspect of the 'value Ln LtseLf' whLch we attrLbute to the bLosphere wLth Lts closely Lnterconnected LLfe forMs. The procLaMatLon seeMs to steM froM an LntuLtLon for whLch a graduatLon Ls soMethLng foreLgn. If there Ls such a basLc rLght, Lf Lt can be gLven a faLrly precLse MeanLng, Lt Ls the naMe for all lLfe forMs. It Ls LMportant enough to be terMed bLospherLcaL egaLLtarLanLsM. But Lt Ls perhaps the best to abstaLn froM such Labels. They LnvLte a varLety of LnterpretatLons Most of whLch May be MLsLeadLng. As to the consequences of a posLtLve answer, I thLnk we can learn froM certaLn cultures of hunters and gatherers where bLg anLMaLs are only kLLled after elaborate cereMonLes and excuses'. There Ls acknowLedgeMent of equal rLght, but also of a rLght to kLlL Ln order to Meet vLtaL needs. There Ls a 'norM conflLct' whLch Ls solved through addLtLonal norMs: the perforMance of certaLn rLtes and behavLors of other kLnds. What I thLnk we need not proclaLM Ls that we as huMans are Most or More valuable, or have a hLgher rLght. ~e need not say '1 have a hLgher rLght to LLve and bLossoM than you have, obnoxLus MosquLto, so I kLLL you!' or 'BeLng Much More valuable than you are, I kLlL you and your offsprLng, dLrty rat!' In so far as we have vLtal needs to kLlL, and Ln so far as Lt Ls LnevLtabLe Ln practLce, we May justLfy thLs through varLous norMs whLch are Ln harMony wLth general ecoLogLcal thLnkLng. Do these words solve the relevant probLeMs? Of course not. ~hat I aM drLvLng at Ls the prLorLty of MaLntaLnLng a sort of egalLtarLanLsM Ln p~LncLple. How we can LLve thLs that prLncLpLe Ls a questLon of ethLcs Ln a very general sense, proceedLng froM Many prLncLples whLch LnevLtably Lead to norM confLLcts requLrLng adjustMents froM day to day. (PhLLosophLcaL Aspects, pp.27-9) AccordLng to Naess, a bLospherLc egaLLtarLan prLncLpLe, of equal value of to the all LLfe, Ls an LntuLtLveLy clear and obvLous value axLoM', at least aLMost ecoLogLcaL fLeLd-worker' (73, p96)!. But eMpLrLcaL surveys would certaLnLy not sustaLn Haess's claLMs. The prLncLpLe seeMs generally neLther LntuLtLve nor obvLous, and Ln several ways Lt appears LncoMpatLbLe wLth the wLder deep ecology pLatforM. It Ls not even obvLous that soMethLng has value by vLrtue of havLng LLfe. On the contrary, value seeMs, lLke yellowness, to be Much More patchLLy dLstrLbuted across the unLverse. SpecLal places, for Lnstance, are especLaLLy valuable. Hor Ls value always dLstrLbuted on LLvLng thLngs, but colours toMbs of the dead; and soMetLMes Lt flakes off consteLlatLons of LLvLng thLngs, for exaMpLe thLngs Ln excess, such as Locusts or rats Ln a plague. But even Lf every LLvLng thLng were assLgned value, Lt would not follow (Ln the way soMetLMes LnvaLLdLy argued) that every thLng has Lt equally. ~hLLe Lt could be saLd that thLngs are equal Ln havLng Lt, thLs Ls rather LLke pretendLng that people are equal Ln an LnegaLLtarLan socLety where all have soMe Money - a subterfuge. Indeed proposed prLncLpLes of deep ecology LnforM us, correctly, that soMe ecoLogLcaL LteMS are More valuable than others. For Lnstance, a certaLn sort of coMpLexLty Ls a vLrtue (Naess 73, prLncLpLe (6)), so presuMabLy an LteM wLth that coMpLexLty Ls More valuable than a sLMple bLoLogLcal LteM. SLMLLarLy, dLversLty of systeM Ls a vLrtue, a prLMe ground of value (prLncLpLe (2)). The upshot appears to be that a hLghly dLverse ecosysteM Ls More valuable -14- than a sLMpLLfLed and LMpoverLshed one_ FurtherMore, bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM Ls LnconsLstent wLth the hoLLstLc, antL-reducLLonL3tLc, antL-LndLvLduaLL3tLc ethos whLch deep ecoLogy LMports froM hoLLstLc ecotogy. AnaLogous concLu3Lons can be reached for •equaL rLghts• forMuLatLons_ For one thLng, equaL rLghts are characterLstLcally based on equal MerLt or equal worth_ For another, arguMents lLke those gLven can be rerun wLth rLghts suppLantLng values_ As a theoretLcaL prLncLpLe, bLospherLc egalLtarLanLsM has to be scrapped_ The LMMense dLffLcuLtLes of such a prLncLpLe Ln practLce Naess had already partLally recognLsed, qualLfyLng egalLtarLanLsM to equalLty Ln prLncLple 'because any realLstLc praxLs necessLtates soMe kLllLng, exploLtatLon, and suppressLon' (p_95). The extent of erosLon Ln equalLty thLs affords reMaLns obscure; but Lt couLd be close to total, wLth theoretLcaL equaLLty LapsLng whenever confLLct of rLghts or values LooMed_ Such egaLLtarLanLsM would be LLke a MaxLM of honesty Ln prLncLpLe, whLch appLLed Ln practLce only when Lt was not LnconvenLent; that Ls, but an eMpty MaxLM_ ~hatever Naess's Lntended qualLfLcatLon, Lt stLLL seeMs to people wLth Much practLcaL experLence on the Land or Ln gardenLng, especLaLLy Ln places where the surroundLng natural envLronMent has not been totally transforMed, that he has consLderabLy underestLMated the extent of quaLLfLcatLon needed, and that the prLncLpLe. BLospherLc strangle to begLn does quaLLfLcatLon due theLr own shelter or supply not do who egaLLtarLanLsM Ln practLce Ls for people sustenance, but pass the busLness of ecosysteM Lnterference and ModLfLcatLon on to others (as they typLcaLLy pass the butchery of theLr Meat and the LLke on to others)_ Even were Lt desLrabLe, unLversaL hunter-gatherLng Ls no Longer possLbLe or feasLbLe, wLth so Many Mostly unsuLted and LLL-adapted huMans; and a substantLaL even hunter-gatherers terMLnate the LLves of Many creatures Lnterference wLth theLr rLghts to LLve and bLossoM - and, More LMportant, and dLrectty LnterferLng substantLaLLy ModLfy theLr envLronMents, thus LndLrectly wLth enorMous nuMbers of LLvLng thLngs_ ~hatever rLghts sLMpLer LLvLng organLsMs, especLaLLy ones such as bacterLa and vLruses, have to LLve and bLossoM, they have decLdedLy quaLLfLed and Much attentuated ones. ULth bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM (Ln prLncLpLe) the deep ecology MoveMent has Latched onto a prLncLple whLch Ls both too powerful, and yet, Lf the ·Ln prLncLpLe" quaLLfLcatLon Ls appLLed so as to cover typLcaL LLfestyLes of deep ecoLogLsts, a prLncLpLe so rLddLed wLth exceptLons as to barely hang together. But wLthout soMe of the Lntended force of bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM, deep ecology Ls Ln danger of coLLapsLng (LLke Many of Lts followers) Lnto an LnterMedLate posLtLon, as no other part of the pLatforM adequately sustaLns Lts LLMLted separatLon_ Part of what Ls sought wLth the egaLLtarLan prLncLpLe Lnterference, huMan Lnterference to an extent and on a scale far below that of theMe the Ls already afforded a basLs Ln presently prevaLLLng Ls what wLth values-Ln-nature and outsLde the huMan sphere, sLnce Lnterference of value Ls (Lpso facto) LLMLted. Such a prLncLpLe of LLMLted Interference deserves, Ln any case, separate forMuLatLon (whLch Lt usually gaLns Ln deep ecology pLatforMs)_ But even so Lt hardly achLeves the requLsLte separatLon, sLnce LnterMedLate posLtLons can, and do, grant or MaLntaLn soMe such prLncLpLe of lLMLted or reduced Lnterference (thus e-g- BLrch, AttfLeLd, SLnger)_ ~hat Ls requLred Ls a posLtLve equLvaLent of the separatLng feature, of the rejectLon of the greater vaLue assuMptLon, and therewLth of the rejectLon of huMan supreMacy, of the value pLcture of huMans as always nuMber one_ What Ls needed, More generaLLy, Ls a prLncLpLe teLLLng agaLnst the favourLng of one over others sLMpLy on the basLs of specLes, a specLes - huMans Ln partLcuLar -15- prLncLple of bLospecLes LMpartLalLty, to gLve Lt a sLMLlar grandLose tLtle. There Ls soMe reason to suspect that, as elsewhere, a requLreMent of LMparttalLty has been hardened Lnto one of egalLtarLanLsM, that faLrness, because often dLfftcult to assess, has been MLstakenly taken to Lnvolve equaltty. BLospecLes LMpartLalLty LMplLes the avoLdance of specLes chauvLnLsM, that Ls the avotdance of unfaLr treatMent of LteMs outstde the gLven specLes. Because unfaLr, the treatMent concerned lacks any sufftctent justLfLcatLon. Hence, the avotdance of spectes chauvtnLsM Lnvolved Ls effectLvely that prevLously explaLned as a specLal case of class chauvLnLsM. SLMLlarly, the requLreMent of bLospecLes LMpartLalLty Ls a specLal case of the requlreMent of class (or natural group) LMpartlallty, for whlch the arguMents are the saMe as those for the avoldance of class chauvLnLsM. The danger of specLes partLalLty, of favourLng soMe specLes, Ls Much encouraged by a specles fallacy, whLch Ls coMMonly lnvoked ln favourlng huMans. ThLs Ls the error of concludLng that because a few MeMbers of the specles have accoMplLshed soMethtng of (LMMense) value, all MeMbers of the spectes therefore are (hlghly) valuable; all MeMbers of the specles Manage to free-load for the rtde, obtatned by a few MeMbers, so to say. The arguMent, once challenged, usually falls back on an arguMent that goes by way of capacltLes: the reMaLnLng MeMbers of the specles have the capactty to achleve these sorts of thlngs also. But, fLrstly, that Ls not true: LntellLgence, skLlls, and the lLke, vary soMewhat wtthLn specLes, and froM our narrow perspectLve, vary consLderably aMong huMans, soMe of whoM have no capacLty for advanced MatheMatLcs or MusLc. a Secondly, Lt requLres More than capacLty: Lt requLres cLrcuMstances, favourable envlronMent to exercLse theM (hence, ln part, the folly of More huMans ln conspLcuously suboptLMal cLtLes), together wLth a wlll and drlve actually to follow through approprLately on capacLtLes. (CrLtLque, pp.12-16) 4. NON-VIOLENCE The fourth plllar, nonvLolence, Means to the Greens the cessatLon of both personal vLolence and -structural vlolence·, that Ls, vLolence and oppresslon LMposed by the state and by Lnstltutlons. For these reasons the Greens support the concept of self-deterMlnatLon for lndLvLduals and groups. They also advocate peace educatLon Ln the schools, whLch would teach nonvLolent Means of conflLct resolutLon and show chLldren that the cult of the soldLer Ls a cultural, not a natural condltLon. The Greens also call for an end to the vLolence and oppressLon toward woMen, chLldren, and MLnorLty groups so coMMon Ln patrLarchal socLetLes. They want to develop a nonexploLtatlve econoMlc systeM Ln whLch eMployee-owned and -controlled busLnesses replace huge operatlons dLctated by or corporate lnterests. They want to transforM our vlolent state the relatLonshLp wlth nature lnto one of balance and respect. Petra Kelly expresses the centralLty of thLs prLncLple when she says, ·NonvLolence Ls the essentLal Lngredtent ln an ecologLcal socLety. • Most of the Greens eMphatLcally eMbrace the prLncLple of Although nonvLolence, they also realLze that Lts appllcatLon Ls often probleMatLc. Roland Vogt polnted out one of the areas of confll~tlng values: What we have not yet accoMplLshed Ls to say how we show ourselves to be nonvLolent at the MOMent when we partLcLpate Ln governMental functLons, because the state Ls Ltself an LnstLtutLon of vLolence. For exaMple, how wlll a Green cLty counctl act agalnst people who don't pay thelr rent, although they really could because they recelve welfare or because they earn enough. The norMal course Ls warnLng, warnLng, evLctLon notLce, and then evLctLon by force and by polLce. We haven't solved thLs. That Ls, there are stLll no thought-out concepts of how we can reconcLle the deMands of socLal -16- responsLbLL Lty wLth the deMands of non vLoLence. The Greens extend theLr prLncLpLe of nonvLoLence to theLr actLve resLstance agaLnst the Most MassLve and potentLaLLy deadly "anLfestatL on of structural vLoLence: the nuclear arMs race proMoted by the MLLLtary-L ndustrLaL coMpLex and the governMent. In theLr natLonaL headquarter s Ln Bonn the Greens have a poster of OandhL s adage "there Ls no way to peace; peace Ls the way• and one of Thoreau 0 Those who eMbrace nonvLoLent cLvLL dLsobedLenc e, coMMLttLng breaches of Law on the grounds of conscLence, are prepared to suffer · vLoLence or punLshMent theMseLves rather than LnfLLct vLoLence or LnjustLce on others or share responsLbLL Lty for such acts by reMaLnLng passLve. •1,, however, the Law Ls so proMuLgated that Lt of necessLty Makes you an agent of LnjustLce agaLnst another, then I say to you: Break the Law." The MajorLty of Greens strongly endorse - and lLve - the concept of actLve, nonvLoLence resLstance. However, the MarxLst-orL ented MeMbers of the party have never been fully supportLve of that prLncLpLe. They vLew Lt "ereLy as a ·MoralLstLc " tactLc that should be abandoned Ln favor of escaLatLng resLstance Lf Lt does not prove suffLcLentL y effectLve. Petra Kelly's account of the LeftLsts' attLtude on thLs Lssue was sLMLlar to what we had heard froM Many other Greens: They do not understand that nonvLolent actLon Ls an extre"ely subversLve force. They thLnk Lt's harMLess, Ls a for" of obedLence, and changes nothLng, that Lt's LLke beggLng froM the state. ·1t's just a tactLc, a toot," they say. To theM everythLng Ls to be used. But there are soMe thLngs you should never "Lsuse - or even use. They are sLMpLy LntegraL. NonvLoLence cannot be coMproMLsed. Although Many of the advocates of nonvLoLent . resLstance argued that ·such a course cannot be dLsMLssed as "Merely MoraLLstLc" sLnce Lt Ls also absolutely ratLonaL (that Ls, hLstory shows that vLoLence breeds vLolence - structural as welt as personal - so we "ust fLnd another way to effect change, especLaLLy Ln the nuclear age). For Most MeMbers of the greens the choLce was clear, as expressed wLth a cLtatLon froM MartLn Luther KLng: •~e no Longer have a choLce or nonvLoLence between vLoLence and nonvLoLence . The choLce Ls eLther nonexLsten ce." (Green PoLLtLcs, pp.~3-7) Deeply coMMLtted persons Ln the ecology Move"ent sense the vuLnerabLLL ty of natural processes to huMan LnterventLo n, and the fundaMentaL necessLty of MaLntaLnLng bLologLcal dLversLty. AffLrMatLon of the LntegrLty of ecosysteMs frequently LnvoLves a caMpaLgn to save froM developMent soMe rLver of canyon or wLLderness area. In a real sense, ecologLcaL resLstance LnvoLves beco"Lng frLends wLth another specLes or a rLver or a MountaLn, for exaMpLe. In general, the resLster takes up the burden of responsLbLl Lty, the burden of wLtnessLng for the other as Self. ThLs process of befrLendLng "ay be based on ArLstotle's crLterLa for frLendshLp: the proMotLon of the other's good for the other's own sake. Or frLendshLp can be the extensLon of self. When OandhL was asked Lf hLs good deeds Ln a vLLLage expressed hLs huManLtarLa nLsM, he repLLed he worked "to serve no • GandhL s stateMent defLned MaturLty. ALtruLsM was one else but Myself unnecessary because hLs self eMbraced the whole vLLLage. 0 There are Many dLfferent tactLcs of LndLvLduaLs and organL2atLo ns Ln save the Earth•, but or poLLtLcaL caMpaLgns whLch seek to ·save the rLver -17- there Ls one overrLdLng or baste norM of ecoLogLcaL resLstLng: non-vLoLence. Ecology teaches us that MankLnd Ls not the center of LLfe on the planet. Ecology has taught us that the whole earth Ls part of our "body" and that we Must Learn to respect Lt as we respect ourselves. As we feel for ourselves, we Must feel for aLL forMs of LLfe - the whales, the seals, the forests, the seas. The treMendous beauty of ecoLogLcaL thought Ls that Lt shows us a pathway back to an understandLng and an apprecLatLon of LLfe LtseLf - an understandLng and apprecLatLon that Lt Ls LMperatLve to that very way or LLfe. As wLth the whales and the seals, LLfe Must be saved by nonvLoLent confrontatLons, by what the Quakers caLL "bearLng wLtness•. A person bearLng wLtness Must accept responsLbLLLty for beLng aware of an LnjustLce. The person May then choose to do soMethLng or stand by, but he May not turn away Ln Lgnorance. The Greenpeace ethLc Ls not onty to personally bear wLtness to atrocLtLes agaLnst lLfe; Lt Ls to take dLrect actLon to prevent theM. ~hLLe actLon Must be dLrect, Lt Must also be non-vLoLent. Ue Must obstruct a wrong wLthout offerLng personal vLoLence to Lts perpetrators. Ue Must know that our greatest strength Ls LLfe LtseLf, and the coMMLtMent to dLrect our lLves to prbtect others. EcoLogLcaL resLstLng could be defLned as keepLng the peace of the neLghborhood. Rarely are vandals or vLolent neLghbors welcoMe Ln the neLghborhood. Uhen the neLghbors Lnclude rLvers and MountaLns, seashores and prarLes, then the LntegrLty of the ecosysteM Ls MaLntaLned. In hLs explLcatLon of GandhL's theory of nonvLoLence, Arne several norMs of nonvLoLent potLtLcat caMpaLgns. These Lnctude: Naess lLsts l. Announce your case and the goal of your caMpaLgn explLcLtty and clearly, dLstLnguLshLng essentLaLs froM nonessentLats. 2. Seek personal contact wLth your opponent and be avaLLable to hLM. · BrLng confLLctLng groups Lnto personal contact. 3. Turn your opponent Lnto a beLLever Ln and supporter of your case, but do not coerce or expLoLt hLM. ~- You provoke your opponent Lf you deLLberateLy or carelessly destroy hLs property. of ecoLogLcaL resLstLng denounce theorLsts LeadLng nonvLoLence as tactLcs. But as Rober ALtken RoshL wrote: vLoLence versus Non-vLoLence Ls not just a tactLc for people who Make Lt a practLce ... The end Ls the Means, Ln other words. Look at poLLtLcaL hLstory or at the hLstory of any MoveMents. Uhen we work for certaLn goals, those goals tend to betray us. Ue defeated L.B. Johnson only to get RLchard NLxon. Ue got rLd of the B-1 BoMber (teMporarLLy) and the CruLse MLssLle appeared. Ue have to Make our actLon the goal. Our actLon Must LtseLf be the truth. Our actLon Must be Lts own defense, Lts own procLaMatLon, Lts own purpose. (Letter to the author, June 1982) Both on practLcaL and ethLcaL grounds, vLoLence Ls rejected as a Mode of ecotogLcal resLstance. TerrorLst attacks on nuclear plants or MLssLle sLtes could cause ·red" alerts and vLolent responses froM governMent agencLes. PLacLng one's own LLfe at rLsk, such as sLttLng Ln front of bulldozers or polLce cars at a deMonstratLon to protest destructLon of the raLn forest, May be LLLegaL but not vLoLent. And spontaneous acts such as the decoMMLssLonLng of a power generator or bulldozer May draMatLze the contLnuLng destructLon of a -18- spectal ecosysteM. Ecologtcal reststance also Means defendtng natural dtverstty through educatLon, publLc speakLng, and use of lawsuLts; tryLng to convert publtc opLnton to the cause; and tnforMLng poltttctans and dectsLon Makers. ResLstance Ls another naMe for afftrMatLon - joyful affLrMatton of the tntegrLty of Nature, natural dLversLty, and MLnLMuM huMan LMpact on place. (Deep Ecolo9H, pp.16-17) The Deep Ecology MOVeMent and peace MoveMent. Ftfteen years ago close cooperatton between supporters of deep ecology and actLvtsts Ln the peace MoveMent was out of reach. Rather suddenly thts sttuatton Ls totally changed. SoMe of us, ltke Myself, favour unLlateral dtsarMaMent and establtshMent of MtlLtant, but unherotc, non-vtolent defence. At thts potnt Lt ts tMportant for actLvtsts to stress the dtstLnctLon between actLon, caMpaLgn and MOVeMent. They May be tllustrated by three concentrLc cLrcles. The LnnerMost coMprLse the dLrect actLons wLthLn a caMpatgn, for Lnstance, a dated deMonstratLon at a parttcular locatLon agatnst the butldtng of a daM, or the non-vtolent obstructton of the transport of the MachLnery on the way to the daM sLte. ThLs May be part of a ten year old caMpaLgn to save a rtver (LncludLng of course tts ecosysteM) froM developMent of soMe sort. Ten dLrect acttons May be fatlure, but nevertheless theLr LMpact May conflLct, contrtbute to vLctory of the caMpaLgn. (Or May polarLze the antt-actLvtsts Many what Ls That contrLbutLng to the faLlure of the caMpatgn? MaLntaLn.) The rLver caMpaLgn together wLth other analogous caMpaLgns May be seen as part of a MoveMent of greater or lesser generaltty. A MoveMent to save rtvers, or More generally a conservatton MoveMent. Many caMpatgns May be fatlures, but the MOVeMent goes on. (Hates on Poltttcs, pp.l~-JS) Gandhtan and other forMs of non-vtolence are wtdely found wLthtn the deep ecologLcal MoVeMent. There Ls a reluctance to accept destructLon of MachLnery Ln efforts to stop destructton even of holy places. There Ls soMe dtsagreeMent on thts and related subjects. I do not thtnk that the coMpletely general norMs of care and consLderatLon should be looked upon as part of the specLftc platforM of the deep ecology MoveMent . . (PhLlosophLcal Aspects, p.31) In suM, the paradtgM of deep ecology Ls revolutLonary tn tts MetaphysLcs, epLsteMology, and cosMology, but deep ecologLsts do not seek to overthrow governMents by force of arMs or to Lssue anythLng lLke a coMprehensLve, alleMbracLng polLtLcal prograM for brLngLng about the new order. The conteMporary deep ecology MoveMent seeMs to be what Robert NLsbet has called a "wLthdrawal and renewal" MoveMent such as has perLodLcally arLsen .Ln ~estern socLety sLnce the fall of the RoMan EMpLre. There ts no poltttcal party of "deep ecology,· no cadre of poltttcal revoluttonarte s. Thts ts not an approprtate approach for deep ecologtsts. No frontal confrontatLons wLth reforMLst envLronMental tsts or wLth the doMLnant socLal/polttLc al order Ls destred. It would be counter-product Lve by Maktng people More defensLve of thetr LdeologLcal posLtLon. Deep ecology Ls not an atteMpt to add one More tdeology Ln the crowded fLeld of Modern LdeologLes. Deep ecologLsts are questLng for ways to lLberate and cultLvate the ecologLcal conscLousness. FroM ecologtcal conscLousness wtll naturally flow an ecologtcal reststance. (Deep Ecology MoveMent, pp.316-17) 5: ON SELF-REALIZATION Naess: Self-realtzatLo n ts the realtzatLon of -19- the potentLaltttes of ltfe. OrganLsMs that dLffer froM each other Ln three ways gLve us Less dLversLty than organLsMs that dLffer froM each other Ln one hundred ways. Therefore, the selfreaLLzatLon we experLence when we LdentLfy wLth the unLverse Ls heLghtened by an Lncrease Ln the nuMber of ways Ln whLch LndLvLduals, socLetLes, and even specLes and lLfe forMs realLze theMselves. The greater the dLversLty, the, the greater the self-realLzatLon. ThLs seeMLng duaLLty between LndLvLduaLs and the totalLty Ls encoMpassed by what I call the Self and the ChLnese call the Tao. Most people Ln deep ecology have had the feelLng - usually, but not always, Ln nature - that they are connected wLth soMethLng greater than theLr ego, greater than theLr naMe, theLr faMLLy, theLr specLaL attrLbutes as an LndLvLdual - a feelLng that Ls often called oceanLc because Many have Lt on the ocean. ULthout that LdentLfLcatLon, one Ls not easLLy drawn to becoMe LnvoLved Ln deep ecology. Many people have thLs feeLLng when they see a death struggle - for Lnstance tLny anLMaLs LLke fLtes or Mosquttoes fLghtLng for thetr ltves. Uhen they see anLMals sufferLng, they May LdentLfy wLth LLfe forMs they usually don't LdentLfy wLth. Such sLtuatLons offer us an opportunLty to develop a More Mature poLnt of vLew. Insofar as thLs conversLon, these deep feelLngs are reLLgLous, deep ecology has a reLLgLous coMponent, and those people who have done the Most to Make socLetLes aware of the destructLve way Ln whLch we LLve Ln reLatLon to natural settLngs have had such relLgLous feeLLngs. Rachel Carson, for exaMpLe, says that we cannot do what we do, we have no reLLgLous or ethLcaL justLfLcatLon for behavLng as we do toward nature. Her arguMent Ls not calculated or reasonable Ln the usual sense, sayLng that, Lf we contLnue poLsonLng nature, we wLLl be Less healthy, or wLLL have fewer resources, and so on. She Ls sayLng that we are sLMply not perMLtted to behave Ln that way. SoMe wLll say that nature Ls not Man's property, Lt's the property of God; others wLLL say Lt Ln other ways. The MaLn poLnt Ls that deep ecology has a reLLgLous coMponent, fundaMental LntuLtLons that everyone Must cuLtLvate Lf he or she Ls to have a LLfe based on values and not functLon LLke a coMputer. Uhereas shallow ecology, Lf taken to Lts logLcaL extreMe, Ls lLke a coMputerLzed, cost-benefLt anaLysLs for huMans. (SLMpLe tn Means, p.11) If the terM seLf-reaLLzatLon Ls applLed, Lt should be kept Ln MLnd that Me", "ego , and self have shLftLng denotatLons. NothLng Ls evLdent and •1·, LndLsputabLe. Even that we are Ls debatable Lf we Make the questLon dependent upon answertng what we are. Self-realLzatLon Ln Lts absolute MaxLMUM Ls, as I see Lt, the Mature experLence of oneness Ln dLversLty as depLcted Ln the above verse. The MLnLMUM Ls the seLf-reaLL2atLon by More of Less consLstent egotLsM - by the narrowest experLence of what constLtutes one's self and a MaxLMUM of alLentatLon. As eMpLrLcaL beLngs we dweLL soMewhere Ln between, but Lncreased MaturLty LnvoLves tncrease of the wLdeness of the self. The seLf-reaLtzatton MaxLMuM should not necessarLLy be conceLved as a MystLcal or MedLtattonaL state. ·ey MedLtatLon soMe perceLve the Self tn the self by the self; others by the path of knowledge and stLLl others by the path of work (karMa-yoga) [Gtta: Chapter 13,, verse 2~]. GandhL was a karMa-yoga, reaLLzLng hLMseLf through socLaL and poLLtLcaL actLon. The terMs MystLcal unLon and MystLcLsM are avoLded here for three reasons: Ftrst, strong Mysttcal tradLtLons stress the dtssolutLon of Lndtvtdual selves Lnto a nondLversLfLed supreMe whole. Both froM cultural and ecoLogLcaL poLnt of vtew dLversLty and LndLvtdualLty are essentLaL. Second, there Ls a strong terMLnoLogtcaL trend wtthtn sctenttftc coMMuntttes to assoctate MysttcLsM wtth MystLcs tend to agree that MysttcaL ThLrd, confuston. and vagueness conscLousness Ls rarely sustatned under norMal, everyday condLttons. But strong, -20- w~de LdentLfLcatLon can color experLence under such condLtLons. GandhL was only MargLnally concerned wLth 'nature'. In hLs ashraM poLsonous snakes were perMLtted to tLve LnsLde and outsLde huMan dwettLngs. AntL-poLson MedLcLnes were frowned upon~ GandhL LnsLsted that trust awakens trust, and that snakes have the saMe rLght to tLve land btossoM as the huMans. (IdentLfLcatLon, pp.259-6) In keepLng wLth the spLrLtual tradLtLons of Many of the worlds s retLgLons, the deep ecology norM of setf-reatL2atLon goes beyond the Modern western self hedonLstLc whLch Ls defLned as an Lsotated ego strLvLng prLMarLly for gratLfLcatLon or for a narrow sense of LndLvLduat satvatLon Ln thLs tLfe or the next. ThLs socLatty prograMMed sense of the narrow self or socLat self dLslocates us, and leaves us prey to whatever fad or fashLon Ls prevalent Ln our socLety or socLat reference group. Ue are thus robbed of be9LnnLn9 the search for our unLque spLrLtuat/b.LologLcal personhood. SpLrLtual growth, or unfotdLng, begLns when we cease to understand or see ourselves as Lsolated and narrow coMpetLng egos and begLn to LdentLfy wLth other huMans forM our faMLly and frLends to, eventually, our specLes. But the deep ecology sense of self requLres a further MaturLty and growth, an LdentLfLcatLon whLch goes beyond huManLty to Lnclude the nonhuMan world. Ue Must see beyond our narrow conteMporary cultural assuMptLons and values, and the conventLonat wLsdoM of our tLMe and place, and thLs Ls best achLeved by the MedLtatLve deep questLonLng process. Only Ln thLs way can we hope to attaLn full Mature personhood and unLqueness. A nurturLng nondoMLnatLng socLety can help Ln the "real work" of becoMLng a whole person. The ·real work• can be suMMarLzed syMbolLcally as the realLzatLon of "self-Ln-Self- where ·setf· stands for organLc wholeness. ThLs process of the full unfoldLng of the self can also be SUMMarLzed by the phrase, •No one Ls saved untLt we are all saved,· where the phrase •one• Lncludes not only Me, an LndLvLduat huMan, but all huMans, whales, grLzzly bears, whole raLn forest ecosysteMs, MountaLns and rLvers, the tLnLest MLcrobes Ln the soLt, and so on. (Deep Ecology, pp.66-7) of norM SubscrLbLng to these prLncLples, Naess asserts, coMes froM the self-realLzatLon, that ·.~. wLth MaturLty, huMan beLngs wLtl experLence joy and sorrow when other tLfe forMs experLence sorrow. Not only wLll we feet sad when our brother or the dog or cat feels sad, but we wLll grLeve when lLvLng beLngs, LncludLng landscapes, are destroyed. In our cLvLlLzatLon, we have vast Means' of destructLon at our dLsposal but extreMely lLttle MaturLty Ln our feelLngs. Only a very narrow range of feetLngs have Lnterested Most huMan beLngs untLt now.• ThLs deepenLng of feetLngs seeMs to run counter . to the trend Ln Modern socLety toward superfLcLat relatLonshLps . . . . Arne Naess asserts that ·setfrealLzatLon cannot develop far wLthout sharLng joys and sorrows wLth others, or More fundaMentalty, wLthout the developMent of the narrow ego of the sMall chLld Lnto the coMprehensLve structure of a Self that coMprLses all huMan beLngs. The ecologLcal MoveMent -- as Many earlLer phLlosophLcat MoveMents -- takes a step further and asks for developMent such that, there Ls a deep LdentLfLcatLon of LndLvLduals wLth all lLfe." I suggest that the leaders of the ecology MoveMent devetopMent theLr ethLcs after they had Moved along thLs path of Self-reatLzatLon. (Stone/Sky, pp.6-7) But what Ls wrong wLth the wLdely applauded atteMpt, runnLng through Much LdeatLstLc and Eastern thLnkLng, to explLcate value through self-realLsatLon? FLrstly, lLke utLlLtarLan explLcatLons, such as those through happLness and satLsfactLon, Lt Ls Much too experLentLal. It renders value a feature of those -21- who exper~ence value - roughly of valuers - rather than of what ~s valued, and bears value. It Ls lLke sayLng that colour Ls a Matter of those (huMans) who perceLve colour, not of the (coMposLtLon of) thLngs that are coloured. And reMove the experLences, those undertakLng self-realLsatLon, as Ln the days before lLfe appears and value dLsappears. And that too Ls wrong. Secondly, even Lf self-realLsatLon were always worthwhLle and never tLed to by contrast wLth lLfe - there are exaMpLes of value whLch fall beyond evLl (Ln presented often seLf-reaLLsatLon. A certaLn sort of dLrectLon Ls bLocheMLstry texts Lnterested Ln explaLnLng lLfe) as a MLnLMal condLtLon of lLfe of an organLsr1 or syster1: caLL that dLrectLon, s·eLf-dLrecti.on. Thus, deep ecology, Lnsofar as Lt values (just) LLfe, values (just) self-dLrectLon. In these terMs, the contractLon froM seLf-dLrectLon to self-realLsatLon, as Ln Ecosophy T, Looks LLke a M~stake. A s~r1LLar M~stake appears to underLLe contractLons to ecologLcal conscLousness (as Ln Devall); for self-realLsatLon Looks rer1arkabLy L~ke consc~ous seLf-d~rectLon, roughly an LntersectLon of seLf-dLrectLon wLth conscLousness. The argur1ents asser1bLed thus underMLne both of what Devall presents as the uLtLMate norMs of deep ecology', nar1eL~eLf-reaLLsatLon and bLocentrLsM. 'These are not proved but "felt"' (83, p.5). But they are not felt, at least by those who perceLve value beyond what lLves; rather they are dLsproved, by a serLes of counterexar1ples to each as uLtLr1ate norr1s. (CrLtLque, pp.2~-5) In partLcular presentatLons of a partLcular phLLosophy froM whLch the Naess-SessLon platforM Ls derLved, naMely Ecosophy r' I use a Model where 'Self-realLzaHon!' and sLr1LLar short forr1uLatLons are taken to express a top norr1 of a norr1atLve systeM. ~e r1ay artLcuLate 'r1odeLs' of a very cor1prehensLve norr1atLve syster1, and use Lt to explore the LnterrelatLons of our own vLews and those of others. I have extensLvely used a Model of a cor1prehensLve yLew I call 'Ecosophy r ·' and I use only one top norM whLch on the Most crude ser1antLcaL Level Ls expressed by a one word sentence 'seLf-realLzatLon! '. A r1aLn LnspLratLon for - the choLce cor1es froM the use of the terN by GandhL. Another MaLn LnspLratLon Ls the strong trend Ln Uestern LndustrLaL states towards an LndLvLdualLsM favourLng lLfe as a Long ego-trLp full of 'happenLngs' . In France there Ls a group of 'egologLsts' , the nar1e beLng chosen as a contrast to 'ecologLsts ' : ~hatever the reLatLons between LndLvLdual beLngs, huMan nature Ls such that the egocentred Lnterests of each of us Ls stronger than any other. To foster the kLnds of soLLdar~ty the pol~t~cal left ~s taLkLng about, or the soLLdarLty wLth other lLfe forMs wh~ch . ecologLsts (the greens) preach, w~ll therefore never succeed and ~s apt to hurt the LndLvLduaL . ' seLf-reaL~zatLon!' Ls a norM that LnLtLaLLy arLses vLvLd Lnterest aMong those who are LnfLuenced by the ego-trLp trend, but are then astonLshed and bewLLdered by the d~stLnctLons between ego, self and Self. Th~s ~s new to Most of theM and they are often Led to recons~der theLr LndLvLduaL~st posLtLon. ThLs reconsLderLng Ls for Me a confLrMatLon of the SocratLc value of the choLce of forr1ulatLon. The r1aLn poLnt Ln thLs connectLon Ls that huMans undergo a r1aturLn9 process, and only Lf thLs process coMes to a 'prer1ature' halt, LndentLfLcatLon wLth others and solLdarLty faLL to develop. If we, as I do, add the SpLnozLst (courageous) hypothes~s that the joy and equLMLndedness you exper~ence as a Mature person ~s deeper and rLcher than that you exper~ence as an ~r1r1ature grown 'reaLLzaHon of the (wLde) Self!' gets to be an ~nstructi.ve and ~nsp~rLng up, -22- forMu l,a. The Self-realLzatLo n norM proposed by Me has been taken too serLously as Lf one, two or three world expressLons were adequate phLLosophLcaL expressLons of a hL9hest' norM. An adequate expressLon LMplLes that the LntrLcate subject ego, se Lf, Se Lf ', that Ls, b Lo Log Lea L, soe La L and Hetaphys Lea L se Lf ar·e dLstLnguLshed. Only Ln relatLon to a faLrly Large body of phLlosophLcaL analysLs we can forMulate adequate phLlosophLcal prLncLples. It has always been that way. (Notes on Sylvan, pp.17-19) HY 0 6: OH LIFESTYLE The deep ecologLcal MoveMent Ls recruLted froM people who do not look upon natural surroundLngs as a Means for recreatLon and repaLr. LLfe and work Ln natural surroundLngs Ls a vLtal concern. The rLchness of that LLfe Ls so vast, and the Means are so sLMple, that they have dLffLculty understandLng why others seeM to need Means on a level of coMplLcatLon and sophLstLcatLon that Ls unLque Ln the hLstory of [huMan]kLnd. They cannot but fLght agaLnst the acceleratLng destructLon of nature due to the MaLntaLnLng and expandLng the productLon of such Means. They do not thLnk people who serLousLy reflect upon the reLatLon between Means and ultLMate LntrLnsLc values can justLfy the present polLcLes. As an LllustratLon of dLfferent Means/end ratLos, coMpare the dLrect and LndLrect technologLcal requLreMent of a faMLly wLth MeMbers froM 8 to 80 years old lLvLng Ln a natural surroundLng and goLng cross-country skLLng together, wLth that of a faMLly doLng slaloM at a bLg fashLonable skL resort. (PhLlosophLcal. Aspects, pp.35-6) 0 RLch Ln ends, sLMple Ln Means!.' HuMan Lnterference Ln the ecosphere can only be reduced to tolerable levels Lf people, and especLally the average (or econoMLcally above average) people of the LndustrLal states adopt lLfe styles requLrLng sLMple MaterLal Means. ThLs Ls coMpatLble wLth or even favourable towards rLchness of goals. 'Increase the sensLtLvLty to and apprecLatLon of what there Ls suffLcLent of for all!' The educatLonal slogan fLghts agaLnst the confusLon of value wLth Market value and prLce. A way to MaxLMLze our abLlLty to derLve deep satLsfactLon froM the goods of whLch there stLll, Ls, or coul.d be, enough. The present lLfe style of average people Ln LndustrLal socLetLes cannot be a global lLfe style wLthout LrreversLble, colossal destructLon of condLtLons of LLfe on Earth. (Hotes on PolLtLcs, p.2) It ' s a shLft froM beLng doMLnated by Means, LnstruMents, gadgets, all the Many thLngs we thLnk wLLl gLve us pleasure or Make us happy or perfect. The shLft coMes about when we serLously ask ourselves, In what sLtuatLons do I experLence the MaxLMUM satLsfactLon of MY whole beLng? and fLnd that we need practLcally nothLng of what we are supposed to need for a rLght and fuLfLlLLng LLfe. And Lf we Make that shLft toward a LLfe sLMple Ln Means but rLch Ln goals, we are not threatened by the plans elaborated by envLronMentalL sts. For Lnstance, we can see that, Lnstead of an ene~gy cr~s~s, we have a crLsLs of consuMptLon - we have More than enough energy. There Ls no reason to contLnue LncreasLng our consuMptLon of energy or of any of the other MaterLaL aspects of lLfe. In countrLes lLke the UnLted States the crLsLs Ls rather one of LLfestyle, of our tradLtLons of thoughtlessness and confusLon, or our LnabLLLty to questLon what Ls and Ls not worthwhLLe Ln l,Lfe. ULthLn fLfty years, eLther we wLl,l, need a dLctatorshLp to save what Ls Left of the dLversLty of LLfe forMs, or we wLLl have a shLft of values, a shLft of our total vLew such that no dLctatorshLp wLLL -23- be . needed. It Ls thoroughly natural to stop doMLnatLng and expLoLtLng and destroyLng the planet. A "sMooth" ~ay, LnvoLvLng harMonLous LLvLng wLth nature, or a "rough" way, LnvoLvLng dLctatorshLp and coercion - those are the optLdns. I tell people that, Lf they Make clear theLr fundaMentaL assuMptLons about what Ls needed for a LLfe sLMpLe Ln Means and rLch Ln ends, they wLLL necessarLLy coMe to the conctusLon that Lt Ls not tack of energy consuMptLon that Makes theM unhappy. They can then oppose nuclear power wLthout havLng read thLck books and wLthout knowLng the MyrLad facts that are used Ln newspapers and perLodLcaLs. And they Must also fLnd others who feel the saMe and forM cLrcLes of frLends who gLve one another confidence and support Ln lLvLng Ln a way that the MajorLty fLnds rLdLcuLous, naLve, stupLd, and sLMpt~stLc. But Ln order to do that, one Must already have enough seLf-confLdenc e to follow one's LntuLtLon - a quaLLty very Much LackLng Ln broad sectLons of the populace. Most people follow the trends and advertLseMents and becoMe phLLosophLcaL and ethLcaL crLpples. I thLnk that, Ln the long run, Ln order to joyfully and wholeheartedly partLcLpate Ln the deep ecology MoveMent you have to take your own LLfe very seriously. People who successfully MaLntaLn a Low MaterLaL standard of lLvLng and successfully cultLvate a deep, Lntense Lnner lLfe are Much better able to consLstentLy MaLntaLn a deep ecoLogLcat vLew and to act on behalf of Lt. As 1· sLt down and breathe deeply and just feel where I aM, I can ask Myself where and when I really enjoy MY LLfe and what would be the MLnLMuM Means necessary to MaLntaLn those enjoyable feelLngs and sLtuatLons. For exaMpLe, I Myself have too eager to go cLLMbLng Ln the HLMaLayas, whereas the pecutLar been satLsfactLon I have as a MountaLneer could be had Ln Norway . If you concentrate on what gLves you satLsfactLon, you wLLL fLnd that Lt can be obtaLned Much More easLly and sLMply than we are educated to belLeve Ln our socLety, where bL99er, More elaborate and More expensLve are always consLdered better. The deveLopMent of sensLtLvLty toward the good thLngs whLch we already have Ln suffLcLent quantLty Ls the true goal of educatLon. Not that we need to LLMLt our desLres. I'M not for the sLMple lLfe, except Ln the sense of a tLfe sLMpLe Ln Means but rLch Ln goals and values. I have treMendous aMbLtLon. Only the best Ls good enough for Me. I LLke rLchness, and I feel rLcher than the rLchest person when I'M Ln MY cottage Ln the country wLth water I've carrLed froM a certaLn well and wood I've gathered froM the forest. Uhen you take a heLLcopter to the SUMMLt of a MountaLn,° the vLew Looks LLke a postcard, and, Lf there ' s a restaurant on the top, you wLll coMplaLn that the food Ls not properly Made. ~hereas Lf you struggle up froM the bottoM, you have thLs deep feeLLng of satLsfactLon, and even sandwLches MLxed wLth skL wax and sand taste fantastLc. (SLMple Ln Means, pp . 11-12) (1) Use of s LMple Means, avoidance of unnecessary coMplLcated LnstruMents and other sorts of Means. (2) ChoLce of actLvLtLes Most dLrectLy servLng values Ln theMselves and havLng LntrLnsLc value. AvoLdance of actLvLtLes whLch are Merely auxLlLary, havLng no LntrLnsLc value , or beLng Many stages away froM fundaMentaL goals. (3) AntL-consuMerLs M . ThLs negatLve attLtude follows froM (1) and (2). (~) Endeavour to MaLntaLn and Lncrease the sensLtLvLty and apprecLatLon of goods of whLch there Ls enough for all to enjoy. ' (5) Absence or low degree of novophLLL - the love of what Ls new Merely because Lt Ls new. (6) Effort to dwell Ln sLtuatLons of LntrLnsLc value and to act rather than beLng busy . (7) ApprecLatLon of ethnLc and cultural differences aMon9 people, not feelLn9 theM as threats . (8) Concern about the sLtuatLon of the thLrd and fourth world and atteMpt to -24- avoLd a standard of LLvLng too Much dLfferent froM and hLgher than the needy. (Global soLLdarLt y of LLfe style). (9) ApprecLat Lon of LLfe styles whLch are unLversaL LzabLe, whLch are not blatantly LMpossLbLe to sustaLn wLthout LnjustLce toward fellow huMans or other specLes. (10) To go for depth and rLchness of experLenc e rather than LntensLty . (11) To apprecLat e and choose, when possLbLe, MeanLngfuL work rather than just MakLng a LLvLng. (12) To Lead a coMpLex, not a coMpLLca ted LLfe, tryLn9 to reaLLze as Many aspects of posLtLve experLenc es as possLbLe wLthLn each tLMe-Lnte rvaL. (13) CuLtLvatL ng LLfe Ln coMMunLty (GeMeLns chaft) rather than Ln socLety (OeseLLs chaft}. sMaLL scale Ln prLMary productLo n (14) ApprecLat Lon of or partLcLpa tLon agrLcuLtu re, forestry, fLshLng. (15) Effort to satLsfy vLtaL needs rather than desLres. (Paradox, pp.57-8) In soMe Eastern tradLtLon s, the student Ls presented wLth a koan, a sLMpLe story or stateMent whLch May sound paradoxLc aL or nonsensLc aL on the surface but as the student turns and turns Lt Ln hLs or her MLnd, authentLc understan dLng eMerges. ThLs dLrect actLon · of turnLng and turnLn9, seeLn9 froM dLfferent perspectL ves and froM dLfferent depths, Ls requLred for the cuLtLvatL on of conscLou sness. The koan-LLke phrase for deep ecology, suggested by proMLnen t NorwegLan phLLosoph er Arne Naess Ls: ·sLMpLe Ln Means, rLch Ln ends.· (Deep Ecology, p.10) The LdeoLogLcaL change Ls MaLnLy that of apprecLat Lng LLfe quaLLty Ln sLtuatLon s of Lnherent value) rather than adherLng to an (dweLLLng LncreasLn gLy hLgher standard of LLvLng. There wLLL be a profound awareness of the dLfferenc e between bLg and great. SoMe econoMLs ts crLtLcLze the terM "quaLLty of LLfe" because Lt Ls supposed to be vague. But on closer LnspectLo n, what they consLder to be vague Ls actuaLLy the non-quan tLtatLve nature of the terM. One cannot quantLfy adequatel y what Ls LMportant for the quaLLty of LLfe as dLscussed here, and there Ls no need to do so. There Ls aMple rooM for dLfferent op~n~ons about prLorLtLe s: what should be done fLrst, what next? What Cs Most urgent? What Ls necessary as opposed to what Ls hL9hLy desLrabLe ? But the dLfferenc es do not exclude vLgorous cooperatL on. ~hat Ls gaLned froM tentatLve Ly forMuLatL ng basLc vLews shared today by Most or all supporter s of the deep ecology MoveMent? Hopefully Lt Makes Lt a LLttLe easLer to LocaLLze the MoveMent aMong the Many 'aLternat Lve' MoveMents. Hopefully thLs does not Lead to LsoLatLon but rather to even better cooperatL on wLth Many other aLternatL ve MoveMents. It MLght also Make soMe of us More clear about where we stand, and More clear about whLch dLsagreeM ents MLght profLtabL y be reduced and whLch ones MLght profLtabL y be sharpened . After aLL dLversLt y!' Ls a hLgh Level norM! (BasLc, p.6,9) 0 A set of platforM forMulatL on should be vague and aMbLguous enough to be capable or rather dLfferen t phLLosoph LcalLy relevant Lnterpret atLons. The prLncLpLe s of Lnterpret atLon of pLatforMs of MoveMents reseMbLe those of Lnterpret atLon of Laws. Vagueness Ls here essentLaL prLMarLLy because those appLyLng the Laws Must have soMe freedoM Ln adaptLng theM to ever changLng cLrcuMst ances, but also because the forMuLatL on Must slur over, or abstract froM MLnor dLfferenc es of relevant opLnLon aMon9 those who have supported the Lssue of the Law. On the other hand, the Lnterpret atLon of the text of a phLLosop her reseMbLes that of a testaMent ( 'wLLL' ). Exactly what the testator Lntends Ls the -25- sole crLterLon of correctness of the LnterpretatLon . Uhether hLs or her terMLnology Ls abhorent or crazy Ls Lrrelevant. (Hates on Sylvan, pp.10-11) 7: ON BIOREGIOHALISM The central eleMent of bLoregLon Ls the LMportance gLven to natural systeMs "both as the source of physLcal nutrLtLon and as the body of Metaphors froM whLch our spLrLts draw sustenance. To understand natural systeMs Ls to begLn an understandLng of the self." A second eleMent of bLoregLon Ls setf-regulatLo n: •anarchy doesn't Mean out Lt Means out of theLr control.• Local coMMunLtLes LnspLred by a control; of shared concern for the bLoregLon, for "tettLng be• the plants and natLve anLMals of that place, ~an Make decLsLons concernLng LndLvLduat and coMMunat actLons whLc respect the LntegrLty of natural processes Ln that place. CarLng for a place Means avoLdLng exptoLtatLon. thLrd eleMent coMposLng the bLoregLonal notLon Ls spLrLt. • There Ls no sLngle relLgLous practLce for thLs sense of bLoregLonat spLrLt. It can be ChrLstLan, BuddhLst, NatLve AMerLcan or others; based on deep ecologLcal LnsLghts, Lt can be expressed Ln nuMerous ways. (Deep Ecology, pp.21-22) ·A UhLte the bLoregLonal, MLnorLty tradLtLon seeMs approprLate to us for cuttLvatLng ecotogLcal conscLousness, atlowLng for bLologLcat dLversLty wLth sLMplLcLty of Means, there are tough, practLcat decLsLons to Make. ConsLstent wLth our uttLMate norMs, Lt seeMs that one prLncLple Ls protectLon of endangered specLes of plants and anLMals as part of the general norM of unLty Ln dLversLty. Another norM Ls bLoregLonal responsLbLlLty . The local coMMunLty Ls the place for decLsLons. However, what happens when a local COMMunLty's needs conflLct wLth the norM of protectLng specLes dLversLty? Such a sLtuatLon occurred on the north slope of Alaska where natLve EskLMos were huntLng bowhead whales Ln the 1970s. The InternatLonat UhatLng Co~MLssLon ruled that thLs was an endangered specLes of whale and consLdered a total ban on the kLttLng of bowhead. However, the natLve EskLMos pleaded that Lt was part of theLr tradLtLon to kLtt whales. TheLr Myths and tLfestyle were dependent on Lt. It they dLdn't kLll whales they would be More dependent on canned Meat froM the "tower forty-eLght": gLven theM by welfare departMents. ThLs soMewhat sptLt the envLronMentalL sts . Many groups supported a total ban on the kLllLng of bowheads untLl ecologLsts deterMLned that theLr poputatLon had "suffLcLently Lncreased, • but FrLends of the Earth took the posLtLon that EskLMos be allowed to take a regulated nuMber of bowheads usLng theLr tradLtLonal Methods (no advanced technology for kLtlLng theM was allowed). Arne Haess provLdes an exaMple froM the bLoregLon ·of northern Horway where farMers and herders, through expansLon of farMs and nuMber of sheep , were rapLdty encroachLng on habLtat of wolves and bears. SoMe suggested kLllLng all bears sLnce a few bears seeMed to be eatLng soMe sheep. But others suggested LdentLfyLng the probleM More carefully. Uas a specLfLc bear becoMLng More and More Lnterested Ln sheep? Could that bear be entLced to refraLn froM eatLng sheep? Could Lt be reMoved to another tocat(on? Could the farMers agree to keep theLr sheep out of areas where bears were known to have dens or graze? Only as a last resort would the coMMunLty consLder the optLon of kLllLng that bear. ThLs approach Ls Ln great contrast wLth that favoured by soMe ranchers and such as wolves, farMers Ln the AMerLcan Uest . Uhen a •predator" Ls defLned to elLMLnate Lt, undertaken are efforts systeMLc then etc. coyotes, eagles, poLson •1oso", of spreadLng LncludLng aerLal huntLng of wolves (Ln Alaska), -26- shootLn g eagles wLth hLgh-po wered rLfles and destroyL ng habLtat (dennLng areas, rLparLan habLtat of rats, etc.). (Deep Ecology , pp.148- 9) DasMann wrLtes about "bLoregL onalLsM " and •ecodeve lopMent " for the peoples of of AfrLca and the South PacLfLc , and refers approvL ngly to the concept Ln are ("~e House Lynn and e 6orslLn "future prLMLtL ve• develop ed by Jerry another to ve prLMLtL transLtL on froM one condLtL on of syMbLot Lc balance - the a whLch we wLll call future prLMLtLve ... a condLtL on havLng the attrLbu tes of Mature ecosyste M: stable, dLverse , Ln syMbLot Lc balance agaLn") . OasMann dLstLng uLshes between what he calls ecosyste M people and bLosphe re people: "Ecosyst eM people lLve wLthLn a sLngle ecosyste M, or at Most two or three M adjacen t and closely related ecosyste Ms. They are depende nt upon that ecosyste BLosphe re people draw theLr support , not froM the for theLr survLva l resource s of any one ecosyste M, but froM the entLre bLosphe re. BLosphe re people can exert LncredL ble pressure upon an ecosyste M they wLsh to exploLt , and create great devastat Lon - soMethL ng that would be LMpossLble or unthLnk able for people who were depende nt upon that partLcu lar ecosyste M ... BLosphe re people create a natLona l parks. Ecosyste M people have always lLved Ln the equLval ent of at natLona l park ... I propose that the future belongs to those who can regaLn, a hLgher level, the old sense of balance and belon9Ln 9 between Man and nature (ecosyst eM people) .· (SessLo ns, pp-~18- 19) A bLoregL on Ls a part of earth's surface whose rough boundar Les are deterML ned by natural rather than huMan dLctate s, dLstLng uLshable froM other and areas by attrLbu tes of flora, fauna, water, clLMate , soLls, and land-for Ms, The to. rLse the huMan settleM ents and culture s those attrLbu tes have gLven borders between such areas are usually not rLgLd - Nature works wLth More flexLbL lLty and fluLdLty than that - but the general contour s of the regLons theMselv es are not hard to LdentLfy , and Lndeed wLll probabl y be felt, and understo od, sensed, or Ln soMe way known to Many of the LnhabLt ants, , partLcu larly those rooted Ln the land, farMers , rancher s, hunters and fLshers n, AMerlca of face the across foreste rs and botanLs ts, and Most especLa lly, the trlbal Indlans, those stLll Ln touch wLth a culture that for centurl es knew earth as sacred and Lts well-beL ng as LMperat Lve. The wLdest regLon, takLng Lts charact er froM the broades t Measure s of natLve vegetatL on and soLl contour s, May be called the ecore9Lo n and wLll general ly cover several hundred thousand s of square Mlles. But wlthln these ecoregL ons Lt Ls easy to dLstLngu Lsh other coheren t terrLtor Les that defLne a theMselv es prLMarL ly by theLr surface feature s - a watersh ed, or rLver basLn, the valley, a desert, a plateau , a MountaLn range - and whLch we May all call stLll locate often can one turn, Ln 9eore9L on. And wLthLn these 9eore9L ons, sMaller areas, of perhaps several thousand square MLles dLscret e and Ldentof LfLable wLth theLr own topograp hLes and LnhabLt ants, theLr own varLatLo ns huMan culture and agrLcul ture, to whLch we May gLve the · naMe vLtaregL on. Uhether we speak of ecoregL on or 9eore9Lo n or vLtaregL on, after all, we speak of bLoregLons , and Lt Ls that essentL al archetyp e that Ls Most LMporta nt to coMprehend. For once that Ls done on any sLgnLfL cant scale then the Matter of MakLng to dLstLnc tLons and creatLn g huMan LnstLtut Lons to Match theM can be safely left best. theM the LnhabLt ants, the dweller s on the land, who wLll always know The econoMy that coMes lnto belng wlthln a charact er froM the condLtL ons, the laws of Nature. what we can be sald to know wLth soMe surety llvlng on the soLl has been cogently SUMMarLsed as be dLstLng uLshed, froM the laws of TherMod ynaMLcs . The flrst law ls that conserv atlon, bloreglo n also derlves lts Our Lgnoranc e Ls LMMense, but after these Many centurL es of the laws of EcodynaMLcs - to preserv atlon, -27- sustena nce, ls the central goat of the natural world, hence Lts fundaMentat resLstance to largescale structural change; the second law Ls that, far froM beLng entropLc Nature Ls Lnherently stable, workLng Ln all tLMes and places toward that ecology calls a ctLMax, that Ls, a balanced, harMonLous, LntegratLve state of MaturLty whLch, once reached, Ls MaLntaLned for prolonged perLods. FroM thLs Lt follows that a bLoregLonal econoMy would seek to MaLntaLn rather than exploLt the natural world, accoMModate to the envLronMent, rather than resLst Lt; Lt would atteMpt to create condLtLons for a clLMax, a balance, for what soMe econoMLsts have recently taken to callLng a "steady state," rather than for perpetual change and contLnuat growth, Ln servLce to "progress", a false and delusory goddess Lf ever there was one. It would, Ln practLcat terMs, MLnLMLse resource use, eMphasLse conservatLon and recyclLng, avoLd poltutLon and waste. It would adopt Lts systeMs to the gLven bLoregLonal resources - energy based on wLnd, for exaMple, where Nature catted for that, or wood where that was approprLate, and food based on what the regLon Ltself - partLcularly Ln Lts natLve, pre-agrLcutturat state could grow. And thus Lt would be based, above all, on the Most eleMentat and Most elegant prLncLpte of the natural world, that of setf-suffLcLency. Just as Nature does not depend on trade, does not create elaborate networks of contLnentat for the dependency, so the bLoregLon would fLnd all Lts needed resources Lts own wLthLn luxury Manufacture, craft, energy, food, shelter, clothLng, thus beLng envLronMent. And far froM Lt beLng deprLved, far froM Lt LMpoverLshed, Lt would gaLn Ln every Measure of econoMLc health. It would be More stable, free froM booM-and-bust cycles and dLstant potLtLcat crLses; Lt would be able to plan, to allocate at the safest pace, Ln the Most ecotogLcal Manner_ It would not be at the Mercy of dLstant and uncontrollable natLonal bureaucracLes and transnatLonal governMents, and thus More self regardLng, More cohesLve, developLng a sense of place, of COMMunLty of coMradeshLp, and the prLde that coMes froM stabLlLty, control, coMpetence, and Lndependence. In one of hLs More prescLent perceptLons FrLtz SchuMacher reatLsed that the Market econoMy of twentLeth century capLtatLsM erred fundaMentatty, because Lt erred repeatedly, agaLnst Nature. "It Ls Lnherent Ln the Methodology of econoMLcs to Lgnore Man's dependence on the natural world," he wrote. "The Market represents only the surface of socLety and Lts sLgnLfLcance relates to the MOMentary sLtuatLon as Lt exLsts there and then. There Ls no probLng Lnto the depths of thLngs, Lnlo the natural or socLat facts that lLe behLnd theM. • And thLs Ls why, as he poLnts out, conventLonal econoMLcs Makes no dLstLnctLons at all between prLMary goods, "whLch Man has to wLn froM nature," and secondary goods Manufactured froM theM, or between renewable or nonrenewable resources, or the envLronMental and socLal costs of developLng one agaLnst the other. A bLothese regLonal econoMy, Ln sharpest contrast, Makes - Ln fact Ls grounded Ln vLtal dLstLnctLons. PolLtLcal prLncLples on a bLoregLonal scale are also grounded Ln the dLctates presented by Nature, Ln whLch what Ls forever valued are not the LMperatLves of gLgantLsM, centralLzatLon, hLerarchy, and MonolLthLcLty, but rather, Ln starkest contraposLtLon, those of scale, decentralLsatLon, dLvLsLon, and dLversLty. The lessons are obvLous, and suggest LMMedLately the desLgn for a bLoregLon as for a contLnent of bLoregLons. Each unLt, of the sL2e that the natural settLngs proMote, May be unLfLed and cohesLve - startLng froM the base up wLth a neLghbourhood, a coMMUnLty, a sMatl town, att tLvLng sLde-by-sLde wLth others Ln settled and Mutual pattern, together wLth coMprLsLng a vLtare9Lon; and that a vLtaregLon May have Lts own unLfLcatLon and cohesLveness, Lts own Method of governance, and yet lLve sLde-by-sLde wLth other regLons, organLsed as they May -28- see fLt; and so on, outward, Ln selfsuffLcLent collaboratLon, unLt upon unLt, for so long as the natural boundarLes May perMLt and the natural affLnLtLes be kept Lntact. SLMLlar lessons May be derLved froM the patterns of huHan nature. Thus throughout all huMan hLstory people have tended to lLve Ln separate and Lndependent groups, a "fragMentatLon of huMan socLety· that Harold Isaccs has descrLbed as soMethLng akLn to •a pervasLve force Ln huMan affaLrs and always has been.• Even when natLons and eMpLres have arLsen, he notes, they have no stayLng power agaLnst the Lnnate huMan drLve to fragMentatLon. In a bLoregLonal socLety, the dLvLsLon between urban and rural, LndustrLal and agrLcuttural, populatLon and resources, would be replaced by an equLLLbrLuM, a syMbLosLs. On the one hand, the cLty would be necessary as a producer of certaLn kLnds of goods, as a centre of artLstLc culture, as a source of the asseMbled cLvLc vLrtues, though the cLty need not be of LMMense sLze - Lndeed, no larger than 50,000 or 100,000 people - and Ln fact Ldeally would replLcate rather than grow so that Lnstead of a sLngle MetropolLs there would be a MultLplLcLty of cLtLes of Modest sLzes scattered throughout the bLoregLon. On the other hand, the country would be necessary as the prLMe source of food and water and the HaterLals of shelter and clothLng and artLsanshLp and trade, and especLatty as the eMbodLHent of the bLoregLonal spLrLt of Gaea, whose presence should be felt daLly by the LnhabLtants of every settleMent, of whatever sLze. BLoregLonalLsM Ls no More than the Modern versLon of a very old perceptLon of the world held not Merely by the Greeks but by vLrtually every prelLterate socLety of whLch we have knowledge. (Sate, 167-72) 8: TECHNOLOGY The qualLty of huMan exLstence and huMan welfare should not be Measured of products. Technology Ls returned to Lts ancLent place as an quantLty by only approprLate tool for huMan welfare, not an end Ln Ltself. There should be a rapLd MoveMent toward "soft• energy paths and "approprLate technology~ and toward lLfestytes whLch wLll result Ln drastLc decrease Ln per capLta energy consuMptLon Ln advanced LnductrLal socLetLes whLcl LncreasLng approprLate energy Ln decentralLzed vLllages Ln so-called "thLrd world" natLons. Deep ecologLst5 are coMMLtted to rapLd MOVeMent to a •steady-state• or •conservor socLety· both froH ethLcal prLncLples of har~onLous LntegratLon of huMans wLth nature and froM apprecLatLon of ecologLcal realLtLes. IntegratLon of sophLstLcated, elegant, unobtrusLve, ecologLcalty sound, approprLate technology wLth greatly scaled down, dLversLfLed, organLc, labor-LntensLve agrLculture, huntLng, and gatherLng Ls another goal. (Deep Ecology pp.311-12) QuestLonLng technology Ls a process of dLrect actLon that anyone can develop. It Ls one of the Host serLous act Lons that can ·be taken Ln a technocratLc socLety where the assuMptLon that •technology wLll solve all probleMs• Ls so deeply held. as a systeM or as a specLfLc devLce such as a To questLon technology coMputer - can often arouse hostLlLty, defena certaLn type of vehLcle or sLveness, LrrLtatLon, and resentMent Ln lLsteners. Anyone who questLons technology can be branded a "LuddLte" or antLModernLst. A person who says ·no to any technologLcal devLce Ls often charged as beLng antLprogressLve. Yet Ls crucLat to questLon technology, Ln spLte of these crLtLcLsMs. ~e need technology whLch Ls coMpatLble wLth the growth of autonoMous, selfdeterMLnLng LndLvLduats Ln nonhLerarchLcal coMHunLtLes. ~e need prLncLples that wLll help us escape the trap of technocratLc socLety, where technology Ls the -29- central LnstLtutLon. Technology can be crLtLcLzed and evaluated based on general prLncLples, scale or structure. The followLng questLons can be asked of any technologLcal devLce or systeM: I. Does thLs technologLcal devLce serve vLtal needs? 2. ls thLs devLce or systeM of the sort that can be LMMedLately understood by nonexperts? 3. Does Lt have a hLgh degree of flexLbLlLty and MutabLlLty or does Lt LMpose a perManent, rLgLd, LrreversLble LMprLnt on the lLves of cLtLzens? local ~- Does thLs technologLcal devLce or systeM foster greater autonoMy of coMMunLtLes or greater dependency on soMe centralLzed "authorLty"? 5. ls thLs devLce or systeM ecologLcally destructLve or conducLve to a deep ecology way of lLfe? 6. Does thLs devLce or systeM enhance the LndLvLdualLty of persons or does Lt lead to bureaucratLc hLerarchLes? 7. Does thLs devLce or systeM encourage people to behave and thLnk lLke MachLnes? A fully LnforMed, approprLate technology Ls a MeetLng ground of ethLcs , polLtLcs, MechanLcal understandLng and deep ecologLcal conscLousness. As Langdon WLnner concludes Ln AutonoMous Technology, "If one lacks a clear and knowledgeable sense of what Means are approprLate lo the cLrcuMstances at hand, one's These Means do not choLce of Means can easLly lead to excesses and danger. Lnvolve just narrow utLlLty or effLcLency of productLon or profLt Ln soMe short-terM calculatLon. Indeed, the narrow eMphasLs upon effLcLency of Means drLves us away froM the larger Lssues of envLronMental ethLcs asnd LndLvLdual responsLbLlLty for the consequences of our actLons. (Deep Ecology, pp.35-6) Shallow approach: AcceptLng LndustrLalLzatLon of the kLnd ManLfested Ln the West as the natural goal for developLng countrLes. Low estLNatLon of deep cultural dLfferences wLth sLgnLfLcant devLatLons froM Western standards. Deep approach: SocLal and cultural dLversLty of dLfferent specLes Ls an essentLal IntensLfLed Measures to part of general rLchness and varLatLon of lLfe forMs. exLstLng non-LndustrLal stLll lLMLt the LMpact of Western technology upon cultures . Defence of the fourth world agaLnst cultural foreLgn doMLnatLon. PolLtLcal and econoMLc polLcLes Ln favour of subcultures and MLnorLtLes Ln LndustrLalLzed socLetLes. Support of local and soft technologLes as a Means to MaLntaLn baste cultural assessMent of technLcal LnnovatLon. Due regard to anLMal socLetLes and cultures. SurvLval of populatLons does not ensure survLval of socLal LnstLtutLons . QuestLonLng whether so-called advanced, Modern technologLes are approprLate relatLve to levels of pollutLon, resources, populatLon and as subordLnate part of general culture. (PhLlosophLcal Aspects, pp.12-13) Technology Ls More helpless than ever because the technology beLng produced doesn ' t fulfLll baste huNan needs, such as MeanLngful work Ln a MeanLngful envLronMent . TechnLcal progress Ls shaM progress because the terM technLcal progress Ls a cultural, not a technLcal, terM . Our culture Ls the only one Ln the hLstory of MankLnd Ln whLch the culture has adjusted Ltself to the technology, rather than vLce versa. (SLMple ' Ln Means, p.11) Once the scLentLfLc probleMs have been solved, once Lt Ls understood how a partLcular forM of pollutLon arLses and Ln what Lts danger consLsts, the next probleM Ls technologLcal : to dLscover a Method of reducLng thLs LncLdence. That Lnvolves decLdLng, Ln the fLrst place, whLch of the causatLve factors Lt wLll be easLest to control . KnowLng, for exaMple, that the Los Angeles sMog Ls a joLnt product of the sLtLng of Los Angeles, Lts hours of sunlLght and the exhaust -30- fuMes froM the LnternaL coMbustLon engLne, Lt Ls at once apparent that onLy the thLrd of these Lf controLLabLe at a toLerabLe cost. So what has to be Lnvented Ls a devLce whLch wLLL reduce the output of hydrocarbons Ln exhaust fuMes. ThLs constLtutes a technoLogLcaL probLeM, the soLutLon to whLch LLes Ln the LnventLon of a devLce whLch wouLd satLsfy partLcuLar technLcaL specLfLcatLons . (The word devLce' Ls h~re beLng used Ln a very broad sense; an LnsectLcLde Ls a devLce and so Ls the sterLLLsLng of Lnsects as a Means of bLoLogLcaL control.) 0 The Ldea of a 'technoLogLcaL soLutLon' Ls, however, a good deaL Less straLghtforward than Lt at fLrst appears to be, as the phrase I used above 'at a toLerabLe cost' aLready hLnts. It Ls very easy to thLnk up technLcaL soLutLons of ecoLogLcaL probLeMs Lf we consLder theM Ln LsoLatLon~ and Lf we defLne a technLcaL soLutLon, wLthout any reference to costs, as one whLch descrLbes a way of freeLng ourselves froM the ecoLogLcaL condLtLon whLch concerns us. Such a soLutLon Ls soMetLMes saLd to be 'practLcaL' but not 'operatLonal'. So Los AngeLes sMog could be reduced Ln LntensLty by roofLng over the entLre cLty, or by MakLng everybody use pubLLc transport, or by substLtutLng fuel-ceLls, Ln theLr present state of developMent, for Lnternal coHbustLon engLnes. But few wouLd serLousLy advance these proposals as 'solutLons', as satLsfactory ways of deaLLng wLth the sMog probleM. ~hy not? SLMply because the costs, or so Lt Ls w~deLy beLLeved, wouLd be too great, costs of varLous sorts, socLal, ecologLcal, econoMLc and poLLtLcaL. In so far as ecologLcaL probleMs can be solved only wLth the help of scLentLfLc dLscovery and technoLogLcaL LnventLon, they can be soLved only wLthLn the ~estern ratLonal tradLtLons. That Much Ls obvLous. MystLcaL conteMplatLon wLlL not reveal to the cheMLst the orLgLns of the Los Angeles sMog or enabLe the engLneer to desLgn an effectLve devLce for reducLng Lts LntensLty. But Lt Ls a enthusLasM proper crLtLcLsM of ~estern socLety that, Ln Lts - often chLldLsh for technoLogLcaL 'advance', Lt has faLled adequateLy to consLder the costs of LntroducLng new devLces and has defLned 'costs' far too narrowly. ThLs objectLon can be dLrected, even, agaLnst antL-pollutLon devLces. The Manufacture of such devLces wLLL norMaLLy create · More polLutLon. It May, by ModLfyLng the character of the poLlutant, Lntroduce new dangers - reducLng the percentage of carbon MonoxLde Ln exhaust fuMes whLle LncreasLng the percentage of the no Less dangerous nLtrogen dLoxLde. Or Lt May shLft the LncLdence of the poLLutLon froM a weaLthLer to a poorer coMMunLty - ManufacturLng sMokeless fueLs Ln an LndustrLaL town to Make the London aLr cLeaner - wLthout reducLng Lts total voLuMe. Any technoLogLcal LnnovatLon, furtherMore, LnvoLves an eleMent of ecoLoe LcaL rLsk; Lt Ls LMpossLbLe to calculate all Lts consequences Ln every possLbLe cLrcuMstance. The best the technologLst can do Ls to exclude effects whLch are already known to be dangerous and to LnvestLgate further effects whLch are suspect . That Ls why, as I saLd earLLer, caLlLng upon the technologLst to save us Ls so often equated wLth caLLLng Ln the devLL as an exorcLst. But Lt wouLd be quLte wrong to conclude that for the reasons just advanced the technologLcaL Method of overcoMLng ecoLogLcaL probleMs would be abandoned, that what ~estern socLetLes should do Ls to shut down factorLes, Let us say, rather than LnsLst on theLr reducLng, by technoLogLcal Means, theLr eMLssLon of pollutants. For econoMLc and socLaL rLsks ~ and, Ln the end, greater ecoLogLcal rLsks Lf the socLaL resentMent engendered by the closure Ls dLrected agaLnst the whoLe systeM of ecoLogLcaL controls. It, too, May do no More than shLft the LncLdence of poLLutLon froM rLcher to poorer regLons, as the factory-owner takes hLs capLtal elsewhere. To gLve up takLng any rLsks would be to gLve up actLng . Every actLon costs soMethLng, rLsks soMethLng. Uhat can properLy be deManded Ls not that Men should cease to act Ln ways whLch LnvoLve ecologLcal rLsks - there are no such ways, as Matters now stand, whatever the sLtuatLon Ln the Garden of -31- Eden - but rather that they shouLd take More account of the ecoLogLcaL costs and benefLts of theLr actLon. And thLs Means, once agaLn, that they wLLL hav~ to Make fuLLer use of ratLonaL Western-type Methods, cost benefLt anaLyses or decLsLon-procedures. (PassMore, pp.~8-50) EcoLogLcaL resLsters do not accept that there are onLy narrow technLcaL soLutLons to narrowLy defLned socLal probLeMs (such as aLr poLLutLon). These probLeMs are seen onLy as syMptoMs of the Larger Lssues. There are three MaLn dangers to technocratLc soLutLons. FLrst Ls the danger Ln beLLevLng there Ls a coMpLete or acceptabLe soLutLon usLng Modern doMLnant LdeoLogLes and technoLogy. The second danger Ls the presentatLon of an LMpressLon that soMethLng Ls beLng done when Ln fact the reaL probLeM contLnues. reaL work". FLnaLLy, there Ls the danger of TLnkerLng dLstracts froM the assuMLng there wLLL be new experts - such as professLonaL ecoLogLsts - who wLLL provLde the soLutLon but who May Ln fact be constraLned to be pubLLc reLatLons spokespersons for the agenda of profLt or power of soMe corporatLon or agency. EcoLogLcaL resLstance Ls actLon froM centraL prLncLpLes of doLng what Ls necessary, of wLtnessLng nonvLoLentLy. It arLses froM a shLft Ln conscLouness. EcoLogLcaL resLstLng Ls deeper, soMe wouLd say More radLcaL,. than just reforMLsM. SoMe of the reforMLst actLons to MLtLgate soMe of the worse forMs of aLr and water poLLutLon (due to auto exhaust, for exaMpLe) are MotLvated by concern onLy for huMan heaLth and safety and not by the LntrLnsLc vaLues of the bLosphere. But th LLMLts of reforMLSM are by now weLL known. (Deep EcoLog~, pp.195-6) In tryLng to exaMLne technoLogy and productLon, we encounter a curLous paradox. ~e are deepLy rLven by a great sense of proMLse about technLcaL LnnovatLon, on the one hand, and by a thorough sense of dLsenchantMent wLth Lts resuLts, on the other. ThLs duaL attLtude not onLy refLects a confLLct Ln the popuLar LdeologLes concernLng technoLogy but aLso expresses strong doubts about the nature of the Modern technologLcaL LMagLnatLon LtseLf. We are puzzLed that the very LnstruMents our MLnds have conceLved and our hands have created can be so easLly turned agaLnst us, wLth dLsastrous resuLts for our weLL-beLng Lndeed, for our very survLval as a specLes. Techne, Moreover, covered a wLder scope of experLence than the Modern word technLcs. The goaL of techne Ls not restrLcted to MereLy "LLvLng weLL. or lLvLng wLthLn the lLMLt. Techne LncLudes LLvLng an ethLcaL LLfe accordLng to an orLgLnatLve and orderLng prLncLple conceLved as "potency". VLewed even Ln an LnstruMental sense, techne thus encoMpasses not MereLy raw MaterLaLs, tooLs, MachLnes, and products but aLso the producer - Ln short, a hLghly sophLstLcated subject froM whLch aLL eLse orLgLnates. To ArLstotle, the "Master-craftsMan" Ls dLstLnguLshed subjectLveLy froM hLs apprentLces or assLstants by vLrtue of honor, a sense of "why" products are created, and generaLLy a wLsdoM of thLngs ArLstotLe subject, and phenoMena. By startLng wLth the ratLonaLLty of productLon the to estabLLshes a poLnt of departure for brLngLng ratLonaLLzatLon of the object. Modern LndustrLaL productLon functLons Ln precLseLy the opposLte way. Not only Ls the Modern LMage of techne LLMLted to Mere technLcs Ln the LnstruMentaL sense of the terM, but aLso Lts goaLs are LnextrLcabLy tLed to unLLMLted Ls conceLved as LLMLtLess consuMptLon wLthLn the productLon. "LLvLng weLL fraMework of a totaLLy unethLcaL, prLvatLzed LeveL of seLf-Lnterest. TechnLcs, not the producer and hLs or her ethLcaL standards LncLudes Moreover, (proLetarLans, after aLL, servLce the Modern LndustrLal apparatus Ln totaL anonyMLty) but the product and Lts constLtuLnts. The technLcaL focus shLfts froM -32- the subject to the object, froM the producer to the product, froM the creator to the created. Honor, a sense of •why," and any generaL wLsdoM of thLngs and phenoMena have no pLace Ln the worLd requLred by Modern Lndustry. ~hat reaLLy counts Ln technLcs Ls effLcLency, quantLty, and an LntensLfLcatLon of the Labor process. The specLous ratLonaLLty LnvoLved Ln producLng the object Ls foLsted on the ratLonaLLzatLon of the subject to a poLnt where producer's subjectLvLty Ls totally atrophLed and reduced to an object aMong objects. (BookchLn, pp.219-22) 9: ON ECOLOGICAL CONSCIOUSNESS Deep ecoLogy Ls eMergLng as a way of developLng a new balance and harMony between LndLvLduaLs, coMMunLtLes and aLl of Nature. It can potentLaLLy satsLfy our deepest yearnLngs: faLth and trust Ln our Most basLc LntuLtLons; courage to take dLrect actLon; joyous confLdence to dance wLth the sensuous harMonLes dLscovered through spontaneous, playfuL Lntercourse wLth the rhythMs of our bodLes, the rhythMs of fLowLng water, changes Ln the weather and seasons, and the overaLL processes of LLfe on Earth. The deep ecology MoveMent Lnvolves workLng on ourselves, what poetphLLosopher Gary Snyder caLls "the reaL work,• the work of reaLLy LookLng at ourselves, of becoMLng More real. ThLs Ls the work we call cultLvatLng ecoLogLcaL conscLousness. ThLs process LnvoLves becoMLng More aware of the actuaLLty of rocks, wolves, trees, and rLvers - the cultLvatLon of the LnsLght that everythLng Ls connected. CultLvatLng ecologLcal conscLousness Ls a process of learnLng apprecLate sLLence and solLtude and redLscoverLng how to lLsten. It Ls learnLng how to be More receptLve, trustLng, holLstLc Ln perceptLon, and Ls grounded Ln a vLsLon of nonexploLtLve scLence and technology. ThLs process Lnvolves beLng honest wLth ourselves and seekLng clarLty Ln our LntuLtLons, then actLng froM cLear prLncLpLes, practLcLng seLf-dLscLpLLne and workLng honestLy wLthLn our coMMunLty. It Ls sLMpLe but not easy work. Henry DavLd Thoreau, nLneteenth-century naturalLst and wrLter, adMonLshes us, ·Let your lLfe be a frLctLon agaLnst the MachLne. • CuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcal conscLousness Ls correlated wLth the cultLvatLon of conscLence. CuLtural hLstorLan Theordore Roszak suggests Ln Person/PLanet conscLousness, how LnstructLve the overLappLng and "conscLence (1978), sLMLLarLty of those two words Ls. FroM the new conscLousness we are gaLnLng of ourseLves as persons perhaps we wLLL yet create a new conscLence, one whose ethLcaL sensLtLvLty Ls at Least tuned to a sLgnLfLcant good, a sLgnLfLcant evLL. We beLLeve that huMans have a vLtaL need to cuLtLvate ecologLcaL conscLousness and that thLs need Ls related to the needs of the planet. At the saMe tLMe, huMans need dLrect contact wLth untraMMeLed wLLderness, places undoMestLcated for narrow huMan purposes. Many people sense the needs of the pLanet and the need for wLLderness preservatLon. But we need not be technLcal experts Ln order to cultLvate ecotogLcal conscLousness, as Thoreau saLd, cuLtLvatLng ecotogLcaL conscLousness requLres that "we front up to the facts and deterMLne to lLve our lLves delLberately, or not at all." We belLeve that people can clarLfy theLr own LntuLtLons, and act froM deep prLncLpLes. Deep ecology Ls a process of even-deeper questLonLng of ourselves, the assuMptLons of the doMLnant worLdvLew Ln our culture, and the MeanLng and truth Ln our realLty. We cannot change conscLousness by only lLstenLng to others, we Must Lnvolve ourselves. We Mu~t take dLrect actLon. -33- One hopeful poLLtLcaL MoveMent wLth deep ecology as a base Ls the Uest GerMan Green poLLtLcaL party. They have as theLr slogan, "ue are neLther Left nor rLght, we are Ln front.· Green poLLtLcs Ln Uest GerMany, and to soMe extent Ln Great BrLtaLn, BeLgLuM and AustraLLa Ln the 1980s, goes beyond the conventLonaL, tLberaL defLnLtLon of a party, coMbLnLng personal work (that Ls, work on cLarLfyLng one's own character) and polLtLcal actLvLsM. The Greens present a proMLsLng poLLtLcaL strategy because they encourage the cultLvatLon of personal ecoLogLcaL conscLousness as well as address Lssues of pubLLc polLcy. If the Greens propogate the bLocentrLc perspectLve - the Lnherent worth of other specLes besLdes huMans - then they can help change the current vLew whLch says we should use Nature only to serve narrow huMan Lnterests. CuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcaL conscLousness Ln conteMporary socLetLes, however, Ls a two-edged sword. Ue Must not be MLsLed by our zeaL for change so that we are concerned only wLth the narrow self or ego. If we seek only personal redeMptLon we could becoMe soLLtary ecologLcal saLnts aMong the Masses of those we MLght cLassLfy as "sLnners" who contLnue to pollute. Change Ln persons requLres a change Ln culture and vLce versa. We cannot Lgnore the personal arena nor the socLaL, for our project Ls to enhance harMony wLth each other, the planet and ourselves. (Deep Ecology, pp.7-1~) ~e began by suggestLng a varLety of specLfLc actLons whLch people can take dLrected at reforMLng publLc polLcy, developLng bLoregLonal coMMunLtLes, and cuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcaL conscLousness. Ue return to the theMe of dLrect actLon. ~e have deMonstrated that deep ecology Ls not just a gaMe of ~bstract theorLzLng. As a perspectLve Lt Ls lLved, danced, celebrated. It has resonance. Ln part, cuLtLvatLng what CuLtLvatLng ecoLogLcaL conscLousness Means, Ls engaged Ln the LnteLLect RhapsodLc Theodore Roszak caLLs rhapsodLc LntelLect. process of LntegratLng LntelLect, body, and joyous eMotLon. Based on the LnsLghts, uLtLMate norMs, prLncLples and theorLes of deep ecology, the central practLcaL questLon Ls how do we becoMe More Mature persons, gLven the constraLnts of th~s culture? Ue suggest there Ls an LnterpLay between outward dLrect actLon and Lnward dLrect actLon, between actLng on one's self and actLng Ln the world, wLth the result of further and deeper MaturLty Ln the deep ecologLcaL sense of LdentLfLcatLon wLth alL LLfe. There Ls no sharp break between Lnward and outward. People take dLrectLon actLon froM dLrect ecoLogLcal prLncLpLes and they becoMe More Mature through dLrect actLon. The Label we use for the type of dLrect actLon Ln Lts outward forM Ls ecoLogLcaL resLstLng. (Deep Ecology, p.19~) 'Deep ecology', an envLronMental scLence broadsheet tells us, Ls Naess's expressLon for an ecologLcaL awareness or conscLousness' . SpeLLLng deep ecology out then becoMes a Matter of settLng down the types of conscLousness and awareness and recognLtLon LnvoLved, SOMethLns that Ls done Ln a thoroughly anthropocentrL c way, begLnnLng as foLLows: 'a conscLousness of the LMplLcatLons of ecology for huMan beLng'. It Ls all Ln fact done Ln terMs of huMan responses, fundaMentaLLy Ls approach the AccordLn9Ly capacLtLes and psychology. MLsconceLved. For deep ecology Ls not so anthropocentrL c, and Ls no More a Matter of envLronMentaL psychology than Ls the value theory or MetaphysLcs whLch are part of Lt. The psychoL09LcaL conversLon Ls LLke cLaLMLng that 'MarxLsM' Ls an expressLon for socLaLLst conscLousness, or 'MusLc' for MusLco-LogLcal awareness. -34- The conversLon of deep ecology Lnto awareness psychology, Lnto a certaLn sort of exercLse Ln self-realLsatLon or 'lLberatLng ecologLcal conscLousness, or conscLousness raLsLng', Ls open to sLMLlar objectLons. Ecology, deep or shallow or systeMatLc, Ls not ego-trLppLng or a personal thLng. Granted those who do have and share certaLn attLtudes and feelLngs to natural envLronMents are "uch More lLkely to becoMe actLve supporters or followers of deep ecology or to adopt a deeper ecologLcal stance. Even so such states as self-realLsatLon or ecologLcal conscLousness are neLther necessary nor suffLcLent for thLs. Such subjectLve states are not necessary because soMeone can beco"e a supporter of deep ecology wLthout havLng attaLned, or Made any effort to attaLn, these states. Thus consLder soMeone, a dedLcated naturalLst for Lnstance, who has no deep Lnterest Ln or understandLng of huMan psychology or socLology so far as these bear on the envLronMent. Such a person Ls a deep ecologLst, but lacks ecologLcal conscLousness as Lt Ls explaLned. The case of Peter SLnger Ln the anLMal lLberatLon "oveMent Ls LnstructLve; for SLnger goes out of hLs way to explaLn hLs dLsLnterest, hLs coMparatLve lack of zoologLcal conscLousness, that he does not LdentLfy wLth anLMals and so on, yet hLs LMpact for anLMal lLberatLon has been Most sLgnLfLcant. Analogously, a Deeper SLnger need not be Ln love wLth the Earth but feel rather Lsolated froM Lt and feel rLghtly that Most of Lts LnhabLtants dLslLke hLM or are frLghtened by hLM. He May have lLttle Ldea what Lt Ls lLke to be one of theM or a MountaLn, ... ; but he "ay have the rLght values, adhere to the rLght phLlosophy and undertake the rLght sorts of actLon and lLfestyle. GenuLnely and specLfLcally deep ecologLcal conscLousness has not been well descrLbed and Ls not partLcularly well defLned. And soMe of the requLreMents LMposed upon Lt, whatever Lt aMounts to, render Lt LMpossLble. Thus Fox, echoLng others, claLMs that 'to the extent that we perceLve boundarLes, we fall short of a deep ecologLcal conscLousness'. Then we all fall short, sLnce we are regularly confronted by, and perceLve, terrLtorLal boundarLes and a wLde range of other deMarcatLon lLnes and contrasts. Indeed fallLng short Ls LnevLtable; for hence and perceptLon necessarLly Lnvolves selectLon and dLscrLMLnatLon, separatLon and boundarLes. Deep conscLousness Ls also rendered LMpossLble by soMe of the LdentLfLcatLon requLreMents, drawn froM nature MystLcLsM, whLch are LMposed upon Lt. It Ls one thLng to be Ln tune wLth the unLverse (a Metaphor that can be spelled out), quLte another, and LMpossLble, feat to be LdentLcal wLth Lt, sLnce then a proper part would be LdentLcal wLth a whole contaLnLng Lt. SoMe explLcatLon of LdentLfLcatLon (trans-specLes and other) Ls LMportant for the elaboratLon of deep ecology, but the relatLon Lnvolved (though Lt concerns shared features, such as perhaps experLences) Ls not one of LdentLty or MakLng LdentLcal, as sLMplLstLc etyMology May suggest. Other requLreMents coMMonly placed on deep conscLousness, whLle they do not exclude Lt, render Lt unduly anthropocentrLc. (CrLtLque, pp.30-2) Deep ecologLsts agree wLth BLrch and Cobb's LnsLght that "huMan beLngs are More deeply Moved by the way they experLence theLr ~orld than by the claLMs ethLcs Makes on theM." Thus, where conteMporary envLronMental phLlosophy Ls doMLna~ed by the questLon "How do we construct an adequate envLron"ental ethLc? , deep ecology asks the questLon "How do we cultLvate a deep ecologLcal conscLousness?" The forMer questLon looks to conceptual answers, the latter to experLentLal answers. In seekLng to change the way Ln whLch we experLence the world, deep ecologLsts place theLr prLMary eMphasLs upon changLng our ·underlyLng perceptLon of the way thLngs are" (L.e. changLng our ontology) rather than upon what we MLght terM the "conceptual fLx• approach of "bL99er and better" ethLcs. ThLs atteMpt to shLft the prLMary focus of envLronMental phLlosophLcal concern froM ethLcs to ontology clearly constLtutes a fundaMental or revolutLon- -35- ary chaLLenge to norMaL envLronMentaL phLLosophy. It Ls (and should be) deep ecology's guLdLng star. (GuLdLng Stars, p.204) 10: ON HOLISM AccordLng to deep ecology: A new cosMLc/ecoLogLcaL MetaphysLcs whLch stresses the LdentLty (I/thou) of huMans wLth non-huMan nature Ls a necessary condLLons for a vLabLe approach to buLLdLng an eco-phLLosophy. In deep ecology, the wholeness and LntegrLty of a person/planet together wLth the prLncLpLe of what Arne Naess caLLs "bLoLogLcaL egaLLtarLanLsM" are the Most LMportant Ldeas. Man Ls an LntegraL part of nature, not over or apart froM nature. Man Ls a "pLaLn cLtLzen· of the bLosphere, not Lts conqueror or Manager .. There should be a "deMocracy of aLL God's creatures" accordLng to St. FrancLs; or as SpLnoza saLd, Man Ls a "teMporary and dependent Mode of the whole of God/Nature.· Man flows wLth the systeM of nature rather than atteMptLng to control aLL of the rest of nature. The hand of Man LLes LLghtLy on the Land. Man does not perfect nature, nor Ls Man's prLMary duty to Make nature More effLcLent. A new psychology Ls needed to Lntegrate the MetaphysLcs Ln the MLnd fLeLd of post-LndurtrLaL socLety. A Major paradLgM shLft results froM psychoLogLcaL changes of perceptLon. The new paradLgM requLres rejectLon of subject/object, Man/nature duaLLsMs and wLLL requLre a pervasLve awareness of total LnterMLngLLng of the planet earth. Psychotherapy seen as adjustMent to eco-orLented socLety Ls replaced by a new LdeaL of psychotherapy as spLrLtuaL deveLopMent. The new MetaphysLcs and psychology Leads LogLcaLLy to a posture of bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM and LLberatLon Ln the sense of autonoMy, physoLogLcaL/eMotLona L freedoM of the LndLvLduaL, spLrLtuaL deveLopMent of HoMo sapLens, and the rLght of other specLes to pursue theLr own evoLutLonary destLnLes. (Deep Ecology MoveMent, pp.310-11) RejectLon of the Man-Ln-envLronMent LMage Ln favour of the reLatLonaL, totaL-fLeLd LMage. OrganLsMs as knots Ln the bLospherLcaL net or fLeLd of LntrLnsLc reLatLons. As LntrLnsLc reLatLon between two thLngs ~ and B Ls such that the reLatLon belongs to the defLnLtLons or basLc constLtutLons of A and ~• so that wLthout a reLatLon, ~and~ are no Longer the saMe thLngs. The totaLfLeLd Model dLssoLves not only the Man-Ln-envLronMent concept, but every coMpact thLng-Ln-MLLLeu concept - except when taLkLng at a superfLcLaL or preLLMLnary Level of coMMunLcatLon. (Shallow and Deep, p.95) Shallow envLronMentaLLsM atteMpts to curb soMe of the Most gLarLng envLronMentaL abuse such as poLLutLon and resource depLetLon whLLe caLLLng for no basLc change Ln the anthropocentrLc urban-LndustrLaL socLaL paradLgM. Naess descrLbes Lts central objectLve as "the health and affluence of people Ln the developed countrLes." The Deep Ecology MoveMent, on the other hand, gathers LnspLratLon froM the fLeLd ecoLogLst and Ls a rejectLon of the Man-Ln-envLronMent LMage Ln favor of the reLatLonaL, totaL-fLeLd LMage. OrganLsMs are knots Ln the bLospherLcaL net or fLeLd of LntrLnsLc reLatLons. w (SessLons, p . 398) 0 Because they cannot conceLve Man apart' they experLence no dLffLcuLty Ln attrLbutLng LntrLnsLc value to nature. In so far as they conceLve theMseLves as havLng such value, the LnabLLLty to separate theLr selves froM nature, LnescapabLy Leads to thLnkLng of "Man" and ·envLronMent' as a whole. (Gestalt thLnkLng.) In thLs century the reactLon agaLnst conceLvLng the LndLvLduaL self as soMethLng separable froM the socLaL settLng has been Largely successful, but not the paraLLeL reactLon agaLnst the separabLLLty froM the natural settLng. (PhLLosophLcaL Aspects, p.35) By subtractLng your own self-centred and seLf-servLng -36- thoughts froM the world you coMe to reaLLze that "the other Ls none other than yourself: that the fundaMentaL deLusLon of huManlty ls to suppose I aM here and you are out there_· ThLs understandLng perMeates the MystLcaL tradLtLons and Ls exeMpLLfLed Ln the TaoLst advLce to "LdentLfy yourself wLth non-dLstLnctLon_ • It ls now becoMlng coMMonpLace to polnt to the fundaMentaLLy slMlLar cosMoLogLes eMobdLed Ln the MystLcaL tradLtLons on the one hand and the 'new physlcs' on the other_ What Ls structurally sLMllar about these cosMoLogLes Ls that they reveal a 'seaMLess web' vLew of the unLverse_ Both the MystLcaL tradLtLons and the new physLcs' serve to generate Lnter aLLa, what we MLght now caLL 'ecoLoglcaL awareness', .that Ls, awareness of the fundaMentaL LnterreLatedne~s of aLL thLngs or, More accurately, aLL events_ The theoretlcaL physLclst Frltjof Capra has been quLte expLlcLt about thls: "1 thLnk what physLcs can do Ls help to generate ecoLogLcaL awareness_ You see, Ln MY vLew now Ln the Western versLon of MystLcaL awareness, our versLon of BuddhLsM or TaoLsM, wLLl be ecologLcal awareness_" Where the physLcLst, the Mystlc, and the deep ecologLst (as phLlosopher) dLffer Ls Ln theLr Means of arrLvLng at 'ecologLcal awareness ' ___ _ The deep ecologLst's conceptLon of unLty Ln process' need not LMpLy that, at any gLven MOMent, all 'knots' (L_e_ organLsMs) Ln the 'bLospherLcal net' are constLtuted of equally coMpLex reLatLons_ To the extent that value Lnheres Ln coMplexLty of relatLons, and to the extent that coMplexLty of reLatLons Ls evLdenced Ln the degree of an organLsM's central organLzatLon (and therefore capacLty for rLchness of experLence), then organLsMs are entLtLed to Moral consLderatLon coMMensurate wLth theLr degree of central organLzatLon (or capaclty for rlchness of experlence) for the duratlon of thelr exlstence - as transLent as that May be Ln terMs of evolutLonary tLMe_ In pursulng theLr central LntuLtLon of 'unLty' (L_e_ of no boundarLes Ln the bLospherLcal fLeLd), deep ecoLogLsts have possLbly Lost sLght of the sLgnLfaspect of theLr 'unLty Ln process' MetaphysLcs_ Lcance of the 'Ln process AttentLon to thLs Latter aspect suggests that any process contLnuousLy produces LMperManent, uneven dLstrLbutLons (L_e_, dLfferent values) of varLous attrLbutes (and Ln the process of the world these attrLbutes May be Money, LnforMatLon, coMplexLty of relatLons, and so on)_ If thLs were not so then we would have no process but a perfectly unLforM, hoMogenous and, therefore, LLfeless fLeld_ The only unLverse where value Ls spread evenly across the fLeLd Ls a dead unLverse _ RecognLsLng thLs, we should be clear that the central LntuLtLon of deep ecology does not entaLl the vLew that LntrLnsLc value Ls spread evenly across the MeMbershLp of the bLotLc coMMunLty_ Moreover, Ln sLtuatLons of genuLne value conflLct, justLce Ls better served by not subscrLbLng to the vLew of ecoLogLcal -egaLLtarLanLsM_ (Fox, pp-196-200) An arctLc Landscape May superfLcLaLly Look rather dead Ln wLnter. In sprLng Lt May Look overwheLMLngLy aLLve_ It would take a Long traLnLng to force perceptLon to dLstLnguLsh organLsM froM non-organLsMs Ln such a LLve Landscape_ Even Ln wLnter the Lover of the Landscape sees abundance of LndLvLduaL LLfe forMs and also hLgher order gestaLts_ Why Ls the gestalt ontology not MentLoned Ln the platforN forMulatLon_ A Landscape wLth organLsMs - and aLL Landscapes have organLsMs Ln MLcro-organLsMs are counted - Ls a hLgh order, natural gestalt_ The separatLon of organLsMs and non-organLsMs Ls very unnatural Ln gestalt thLnkLng and apperceptLon. But the concepts of 9estaLt-thlnkln9 are too specLaL for pLatforM forMuLatLons- Only a MLnorLty of supporters of deed ecology are acadeMLcs_ (Notes on Sylvan, p-7) -37- BIBLIOGRAPHY Sources used 0 S. BodLan, S LMple Ln Means, rLch Ln ends: A conversatLon wLth Arne Naess', Ten DLrectLons, SuMMer/Fall, 1982, 7,10-12; referred to as SLMple Ln Means. M. BookchLn, The Ecology of FreedoM, CheshLre, Londong, 1982; referred to as F. Capra and C. Spretnak, Green PolLtLcs, HutchLnson, London, 198~; referred as Green PolLtLcs. to Bookch i,n. B. Devall, 'The Deep Ecology MoveMent', Natural Resources Journal 20, 1980, 299-322; referred to as Deep Ecology MoveMent. B. Devall, 'stone/Sky: ReflectLons on the 'Real ~ork' of Deep Ecology', paper delLvered at EnvLronMent, EthLcs and Ecology Conference, Canberra, August 1983, 20ff.; referred to as Stone/Sky . 8. Devall and G. SessLons, Deep Ecology, PeregrLne SMLth, Layton, Utah, 1985; referred to as Deep Ecology. U. Fox, Deep Ecology: A new phLlosophy 194-200; referred to as Fox. of our tLMe', EcologLst 1~, 1984, U. Fox, 'on guLdLng stars to Deep Ecology', EcologLst 14, 1984, 203-4; to as GuLdLng Stars. A. Naess, 'The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology MoveMent. InquLry 18, 1973, 95-100; referred to as Shallow and Deep. A. Naess, 'PhLlosophLcal Aspects of Deep Ecology ' , unpublLshed 1983, 35ff.; referred to as PhLlosophLcal Aspects. A. N.3 ess, • IntuLtLon, LntrLnsLc value and Deep 201-3; referred to as IntuLtLon. Ecology', referred A SUMMary. paper, EcologLst 14, Oslo, 1984, A. Naess, Notes on the PolLtLcs of the Deep Ecology MoveMent ' , unpublLshed paper, Canberra, 1984, 17ff.; referred to as PolLtLcs of the Deep Ecology MoveMent. A. Naess, 'What Ls basLc to Deep Ecology?', unpublLshed paper, 12ff . ; referred to as BasLc. A. Naess, A defence of the Deep Ecology 1984, 265-70; referred to as Defence. MoveMent', Canberra, 1984, EnvLronMental EthLcs A. Naess, 'The paradox of envLronMentalLsM' SyMposLuM ProceedLngs, (ed.), York UnLversLty, 1984, 57-60; referred to as Paradox. N. S, Everden A. Naess, 'IdentLfLcatLon as a source of Deep EcologLcal attLtudes', Deep Ecology, M. TobLas (ed.), Avant Books, San DLego, 1985, s256-70; referred to as ldentLfLcatLon. A. Naess, Notes on Professor Sylvan's crLtLque of the Deep Ecology MoveMent, unpublLshed paper, Olso, 1985, 19ff.; referred to as Notes on Sylvan. J. PassMore, Man's ResponsLb~lLty For Nature, 2nd ed., Duckworth, London, 1980; -38- referred to as PassMore. A new way to treat the Land', EcoLogLst 14, 1984, BLoregLonaLLsM K. Sale, 167-73; referred to as Sale. the ph~Losoph~cal and Deep Ecology: A rev~ew of 'shallow G. Sess~ons, EcoLogLcaL (eds.), Hughes J.D. and Ln R.C. Schultz unfortune', UnLvers~ty Press of AMer~ca, ~ash~ngton, D.C., 1981, Consc~ousness, 391- 4 62; referred to as Sess~ons. R. Sylvan, A Cr~t~que of Deep Ecology, Research School of SocLaL AustraLLan Hat~onaL Un~vers~ty, 1985; referred to as Cr~t~que. ScLences, Further Read~ngs R.F. OasMann, Env~ronMentaL Conservat~on, 5th ed., ~LLey, New York, 1984. A. Leopold, A Sand Country ALManac, CheshLre, New York, 1966. E. PapadukLs, The Green MoveMent Ln ~est GerMany, Croon HeLM, London, 1984. -39- DEEP ECOLOGY AHO GREEN POLITICS Deep Ecology Ls an envLronMe~tal theory or platforM wLth polLtLcal sLgnLfLcant wLth pLatforM i..MplLcatLons. Breen PoLLtLcs Ls a poLi..tLcaL envLronMentaL LMpLLcatLons. Both arose Ln Large part Ln reactLon to prevaLLLng envi..ronMentaL practLces; but Deep Ecology concentrates rather on theoretLcal reflectLon, Green PolLtLcs on practLcaL actLon . Deep and LnvestLgatLon questLoni..ng of the underlyLng doMi,nant attLtudes, seen as the Major source of ecoL09Lcal and other probLeMs, Led to artLcuLatLon of the Deep EcoLogy pLatforM, partLy outLi..ned Ln ·slogan" forM Ln the foLLowi..ng tabLe. ). TABLE 1. DEEP ECOLOGY CONTRASTED WITH DOMINANT ATT ITIJOES DOMINANT ATTITUDES [OOMIHAHT PARADIGM] DEEP ECOLOGY [RIVAL EHVIRONMEHTAL PARADIGM] OoMi..nati..on over Nature Nature a Resource; IntrLnsLc VaLue confi..ned to HuMans NaturaL EnvLronMent VaLued for Itself; Bi..ocentri..c EgaLi..tari..ani..sM AMp Le Reso1J rces/Subs t i.. tu tes Earth SuppLLes Li..MLted MaterLaL EconoMLc Growth a predoMLnant goaL Non-MaterLaL GoaLs, especLaLLy SeLf-ReaLi..zati..on ConsuMer i,sM DoLng wLth Enough/RecycLLng CoMpetLti..ve Li..festyLe Cooperati..ve Li..feway CentraLLzed/ Urban Centred/ Hati..onaL focus Decentral.i..zed/ Bi..oregi..onaL/ Nei..ghbourhood focus Power structure Hi..erarchLcaL Non-h i,erarch Lea L/ Grass roots DeMocrac!::I HLgh TechnoL09y Appropri..ate Technology Whi..Le Deep Ecol.og!::j grew froM the work of one envLronMentaL phi..Losopher (Naess Ln 1872), Green PolLtLcs arose (Ln West GerMany sLnce 1876) froM the synthesLs of several. MoveMents - ecol.09!::j, cLtLzens, aLternatLve, peace and other MoveMents. The pLatforM of Green PoLLtLcs, whLch Ls buLLt around four pLLLars socLaL responsLbLLLty, grassroots deMocracy , and non-vLoLence ecology, refLects these orLgLns. The fLrst of these pLLLars, ecoLog!::j, Ls based on the sLMpLe theMe that LLMLted ecoLogi..caL systeMs cannot sustai..n unLi..MLted econoMi..c growth, or such questi..onabLe types of growth as nucLear power, wi..thout serLous rLsk of daMage and degeneratLon. The Green aLM Ls to Move to S!::jsteMs of producti..on and consuMptLon whLch MaLntai..n and restore natural processes and C!::fCLes rather than doMLnate or destroy theM - a Move towards harMony wLth nature. The second pi..LLar of Green PoLLtLcs, socLaL responsLbLLLt!::j, LMpLLes opposi..tLon to the LnequaLLti..es i..n power and doMLnati..on reLati..onshi..ps of present soci..ety, and reMovaL of di..scri..Mi..nati..on, econoMLc hardshi..p and exploi..tati..on, both regi..onally and as regards the ThLrd ~orLd. The Green aLM - to be achi..eved pri..Mari..Ly froM below, Ls to bui..ld stable and just soci..al through those adversely affected arrangeMents, wLth coMprehensLve deMocrati..c rLghts and freedoMs (both i..n 6erMan~ -1- and where GerMan operatLons LMpLnge Ln the ThLrd WorLd). These changes are to be brought about by grassroots deMocracy, the thLrd pLLLar, through Lncreased reaLLsatLon of dLrect decentraLLsed deMocracy. ThLs LnvoLves organLsatLon and coordLnatLon of decentraLLsed basLc unLts (Local, COMMunLty and dLstrLct) whi..ch are gLven extensLve, but not coMpLete, autonoMy, as weLL as wLde use of : referenda, deLegatLon practLces, and rotatLon of offLce-hoLders. The fourth and fLnaL pLLLar, non-vLoLence, LMpli..es the reMovaL of coercLve and aLso oppressLve practLces, not Merely by More powerful people, but especLaLLy by socLaL groups and states, and also, More posLtLveLy, acti..ve depoLyMent of varLous Methods of socLal protest, resLstance and defence . The coMpatLbLlLty of Means wLth ends serves here as an LMportant underlyLng prLncLple: that a just, non-vLolent, huMane end-state cannot be satLsfactorLLy achLeved by unjust, vi..oLent, LnhuMane Means . • l Gr een PolLtLcs offers then a broad prograM for socLal change, whLch LncLudes the More specLfLc and ecologLcalLy focussed Deep Ecology platforM as a quLte proper part. Put dLfferentLy, Green PoLLtLcs coMbLnes a wLder pLuraLLty of The strand. LMportant MoveMents of whLch Deep Ecology represents one Lnter-relatLons are shown pLctorLaLly at the second level of the foLlowLng 12 dLagraM: DIAGRAM 1. DOUBLE PYRAMID, SETTING DEEP ECOLOGY IM PLACE p B \ '\ I 2C ] ~ Oer Lva ti..on Di,recti,on 2+ ExpLanatLon Oi,recti..on 2. Deep Ecology pLatforM 2C. ReforMLst envLronMentaL 2 p1Jsi.. t i.,Qn 2+. Vague fundaMentaLs of Green pLatforM -/ //' ;/ e.g. Buddhi..st (B), ChrLstLan (C) and (Eco)-PhLLosophLc (P) ultLMate bases j / -\,r - [ 1. Deep Ecology fundaMentaLs; C \ \ \ 3. s \ General norMs and theMes , substanti,ally derLved froM pl,atforM PartLcuLar norMs and concrete decLsLons , appLyLng to reLevant practLcal sLtuatLons. The ecologLcaL coMponent of Green PolLtLcs May not go very deep; Lt May on l y be based upon reforM envLronMentalLsM (or shallow ecology as i,t used to be I Starred notes LndLcate poi..nts at wh i..ch readLngs wi..th the correspondLng nuMbers May be Lnserted or undertaken . -2- caLLed), whLch aLM3 to reforM 30Me of the wor3t abuse3 and exces3e3 of the doMLnant posLtLon, such as gross poLLutLon, extensLve despoLLatLon of Land and Lakes and oceans, LLttLe thought for the future, MLstreatMent of anLMals, etc_ On shaLlow ecology, nature Ls not valued for Ltself, but as a resource, that Ls LnstruMentalLy, for what Lt can be used for by huMans_ By contrast, Deep Ecology argues (e_g_ froM preMLsses of Level I) that the envLronMent Ls LntrLnsLcaLLy valuable, that nature Ls valuable Ln and for Ltself; and that, furtherMore, LntrLnsLc value Ls equally dLstrLbuted_ ThLs projectLon of egsLLtarLan or LMpartLalLty prLncLpLes, usually restrLcted to huMans, to the whole of lLfe Ln the natural worLd, gets dLgnLfLed by the tLtle, BLocentrLc EgalLtarLanLsM_ The prLncLple, not part of Green PoLLtLcs, Ls perhaps the Most controversLal of the central prLncLpLes of Deep Ecology; but Lt or soMe substLtute for Lt Ls requLred, granted that the natural world contaLns value beyond that accruLng to huMans and theLr features, to expLaLn how value Ls dLstrLbuted_ Deep Ecology accounts for the dLstrLbutLon through what Ls . . presented as a core deMocracy ~n the bLosphere . _•3 Deep Ecology grew out of a phLlosophLcal deepenLng of the new features of the scLence of ecology, whLch served to dLstance ecology froM the standard run of reductLonLst scLences (through such features as holLsM; gestalt propertLes; systeMs whLch are More than the suM of theLr atoMLstLc parts; eMergent eleMents, lLke lLfe, organLsatLon, etc_ )_ Deep Ecology quLckLy aLLLed Ltself wLth the subversLve features of unco-opted ecology, Ln partLcuLar, the eMphasLs on the lLMLts, and ultLMate faLlure of (atoMLstLc) reductLonLsM Ln scLence and phLlosophy_ WLth such an orLgLn, Lt Ls not surprLsLng that there Ls lLttle dLrectLy about such MaLn pLllars of Green PolLtLcs as socLaL responsLbLLLty and non-vLoLence Ln the pLatforM of Deep Ecology- However Deep Ecology Ls coMpatLbLe wLth these Green pLlLar prLncLpLes, and Lndeed perMLts theLr derLvatLon_ ~hat Ls supposed to resuLt are generaL norMs, LLke No exploLtatLon, No subjectLon, No vLoLence, at leveL 3_ (Such a derLvatLon of a non-vLoLence prLncLpLe froM tne Deep Ecology prLncLpLe of MaxLMLzLng Self-reaLLsatLon Ls atteMpted by Naess Ln the fraMework of hLs systeM of Eco-phLLosophy)_•l A MaLn focus of Deep Ecology Ls on changLng huMan reLatLons wLth the natural envLronMent, away froM doMLnant expLoLtatLve practLces_ The naturaL envLronMent coMprLses LteMs of LntrLnsLc value, LncludLng huMans (who are not above or separate froM Lt), and accordLn9ly Ls to be treated wLth the care and respect valuable LteMs warrant, and not LrresponsLbLy_ Thus Lt would be contrary to Deep Ecology to treat the envLronMent or Lts valued LteMs vLolently whLch however Ls what Deep Ecology contends doMLnant practLces do (consLder such wLdespread phenoMena as "rape of the envLronMent", "of the Land", "of the forestsu)_ SLnce huMans are not apart froM or superLor to nature, Lt follows froM the Deep Ecology pLatforM that natural and proper relatLons also exclude vLoLence towards other huMans or classes of huMans_ Because Lt covers a pluraLLty of posLt~ons, LncludLng shaLLow ecoLogLcaL posLtLons, Green PolLtLcs Ls Much More aMelLoratLve and reforMLst Ln character than Deep Ecology, whLch Ls further reMoved froM doMLnant attLtudes, More hardLLne, and More radLcaL_ ~hereas Deep Ecology goes to fundaMentaLs, and focusses on Ldeals and theory, Green PolLtLcs tends to concentrate on practLcal polLtLcal probleMs of an envLronMental or socLal kLnd, such as acLd raLn or rLver pollutLon or MLssLle deplo8Ment, and (lLke the Peace MoveMent Ln AustralLa) Ls not so Much concerned wLth refLnLng Lts rather vague prLncLpLes or wor~Lng out an env~ronMentaL (or peace) ph~Losophy_ Because of Lts envLronMentaL depth and natural world focus, Deep Ecology Ls concerned wLth a range of natural envLronMent Lssues, such as wLlderness, rare specLes, and the radLcal -3- transforMatLon of agrLcuLture, whLch are onLy of passLng Lnterest to a sMaLL MLnorLty Ln Green PoLLtLcs or are beyond Lts poLLtLcaL reach. Jn Lts reforMLst styLe Green PoLLtLcs does not venture far beyond prevLous Left-LeanLng poLLtLcaL MoveMents, except, fLrstLy, Ln Lts opposLtLon to envLronMent and aMenLty daMa9Ln9 LndustrLaLLsM and, secondLy, as regards non-vLolence and Lts coMMLtMent to attaLnLng peace. Non-vLoLence Ls the Most controversLaL of the four pLLLars. For non-vLoLence ruLes out a range of poLLtLcal actLon, LncLudLn9 typLcal protests, confrontatLon and revoLutLons. Non-vLolence also LMplLes, what Ls very dLfferent froM current MLLLtary pra~tLces, socLal defence. WhLLe MaLn factLons Ln the Green MoveMent support non-vLolent Methods and socLal defence, other Lesser factLons hold that force Ls necessary to brLn9 about varLous necessary changes and for defence purposes. The Deep EcoLogy platforM Lncludes severaL prLncLpLes that would be recognLsed by onLy a MLnorLty of the Green MoveMent. One of these prLncLples (whLch however, unlLke BLocentrLc EgalLtarLanLsM, would not be wLdeLy opposed by reforMLst Greens) Ls the core prLncLpLe of SeLf-reaLLsatLon, or More exactLy of MaxLMLzLng SeLf-reaLLsatLon. The notLon of self-realLsatLon of varLous relLgLous posLtLons, of the full unfoldLng and developMent of the person, Ls vastly expanded Ln Deep EcoLogy to Lnclude brLngLng to fuLl fruLtLon not MereLy one's own person, but all that one LdentLfLes wLth, that Ls the expanded Self, whLch Ls taken to be not Merely one's faMLLy or feLlows or fellow natLonals, nor Merely ~as on huManLstLc ethLcs) the whole huMan race, but the whole naturaL 1 systeM. The SeLf-realLsatLon prLncLpLe, sprLngLng as Lt appears froM an enLLghtened personal self-Lnterest prLncLple, has an excellent phLlosophLcaL pedLgree (at Least as applLed to huMans or neL9hbourLn9 classes of huMans). Thus rather than beLng argued for, a dLffLcult Matter Ln the case of ultLMate prLncLples, SeLfrealLsatLon Ls LMported froM syMpathetLc phLlosophLcal or reLLgLous posLtLons at Level 1 of the double pyraMLd, froM those that help sustaLn Deep Ecology. However the expansLon Lnvolved, the derLvatLon process froM narrow self to coMprehensLve Self, severs the usual justLfLcatory lLnks. It Ls hard to LdentLfy one's self-Lnterests wLth those of a rock or an acorn. So the supposed LdentLfLcatLon - wLth soMe or aLL MountaLns, rLvers and raLnforests Ln the wLder reMaLns, LLke the assocLated extended EgaLLtarLan Self, Nature personLfLed prLncLpLe, decLdedLy probLeMatLc. Because Lt Ls assuMed that SeLf-reaLLsatLon Ls dLrected to ecoLogLcal and spLrLtual ends, not at MaterLaL goods or Means, SeLf-reaLLsatLon Leads to the 16 AMong the raMLfLcatLons of the slogan slogan, USLMpLe Ln Means, rLch Ln endsn. are those concernLng what kLnd of technology one uses and where one lLves (the Matter of dwellLng Ln sLtuatLons of Lnherent value and the lLke), what and how Much one consuMes, and so on. The doMLnant attLtudes, forMed around of econoMLc growth and econoMLc routes to happLness, have MaxLMLzatLon eMphasLsed both MaterLal goals and MaterLal Means, partLcuLarly personal consuMerLsM. But Lf MaterLaL use and pure consuMptLon are to be reduced for envLronMentaL and other reasons, what LLfestyles are approprLate? Deep Ecology, LLke Lts fundaMentaL sources, poLnts to experLentLal and spLrLtuaL ends and eMphasLzes the rLchness of non-MaterLaL ends avaLlabLe. The result, of course, Ls practLces whLch are sLMpLe, voluntary sLMpLLcLty, do~ng wLth enough, and, More 9enerall8, practLces whLch lLe lLght on the Land and the naturaL world. In way of d0Ln9 thLngs, these wLLL be Lnte9rated (Ln ~ properly ecoLogLcaL syMbLotLc and other naturaL styles) wLth the natural systeMs LnvoLved, workLng wLth rather than agaLnst the natural fLow. The practLces, and organLsatLonaL approprLate to regLonaL wLLl accordLngly be ecoregLonaL arrangeMents, 17 to be caLLed. coMe have they as bLore9LonaL, ecoL09LcaL 9roupLn9s - or -4- ApproprLate Means LncLude, Ln turn, technLques approprLate to the practLce and theory of Deep Ecology- HLgh technoL09Les such as nuclear power are not approprLate, even Ln advanced LndustrLaL socLetLes, but LnapproprLate because of the envLronMentaL and socLaL costs and rLsks such technoLogLcaL forMs LMpose_ On both deep and green percept i,ons, wh-3 t Ls requ Lred a re re LLab Le c-:1 ref u L technoLogLes whLch are not ecoLogLcaLLy daMa9Ln9 or socLaLLy rLsky or otherwLse undesLrabLe; but the technoLogi,es adl"li,tted wLLl dLffer accordLng to the prLncLpLes of the posLtLons they answer back to (e_g_ farMLng technLques wLLL need to be very dLfferent froM those prevaLLLng Ln rural GerMany to Meet such prLncLpLes as bLospherLc egaLLtarLanLsM )_ In each case the practLcaL use of approprLate technoLogy faLLs at the bottoM, actLon Level, of the doubLe pyral"I ,,"d _•8 WhLLe Deep Ecology suppLLes an appeaLLng bLueprLnt for dLfferent socLaL and LLfe-ways, the questLon reMaLns: how Ls the proMLsed Land reached? A MaLn part of the answer Ls taken to be gLven through a further crucLaL feature of Deep Ecology: EcoLogLcaL ConscLousness, a notLon agaLn expandLng upon conceptLons of other oLder LdeoLogLes (e_g_ of reLL9Lous, or of revoLutLonary, conscLousness)_ What Ls dLfferent Ls that spLrLtuaL or LdeoLogLcaL conversLon Ls agaLn broadened froM the personaL and socLaL to coMprehend the fuLL envLronMentaL predLcaMent_ In thLs expLanatLon, of how peopLe get, and are got, to grasp Deep Ecology and Lts practLces, the pyraMLd Ls ascended, froM actLon to Ldeas, to deeper explanatory prLncLpLes_ A thorough conversLon process LnvoLves eLevatLon to the top LiveL, spLrLtuaL transcendence of the daLLy econoMLc and poLLtLcaL actLon LeveL. 9 It Ls assuMed that, wLth enough converts and supporters, Deep Ecology wLLL be put Ln place, LLke Green PoLLtLcs, by grassroots deMocratLc procedures_ LLke the fundaMentaL sources upon whLch Lt draws, Deep Ecology prescrLbes practLces by whLch to achLeve such a conversLon and through whLch to arrLve at EcoLogLcaL ConscLousness_ SoMe of the MaLn practLces, such as MedLtatLon and conteMpLatLon, are derLved frol"I the fundaMentaL sources_ But other Methods whLch extend these, soMe of theM expandLng upon ecoLogLcaL experLence, LncLude value seeLng thLngs dLfferentLy, and reorLentatLon and wLdened value perceptLon of other thLngs - Connected wLth weLL-beLng and worth the coMLng to apprecLate goes a hoLLstLc shLft Ln theM, these wLdened experLentLaL bases, and LnforMLng vaLues and perceptLon, and an expanded LdentLfLcatLon , affordLng dLrect LLnkage wLth parts and whoLes of the natural worLd_•IO By these Methods, a person May coMe to a deep and joyous apprecLatLon of the reaL world, a convert to Deep Ecology, a feLLow and advocate of Lts Messages and LLfe-ways. ESSAY QUESTIONS }_ To what extent do Green PoLLtLcs and Deep Ecology share the saMe values and address the sal"le probLel"ls? CrLtLcaLLy coMpare and contrast theLr proposals, especLaLLy as regards the naturaL and the buLLt envLronMent_ 2_ Deep Ecology Ls soMetLMes assLgned four Levels. Try to descrLbe these, and to expLaLn carefuLLy the LnterreLatLons aMong PoLLtLcs fLt Lnto thLs probLeMatLc scheMe? these Levels. Where does Green Ln prLncLpLe" appears as a key theMe of Deep Eco~ogy. Cri.tLcaLLy assess Lts adequacy_ Shouldn't Green PoLLtLcs LncLude such a pri.nci.pLe? 3_ ·sLocentrLc EgaLLtarLanLsM - Non-vLo~ence an unstated pr~nc~p~e of Deep Ecoiog~? Expia~n why Deep Ecology Ls coMMLtted to non-vLoLence to the degree i.t Ls? In your answers take account of the foLLowLng dLffLcuLtLes: L. the contradLcti.ons between the use of I+- 1:5 -5- vLolence and the defence of the envLronMent; LL. the occurrence of vLolence Ln nature; LLL. the need for coercLve Methods to preserve the natural envLronMent. 5. What justLfLes expandLng self-realLsatLo n to Self-realLsatLo n? ExpLaLn the MeanLng and LMportance of SeLf-ReaLLsatL on for Deep EcoLogy and dLscuss Lts adequacy. Why does Lt not feature Ln Green PolLtLcs? 6. ExplaLn the MeanLng of the delLberateLy vague slogan °SLMple Ln Means, rLch Ln ends", or of soMe other hLgh-LMpact sLogan of Deep EcoLogy. IndLcate how the vagueness MLght work for and a9aLnst the slogan, suggest how the slogan MLght be alternatLve LnterpretatLon s, and LndLcate soMe of the suggest applLed, aLternatLves. these of raMLfLcatLons 7. OutLLne bLoregLonalLsM , LndLcatLng what practLcaL envLronMentaL probLeMs bLoregLonalLsM Lnduces. How Ln fact Ls bLoregLonalLsM derLved froM Deep EcoLogy? ConsLder to what extent bLoregLonalLsM fLts wLth the sLogan, ·rhLnk globally, act locally·. 8. Is More hLgh technology an unprobLeMatLc solutLon to deeper, or to any, envLronMental probLeMs? CoMpare and contrast the vLews of Deep Ecology and Green PoLLtLcs on the role of varLous types of technoLogy. 9. What Ls Ecolo9Lcal ConscLousness? And what Ls Lt supposed to do Ln and for Deep Ec0Lo9y? If Lt Ls so LMportant, why Ls Lt not a MaLn concern for Green PoLLtLcs? A reLatLonaL, total-fLeLd LMa9e of huMan reLatLonshLps wLth nature has been quLetLy oMLtted froM the orLgLnaL pLatforM of Deep Ecology. Is thLs gestalt pLcture needed? Is Lt defensLbLe? Should Lt be reLnstated? 10. -6-  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 24, Item 1697: Draft of Deep ecology and green politics Subject The topic of the resource Typescript of draft, undated. Handwritten note attached to paper: Basis of book right here! Includes partial draft of same paper, pages 1 to 6. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 24, Item 1697 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [46] leaves. 58.01 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:476be48">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:476be48</a> Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Australian National University - Filing Cabinet 1 - Top Drawer Australian National University Office Australian National University Office > Filing Cabinet 1 > Top Drawer Box 24: Files on Articles https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/b1bb957eb0669c86c103b14fb224f5fb.pdf 21d1b8e5d70d2b597b1948aa633e80c2 PDF Text Text MORAL DILEMMAS AND THE LOGIC OF DEONTIC NOTIONS Richard Routley and Vai Plumwood^ The §1. paradoxes of deontic logic consistency and the and modal requirements. Especially since mid-century many systems of deontic logic have been advanced, which logic of such deontic attempt to explore the prohibition, and wrong. right all Almost which treat deontic notions as modal, notions as obligation, permission and modal not demand functors, All such systems are mistaken m a For deontic functors such as obligation and prohibition are but are more highly of degree greater a systems, i.e. as if strict or provable equivalents are intersubstitutable within them preserving truth. quite fundamental way. systems have been modal these intensional than propositional modal modal than discrimination and so functors, logics can provide. The damage caused by the mistaken treatment of deontic notions as modal shows up in various ways, but we shall be primarily concerned with only one of these, the consistency requirements and the exclusion thereby of moral dilemmas. which the modal damage appears is through a Another way in series of related paradoxes, such as, directly, the paradoxes of derived obligation, and, less directly, the paradoxes of the Robber and the Good Samaritan. The consistency requirements come out in two ways in mainstream deontic systems. consistency Firstly, a negation are requirement, - obligatory in the that usual no claim such is symbolism, Op that ~0~p, both it i.e. and its ~(0p & 0~p) — appears as a principle, frequently a postulate, in all mainstream absolute systems.21 Such absolute systems, which are variants on alethic modal systems, are characteristically obtained from corresponding alethic systems by replacing the modal axiom, that’ or ’it ought to be the case that’, or the functor ’□ ’, modal (such as logics system demands world is ’it is obligatory ’it ought to be seen to that', replaces ’it is necessary that', of alethic systems. We know of course that consistency requirement; some ~0~p - where ’O’, read Op D p, by the deontic axiom, Op the doxastic systems) the standard but it appears that the intended interpretation of deontic the consistency requirement. or encapsulates acceptable subsequently introduced, can be designed without For its semantical equivalent what is permitted (i.e. is that in symbols (Px)STx) which is surely true (for let world x be determined precisely by what is so permitted). Moreover, the second related way in which consistency escaped by a modal formulation of deontic (or doxastic) logics. figures cannot be so For it seems clear, �2 and is widely agreed, that 0 satisfies the following distribution principle: (1) Op&OqiffO(p&q). Since however 0 is modal, and p & ~p & q p&~p (i.e. - the sides are strictly equivalent), 0(p & ~p) iff 0(p & ~p & q) Thence, Op & 0~p implies 0(p & ~p), which implies 0(p & ~p & q), and (2), by (1) which implies Oq; (2) if there are cases of moral dilemmas where Op and also 0~p, i.e. then obligation spreads so that any claim is obligatory. This argument tells against all mainstream deontic logics; rock-bottom system, minimal deontic logic. for it holds in the This logic MDS, presented by von Wright and others (see e.g. Hilpinen 81, p.3 and p.5), adds to classical sentential logic CL (with rules of Material Detachment and Substitutivity duly extended) the one-place connective P, of permissibility, subject to just the conditions P(A v B) e (1’) PA v PB and Intersubstitutivity of provably equivalent CL (i.e. truth functional) wff Now define a connective - in fact the standard obligation Then, where A and B are any CL wff, 0(A & B) OA =£j£~P~A. negation and It then follows, given that (extensional) principles to De Morgan = ~(~P~A & ~P~B). follows), 0 moral claim is dilemmas obligatory, the consequence as above of the nothing functor ) * (2 - thus: OA & OB, upon applying of (1 ) * that P~(—A & —B) (or by variants thereupon that which form OA & 0~A, (extensional) i.e. any permissible. The that is OB, revealing variant argument applies the provable CL-equivalence A & -A = B & ~B to get 0(A & ~A) = 0(B & ~B). d OB & 0~B => OB. Then (in condensed notation) OA & 0~A => 0(A & ~A) => 0(B & ~B) That is, if there are any deontic moral dilemmas (of such forms as OA & 0~A) then everything is obligatory. other forms; But there are moral dilemmas, of this and and not everything is obligatory. incorrect. So too are all its extensions, and Therefore minimum deontic logic is thereby all mainstream systems. For 'most systems of deontic logic include the system’ of von Wright 'as a subsystem' (F & H, p.13). There is little appreciation of the involve in the ethical Hare, having set up a force of these arguments or of what they literature. But one prominent example will dilemma, and rejected one logical have to suffice. route out, proceeds to pronounce that 'it is not very helpful to try to sort out these difficulties by some relatively minor tinkering with the calculus of deontic logic. The linguistic and logical intuitions which give rise to them are all right so far as they go' (82, �3 intuitions behind the mainstream systems are not alright, but lead to The p.28). deontic collapse and to a heap of paradoxes; and a bit of '’tinkering" is enough to remove the worst difficulties.5 (2’) and The trouble lies we shall argue, just with the modal requirement (i.e. its usual extension to all wff). that not everything is obligatory, evident For while it is This leaves much to be defended. on no more than the strength of a few examples (such as that it is not obligatory that everyone visit the tallest eucalypt every day), none of the other assertions is so uncontroversial. Given that there are such moral dilemmas, as will be argued at length, and given that sentential logic CL is admissible when applied to consistent situations (which are all that are elsewhere (in arguments: required RLR in especially), modal the namely, the arguments there are a claim that has been argued above), two only and requirement, one fault the which to points at half of the distributivity principle, specifically r (O-adjunction). OA & OB -> 0(A & B) But it is bizarre to have to fail O-adjunction in order OA & 0~A =5 B has quite especially when OB to stand, 0(A & ~A) to be correctly foundation. And obligation. For, not it contemplated among in the things, is a irrelevant mates 7 desperate measure , systems since it intended role and mainstream against entirely other is conceded that its Faulting O-adjunction rejected. goes it to allow the paradox O-adjunction can be argued is without meaning for from of the semantics of 0, along these lines:- Roughly OA is true iff A holds in all acceptable situations. But if A holds in all such situations and B does also then so does A & B, validating O-adjunction. Accordingly, the trouble must be located in the modality requirements. This can be seen from another angle also. obligation, which also underlies O-adjunction, An important logical feature of is its transmissibility, that what is tightly entailed by what is obligatory is also obligatory; in symbolic form, A ■+ B -o OA -> OB But now, (0-transmission). if entailment is erroneously construed as strict implication, which is what the modal requirement would have us do, then 0(A & ~A) -> OB, since by a paradox of strict implication A & ~A B. If there are moral dilemmas of the form 0(A & ~A), as will be contended, then this result is sufficiently damaging on its own, and focusses the trouble on the modal requirement. properly maligned OA & 0~A ->0B. Otherwise apply O-adjunction, to obtain the �4 the Both and consistency requirements should modality be challenged then by anyone who claims that, for some p, both Op and 0~p (and that such judgements are not merely prima facie, vanishing upon further reflection). Many have argued that such cases do occur, indeed are central examples of value conflict, and are of fundamental importance in ethics.$ We want to go even further and claim, firstly, that such cases occur quite frequently, as cases of conflicting obligations, conflicting rights, and genuine moral dilemmas - so in particular there are many cases where both p and ~p ought to be the case - and secondly, that adequate logical treatment of such cases requires an underlying logic of a distinctively paraconsistent kind. we shall cases has, argue, with many important arguments and cases. many of logic rendered deontic Neglecting such incapable of dealing adequately The matter is particularly serious since fiercely debated moral cases are cases of moral dilemmas, lthe most e.g. limited resources, nuclear war, permissible war tactics. While our initial argument will overlap previous work,9 it goes beyond it by adding a semantical treatment and moral of explanation semantical dilemmas, and in setting adequate deontic logics within the framework of paraconsistent logic. simple The §2. resolution relevant epicycling. classical versus The relevant It has already been indicated. solution to the base problem is disarmingly simple. Abandon the modal assumption, that obligation, permissibility, and so on, are modal This blocks logical equivalents. functors allowing replacement of modal from OCA & ~A), or from OA & 0~A, to 0(B & ~B) and thence to OB. giving up intersubstitutivity are replacement coentailment, not simply just more in contexts; deontic rigorous than lax strict equivalence. intimately - the Spread with What ones. is permitting required is While A & ~A and B & ~B are strictly equivalent, they do not coentail one another. connected modal It does not involve conditions the the move law, That is as much of a fallacy as - one A that would have that a & ~A -> B, contradiction such as A & ~A entails any statement whatsoever. An alternative satisfactory distinctive implciation deontic way then logic of should explaining be in particular of relevant paraconsistent, feature of relevant logics, their and the is solution, simply and through why the a most rejection of the paradoxes of strict Spread. For, as remarked, one logical characteristic of deontic notions such as obligation is their transmissibility; i.e. where A entails B then OA is logically sufficient for OB.10 Then were entailment strict implication it would follow at once by Spread that 0(A & ~A) -> OB, whence by O-adjunction, OA & 0~A -> OB. basis of interpretations straightforwardly on RLR II). of Transmissibility may be independently argued for on the entailment (e.g. as content inclusion), and follows the semantical analysis of obligation to be advanced (cf. also �5 A good deal of effort has already been expended in trying to save mainstream deontic theory from the worst of the difficulties and consistency requirements. Most of through its modal it encounters, the repairs however attempted amount to epicycling: trying to tack theory-saving devices onto the initial theory, rather than questioning any fundamental features of it. Intractable exposed. problems is called What the with so-called minimal the standard system of deontic system already have been logic is in an even worse position than the minimal system, because it adds to the minimal system as an axiom 12 Then any standard system including a moral dilemma, 0(p^ & ~p ), is 13 o o simply inconsistent. For Op => Pp, hence Pp^ & ~Pp-j where p1 is pQ & ~pQ. ~p(p & ~p). Main marketed deontic logics are epicyclic variations on (i) standard deontic logic, being modal attempts to repair defects in earlier prototypes. They include (ii) reductions of systems of type (i) to alethic logics by introduction of a constant ’o’ read, for example, ’the world will be worse off’ or 'punishment ought to cr is the moral sanction or some bad state of affairs. follow’: is defined Then *0' EK-A^cr); i.e. A is obligatory iff the negation of A (non-fulfilment of A, it OA is said) necessitates the sanction. It is usually postulated: -0^. Such reductive frameworks, since they include minimal deontic logic, repeat its defects. (iii) relativistic systems which attempt axiomatise to circumstances, c', conditional of reads ’p is obligatory given, or permission and conditional obligation; thus ’0(p/c) * in notions underlying model being that of conditional the probability. These systems were designed chiefly to avoid the paradoxes of derived obligation to which systems of type really in (as and (i) probability (ii) theory) lead. to But the new operator, /, compensate for implicational connective in the modal framework assumed. so-called "logics of conditional e.g., van Fraassen, p.438 ’... obligation" still lack the is introduced of an adequate So, not surprisingly, these exclude moral dilemmas (thus, it would be more apt to say that we have here a logic of obligation that remains after obligational conflicts are resolved'). (iv) systems which conditional d, such include a modal conditional functor superior to the material­ as a Stalnaker-Lewis-style conditional, conditional deontic notions like those of (iii) can be defined. in terms of which But these systems, since modal, do not escape modal limitations and problems (see further RLR). (v) systems based on a logic of change or action. These systems turn out to be reducible to a combination of absolute systems with tense logics, i.e. 14 to multiply modal systems and so repeat the problems of modal systems. None of these modal types are satisfactory, none can be made so, they amount because of �6 What is at modal assumptions, like consistency requirements, that they all involve. fault is not merely types of systems of this sort, which confine the framework to a worlds possible defect enough, one thereby and but the write in conditions, consistency that is though sweeping consistency interpretation of deontic more logic, that ’principles of deontic logics are conditions of consistency for normative systems’.^ The consistency interpretation - which is deeply entrenched in much ethical theory (especially making no adequate allowance from Kant) deriving that for what is essential fundamentally mistaken, - is moral dilemmas and to morality, the familiar inconsistency of normative systems. Documenting moral dilemmas. Cases of moral dilemmas are, perhaps unfortunately, §3. both familiar and inevitable. perhaps not, and logic theory deontic (including is unfortunate It such for standard deontic approximations rough as utilitarianism) since they have ultimately to be dismissed as inadequate to account for the data. is also often extremely On the other dilemmas. awkward who those for such dilemmas hand, probity, and are a main source of moral change. A moral dilemma occurs when considerations, for instance cannot T situation in act (where such a of which shape cannot, or precisely as way afford real tests of moral worth and 16 is confronted with moral perhaps not directly inconsistent, factual the probably cannot, facts satisfy to principles, binding obtain); principles that is, one so as to or although be satisfied Then the situation T cannot but induce a moral fix. considerations. in moral (but not only when) one the in themselves enmeshed find It in the (probably) meet moral This can come about in two ways, either because of the logical limitations supposedly satisfied by T, in particular its consistency feature (that, whatever p, does not) or through certain contingent features if p holds in T then ~p of T. In what follows we shall concentrate on a major subclass of what are commonly accounted moral dilemmas, those of (paraconsistent) logical interest where what is given or derived are pairs such as OA and OB, WA and WB (i.e. A is wrong and so is B), or the like, where A and B are And incompatible. of particular logical importance are cases where deontically incompatible pairs such as Op and 0~p, Wp and W~p, or the like are guaranteed. The examples of moral dilemmas we consider provide only a small selection from the rich variety of such dilemmas, but hopefully they illustrate that variety. Several of the examples involve more than one moral principle: however some commonly- adopted moral principles generate dilemmas, of one sort or another, their own. pretty much on Consider for instance first principles of the following type: Situations involving the (indiscriminate) killing of numbers of (uninvolved) people should be avoided, should not happen, are wrong - principle at very first approximation of the form (p)(p satisfies condition C + Wp). Applying such a principle, a dilemma results �7 where and occurs a large number of people will be killed, if p obtains or if ~p obtains a large number of people will also be killed. War situations provide obvious examples, with the V(ietnam) dilemma typical. 17 For example, people have described the situation in Vietnam as follows (not that it really is this way): If the Americans withdraw from Vietnam, a large number of people If the Americans stay in (do not withdraw from) Vietnam, will be killed. number of people will withdraw from C. Hence under be killed. Vietnam', Hence, condition satisfies p where p is C 'the Americans withdraw from ~p and the principle both p and ~p are wrong, similar is the company commander's dilemma. of his troops will be killed. a large also i.e. satisfies condition 18 Wp and W~p. Rather If he invades the hamlet, a large number If he does not invade the hamlet the prisoners held Taking p as 'he invades the hamlet', p satisfies C and therein will be killed, etc. ~p satisfies C. Therefore, Wp & W~p. Both p and-not p are wrong; neither would occur The killing does not however have to be of large numbers in an acceptable situation. of people to induce moral dilemmas. variants on the commander's dilemma Favourite regularly wheeled out concern murdering a potential murderer to prevent him killing several other presented people and with the related constrained option killing of some choice situations smaller special person is where a group of people (or creatures) in order to avoid the certain killing of a larger or less favoured group 1Q of creatures. 7 The pacifist's (or differently seen, patriot's) dilemma, which Lemmon draws from on Sartre, concerns the proposition p^: Z goes to war. If Z does not go to war, he help his friends and fails to fellow countrymen when they are in desperate need. Thus ~p-j is wrong, W-p-j , on the principle that so failing to help one's friends and fellow countrymen is wrong. If Z goes to war, he will be involved in killing people he has nothing morally or otherwise against; whence Wp^, on the principle that things which involve such killing are wrong. Therefore again Wp^ and W~pp A different sort of example, again however involving the taking of life in one way or another is the abortion dilemma (as conceived by Anglicans, say). presented as a clash between conflicting rights. to life (i.e. (on that the one part of the should not foetus); have one's In one corner, there is the right in the other, the right to bodily integrity body used against one's detriment for someone else’s benefit) on the part of the mother. where a particular state of affairs is an instance of both so (~p) and will principles. Hence Wp. would deny the mother's right to bodily integrity. Whence adjoining, Wp & W~p. to one's A dilemma results performance of an abortion (p) would deny the foetal right to life. not doing This can be The But Hence W~p. �8 Not so far removed from these examples, particularly when omission is conflated with commission, are environmentally-oriented examples involving sacrifice (broadly construed), for resources. Suppose that we have a duly qualified principle to the effect that things which lead to the feeding of starving people should happen. example the is a dilemma of limited three cases:- First following Suppose also that we have limited resources, and have decided to distribute these as follows: If the coin comes down heads (p), then group A of starving people will be fed. But if the coin does not come down heads (~p) then group B of starving people will be fed. Plainly in an ideal situation both p and ~p will occur, that is the coin will come down heads and it will not come down heads, so that both groups of people will be fed. And if the moral principle cited is correctly applied then a case of Op and 0~p results. course minor Of involved leads to conclusions of the form adjustment of the principle W~p and W—p, whence Wp. For an analogous conservationist * s (or humanitarian * s) dilemma consider the case forest where it ought to happen that the is chopped down, the benefit of the for presently starving (or etc.), and it ought to happen that the forest is preserved by positive action and Op dilemma for the benefit of coming generations (or etc.). 0~p emerges the from of application distinct In this case the The principles. society dilemma, concerns the reform of primitive societies so that they primitive Consider the dilemma of a feminist environmentalist as conform to outside standards. regards Aboriginal On the women. other hand, suppression of women in Aboriginal society should be opposed; on the other hand major western interference in Aboriginal affairs should be avoided; but changing the position of women would constitute major interference. Different examples involving public institution) dilemma, which following:- On the one hand, the be restricted and the funds will principle being the concerns preposition p2: the University The Vice-Chancellor, or rather his advisor on logic, argues opposes the government. both separate principles are the Vice-Chancellor * s (or formulated Wp2, p2 is wrong, students and accordingly). On because the University’s learning in general will suffer the other hand, W~p2, ~p2 (the is wrong because #p# will strengthen the present iniquitous status quo (the principle being states that of affairs which strengthen the present status quo be philosophers, is iniquitous avoided). Therefore, conjoining Wp2 & W~p2» A signifi ant source of moral dilemmas, long observed by afforded by a relatively unrestricted institution of promising, and more generally by parallel institutional arrangements for entering perhaps worth distinguishing two classes of cases. situations, Z is under an obligation into (moral) Firstly, contracts. It is in purely contractual p, because of a contract or promise, and also �9 under an obligation q, because of a (likely different) contract, where q entails or In the second sort of case, Z has promised to do ~p, and hence commits one to ~p. But p also satisfies conditions C, 0~p. it emerges, and Z adheres to the principle (q)(Cq ->0q), whence Op. As an example of the second type consider Lemmon’s simple and dated example, adapted from Plato: A friend leaves me with his gun saying he will be back for it in the evening, and I promise to return it when he calls. He arrives in a distraught condition, demands his gun, and announces he is going to shoot his wife because she has been unfaithful. I ought to return the gun, since I promised to do so - a case of obligation. And yet I ought not to do so, since to do so would be to be indirectly responsible for a murder, and my moral principles are such that I regard this as wrong. I am in an extremely straightforward moral dilemma, evidently resolved by not returning the gun (62, p.148). According to Lemmon the outcome is both Op, where p is ’I return the gun’, and also The 0~p. namely, for first an inference concerning promise-keeping; every q, that q is a genuine promise entails Oq (for genuine promises follows engender obligations), from and p is a immediate genuine promise. inference of the following sort: for every q, The second follows that q really contributes to a murder implies Wq, and that p really contributes to a murder; and moreover, -> 0~q. using an for every q, Wq Even if this last principle is repudiated a dilemma remains: for both Op and Wp, i.e. I ought to return the gun and it is wrong that I return the gun. that the initial principle sustains the conclusion 0~q as well. (It may be In any case, it is not difficult to amend Lemmon’s example so that it does, or more important, so as to render the ensuing dilemma more convincing.) Other dilemmas recur in variant form with contracts and promises. For instance, limited resources dilemmas reappear as follows: we promise all our surplus to a group of poor only to have even poorer people turn up. where one's deception, employment calls or participation in for activities Similarly work and role dilemmas, which are the production of nuclear morally repugnant (such as or chemical weapons), may arise either contractually, e.g. one signed up for the position, or from duty, e.g. to provide for one's family. Some of the moral dilemmas we have made look more determinate than perhaps they should, or than they would be if the circumstances were filled out, or got filled out slightly differently. Then we should find that some of the dilemmas take the form of Lemmon's more complex class, namely those where rather than OA and 0~A, what one has is Prob OA and Prob 0~A, where Prob is the probability functor ’it is probable that'. Lemmon describes this class of "fully dilemmatic situations" in these terms: ’there �10 is some, but not conclusive, evidence that one ought to do something, and there is some, but not conclusive, evidence that one ought not to do that thing’ (pp.152-3). sort of dilemma is again drawn from Sartre: in A real-life working example of this brief, Sartre’s pupil is under some (sort of) obligation to stay with his mother, but he also probably under is an obligation, felt only ambiguously, to join the Free French in England (for a fuller description see Lemmon, pp.153-4). Lemmon suggests that this class of dilemmas is, and perhaps should stay beyond deontic formalisation: however the dilemmas are now within the scope of formalisation of a sort by multiple functor intensional logics of a type not different represent such principles as ’’ought implies can”.22 those already from needed to Though we have presented a wide variety of dilemmas, some of them in some detail - to the dispel that dilemmas common prejudice are a rare phenomena that can be safely set aside or that need not be taken seriously in an ethical theory - we have by no means exhausted the range and wealth of such dilemmas. the extent of analogues practical of these Nor have we indicated the dilemmas; fact is that similar dilemmas are frequent in economics, over budgeting, devaluation (we ought to devalue because ... and we ought not to devalue because ...), and so on. Nor have we brought out the political significance of the dilemmas; but the fact also is that some of the deeper problems in moral and political theory revolve around dilemmas. Familiar examples are issues of (permitting permissiveness interests possibly harming or licence individuals to pursue offending others) and freedom (restricting freedom as regards actions which infringe others * freedom), of paternalism and state authority versus civil liberties, and of democracy as against minority interests. A assortment varied accounts of the where sources of examples is source of moral dilemmas, for moral claims conflict, contractual obligations. Lemmon also in particular and promises, is attracted principles as those morally simplistic that they generally arise greatest (p.150). But he fact that one and the same conflicting directives requiring type, since principle may conflict with or duties, may conflict with one another principle can deliver such removing by an account of this latter underestimates the extent of conflict, and neglects the contract or in e.g. duty with principles, principles with while realising that it will not always suffice, principle important (e.g. double maximization happiness of the greatest number). As well a sufficient variety of tough examples helps remove the illusion that moral dilemmas can one and all be escaped. Admittedly, fortunately, there are ways around some of the dilemmas we have outlined, especially those we have borrowed. with perhaps further around the dilemmas), artifice in setting up the cases (to exclude But lateral moves some of the dilemmas stand: from them (as is further argued in �11 residue ’To insist that there is in every case a solution without is no escape. § 6) there false is the to moral facts’ p.132), Marcus (Barcan a theme she well illustrates with the abortion dilemma. §4. deontic Paraconsistent logic cannot be modal makes it modal treatment the relevant development. logic: An adequate deontic have to be paraconsistent. but will For a modal treatment to accommodate moral dilemmas - which are hard data impossible it makes as dilemmas treat dilemmas impossible to (§3)• A without proper catastrophic collapse (as shown in §1). The of principles standard deontic logic are, however, as added to readily various paraconsistent logics as they are to modal or classical logic - at least this (e.g. OP), in (da Costa negation-weakened namely logic and now distinguished style) logic paraconsistent and For Jaskowski-style discussive logics there are some difficulties; relevant logics. in styles of paraconsistent two of the main for is true particular, the given of rejection can principles, adjunction such logics satisfactorily include O-adjunction, OA & OB -> 0(A & B), which reflects adjunction in for the possible-worlds sentential framework It would seem not; acceptable worlds? logic offers no way of handling of Jaskowski-style the form 0(C & ~C) that result by O-adjunction. properly accommodate dilemmas, for dilemmas concerning obligation, where such as moral clearly principles difficulties; For these require impossible worlds Generally, Jaskowski-style logics are in deep trouble trying to where C & ~C holds. adjunctive full-strength moral dilemmas of logics Negation—weakened hold. they cannot deliver expected deontic also are interconnections, e.g. in the deontic ’’square of opposition”, presented shortly, which depends crucially on normal principles. negation In difficulties. Relevant brief, deontic the reasons types of paraconsistent logics logics can both avoid choosing relevant logics over for (the substantial sets these of other main reasons for which are given in OP) are accentuated still farther as soon as applications, such as to deontic logic, are Accordingly we will assume a relevant logical base, and a relevant semantical made. in what follows. framework, Even so, much of what we say and do can be adapted to other logical bases, e.g. negation-weakened or positive-plus bases. Often a combined syntactical-semantical is approach more fruitful and illuminating than either a syntactical-axiomatic or a semantical approach carried out separately. Each enriches and controls the other.23 Such is the case with relevant logical theory, logic. Even analogue of and so it is with relevant deontic logic, which builds on relevant so, a standard syntactical deontic standard superstructure, relevant logic. beginning logic we normally added can is easier. simply add For an to obtain exact a analogue relevant of the to classical logic, to (what supersedes CL) �12 For minimal relevant deontic logic, MD, the one-place functor 0 - of obligation, as usual read (e.g. ’It ought suitable some to be extending system that’ - is added (the case) B system basic the to some relevant logic of RLR conforms to the usual formation rule: where A is a wff so is OA. however are options at Functor, F read ’It is forbidden that’, is defined thus: ’It is permissible that’, is defined : PA =Df~FA. FA =Df 0~A (cf. OED); and P, read There this stage (as at e.g. stages), can morality, be argued, from directions several other F could oh introduced independently. But this leads to complications that are unnecessary. It 0 The other familiar functors of deontic logic, F and P, are defined in the usual way. ’It is wrong that’ or, less satisfactorily, Functor I). (e.g. from the rationality be of from the meaning or semantics of obligation, from the idea of commitment), that 0 satisfies at least the following requirements:[RM] A -> B -> OA -> OB, i.e. where A + B is a theorem so is OA -> OB. That is to say, where A entails B is provable so is OA entails OB, obligation transmits over provable entailment. Hence the claim that this principle (R7 of RLR II) is a transmission principle. [K] OA & OB regards the i.e. -> 0(A & B), conjunction; or, a conjunction of obligations entails obligation as to adjunction (principle G of RLR II). These two important it put 25 principles, entailment and adjunction, make 0 a a little differently 0 is closed which ensure that 0 is closed under under provable systemic functor (in the sense of RLR II), and ensure that it has a relational (i.e. first order) semantical analysis. The postulates which correspondingly minimally characterise deontic functions F and P now follow by relevant logic upon applying the definitions. They are as follows:For wrongness: A For permissibility : With the A + B -*> functor further B —f> FByFA Q, FA & FB P(A v BH, PAv PA + PB defined F(A v B) QA =Df ~0A, a reduced pb deontic square of opposition follows: 0Ax ...............FA PA^ .............. .QA The opposites are dotted peripheral opposed, as modally, relations of the modal in the way the solid lines show. But the square are bound to be the lost given the �13 the modal (on fact of deontic dilemmas square Prior 62 p.220). see is worth It observing, however, that the peripheral relations can be reinstated through adoption of the so-called consistency scheme OA -> ~FA, i.e. OA + ~0~A; [D] and that the relevant deontic logic that results still excludes the rubbish brought in along deontic standard necessary truths, Nordamericano of that course not (though paradoxes, essentially because paradoxical etc.), deontic obligatoriness the of spread principles are not whereas triviality), incorporate dilemmas. the as degenerate dilemma-permitting The problem with deontic logics which include [D] also cannot they well as logic, Antipodean form we are advocating. is deontic In short, relevant theory can deliver a clean-cut, clean-living, dilemma- available. free (e.g. logic include relevant moral dilemmas systems without without can [D] inconsistency consistently These various logical claims, as to the modal rubbish that is not brought along, can all be made good by application of the semantical theory. The semantics shows what does not hold, as well as further explaining why the principles that hold do. Semantics for MD result upon adding to modellings for relevant logic a two-place relation S, on worlds, which is subject to the following condition W. b and Sbc then Sac, Where a i.e. where world a precedes b (indeed canonically a is contained in b) and world c is accepted vis-a-vis b then c is accepted vis-a-vis a. Given that a is a subworld of b this is evident enough. Distinctive features of the underlying semantical modellings for relevant logic - consisting of structures of the form <T, K, 0, R, *, be sufficiently and, well-known any in are case, explained v> - should elsewhere. These structures differ from the best of those for modal logics, the nonnormal structures <T, K, N, R, v> for the Lewis systems S2 and S3, in the following ways:- The class K of worlds, to which the factual (base) world T belongs, is expanded to include a much more comprehensive class of inconsistent and incomplete worlds; the class N of normal worlds K is in adjusted theorems hold; relation R, to a three-place the class to v(p, sentential a) relation = parameter 1) regular worlds, i.e. worlds; on then and wff. I(A, b) = 1, where all on is subject to a constraint where I is the so that Specifically, where a < b and p holds in a p holds in b, p. Conditions v for every world a and b modelling structures are hereditariness condition extends to all wff; i.e. in symbols, where a 1 then those used in modelling implication, is relaxed from a two-place inclusion of worlds is duly reflected. (written 0 of in K and every such that this b & I(A, a) = interpretation function which extends v to all Inclusion, <, can be added as an extra component of the model structures, but in fact it can be defined thus: a < b =Df (Px 0)Rxab. Finally relevant modellings �14 add to modal modellings a new function, *, in terms of which negation is evaluated, 27 which facilitates the inclusion of inconsistent and incomplete worlds. same role and interpretation as in standard relation S has the The semantical It is employed in the semantical evaluation of obligation functor 0, deontic theory. which is given by the following rule: I(0a, a) = 1 iff, for every world b such that Sab, I(A, b) = 1, i.e. OA holds at world a iff, for each world b accepted vis-avis a, A holds at b.28 The rule is a world relativisation of the idea that what is obligatory is what holds in all accepted worlds. (morally) It is thus an evident adaption of Leibnitzian prescriptions, given the linkages between obligation or moral binding and moral "musts” or imperatives, on the one side, and morally possible and or acceptable accepted worlds, the on other. The for motivation unrelativised connections can be forged at base world T; for there A is (morally) required, I(0A, T) = 1, iff for every b for which Mb I(A, b) = 1 (where Mb =Df STb), i.e. That is, what is required is iff A holds in every (morally) accepted world. what holds in all accepted or received worlds. Other construals of the semantical apparatus are of course open. tempting ideal, temptation (a succumbed to initially) regard the accepted worlds as and Sab as ’b is ideal as seen from c’. to read Mb as 'b is ideal’ i.e. to It is a little But that is like requiring supererogation in cases where the meeting of commitments or obligations is enough: the worlds do not need to be that good but simply to pass, to meet required standards. is worlds. acceptable through A perhaps easier construal than by way of accepted worlds construal That is alright provided the term ’’acceptable” is deployed, as it often is, nonevaluatively : for it is important in the semantical assessment to prescriptions for be able to make an evaluative step—down, to give meaning evaluative expressions nonevaluative terms. in Naturally this does not imply that evaluative notions are naturalistically eliminated, any more than familiar terms, extensional reductions, semantical extensional analysis of intensional implies that intensionality is removed: both are merely pushed down into the not-further-explained apparatus of worlds. Obligation is construed by way of what goes on in acceptable or accepted worlds, not what happens in permissible or permitted directly with the construal of permissibility. one another, but in worlds, because this latter Given modal muddles the two reduce to the more subtle relevant setting star shift is involved in the transfer from accepted to permitted worlds. The (derived) semantical rule for P is this: KPA, a) = ties 1 iff for some b such that Uab I(A, b) = 1, where Uab . b * Sa �15 at base Thus, A is permissible, world T, i.e. I(PA, = 1) iff A holds at some 1, permitted world b; what is permissible is worldwise what is somewhere permitted. modal equation of relations U and S further axioms, deontic the (where namely if Sab (in effect, condition then Sa ) b * (Pb)Sab The corresponds to e.g. guaranteed, is modally by ~0(P & ~p)) by the scheme OA ^PA. Now modal-strength deontic logics typically do include an axiom scheme of the form [D’J OA -> ~PA, i.e. from (alethic) is obligatory is not that permissible, under modal is, Indeed this used to be considered what distinguished deontic ~0~A. assumptions, OA logics what modal on logics the one side, which include a stronger principle analogous to OA -*■ A, and epistemic logics on the other, which were weaker in that [D’J failed. However [D’J, like [D], is deontically incorrect because it rules out consistent inclusion of moral dilemmas; or, to turn matters around, cases where OA & 0~A, [D’]» which or OA & FA, hold counterexample [D]. may seem a little more plausible transform of it on usual deontic definitions. than Similarly these cases refute [D], but is a definitional For what is obligatory is not ipso facto permissible where the obligatory item is also wrong, as in dilemmatic cases. To distance relevant deontic logic from modal analogues, while at the same time demonstrating that relevant theory can encompass moral dilemmas unproblematically , we next assume that some moral dilemmas hold, that is that for some p, both Op and Fp. Since however propositional quantifiers much complicate the semantical apparatus we shall introduce constants into the syntax, and let p^ be the first constant for which a dilemma ensues. That is, a new axiom, extending the logic, is [DD] 0p1 & Fpp i.e. p1 is dilemmatic.3° The modelling condition for [DD], is wd. For each a in 0, for some world x, Sax and v(ppx) = 1= v(ppX ). * This condition, which does not involve T, does not impose nonclassical conditions on normal worlds. Accordingly [DD] is only a weakly paraconsistent requirement; it does not imply that inconsistency protrudes into the factual or regular worlds. Indeed one advantage of the semantics is that it enable proof that dilemmatic judgements can be included without inconsistency. By contrast, modal theories cannot include even one half of [DD] do) without automatically excluding dilemmatic judgements. consideration has a thesis 0p2 for some (either will Suppose the logic under Then for every x in 0 there is some y such that Sxy with p2 set to hold at y. But modally this is enough to guarantee that [D] holds materially, More explicitly, so ~(0A & 0~A) generally, suppose otherwise that in i.e. there can be no such dilemmas. some model the material form of [D] �failed; I(OA, then = T) 1 = I(A~O, T), which impossibility at y since I(A, y) = 1 i I(A, y). syntactical problems earlier in 1). even for Although [DD] implies Op^, very weak obligatory is conjured from the fact some for STy yields y This is a semantical analogue of the deontic logics (considered type of modal it does not say, nor does it follow, that OT for any Such modal stupidity as that every necessary and every tautology T (e.g. C v ~C). truth is since automatically removed that relevant in the relevant wash. can be This theory removes such paradoxes as p1 from which 0(A v ~A) would follow modally by 0—distribution (i.e. A v ~A, Again the [RM]). semantics can be applied to establish the point in proper detail. primitive principles of minimal relevant logic are open to challenge, Both the and [K] * Jennings has been disputed by Schotch (in Jennings and 81). The main Schotch- arguments against [K] — which induces what they call ’paradoxes of complete * aggregation essentially turn — automatically avoided on modal deontic by relevant and assumptions, Their theory. accordingly are (p.152, also main point p.154) is that [K] obliterates the distinction between [D] (i.e. Op ~0~p) and [Con] ~0 , i.e. in effect ~0(r & ~r). Their argument depends on construing implication in [D] as material-implication and on strict replacement. ~0~p iff ~(0p & 0~p), i.e. iff ~0(p & ~p) using [K] Then Op and its provable converse, i.e. iff ~0(r & ~r) using p & ~p - . r & ~r and strict According to the relevant approach the trouble is not with [K] but with replacement. the modal assumptions, which are independently objectionable (see 1). Their further argument begins from the premiss that ’we should certainly want to include among our deontic principles the law of moral consistency [Con] across cuts all different things. moral theories’ (pp.153-6). The ... because that principle premiss appears to conflate What cuts across all moral theories is the theme that some things, such as a sufficiently evil state of affairs, are not obligatory, whence ~0s. does cut across all theories is the assumption that there are no moral dilemmas of the form 0(A & ~A), which is what [Con], with not just that there What are theories like properly defined, would imply. those of Lemmon and Sartre It is which include contradictory obligations; it is also that some theorists would want to insist that there is something logically wrong with principles like [Con], e.g. that it doesn’t make sense to talk of the nonobligatoriness of absurdity. Schotch and Jennings do contend that we should allow for moral conflict of the form OA & OB where A and B are inconsistent. their assumptions there [K] stops rejection of are moral dilemmas that yielding Since then B -> ~A, of the 0(A & -A). it follows that on form OA & 0~A. Yet as they Certainly only themselves have reported, the consensus view is that there are (in the end) no dilemmas of the form �OA & O~A: insofar, all theories’, ’cuts across then, rejection of dilemmas of the form 0(A & ~[~]A) so, near enough, does rejection of those of the form OA & 0~A. What certainly does not emerge is that there can [K]. The be no deontic logic which takes as a primitive law the principle be can that best if done, subscribe to [K], we is to formalise ethical theories - namely those which do not allow moral certain particular conflicts (p. 156). logics provide decisive counterexamples to this contention. Relevant deontic They can take [K] as primitive: they allow for moral conflict; but they do so by allowing, like Lemmon, for moral inconsistency.31 disconcerting More from flowing the than fundamental difficulties deriving principles, transmission [K] from are allegedly those difficulties include which well-advertised paradoxes of deontic logic. § 5. Resultant on impact other relevant paraconsistent shift. and puzzles of paradoxes deontic theory of the Often cleaning up one logical puzzle in due technical detail has a beneficial effect on surrounding puzzles and on associated problems in the area. Light is cast on, and So it turns out also in the case of moral dilemmas. Among them sometimes solutions are delivered for, a number of other linked problems. are the following puzzles generated by theorems of (relevant) deontic logic. are, the ’’paradoxes of commitment”. Where material implciation => is in first place, defined as usual, e.g. T1. There ~A v ~B, it is a theorem that A ° B 0(B => A), whence if OA then 0(B 25 A), OA sometimes read: A if is then obligatory anything one commits to A, or: ’Doing anything commits us to doing what is obligatory’; T2. FA OCA => B), if 0~A then 0(A = B), sometimes read: if A is forbidden then doing A commits one to doing anything at all, or: ’Doing what is not permitted commits us to doing anything whatever’ readings are proceed from Prior from there interpretation of paradoxes symbols, the The claims read off are paradoxical. 62, p.224). to little justification - reading ’0(A commits one to doing B’. the in and (the quoted in logic this case B)’ as depends, always, depends crucially on - But to on the what has as a commitment relation, e.g. as ’doing A Such a reading which presupposes that material implication is a satisfactory conditional can in no way be sustained (see RLR), and that is the end of the problem. that A then paradoxical guises; and it If, ought to for example, T1 be features disappear. these commitment the case is simply read: if it ought to be the case that either not B or A, then the alleged However puzzles have a tendency to reappear in new puzzles are no exception. Even with conditional �18 terms of obligation applied to a properly defined in obligation conditional, the puzzles in reemerge new forms, example, for genuine (relevant) in is what called ’’Ross’s paradox”, and in related transmission problems. It has been claimed that the principle, OA -> 0(A v B), yielding if OA then 0(A v B) T3. is which T1, to equivalent is Ross paradox principle), - paradoxical to do either A or B, it may be More generally, given OA, obligatory to read a letter but not to read or burn it. there is an obligation example, for because, where the content of B may be totally do to established. (The comment goes beyond what T3 supplies, but that is not material). the in circumstance which obligation the to is set inappropriate A or A similar objection is made to the analogous permissibility principle PA ■> P(A v B), T4. Ross’s paradox, on the alleged grounds that there are examples where A is permissible but A For example, be. not the following it is permissible that to post a takes based on some one application of T4 is said to the paradoxical: letter false proposition the distance implies that it is permissible to post a The assumption that there is some sort of paradox here is letter or kill one’s aunt. however B may the towards that the permissibility of of permissibility killing the consequent one’s The aunt. proposition itself seems to be based on an application, never articulated and quite inadmissible, of Disjunctive Syllogism, distribution, P(~A &. A For PB. (A v b) ■+ B, and what results from P- it may certainly be permissible not to post However it is assuming more than standard deontic logics will grant to the letter. go on ) ~A & to the permissibility of not posting the letter and letter or killing disjunction. one’s aunt, especially given the also either derivation of posting the latter the Still going on remains tempting (and would presumably be warranted by a Lukasiewicz deontic logic analogous to his 4-valued modal logic). But so going on is to no avail in a duly relevant setting, where Disjunctive Syllogism fails: there is no admissible route here to the permissibility of killing aunt, one’s however desirable the act might otherwise be. main The transmission conditional obligation, strict implication, as problems in found also modally derived. an adequate deontic logic are, like those of They come from reliance on material or representation of implication. The worst manifestation of this is that already discussed, deontic trivialisation leading from Op^ and 0~p.| to OB, for any B, in virtue of the provability of p^ & ~p^ => B. But there are variety of lesser manifestations of the same underlying problem, of which the following example (adapted from recent discussion) is just one sort: p4. We have an obligation to feed the starving poor D. There exist starving poor. Therefore, since starving poor, it ought to be by O-transmission, the case it ought that we meet our obligation to feed the to be that there exist starving poor, a �19 that is far from obviously true. deontic logic, for the simple reason presupposition relation, conclusion of transmission problems of modal the that the cannot p4 Such analyses do not entailment. an to rather or implication, (material-) upgraded be plague relevant The many systems all enamate from excessive O-distribution on basis of implications will not them, support in the as following transmission principles typical of orthodox deontic logics, all of which should be rejected: OCA D B) D. OA 3 OB A D B -> OA 3 OB A => B =>. OA => OB. With their rejection a thorny tangle of modally-derived paradoxes is also rejected. There appears however to be an immense temptation to try to impose excessively strong transmission principles; and the same phenomenon to be seen at work in modal contexts can also be observed when a proper entailment is introduced.3^ This occurs, particular, in attempts in to ’’normalise” [RM], to strengthen it a from rule connection to an entailment, for instance, to (the characteristic S3 form) [OT] A + B +. OA + OB; it occurs with analogous changes thereon, and e.g. A-> B. PA PB and A FB + FA, as well with as imported forms of these principles, e.g. OA & (A and (A -> B) & FB As an example of the FA. B B) OB type of puzzles that [OT] produces consider p5. Grannie killed the vicar. Grannie repented for having killed the vicar The problem with putative entailments such as p5 is that, while we are ordinarily (with the context duly flashed out) inclined to agree that Grannie ought to repent, we don’t want to agree to have killed the vicar. that Grannie ought The problem turns essentially however on the availability of [OT] in place of [RM], for p5 is not a provable entailment of the underlying logical theory (and there is little case for it one), trying to make sc [RM] does not apply to p5, in contrast with awkwardness [OT] appears to require, of having somehow entailment, is thereby straightforwardly avoided.33 Most the of paradoxes falling paradoxes and Robber paradoxes can be paradoxes and usual forms of these resolution. one’s According helping a man under such to deny descriptions as similarly resolved or avoided. variations upon [OT]. The is that p5 Good Samaritan an The original them certainly succumb to such to the Robber’s paradox if robbing a man is forbidden then The Good Samaritan whom one has robbed is also forbidden. paradox is a further turn on this paradox: not only the robber’s helping a man he has robbed is wrong, so is someone else’s, a good Samaritan’s, helping the robbed man (see Prior 58). - be It is undoubtedly paradoxical that it should - especially as a matter of logic wrong to help a man who has been robbed: but do any fundamental deontic �20 principles commit us to such a thing, for appropriate substitutions on variables? No, These puzzles all take the following form: B, which describes something they do not. admittedly wrong, gets in or implied as part of the description of something larger, A, arising as a result of the situation in B; however A is not wrong but perhaps even Nothing required. theory; and in none of shows this the however that A B literature can examples in the the provable in is it There be. logical is another important feature, commonly neglected however, which is that A does not assert B. If it did, then A, since amounting to A & B, would appear to be wrong also, as B is. This points to a difficulty also for the usual assumption that A entails B; for then A (certainly modally) coentails A & B, whence the wrongness of A coincides with that of A & B, the wrongness of which would seem to be guaranteed by B. If however A only involves B in a weaker sense, [OT] is exonerated.3^ The paradoxes can be pushed another way, to contest this data, and bear against systems as minimal as MD. For MD yields theorems like the following: T5. FB T6. 0( F(A & B), whence if FB then F(A & B). OB, whence if 0(A & B) then OB. &B) theses, Such minimal it is now suggested, are paradoxical in the same way as the Robber. This is not so: only gross confusion of decidedly distinct syntactical forms - a practice formalisation can unfortunately encourage - could support such a suggestion. If it is wrong to rob a man then it is wrong to rob him and help him;35 but it is not thereby wrong to help him, indeed to help him who has been robbed. But the relative and the tense shift are both important; and the whole relative clause in no way reduces to a conjunction conjoining robbing the man. The positivistic objection that the paradoxes of deontic logic show that there is really no ’’logic of norms” has come even from a modern founder of deontic logic, von Wright. This he now contends that There is no such thing as an "entailment” between a norm Op and a norm 0(p q) - and Ross’s paradox makes us aware of the absurdity of talking as though it existed. ... Ross was right when he offered his paradox as a proof that, properly understood, there could not be such a thing as a logic of norms (82, p.15, rearranged, emphasis suggested in text). And he ’essentially (p.14). (also also But mistakenly) of variations given that one regards and the von Wright contains such normative tautologies Op are inevitable. Thus while ’’paradoxes’* the same, viz. wants also the of deontic so-called to supply logic as Ross’s Paradox’ a deontic logic, which 0(p q), some subtle and dubious distinctions Op & ~0(p q) is normatively inconsistent, inconsistent; while Op can be thus said to ’’normatively entail” 0(p q) it is not it does not; and while Op comes rational commitment to Op, it does not carry logical commitment to �it. the Unlike said are connections associated to and entailment (p.15). no paradoxes induce other But normative these relations, what is said go to for normative entailment can be said as well as regards entailment, that one (e.g. a law giver) is Op adopts who rationally to 0(p q) going on to endorse the entailment of 0(p q) by Op. for a oitrary addition away there is no puzzle in associations are cleared once mistaken modal q. Indeed committed The ’’paradoxes” of deontic logic are not a reflection of the illusory notion of a logic of norms but rather a product of a modal logic of norm. However von Wright has other significant reasons for insisting that (in a sense) ’norms have no logic or that normative discourse is ’’alogical”’ from noncognitivism, that symbolising norms, formulas’, ’prescriptive standard a on One derives (p.4). interpretation deontic ’do not express true and false propositions. It makes no sense to speak of relations of contradiction or entailment between formulas when thus interpreted ’ hold nontruthvalued regards as semantical This is not so: (p.4). theory relevant as such discourse, for sketched logical relations such as inconsistency logic deontic carries no commitment to the position that normative discourse is truthvalued. 0 interpreted In imperatives. fact ineradicable The values 1 and by way of holding are not intended to be tied to truth and falsity, except at the factual world T (see RLR1); and that exception is readily removed. judgements, instead normative received, logic the both (the point requirements e.g. Otherwise the etc.). adjustments the and of the form Fp, semantical can be said to be in theory its ’’semantical” is developed, For force (or is as before. With such minor theory conform to noncognitivist to meet von Wright’s argument, in Morscher, pp.97-8). Von Wright’s other reason for coming out against a logic of norms is but grist It is that ’there cannot be a logic of norms because a for the paraconsistent nill. could enjoin contradictory legislator (at ’’relative least serves" Morscher, ...) dilemmas. it but p.98). to the is normal not states of affairs. This might be irrational purpose which the institution of giving orders logically excluded, it is not alogical’ (cited in That is, a legislator can set up (usually unintentionally) deontic This is certainly not triviality, by modal-strength indictment, not of deontic deontic logic, It impossible. but logics. of a is simply excluded, Once again the on criticism certain modally-dominated pain of is an approach to it.36 §6. Upsetting the moral consensus: unrealisable obligations, and inevitable wrongs. The theme that there are moral dilemmas, like those cited, which stand, which do not dissolve upon rational reflection, philosophers, 3? and apparently runs agains the consensus among moral certainly upsets dominant positions in ethical theory, notably �22 broadly Kantian positions (built into much contemporary British moral philosophy) and utilitarian positions (which pervade Anglo-American and theory value thinking, especially outside narrowly philosophical circles). Kantian positions suppose that morality is above all a rational procedure of a certain sort (which we tentatively grant), and that rationality requires consistency. Or put differently, but for instance, must be consistent. Thus what is obligatory, equivalent given modal assumptions, ought implies can, OA -> OA, for every A and some Wherever an agent appears to be in a moral dilemma suitable possibility functor 0. this is a matter of appearance only, a moral illusion which will (and must) vanish on further rational reflection.^ This Kantian assumption should be rejected: moral dilemmas are part of the data and no illusion, and no amount of reflection need budge them. By insistence upon consistency requirements, and through failure, consequently, to recognise intractable moral dilemmas, deontological theories have been forced to jump through a variety of different hoops and to weaken considerably their positions. In particular, temporary and moral firm principles are almost invariably weakened to something much more provisional. is experience While important, some revisability of principles in the light of such wholesale weakening of principles is decidedly There is a point then in trying to undesirable, on both logical and moral grounds. expose some of the tangled assumptions on which the weakening is based, and to loosen their grip. The assumptions involved on a Kantian approach include these: H1. Moral principles - in those concerning justice, particular more fairness and the basic principles of obligation, such as like - are to be explained at bottom as principles of rationality, or rational behaviour for persons. H2. Rationality is a matter of consistency; certainly it implies it. H3. Consistency reduces to, or can be accounted for, through possibility. Put together these assumptions yield the theme H4. What is obligatory must be possible - ought-implies-can , for short. So if that gives, so do some of the assumptions. but on moral dilemmas, It does give, not just because of So also then independent grounds. should the assumptions give; and they fail not just on the grounds that they lead to themes like H4. The deeper trouble is that they are based on a super-modal view of things which combines modal assumptions with rational strong The assumptions. combination is important, for once the modal assumptions are rejected, it becomes fairly transparent that the rationality assumptions, whatever their merit, cannot such things as moral framework or system or course of action. rational case, systems: removing much more modal is required assumptions - a than rationality main present uniquely determine Rather there are rival for uniqueness. exercise - In any destroys such �rationality route to ought-implies-can. Finally consistency is neither necessary nor That it is not sufficient is indicated by a variety of sufficient for rationality. consistent worlds which do not conform to minimal rationality requirements. is converse relevant refuted which conform inconsistent worlds by meet rationality requirements (see further RLR and OP). H3 fails, paradoxes induces ~0A -> ~(A ° B), generally is not just that the Modality removed. of paradoxes with entailment, e.g. anything all. from isolated transmitted to are inconsistent is arguments Not only H2 (as a necessary assumptions parallelling proposition impossible inconsistency It modal when consistency of an fails, also is not 40 this indiscriminate way. However to rationality to sufficient reason and the like), and by dialethic theories which standards (e.g. condition) The more impossibility in collapse; ought-implies-can at there are distinct from those supplied by moral dilemmas. counterexamples to the theme, The counterexamples concern obligations (or oughts) which are impossible, in some sense, to realise, counterexamples Op & ~0p) But wrongdoings. most the of possibility Derivatively then (substituting ~p for unrealisable obligations. that wrongs are inescapable, there are many determinates of possibility examples than concern also mere involve, in their logical possibility necessitated (and necessity), and less anemic notions of correspondingly broader notions of original (and p in setting, necessity than a narrow logical necessity). perhaps strained, adaption, and, in any case, they serve to undermine the point and Nonetheless they sometimes admit of, force of the ought-implies-can dictum (which is to link obligation to freedom to do otherwise), and These examples all arise nature, circumstances, its effective use against moral dilemmas. seriously weaken thereby because agents are constrained in one way or another - by fate, the Gods, their past actions - but are not thereby released from their obligations or exonerated from wrong-doing. Consider first very down-to-earth types of counterexample to ought-implies-can, before turning to more high-flown but not altogether dissimilar examples from our barbaric past. ’Suppose that I say "I ought to go and see him, but I can’t because I don’t know where he is”. There need be nothing inconsistent in such a remark; and, yet there would be if "ought” always implied ’’can'” (Hare 63, p.52). same with situation ”’I where ought I've to return driven the this car I’ve car so far borrowed, away that returning it in time to keep a promise’ (Thomason, p.175). but I It is much the can’t”, there is said no chance in a of my Likewise the claim of the person who cannot swim that she ought to rescue the child caught in the current but can't. One traditionally important class of counterexamples derives from the Catholic doctrine of perplexity secundum quid.^ Donegan, in defending what he calls 'the 24 �Hebrew-Christian tradition’, contends that once one has sinned one May be faced with situations from which one cannot escape without further wrong-doing (77, p.152). That ♦ is, one may be so placed (through one’s own fault) that one ought not to perform any of the available actions though one cannot do otherwise. So it is necessary that one act in a way that is forbidden. Protestant thinkers, particular Luther, appear to have considered the human race involved in one grand secundum quid on account of original sin. ’God punished justly sinners who not could otherwise do Luther believed that than sin’ that God and ’provided men with a law they were unable to keep and then righteously damned them for failing to keep it’. 242 The Calvinists also were committed - but through their doctrine of predestination predestined to sin, unpalatable conclusion - to rather they cannot but by suggesting Because conclusions. similar humans are However Calvin attempted to escape this sin. that in some suitable sense are not sinners compelled, that it is somehow possible for them to do otherwise than they do. J Given however the theme of predestination this attempt to escape looks unconvincing. Any stronger determinism that does not also obliterate morality is in a similar Creatures will have obligations which they cannot fulfil because they predicament. are determined and will to do otherwise, sometimes be bound to do wrong. Plainly where this becomes a general and automatic matter, a serious erosion of moral notions such as responsibility, normally linked to obligation, is bound to set in. However isolated cases analogous to those of determinism can occur without such erosion of moral notions (as indeed with moral dilemmas themselves). rigidifying personality and ossifying character are of this gets older Cases of A person as she sort. may build up a personality so rigid that she cannot escape from it. At some point it becomes impossible (at least psychologically) for her to act other than she does, yet on some occasions she ought not to act in the way she does. outcome resembles that with original sin though the route taken Yet even if we grant that the person ought not to have got still we are entitled to our moral judgements; modern morality * The is very different. into such a position, as Pigden puts it, ’an enlightened can allow such violations of ought-implies-can. Classical Greek morality certainly seems to have allowed for such violations. In Homeric ethics a man could be blamed for failings he could not avoid, unavoidable wrong-doing. and so for Subsequently it was taken for granted that impossible moral requirements could be placed upon a hero, yet he could be blamed for failing to meet them. Thus the situation of Agamemnon and of Oedipus, both despite their struggles, despite their awareness of their predicaments and their anguish, were bound, indeed, fated, to act wrongly, and were duly blamed for their wrong-doing. 25 �There have been various attempts to salvage the ought-implies-can theme, through a residual Kantianism. presupposes-can Thus Hare proposes, but does not really work out, an ought- a with theme weaker relation presupposition logical replacing implication (53, p.54); and both Barcan Marcus and Morscher suggest a model theoretic connection: essentially that for OA to hold true A must be satisfiable in some world, and so, modally, A is consistent. But within a relevant setting, the satisfiability is hardly a requirement and does not ensure consistency. constraint, Once again, consistency is only obtained at the cost of other more important connections, such as Nor does Hare’s comparison with presupposition (on p.54) succeed. O-adjunction. the analogy such situations the worked implies-can. as practical question those and dilemmas moral But (pace Hare, p.55) as to what to do not would counterexamples affording If arise in ought- to the question most certainly does arise in many cases. §7. Resolving proceed, in moral any dilemmas, dilemma so far situation be. as can easily are Recipes for what provided, enough decidedly poor recipes have been much canvassed in the literature. how to to, indeed several Among these are deontic ranking recipes, which would have us impose some type of priority ordering on deontic principles, so that consistency is maintained and in every situation there is a dominant rule; defeasibility recipes, which would have us weaken all deontic rules to merely prima facie or other-things-being—equal principles and operate, when things look would going like have wrong, utilitarian by and assessment; pure-chance recipes, which situationally but arbitrarily by such methods as us determine outcomes coin toss. Such recipes fail to meet important conditions of adequacy upon any account of the way resolution is effected, if and when it can be, namely: A1. The account should sufficiently resemble what rational choosers do when they find themselves in a moral dilemma. Many human choosers have moral principles, have not rigorously ordered in such which, as against ranking recipes, a way as to exclude dilemma they situations, and which, as against thorough-going defeasibility recipes, they are not prepared to give Thus, in addition, away or modify when they encounter snags. A2. The principles induce which moral dilemmas are not generally abandoned or qualified, but very often stand. Naturally sometimes moral dilemmas, especially development and revision of principles. if they recur, do lead to moral But the logic of dilemma situations does not force changes or adjustment and none may be made; and typically none will be made, where dilemmas are resolved, resolve dilemmas which they may not be. The assumption that we must is probably a hangover from consistency assumptions, that deontic inconsistency must be removed - whereas all we have to do is act, or do nothing, in 26 �the face of them. Part of what is wrong with the idea of a predetermined ordering of principles, the conflict, and also the they remove is that as with utilitarianism procedures, felt tension, and often anguish, that goes with it. Even if the appeal to priority succeed in some cases, it does not in fact work, and 45 general. For with Lemmon’s complex dilemmas where ordering of principles does not could succeed, in uncertainties enter be can there preassigned no solution moral to the in dilemma virtue of higher-order principles or a given ordering of one’s duties and obligations and the like, because part of the very dilemma is just one’s uncertainty as to one’s actual situation (p.153). In any event dilemmas do not go away as they should if the conflicting obligations were merely prima facie. Very often someone in a moral dilemma is in a fix and feels it^^; and doesn’t say ”My God there isn’t a problem, I must simply look up the book principles are ranked and what’s to be done’, to see how these not having been so prepared. in which we, as it were, merely .... dilemmas in which we morally prepared, have to look up the solution in our private ethical code, are rare ... and in case any of little practical Of interest. are those importance greater dilemmas in this class where some decision of a moral character is required Our predicament is here so described that, whatever we do, even if we do ... nothing at that might mean), we are doing all (whatever something which we ought not to do, and so can be called upon to justify either our activity or our inactivity (Lemmon, p.151). The usual deontological positions, which deontic weaken principles to provisional or prima facie principles to avoid problems with dilemmas, also play into utilitarian hands. reflecting things that of in often is which only are to act overriding requirement character utilitarians want For the for such to represent most a way disguised (a sc part as to of obligation statements concerning distributed, e.g. are the taken coherent way as derivative; net utilities position from would their own the deontic make this Deontic principles such as reduce somehow distributed type of action which tends to maximize utility. accounts typically rule out moral dilemmas: both apart or to tend complex to be an action is obligatory when it maximizes (expected) utility and it is of a recognised cannot they ar . - principles as deontic maximize utility, maximisation principle so only for the most part also). those all maximise utility, and indeed 27 Such reductive for example, an action and its opposite if an action increases utility then its �opposite characteristically diminishes it. if all moral injunctions More generally, answer back ultimately to just one standard, maximum utility, then there can be no real conflict (but etc.). for these It is apparent conflict through failure to calculate correctly, sorts of reasons that the considerable data now accumulated regarding moral try to explain away, to utilitarians deny that there can be So they are in the awkward position of having to dispute, dilemmas. genuine moral and only dilemmas. But how, when stuck in moral dilemmas, do we proceed to reach a decision? For a 47 decision is called for: those in dilemma situations still often have to act. The intuitive procedure in such dilemma situations is not difficult to grasp. terminology is regularly employed, and is instructive. to those the in - dilemmas weighed assessed, are The same Alternatives - outcomes open up, the balance. put in The familiar scales picture, with the scale sensitive to evaluative weights, is helpful - except it that can suggest, weighed against another, whereas there may be as with of justice where one thing is two competing principles or just that there are several. scales the options, In the light of such a weighing up of alternatives, those in dilemmas then determine what they should do, what is best, or satisfactory, ’If ... we are to act here in good faith,we shall recognise in the circumstances . that the dilemma is what it is and make the best decision we can * There is an attempt to then intuitive apply (Lemmon 62, p.151). methods, decision consist which in assessing and weighing the alternative outcomes open, and maximizing or satisizing on these This outcomes. already very looks consequentialist decision theory, which is what, a like preanalytic account of in a qualified way, we shall reach It is in a qualified way for several reasons; not only may no best (or even towards. sufficiently good) outcome be determinable - there is nothing approaching a decision procedure here - but the further decision theory methods apply within moral dilemmas, so they supply, at best, a second best resolution, a first best result requiring removal of moral dilemma constraints and so being ruled out. Those in dilemma unworkable (and situations usually do not resort to anything as mostly arbitrary and often ineffective) utilitarian as complex and assessment procedures. Nor do they surrender to pure chance procedures. A3. The account should not give way to irrationalism, but should adhere to rational decision procedures, which are not necessarily, however, effective. This requirement rules out pure chance methods, which are only appropriate where it is a matter of indifference which way the decision, if any, Even where some resort to methods can give a worse outcome than might be obtained. tie-breaking devices is appropriate, that may dilemma, but rather to some component of the not be situation. Otherwise such goes. to the final Envisage, outcome of a for instance, a decision-tree for an issue where a tie-breaking device such as a coin toss is applied to a high branch and that proves sufficient for rational decision methods to resolve 28 �Then it would be irrational to try to resolve the whole issue the issue concerned. by coin toss. Nonetheless A4. The account should be appropriately situational. That is, the account should be applicable to each situation on its own merits, taking It should not simply be a rule­ detailed account of the features of that situation. for in dilemma cases the rules have ceased to yield a resolution and based account, into a are locked be will fix position. situational, it will not that of situational be involve resort to pure—chance methods. by situation, situational most part, by example) or example by virtue of A3 and A4, though the account Thus, procedures ethics where such ethics Nor is a situational ethics (ethics situation For the of a broader type being recommended. into operation where a moral only go dilemma is reached; in general, deontic rule-based procedures apply. The broad outlines of a satisfactory account are beginning to emerge. Before we consider apply rational decision methods to each given dilemma situation. is how this to be so as account, to be said about the needs For to meet apparent objections. insensitive those accomplished more to in switches language, both FA and A, some options, and yet that, also F~A, that it ought also be that so B, very idea of it should be that B, where B entails We do not however go on to one of A and -A, so that not both A and ~A are ruled out. claim the is both A and ~A are ruled out as moral that situations, in certain in For are we not only claiming that decision-theoretic resolution of moral dilemmas. for structure of the things, there is, to among other contradiction a It should that not both A and ~A ruled are out morally.49 What is being claimed that B, or an adequate thing, is the best thing to do in the constrained circumstances, that B should be done in that sense, net that B is lifted to status obligation enough in the circumstances, by looking at you does not the can B is In brief, <»B, "second-best obligation"). determined (though imply OB. acceptable worlds worlds where B holds which fail to be acceptable. say, if you like, that it is a the best that can be done or good is not going to be When <£>B holds where B When holds, because there are holds is not going to be settled in general by falling back on deontic rules, because in the interesting cases the rules are jammed. But such deontic rules dees not being beyond imply being beyond rational procedures, indeed procedures that may be represented by way of rules (though not controlled by deontic rules). The rational procedures in question are essentially those of decision theory. What is required is a decision as to what can be done in the circumstances; and this can be determined by relevant alternatives. be of something weighing up the expected outcomes and selecting among The selectiin may be of the best in the circumstance; satisfactory in the circumstances. The approach adopted pluralistic, allowing for both maximizing and satisizing procedures. 29 the it may can be Maximizers will �of course argue that it would be irrational to select anything but the best among the alternatives (given that it was conceded to be the best); But satisizers will resist arguments.what such elaborates is what upon we a under do decision done normally this:- Set out the relevant alternatives, action courses of alternative. to us open Select a best, i.e. way - is - merely which in outline the results that the different list to. analysis intuitive more i.e. lead will a in theory Determine the of each likely value with maximum likely value, an alternative or a The basic procedure is childishly simple, but filling sufficiently good alternative. out the details may be extremely difficult or even impossible in a satisfactory way. The in problems, normally order increasing alternatives open, establishing their probability, rankings to them. things these cases, favourable more delineating the assigning values or desirability techniques from decision theory however for doing all There are in are: difficulty, of and in less circumstances favourable guestimates can be made or resort had to fuzzy methods. To descend to concrete applications (where procedures may be clearer than at the theoretical level), consider again the Platonic dilemma discussed by Lemmon, where I ought to return my friend’s gun and also ought not to do so. The alternatives are to return the gun and have the wife shot, or to return the gun avoiding a shooting but thereby breaking an undertaking. the alternative first wife It is certain, in the circumstances, that under the will be shot, highly a undesirable outweighing the lesser undesirability of the second alternative. the value of second Since the expected first, exceeds that of the alternative considerably much outcome, the best thing in the circumstances is to return the gun. However undertaking goes Lemmon to seriously the return ’to gun suggesting that one sacrifices one’s astray in utilitarian considerations’ No doubt (p.152). utilitarian considerations would bring out (could be massaged to bring out, rather) a But the fact is that no consideration (or interpersonal comparisons) similar result. of the utilities pleasures and pains contemplated. ’’critical involves an (whoever Lemmon utilitarian ones. the everybody of (involved they confuses are), the in is made, consequentialist universe, or or even needs whatever), to considerations with be their remotely much narrower Similarly the recipe Hare suggests for resolving moral dilemmas at level”, namely illegitimate resort to assimilation act-utilitarianism of (see, consequentialist e.g. 82, considerations p.43), under utilitarianisms. In certain respects Lemmon’s Platonic dilemma is not a good example of a moral dilemma; tougher in particular, dilemmas, the it is too easily resolved, and so characteristic features of pain, emerge, moral dilemmas can anguish, indecision, get omitted. As thus begins to be divided roughly into two types, easy and hard. 30 Easy �dilemmas are those that are comparatively easy to find a way through eventually, and But hard ones are those that leave people caught in the dilemma so are resolvable. at least uncomfortable irresolvable. they whatever to choose and do, are so in a good sense Though a way-through or a way-out may be charted by decision methods, it is a way that leaves those involved morally uneasy, dissatisfied, or worse. For at the far hard end of the spectrum lie those dilemmas of tragic dimensions. Although consequential decision rationally within moral dilemma theory provides a for model how proceed to situations, by no means everyone confronted with a moral dilemma will apply such procedures in an intuitive way, even though many will. For one thing, there is plenty of scope for bad faith, irrationality and and more generally, for non-rational procedures; and severe moral dilemmas often enough induce non-rational and even paralytic or self-destructive modes in those who are caught in them. another, For there are indirect ways of obtaining the effects of decision theory, analogue decision theory so to say. Counselling, whether through a friend or a professional counsellor, is an important analogue: there the discussive mode helps to bring out eludicating of and assemble alternatives, undesirability of each. the and elements the of the advantages decision and approach, the desirability and theory drawbacks, Alternatively, or as well, these elements may be bought out by reflecting on a range of similar situations and experience there using these cases as some sort of precedent, in particular, for determining value rankings of alternatives open. Moral dilemmas have corollaries for moral ways of doing things. is that perfectibility of the moral scheme of things is impossible. One corollary Any sufficiently rich set of rules risks inconsistency, and will be inconsistent if completed. dilemmas are thus inevitable be; in the larger scheme of things. Moral This is as it should for it is in this way especially that moral development occurs and moral stature is obtained. 31 �^A much earlier version of this paper was presented by the second author at the Australian National University in 1975. Subsequently much of the paper was lost; what survived is largely incorporated in the first three sections, especially §3. However the new version takes over the leading ideas of the initial version. The authors are much indebted for comments and criticism to C. Pigden, R. Goodin and G. Priest. was ^This even true Maliy’s of pioneering system of 1926 which permitted replacement of logical equivalents within the scope of obligation function 0 (see F & Von Wright’s seminal work H p.3). (in 51), which set the pattern for mainstream deontic logic, was explicitly based on the modal comparison of deontic functors with modal functors, and built modal that break the modal systems, exceptional assumptions in at the bottom of the theory. The connection, are deontic systems based on relevant logics on such systems see RLR, chapter 8. ^These paradoxes are explained, obligation, paradoxes of derived and their see modal bases exposed, On the for some of the p.224; and Prior 62, further in §5. considerable literature on paradoxes like those of the Robber and Good Samaritan, see anthologies and the Hilpinen A detailed uniform treatment of especially Vermazen. all these and other deontic paradoxes in the framework of relevant logic is given in RLR II. 4In its equivalent form, Op => ~Fp, i.e. what is obligatory is not forbidden, it is the dubbed ’’Bentham’s Law” by von Wright 81, p.2. 5In a way, furthermore, avoids that the , problems Hare’s and complexities attempt to transfer a levels-resolution to deontic paradoxes would lead to if worked out paradoxes. the compare properly: any In counterintuitively, case, that problems of semantical if we were even ’ought’ is ambiguous levels say, to as to Hare as levels, avoid to some semantical proposes, but tinkering would still be required to fix up a deontic calculus at each level. Moreover, there are good grounds for doubting that the so far ill-characterised and artificial distinction of levels that Hare wants to impose can be satisfactorily made out. For one thing, critical hardly the holds up; level for separation intuitive of the paradoxes intuitive are from the typical of rational or act utilitarian assessments at the upper level, and we can be rational and critical, and ask for why- explanations, at both levels. ^There are various different form, OA, OB -> ^It is this principle can take, e.g. also a rule 0(A & B), and a rather useless material form, OA & OB =>. 0(A & B). tried criticised below. forms however by Schotch and Jennings, p.152; their argument is It is also suggested by Barcan Marcus, p.134., and toyed with by 32 �Williams o In particular Lemmon, taking off from Sartre, has argued this in two important papers, neglected in mere recent philosophical literature on moral dilemmas and moral conflict. earlier Recent British work, in literature that it could logical further the next note). on conflict of values has particular, profitably have taken into ignored account (see Such an uninformed approach is however not uncharacteristic of British philosophy. ^Especially Lemmon’s work 62 and 65. But although Lemmon suggests (in 62, e.g. p.150) that there are no logical problems in accommodating moral dilemmas, including those of the form 0(A & ~A), none of the systems of deontic logic he presents (e.g. in 65), not even the very weak systems, can do so without trivialising. The reasons for collapse are the modal ones already explained. Apart from the work of Lemmon and a few who follow him, work which at least suggests the need for a bridge even if it does not offer so much as good working plans for one, the literature on moral dilemmas tends to bifurcate - into purely philosophical material which does not address the logical issues, and largely logical material which characteristically avoids the crucial moral issue of dilemmas, which the logics espoused cannot handle (and maybe because of that: otherwise the logical literature On the regrettable lack of interaction between deontic logicians disputes the data). and ethicists, the latter being the worse offenders, see also Thomason’s notes. 10 In fact the latter implication of O-transmission could be much weakened for the purpose of the arguments, e.g. the form A B - > OA D OB would serve to make the point. 11 Gumanski 80 affords a good example of the complication resulting, complication readily removed by relevant logic relocation. 12 The argument thoroughtly for this fallacious. ’principle of deontic contingency’ Either an in F & H, p.13, is illegitimate quantificational conversion (from some to all) or a modal confusion (from p & ~p to q & ~q) is used to get from P(p & ~p) for some p - which is all the denial of deontic contingency gives - to Pq, that is, to ’everything is permitted’. 1^For see axiom, (D1) Op =>~0~p, of the standard systems as formulated in F & H, p.13, and use the interdefinability of P and 0, e.g. PB 4 1 ~0~B. There would be little point in presenting features of the epicycling systems of types (iii)-(v) in any detail since all will be quickly dismissed. In any event, details can be found in the Hilpinen surveys 33 (71 and 81), texts which are ir fact �restricted to epicycling positions within the dominant modal paradigm for deontic Even Schotch and Jennings, who do question some minimal principles, remain logics. staunchly the within modal sphere, their as possible worlds and semantics their substitutivity principles reveal. 15 F & H, p.8, in support p.16. This consistency interpretation appears to have extensive Scandinavia. Of course if consistency were meant in a different sense (that of regularity), it would be different. But it is not: see the development in F & H, p.l6ff. 16 Cf. Lemmon: philosophers that ’It ... does the not to seem adoption of have been new morality a associated with the confrontation of a moral dilemma. much by observed an agent ethical by is frequently Indeed, it is hard to see what else would be likely to bring about a change of moral outlook other than having to make a difficult moral decision’ (62, p155). not settled without so to speak Similarly Barcan Marcus (p.12): ’although idealistically, a source of moral motion. dilemmas are is, Moral inconsistency residue, the recognition of their reality has a dynamic force. 17 In 1975 when the paper was first drafted and presented this example was still topical. However at most times in modern human history there are many candidates to substitute for variable V. 18 In the narrow scheme of standard deontic logic, these would be recast in terms of the forbidden functor F, defined as 0~. However in relevant logic settings, it is a further question, not settled by the framework whether W reduces to 0~. * ^Williams 20 are Jim-Pedro example (in 81) is of this type. As there are other war dilemmas, and especially nuclear war dilemmas, so there other violence. pacifist dilemmas, e.g. the problem of violence to prevent greater On nuclear war dilemmas, and on the main pacifist dilemma, see the War and Peace series. 21 For many of the contractual arrangements, isomorphism, known moral dilemmas we consider, especially those there are analogous legal dilemmas. preserving very many important logical generated by For there is a wellfeatures between moral obligations and rights and wrongs and corresponding legal obligations and rights and wrongs. The complexity of legal frameworks, the relatively independent design of using �parts and divine numerous lack of design control legal of likelihood the dilemmas and sources decidedly complexity to high. analogous An is dilemmas moral for consistency, or checks argument considered in render the fjrom the McConnell, p.275ff. pp Lemmon’s final treatment, but (fifth) type of ’’moral dilemma” does so far resist more formal is that the mainly because class concerned description and lacks even clear working examples. so far These are, defies adequate roughly, situations ‘in which an agent has to make a decision of a recognisably moral character though he is completely unprepared ... by his present moral outlook’ and has somehow to fashion a new moral outlook. is There so far of here nothing especial paraconsistent concern. By no means all the types of situations falling under Lemmon’s ’classification of moral dilemmas’ (62, classifying types of first class and p.156) are dilemmas. situation’, ‘moral the classification starts out is nothing dilemmatic about there and which Lemmon about the second, little Indeed the ‘does not wish to call ... moral dilemmas, because [as with the first] in all the cases our moral situation is perfectly clear’ (p.143). The main types of moral dilemmas Lemmon discerns, the third and fourth classes, are precisely those treated in the text. The concurrence even of several different, 23()f course the control is limited. perhaps apparently independent, logical approaches is no sure guide to correctness of an explication or has to answer back satisfactorily to The matter still account. preanalytic principles. 22* In dilemmas, the initial version of this paper three into types (0, 0~; complication was based on a mistake, collapse. are F, a rather F~; and artificial classification of 0,F) was proposed. But this that equation of 0~A and FA would lead to modal And, apparently a more natural and simpler theory does emerge if 0~ and F equated. Naturally definitional than coentailment. More highly equation intensional in this context does not differences between the imply more notions, which there are, remain unaffected. What holds for F does not automatically transfer independently. ^The labels and Jennings. [RM] and [K], convenient to P. Perhaps P should be treated in what follows, are taken from Schotch Note that although symbolically virtually the same as the originals, they symbolize different determinate principles. ^See as well as RLR I, Routley 72, Routley and Meyer 73 and OP. 35 �the 2?Under four-valued American plan for relevant logic * can be semantics, avoided. But here the superior two-valued Australian plan is followed. 2&Though here we simply take the rule over from standard deontic semantics, it can be argued in several ways, explained (though usually for the analogous necessity functor) as in RLR. class of such A, b One way is this:- in situation a, where OA holds, consider the i.e. {C: I(OC, a) = 1}. This gives an initially acceptable set up with respect to a; and indeed would yield the sought rule (with S improved to a but for 1-1 relation) fail, conditions the fact that bo may not be a world because required closure conspicuously We primeness. can however extend though not ba, uniquely, so that world requirements are met. The picture looks like this: S is the composition of the function (from a to b ) and the extension (to the b-’s). The b.’s are the accepted worlds vis-a-vis a. ^The point and role of evaluative step-down is explained in Routley 83. 3°The strategy resembles that earlier in Routley and Meyer 75 in Plainly there is room for other postulates, formulating explicitly dialethic logic. e.g. exploited In virtue of the model theorem Ot, where 0p2 where p2 is not dilemmatic, etc. t is any tautology, such a postulate is guaranteed in standard deontic logic, but it is rightly left as an option in relevant deontic logic, and also in Barcan Marcus. third 31A type of argument for rejecting [KJ is implicit in Schotch and and also in Barcan Marcus, namely that without [K] both moral conflict and Jennings, the Kantian ought-implies-can principle can be retained. That supposes of course that the Kantian principle is a desirable one, worth going considerably out of one’s logical way disaster to retain. [KJ But the is not from the combination of Kantian only in principle involved theory with moral dilemmas: reaching other equally solid and respectable principles than [KJ could be considered for rejection. ^2At this logic and point we do detour analyses of moral beyond our dilemmas, to look critique of modalisation of deontic at some separate puzzles in deontic logic - which have also been used against the idea of a formal treatment of ethics. And the approach we take to these further 36 puzzles - by limiting transmission �in the fashion of weaker, and deeper logics - is largely independent of principles, the reaminder IN short, we could have taken a different approach to paper. of the these transmission puzzles, without varying the rest of the paper. 33 Of course it can be argued that one is storing up problems for (much) later on when the logical theory repenting have fuller a better developed, is much more fully developed, and predicates like those of logical role. so also will be presumably when But the logical theory is the distinctions between types of predicates and those sustaining transmission. 34 It is common practice indict deontic logic by so stating the deontic ’'paradox" that they smuggle in much more than a satisfactory entailment relation could warrant and more even than a modal relation would grant. paradoxes will be presented as arguments Here is an example. These [deontic] against Consider the Good Samaritan paradoxes formulated the "standard" as follows: deontic logics. 1) A is obligated to help an injured criminal 2) If A is obligated to do B then A is obligated to do whatever B entails. (This is a principle of the standard deontic logics.) 3) There could not be an injured criminal if someone did not commit a crime. So 4) A is obligated to bring it about that someone commit a crime. (From 1- 3 by the standard deontic logics.) The So 5) logics are standard deontic (For flawed. 4) is outrageous, though its premisses are not.) Entailment principles do not justify the importing of 'bringing about' in clause 4). 35 And wrong to rob him and not rob him, and so on. Conjunction is not here connexive with one conjunct undercutting another - though connexive deontic logic is what some seem to be seeking. ^Accordingly Morscher's retreat to "rational norms" and "rational legislating" is But unnecessary. presupposed again that a deontic Morscher the grasps key point, that von Wright has logic must contain certain consistency-type principles, and that 'this presupposition need not be fulfilled' (p.98). 37 Schotch and Jennings, community of moral philosophers' philosophy, analysis. where claim 'widespread support for (a) among the (a) is the theme 'that cases of real moral Most likely this claim, like most such sociological claims conflict cannot occur'. in (pp.152-3) is merely impressionistic, and not based on any sort of survey or But we expect further investigation would tend to confirm it. no J Thus, to take just one example: there appears to be a conflict 'One may be in a situation of course in which of principles each of which appears categorically 37 �binding - but natural reflection will ultimately show that one or other must prevail’ Benn (p.5). But examples abound. The reason reflection removes inconsistency is that obligations do not collide. We have it from Kant himself Because however duty and obligation are in general concepts that express the objective practical necessity of certian actions, ... it follows that a conflict of duties and obligations is inconceivable (obligationes non colliduntor). (Metaphysis of Morals, cited in Barcan Marcus, p.323.) But does it world the (merely) practical follow not of without action However necessity. sweeping a but the worlds concering consistency assumption picked out by function not of objective these worlds are, moral dilemmas certainly appear to show, sometimes inconcistent. There are depending what is the explanation can go, various different ways and contractual arrangements a route like that of Hobbes through Rawls will be followed. Given less, taken e.g. granted. for only grounded example, For or preferences given choice individual behaviour, interests a semantical route might be And so on. tried. 110 The inadequacy of modal accounts of inconsistency is explained in detail in RLR, chapter 5. ji -1 These examples and most of those that follow were suggested by C. Pigden, who also supplied the references. HO The first quote is from Kenny, p.75, the second from Skinner, p.7, both of which furnish additional details. 4^Cf. Kenny, p.78. 24/4 According to MacIntyre 66. The situation of Agamemnon and Oedipus are remarked upon in Williams 81, p.80. There there are is not a substantial and cannot literature be general arguing, not entirely universally applicable principles in all circumstances of their application. conclusively, rules for that ranking of Thus, for example, Ross, p.41, also discussed in Barcan Marcus, p.124, Barcan Marcus, p.135, Hare 82, pp.32-4. It seems that such a result would be proved, as regards effective rules, by methods of reversion theory. 38 �^The relevant; points Hare makes concerning anguish remorse and (82, pp.29-30) are they apply also against his own proposal to treat all principles as prima facie. But points concerning anguish and guilt are not decisive; account of how these attitudes arise can be given from for one thing, an modal a angle (cf. the discussion in Barcan Marcus, p.127). ^By no means all dilemmas require resolution, e.g. those of no practical import such as purely theoretical dilemmas of freedom, etc. liberty, These can, in principle, just stand. 48 As Lemmon explains (in 62), really following Sartre, there is considerable scope for bad faith and opting out of our responsibilities here, e.g. pretending that no decision is called for, or that another has preempted the decision, or that the decision is otherwise determined or out of our own control. 49No doubt we could tough it out dialectically, but the basis for doing so is Any lacking. adherence contradictions to calles for especially rigorous justification 500n satisizing decision theory, and the dialectic between maximizers and satisizers, see MS. Fuzzy decision theory is however only in the initial stages of development at present. 5^This is just one of several reasons why Hare’s grand synthesis (in 82) of Kant and the utilitarians, initially appealing in its two level tidiness and simplicity, goes down the philosophical drain. A main reason is that the synthesis is built upon, and incorporates, consistency and modal assumptions, and so is inadequate moral data to be accounted for theoretically (see further War and Peace II). to the �REFERENCES R. Barcan Marcus, 121-136. Journal of Philospohy 77 (1980) ’Moral dilemmas and consistency , * S. I. Benn, ’Public and private morality: clean living and dirty hands’ in Public and Private in Social Life (ed. S.I. Benn and G.F. Gaus), Croom Helm, London & Canberra, 1983, 155-182. A. Donegan, The Theory of Morality, Chigago University Press, Chicago, 1977. D. Follesdal and R. Hilpinen, ’Deontic pp.1-35; referred to as F & H. B. C. logic: van Fraassen, ’The logic of conditional Logic 1 (1972) 417-38. an introduction’ Hilpinen in obligation’. Journal 1971, of Philospohical L. Gumanski, ’On deontic logic’, Studia Logica 39 (1980) 63-75. S. Hampshire (ed), Public and Private Morality, Cambridge University Press, 1978. R.M. Hare, Freedom and Reason, Clarendon, Oxford, 1963. R.M. Hare, Moral Thinking, Conflicts’). Clarendon, Oxford, 1982 (see especially chapter 2 ’Moral R. Harrison, Rational Action, Cambridge University Press, 1979. R. Hilpinen (ed). Deontic Dordrecht, 1971. Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, Reide1, R. Hilpinen (ed), New Studies in Deontic Logic, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981. A. Kenny, The God of the Philosophers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979. E.J. Lemmon, ’Moral dilemmas’, Philosophical Review 71 (1962) 139-58. E.J. Lemmon,’ Deontic (1965) 39-71. Logic and the T. McConnell, ’Moral dilemmas and Philosophy 8 (1978) 269-87. logic of imperatives’, consistency in ethics’, Logique et Canadian Analyse 8 Journal A. MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1966. of �39 A. A. Martino (ed.), Deotnic Logic, Computational Systems, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982. Linguistics and Legal Information E. Morscher, ’Antinomies and incompatibilities within normative languages’ in Martino 82, pp.83-102. Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1971; hereafter OED. G. Priest and R. Routley, On Paraconsistency, Research Australian National University, 1983; hereafter OP. in Papers Logic, #13, A.N. Prior, Formal Logic, Second edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1962. A.N. Prior, ’Escapism: the logical basis of ethics' (ed. A.I. Melden), Seattle, 1958. in Essays in Moral Philosophy, W.D. Ross, The Right and the Good, Oxford University Press, New York, 1930. R. Routley, ’War and Peace I. On the ethics of large-scale nuclear war and war­ deterrence, and the political fall-out’, Discussion Papers in Environmental Philosophy, #5, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 1983. R. Routley, ’On the alleged inconsistency and moral insensitivity and fanaticism of pacifism’, Inquiry 26 (1984) , ; also War and Peace II. R. Routley, ’Maximizing, satisficing, satisizing: the difference in real and rational behaviour under rival paradigms’, Discussion Papers in Environmental Philosophy, #10, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 1984; hereafter MS. R. and V. Routley, ’The semantics of first degree entailment’, Nous 6 (1972) 335-59. R. and V. Routley, ’Semantical foundations of value theory’, Nous (1983) 441—56. R. Routley and R.k. Meyer, ’The semantics of entailment I’, in Truth, Syntax, and Modality (ed. H. Leblanc) North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973» pp.199-243. R. Routley and R.K. Meyer, ’Dialectical logic, classical logic, and the consistency of the world’, Studies in Soviet Thought 16 (1976) 1-25. R. Routley and others, Relevant Logics and Their Rivals, Ridgeview, California, Part I (1982) and Part II (1984); referred to as RLR I and RLR II respectively. A. Ryan, The Idea of Freedom, Oxford, 1970. P. Schotch and pp.149-62. R.E. Jennings, ’Non-Kripkean deontic logic’, in Hilpinen 81, �40 Q. Skinner, The Foundations of Modern University Press, Cambridge, 1978. Political Thought, Volume 11, Cambridge R. M. Thomason, ’Deontic logic as founded on tense logic’, in Hilpinen 81, pp.165-175. B. Vermazen, 'The (1977) 1-71. logic of practical 'ought’-sentences’, Philosophical Studies 32 B. Williams, Moral Luck, Cambridge United Press, 1981. B. Williams, 'Conflict of values' in Williams 81, pp.71-82; also in Ryan 79. G.H. von Wright, An Essay in Modal Logic, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1951. G.H. von Wright, ’On the logic of norms/ and actions’, M. Hilpinen 81, pp.3-35. G.H. ven Wright, ’Norms, truth and logic’ in Martino 82, pp.3-20. �TYRANT MOPE ON NOPAL DILEMMAS 1. ethics. 2. Revolutionising Possible heading, why the failure to comprehend moral dilemmas. All these Reading force^'^^e off in other directions. Undoubtedly a great deal of ethics has been messed up by a failure to understand moral dilemmas. ' ... The failure is often reported; for instance human since justifiable claims ... and are rights claims, they be outweighed by other As in all conflicts of moral principles, human rights reasons must be weighed other moral can against one another by an as yet poorly understood and ill-defined process' (Rajfles, p.42). The failure shows up on the apparent clash between doing ethics by way of principles and doing ethics consistency reasons, principles. vor principles break down, through examples. or dilemmatic And examples. examples it is thought for air^. thought to refute A proper approach to dilemmas removes the tension between examples and principles and allows a synthesis to be achieved. 3. Moral rectitude. Now is notion this to be unpacked0 mhere are competing explanations, e.g. 1) in terms of obligation and deontics; 2) by way of consequentialist rectitude decisive. assessment. Pettit to make moral mhen it requires assessment thus 3) Method 1) unless dilemma; otherwise method 2\ rectitude so it is absolute in terms of O. 4. wants This is impossible. Mcjlly's system has no moral dilemmas, since ~fu For it proves trivial deontically. But he also wants to run 0~u^ - at least intentionally. Aquinas denies certain moral dilemmas, e.g. Np & F~p, in the doctrine concerning perplexus simpliciter F & N p.12. 5. Investigate further the connection of permitted and accepted worlds, and commission? This 'possibly permitted' does not involve discussed in NNL. the fallacy of reducing permission * 'permissible to It does tie with the suggested connection of commission and omission through the * function. ��2 6. Is problem of the individual in society, of a person in politics, an organisation or a company of this type i.e. dilemma of freedom? Of. a dilemma that can just stand, like the theoretical also Machiavellian a problem: person in public must (morally?) act evilly sometimes. 7. of PUBLIC distinction The moralities. VS MORALITIES PRIVATE implies that there are two The BASE ARGUMENT against is this: But there are not two. if we acknowledge this conception of morality as requiring some action as the thing to do, how, logically speaking, could there be two moralities0 the thing to do when they conflict? overriding reason for action?^ How could morality then What is provide an Similarly &n utilitarianism single maximisation recipe and results. (/? DOEBN'01 REQUIRE KANTIANISM.) However A can to be subject conflicting public and private claims. Seen this way ^public vs private just generates.heap of further moral dilemmas, and the 2 moralities ^is just shoddy attempt to escape these dilemmas, expedient (i.e. would become n shoves morality out as in the Hinduism resolution dilemmas. of often in a way that’s politically of the way for expediency'1. The 2 moralities * int if pursued this distinction-making attempt at / Something special about public/private case0 Or differently, why are arguments from expedience so much more acceptable in public sphere0 Be^n gives r interest some reasons, but these oughtn't to justify a difference. | public interest DIRTY HANDS PROBLEM (PARADOX) is like GOOD SAM? behalf of the statecommitting murder. Sometimes it is right get one's hands dirty. E.g. Doing such and such on OR just a straight dilemma? to try to succeed, and then it must also be right to But one's hands get dirty from doing what it is wrong to do. And how can it be wrong to do what is right? Or how can we get our hands dirty by doing what we ought to do9 Z M. Walzer, Philosophy and Public Affairs, moral 2, 10°^, dilemma. 164. Op Walzer sees this as a tragic dilemma: p-> q Oq, but 0~q. Example: but really a torturing captured terrorist to extract information to save innocent lives. The problems start from questions of relations between two different moralities. �Conclusion: 8. Conflict conscience 'that, the public to at its most liberal, loyalty, overriding moral liberalism in end. to a On between will stand the individual, tried committed concern for its collective interest, the one hand the individual as a relate this ambiguous model of the a individual and as an autonomous, citadel, on the other, the overriding perverse, wilful obstacles in the way of the general will. to with no gainsaying, and the claims of possessed of liberties that only he himself can waive, by consent; State, equipped society, not T have only to liberal conceptions of what belongs to the private and what to the public, but also to the tension between a morality of principles and one of valued outcomes, which, in my view, is very closely connected with the ambiguity of the model . * ("Renn? 9. Argument for weak paraconsistent position. Morality is a guide to action. Action is consistent. So have to r?l consistencize. ^Inconclusive"1. Like law one consistencizes (e.g. for action^ alright. But that confirms that it is inconsistent in the first place. 10. The difference. fought distinction is, it It hands the opposition its case. is objected, a Simply not so. distinction without a �The following have been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. • • • • • Letter, unidentified author to Richard, 27 Jul 1984 re Moral dilemmas. (2 pages (1 leaf)) Reference card and handwritten paper, ? Alchourron and Bulygin (1 reference card + 5 leaves) Letter, Charles to Richard, undated re New Studies in Deontic Logic and Castañeda's proposed deontic logic. (2 pages) Cuttings from unidentified publication, The paradoxes of deontic by Hector-Neri Castañeda (page 46-47), and Some main problems of deontic by Jaakko Hintikka 9page 94-96. (2 leaves) Letter, unidentified author to Richard, with annotations by Sylvan?, undated, re Moral dilemmas. (7 leaves) �Ml Although the sorts of examples we have described seem familiar enough, it might well be disputed that they are correctly described as cases of Op and 0~p, or in the alternative representation as cases of Fp & F~p. The main ground for this is the belief that �19. in any such case one of the parties to the conflict is less wrong, and that this one can be claimed to be not really wrong at all. There are however several objections to this move to neutralise the dilemmas (1) First, wrong party. there is no guarantee that there always is a less Both parties may be equally wrong, no way of deciding which is less wrong. Vietnam example; To take and there may be our hypothetical if we withdraw half a million people will die; but if we do not withdraw the war will continue and half a million people will die; clearly the example may be elaborated. There may be no grounds for choice. (2) The fact that one party is less wrong than the alternative is no grounds for saying that it is not wrong at all. In fact the case would normally be described as one of choice between " two evils", two wrong aciwsese©; if one chooses the lesser of two evils, then one still chooses an evil. ing One is simply not justified in claim1 that, where p involves killing 10 people, p is not wrong simply on the grounds that ~p involves killing 15 people, any more than one is in the case of preference theory justified in saying that p, which brings a gift of $10, is not a good thing simply on the grounds that ~p brings a gift of $11. things; (3) They are both good and in our moral case, both are wrong. If we do say this, plainly it will be very difficult to find any moral principles which can be asserted with any confidence universally. In fact it will probably be possible to find hypothetical counterexamples to any statement of the form "All actions of type x are wrong", just by producing a case where p is an action of type x, but ~p is an even worse action. that p, although an action of type x, is not wrong, It will follow so we will have �However, a counterexample. it seems to be important that we should be able to assert such general principles, and doing so gives us an essential way of assessing, morally, (4) Finally, types of actions. the proposed redescription of the case as involving only one wrong element, the one which is more wrong, leaves out an essential feature of such a case, that it is a dilemma, case where one cannot but act wrongly. If we omit this element the case is not properly described, it is falsified; a we may as a result find ourselves unable to explain many resulting features of the situation which result from the conflict, e.g. human behavioural features >n such a situation involving hesitation, doubt, inaction, perhaps anguish and guilt. All these will appear quite irrational. (5) Assigning a priority to our moral rules itself does nothing to resolve the logical problem raised by the dilemmas, (although it may solve the practical problem of how best to act). % For this logical problem iX the problem of how to arrange our logic so as to be able to describe such cases adequately and without falsification or incon-sisteney. Arranging a priority, so that A one alternative can be claimed to be less wrong, does not solve the logical problem, which is that whatever happens will be wrong, that T cannot be identical with I. The consequence that whatever happens is wrong cannot be removed unless as well as a priority assignment one also adopts the principle that what is less wrong is not wrong at all. But this principle leads to inconsistency for then the less wrong action is both wrong and not wrong. To be consistent this method must introduce a new concept of wrong in addition to the old one, say "wrong2" , and the less wrong action can be said to be not "wrong2". But now the original problem is �21. still not eliminated, because the problem was not that whatever be is . happened would /'wrong2" (although this/now false), but that whatever happened would be wrong, which is still true. sort of priority - dominated concept cannot replace, may supplement, the original concept. And this although it �Sf- The problem of classifying these dilemmas. z mainly using the term ’wrong’. We have stated our dilemmas However, it may seem that this is ambiguous, and that it is possible, or desirable, to make a further distinction, between pi inciples which are obligatory and principles which are prohibitory. For wrongs can be due to two very different causes - om^iission or commission. The distinction between obligation and prohibition principles can be explained initially as follows: an obligation principle of the form Op read ’it ought to be the case that p’,Qt is �f ? L ' r jT f'.Jlz.f:? /t/tjyJ /4-< 'it ought to come about that p'. This says that something, p, ought to should happen that p'A, r, happen, an ideal situation I. that is^ that it is a member of & A situation^satisfies Op, Op if p is not in it then, if p is In it ( p eaJ;and violates p's presence satisfies Op, whereas (pZ S?) • £ ["Obligation" Z7 —:----- is ’ being used here its omission or absence violates it. in a somewhat unusual sense, 4 for Lemmon seems to be right in urging that obligations are usually contractual in nature. and contracts may be contracts to do something or to refrain from However, we doing something - hence both positive and negative. must press 'obligation' and 'obligatory' and adjective corresponding to it * into service as a noun ought to be the case that' in order to avoid clumsiness and for lack of any other suitable words. The other class of principles, hand, we shall write prohibitive principles, on the other 'Ep' and read 'it is forbidden that p'. These principles claim that p is the sort of action which should p is not a member of the ideal situation I. be avoided satisfies Fp, situation a such that p Z such that pea violates it. a situation a whereas p's omission or absence satisfies Fp, whereas pSoccurrence or presence violates it. is paralleled on the obligations) The distinction action level by the distinction between action and by that between and inaction, A 'sins of omission' and 'sins of commision' A (which violate (which violate prohibitions). 'I have done those things which I ought not to have done' violating a prohibition but also, and not equivalently, not done those things which I ought to have done', thus 'I have thus violating An obligation is satisfied by doing something, an obligation. a prohibition by failing to do something, by avoiding something. It is important not to confuse 0~p, which says that should happen' or 'that ~p 'It is wrong that p', with Fp which says ’that p should not happen', or it * should not happen that p'. This �distinction is clear, as a scope distinction, in the English reading However the two are continually confused in modal treatments of But deontic logic, since given Modal Muddle p / I = ~p g I. that to say/p should happen is not to say anything about what should not happen but leaves the issue as to whether ~p should or should And to say that p should not happen is not say and 0~p tells anything about ~p,/whether it should happen or not. not happen open. aj us that ~p is a member of I, where.Fp tells us that p is not a member of 1.^ Dilemmas then seem to fall into three classes depending upon whether the principles which lead to them are obligation or prohibition principles^or both. Fp and F~p, Thus we obtain Op and 0~p, and Op and Fp from our examples depending upon how the principles involved are construed^ a<Tprohibitory or obligatory. (A): Dilemmas obtained from prohibition principles, Fp, % F~p1. i.e. cases of We obtain cases of this sort given principles of the * form. — (1) Whenever P satisfies condition C, (Action form: (2) it shouldn't happen that p. action of type x are wrong) it shouldn't happen that p. A Whenever p satisfies condition C', The dilemma is obtained where p satisfies condition C, ~p satisfies condition C'. Jo O F and - ■L Give the semantical reading of 0 and F?and the examples with 'wrong' . Then mention the necessity for distinction between 0~p and Fp. (1) Wrongs divide into sins of omission and sins of commission. (2) These are semantically different. (3) Unless one distinguishes these concepts semantically have the consistency assumption again. Give the readings. one will �10. Examples can also be obtained from two distinct prohibitory These are cases where the state of affairs described principles. (for reasons given by the first by p is really indescribable principle) (for different reasons given by the second principle). able, * (tndesir For/(B) and the state of affairs described by ~p is m^-ally The second category of dilemmas are dilemmas obtained from obligation principles i.e. cases of Op & O~p, for some p. We obtain cases of this sort given principles of the form:(1) Whenever p satisfies condition C, (2) Whenever p satisfies condition C', it should happen that p it should happen that p. The dilemma is obtained when for a given p, p satisfies condition C and ~p satisfies condition C': (C) Finally, so Op and O~p. examples derived from conflicting but not inconsistent moral principles, which urge both that p should occur and that it should not occur i.e. and prohibited. cases of Op and Fp, where p is both enjoined These cases come about where are principles of the following sort: (1) Whenever p satisfies condition C, p should happen. (2) Whenever p satisfies condition C', p should not happen. The dilemma results because one can find cases one and the same state of affairs C and condition C'? e.g. (p) (in T) where satisfies both condition as^our example derived from Lemmon's uAcrw-tt bolew, x gives back the gun and helping a murderer. (p) is a case both of keeping a promise But promises must be kept, so Op holds. However actions which help murderers are forbidden and should not occur; examples, hence Fp also holds. unlike the previous kind, It seems that these sorts of cannot be generated by a single moral principle, but requires two principles which come into conflict. �With a certain degree of artifice we can arrange our examples into these categories, with f A) groups being prohibitions the (fe)groups obligations, and the (C) groups mixed. �It is necessary then to avoid the modal treatment and to But though 0 principles and F principles distinguish 0~ and F. are distinct, 0 and F provide alternatives bases for (semantically) The O-principles correspond semantically to deontic system. inclusion principles,the F formulated principles to exclusion Thus e.g. principles. TRfH 5® where iff iff TROH * , (UH) (TRfH oX(p,H) = f) In contrast, I(Fp,T) = t iff (UH) TROH d Kp,H) Thus the modellingswill mirror f) . one another, with R Rf For the representation of principles then we can work satisfactorily with an O-basis, or with an F-basis, but not with a mixed basis which uses both 0 and F principles. Failure to distinguish 0~p and Fp will provide a ground for the mistaken consistency assumption: iff p i H. for it will follow from evaluation rules �12. The cases described satisfy the characterisation of moral For the principles involved are not inconsistent, yet dilemmas. they are not satisfiable in T. In the case of the first set of leading to Fp and F~p, dilemmas, the principles could not be satisfied unless neither p nor ~p occurred. necessarily complete, But since T is they cannot be satisfied in T. of the second set of examples, Op and 0~p, In the case the principles could only be satisfied if both p and ~p occur, hence since T is con­ sistent, they cannot be satisfied in T. different. The third case is very Here it cannot be satisfied because one and the same proposition satisfies both conditions for occurring and conditions for not occurring? this proposition, hence our principles direct, with respect to that it should occur and that it should not occur. This also cannot be satisfied in T, since p is either a member of T, or not a member of T. The principles involved are not however inconsistent ones; for in each case a finite proposition modelling of the principles can be provided. In the third case, directives, despite the fact there are inconsistent given a contingent proposition p^, which satisfies the antecedent conditions, no inconsistency need result because such a proposition p^ may not occur. In other words, though the principles together with p^ form an inconsistent set, p-^ is essential and can be deleted from the set since contingent; and the set without p1 as the principles on their own are satisfactory is consistent, where no antecedents satisfy both, a po£S»4ta- case. ■ v r • The principles ** (a. though inconsistent in application are not inconsistent^ i In the first two cases(they are T consistent?) also it is a contingent matter that the principles come i ... into^ cannot be satisfied in T; r; for detachment of a contingent truth is made, viz that the given ? proposition satisfies the conditions. �13. since they constantly arise““without sacrificing the generality of moral principles. For unless carefully treated dilemmas will/ as we shall see, provide counterexamples to moral principles. Our moral dilemmas result from judgements which cannot be satisfied in T, so that whatever happens will be wrong. Howe is there/still quite a crucial difference between the first two classes and the third class of dilemma. In the third case the result of the dilemma on detachment of a contingent premiss that p satisfies c and c' simultaneously is an inconsistency, cannot both belong and not belong to the ideal set-up I. since p Although the principles upon which the judgement Op and Fp was based were not themselves mutually inconsistent, moral judgerent they do result in a inconsistent that p both ought to happen and ought not to happen is prohibited from happening. Given that p has both properties, the moral principles concerned are in conflict. This is brought out by the fact that if p does satisfy these conditions, cannot be any situation, T-like or not, there in which the principles are satisfied. Furthermore here we have a case where each moral judgement provides a counterexample to the other. If Op and Fp both obtained, both the principles from which they were derived would be false; principle for Op would provide a counterexample to the prohibitory (p) (if p satisfies c’ then Fp) since Op ~Fp; while Fp would provide a counterexample to the obligatory principle (if p satisfies c then Op). (p) �J \ 14. In view of these points it seems that a moral code which resulted in this sort of conflicting judgement is defective; the principles involved should either be restricted by tightening one or other of conditionsc and c', or else restated by reformulating one or other of the principles, (p) (Cp => F~p) replaced by (p) (C'p => 0~p) . or i.e. either (p) (C'p => Fp) (p) (Cp => Op) is is replaced by the case is reduced to one of the first In short, two cases. In this case the dilemma arises because the principles In the first two cases however involved come into conflict. the difficulty does not arise from conflicting principles, but is simply a case where our not v/ judgements cannot both be satisfied in T, because they are conflicting, but because of the peculiar Where Op and 0~p both hold, nature of T. (or Fp and F~p) what- ever happens will be wrong, because p & ~p cannot both hold in T, The dilemma is however simply explained nor p & ~p fail to hold. and the judg.ements accepted once it is understood that I, situation, action, is not T-like. The dilemma may produce a conflict in because given the logical structure of T and the limitations it imposes upon action, both judgements. it is impossible to act in accordance with But this does not effect the judgements themselves; as moral judgenents, assessments of the moral worth of p of affairs) conflict. (a state of ~p^jthey are quite compatible and there is no To say that p is wrong and that ~p is also wrong is in no way to be inconsistent, true. the ideal and both judgements may very well be The absence of conflict also explains the fact that such cases can be produced from single moral principles, such as 'Killing is wrong', which in no way inhibit internal conflict. �15. Judgements such as 'p is wrong of action or states of affairs; as to how to act in T. alternative in T, Hence Op does not compare p with its ~p. Such judgements are implicitly comparative, not to ~p's worth, but to the Thus if we reach situations as to moral worth of its absence. (using moral criteria for selection), if for every situation H, H+p is worse than H-p. in a situation assess types and do not simply give directions but p's worth is assessed relative, desirability & ~p is wrong' p is wrong If p's presence makes the situation morally worse than it would be if p were absent, then p is wrong. But now it is a straightforward matter to claim that p is wrong and that ~p is also wrong; one is aHL simply claiming that situations without p^orally preferable to the that (should be chosen^etc.); same situations with p * and also situations without ~p are morally preferable to that same situation with ~p in it. These judgements in no way conflict, and if we were in a position to choose a situation with neither of them in, we could satisfy both judgements simultaneously. is the choice must be regarded as a hypothetical one, As it and the judgements as representing a kind of thought experiment, rather than in giving directions as to how to behave in T. The choice embodied in such a judgement is one between two hypothetical situations and not between alternative versions of T. It is just for this reason that this type of moral judgement is adequate for assessing morally different types of actions or sorts of states of affairs. Because we are concerned with choosing between hypothetical situations, we can opine that all actions of a certain specifiable type and states of affairs satisfying a certain condition are wrong (not wrongyetc.), without risking * In the case of Op & 0~p. In the case of Fp & F~p one ismaking a slightly different claim, that a situation from which p's absent is morally better than some in which it is present. Note that the difference between 0 and F can be to the difference in directionthe rankings. �16. falsification because of the contingent features of T. Finally, in such a judgement one is concerned with assessing the action or state of affairs in itself rather than passing judgement about the best way to act in a particular situation. Dilemmas of this sort then, as opposed to dilemmas of the conflict sort first discussed, are not the result of defective moral codes or principles and do not require any readjustment or resolution (beyond psychological acceptance of the fact that it is sometimes inevitable that what happens is wrong and that perfectibility is impossible). They do not provide counterexamples to general In contrast moral principles based on contingent features of T. codes containing the conflict type of dilemma are defective. Any code containing two principles of the form 'wherever p satisfies Cl, Op' and ’Whenever p satisfies C2, Fp’ where C1 and C2 are not inconsistent, will be defective because there is a possible situation (a hypothetical case) with a p^ which satisfies both C1 Whence the inconsistent pair Fp, potentially inconsistent. & Op,. and C2. Any such code is at least This sort of defectiveness of a moral code might be excusable if it were inevitable. But it is not. can be avoided if we adopt either 0 or F as primitive, and state our judgements in terms of one or other of them, but not both. alternative, terms, conflicting is intolerable. moral It The principles stated in No principle could be asserted with any confidence, because they would hold or fail just according to whether or not a suitable proposition with conflicting properties appeared in T and provided a counterexample. And since this is contingent whether such principles hold or not would be entirely a matter of good or bad luck. Moral judgements on the other hand ought to apply beyond T to possible situations, ought to be non-empirical and apply to hypothetical cases, matter of accident. and ought not to hold just as a �4 C ‘S’ -X f * �univeralisa'blemoral principle was a judgement The general ‘ 7^' about types of action or states of affairs and compared p's presence in a situation with its absence from the same situation on a scale of moral desirability. This concept of wrongness is essential to be able to state general moral judgements. But as well as this concept we can distinguish another important concept which is designed to assess not types of action but what is the best course of action in a given situation. This is obtained by comparing p's presence in a situation not with its absence but with the presence of its rivals in a given situation, e.g. ~p in the case of T. p will be said to be ’the best course of action' ~p are both wrong) if a situation Thus (even where p and (usually T), with p in, ranks higher morally then the same one with ~p in. A more practical - concept still can be obtained by comparing p and its practical rivals, say will be the best course of action practical alternative q) f Y r if a situation (as compared with its (usually T) (morally) when p is in it than when q is in it. between alternative ways of extending will rank higher One chooses T. It is important as Lemmon points out to distinguish this concept clearly from the more general concept earlier explained. Lemmon is wrong in suggesting that this is not a moral concept at all and does not give rise to moral judgements but to judgements of expedience. The judgements involved in this case are still moral in the sense that the criteria for ranking situations are �22 specifically moral ones and not based simply, say, on aesthetic considerations or desirability considerations. clear that this distinction Yet it is (which we shall call the distinction between differential obligation and intrinsic obligation) must be ignored and eliminated if obligation is treated as a modal functor For give/} the principle of Modal Muddle (H) (p e H = ~p e H) semantical recipes we have given will be identical. p's presence in H with p's absence (p / H) comparing p in H with ~p's being in H. the To compare will be the same as It is essential however to distinguish this notion of 'best course of action' (differential basic notion we have discussed, because it has quite different properties. * It cannot replace although it can supplement, The reasons are as follows other notion. 02 does not allow for (1) the moral dilemmas. p with its practical alternative in T, e.g. For since we compare ~p, to say that Op & 0~p is to say that a situation H such p e H is morally better than a situation H such that ~p e H, and also to say that a situation H such that ~p e H is better than one such that p e H. This is a (Similar results will ensue when F is taken as a contradiction. basis). (2) 02 cannot allow for general moral judgements of the form "All actions (states of affairs) counterexample. of type x are wrong" without fear of For no matter how compelling our principle and how repugnant the type of action described, we can almost always find a case where the only alternative action is worse. however repugnant p may be, Hence, it will not in this case be wrong, a counterexample to one general judgement will be provided. new notion then cannot do the same job as the old; —----------------------------------------- . and Our it should be , We u^e such as 'the best thing in the circumstances' 'the right thing', 'the correct course all in all' to capture differential obligations . �23. regarded as parasitic, because it can be alternatively represented as admitting the wrongness of the alternatives, but going on to weigh up the alternatives to obtain a recipe for practical action. (3) implies can" slogan It is to this notion that the "ought applies. O2P o locjically possible p, because one has selected p as the best course of action from logically possible alternatives in T. Indeed ’02p’ can be made to imply ‘p is physically possible' (or even physically possible to the person being exhorted) by comparing p with its physically possible alternatives in ranked situations. In a similar way, the concept of blame attaches to failure to follow the best course of action,i.e. if p is better as a course of action than its and one fails to do it. action.* (practical) alternatives, One is not blameworthy for doing p merely only as good as, because p is no better than, i.e. alternatives, one is blameworthy its remaining it has to be worse than some alternative course of It is important to note that blame attaches to this second differential concept of obligation, rather than the first intrinsic notion, for the possibility and obvious unfairness of someone's being blamed for doing wrong where both Op and 0~p hold and he has no alternative which is not wrong would otherwise be a powerful objection to cases of moral dilemmas. (5) Finally, differential obligation makes a basically different type of judgement from the intrinsic notion. not of a type of action or state It is an assessment or of affairs, the action/state of affairs in itself, but of the situation in which it occurs, action in this situation. This is reflected in such phrases as "the best thing in the circumstances" "the right thing to do the conditions obtained at the time)", etc. * Oh well, you cannot be blamed. circumstances . the (given Hence it is not You did the best thing in the �universalisable , and does not try to be. It “results in a recipe for action, and is closely allied to advice or exhortation/orders , persuasion, recommendation or other directed activities. Intrinsic obligation however/ frafc^s no account of possible action and does not need to; it assesses action-types regardless of how they occur in a given situation. This last point is important in connection with argument about moral dilemmas. For the confusion between our two concepts has a disastrous effect on argument, particularly those hotly disputed arguments which occur in the case of moral dilemmas. The following sort of argument, due to confusion between Oi and O2 is all too common in such cases. Actions of type x are wrong (1') (if p satisfies c then Oi~p). (p) This must be Oj because it represents a general and exceptionless (2) p is an action (3) ~ 02 i.e. ~p: (state of affairs) judgement about a type. of type x. p should not be done. Therefore do not do p. The argument is plainly unsatisfactory because the fact that Oi~p holds is not sufficient to establish that 02~p To holds. do this one would have to show that the alternative, p, was not worse or even just as good. not be so. And in cases of dilemmas this may very well To establish 02~p one needs to show not merely that p is wrong but that there is some better course of action. The fallacy derives from trying to base a recipe for action on the intrinsic obligation notion, Oi. �s 25. A closely related confusion holds that it is inconsistent to claim that p is a wrong type of action, that it should be done nonetheless the best course of action. August 6 197 x (e.g. is repugnant etc., but - because it is nevertheless Canberra Times Editorial, on abortion reads as follows: "It is significant, and inconsistent with its official stand that the s ynod should have qualified its recommendation to family doctors with the words "however regrettable we feel this to be"." to be inconsistentthen, one states to be What is being claimed is that one should recommend a course of action (morally) there is no inconsistency. regrettable or repugnant. But of course One is simply saying that ~p is wrong, "Oi-p", but that it is nevertheless the best thing to do given the circumstances because the alternatives are worse?i.e. "O2P"• The distinction between differential and intrinsic obligation, then, seems to be an important factor in assessing the validity of argument where moral dilemmas are concerned. �/, �2 �ft I z^z/ / rt&jZy 7-, I � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document MORAL DILEMMAS AND THE LOGIC OF DEONTIC NOTIONS Richard Routley and Vai Plumwood^ The §1. paradoxes of deontic logic consistency and the and modal requirements. Especially since mid-century many systems of deontic logic have been advanced, which logic of such deontic attempt to explore the prohibition, and wrong. right all Almost which treat deontic notions as modal, notions as obligation, permission and modal not demand functors, All such systems are mistaken m a For deontic functors such as obligation and prohibition are but are more highly of degree greater a systems, i.e. as if strict or provable equivalents are intersubstitutable within them preserving truth. quite fundamental way. systems have been modal these intensional than propositional modal modal than discrimination and so functors, logics can provide. The damage caused by the mistaken treatment of deontic notions as modal shows up in various ways, but we shall be primarily concerned with only one of these, the consistency requirements and the exclusion thereby of moral dilemmas. which the modal damage appears is through a Another way in series of related paradoxes, such as, directly, the paradoxes of derived obligation, and, less directly, the paradoxes of the Robber and the Good Samaritan. The consistency requirements come out in two ways in mainstream deontic systems. consistency Firstly, a negation are requirement, - obligatory in the that usual no claim such is symbolism, Op that ~0~p, both it i.e. and its ~(0p & 0~p) — appears as a principle, frequently a postulate, in all mainstream absolute systems.21 Such absolute systems, which are variants on alethic modal systems, are characteristically obtained from corresponding alethic systems by replacing the modal axiom, that’ or ’it ought to be the case that’, or the functor ’□ ’, modal (such as logics system demands world is ’it is obligatory ’it ought to be seen to that', replaces ’it is necessary that', of alethic systems. We know of course that consistency requirement; some ~0~p - where ’O’, read Op D p, by the deontic axiom, Op the doxastic systems) the standard but it appears that the intended interpretation of deontic the consistency requirement. or encapsulates acceptable subsequently introduced, can be designed without For its semantical equivalent what is permitted (i.e. is that in symbols (Px)STx) which is surely true (for let world x be determined precisely by what is so permitted). Moreover, the second related way in which consistency escaped by a modal formulation of deontic (or doxastic) logics. figures cannot be so For it seems clear, 2 and is widely agreed, that 0 satisfies the following distribution principle: (1) Op&OqiffO(p&q). Since however 0 is modal, and p & ~p & q p&~p (i.e. - the sides are strictly equivalent), 0(p & ~p) iff 0(p & ~p & q) Thence, Op & 0~p implies 0(p & ~p), which implies 0(p & ~p & q), and (2), by (1) which implies Oq; (2) if there are cases of moral dilemmas where Op and also 0~p, i.e. then obligation spreads so that any claim is obligatory. This argument tells against all mainstream deontic logics; rock-bottom system, minimal deontic logic. for it holds in the This logic MDS, presented by von Wright and others (see e.g. Hilpinen 81, p.3 and p.5), adds to classical sentential logic CL (with rules of Material Detachment and Substitutivity duly extended) the one-place connective P, of permissibility, subject to just the conditions P(A v B) e (1’) PA v PB and Intersubstitutivity of provably equivalent CL (i.e. truth functional) wff Now define a connective - in fact the standard obligation Then, where A and B are any CL wff, 0(A & B) OA =£j£~P~A. negation and It then follows, given that (extensional) principles to De Morgan = ~(~P~A & ~P~B). follows), 0 moral claim is dilemmas obligatory, the consequence as above of the nothing functor ) * (2 - thus: OA & OB, upon applying of (1 ) * that P~(—A & —B) (or by variants thereupon that which form OA & 0~A, (extensional) i.e. any permissible. The that is OB, revealing variant argument applies the provable CL-equivalence A & -A = B & ~B to get 0(A & ~A) = 0(B & ~B). d OB & 0~B => OB. Then (in condensed notation) OA & 0~A => 0(A & ~A) => 0(B & ~B) That is, if there are any deontic moral dilemmas (of such forms as OA & 0~A) then everything is obligatory. other forms; But there are moral dilemmas, of this and and not everything is obligatory. incorrect. So too are all its extensions, and Therefore minimum deontic logic is thereby all mainstream systems. For 'most systems of deontic logic include the system’ of von Wright 'as a subsystem' (F & H, p.13). There is little appreciation of the involve in the ethical Hare, having set up a force of these arguments or of what they literature. But one prominent example will dilemma, and rejected one logical have to suffice. route out, proceeds to pronounce that 'it is not very helpful to try to sort out these difficulties by some relatively minor tinkering with the calculus of deontic logic. The linguistic and logical intuitions which give rise to them are all right so far as they go' (82, 3 intuitions behind the mainstream systems are not alright, but lead to The p.28). deontic collapse and to a heap of paradoxes; and a bit of '’tinkering" is enough to remove the worst difficulties.5 (2’) and The trouble lies we shall argue, just with the modal requirement (i.e. its usual extension to all wff). that not everything is obligatory, evident For while it is This leaves much to be defended. on no more than the strength of a few examples (such as that it is not obligatory that everyone visit the tallest eucalypt every day), none of the other assertions is so uncontroversial. Given that there are such moral dilemmas, as will be argued at length, and given that sentential logic CL is admissible when applied to consistent situations (which are all that are elsewhere (in arguments: required RLR in especially), modal the namely, the arguments there are a claim that has been argued above), two only and requirement, one fault the which to points at half of the distributivity principle, specifically r (O-adjunction). OA & OB -> 0(A & B) But it is bizarre to have to fail O-adjunction in order OA & 0~A =5 B has quite especially when OB to stand, 0(A & ~A) to be correctly foundation. And obligation. For, not it contemplated among in the things, is a irrelevant mates 7 desperate measure , systems since it intended role and mainstream against entirely other is conceded that its Faulting O-adjunction rejected. goes it to allow the paradox O-adjunction can be argued is without meaning for from of the semantics of 0, along these lines:- Roughly OA is true iff A holds in all acceptable situations. But if A holds in all such situations and B does also then so does A & B, validating O-adjunction. Accordingly, the trouble must be located in the modality requirements. This can be seen from another angle also. obligation, which also underlies O-adjunction, An important logical feature of is its transmissibility, that what is tightly entailed by what is obligatory is also obligatory; in symbolic form, A ■+ B -o OA -> OB But now, (0-transmission). if entailment is erroneously construed as strict implication, which is what the modal requirement would have us do, then 0(A & ~A) -> OB, since by a paradox of strict implication A & ~A B. If there are moral dilemmas of the form 0(A & ~A), as will be contended, then this result is sufficiently damaging on its own, and focusses the trouble on the modal requirement. properly maligned OA & 0~A ->0B. Otherwise apply O-adjunction, to obtain the 4 the Both and consistency requirements should modality be challenged then by anyone who claims that, for some p, both Op and 0~p (and that such judgements are not merely prima facie, vanishing upon further reflection). Many have argued that such cases do occur, indeed are central examples of value conflict, and are of fundamental importance in ethics.$ We want to go even further and claim, firstly, that such cases occur quite frequently, as cases of conflicting obligations, conflicting rights, and genuine moral dilemmas - so in particular there are many cases where both p and ~p ought to be the case - and secondly, that adequate logical treatment of such cases requires an underlying logic of a distinctively paraconsistent kind. we shall cases has, argue, with many important arguments and cases. many of logic rendered deontic Neglecting such incapable of dealing adequately The matter is particularly serious since fiercely debated moral cases are cases of moral dilemmas, lthe most e.g. limited resources, nuclear war, permissible war tactics. While our initial argument will overlap previous work,9 it goes beyond it by adding a semantical treatment and moral of explanation semantical dilemmas, and in setting adequate deontic logics within the framework of paraconsistent logic. simple The §2. resolution relevant epicycling. classical versus The relevant It has already been indicated. solution to the base problem is disarmingly simple. Abandon the modal assumption, that obligation, permissibility, and so on, are modal This blocks logical equivalents. functors allowing replacement of modal from OCA & ~A), or from OA & 0~A, to 0(B & ~B) and thence to OB. giving up intersubstitutivity are replacement coentailment, not simply just more in contexts; deontic rigorous than lax strict equivalence. intimately - the Spread with What ones. is permitting required is While A & ~A and B & ~B are strictly equivalent, they do not coentail one another. connected modal It does not involve conditions the the move law, That is as much of a fallacy as - one A that would have that a & ~A -> B, contradiction such as A & ~A entails any statement whatsoever. An alternative satisfactory distinctive implciation deontic way then logic of should explaining be in particular of relevant paraconsistent, feature of relevant logics, their and the is solution, simply and through why the a most rejection of the paradoxes of strict Spread. For, as remarked, one logical characteristic of deontic notions such as obligation is their transmissibility; i.e. where A entails B then OA is logically sufficient for OB.10 Then were entailment strict implication it would follow at once by Spread that 0(A & ~A) -> OB, whence by O-adjunction, OA & 0~A -> OB. basis of interpretations straightforwardly on RLR II). of Transmissibility may be independently argued for on the entailment (e.g. as content inclusion), and follows the semantical analysis of obligation to be advanced (cf. also 5 A good deal of effort has already been expended in trying to save mainstream deontic theory from the worst of the difficulties and consistency requirements. Most of through its modal it encounters, the repairs however attempted amount to epicycling: trying to tack theory-saving devices onto the initial theory, rather than questioning any fundamental features of it. Intractable exposed. problems is called What the with so-called minimal the standard system of deontic system already have been logic is in an even worse position than the minimal system, because it adds to the minimal system as an axiom 12 Then any standard system including a moral dilemma, 0(p^ & ~p ), is 13 o o simply inconsistent. For Op => Pp, hence Pp^ & ~Pp-j where p1 is pQ & ~pQ. ~p(p & ~p). Main marketed deontic logics are epicyclic variations on (i) standard deontic logic, being modal attempts to repair defects in earlier prototypes. They include (ii) reductions of systems of type (i) to alethic logics by introduction of a constant ’o’ read, for example, ’the world will be worse off’ or 'punishment ought to cr is the moral sanction or some bad state of affairs. follow’: is defined Then *0' EK-A^cr); i.e. A is obligatory iff the negation of A (non-fulfilment of A, it OA is said) necessitates the sanction. It is usually postulated: -0^. Such reductive frameworks, since they include minimal deontic logic, repeat its defects. (iii) relativistic systems which attempt axiomatise to circumstances, c', conditional of reads ’p is obligatory given, or permission and conditional obligation; thus ’0(p/c) * in notions underlying model being that of conditional the probability. These systems were designed chiefly to avoid the paradoxes of derived obligation to which systems of type really in (as and (i) probability (ii) theory) lead. to But the new operator, /, compensate for implicational connective in the modal framework assumed. so-called "logics of conditional e.g., van Fraassen, p.438 ’... obligation" still lack the is introduced of an adequate So, not surprisingly, these exclude moral dilemmas (thus, it would be more apt to say that we have here a logic of obligation that remains after obligational conflicts are resolved'). (iv) systems which conditional d, such include a modal conditional functor superior to the material­ as a Stalnaker-Lewis-style conditional, conditional deontic notions like those of (iii) can be defined. in terms of which But these systems, since modal, do not escape modal limitations and problems (see further RLR). (v) systems based on a logic of change or action. These systems turn out to be reducible to a combination of absolute systems with tense logics, i.e. 14 to multiply modal systems and so repeat the problems of modal systems. None of these modal types are satisfactory, none can be made so, they amount because of 6 What is at modal assumptions, like consistency requirements, that they all involve. fault is not merely types of systems of this sort, which confine the framework to a worlds possible defect enough, one thereby and but the write in conditions, consistency that is though sweeping consistency interpretation of deontic more logic, that ’principles of deontic logics are conditions of consistency for normative systems’.^ The consistency interpretation - which is deeply entrenched in much ethical theory (especially making no adequate allowance from Kant) deriving that for what is essential fundamentally mistaken, - is moral dilemmas and to morality, the familiar inconsistency of normative systems. Documenting moral dilemmas. Cases of moral dilemmas are, perhaps unfortunately, §3. both familiar and inevitable. perhaps not, and logic theory deontic (including is unfortunate It such for standard deontic approximations rough as utilitarianism) since they have ultimately to be dismissed as inadequate to account for the data. is also often extremely On the other dilemmas. awkward who those for such dilemmas hand, probity, and are a main source of moral change. A moral dilemma occurs when considerations, for instance cannot T situation in act (where such a of which shape cannot, or precisely as way afford real tests of moral worth and 16 is confronted with moral perhaps not directly inconsistent, factual the probably cannot, facts satisfy to principles, binding obtain); principles that is, one so as to or although be satisfied Then the situation T cannot but induce a moral fix. considerations. in moral (but not only when) one the in themselves enmeshed find It in the (probably) meet moral This can come about in two ways, either because of the logical limitations supposedly satisfied by T, in particular its consistency feature (that, whatever p, does not) or through certain contingent features if p holds in T then ~p of T. In what follows we shall concentrate on a major subclass of what are commonly accounted moral dilemmas, those of (paraconsistent) logical interest where what is given or derived are pairs such as OA and OB, WA and WB (i.e. A is wrong and so is B), or the like, where A and B are And incompatible. of particular logical importance are cases where deontically incompatible pairs such as Op and 0~p, Wp and W~p, or the like are guaranteed. The examples of moral dilemmas we consider provide only a small selection from the rich variety of such dilemmas, but hopefully they illustrate that variety. Several of the examples involve more than one moral principle: however some commonly- adopted moral principles generate dilemmas, of one sort or another, their own. pretty much on Consider for instance first principles of the following type: Situations involving the (indiscriminate) killing of numbers of (uninvolved) people should be avoided, should not happen, are wrong - principle at very first approximation of the form (p)(p satisfies condition C + Wp). Applying such a principle, a dilemma results 7 where and occurs a large number of people will be killed, if p obtains or if ~p obtains a large number of people will also be killed. War situations provide obvious examples, with the V(ietnam) dilemma typical. 17 For example, people have described the situation in Vietnam as follows (not that it really is this way): If the Americans withdraw from Vietnam, a large number of people If the Americans stay in (do not withdraw from) Vietnam, will be killed. number of people will withdraw from C. Hence under be killed. Vietnam', Hence, condition satisfies p where p is C 'the Americans withdraw from ~p and the principle both p and ~p are wrong, similar is the company commander's dilemma. of his troops will be killed. a large also i.e. satisfies condition 18 Wp and W~p. Rather If he invades the hamlet, a large number If he does not invade the hamlet the prisoners held Taking p as 'he invades the hamlet', p satisfies C and therein will be killed, etc. ~p satisfies C. Therefore, Wp & W~p. Both p and-not p are wrong; neither would occur The killing does not however have to be of large numbers in an acceptable situation. of people to induce moral dilemmas. variants on the commander's dilemma Favourite regularly wheeled out concern murdering a potential murderer to prevent him killing several other presented people and with the related constrained option killing of some choice situations smaller special person is where a group of people (or creatures) in order to avoid the certain killing of a larger or less favoured group 1Q of creatures. 7 The pacifist's (or differently seen, patriot's) dilemma, which Lemmon draws from on Sartre, concerns the proposition p^: Z goes to war. If Z does not go to war, he help his friends and fails to fellow countrymen when they are in desperate need. Thus ~p-j is wrong, W-p-j , on the principle that so failing to help one's friends and fellow countrymen is wrong. If Z goes to war, he will be involved in killing people he has nothing morally or otherwise against; whence Wp^, on the principle that things which involve such killing are wrong. Therefore again Wp^ and W~pp A different sort of example, again however involving the taking of life in one way or another is the abortion dilemma (as conceived by Anglicans, say). presented as a clash between conflicting rights. to life (i.e. (on that the one part of the should not foetus); have one's In one corner, there is the right in the other, the right to bodily integrity body used against one's detriment for someone else’s benefit) on the part of the mother. where a particular state of affairs is an instance of both so (~p) and will principles. Hence Wp. would deny the mother's right to bodily integrity. Whence adjoining, Wp & W~p. to one's A dilemma results performance of an abortion (p) would deny the foetal right to life. not doing This can be The But Hence W~p. 8 Not so far removed from these examples, particularly when omission is conflated with commission, are environmentally-oriented examples involving sacrifice (broadly construed), for resources. Suppose that we have a duly qualified principle to the effect that things which lead to the feeding of starving people should happen. example the is a dilemma of limited three cases:- First following Suppose also that we have limited resources, and have decided to distribute these as follows: If the coin comes down heads (p), then group A of starving people will be fed. But if the coin does not come down heads (~p) then group B of starving people will be fed. Plainly in an ideal situation both p and ~p will occur, that is the coin will come down heads and it will not come down heads, so that both groups of people will be fed. And if the moral principle cited is correctly applied then a case of Op and 0~p results. course minor Of involved leads to conclusions of the form adjustment of the principle W~p and W—p, whence Wp. For an analogous conservationist * s (or humanitarian * s) dilemma consider the case forest where it ought to happen that the is chopped down, the benefit of the for presently starving (or etc.), and it ought to happen that the forest is preserved by positive action and Op dilemma for the benefit of coming generations (or etc.). 0~p emerges the from of application distinct In this case the The principles. society dilemma, concerns the reform of primitive societies so that they primitive Consider the dilemma of a feminist environmentalist as conform to outside standards. regards Aboriginal On the women. other hand, suppression of women in Aboriginal society should be opposed; on the other hand major western interference in Aboriginal affairs should be avoided; but changing the position of women would constitute major interference. Different examples involving public institution) dilemma, which following:- On the one hand, the be restricted and the funds will principle being the concerns preposition p2: the University The Vice-Chancellor, or rather his advisor on logic, argues opposes the government. both separate principles are the Vice-Chancellor * s (or formulated Wp2, p2 is wrong, students and accordingly). On because the University’s learning in general will suffer the other hand, W~p2, ~p2 (the is wrong because #p# will strengthen the present iniquitous status quo (the principle being states that of affairs which strengthen the present status quo be philosophers, is iniquitous avoided). Therefore, conjoining Wp2 & W~p2» A signifi ant source of moral dilemmas, long observed by afforded by a relatively unrestricted institution of promising, and more generally by parallel institutional arrangements for entering perhaps worth distinguishing two classes of cases. situations, Z is under an obligation into (moral) Firstly, contracts. It is in purely contractual p, because of a contract or promise, and also 9 under an obligation q, because of a (likely different) contract, where q entails or In the second sort of case, Z has promised to do ~p, and hence commits one to ~p. But p also satisfies conditions C, 0~p. it emerges, and Z adheres to the principle (q)(Cq ->0q), whence Op. As an example of the second type consider Lemmon’s simple and dated example, adapted from Plato: A friend leaves me with his gun saying he will be back for it in the evening, and I promise to return it when he calls. He arrives in a distraught condition, demands his gun, and announces he is going to shoot his wife because she has been unfaithful. I ought to return the gun, since I promised to do so - a case of obligation. And yet I ought not to do so, since to do so would be to be indirectly responsible for a murder, and my moral principles are such that I regard this as wrong. I am in an extremely straightforward moral dilemma, evidently resolved by not returning the gun (62, p.148). According to Lemmon the outcome is both Op, where p is ’I return the gun’, and also The 0~p. namely, for first an inference concerning promise-keeping; every q, that q is a genuine promise entails Oq (for genuine promises follows engender obligations), from and p is a immediate genuine promise. inference of the following sort: for every q, The second follows that q really contributes to a murder implies Wq, and that p really contributes to a murder; and moreover, -> 0~q. using an for every q, Wq Even if this last principle is repudiated a dilemma remains: for both Op and Wp, i.e. I ought to return the gun and it is wrong that I return the gun. that the initial principle sustains the conclusion 0~q as well. (It may be In any case, it is not difficult to amend Lemmon’s example so that it does, or more important, so as to render the ensuing dilemma more convincing.) Other dilemmas recur in variant form with contracts and promises. For instance, limited resources dilemmas reappear as follows: we promise all our surplus to a group of poor only to have even poorer people turn up. where one's deception, employment calls or participation in for activities Similarly work and role dilemmas, which are the production of nuclear morally repugnant (such as or chemical weapons), may arise either contractually, e.g. one signed up for the position, or from duty, e.g. to provide for one's family. Some of the moral dilemmas we have made look more determinate than perhaps they should, or than they would be if the circumstances were filled out, or got filled out slightly differently. Then we should find that some of the dilemmas take the form of Lemmon's more complex class, namely those where rather than OA and 0~A, what one has is Prob OA and Prob 0~A, where Prob is the probability functor ’it is probable that'. Lemmon describes this class of "fully dilemmatic situations" in these terms: ’there 10 is some, but not conclusive, evidence that one ought to do something, and there is some, but not conclusive, evidence that one ought not to do that thing’ (pp.152-3). sort of dilemma is again drawn from Sartre: in A real-life working example of this brief, Sartre’s pupil is under some (sort of) obligation to stay with his mother, but he also probably under is an obligation, felt only ambiguously, to join the Free French in England (for a fuller description see Lemmon, pp.153-4). Lemmon suggests that this class of dilemmas is, and perhaps should stay beyond deontic formalisation: however the dilemmas are now within the scope of formalisation of a sort by multiple functor intensional logics of a type not different represent such principles as ’’ought implies can”.22 those already from needed to Though we have presented a wide variety of dilemmas, some of them in some detail - to the dispel that dilemmas common prejudice are a rare phenomena that can be safely set aside or that need not be taken seriously in an ethical theory - we have by no means exhausted the range and wealth of such dilemmas. the extent of analogues practical of these Nor have we indicated the dilemmas; fact is that similar dilemmas are frequent in economics, over budgeting, devaluation (we ought to devalue because ... and we ought not to devalue because ...), and so on. Nor have we brought out the political significance of the dilemmas; but the fact also is that some of the deeper problems in moral and political theory revolve around dilemmas. Familiar examples are issues of (permitting permissiveness interests possibly harming or licence individuals to pursue offending others) and freedom (restricting freedom as regards actions which infringe others * freedom), of paternalism and state authority versus civil liberties, and of democracy as against minority interests. A assortment varied accounts of the where sources of examples is source of moral dilemmas, for moral claims conflict, contractual obligations. Lemmon also in particular and promises, is attracted principles as those morally simplistic that they generally arise greatest (p.150). But he fact that one and the same conflicting directives requiring type, since principle may conflict with or duties, may conflict with one another principle can deliver such removing by an account of this latter underestimates the extent of conflict, and neglects the contract or in e.g. duty with principles, principles with while realising that it will not always suffice, principle important (e.g. double maximization happiness of the greatest number). As well a sufficient variety of tough examples helps remove the illusion that moral dilemmas can one and all be escaped. Admittedly, fortunately, there are ways around some of the dilemmas we have outlined, especially those we have borrowed. with perhaps further around the dilemmas), artifice in setting up the cases (to exclude But lateral moves some of the dilemmas stand: from them (as is further argued in 11 residue ’To insist that there is in every case a solution without is no escape. § 6) there false is the to moral facts’ p.132), Marcus (Barcan a theme she well illustrates with the abortion dilemma. §4. deontic Paraconsistent logic cannot be modal makes it modal treatment the relevant development. logic: An adequate deontic have to be paraconsistent. but will For a modal treatment to accommodate moral dilemmas - which are hard data impossible it makes as dilemmas treat dilemmas impossible to (§3)• A without proper catastrophic collapse (as shown in §1). The of principles standard deontic logic are, however, as added to readily various paraconsistent logics as they are to modal or classical logic - at least this (e.g. OP), in (da Costa negation-weakened namely logic and now distinguished style) logic paraconsistent and For Jaskowski-style discussive logics there are some difficulties; relevant logics. in styles of paraconsistent two of the main for is true particular, the given of rejection can principles, adjunction such logics satisfactorily include O-adjunction, OA & OB -> 0(A & B), which reflects adjunction in for the possible-worlds sentential framework It would seem not; acceptable worlds? logic offers no way of handling of Jaskowski-style the form 0(C & ~C) that result by O-adjunction. properly accommodate dilemmas, for dilemmas concerning obligation, where such as moral clearly principles difficulties; For these require impossible worlds Generally, Jaskowski-style logics are in deep trouble trying to where C & ~C holds. adjunctive full-strength moral dilemmas of logics Negation—weakened hold. they cannot deliver expected deontic also are interconnections, e.g. in the deontic ’’square of opposition”, presented shortly, which depends crucially on normal principles. negation In difficulties. Relevant brief, deontic the reasons types of paraconsistent logics logics can both avoid choosing relevant logics over for (the substantial sets these of other main reasons for which are given in OP) are accentuated still farther as soon as applications, such as to deontic logic, are Accordingly we will assume a relevant logical base, and a relevant semantical made. in what follows. framework, Even so, much of what we say and do can be adapted to other logical bases, e.g. negation-weakened or positive-plus bases. Often a combined syntactical-semantical is approach more fruitful and illuminating than either a syntactical-axiomatic or a semantical approach carried out separately. Each enriches and controls the other.23 Such is the case with relevant logical theory, logic. Even analogue of and so it is with relevant deontic logic, which builds on relevant so, a standard syntactical deontic standard superstructure, relevant logic. beginning logic we normally added can is easier. simply add For an to obtain exact a analogue relevant of the to classical logic, to (what supersedes CL) 12 For minimal relevant deontic logic, MD, the one-place functor 0 - of obligation, as usual read (e.g. ’It ought suitable some to be extending system that’ - is added (the case) B system basic the to some relevant logic of RLR conforms to the usual formation rule: where A is a wff so is OA. however are options at Functor, F read ’It is forbidden that’, is defined thus: ’It is permissible that’, is defined : PA =Df~FA. FA =Df 0~A (cf. OED); and P, read There this stage (as at e.g. stages), can morality, be argued, from directions several other F could oh introduced independently. But this leads to complications that are unnecessary. It 0 The other familiar functors of deontic logic, F and P, are defined in the usual way. ’It is wrong that’ or, less satisfactorily, Functor I). (e.g. from the rationality be of from the meaning or semantics of obligation, from the idea of commitment), that 0 satisfies at least the following requirements:[RM] A -> B -> OA -> OB, i.e. where A + B is a theorem so is OA -> OB. That is to say, where A entails B is provable so is OA entails OB, obligation transmits over provable entailment. Hence the claim that this principle (R7 of RLR II) is a transmission principle. [K] OA & OB regards the i.e. -> 0(A & B), conjunction; or, a conjunction of obligations entails obligation as to adjunction (principle G of RLR II). These two important it put 25 principles, entailment and adjunction, make 0 a a little differently 0 is closed which ensure that 0 is closed under under provable systemic functor (in the sense of RLR II), and ensure that it has a relational (i.e. first order) semantical analysis. The postulates which correspondingly minimally characterise deontic functions F and P now follow by relevant logic upon applying the definitions. They are as follows:For wrongness: A For permissibility : With the A + B -*> functor further B —f> FByFA Q, FA & FB P(A v BH, PAv PA + PB defined F(A v B) QA =Df ~0A, a reduced pb deontic square of opposition follows: 0Ax ...............FA PA^ .............. .QA The opposites are dotted peripheral opposed, as modally, relations of the modal in the way the solid lines show. But the square are bound to be the lost given the 13 the modal (on fact of deontic dilemmas square Prior 62 p.220). see is worth It observing, however, that the peripheral relations can be reinstated through adoption of the so-called consistency scheme OA -> ~FA, i.e. OA + ~0~A; [D] and that the relevant deontic logic that results still excludes the rubbish brought in along deontic standard necessary truths, Nordamericano of that course not (though paradoxes, essentially because paradoxical etc.), deontic obligatoriness the of spread principles are not whereas triviality), incorporate dilemmas. the as degenerate dilemma-permitting The problem with deontic logics which include [D] also cannot they well as logic, Antipodean form we are advocating. is deontic In short, relevant theory can deliver a clean-cut, clean-living, dilemma- available. free (e.g. logic include relevant moral dilemmas systems without without can [D] inconsistency consistently These various logical claims, as to the modal rubbish that is not brought along, can all be made good by application of the semantical theory. The semantics shows what does not hold, as well as further explaining why the principles that hold do. Semantics for MD result upon adding to modellings for relevant logic a two-place relation S, on worlds, which is subject to the following condition W. b and Sbc then Sac, Where a i.e. where world a precedes b (indeed canonically a is contained in b) and world c is accepted vis-a-vis b then c is accepted vis-a-vis a. Given that a is a subworld of b this is evident enough. Distinctive features of the underlying semantical modellings for relevant logic - consisting of structures of the form <T, K, 0, R, *, be sufficiently and, well-known any in are case, explained v> - should elsewhere. These structures differ from the best of those for modal logics, the nonnormal structures <T, K, N, R, v> for the Lewis systems S2 and S3, in the following ways:- The class K of worlds, to which the factual (base) world T belongs, is expanded to include a much more comprehensive class of inconsistent and incomplete worlds; the class N of normal worlds K is in adjusted theorems hold; relation R, to a three-place the class to v(p, sentential a) relation = parameter 1) regular worlds, i.e. worlds; on then and wff. I(A, b) = 1, where all on is subject to a constraint where I is the so that Specifically, where a < b and p holds in a p holds in b, p. Conditions v for every world a and b modelling structures are hereditariness condition extends to all wff; i.e. in symbols, where a 1 then those used in modelling implication, is relaxed from a two-place inclusion of worlds is duly reflected. (written 0 of in K and every such that this b & I(A, a) = interpretation function which extends v to all Inclusion, <, can be added as an extra component of the model structures, but in fact it can be defined thus: a < b =Df (Px 0)Rxab. Finally relevant modellings 14 add to modal modellings a new function, *, in terms of which negation is evaluated, 27 which facilitates the inclusion of inconsistent and incomplete worlds. same role and interpretation as in standard relation S has the The semantical It is employed in the semantical evaluation of obligation functor 0, deontic theory. which is given by the following rule: I(0a, a) = 1 iff, for every world b such that Sab, I(A, b) = 1, i.e. OA holds at world a iff, for each world b accepted vis-avis a, A holds at b.28 The rule is a world relativisation of the idea that what is obligatory is what holds in all accepted worlds. (morally) It is thus an evident adaption of Leibnitzian prescriptions, given the linkages between obligation or moral binding and moral "musts” or imperatives, on the one side, and morally possible and or acceptable accepted worlds, the on other. The for motivation unrelativised connections can be forged at base world T; for there A is (morally) required, I(0A, T) = 1, iff for every b for which Mb I(A, b) = 1 (where Mb =Df STb), i.e. That is, what is required is iff A holds in every (morally) accepted world. what holds in all accepted or received worlds. Other construals of the semantical apparatus are of course open. tempting ideal, temptation (a succumbed to initially) regard the accepted worlds as and Sab as ’b is ideal as seen from c’. to read Mb as 'b is ideal’ i.e. to It is a little But that is like requiring supererogation in cases where the meeting of commitments or obligations is enough: the worlds do not need to be that good but simply to pass, to meet required standards. is worlds. acceptable through A perhaps easier construal than by way of accepted worlds construal That is alright provided the term ’’acceptable” is deployed, as it often is, nonevaluatively : for it is important in the semantical assessment to prescriptions for be able to make an evaluative step—down, to give meaning evaluative expressions nonevaluative terms. in Naturally this does not imply that evaluative notions are naturalistically eliminated, any more than familiar terms, extensional reductions, semantical extensional analysis of intensional implies that intensionality is removed: both are merely pushed down into the not-further-explained apparatus of worlds. Obligation is construed by way of what goes on in acceptable or accepted worlds, not what happens in permissible or permitted directly with the construal of permissibility. one another, but in worlds, because this latter Given modal muddles the two reduce to the more subtle relevant setting star shift is involved in the transfer from accepted to permitted worlds. The (derived) semantical rule for P is this: KPA, a) = ties 1 iff for some b such that Uab I(A, b) = 1, where Uab . b * Sa 15 at base Thus, A is permissible, world T, i.e. I(PA, = 1) iff A holds at some 1, permitted world b; what is permissible is worldwise what is somewhere permitted. modal equation of relations U and S further axioms, deontic the (where namely if Sab (in effect, condition then Sa ) b * (Pb)Sab The corresponds to e.g. guaranteed, is modally by ~0(P & ~p)) by the scheme OA ^PA. Now modal-strength deontic logics typically do include an axiom scheme of the form [D’J OA -> ~PA, i.e. from (alethic) is obligatory is not that permissible, under modal is, Indeed this used to be considered what distinguished deontic ~0~A. assumptions, OA logics what modal on logics the one side, which include a stronger principle analogous to OA -*■ A, and epistemic logics on the other, which were weaker in that [D’J failed. However [D’J, like [D], is deontically incorrect because it rules out consistent inclusion of moral dilemmas; or, to turn matters around, cases where OA & 0~A, [D’]» which or OA & FA, hold counterexample [D]. may seem a little more plausible transform of it on usual deontic definitions. than Similarly these cases refute [D], but is a definitional For what is obligatory is not ipso facto permissible where the obligatory item is also wrong, as in dilemmatic cases. To distance relevant deontic logic from modal analogues, while at the same time demonstrating that relevant theory can encompass moral dilemmas unproblematically , we next assume that some moral dilemmas hold, that is that for some p, both Op and Fp. Since however propositional quantifiers much complicate the semantical apparatus we shall introduce constants into the syntax, and let p^ be the first constant for which a dilemma ensues. That is, a new axiom, extending the logic, is [DD] 0p1 & Fpp i.e. p1 is dilemmatic.3° The modelling condition for [DD], is wd. For each a in 0, for some world x, Sax and v(ppx) = 1= v(ppX ). * This condition, which does not involve T, does not impose nonclassical conditions on normal worlds. Accordingly [DD] is only a weakly paraconsistent requirement; it does not imply that inconsistency protrudes into the factual or regular worlds. Indeed one advantage of the semantics is that it enable proof that dilemmatic judgements can be included without inconsistency. By contrast, modal theories cannot include even one half of [DD] do) without automatically excluding dilemmatic judgements. consideration has a thesis 0p2 for some (either will Suppose the logic under Then for every x in 0 there is some y such that Sxy with p2 set to hold at y. But modally this is enough to guarantee that [D] holds materially, More explicitly, so ~(0A & 0~A) generally, suppose otherwise that in i.e. there can be no such dilemmas. some model the material form of [D] failed; I(OA, then = T) 1 = I(A~O, T), which impossibility at y since I(A, y) = 1 i I(A, y). syntactical problems earlier in 1). even for Although [DD] implies Op^, very weak obligatory is conjured from the fact some for STy yields y This is a semantical analogue of the deontic logics (considered type of modal it does not say, nor does it follow, that OT for any Such modal stupidity as that every necessary and every tautology T (e.g. C v ~C). truth is since automatically removed that relevant in the relevant wash. can be This theory removes such paradoxes as p1 from which 0(A v ~A) would follow modally by 0—distribution (i.e. A v ~A, Again the [RM]). semantics can be applied to establish the point in proper detail. primitive principles of minimal relevant logic are open to challenge, Both the and [K] * Jennings has been disputed by Schotch (in Jennings and 81). The main Schotch- arguments against [K] — which induces what they call ’paradoxes of complete * aggregation essentially turn — automatically avoided on modal deontic by relevant and assumptions, Their theory. accordingly are (p.152, also main point p.154) is that [K] obliterates the distinction between [D] (i.e. Op ~0~p) and [Con] ~0 , i.e. in effect ~0(r & ~r). Their argument depends on construing implication in [D] as material-implication and on strict replacement. ~0~p iff ~(0p & 0~p), i.e. iff ~0(p & ~p) using [K] Then Op and its provable converse, i.e. iff ~0(r & ~r) using p & ~p - . r & ~r and strict According to the relevant approach the trouble is not with [K] but with replacement. the modal assumptions, which are independently objectionable (see 1). Their further argument begins from the premiss that ’we should certainly want to include among our deontic principles the law of moral consistency [Con] across cuts all different things. moral theories’ (pp.153-6). The ... because that principle premiss appears to conflate What cuts across all moral theories is the theme that some things, such as a sufficiently evil state of affairs, are not obligatory, whence ~0s. does cut across all theories is the assumption that there are no moral dilemmas of the form 0(A & ~A), which is what [Con], with not just that there What are theories like properly defined, would imply. those of Lemmon and Sartre It is which include contradictory obligations; it is also that some theorists would want to insist that there is something logically wrong with principles like [Con], e.g. that it doesn’t make sense to talk of the nonobligatoriness of absurdity. Schotch and Jennings do contend that we should allow for moral conflict of the form OA & OB where A and B are inconsistent. their assumptions there [K] stops rejection of are moral dilemmas that yielding Since then B -> ~A, of the 0(A & -A). it follows that on form OA & 0~A. Yet as they Certainly only themselves have reported, the consensus view is that there are (in the end) no dilemmas of the form OA & O~A: insofar, all theories’, ’cuts across then, rejection of dilemmas of the form 0(A & ~[~]A) so, near enough, does rejection of those of the form OA & 0~A. What certainly does not emerge is that there can [K]. The be no deontic logic which takes as a primitive law the principle be can that best if done, subscribe to [K], we is to formalise ethical theories - namely those which do not allow moral certain particular conflicts (p. 156). logics provide decisive counterexamples to this contention. Relevant deontic They can take [K] as primitive: they allow for moral conflict; but they do so by allowing, like Lemmon, for moral inconsistency.31 disconcerting More from flowing the than fundamental difficulties deriving principles, transmission [K] from are allegedly those difficulties include which well-advertised paradoxes of deontic logic. § 5. Resultant on impact other relevant paraconsistent shift. and puzzles of paradoxes deontic theory of the Often cleaning up one logical puzzle in due technical detail has a beneficial effect on surrounding puzzles and on associated problems in the area. Light is cast on, and So it turns out also in the case of moral dilemmas. Among them sometimes solutions are delivered for, a number of other linked problems. are the following puzzles generated by theorems of (relevant) deontic logic. are, the ’’paradoxes of commitment”. Where material implciation => is in first place, defined as usual, e.g. T1. There ~A v ~B, it is a theorem that A ° B 0(B => A), whence if OA then 0(B 25 A), OA sometimes read: A if is then obligatory anything one commits to A, or: ’Doing anything commits us to doing what is obligatory’; T2. FA OCA => B), if 0~A then 0(A = B), sometimes read: if A is forbidden then doing A commits one to doing anything at all, or: ’Doing what is not permitted commits us to doing anything whatever’ readings are proceed from Prior from there interpretation of paradoxes symbols, the The claims read off are paradoxical. 62, p.224). to little justification - reading ’0(A commits one to doing B’. the in and (the quoted in logic this case B)’ as depends, always, depends crucially on - But to on the what has as a commitment relation, e.g. as ’doing A Such a reading which presupposes that material implication is a satisfactory conditional can in no way be sustained (see RLR), and that is the end of the problem. that A then paradoxical guises; and it If, ought to for example, T1 be features disappear. these commitment the case is simply read: if it ought to be the case that either not B or A, then the alleged However puzzles have a tendency to reappear in new puzzles are no exception. Even with conditional 18 terms of obligation applied to a properly defined in obligation conditional, the puzzles in reemerge new forms, example, for genuine (relevant) in is what called ’’Ross’s paradox”, and in related transmission problems. It has been claimed that the principle, OA -> 0(A v B), yielding if OA then 0(A v B) T3. is which T1, to equivalent is Ross paradox principle), - paradoxical to do either A or B, it may be More generally, given OA, obligatory to read a letter but not to read or burn it. there is an obligation example, for because, where the content of B may be totally do to established. (The comment goes beyond what T3 supplies, but that is not material). the in circumstance which obligation the to is set inappropriate A or A similar objection is made to the analogous permissibility principle PA ■> P(A v B), T4. Ross’s paradox, on the alleged grounds that there are examples where A is permissible but A For example, be. not the following it is permissible that to post a takes based on some one application of T4 is said to the paradoxical: letter false proposition the distance implies that it is permissible to post a The assumption that there is some sort of paradox here is letter or kill one’s aunt. however B may the towards that the permissibility of of permissibility killing the consequent one’s The aunt. proposition itself seems to be based on an application, never articulated and quite inadmissible, of Disjunctive Syllogism, distribution, P(~A &. A For PB. (A v b) ■+ B, and what results from P- it may certainly be permissible not to post However it is assuming more than standard deontic logics will grant to the letter. go on ) ~A & to the permissibility of not posting the letter and letter or killing disjunction. one’s aunt, especially given the also either derivation of posting the latter the Still going on remains tempting (and would presumably be warranted by a Lukasiewicz deontic logic analogous to his 4-valued modal logic). But so going on is to no avail in a duly relevant setting, where Disjunctive Syllogism fails: there is no admissible route here to the permissibility of killing aunt, one’s however desirable the act might otherwise be. main The transmission conditional obligation, strict implication, as problems in found also modally derived. an adequate deontic logic are, like those of They come from reliance on material or representation of implication. The worst manifestation of this is that already discussed, deontic trivialisation leading from Op^ and 0~p.| to OB, for any B, in virtue of the provability of p^ & ~p^ => B. But there are variety of lesser manifestations of the same underlying problem, of which the following example (adapted from recent discussion) is just one sort: p4. We have an obligation to feed the starving poor D. There exist starving poor. Therefore, since starving poor, it ought to be by O-transmission, the case it ought that we meet our obligation to feed the to be that there exist starving poor, a 19 that is far from obviously true. deontic logic, for the simple reason presupposition relation, conclusion of transmission problems of modal the that the cannot p4 Such analyses do not entailment. an to rather or implication, (material-) upgraded be plague relevant The many systems all enamate from excessive O-distribution on basis of implications will not them, support in the as following transmission principles typical of orthodox deontic logics, all of which should be rejected: OCA D B) D. OA 3 OB A D B -> OA 3 OB A => B =>. OA => OB. With their rejection a thorny tangle of modally-derived paradoxes is also rejected. There appears however to be an immense temptation to try to impose excessively strong transmission principles; and the same phenomenon to be seen at work in modal contexts can also be observed when a proper entailment is introduced.3^ This occurs, particular, in attempts in to ’’normalise” [RM], to strengthen it a from rule connection to an entailment, for instance, to (the characteristic S3 form) [OT] A + B +. OA + OB; it occurs with analogous changes thereon, and e.g. A-> B. PA PB and A FB + FA, as well with as imported forms of these principles, e.g. OA & (A and (A -> B) & FB As an example of the FA. B B) OB type of puzzles that [OT] produces consider p5. Grannie killed the vicar. Grannie repented for having killed the vicar The problem with putative entailments such as p5 is that, while we are ordinarily (with the context duly flashed out) inclined to agree that Grannie ought to repent, we don’t want to agree to have killed the vicar. that Grannie ought The problem turns essentially however on the availability of [OT] in place of [RM], for p5 is not a provable entailment of the underlying logical theory (and there is little case for it one), trying to make sc [RM] does not apply to p5, in contrast with awkwardness [OT] appears to require, of having somehow entailment, is thereby straightforwardly avoided.33 Most the of paradoxes falling paradoxes and Robber paradoxes can be paradoxes and usual forms of these resolution. one’s According helping a man under such to deny descriptions as similarly resolved or avoided. variations upon [OT]. The is that p5 Good Samaritan an The original them certainly succumb to such to the Robber’s paradox if robbing a man is forbidden then The Good Samaritan whom one has robbed is also forbidden. paradox is a further turn on this paradox: not only the robber’s helping a man he has robbed is wrong, so is someone else’s, a good Samaritan’s, helping the robbed man (see Prior 58). - be It is undoubtedly paradoxical that it should - especially as a matter of logic wrong to help a man who has been robbed: but do any fundamental deontic 20 principles commit us to such a thing, for appropriate substitutions on variables? No, These puzzles all take the following form: B, which describes something they do not. admittedly wrong, gets in or implied as part of the description of something larger, A, arising as a result of the situation in B; however A is not wrong but perhaps even Nothing required. theory; and in none of shows this the however that A B literature can examples in the the provable in is it There be. logical is another important feature, commonly neglected however, which is that A does not assert B. If it did, then A, since amounting to A & B, would appear to be wrong also, as B is. This points to a difficulty also for the usual assumption that A entails B; for then A (certainly modally) coentails A & B, whence the wrongness of A coincides with that of A & B, the wrongness of which would seem to be guaranteed by B. If however A only involves B in a weaker sense, [OT] is exonerated.3^ The paradoxes can be pushed another way, to contest this data, and bear against systems as minimal as MD. For MD yields theorems like the following: T5. FB T6. 0( F(A & B), whence if FB then F(A & B). OB, whence if 0(A & B) then OB. &B) theses, Such minimal it is now suggested, are paradoxical in the same way as the Robber. This is not so: only gross confusion of decidedly distinct syntactical forms - a practice formalisation can unfortunately encourage - could support such a suggestion. If it is wrong to rob a man then it is wrong to rob him and help him;35 but it is not thereby wrong to help him, indeed to help him who has been robbed. But the relative and the tense shift are both important; and the whole relative clause in no way reduces to a conjunction conjoining robbing the man. The positivistic objection that the paradoxes of deontic logic show that there is really no ’’logic of norms” has come even from a modern founder of deontic logic, von Wright. This he now contends that There is no such thing as an "entailment” between a norm Op and a norm 0(p q) - and Ross’s paradox makes us aware of the absurdity of talking as though it existed. ... Ross was right when he offered his paradox as a proof that, properly understood, there could not be such a thing as a logic of norms (82, p.15, rearranged, emphasis suggested in text). And he ’essentially (p.14). (also also But mistakenly) of variations given that one regards and the von Wright contains such normative tautologies Op are inevitable. Thus while ’’paradoxes’* the same, viz. wants also the of deontic so-called to supply logic as Ross’s Paradox’ a deontic logic, which 0(p q), some subtle and dubious distinctions Op & ~0(p q) is normatively inconsistent, inconsistent; while Op can be thus said to ’’normatively entail” 0(p q) it is not it does not; and while Op comes rational commitment to Op, it does not carry logical commitment to it. the Unlike said are connections associated to and entailment (p.15). no paradoxes induce other But normative these relations, what is said go to for normative entailment can be said as well as regards entailment, that one (e.g. a law giver) is Op adopts who rationally to 0(p q) going on to endorse the entailment of 0(p q) by Op. for a oitrary addition away there is no puzzle in associations are cleared once mistaken modal q. Indeed committed The ’’paradoxes” of deontic logic are not a reflection of the illusory notion of a logic of norms but rather a product of a modal logic of norm. However von Wright has other significant reasons for insisting that (in a sense) ’norms have no logic or that normative discourse is ’’alogical”’ from noncognitivism, that symbolising norms, formulas’, ’prescriptive standard a on One derives (p.4). interpretation deontic ’do not express true and false propositions. It makes no sense to speak of relations of contradiction or entailment between formulas when thus interpreted ’ hold nontruthvalued regards as semantical This is not so: (p.4). theory relevant as such discourse, for sketched logical relations such as inconsistency logic deontic carries no commitment to the position that normative discourse is truthvalued. 0 interpreted In imperatives. fact ineradicable The values 1 and by way of holding are not intended to be tied to truth and falsity, except at the factual world T (see RLR1); and that exception is readily removed. judgements, instead normative received, logic the both (the point requirements e.g. Otherwise the etc.). adjustments the and of the form Fp, semantical can be said to be in theory its ’’semantical” is developed, For force (or is as before. With such minor theory conform to noncognitivist to meet von Wright’s argument, in Morscher, pp.97-8). Von Wright’s other reason for coming out against a logic of norms is but grist It is that ’there cannot be a logic of norms because a for the paraconsistent nill. could enjoin contradictory legislator (at ’’relative least serves" Morscher, ...) dilemmas. it but p.98). to the is normal not states of affairs. This might be irrational purpose which the institution of giving orders logically excluded, it is not alogical’ (cited in That is, a legislator can set up (usually unintentionally) deontic This is certainly not triviality, by modal-strength indictment, not of deontic deontic logic, It impossible. but logics. of a is simply excluded, Once again the on criticism certain modally-dominated pain of is an approach to it.36 §6. Upsetting the moral consensus: unrealisable obligations, and inevitable wrongs. The theme that there are moral dilemmas, like those cited, which stand, which do not dissolve upon rational reflection, philosophers, 3? and apparently runs agains the consensus among moral certainly upsets dominant positions in ethical theory, notably 22 broadly Kantian positions (built into much contemporary British moral philosophy) and utilitarian positions (which pervade Anglo-American and theory value thinking, especially outside narrowly philosophical circles). Kantian positions suppose that morality is above all a rational procedure of a certain sort (which we tentatively grant), and that rationality requires consistency. Or put differently, but for instance, must be consistent. Thus what is obligatory, equivalent given modal assumptions, ought implies can, OA -> OA, for every A and some Wherever an agent appears to be in a moral dilemma suitable possibility functor 0. this is a matter of appearance only, a moral illusion which will (and must) vanish on further rational reflection.^ This Kantian assumption should be rejected: moral dilemmas are part of the data and no illusion, and no amount of reflection need budge them. By insistence upon consistency requirements, and through failure, consequently, to recognise intractable moral dilemmas, deontological theories have been forced to jump through a variety of different hoops and to weaken considerably their positions. In particular, temporary and moral firm principles are almost invariably weakened to something much more provisional. is experience While important, some revisability of principles in the light of such wholesale weakening of principles is decidedly There is a point then in trying to undesirable, on both logical and moral grounds. expose some of the tangled assumptions on which the weakening is based, and to loosen their grip. The assumptions involved on a Kantian approach include these: H1. Moral principles - in those concerning justice, particular more fairness and the basic principles of obligation, such as like - are to be explained at bottom as principles of rationality, or rational behaviour for persons. H2. Rationality is a matter of consistency; certainly it implies it. H3. Consistency reduces to, or can be accounted for, through possibility. Put together these assumptions yield the theme H4. What is obligatory must be possible - ought-implies-can , for short. So if that gives, so do some of the assumptions. but on moral dilemmas, It does give, not just because of So also then independent grounds. should the assumptions give; and they fail not just on the grounds that they lead to themes like H4. The deeper trouble is that they are based on a super-modal view of things which combines modal assumptions with rational strong The assumptions. combination is important, for once the modal assumptions are rejected, it becomes fairly transparent that the rationality assumptions, whatever their merit, cannot such things as moral framework or system or course of action. rational case, systems: removing much more modal is required assumptions - a than rationality main present uniquely determine Rather there are rival for uniqueness. exercise - In any destroys such rationality route to ought-implies-can. Finally consistency is neither necessary nor That it is not sufficient is indicated by a variety of sufficient for rationality. consistent worlds which do not conform to minimal rationality requirements. is converse relevant refuted which conform inconsistent worlds by meet rationality requirements (see further RLR and OP). H3 fails, paradoxes induces ~0A -> ~(A ° B), generally is not just that the Modality removed. of paradoxes with entailment, e.g. anything all. from isolated transmitted to are inconsistent is arguments Not only H2 (as a necessary assumptions parallelling proposition impossible inconsistency It modal when consistency of an fails, also is not 40 this indiscriminate way. However to rationality to sufficient reason and the like), and by dialethic theories which standards (e.g. condition) The more impossibility in collapse; ought-implies-can at there are distinct from those supplied by moral dilemmas. counterexamples to the theme, The counterexamples concern obligations (or oughts) which are impossible, in some sense, to realise, counterexamples Op & ~0p) But wrongdoings. most the of possibility Derivatively then (substituting ~p for unrealisable obligations. that wrongs are inescapable, there are many determinates of possibility examples than concern also mere involve, in their logical possibility necessitated (and necessity), and less anemic notions of correspondingly broader notions of original (and p in setting, necessity than a narrow logical necessity). perhaps strained, adaption, and, in any case, they serve to undermine the point and Nonetheless they sometimes admit of, force of the ought-implies-can dictum (which is to link obligation to freedom to do otherwise), and These examples all arise nature, circumstances, its effective use against moral dilemmas. seriously weaken thereby because agents are constrained in one way or another - by fate, the Gods, their past actions - but are not thereby released from their obligations or exonerated from wrong-doing. Consider first very down-to-earth types of counterexample to ought-implies-can, before turning to more high-flown but not altogether dissimilar examples from our barbaric past. ’Suppose that I say "I ought to go and see him, but I can’t because I don’t know where he is”. There need be nothing inconsistent in such a remark; and, yet there would be if "ought” always implied ’’can'” (Hare 63, p.52). same with situation ”’I where ought I've to return driven the this car I’ve car so far borrowed, away that returning it in time to keep a promise’ (Thomason, p.175). but I It is much the can’t”, there is said no chance in a of my Likewise the claim of the person who cannot swim that she ought to rescue the child caught in the current but can't. One traditionally important class of counterexamples derives from the Catholic doctrine of perplexity secundum quid.^ Donegan, in defending what he calls 'the 24 Hebrew-Christian tradition’, contends that once one has sinned one May be faced with situations from which one cannot escape without further wrong-doing (77, p.152). That ♦ is, one may be so placed (through one’s own fault) that one ought not to perform any of the available actions though one cannot do otherwise. So it is necessary that one act in a way that is forbidden. Protestant thinkers, particular Luther, appear to have considered the human race involved in one grand secundum quid on account of original sin. ’God punished justly sinners who not could otherwise do Luther believed that than sin’ that God and ’provided men with a law they were unable to keep and then righteously damned them for failing to keep it’. 242 The Calvinists also were committed - but through their doctrine of predestination predestined to sin, unpalatable conclusion - to rather they cannot but by suggesting Because conclusions. similar humans are However Calvin attempted to escape this sin. that in some suitable sense are not sinners compelled, that it is somehow possible for them to do otherwise than they do. J Given however the theme of predestination this attempt to escape looks unconvincing. Any stronger determinism that does not also obliterate morality is in a similar Creatures will have obligations which they cannot fulfil because they predicament. are determined and will to do otherwise, sometimes be bound to do wrong. Plainly where this becomes a general and automatic matter, a serious erosion of moral notions such as responsibility, normally linked to obligation, is bound to set in. However isolated cases analogous to those of determinism can occur without such erosion of moral notions (as indeed with moral dilemmas themselves). rigidifying personality and ossifying character are of this gets older Cases of A person as she sort. may build up a personality so rigid that she cannot escape from it. At some point it becomes impossible (at least psychologically) for her to act other than she does, yet on some occasions she ought not to act in the way she does. outcome resembles that with original sin though the route taken Yet even if we grant that the person ought not to have got still we are entitled to our moral judgements; modern morality * The is very different. into such a position, as Pigden puts it, ’an enlightened can allow such violations of ought-implies-can. Classical Greek morality certainly seems to have allowed for such violations. In Homeric ethics a man could be blamed for failings he could not avoid, unavoidable wrong-doing. and so for Subsequently it was taken for granted that impossible moral requirements could be placed upon a hero, yet he could be blamed for failing to meet them. Thus the situation of Agamemnon and of Oedipus, both despite their struggles, despite their awareness of their predicaments and their anguish, were bound, indeed, fated, to act wrongly, and were duly blamed for their wrong-doing. 25 There have been various attempts to salvage the ought-implies-can theme, through a residual Kantianism. presupposes-can Thus Hare proposes, but does not really work out, an ought- a with theme weaker relation presupposition logical replacing implication (53, p.54); and both Barcan Marcus and Morscher suggest a model theoretic connection: essentially that for OA to hold true A must be satisfiable in some world, and so, modally, A is consistent. But within a relevant setting, the satisfiability is hardly a requirement and does not ensure consistency. constraint, Once again, consistency is only obtained at the cost of other more important connections, such as Nor does Hare’s comparison with presupposition (on p.54) succeed. O-adjunction. the analogy such situations the worked implies-can. as practical question those and dilemmas moral But (pace Hare, p.55) as to what to do not would counterexamples affording If arise in ought- to the question most certainly does arise in many cases. §7. Resolving proceed, in moral any dilemmas, dilemma so far situation be. as can easily are Recipes for what provided, enough decidedly poor recipes have been much canvassed in the literature. how to to, indeed several Among these are deontic ranking recipes, which would have us impose some type of priority ordering on deontic principles, so that consistency is maintained and in every situation there is a dominant rule; defeasibility recipes, which would have us weaken all deontic rules to merely prima facie or other-things-being—equal principles and operate, when things look would going like have wrong, utilitarian by and assessment; pure-chance recipes, which situationally but arbitrarily by such methods as us determine outcomes coin toss. Such recipes fail to meet important conditions of adequacy upon any account of the way resolution is effected, if and when it can be, namely: A1. The account should sufficiently resemble what rational choosers do when they find themselves in a moral dilemma. Many human choosers have moral principles, have not rigorously ordered in such which, as against ranking recipes, a way as to exclude dilemma they situations, and which, as against thorough-going defeasibility recipes, they are not prepared to give Thus, in addition, away or modify when they encounter snags. A2. The principles induce which moral dilemmas are not generally abandoned or qualified, but very often stand. Naturally sometimes moral dilemmas, especially development and revision of principles. if they recur, do lead to moral But the logic of dilemma situations does not force changes or adjustment and none may be made; and typically none will be made, where dilemmas are resolved, resolve dilemmas which they may not be. The assumption that we must is probably a hangover from consistency assumptions, that deontic inconsistency must be removed - whereas all we have to do is act, or do nothing, in 26 the face of them. Part of what is wrong with the idea of a predetermined ordering of principles, the conflict, and also the they remove is that as with utilitarianism procedures, felt tension, and often anguish, that goes with it. Even if the appeal to priority succeed in some cases, it does not in fact work, and 45 general. For with Lemmon’s complex dilemmas where ordering of principles does not could succeed, in uncertainties enter be can there preassigned no solution moral to the in dilemma virtue of higher-order principles or a given ordering of one’s duties and obligations and the like, because part of the very dilemma is just one’s uncertainty as to one’s actual situation (p.153). In any event dilemmas do not go away as they should if the conflicting obligations were merely prima facie. Very often someone in a moral dilemma is in a fix and feels it^^; and doesn’t say ”My God there isn’t a problem, I must simply look up the book principles are ranked and what’s to be done’, to see how these not having been so prepared. in which we, as it were, merely .... dilemmas in which we morally prepared, have to look up the solution in our private ethical code, are rare ... and in case any of little practical Of interest. are those importance greater dilemmas in this class where some decision of a moral character is required Our predicament is here so described that, whatever we do, even if we do ... nothing at that might mean), we are doing all (whatever something which we ought not to do, and so can be called upon to justify either our activity or our inactivity (Lemmon, p.151). The usual deontological positions, which deontic weaken principles to provisional or prima facie principles to avoid problems with dilemmas, also play into utilitarian hands. reflecting things that of in often is which only are to act overriding requirement character utilitarians want For the for such to represent most a way disguised (a sc part as to of obligation statements concerning distributed, e.g. are the taken coherent way as derivative; net utilities position from would their own the deontic make this Deontic principles such as reduce somehow distributed type of action which tends to maximize utility. accounts typically rule out moral dilemmas: both apart or to tend complex to be an action is obligatory when it maximizes (expected) utility and it is of a recognised cannot they ar . - principles as deontic maximize utility, maximisation principle so only for the most part also). those all maximise utility, and indeed 27 Such reductive for example, an action and its opposite if an action increases utility then its opposite characteristically diminishes it. if all moral injunctions More generally, answer back ultimately to just one standard, maximum utility, then there can be no real conflict (but etc.). for these It is apparent conflict through failure to calculate correctly, sorts of reasons that the considerable data now accumulated regarding moral try to explain away, to utilitarians deny that there can be So they are in the awkward position of having to dispute, dilemmas. genuine moral and only dilemmas. But how, when stuck in moral dilemmas, do we proceed to reach a decision? For a 47 decision is called for: those in dilemma situations still often have to act. The intuitive procedure in such dilemma situations is not difficult to grasp. terminology is regularly employed, and is instructive. to those the in - dilemmas weighed assessed, are The same Alternatives - outcomes open up, the balance. put in The familiar scales picture, with the scale sensitive to evaluative weights, is helpful - except it that can suggest, weighed against another, whereas there may be as with of justice where one thing is two competing principles or just that there are several. scales the options, In the light of such a weighing up of alternatives, those in dilemmas then determine what they should do, what is best, or satisfactory, ’If ... we are to act here in good faith,we shall recognise in the circumstances . that the dilemma is what it is and make the best decision we can * There is an attempt to then intuitive apply (Lemmon 62, p.151). methods, decision consist which in assessing and weighing the alternative outcomes open, and maximizing or satisizing on these This outcomes. already very looks consequentialist decision theory, which is what, a like preanalytic account of in a qualified way, we shall reach It is in a qualified way for several reasons; not only may no best (or even towards. sufficiently good) outcome be determinable - there is nothing approaching a decision procedure here - but the further decision theory methods apply within moral dilemmas, so they supply, at best, a second best resolution, a first best result requiring removal of moral dilemma constraints and so being ruled out. Those in dilemma unworkable (and situations usually do not resort to anything as mostly arbitrary and often ineffective) utilitarian as complex and assessment procedures. Nor do they surrender to pure chance procedures. A3. The account should not give way to irrationalism, but should adhere to rational decision procedures, which are not necessarily, however, effective. This requirement rules out pure chance methods, which are only appropriate where it is a matter of indifference which way the decision, if any, Even where some resort to methods can give a worse outcome than might be obtained. tie-breaking devices is appropriate, that may dilemma, but rather to some component of the not be situation. Otherwise such goes. to the final Envisage, outcome of a for instance, a decision-tree for an issue where a tie-breaking device such as a coin toss is applied to a high branch and that proves sufficient for rational decision methods to resolve 28 Then it would be irrational to try to resolve the whole issue the issue concerned. by coin toss. Nonetheless A4. The account should be appropriately situational. That is, the account should be applicable to each situation on its own merits, taking It should not simply be a rule­ detailed account of the features of that situation. for in dilemma cases the rules have ceased to yield a resolution and based account, into a are locked be will fix position. situational, it will not that of situational be involve resort to pure—chance methods. by situation, situational most part, by example) or example by virtue of A3 and A4, though the account Thus, procedures ethics where such ethics Nor is a situational ethics (ethics situation For the of a broader type being recommended. into operation where a moral only go dilemma is reached; in general, deontic rule-based procedures apply. The broad outlines of a satisfactory account are beginning to emerge. Before we consider apply rational decision methods to each given dilemma situation. is how this to be so as account, to be said about the needs For to meet apparent objections. insensitive those accomplished more to in switches language, both FA and A, some options, and yet that, also F~A, that it ought also be that so B, very idea of it should be that B, where B entails We do not however go on to one of A and -A, so that not both A and ~A are ruled out. claim the is both A and ~A are ruled out as moral that situations, in certain in For are we not only claiming that decision-theoretic resolution of moral dilemmas. for structure of the things, there is, to among other contradiction a It should that not both A and ~A ruled are out morally.49 What is being claimed that B, or an adequate thing, is the best thing to do in the constrained circumstances, that B should be done in that sense, net that B is lifted to status obligation enough in the circumstances, by looking at you does not the can B is In brief, <»B, "second-best obligation"). determined (though imply OB. acceptable worlds worlds where B holds which fail to be acceptable. say, if you like, that it is a the best that can be done or good is not going to be When <£>B holds where B When holds, because there are holds is not going to be settled in general by falling back on deontic rules, because in the interesting cases the rules are jammed. But such deontic rules dees not being beyond imply being beyond rational procedures, indeed procedures that may be represented by way of rules (though not controlled by deontic rules). The rational procedures in question are essentially those of decision theory. What is required is a decision as to what can be done in the circumstances; and this can be determined by relevant alternatives. be of something weighing up the expected outcomes and selecting among The selectiin may be of the best in the circumstance; satisfactory in the circumstances. The approach adopted pluralistic, allowing for both maximizing and satisizing procedures. 29 the it may can be Maximizers will of course argue that it would be irrational to select anything but the best among the alternatives (given that it was conceded to be the best); But satisizers will resist arguments.what such elaborates is what upon we a under do decision done normally this:- Set out the relevant alternatives, action courses of alternative. to us open Select a best, i.e. way - is - merely which in outline the results that the different list to. analysis intuitive more i.e. lead will a in theory Determine the of each likely value with maximum likely value, an alternative or a The basic procedure is childishly simple, but filling sufficiently good alternative. out the details may be extremely difficult or even impossible in a satisfactory way. The in problems, normally order increasing alternatives open, establishing their probability, rankings to them. things these cases, favourable more delineating the assigning values or desirability techniques from decision theory however for doing all There are in are: difficulty, of and in less circumstances favourable guestimates can be made or resort had to fuzzy methods. To descend to concrete applications (where procedures may be clearer than at the theoretical level), consider again the Platonic dilemma discussed by Lemmon, where I ought to return my friend’s gun and also ought not to do so. The alternatives are to return the gun and have the wife shot, or to return the gun avoiding a shooting but thereby breaking an undertaking. the alternative first wife It is certain, in the circumstances, that under the will be shot, highly a undesirable outweighing the lesser undesirability of the second alternative. the value of second Since the expected first, exceeds that of the alternative considerably much outcome, the best thing in the circumstances is to return the gun. However undertaking goes Lemmon to seriously the return ’to gun suggesting that one sacrifices one’s astray in utilitarian considerations’ No doubt (p.152). utilitarian considerations would bring out (could be massaged to bring out, rather) a But the fact is that no consideration (or interpersonal comparisons) similar result. of the utilities pleasures and pains contemplated. ’’critical involves an (whoever Lemmon utilitarian ones. the everybody of (involved they confuses are), the in is made, consequentialist universe, or or even needs whatever), to considerations with be their remotely much narrower Similarly the recipe Hare suggests for resolving moral dilemmas at level”, namely illegitimate resort to assimilation act-utilitarianism of (see, consequentialist e.g. 82, considerations p.43), under utilitarianisms. In certain respects Lemmon’s Platonic dilemma is not a good example of a moral dilemma; tougher in particular, dilemmas, the it is too easily resolved, and so characteristic features of pain, emerge, moral dilemmas can anguish, indecision, get omitted. As thus begins to be divided roughly into two types, easy and hard. 30 Easy dilemmas are those that are comparatively easy to find a way through eventually, and But hard ones are those that leave people caught in the dilemma so are resolvable. at least uncomfortable irresolvable. they whatever to choose and do, are so in a good sense Though a way-through or a way-out may be charted by decision methods, it is a way that leaves those involved morally uneasy, dissatisfied, or worse. For at the far hard end of the spectrum lie those dilemmas of tragic dimensions. Although consequential decision rationally within moral dilemma theory provides a for model how proceed to situations, by no means everyone confronted with a moral dilemma will apply such procedures in an intuitive way, even though many will. For one thing, there is plenty of scope for bad faith, irrationality and and more generally, for non-rational procedures; and severe moral dilemmas often enough induce non-rational and even paralytic or self-destructive modes in those who are caught in them. another, For there are indirect ways of obtaining the effects of decision theory, analogue decision theory so to say. Counselling, whether through a friend or a professional counsellor, is an important analogue: there the discussive mode helps to bring out eludicating of and assemble alternatives, undesirability of each. the and elements the of the advantages decision and approach, the desirability and theory drawbacks, Alternatively, or as well, these elements may be bought out by reflecting on a range of similar situations and experience there using these cases as some sort of precedent, in particular, for determining value rankings of alternatives open. Moral dilemmas have corollaries for moral ways of doing things. is that perfectibility of the moral scheme of things is impossible. One corollary Any sufficiently rich set of rules risks inconsistency, and will be inconsistent if completed. dilemmas are thus inevitable be; in the larger scheme of things. Moral This is as it should for it is in this way especially that moral development occurs and moral stature is obtained. 31 ^A much earlier version of this paper was presented by the second author at the Australian National University in 1975. Subsequently much of the paper was lost; what survived is largely incorporated in the first three sections, especially §3. However the new version takes over the leading ideas of the initial version. The authors are much indebted for comments and criticism to C. Pigden, R. Goodin and G. Priest. was ^This even true Maliy’s of pioneering system of 1926 which permitted replacement of logical equivalents within the scope of obligation function 0 (see F & Von Wright’s seminal work H p.3). (in 51), which set the pattern for mainstream deontic logic, was explicitly based on the modal comparison of deontic functors with modal functors, and built modal that break the modal systems, exceptional assumptions in at the bottom of the theory. The connection, are deontic systems based on relevant logics on such systems see RLR, chapter 8. ^These paradoxes are explained, obligation, paradoxes of derived and their see modal bases exposed, On the for some of the p.224; and Prior 62, further in §5. considerable literature on paradoxes like those of the Robber and Good Samaritan, see anthologies and the Hilpinen A detailed uniform treatment of especially Vermazen. all these and other deontic paradoxes in the framework of relevant logic is given in RLR II. 4In its equivalent form, Op => ~Fp, i.e. what is obligatory is not forbidden, it is the dubbed ’’Bentham’s Law” by von Wright 81, p.2. 5In a way, furthermore, avoids that the , problems Hare’s and complexities attempt to transfer a levels-resolution to deontic paradoxes would lead to if worked out paradoxes. the compare properly: any In counterintuitively, case, that problems of semantical if we were even ’ought’ is ambiguous levels say, to as to Hare as levels, avoid to some semantical proposes, but tinkering would still be required to fix up a deontic calculus at each level. Moreover, there are good grounds for doubting that the so far ill-characterised and artificial distinction of levels that Hare wants to impose can be satisfactorily made out. For one thing, critical hardly the holds up; level for separation intuitive of the paradoxes intuitive are from the typical of rational or act utilitarian assessments at the upper level, and we can be rational and critical, and ask for why- explanations, at both levels. ^There are various different form, OA, OB -> ^It is this principle can take, e.g. also a rule 0(A & B), and a rather useless material form, OA & OB =>. 0(A & B). tried criticised below. forms however by Schotch and Jennings, p.152; their argument is It is also suggested by Barcan Marcus, p.134., and toyed with by 32 Williams o In particular Lemmon, taking off from Sartre, has argued this in two important papers, neglected in mere recent philosophical literature on moral dilemmas and moral conflict. earlier Recent British work, in literature that it could logical further the next note). on conflict of values has particular, profitably have taken into ignored account (see Such an uninformed approach is however not uncharacteristic of British philosophy. ^Especially Lemmon’s work 62 and 65. But although Lemmon suggests (in 62, e.g. p.150) that there are no logical problems in accommodating moral dilemmas, including those of the form 0(A & ~A), none of the systems of deontic logic he presents (e.g. in 65), not even the very weak systems, can do so without trivialising. The reasons for collapse are the modal ones already explained. Apart from the work of Lemmon and a few who follow him, work which at least suggests the need for a bridge even if it does not offer so much as good working plans for one, the literature on moral dilemmas tends to bifurcate - into purely philosophical material which does not address the logical issues, and largely logical material which characteristically avoids the crucial moral issue of dilemmas, which the logics espoused cannot handle (and maybe because of that: otherwise the logical literature On the regrettable lack of interaction between deontic logicians disputes the data). and ethicists, the latter being the worse offenders, see also Thomason’s notes. 10 In fact the latter implication of O-transmission could be much weakened for the purpose of the arguments, e.g. the form A B - > OA D OB would serve to make the point. 11 Gumanski 80 affords a good example of the complication resulting, complication readily removed by relevant logic relocation. 12 The argument thoroughtly for this fallacious. ’principle of deontic contingency’ Either an in F & H, p.13, is illegitimate quantificational conversion (from some to all) or a modal confusion (from p & ~p to q & ~q) is used to get from P(p & ~p) for some p - which is all the denial of deontic contingency gives - to Pq, that is, to ’everything is permitted’. 1^For see axiom, (D1) Op =>~0~p, of the standard systems as formulated in F & H, p.13, and use the interdefinability of P and 0, e.g. PB 4 1 ~0~B. There would be little point in presenting features of the epicycling systems of types (iii)-(v) in any detail since all will be quickly dismissed. In any event, details can be found in the Hilpinen surveys 33 (71 and 81), texts which are ir fact restricted to epicycling positions within the dominant modal paradigm for deontic Even Schotch and Jennings, who do question some minimal principles, remain logics. staunchly the within modal sphere, their as possible worlds and semantics their substitutivity principles reveal. 15 F & H, p.8, in support p.16. This consistency interpretation appears to have extensive Scandinavia. Of course if consistency were meant in a different sense (that of regularity), it would be different. But it is not: see the development in F & H, p.l6ff. 16 Cf. Lemmon: philosophers that ’It ... does the not to seem adoption of have been new morality a associated with the confrontation of a moral dilemma. much by observed an agent ethical by is frequently Indeed, it is hard to see what else would be likely to bring about a change of moral outlook other than having to make a difficult moral decision’ (62, p155). not settled without so to speak Similarly Barcan Marcus (p.12): ’although idealistically, a source of moral motion. dilemmas are is, Moral inconsistency residue, the recognition of their reality has a dynamic force. 17 In 1975 when the paper was first drafted and presented this example was still topical. However at most times in modern human history there are many candidates to substitute for variable V. 18 In the narrow scheme of standard deontic logic, these would be recast in terms of the forbidden functor F, defined as 0~. However in relevant logic settings, it is a further question, not settled by the framework whether W reduces to 0~. * ^Williams 20 are Jim-Pedro example (in 81) is of this type. As there are other war dilemmas, and especially nuclear war dilemmas, so there other violence. pacifist dilemmas, e.g. the problem of violence to prevent greater On nuclear war dilemmas, and on the main pacifist dilemma, see the War and Peace series. 21 For many of the contractual arrangements, isomorphism, known moral dilemmas we consider, especially those there are analogous legal dilemmas. preserving very many important logical generated by For there is a wellfeatures between moral obligations and rights and wrongs and corresponding legal obligations and rights and wrongs. The complexity of legal frameworks, the relatively independent design of using parts and divine numerous lack of design control legal of likelihood the dilemmas and sources decidedly complexity to high. analogous An is dilemmas moral for consistency, or checks argument considered in render the fjrom the McConnell, p.275ff. pp Lemmon’s final treatment, but (fifth) type of ’’moral dilemma” does so far resist more formal is that the mainly because class concerned description and lacks even clear working examples. so far These are, defies adequate roughly, situations ‘in which an agent has to make a decision of a recognisably moral character though he is completely unprepared ... by his present moral outlook’ and has somehow to fashion a new moral outlook. is There so far of here nothing especial paraconsistent concern. By no means all the types of situations falling under Lemmon’s ’classification of moral dilemmas’ (62, classifying types of first class and p.156) are dilemmas. situation’, ‘moral the classification starts out is nothing dilemmatic about there and which Lemmon about the second, little Indeed the ‘does not wish to call ... moral dilemmas, because [as with the first] in all the cases our moral situation is perfectly clear’ (p.143). The main types of moral dilemmas Lemmon discerns, the third and fourth classes, are precisely those treated in the text. The concurrence even of several different, 23()f course the control is limited. perhaps apparently independent, logical approaches is no sure guide to correctness of an explication or has to answer back satisfactorily to The matter still account. preanalytic principles. 22* In dilemmas, the initial version of this paper three into types (0, 0~; complication was based on a mistake, collapse. are F, a rather F~; and artificial classification of 0,F) was proposed. But this that equation of 0~A and FA would lead to modal And, apparently a more natural and simpler theory does emerge if 0~ and F equated. Naturally definitional than coentailment. More highly equation intensional in this context does not differences between the imply more notions, which there are, remain unaffected. What holds for F does not automatically transfer independently. ^The labels and Jennings. [RM] and [K], convenient to P. Perhaps P should be treated in what follows, are taken from Schotch Note that although symbolically virtually the same as the originals, they symbolize different determinate principles. ^See as well as RLR I, Routley 72, Routley and Meyer 73 and OP. 35 the 2?Under four-valued American plan for relevant logic * can be semantics, avoided. But here the superior two-valued Australian plan is followed. 2&Though here we simply take the rule over from standard deontic semantics, it can be argued in several ways, explained (though usually for the analogous necessity functor) as in RLR. class of such A, b One way is this:- in situation a, where OA holds, consider the i.e. {C: I(OC, a) = 1}. This gives an initially acceptable set up with respect to a; and indeed would yield the sought rule (with S improved to a but for 1-1 relation) fail, conditions the fact that bo may not be a world because required closure conspicuously We primeness. can however extend though not ba, uniquely, so that world requirements are met. The picture looks like this: S is the composition of the function (from a to b ) and the extension (to the b-’s). The b.’s are the accepted worlds vis-a-vis a. ^The point and role of evaluative step-down is explained in Routley 83. 3°The strategy resembles that earlier in Routley and Meyer 75 in Plainly there is room for other postulates, formulating explicitly dialethic logic. e.g. exploited In virtue of the model theorem Ot, where 0p2 where p2 is not dilemmatic, etc. t is any tautology, such a postulate is guaranteed in standard deontic logic, but it is rightly left as an option in relevant deontic logic, and also in Barcan Marcus. third 31A type of argument for rejecting [KJ is implicit in Schotch and and also in Barcan Marcus, namely that without [K] both moral conflict and Jennings, the Kantian ought-implies-can principle can be retained. That supposes of course that the Kantian principle is a desirable one, worth going considerably out of one’s logical way disaster to retain. [KJ But the is not from the combination of Kantian only in principle involved theory with moral dilemmas: reaching other equally solid and respectable principles than [KJ could be considered for rejection. ^2At this logic and point we do detour analyses of moral beyond our dilemmas, to look critique of modalisation of deontic at some separate puzzles in deontic logic - which have also been used against the idea of a formal treatment of ethics. And the approach we take to these further 36 puzzles - by limiting transmission in the fashion of weaker, and deeper logics - is largely independent of principles, the reaminder IN short, we could have taken a different approach to paper. of the these transmission puzzles, without varying the rest of the paper. 33 Of course it can be argued that one is storing up problems for (much) later on when the logical theory repenting have fuller a better developed, is much more fully developed, and predicates like those of logical role. so also will be presumably when But the logical theory is the distinctions between types of predicates and those sustaining transmission. 34 It is common practice indict deontic logic by so stating the deontic ’'paradox" that they smuggle in much more than a satisfactory entailment relation could warrant and more even than a modal relation would grant. paradoxes will be presented as arguments Here is an example. These [deontic] against Consider the Good Samaritan paradoxes formulated the "standard" as follows: deontic logics. 1) A is obligated to help an injured criminal 2) If A is obligated to do B then A is obligated to do whatever B entails. (This is a principle of the standard deontic logics.) 3) There could not be an injured criminal if someone did not commit a crime. So 4) A is obligated to bring it about that someone commit a crime. (From 1- 3 by the standard deontic logics.) The So 5) logics are standard deontic (For flawed. 4) is outrageous, though its premisses are not.) Entailment principles do not justify the importing of 'bringing about' in clause 4). 35 And wrong to rob him and not rob him, and so on. Conjunction is not here connexive with one conjunct undercutting another - though connexive deontic logic is what some seem to be seeking. ^Accordingly Morscher's retreat to "rational norms" and "rational legislating" is But unnecessary. presupposed again that a deontic Morscher the grasps key point, that von Wright has logic must contain certain consistency-type principles, and that 'this presupposition need not be fulfilled' (p.98). 37 Schotch and Jennings, community of moral philosophers' philosophy, analysis. where claim 'widespread support for (a) among the (a) is the theme 'that cases of real moral Most likely this claim, like most such sociological claims conflict cannot occur'. in (pp.152-3) is merely impressionistic, and not based on any sort of survey or But we expect further investigation would tend to confirm it. no J Thus, to take just one example: there appears to be a conflict 'One may be in a situation of course in which of principles each of which appears categorically 37 binding - but natural reflection will ultimately show that one or other must prevail’ Benn (p.5). But examples abound. The reason reflection removes inconsistency is that obligations do not collide. We have it from Kant himself Because however duty and obligation are in general concepts that express the objective practical necessity of certian actions, ... it follows that a conflict of duties and obligations is inconceivable (obligationes non colliduntor). (Metaphysis of Morals, cited in Barcan Marcus, p.323.) But does it world the (merely) practical follow not of without action However necessity. sweeping a but the worlds concering consistency assumption picked out by function not of objective these worlds are, moral dilemmas certainly appear to show, sometimes inconcistent. There are depending what is the explanation can go, various different ways and contractual arrangements a route like that of Hobbes through Rawls will be followed. Given less, taken e.g. granted. for only grounded example, For or preferences given choice individual behaviour, interests a semantical route might be And so on. tried. 110 The inadequacy of modal accounts of inconsistency is explained in detail in RLR, chapter 5. ji -1 These examples and most of those that follow were suggested by C. Pigden, who also supplied the references. HO The first quote is from Kenny, p.75, the second from Skinner, p.7, both of which furnish additional details. 4^Cf. Kenny, p.78. 24/4 According to MacIntyre 66. The situation of Agamemnon and Oedipus are remarked upon in Williams 81, p.80. There there are is not a substantial and cannot literature be general arguing, not entirely universally applicable principles in all circumstances of their application. conclusively, rules for that ranking of Thus, for example, Ross, p.41, also discussed in Barcan Marcus, p.124, Barcan Marcus, p.135, Hare 82, pp.32-4. It seems that such a result would be proved, as regards effective rules, by methods of reversion theory. 38 ^The relevant; points Hare makes concerning anguish remorse and (82, pp.29-30) are they apply also against his own proposal to treat all principles as prima facie. But points concerning anguish and guilt are not decisive; account of how these attitudes arise can be given from for one thing, an modal a angle (cf. the discussion in Barcan Marcus, p.127). ^By no means all dilemmas require resolution, e.g. those of no practical import such as purely theoretical dilemmas of freedom, etc. liberty, These can, in principle, just stand. 48 As Lemmon explains (in 62), really following Sartre, there is considerable scope for bad faith and opting out of our responsibilities here, e.g. pretending that no decision is called for, or that another has preempted the decision, or that the decision is otherwise determined or out of our own control. 49No doubt we could tough it out dialectically, but the basis for doing so is Any lacking. adherence contradictions to calles for especially rigorous justification 500n satisizing decision theory, and the dialectic between maximizers and satisizers, see MS. Fuzzy decision theory is however only in the initial stages of development at present. 5^This is just one of several reasons why Hare’s grand synthesis (in 82) of Kant and the utilitarians, initially appealing in its two level tidiness and simplicity, goes down the philosophical drain. A main reason is that the synthesis is built upon, and incorporates, consistency and modal assumptions, and so is inadequate moral data to be accounted for theoretically (see further War and Peace II). to the REFERENCES R. Barcan Marcus, 121-136. Journal of Philospohy 77 (1980) ’Moral dilemmas and consistency , * S. I. Benn, ’Public and private morality: clean living and dirty hands’ in Public and Private in Social Life (ed. S.I. Benn and G.F. Gaus), Croom Helm, London & Canberra, 1983, 155-182. A. Donegan, The Theory of Morality, Chigago University Press, Chicago, 1977. D. Follesdal and R. Hilpinen, ’Deontic pp.1-35; referred to as F & H. B. C. logic: van Fraassen, ’The logic of conditional Logic 1 (1972) 417-38. an introduction’ Hilpinen in obligation’. Journal 1971, of Philospohical L. Gumanski, ’On deontic logic’, Studia Logica 39 (1980) 63-75. S. Hampshire (ed), Public and Private Morality, Cambridge University Press, 1978. R.M. Hare, Freedom and Reason, Clarendon, Oxford, 1963. R.M. Hare, Moral Thinking, Conflicts’). Clarendon, Oxford, 1982 (see especially chapter 2 ’Moral R. Harrison, Rational Action, Cambridge University Press, 1979. R. Hilpinen (ed). Deontic Dordrecht, 1971. Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, Reide1, R. Hilpinen (ed), New Studies in Deontic Logic, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981. A. Kenny, The God of the Philosophers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979. E.J. Lemmon, ’Moral dilemmas’, Philosophical Review 71 (1962) 139-58. E.J. Lemmon,’ Deontic (1965) 39-71. Logic and the T. McConnell, ’Moral dilemmas and Philosophy 8 (1978) 269-87. logic of imperatives’, consistency in ethics’, Logique et Canadian Analyse 8 Journal A. MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1966. of 39 A. A. Martino (ed.), Deotnic Logic, Computational Systems, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982. Linguistics and Legal Information E. Morscher, ’Antinomies and incompatibilities within normative languages’ in Martino 82, pp.83-102. Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1971; hereafter OED. G. Priest and R. Routley, On Paraconsistency, Research Australian National University, 1983; hereafter OP. in Papers Logic, #13, A.N. Prior, Formal Logic, Second edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1962. A.N. Prior, ’Escapism: the logical basis of ethics' (ed. A.I. Melden), Seattle, 1958. in Essays in Moral Philosophy, W.D. Ross, The Right and the Good, Oxford University Press, New York, 1930. R. Routley, ’War and Peace I. On the ethics of large-scale nuclear war and war­ deterrence, and the political fall-out’, Discussion Papers in Environmental Philosophy, #5, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 1983. R. Routley, ’On the alleged inconsistency and moral insensitivity and fanaticism of pacifism’, Inquiry 26 (1984) , ; also War and Peace II. R. Routley, ’Maximizing, satisficing, satisizing: the difference in real and rational behaviour under rival paradigms’, Discussion Papers in Environmental Philosophy, #10, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, 1984; hereafter MS. R. and V. Routley, ’The semantics of first degree entailment’, Nous 6 (1972) 335-59. R. and V. Routley, ’Semantical foundations of value theory’, Nous (1983) 441—56. R. Routley and R.k. Meyer, ’The semantics of entailment I’, in Truth, Syntax, and Modality (ed. H. Leblanc) North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973» pp.199-243. R. Routley and R.K. Meyer, ’Dialectical logic, classical logic, and the consistency of the world’, Studies in Soviet Thought 16 (1976) 1-25. R. Routley and others, Relevant Logics and Their Rivals, Ridgeview, California, Part I (1982) and Part II (1984); referred to as RLR I and RLR II respectively. A. Ryan, The Idea of Freedom, Oxford, 1970. P. Schotch and pp.149-62. R.E. Jennings, ’Non-Kripkean deontic logic’, in Hilpinen 81, 40 Q. Skinner, The Foundations of Modern University Press, Cambridge, 1978. Political Thought, Volume 11, Cambridge R. M. Thomason, ’Deontic logic as founded on tense logic’, in Hilpinen 81, pp.165-175. B. Vermazen, 'The (1977) 1-71. logic of practical 'ought’-sentences’, Philosophical Studies 32 B. Williams, Moral Luck, Cambridge United Press, 1981. B. Williams, 'Conflict of values' in Williams 81, pp.71-82; also in Ryan 79. G.H. von Wright, An Essay in Modal Logic, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1951. G.H. von Wright, ’On the logic of norms/ and actions’, M. Hilpinen 81, pp.3-35. G.H. ven Wright, ’Norms, truth and logic’ in Martino 82, pp.3-20. TYRANT MOPE ON NOPAL DILEMMAS 1. ethics. 2. Revolutionising Possible heading, why the failure to comprehend moral dilemmas. All these Reading force^'^^e off in other directions. Undoubtedly a great deal of ethics has been messed up by a failure to understand moral dilemmas. ' ... The failure is often reported; for instance human since justifiable claims ... and are rights claims, they be outweighed by other As in all conflicts of moral principles, human rights reasons must be weighed other moral can against one another by an as yet poorly understood and ill-defined process' (Rajfles, p.42). The failure shows up on the apparent clash between doing ethics by way of principles and doing ethics consistency reasons, principles. vor principles break down, through examples. or dilemmatic And examples. examples it is thought for air^. thought to refute A proper approach to dilemmas removes the tension between examples and principles and allows a synthesis to be achieved. 3. Moral rectitude. Now is notion this to be unpacked0 mhere are competing explanations, e.g. 1) in terms of obligation and deontics; 2) by way of consequentialist rectitude decisive. assessment. Pettit to make moral mhen it requires assessment thus 3) Method 1) unless dilemma; otherwise method 2\ rectitude so it is absolute in terms of O. 4. wants This is impossible. Mcjlly's system has no moral dilemmas, since ~fu For it proves trivial deontically. But he also wants to run 0~u^ - at least intentionally. Aquinas denies certain moral dilemmas, e.g. Np & F~p, in the doctrine concerning perplexus simpliciter F & N p.12. 5. Investigate further the connection of permitted and accepted worlds, and commission? This 'possibly permitted' does not involve discussed in NNL. the fallacy of reducing permission * 'permissible to It does tie with the suggested connection of commission and omission through the * function. 2 6. Is problem of the individual in society, of a person in politics, an organisation or a company of this type i.e. dilemma of freedom? Of. a dilemma that can just stand, like the theoretical also Machiavellian a problem: person in public must (morally?) act evilly sometimes. 7. of PUBLIC distinction The moralities. VS MORALITIES PRIVATE implies that there are two The BASE ARGUMENT against is this: But there are not two. if we acknowledge this conception of morality as requiring some action as the thing to do, how, logically speaking, could there be two moralities0 the thing to do when they conflict? overriding reason for action?^ How could morality then What is provide an Similarly &n utilitarianism single maximisation recipe and results. (/? DOEBN'01 REQUIRE KANTIANISM.) However A can to be subject conflicting public and private claims. Seen this way ^public vs private just generates.heap of further moral dilemmas, and the 2 moralities ^is just shoddy attempt to escape these dilemmas, expedient (i.e. would become n shoves morality out as in the Hinduism resolution dilemmas. of often in a way that’s politically of the way for expediency'1. The 2 moralities * int if pursued this distinction-making attempt at / Something special about public/private case0 Or differently, why are arguments from expedience so much more acceptable in public sphere0 Be^n gives r interest some reasons, but these oughtn't to justify a difference. | public interest DIRTY HANDS PROBLEM (PARADOX) is like GOOD SAM? behalf of the statecommitting murder. Sometimes it is right get one's hands dirty. E.g. Doing such and such on OR just a straight dilemma? to try to succeed, and then it must also be right to But one's hands get dirty from doing what it is wrong to do. And how can it be wrong to do what is right? Or how can we get our hands dirty by doing what we ought to do9 Z M. Walzer, Philosophy and Public Affairs, moral 2, 10°^, dilemma. 164. Op Walzer sees this as a tragic dilemma: p-> q Oq, but 0~q. Example: but really a torturing captured terrorist to extract information to save innocent lives. The problems start from questions of relations between two different moralities. Conclusion: 8. Conflict conscience 'that, the public to at its most liberal, loyalty, overriding moral liberalism in end. to a On between will stand the individual, tried committed concern for its collective interest, the one hand the individual as a relate this ambiguous model of the a individual and as an autonomous, citadel, on the other, the overriding perverse, wilful obstacles in the way of the general will. to with no gainsaying, and the claims of possessed of liberties that only he himself can waive, by consent; State, equipped society, not T have only to liberal conceptions of what belongs to the private and what to the public, but also to the tension between a morality of principles and one of valued outcomes, which, in my view, is very closely connected with the ambiguity of the model . * ("Renn? 9. Argument for weak paraconsistent position. Morality is a guide to action. Action is consistent. So have to r?l consistencize. ^Inconclusive"1. Like law one consistencizes (e.g. for action^ alright. But that confirms that it is inconsistent in the first place. 10. The difference. fought distinction is, it It hands the opposition its case. is objected, a Simply not so. distinction without a The following have been redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. • • • • • Letter, unidentified author to Richard, 27 Jul 1984 re Moral dilemmas. (2 pages (1 leaf)) Reference card and handwritten paper, ? Alchourron and Bulygin (1 reference card + 5 leaves) Letter, Charles to Richard, undated re New Studies in Deontic Logic and Castañeda's proposed deontic logic. (2 pages) Cuttings from unidentified publication, The paradoxes of deontic by Hector-Neri Castañeda (page 46-47), and Some main problems of deontic by Jaakko Hintikka 9page 94-96. (2 leaves) Letter, unidentified author to Richard, with annotations by Sylvan?, undated, re Moral dilemmas. (7 leaves) Ml Although the sorts of examples we have described seem familiar enough, it might well be disputed that they are correctly described as cases of Op and 0~p, or in the alternative representation as cases of Fp & F~p. The main ground for this is the belief that 19. in any such case one of the parties to the conflict is less wrong, and that this one can be claimed to be not really wrong at all. There are however several objections to this move to neutralise the dilemmas (1) First, wrong party. there is no guarantee that there always is a less Both parties may be equally wrong, no way of deciding which is less wrong. Vietnam example; To take and there may be our hypothetical if we withdraw half a million people will die; but if we do not withdraw the war will continue and half a million people will die; clearly the example may be elaborated. There may be no grounds for choice. (2) The fact that one party is less wrong than the alternative is no grounds for saying that it is not wrong at all. In fact the case would normally be described as one of choice between " two evils", two wrong aciwsese©; if one chooses the lesser of two evils, then one still chooses an evil. ing One is simply not justified in claim1 that, where p involves killing 10 people, p is not wrong simply on the grounds that ~p involves killing 15 people, any more than one is in the case of preference theory justified in saying that p, which brings a gift of $10, is not a good thing simply on the grounds that ~p brings a gift of $11. things; (3) They are both good and in our moral case, both are wrong. If we do say this, plainly it will be very difficult to find any moral principles which can be asserted with any confidence universally. In fact it will probably be possible to find hypothetical counterexamples to any statement of the form "All actions of type x are wrong", just by producing a case where p is an action of type x, but ~p is an even worse action. that p, although an action of type x, is not wrong, It will follow so we will have However, a counterexample. it seems to be important that we should be able to assert such general principles, and doing so gives us an essential way of assessing, morally, (4) Finally, types of actions. the proposed redescription of the case as involving only one wrong element, the one which is more wrong, leaves out an essential feature of such a case, that it is a dilemma, case where one cannot but act wrongly. If we omit this element the case is not properly described, it is falsified; a we may as a result find ourselves unable to explain many resulting features of the situation which result from the conflict, e.g. human behavioural features >n such a situation involving hesitation, doubt, inaction, perhaps anguish and guilt. All these will appear quite irrational. (5) Assigning a priority to our moral rules itself does nothing to resolve the logical problem raised by the dilemmas, (although it may solve the practical problem of how best to act). % For this logical problem iX the problem of how to arrange our logic so as to be able to describe such cases adequately and without falsification or incon-sisteney. Arranging a priority, so that A one alternative can be claimed to be less wrong, does not solve the logical problem, which is that whatever happens will be wrong, that T cannot be identical with I. The consequence that whatever happens is wrong cannot be removed unless as well as a priority assignment one also adopts the principle that what is less wrong is not wrong at all. But this principle leads to inconsistency for then the less wrong action is both wrong and not wrong. To be consistent this method must introduce a new concept of wrong in addition to the old one, say "wrong2" , and the less wrong action can be said to be not "wrong2". But now the original problem is 21. still not eliminated, because the problem was not that whatever be is . happened would /'wrong2" (although this/now false), but that whatever happened would be wrong, which is still true. sort of priority - dominated concept cannot replace, may supplement, the original concept. And this although it Sf- The problem of classifying these dilemmas. z mainly using the term ’wrong’. We have stated our dilemmas However, it may seem that this is ambiguous, and that it is possible, or desirable, to make a further distinction, between pi inciples which are obligatory and principles which are prohibitory. For wrongs can be due to two very different causes - om^iission or commission. The distinction between obligation and prohibition principles can be explained initially as follows: an obligation principle of the form Op read ’it ought to be the case that p’,Qt is f ? L ' r jT f'.Jlz.f:? /t/tjyJ /4-< 'it ought to come about that p'. This says that something, p, ought to should happen that p'A, r, happen, an ideal situation I. that is^ that it is a member of & A situation^satisfies Op, Op if p is not in it then, if p is In it ( p eaJ;and violates p's presence satisfies Op, whereas (pZ S?) • £ ["Obligation" Z7 —:----- is ’ being used here its omission or absence violates it. in a somewhat unusual sense, 4 for Lemmon seems to be right in urging that obligations are usually contractual in nature. and contracts may be contracts to do something or to refrain from However, we doing something - hence both positive and negative. must press 'obligation' and 'obligatory' and adjective corresponding to it * into service as a noun ought to be the case that' in order to avoid clumsiness and for lack of any other suitable words. The other class of principles, hand, we shall write prohibitive principles, on the other 'Ep' and read 'it is forbidden that p'. These principles claim that p is the sort of action which should p is not a member of the ideal situation I. be avoided satisfies Fp, situation a such that p Z such that pea violates it. a situation a whereas p's omission or absence satisfies Fp, whereas pSoccurrence or presence violates it. is paralleled on the obligations) The distinction action level by the distinction between action and by that between and inaction, A 'sins of omission' and 'sins of commision' A (which violate (which violate prohibitions). 'I have done those things which I ought not to have done' violating a prohibition but also, and not equivalently, not done those things which I ought to have done', thus 'I have thus violating An obligation is satisfied by doing something, an obligation. a prohibition by failing to do something, by avoiding something. It is important not to confuse 0~p, which says that should happen' or 'that ~p 'It is wrong that p', with Fp which says ’that p should not happen', or it * should not happen that p'. This distinction is clear, as a scope distinction, in the English reading However the two are continually confused in modal treatments of But deontic logic, since given Modal Muddle p / I = ~p g I. that to say/p should happen is not to say anything about what should not happen but leaves the issue as to whether ~p should or should And to say that p should not happen is not say and 0~p tells anything about ~p,/whether it should happen or not. not happen open. aj us that ~p is a member of I, where.Fp tells us that p is not a member of 1.^ Dilemmas then seem to fall into three classes depending upon whether the principles which lead to them are obligation or prohibition principles^or both. Fp and F~p, Thus we obtain Op and 0~p, and Op and Fp from our examples depending upon how the principles involved are construed^ a<Tprohibitory or obligatory. (A): Dilemmas obtained from prohibition principles, Fp, % F~p1. i.e. cases of We obtain cases of this sort given principles of the * form. — (1) Whenever P satisfies condition C, (Action form: (2) it shouldn't happen that p. action of type x are wrong) it shouldn't happen that p. A Whenever p satisfies condition C', The dilemma is obtained where p satisfies condition C, ~p satisfies condition C'. Jo O F and - ■L Give the semantical reading of 0 and F?and the examples with 'wrong' . Then mention the necessity for distinction between 0~p and Fp. (1) Wrongs divide into sins of omission and sins of commission. (2) These are semantically different. (3) Unless one distinguishes these concepts semantically have the consistency assumption again. Give the readings. one will 10. Examples can also be obtained from two distinct prohibitory These are cases where the state of affairs described principles. (for reasons given by the first by p is really indescribable principle) (for different reasons given by the second principle). able, * (tndesir For/(B) and the state of affairs described by ~p is m^-ally The second category of dilemmas are dilemmas obtained from obligation principles i.e. cases of Op & O~p, for some p. We obtain cases of this sort given principles of the form:(1) Whenever p satisfies condition C, (2) Whenever p satisfies condition C', it should happen that p it should happen that p. The dilemma is obtained when for a given p, p satisfies condition C and ~p satisfies condition C': (C) Finally, so Op and O~p. examples derived from conflicting but not inconsistent moral principles, which urge both that p should occur and that it should not occur i.e. and prohibited. cases of Op and Fp, where p is both enjoined These cases come about where are principles of the following sort: (1) Whenever p satisfies condition C, p should happen. (2) Whenever p satisfies condition C', p should not happen. The dilemma results because one can find cases one and the same state of affairs C and condition C'? e.g. (p) (in T) where satisfies both condition as^our example derived from Lemmon's uAcrw-tt bolew, x gives back the gun and helping a murderer. (p) is a case both of keeping a promise But promises must be kept, so Op holds. However actions which help murderers are forbidden and should not occur; examples, hence Fp also holds. unlike the previous kind, It seems that these sorts of cannot be generated by a single moral principle, but requires two principles which come into conflict. With a certain degree of artifice we can arrange our examples into these categories, with f A) groups being prohibitions the (fe)groups obligations, and the (C) groups mixed. It is necessary then to avoid the modal treatment and to But though 0 principles and F principles distinguish 0~ and F. are distinct, 0 and F provide alternatives bases for (semantically) The O-principles correspond semantically to deontic system. inclusion principles,the F formulated principles to exclusion Thus e.g. principles. TRfH 5® where iff iff TROH * , (UH) (TRfH oX(p,H) = f) In contrast, I(Fp,T) = t iff (UH) TROH d Kp,H) Thus the modellingswill mirror f) . one another, with R Rf For the representation of principles then we can work satisfactorily with an O-basis, or with an F-basis, but not with a mixed basis which uses both 0 and F principles. Failure to distinguish 0~p and Fp will provide a ground for the mistaken consistency assumption: iff p i H. for it will follow from evaluation rules 12. The cases described satisfy the characterisation of moral For the principles involved are not inconsistent, yet dilemmas. they are not satisfiable in T. In the case of the first set of leading to Fp and F~p, dilemmas, the principles could not be satisfied unless neither p nor ~p occurred. necessarily complete, But since T is they cannot be satisfied in T. of the second set of examples, Op and 0~p, In the case the principles could only be satisfied if both p and ~p occur, hence since T is con­ sistent, they cannot be satisfied in T. different. The third case is very Here it cannot be satisfied because one and the same proposition satisfies both conditions for occurring and conditions for not occurring? this proposition, hence our principles direct, with respect to that it should occur and that it should not occur. This also cannot be satisfied in T, since p is either a member of T, or not a member of T. The principles involved are not however inconsistent ones; for in each case a finite proposition modelling of the principles can be provided. In the third case, directives, despite the fact there are inconsistent given a contingent proposition p^, which satisfies the antecedent conditions, no inconsistency need result because such a proposition p^ may not occur. In other words, though the principles together with p^ form an inconsistent set, p-^ is essential and can be deleted from the set since contingent; and the set without p1 as the principles on their own are satisfactory is consistent, where no antecedents satisfy both, a po£S»4ta- case. ■ v r • The principles ** (a. though inconsistent in application are not inconsistent^ i In the first two cases(they are T consistent?) also it is a contingent matter that the principles come i ... into^ cannot be satisfied in T; r; for detachment of a contingent truth is made, viz that the given ? proposition satisfies the conditions. 13. since they constantly arise““without sacrificing the generality of moral principles. For unless carefully treated dilemmas will/ as we shall see, provide counterexamples to moral principles. Our moral dilemmas result from judgements which cannot be satisfied in T, so that whatever happens will be wrong. Howe is there/still quite a crucial difference between the first two classes and the third class of dilemma. In the third case the result of the dilemma on detachment of a contingent premiss that p satisfies c and c' simultaneously is an inconsistency, cannot both belong and not belong to the ideal set-up I. since p Although the principles upon which the judgement Op and Fp was based were not themselves mutually inconsistent, moral judgerent they do result in a inconsistent that p both ought to happen and ought not to happen is prohibited from happening. Given that p has both properties, the moral principles concerned are in conflict. This is brought out by the fact that if p does satisfy these conditions, cannot be any situation, T-like or not, there in which the principles are satisfied. Furthermore here we have a case where each moral judgement provides a counterexample to the other. If Op and Fp both obtained, both the principles from which they were derived would be false; principle for Op would provide a counterexample to the prohibitory (p) (if p satisfies c’ then Fp) since Op ~Fp; while Fp would provide a counterexample to the obligatory principle (if p satisfies c then Op). (p) J \ 14. In view of these points it seems that a moral code which resulted in this sort of conflicting judgement is defective; the principles involved should either be restricted by tightening one or other of conditionsc and c', or else restated by reformulating one or other of the principles, (p) (Cp => F~p) replaced by (p) (C'p => 0~p) . or i.e. either (p) (C'p => Fp) (p) (Cp => Op) is is replaced by the case is reduced to one of the first In short, two cases. In this case the dilemma arises because the principles In the first two cases however involved come into conflict. the difficulty does not arise from conflicting principles, but is simply a case where our not v/ judgements cannot both be satisfied in T, because they are conflicting, but because of the peculiar Where Op and 0~p both hold, nature of T. (or Fp and F~p) what- ever happens will be wrong, because p & ~p cannot both hold in T, The dilemma is however simply explained nor p & ~p fail to hold. and the judg.ements accepted once it is understood that I, situation, action, is not T-like. The dilemma may produce a conflict in because given the logical structure of T and the limitations it imposes upon action, both judgements. it is impossible to act in accordance with But this does not effect the judgements themselves; as moral judgenents, assessments of the moral worth of p of affairs) conflict. (a state of ~p^jthey are quite compatible and there is no To say that p is wrong and that ~p is also wrong is in no way to be inconsistent, true. the ideal and both judgements may very well be The absence of conflict also explains the fact that such cases can be produced from single moral principles, such as 'Killing is wrong', which in no way inhibit internal conflict. 15. Judgements such as 'p is wrong of action or states of affairs; as to how to act in T. alternative in T, Hence Op does not compare p with its ~p. Such judgements are implicitly comparative, not to ~p's worth, but to the Thus if we reach situations as to moral worth of its absence. (using moral criteria for selection), if for every situation H, H+p is worse than H-p. in a situation assess types and do not simply give directions but p's worth is assessed relative, desirability & ~p is wrong' p is wrong If p's presence makes the situation morally worse than it would be if p were absent, then p is wrong. But now it is a straightforward matter to claim that p is wrong and that ~p is also wrong; one is aHL simply claiming that situations without p^orally preferable to the that (should be chosen^etc.); same situations with p * and also situations without ~p are morally preferable to that same situation with ~p in it. These judgements in no way conflict, and if we were in a position to choose a situation with neither of them in, we could satisfy both judgements simultaneously. is the choice must be regarded as a hypothetical one, As it and the judgements as representing a kind of thought experiment, rather than in giving directions as to how to behave in T. The choice embodied in such a judgement is one between two hypothetical situations and not between alternative versions of T. It is just for this reason that this type of moral judgement is adequate for assessing morally different types of actions or sorts of states of affairs. Because we are concerned with choosing between hypothetical situations, we can opine that all actions of a certain specifiable type and states of affairs satisfying a certain condition are wrong (not wrongyetc.), without risking * In the case of Op & 0~p. In the case of Fp & F~p one ismaking a slightly different claim, that a situation from which p's absent is morally better than some in which it is present. Note that the difference between 0 and F can be to the difference in directionthe rankings. 16. falsification because of the contingent features of T. Finally, in such a judgement one is concerned with assessing the action or state of affairs in itself rather than passing judgement about the best way to act in a particular situation. Dilemmas of this sort then, as opposed to dilemmas of the conflict sort first discussed, are not the result of defective moral codes or principles and do not require any readjustment or resolution (beyond psychological acceptance of the fact that it is sometimes inevitable that what happens is wrong and that perfectibility is impossible). They do not provide counterexamples to general In contrast moral principles based on contingent features of T. codes containing the conflict type of dilemma are defective. Any code containing two principles of the form 'wherever p satisfies Cl, Op' and ’Whenever p satisfies C2, Fp’ where C1 and C2 are not inconsistent, will be defective because there is a possible situation (a hypothetical case) with a p^ which satisfies both C1 Whence the inconsistent pair Fp, potentially inconsistent. & Op,. and C2. Any such code is at least This sort of defectiveness of a moral code might be excusable if it were inevitable. But it is not. can be avoided if we adopt either 0 or F as primitive, and state our judgements in terms of one or other of them, but not both. alternative, terms, conflicting is intolerable. moral It The principles stated in No principle could be asserted with any confidence, because they would hold or fail just according to whether or not a suitable proposition with conflicting properties appeared in T and provided a counterexample. And since this is contingent whether such principles hold or not would be entirely a matter of good or bad luck. Moral judgements on the other hand ought to apply beyond T to possible situations, ought to be non-empirical and apply to hypothetical cases, matter of accident. and ought not to hold just as a 4 C ‘S’ -X f * univeralisa'blemoral principle was a judgement The general ‘ 7^' about types of action or states of affairs and compared p's presence in a situation with its absence from the same situation on a scale of moral desirability. This concept of wrongness is essential to be able to state general moral judgements. But as well as this concept we can distinguish another important concept which is designed to assess not types of action but what is the best course of action in a given situation. This is obtained by comparing p's presence in a situation not with its absence but with the presence of its rivals in a given situation, e.g. ~p in the case of T. p will be said to be ’the best course of action' ~p are both wrong) if a situation Thus (even where p and (usually T), with p in, ranks higher morally then the same one with ~p in. A more practical - concept still can be obtained by comparing p and its practical rivals, say will be the best course of action practical alternative q) f Y r if a situation (as compared with its (usually T) (morally) when p is in it than when q is in it. between alternative ways of extending will rank higher One chooses T. It is important as Lemmon points out to distinguish this concept clearly from the more general concept earlier explained. Lemmon is wrong in suggesting that this is not a moral concept at all and does not give rise to moral judgements but to judgements of expedience. The judgements involved in this case are still moral in the sense that the criteria for ranking situations are 22 specifically moral ones and not based simply, say, on aesthetic considerations or desirability considerations. clear that this distinction Yet it is (which we shall call the distinction between differential obligation and intrinsic obligation) must be ignored and eliminated if obligation is treated as a modal functor For give/} the principle of Modal Muddle (H) (p e H = ~p e H) semantical recipes we have given will be identical. p's presence in H with p's absence (p / H) comparing p in H with ~p's being in H. the To compare will be the same as It is essential however to distinguish this notion of 'best course of action' (differential basic notion we have discussed, because it has quite different properties. * It cannot replace although it can supplement, The reasons are as follows other notion. 02 does not allow for (1) the moral dilemmas. p with its practical alternative in T, e.g. For since we compare ~p, to say that Op & 0~p is to say that a situation H such p e H is morally better than a situation H such that ~p e H, and also to say that a situation H such that ~p e H is better than one such that p e H. This is a (Similar results will ensue when F is taken as a contradiction. basis). (2) 02 cannot allow for general moral judgements of the form "All actions (states of affairs) counterexample. of type x are wrong" without fear of For no matter how compelling our principle and how repugnant the type of action described, we can almost always find a case where the only alternative action is worse. however repugnant p may be, Hence, it will not in this case be wrong, a counterexample to one general judgement will be provided. new notion then cannot do the same job as the old; —----------------------------------------- . and Our it should be , We u^e such as 'the best thing in the circumstances' 'the right thing', 'the correct course all in all' to capture differential obligations . 23. regarded as parasitic, because it can be alternatively represented as admitting the wrongness of the alternatives, but going on to weigh up the alternatives to obtain a recipe for practical action. (3) implies can" slogan It is to this notion that the "ought applies. O2P o locjically possible p, because one has selected p as the best course of action from logically possible alternatives in T. Indeed ’02p’ can be made to imply ‘p is physically possible' (or even physically possible to the person being exhorted) by comparing p with its physically possible alternatives in ranked situations. In a similar way, the concept of blame attaches to failure to follow the best course of action,i.e. if p is better as a course of action than its and one fails to do it. action.* (practical) alternatives, One is not blameworthy for doing p merely only as good as, because p is no better than, i.e. alternatives, one is blameworthy its remaining it has to be worse than some alternative course of It is important to note that blame attaches to this second differential concept of obligation, rather than the first intrinsic notion, for the possibility and obvious unfairness of someone's being blamed for doing wrong where both Op and 0~p hold and he has no alternative which is not wrong would otherwise be a powerful objection to cases of moral dilemmas. (5) Finally, differential obligation makes a basically different type of judgement from the intrinsic notion. not of a type of action or state It is an assessment or of affairs, the action/state of affairs in itself, but of the situation in which it occurs, action in this situation. This is reflected in such phrases as "the best thing in the circumstances" "the right thing to do the conditions obtained at the time)", etc. * Oh well, you cannot be blamed. circumstances . the (given Hence it is not You did the best thing in the universalisable , and does not try to be. It “results in a recipe for action, and is closely allied to advice or exhortation/orders , persuasion, recommendation or other directed activities. Intrinsic obligation however/ frafc^s no account of possible action and does not need to; it assesses action-types regardless of how they occur in a given situation. This last point is important in connection with argument about moral dilemmas. For the confusion between our two concepts has a disastrous effect on argument, particularly those hotly disputed arguments which occur in the case of moral dilemmas. The following sort of argument, due to confusion between Oi and O2 is all too common in such cases. Actions of type x are wrong (1') (if p satisfies c then Oi~p). (p) This must be Oj because it represents a general and exceptionless (2) p is an action (3) ~ 02 i.e. ~p: (state of affairs) judgement about a type. of type x. p should not be done. Therefore do not do p. The argument is plainly unsatisfactory because the fact that Oi~p holds is not sufficient to establish that 02~p To holds. do this one would have to show that the alternative, p, was not worse or even just as good. not be so. And in cases of dilemmas this may very well To establish 02~p one needs to show not merely that p is wrong but that there is some better course of action. The fallacy derives from trying to base a recipe for action on the intrinsic obligation notion, Oi. s 25. A closely related confusion holds that it is inconsistent to claim that p is a wrong type of action, that it should be done nonetheless the best course of action. August 6 197 x (e.g. is repugnant etc., but - because it is nevertheless Canberra Times Editorial, on abortion reads as follows: "It is significant, and inconsistent with its official stand that the s ynod should have qualified its recommendation to family doctors with the words "however regrettable we feel this to be"." to be inconsistentthen, one states to be What is being claimed is that one should recommend a course of action (morally) there is no inconsistency. regrettable or repugnant. But of course One is simply saying that ~p is wrong, "Oi-p", but that it is nevertheless the best thing to do given the circumstances because the alternatives are worse?i.e. "O2P"• The distinction between differential and intrinsic obligation, then, seems to be an important factor in assessing the validity of argument where moral dilemmas are concerned. /, 2 ft I z^z/ / rt&jZy 7-, I  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 140, Item 1: Draft of Moral dilemmas and the logic of deontic notions ; Draft of Moral dilemmas ; Notes, correspondence and cutting on moral dilemmas and deontic logic Subject The topic of the resource Typescript of drafts of two papers, undated. Second paper with handwritten emendations, and first paper published, Routley R and Plumwood V (1984) 'Moral dilemmas and the logic of deontic notions', Discussion papers in environmental philosophy, 6. Dept. of Philosophy, Australian National University. Includes three letters addressed to Richard: 27 July 1984 (handwritten, 1 leaf (2 pages)), author unidentified re Moral dilemmas; Undated (handwritten, 2 pages), from Charles re New Studies in Deontic Logic and Castaneda's proposed deontic logic; Undated (handwritten, 7 leaves with annotations by Sylvan?), author unidentified re Moral dilemmas; and one letter from Richard Sylvan? to Philip, undated (handwritten (photocopy), 3 pages), re feedback on a paper. Includes incomplete draft paper, Other attempts to neutralise moral dilemmas (21 leaves), with handwritten emendations, undated. Description An account of the resource Letters and cuttings redacted from access file (PDF) due to copyright restrictions. Unnumbered paper from collection, item number assigned by library staff. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Val+Plumwood&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Val Plumwood</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 140, Item 1 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [87] leaves. 64.35 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:ba641e1">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:ba641e1</a> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy Box 140: File Cabinet 1 Draw 2 https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/b08be37f733215f4391cf73d1099d47f.pdf c97a08e871aaec69f2c5b022a3b51edf PDF Text Text Richard and Vai Routley 1. » NUCLEAR POWER - SOME ETHICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS1 One hardly needs initiation into the dark mysteries of nuclear physics to contribute usefully to the debate now widely ranging over nuclear power. While many important empirical questions are still unresolved, these do not really lie at the centre of the controversy. Instead, it is a debate about values... many of the questions which arise are social and ethical ones.2 I. THE TRAIN PARABLE AND THE NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEM. train has just pulled out. passengers and freight. The train which is A long distance country crowded carries both At an early stop in the journey someone consigns as freight, to a far distant destination, a package which contains a highly toxic and explosive gas. This is packed in a very thin container which, as the consigner is aware, may well not contain the gas for the full distance for which it is consigned, and certainly will not do so if the train should strike any real trouble, for example, if the train should be derailed or involved in a collision, or if some passenger should interfere inadvertently or deliberately with the freight, perhaps trying to steal some of it. of these sorts of things have happened on some previous journeys. All If the container should break the resulting disaster would probably kill at least some of the people on the train in adjacent carriages, while others could be maimed or poisoned or sooner or later incur serious diseases. Most of us would roundly condemn such an action. of the parcel say to try to justify it? What might the consigner He might say that it is not certain that the gas will escape, or that the world needs his product and it is his duty to supply it, or that in any case he is not or the people on it. responsible for the train These sorts of excuses however would normally be seen as ludicrous when set in this context. Unfortunately, similar excuses are not also seen when the consigner, again a (responsible) businessman,puts his workers' health or other peoples’ welfare at risk. Suppose he says that it is his own and others’p ressing needs which justify his action. The company he controls, which produces the material as a by-product, is in bad financial straits, and could not afford to produce a better container even if it knew how to make one. If the company fails, he and his family will suffer, his employees will lose their jobs and have to look for others, and the whole company town, through loss of spending, will be worse off. The poor and unemployed of the town, whom he would otherwise have been able to help, will suffer especially. Few people would accept such grounds as justification. �2. Even where there are serious risks and costs to oneself or some group for whom one is concerned one is usually considered not to be entitled to simply transfer the heavy burden of those risks and costs onto other uninvolved parties, especially where they arise from one’s own, or one’s group’s chosen life-style. The matter of nuclear waste has many moral features which resemble the train case. How fitting the analogy is will become apparent as the argument progresses. There is no known proven safe way to package the highly toxic wastes generated by the nuclear plants that will be spread around the world as large-scale nuclear development goes ahead. The waste problem will be much more serious than that generated by the 50 or so reactors in use at present, with each one of the 2000 or so reactors envisaged by the end of the century producing, on average, annual wastes containing 1000 times the radioactivity of the Hiroshima bomb. Much of this waste is extremely toxic. For example, a millionth of a gramme of plutonium is enough to induce a lung cancer. A leak of even a part of the waste material could involve much loss of life, widespread disease and genetic damage, and contamination of immense areas of land. Wastes will include the reactors themselves, which will have to be abandoned after their expected life times of perhaps 40 years, and which, some have estimated, may require 1^ million years to reach safe levels of radioactivity. Nuclear wastes must be kept suitably isolated from the environment for their entire active lifetime. For fission products the required storage period averages a thousand years or so, and for transuranic elements, which include plutonium, there is a half million to a million year storage problem. Serious problems have arisen with both short-term and proposed long-term methods of storage, even with the comparatively small quantities of waste produced over the last twenty years. Short-term methods of storage require continued human intervention, while proposed longer term methods are subject to both human inter­ ference and risk of leakage through non-human factors. No one with even a slight knowledge of the geological and climatic history of the earth over the last million years, a period whose fluctuations in climate we are only just beginning to guage and which has seen four Ice Ages, could be confident that a rigorous guarantee of safe storage could be provided for the vast period of time involved. Nor does the history of human affairs over the last 3000 years give ground for confidence in safe storage by methods requiring human intervention over perhaps a million years. Proposed long-term storage methods such as storage in granite formations or in salt mines, are largely speculative and relatively untested, and have already proved to involve difficulties with attempts made to put them into practice. Even as regards expensive recent proposals for first embedding concentrated wastes in glass and encapsulating the result in multilayered metal containers before rock deposit, simulation models �3. reveal that radioactive material may not remain suitably isolated from human environments.1^ In short, the best present storage proposals carry very real 3 possibilities of irradiating future people and damaging their environment. Given the heavy costs which could be involved for the future, and given the known limits of technology, it is methodologically unsound to bet, as nuclear nations have, on the discovery of safe procedures for storage of wastes. Any new procedures (required before 2000) will probably be but variations on not only have I present proposals, and subject to the same inadequacies. For instance,^none of the proposed methods for safe storage has been properly tested, but they may well prove to involve unforeseen difficulties and risks when an attempt is made to put them into practice on a commercial scale. Only a method that could provide a rigorous guarantee of safety over the storage period, that placed safety beyond reasonable doubt, would be acceptable. It is difficult to see how such rigorous guarantees could be given concerning either the geological or future human factors. But even if an economically viable, rigorously safe long term storage method could be devised, there is the problem of guaranteeing that it would be universally and invariably used. The assumption that it would be (especially if, as appears likely, such a method proved expensive economically and politically) seems to presuppose a level of efficiency, perfection, and concern for the future which has not previously been encountered in human affairs, and has certainly not been conspicuous in the nuclear industry. The risks imposed on the future by proceeding with nuclear development are, then, significant. to bear Perhaps 40,000 generations of future people could be forced significant risks resulting from the provision of the (extravagant) energy use of only a small proportion of the people of 10 generations. Nor is the risk of direct harm from the escape or misuse of radioactive materials the only burden the nuclear solution imposes on the future. Because the energy provided by nuclear fission is merely a stop gap, it seems probable that in due course the same problem, that of making a transition to renewable sources of energy, will have to be faced again by a future population which will probably, again as a result of our actions, be very much worse placed to cope with it. Their world will most likely be a world which is seriously depleted of non-renewable resources, and in which such renewable resources as forests and soils as remain, resources which inevitably form an important part of the basis of life, are run-down or destroyed. Such points tell against the idea that future people must be, if not direct beneficiaries of energy from nuclear fission, at least indirect beneficiaries. �4. The "solution” then is to buy time for contemporary society at a price which not only creates serious problems for future people but which reduces their ability to cope with these problems. Like the consigner in the train parable, contemporary industrial society proposes, in order to get itself out of a mess arising from its own life-style - the creation of economies dependent on an abundance of non-re newable energy, which is limited in supply - to pass on costs and risks of serious harm to others who will obtain no corresponding benefits. The "solution” may enable the avoidance of some uncomfortable changes in the lifetime of those now living and their immediate descendants, just as the consigner's action avoids uncomfortable changes for him and those in his immediate surroundings, but at the expense of passing heavy burdens to other uninvolved parties whose opportunity to lead decent lives may be seriously jeopardised. If we apply to the nuclear situation the standards of behaviour and moral principles generally acknowledged (in principle, if not so often in fact) in the contemporary world, it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that nuclear development involves injustice with respect to the future on a grand scale. There appear to be only two plausible ways of trying to avoid such a conclusion. First, it might be argued that the moral principles and obligations which we acknowledge for the contemporary world and perhaps the immediate future do not apply to those in the non-immediate future. Secondly, an attempt might be made to appeal to overriding circumstances; for to reject the consigner's action in the circumstances outlined is not to imply that there are no circumstances in which such an action might be justifiable. As in the case of the consigner of the package there is a need to consider what these justifying circumstances might be, and whether they apply in the present case. We consider these possible escape routes for the proponent of nuclear development in turn. II.OBLIGATIONS TO THE (DISTANT) FUTURE. A The especially problematic area is that of the distant (i.e. non-immediate) future, the future with which people alive today will have no direct contact; by comparison, the immediate future gives fewer problems for most ethical theories. In fact the question of obligations to future people presents tests which a number of ethical theories fail to pass, and also has serious repercussions in political philosophy as regards the adequacy of accepted (democratic and other) institutions which do not take due account of the interests of future creatures. �5. Moral philosophers have, predictably, differed on questions of obligations to distant future creatures. A good many of the philosophers who have explicitly considered the question have come down in favour of the same consideration being given to the rights and interests of future people as to those of contemporary or immediately future people. Others fall into three categories: those who acknowledge obligations to the future but who do not take them seriously or who assign them a lesser weight, those who deny, or who are committed by their general moral position to denying, that there are moral obligations beyond the immediate future, and those who come down, with admirable philosophical caution, on both sides of the issue, but with the weight of the argument favouring the view underlying prevailing economic and political institutions, that there are no moral obligations to the future beyond those perhaps to the next generation. According to the most extreme of these positions against moral obligations to the future, our behaviour with respect to the future is morally unconstrained', there are no moral restrictions on acting or failing to act deriving effect of our actions on future people. from the Of those philosophers who say, or whose views imply that we do not have obligations to the (non-immediate) future, many have based this view on accounts of moral obligation which are built on relations which presuppose some degree of temporal or spatial contiguity. Thus, moral obligation is seen as presupposing various relations which could not hold between people widely separated in time (or sometimes in space). Let us call the position that we have no obligations to (distant) future people the No­ constraints position. Among suggested bases or grounds of moral obligation for the position, which would rule out obligations to the non-immediate future, are these. Firstly, there are those accounts which require that someone to whom a moral obligation is held be able to claim his rights or entitlement. People in the distant future will not be able to claim rights and entitlements against us, and of course they can do nothing to enforce any claims they might have against us. Secondly, there are those accounts which base moral obligations on social or legal convention, for example a convention which would require punishment of offenders or at least some kind of social enforcement. But plainly these and other conventions will not be invariant over change in society and amendment of legal conventions; hence they will not be invariant over time. Also future people have no way of enforcing their interests or punishing offending predecessors. �6. The No-constraints view is a very difficult one to sustain. Consider, for example, a scientific group which, for no particular reason other than to test a particular piece of technology, places in orbit a cobalt bomb set off by a triggering device designed to go off several hundred years from the time of its despatch. No presently living person and none of their immediate descendants would be affected, but the population of the earth in the distant future would be wiped out as a direct and predictable result of the action. The no-constraints position clearly implies that this is an acceptable moral enterprise, that whatever else we might legitimately criticize in the scientists’ experiment (perhaps its being over-expensive or badly designed) we cannot lodge a moral protest about the damage it will do to future people. The no-constraints position also endorses as morally acceptable the following sorts of policy:- A firm discovers it can make a handsome profit from mining, processing and manufacturing a new type of material which, although it causes no problem for present people or their immediate descendants, will over a period of hundreds of years decay into a substance which will cause an enormous epidemic of cancer among the inhabitants of the earth at that time. According to the no-constraints view the firm is free to act in its own interests, without any consideration for the harm it does remote future people. Such counterexamples to the No-constraints position, which are easily varied and multiplied, might seem childlishly obvious. Yet this view is far from being a straw man; not only have several philosophers endorsed this position, but it is a clear implication of many currently popular views of the basis of moral obligation, as well as of prevailing economic theory. It seems that those who opt for the No-constraints position have not considered such examples, despite their being clearly implied by their position. We suspect that (we certainly hope that) when it is brought out that their position admits such counterexamples, that without any constraints we are free to cause pointless harm for example, most of those who opted for this position would want to assert that it was not what they intended. What many of those who have put forward the No-constraints position seem to have had in mind (in denying moral obligation) is rather that future people can look after themselves, that we are not responsible for their lives. The popular view that the future can take care of itself also seems to assume a future causally independent of the present. But it is not. It is not as if, in the counterexample cases or in the nuclear case, the future is simply being left alone to take care of itself. Present people are influencing it, and in doing so thereby acquire many of the same sorts of moral responsibilities as they do in causally affecting the present and immediate future, most notably the obligation to take account in �7. what they do of people affected and their interests, to be careful in their actions, to take account of the genuine probability of their actions causing harm, and to see that they do not act so as to rob future people, of the chance of a good life. Furthermore, to say that we are not resposible for the lives of future people does not amount to the same thing as saying that we are free to do as we like with respect to them. In just the same way, the fact that one does not have or has not acquired an obligation to some stranger with whom one has never been involved does not imply that one is free to do what one likes with respect to him, for example to rob him or to seriously harm him when this could be avoided. These difficulties for the No-constraints position result in part because of a failure to make an important distinction. Some of our obligations to others arise because we have voluntarily entered into some agreement with them - for example, we have made a promise. Other obligations, however, such as our duty not to damage or harm someone, do not assume that an agreement has been struck between us. former kind acquired obligations Let us call obligations of the and those of the latter unacquired obligations. There is a considerable difference in the type of responsibility associated with each. In the case of acquired obligations responsibility arises because one should do something which one can fail to do, e.g. keep a promise. In the case of unacquired duties responsibility arises as a result of being a causal agent who is aware of the consequences or consequences of his action, a responsibility that is not dependent on one’s having performed some act in the past (e.g., made a promise). Our obligations to future people clearly are of unacquired, not acquired obligations, a fact the No-constraints position simply fails to take into account. These obligations arise as a result of our ability to produce causal effects of a reasonably predictable nature, whether on our contemporaries or on those in the distant future. Thus, to return to the train parable, the consigner cannot argue in justification of his action that he has, for example, never assumed or acquired responsibility for the passengers, that he does not know them and therefore has no love or sympathy for them and that they are not part of his moral community; in short, that he has acquired no obligation, and has no special obligations to help them. All that �8. one needs to argue concerning the train, and in the nuclear case, is that there z are moral obligations against imposing harm for instance which are not specially o thQ distant acquired. Nor can this claim be rebutted by the pretence ure involve heroic self sacrifice, something ’’above and beyond” what is normally required. One is no more engaging in heroic self sacrifice by not forcing future people into an unviable life position or by refraining from causing them direct harm than the consigner is resorting to heroic self sacrifice in refraining from shipping the dangerous package on the train. III. ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE OBLIGATIONS TO THE FUTURE. In evading these difficulties the No—constraints position may be qualified rather than wholly abandoned. According to the Qualified position we are not entirely unconstrained There are obligations, even to distant future with respect to the distant future. people, but these are not so important as those to the present, and the interests of distant future people cannot weigh very much in the scale against those of the present and immediate future. The interests of future people then, except in unusual cases, count for very much less than the interests of present people. Hence such things as nuclear development and various exploitative activities which benefit present people should proceed, even if people of the distant future are (somewhat) disadvantaged by them. The Qualified position appears to be widely held and is implicit in prevailing economic theories, where the position of a decrease in weight of future costs and benefits (and so of future interests) is obtained by application over time of a discount rate, so discounting costs and risks to future people. The attempt to apply economics as a moral theory, something that is becoming increasingly common, can lead thei to the Qualified position. What is objectionable in such an approach is that economics must operate within the bounds of acknowledged non-acquired moral constraints, just as in practice it operates within legal constraints. What economics cannot legitimately do is determine what these constraints are. There are, moreover, alternative economic theories and simply to adopt, without further ado, one which discounts the future, giving much less importance to the interests of future people, is to beg all the questions at issue. Among the arguments that economists offer for generally discounting the future, the most threadbare is based on the Rosy-future assumption, that future generations will be better off than present ones (and so better placed to handle the waste problem). generations may well not Since there is mounting evidence that future be better off then present ones, especially in things that matter, no argument for discounting the interests of future generations on this basis can carry much weight. For the waste problem to be handed �9. to the future generations, it would have to be shown, what recent economic progress hardly justifies, that future generations will be not just better off but so much better off that they can (easily) carry and control the nuclear freight. A more plausible argument for discounting, the Opportunity-cost argument, ^builds directly on the notion of opportunity cost. It is argued from the fact that a dollar gained now is worth much more than a dollar received in the nonimmediate future (because the first dollar could meanwhile be invested at compound interest), that discounting is required to obtain equivalent monetary values. This same line of reasoning is then applied to the allocation of resources. Thus, compensation - which is what the waste problem is taken to come _ to economically - costs much less now than later, e.g. a few pennies set aside /(e.g. in a trust fund) in the future, if need be, will suffice to compensate eventually for any victims of remote radioactive waste leakage. beset this approach. Two problems First, there are, presently at least, insurmountable practical difficulties about applying such discounting. how to determine appropriate future discount rates. that the argument depends on a false assumption. We simply do not know A more serious objection is It is not true that value, or damages, can always be converted into monetary equivalents. There is no clear ’’monetary compensation" for a variety of damages, including cancer, loss of life, a lost species. The discounting theme, however argued for, is inadequate, because it leads back in practice to the No-constraints position. discounting imposes an ” economic horizon" The reason is that beyond which nothing need be considered, since any costs or benefit which might arise are, when discounted back to the present, negligible. A different argument for the Qualified position, the Probabilities argument, avoids the objections from cases of certain damage through appeal to probability considerations. The distant future, it is argued, is much more uncertain than the present and immediate future, so that probabilities are consequently lower, perhaps even approaching or coinciding with zero for any hypothesis concerning the distant future. Thus, the argument continues, the interests of future people must (apart from exceptional cases where there is an unusually high degree of certainty) count for (very much) less than those of present and neighbouring people where (much) higher probabilities are attached. So in the case of conflict between the present and the future, where it is a question of weighing certain benefits to the people of the present and the immediate future against a much lower probability of indeterminate costs to an indeterminate number of �iisfcsrs”'.... . • 10. distant future people, the issue would normally be decided in favour of the present assuming anything like similar costs and benefits were involved. is however The argument Firstly, probabilities involving distant badly flawed. future situations are not always less than those concerning the immediate future in the way the argument supposes. problems often Moreover the outcomes of some moral do not depend on a high level of probability. In many cases it is enough, as the train parable reveals, that a significant risk is created; such cases do not depend critically on high probability assignments. Nor, /of course, VitTcar) be assumed that anything like similarly weighted costs and benefits are involved in the nuclear case, especially if it is a question of risking poisoning some of the earth for half a million or so years, with consequent risk of serious harm to thousands of generations of future people, i»n e>rd^f -Lt? 'fc-C I in the shape of the opportunity to continue (unnecessarily) high energy use. z the costs and benefits were comparable or evenly weighted, such And even, if an argument would be defective, since an analogous argument would show that the consigner’s action in the train parable, is acceptable provided the benefit (e.g. the profit the company stood to gain from imposing significant risks on other people) was sufficiently large. Such a cost-benefit approach to moral and decision problems, with or is quite inadequate when different parties without the probability frills, are involved or when cases of conflict of interest involving moral obligations are at issue. permissible 5 For example, such a cost-benefit approach would imply that it is for a company to injure, or very likely injure, some innocent party provided only that the company stands to make a sufficiently large gain from it, that costs to some group are more than larger benefits to another group. transferred in any morally compensated for by But costs or benefits are not legitimately simple way from one group to another. The often appealed to maxim "If you (or your group) want the benefits you have to accept the costs" is one thing, but the maxim "If I (or my group) want the benefits then you have to accept the costs (or some of them at least)" is another and �very different thing. It is a widely accepted moral principle that one is not, in general, entitled to simply transfer costs of a significant kind arising from an activity which benefits oneself onto other parties who are not involved in the activity and are not beneficiaries.This Transfer-limiting principle is especially clear in cases of which a thalidomide manufacturing and marketing company is one, where the significant costs include an effect on life or health or a risk thereof, and where the benefit to the benefitting party is of a noncrucial or dispensible nature. The principle is of fundamental importance in the nuclear debate, and appears again and again : it applies not merely to the waste problem but as regards several other liabilities of nuclear development, e.g. the risk of nuclear war, the matter / 9 'of reactor meltdown. In particular, the principle invalidates the comparison, heavily relied on in building a case for the acceptability of the nuclear risks, between nuclear risks and those from such activities as airplane travel or cigarette smoking. In the latter case those who supposedly benefit from the activity are also, to an overwhelming extent, those who bear the serious health costs and risks involved. In contrast the users and supposed beneficiearies of nuclear energy will be risking not only, or even primarily, their own lives and health, but also that of others who may not be beneficiaries at all who may be just the opposite! More generally, the distribution of costs and damage in such a fashion, i.e. on to non-beneficiaries, is a characteristic of certain serious forms of pollution, and is among its morally objectionable features. / j Large-scale energy y»ss// /production, from nuclear or foe-itc fuel sources, can cause or lead to serious !pollution. Thus from the Transfer-limiting t>fe principle emerges an important necessary condition for energy options: To be morally acceptable k -era, OE£12^ should not involve the transfer of s.igif leant costs or risks of harm onto parties who are not involved, who do not use or do not benefit correspondingly from the energy source. Included in the scope of �12. this condition, which nuclear development violates , are future people, i.e. not merely people living at the present time but also future generations (those Principle, that we should not hand the world we have so exploited on to our successors in substantially worse shape than we ’'received” it. For if we did then that would be a significant transfer of costs. The Transfer-limiting principle can be derived from certain ethical theories (e.g. those of a deontic cast such as Kant's and Ra and from common precepts (such as the Golden Rule), where one seriously considers putting oneself in another’s position. But the principle is perhaps best defended, on a broader basis, inductively, by way of examples. embroider the train parable, the company town decides to Suppose, to solve its disposal problem by shipping its noxious waste to another town down the line, which (like future towns) lacks the means to ship it back or to register due protest. The inhabitants of this town are then forced to face the problem either of undertaking the expensive and difficult disposal process or of sus­ taining risks to their own lives and health. Most of us would regard this kind of transfer of costs as morally unacceptable, however much the consigner’s company town flourishes. / /IV. c UNCERTAINTY AND INDETERMINACY ARGUMENTS FOR REDUCED RESPONSIBILITY. 7 /Many of the arguments designed to show that we cannot be ed to take too much account of the effects of our actions on the distant future appeal to uncertain/y. There are two main components to the argument, capable of separation, but frequently tangled up. Both arguments are mistaken, the first, an argument from ignorance, on a priori second on a posteriori grounds. follows:- grounds, the The Argument from ignorance concerned runs as In contrast to the exact information we can obtain about the present, the information we can obtain about the effects of our actions on the distant future is unreliable, woolly and highly speculative. But we cannot base assessments of how we should act on information of this kind, especially when �accurate information is obtainable about the present which would indicate Therefore we must regretfully ignore the different action. our actions on the distant future. ignorance uncertain effects of A striking example of the argument from at work is afforded by official US analyses favouring nuclear development, which ignore (the extensive) costs of waste control on the 7 grounds of uncertainty. the argument concerned is this: More formally and crudely (%)£/only has obligations to the future if these obligations are based on reliable information. distant future. There is no reliable information at present as regards the Therefore one has no obligations to the distant future. This argument is essentially a variant on a sceptical argument concerning * our knowledge of the future (formally, replace ’obligations in the crude statement of the argument above). by ’knowledge’ The main ploy is to considerably overestimate and overstate the degree of certainty available with respect to the present and immediate future, and the degree of certainty which is required as the basis for moral consideration both with respect to the present and with respect to the future. Associated with this is the attempt to suggest a sharp division as regards certainty between the present and immediate future on the one hand and the distant future on the other. We shall not find, we suggest, that there is any such sharp or simple division between the distant future and the adjacent future and the present, at least with respect to those things in the present which are normally subject to moral constraints. We can and constantly , such do act on the basis of^"unreliable" information, which the sceptic as regards the future conveniently labels "uncertainty". In moral situations in the present, assessments of what to do often take account of risk and probability, even quite low probabilities. Consider again the train parable. We do not need to know for certain that the container will break and the lethal gas escape. In fact it does not even have to be probable, in the relevant sense of more probable than not, in order for us to condemn the consigner’s action. that there is a significant risk of harm It is enough in this sort of case. It does not matter if the decreased well-being of the consigner is certain and that the �14. prospects of the passengers quite uncertain. It is wrong to ship the gas. But if we do not require certainty of action to apply moral constraints in contemporary affairs, why should we require a much higher standard of certainty in the future? The unwarranted insistence on certainty as a necessary condition before moral consideration can be given to the distant future, then, amounts to a flagrant double standard. According to the second argument, the Practical-uncertainty argument, even if in theory we have obligations to the future, we cannot in practice take the interests of future people into account because uncertainty about the distant future is so gross that we cannot determine what the likely consequences of actions on it will be. Therefore, however good our intentions to the people of the distant future are, in practice we have no choice but to ignore their interests. Given that moral principles are characteristically of universal implicational form, e.g. of forms such as "if x has character then x is wrong, for every (action) sharply thus: x", h the argument may be stated more We can never obtain the information about future actions which would enable us to detach the antecedent of the implication. Therefore, even if in theory moral principles do extend to future people, in practice they cannot be applied to obtain clear conclusions. It is true that if the distant future really were so grossly uncertain . that in every case it was impossible to determine in any way better than chance what the effects of present action would be, and whether any given action would help or hinder future people, then moral principles, although applicable in theory to the future, would not in practice yield any clear conclusions about how to act. In this event the distant future would impose no practical moral constraints on action. However, the argument is factually incorrect in assuming that the future always is so grossly uncertain or indeterminate. Admittedly there is often a high degree of uncertainty concerning the distant future, but as a matter of (contingent) fact it is not always so gross or sweeping as the argument has to assume. There are some areas where uncertainty is �15. not so great as to exclude constraints on action. For example, we may have little idea what the fashions will be in a hundred years or, to take another morally^irrelevant^factor, what brands of ice cream people will be eating, if any, but we do have excellent reason to believe, especially if we consider 3000 years of history, that what people there are in a hundred years are likely to have material and psychic needs not entirely unlike our own, that they will need a healthy biosphere for a good life; that like us they will not be immune to radiation; that their welfare will not be enhanced by a high incidence of ^cancer genetic defects, by the destruction of resources, or the elimination from the face of the earth of that wonderful variety of non-human life which at present makes it such a rich and interesting place. The case of nuclear waste storage, and of uncertainty of the effects of it on future people, is one area where uncertainty in morally relevant respects is not so great as to preclude moral constraints on action. For this sort of reason, the practical uncertainty argument should be rejected. Through the defects of the preceding arguments, we can see the defects in a number of widely employed uncertainty arguments used to write off probably harm to future people as outside the scope of proper consideration. Most of these popular moves employ both of the uncertainty arguments as suits the case, switching from one to the other. For example, we may be told that we cannot really take account of future people because we cannot be sure that they will exist or that their tastes and wants will not be completely different from our own, to the point where they will not suffer from our exhaustion of resources or from the things that would affect us. But this is to insist upon complete certainty of a sort beyond what is required for the present and immediate future, where there is also commonly no guarantee that some disaster will not overtake those to whom we are morally committed. Again we may be told that there is no guarantee that future people will be worthy of any efforts on our part, because they may be morons of forever plugged into enjoyment of other machines. Even if one is prepared to accept the elitist approach presupposed - according to which only those who meet certain properly civilized or intellectual standards are eligible for moral consideration - what we are being handed in such arguments �16. is again a mere outside possibility. Neither the contemporary nor the historical situation gives any positive reason for supposing that a lapse into universal moronity or universal-pleasure-machine escapism is a serious possibility. We can contrast with these mere logical possibilities the very real historically supportable risks of escape of nuclear waste or decline of a civilisation through destruction of its resource base. Closely related to uncertainty arguments are arguments premissed on the indeterminacy of the future. For example, according to the Indeterminacy argument, the indeterminacy of the number and exact character of people at future times will prevent the interest of future people being taken into account where there is a conflict with the present. Since their numbers are indeterminate and their interests unknown how, it is asked, can we weigh their competing claims against those of the present and immediate future, where this information is available in a more or less accurate form? The question is raised particularly by problems of sharing fixed quantities of resources among present and future people, for example oil, when the numbers of the latter are indeterminate. Such problems are indeed difficult, but they are not resolved by ignoring the claims of the future. Nor are distributional problems involving non-renewable resources as large and representative a class of moral problems concerning the future as the tendency to focus on them would suggest. It can be freely admitted, that there will be cases where the indeterminacy of aspects of the future will make conflicts very difficult to resolve or indeed irresoluble - no realistic ethical theory can give a precise answer to every ethical question. But, as the train parable again illustrates, /there are cases where such difficulties do not hinder resolution, and .anci cases of conflict which are not properly approached by weighing numbers, numbers of interests, or whatever, cases for which one needs to know only the most general probable characteristics of future people. The case of nuclear power is like that. The failure of these various arguments reveals, what c^e^| ^^^men^does nc argued from the universalisability features of moral principles, that/ disqualify future people from full moral consideration or reduce their claims below the claims of present people. That is, we have the same general obligations �to future people as to the present; thus there is the same obligation to take account of them and their interests in what we do, to be careful in our actions, to take account of the probability (and not just the certainty) of our actions causing harm or damage, and to see, other things being equal, that we do not act so as to rob them of what is necessary for the chance of a good life. Uncertainty and indeterminacy do not relieve us of these obligations. V. PROBLEMS OF SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATION : REACTOR EMISSIONS AND CORE MELTDOWN. The ethical problems with nuclear power are by no means confined to waste storage and future creatures. entitlement Just as remoteness in time does not erode obligations or to just treatment, neither does location in space, or a particular and arguments like those already arrived at in considering the waste problem ^apply. For example, if one group (social uriit^ or state) decides to dump its radioactive wastes in the territory or region of another group, or not to prevent its (radioactive) pollution entering the territory of another group, then it imposes risks and costs on presently existing people of the second group, in much the way that present nuclear developments impose costs and risks on future people. There are differences however : spatially distant people cannot be discounted in quite the way that future people can be, though their interests and objectives can be ignored or overridden. People living in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor are subject to special costs and risks. One is radioactive pollution, because reactors routinely discharj radioactive materials into the air and Emission problem. water near the plant : hence the Such ’’normal" emission during plant operation of low level radiation carries carcinogenic and mutagenic costs. While there are undoubtedly costs, the number of cancers and the precise extent of genetic damage induced by exposure to such radiation are both uncertain. If our permitted free transfer of costs and risks from one person to another, the ethical issue directly raised by nuclear emissions would be : what extent of �18. cancer and genetic damage, if any, is permissibly traded for the advantages of nuclear power, and under what conditions? Since, however, risks and benefits are NOT (morally) transferable this way - recall the Transfer-limiting I principle - such a cost-benefit approach to the risks nuclear emission poses for those who live near a reactor cannot with justice be approached in this fashio, these risks are In the USA, people who live within 50 miles oMmclear real! power plant bear a risk of cancer and genetic damage of as much as 50 times that borne by the population at large. And children living in this region are even more vulnerable, since they and several times more likely to contract cancer through exposure than normal adults. The serious costs to these people cannot be J us tit led by the alleged benefits for others, expecially when these benefits could be obtained without these costs. a pity about Thus it is not just complacent to say 'It’s Aunt Ethel dying of cancer, but the new make life comfortable’. airconditioners For such benefits to some as airconditioners provide, which can be alternatively obtained, for example by modification of buildings, can in no way compensate for what others suffer. Among the other strategies used in trying to persuade us that the imposition of radiation on minorities - most of whom have no genuine voice in the. location of reactors in their environment and cannot move away without serious losses - is really quite alright is the Doubling argument. Accord to the US Atomic Energy Commission, who deployed this trick, it is permissable to double, through nuclear technology, the level of (natural) radiation that a population have received with apparently negligible consequences, the argument being that the additional amount (being equivalent to the "natural” level) is also likely to have negligible consequences. The increased amounts of radiation - with their large man-made component - are then accounted normal, and, it is claimed, what is normal is morally acceptable. in this argument is sound. None of the steps Drinking one bottle of wine a day may have no ill-effects, whereas drinking two a day certainly may affect a person’s well-being; and while the smaller intake may have become normal for the person, the larger one will, under such conditions, not be. Finally, what is or has become normal, �19. e.g. two murders or twenty cancers a day in a given city, may be far from acceptable. In fact, even the USA, which has very strict standards by comparison with most other countries with planned nuclear reactors, permits radiation emissions very substantially in excess of the standards laid down; so the emission situation is much worse than what consideration of the standards would disclose. Furthermore, the monitoring of the standards ’’imposed'’ is entrusted to the nuclear operators themselves, scarcely disinterested parties. Thus public policy is determined not so as to guarantee public health, but rather to serve as a public pacifier” while publicly-subsidized private nuclear operations proceed relatively unhampered? While radioactive emissions are an ordinary feature of reactor operation, reactor breakdown is, hopefully, not: official reports even try to make an accident of magnitude, as a matter of definition, an ’extraordinary nuclear occurrence . But "definitions” notwithstanding, such accidents can happen, and almost have on several occasions (the most notorious being Three Mile Island): hence the Core-meltdown problem. If the cooling and emergency core cooling systems fail in American (light water) reactors, then the core melts and ’containment failure’ is likely, the result that an area of 40,000 square miles could be radioactively 10 contaminated. In the event of the worst type of accident in a very small reactor, a steam explosion in the reactor vessel, about 45,000 people would be killed instantly and at least 100,000 would die as a result of the accident, property damages would exceed $17 billion and an area the size of Pennsylvania would be destroyed. Modern nuclear reactors are about five times the size of the reactor for which these conservative US (still the best available from official sources) are given : the consequences of a similar accident with a modern reactor would accordingly be much greater. The consigner who risks the lives and well-being of passengers on the O ^train acts in^admissibly. A government or government-endorsed utility appears to act in a way that does not differ in morally significant respects in �20. siting a nuclear reactor in a community, in planting such a dangerous package on the ’’community train”. More directly, the location of a nuclear reactor in a community, even if it should happen to receive a favourable benefit-cost as the Transfer-limiting principle. The advocates of nuclear power have, in effect, endeavoured to avoid questions of cost-transfer and equity, by shifting the dispute out of the extraordinary reactor malfunction. They have argued, in particular, what contrasts with the train parable, that there is no real possibility of a catastrophic nuclear accident. Indeed in the influential Rassmussen report - which was extensively used to support public confidence in US nuclear fission technology - an even stronger, an incredibly strong, improbability claim was stated: namely, the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident is so remote as to be (almost) impossible. However, the mathematical models relied upon in this report, variously called "fault tree analysis” and "reliability estimating techniques", are unsound, because, among other things, they exclude as "not credible" possibilities that may well happen in the real world. that the It is not surprising, then i methodology and data of the report have been soundly and decisively criticised, or that official support for the report has now been withdrawn. 12 Moreover, use of alternative methods and data indicates that there is a real possibility, a non-negligible probability of a serious accident. In response it is contended that, even if there is a non-negligible probability of a reactor accident, still that is acceptable, being of no greater order than risks of accidents that are already socially accepted. Here we encounter again that insidious engineering approach to morality built into decision models of an economic cast, e.g. benefit-cost balance sheets, risk­ assessment models, etc. Risk assessment, a sophistication of transaction or trade-off models, purports to provide a comparison between the relative risks attached to different options, e.g. energy otpions, which settles their �21. ethical status. The following assumptions are encountered in risk assessment as applied to energy options: Ai. If option a imposes (comparable) costs on fewer people than option b then option a is preferable to option Aii. b ; Option a involves a total net cost in terms of cost to people (e.g. deaths, injuries, etc.) which is less than that of option b, which is alreay^ accepted; therefore option a is acceptable. 3 These assumptions are then applied as follows. be killed Since the number likely to eventuall by nuclear power station catastrophe is less than the likely number killed by cigarette smoking, and since the risks of cigarette smoking are accepted; it follows that the risks of huclear power are acceptable. A little reflection reveals that this sort of risk assessment argument grossly violates the Transfer­ limiting principle. In order to obtain a proper ethical assessment we need a much fuller picture, and we need to know at least these things:- costs and benefits go to the same parties; Do the and is the person who voluntarily the risks also the person who primarily receives the benefits, as in undertakes driving or cigarette smoking, or are the costs imposed not benefit? on other parties who do It is only if the parties are the same in the case of the options compared, and there are no such distributional problems, a basis would be soundly based. that a comparison on such This is rarely the case, and it is not so in the case of risk assessments of energy options. VI. OTHER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND COSTS OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR WAR. The problems already discussed by no means exhaust the environmental, health and safety risks and costs in, or arising from, the nuclear fuel cycle. The full fuel cycle includes many stages both before and after reactor operation, apart from waste disposal, namely^ mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and preparation, reprocessing spent fuel, and transportation of materials. Several of these stages involve hazards. risks in the nuclear cycle Unlike the special - of sabotage of plants, of theft of fissionable material, and of the further proliferation of nuclear armaments - these hazards �22. have parallels, if not exact equivalents, in other highly polluting methods of generating power, e.g. ’workers in the uranium mining industry sustain ’’the same u 14 risk" of fatal and nonfatal injury as workers in the coal industry’. The problems are not really produced by nuclear development. Other social and environmental problems endemic where dangerous large-scale industry operates in societies that are highly inegalitarian and include sectors that are far from affluent - are more intimately linked with the J nuclear power cycle. Though pollution is a common and generally undesirable component of large-scale industrial operation, radioactive pollution ,such as uranium mining for instance produces, is especially a legacy of nuclear development, and a specially undesirable one, as rectification costs for dead radioactive lands and waterways reveal. Though sabotage is a threat to many large industries, sabotage of a nuclear reactor can have dire consequences, of a different order of magnitude from most industrial sabotage (where core meltdown is not a possibility). Though theft of material from more dubious enterprises such as munitions works can pose threats to populations at large and can assist terrorism, no thefts for allegedly peaceful enterprises pose problems of the same order as theft of fissionable material. No other industry produces materials which so readily permit fabrication into such massive explosives. No other industry is, to sum it up, so vulnerable on so many fronts. In part to reduce its vulnerability, in part because of its long and continuing association with military activities, the nuclear industry is subject to, and encourages, several practices which (given their scale) run counter to basic features of free and open societies, crucial features such as personal These practices include secrecy, restriction of information, formation of special police and guard forces, espionage, curtailment of civil liberties. Already operators of nuclear installations are given extraordinary powers, in vetting employees, to investigate the background and activities not only of employees but also of their families and sometimes even of their friends. The installations themselves become armed camps, which especially offends British sensibilities. The U.K. Atomic Energy (Special Constables) Act of 1976 created a special armed force to guard nuclear installations and- made it answerable ... to the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. �..iwu- 23. These developments, and worse ones in West Germany and elsewhere,presage along with nuclear development increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic societies. That nuclear development appears to force such political <— i ' (consequences tells heavily against it. Nuclear development is further indicated politically by the direct connection of nuclear power with nuclear war. It is true that ethical questions concerning nuclear war - for example, whether a nuclear war is justified, or just, under any circumstances, and if so what circumstances - are distinguishable from those concerning nuclear power. Undoubtedly, however, the spread of nuclear power is substantially increasing the technical means for engaging in nuclear war and so, to that extent, the opportunity for, and chances of, nuclear engagement. \ /jL Since nuclear wars are /nevei/ accountable- positive goods, but are at best the lesser of major evils, nuclear wars are always highly ethically undesirable. The spread of nuclear power accordingly expands the opportunity for, and chances of, highly undesirable consequences. 0^!/\ Finally the latter, so increasing these chances and opportunities, is itself undesirable, and therefore what le^jtds to it, nuclear development^ is undesirable. This is, in outline, the argument from nuclear wa£ against large-scale nuclear development. VII. CONFLICT ARGUMENTS, AND BEGINNING ON NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT. UNCOVERING THE IDEOLOGICAL BASES OF Much as with nuclear war, so given the cumulative case against nuclear development, only one justificatory that of appeal to overriding circumstances. route remains open, That appeal, to be ethically acceptable, must go beyond merely economic considerations. For, as observed, the consigner’s action, in the train parable, cannot be justified by purely I ^conomistic arguments, such as that his profits would rise, the company or the town would be more prosperous, or by appealing to the fact that some possibly uncomfortable changes would otherwise be needed. case: a Transfer-limiting principle applies. So it is also in the nuclear But suppose now the consigner argues that his action is justified because unless it is taken the town will die. It is �24. by no means clear that even such a justification as this would be sufficient, especially where the risk to the passengers is high, since the case still /amount s^one of transfer of costs and risks onto others. But such a conflict situation, where a given course of action, though normally undesirable, is alleged to be the lesser of two evils in a given case, is morally more problemthan cases atical/frhere Transfer-limiting principle is clearly violated. Nuclear develop­ ment is often defended in this way, through Conflict arguments, to the effect that even though nuclear development does have undesirable features, nevertheless the alternatives are worse. Some of the arguments advanced to demonstrate conflict are based on competing commitments to present people, and others on competing obligations to future people, both of which are taken to override the obligations not to impose on the future significant risk of serious harm. The success of such /conflict arguments require^the presentation of a genuine and exhaustive set of alternatives (or at least practical alternatives) and showing that the only alternatives to admittedly morally undesirable actions are even more undesirable ones. If some practical alternative which is not morally worse than the action to be justified is overlooked, suppressed, or neglected in the argument (for example, if in the train parable it turns out that the town has another option to starving or to shipping the parcel, namely earning a living in some other way), then the argument is defective and cannot readily be patched. Just such a suppression of practicable alternatives, we shall argue, has occurred in the argument designed to show that the alternatives to the nuclear option are even worse than the option itself. A first argument, the Poverty argument, is that there is an overriding obligation to the poor, both the poor of the third world and the poor of indus­ trialised countries. Failure to develop nuclear energy, it is often claimed, would amount to denying them the opportunity to reach the standard of affluence we currently enjoy and would create unemployment and poverty in the industrialisec nations. And this would be worse - a greater evil - than such things as violating the Transfer-limiting principle through nuclear development. The Poverty argument does not stand up to examination, either for the poor of the industrial countries or for those of the. third world. There is good evidence that large-scale nuclear energy will help increase unemployment and poverty in the industrial world, through the diversion of very much available capital into an industry which is not only an exceptionally poor provider of direct employment, but also tends to reduce available jobs through encouraging substitution of energy use for labour use. The argument that nuclear energy is needed for the third world is even less convincing. Nuclear energy is both politically and economically inappropriate for the third world, since it requires massive amounts of capital, requires numbers of imported scientists and engineers, �25. WT creates negligible local employment, and depends for its feasibility upon largely non-existent utility systems - e.g. established electricity transmission systems and back-up facilities, and sufficient electrical appliances to plug into the system. Politically it increases foreign dependence, adds to centralised entrenched power and reduces the chance for change in the oppressive political structures which are a large part of the problem. The fact that nuclear energy is not in the interests of the people of the third world does not of course mean that it is not in the interests of, and wanted (often for military purposes) by, their rulers, the westernised and often military elites in whose interests the economies of these countries are usually organised. than what it is: But that does not make the poverty argument anything other a fraud. There are well-known energy-conserving alternatives and the practical option of developing further alternative energy sources, alternatives some of which offer far better prospects for helping the poor, both in the third world and in industrial countries: coal and other fossil fuels, geothermal, and a range of solar options (including as well as narrowly solar sources, wind, water and tidal power). Another major argument advanced to show conflict, the Lights-goingout argument, pppeals to a set of supposedly overriding and competing obligations to future people. We have, it is said, a duty to pass on the immensely valuable things and institutions which our culture has developed. Unless our high-technology, high-energy industrial society is continued and fostered, our valuable institutions and traditions will fall into decay or be swept away. The argument is essentially that without nuclear power, without the continued level of material wealth it alone is assumed to make possible, the lights of our civilization will go out. Future people will be the losers. The argument does raise important questions about what is valuable in But for our society and what characteristics are necessary for a good society. the most part these large questions can be by-passed. The reason is that the argument adopts an extremely uncritical attitude to present high-technology societies, apparently assuming that they are uniformly and uniquely valuable. $I I it assuine</ that technological society is unmodifiable, that^cannot be changed in ' the direction of energy conservation or alternative (perhaps high technology) energy sources without collapse. These assumptions are all hard to accept. The assumption that technological society’s energy patterns are unmodifiable is especially so; after all, it has survived events such as world wars which required major social and technological restructuring and consumption modification. If western society’s demands for energy were (contrary to the evidence) totally unmodifiable without collapse, not only would it be committed to a program of increasing destruction, but much of its culture would be of dubious value to �26. future people, who would very likely, as a consequence of this destruction, lack the resource base which the argument assumes to be essential in the case of contemporary society. The uniformity assumption should certainly be challenged. Since high- technology societies appear not to be uniformly valuable, the central question is, what is necessary to maintain what is valuable in such a society? While it may be easy to argue that high energy consumption centrally controlled is necessary to maintain the political and economic status quo of such a society, it is not so easy to argue that it is essential to maintain what is valuable, and it is what is valuable, presumably that we have a duty to pass on to the future. The evidence from history is that no very high level of material affluence or energy consumption is needed to maintain what is valuable. There is good reason in fact to believe that a society with much lower energy and resource^ consumption would better foster what is valuable than our own. But even if a radical change in these directions is independently desirable, it is unnecessary to presuppose such a change in order to see that the assumptions of the Lights-going-out argument are wrong. The consumption of less energy than at present/ need involve no reduction of well-being; and certainly a large increase over present levels of consumption assumed trr the usual economic case for nuclear energy, is quite unnecessary. then What the nuclear strategy is really designed to do is not to prevent the lights going out in western civilisation, but to enable the lights to go on burning all the time - to maintain and even increase the wattage output of the Energy Extravaganza . In fact there is good reason to think that, far from the high energy consumption society fostering what is valuable, it will, especially if energy is obtained by means of nuclear fission, be positively inimical to it. A society which has become heavily dependent upon a^ highly centralised, controlled and garrisoned md expertise-intensive energy source, must be one which is highly susceptible to entrenchment of power, and one in which the forces which control this energy source, whether capitalist or bureaucratic, can exert enormous power over the political system and over people’s lives, even more then they do at present. Such a society would/' almost inevitably tend to become authoritatian and increasingly anti-democratic, as an outcome, among other things, of its response to the threat posed by dissident groups in the nuclear situation. Nuclear development may thus help in passing on to future generations some of the worst aspects of our society - the consumerism, alienation, destruction of nature, and latent authoritarianism - while many valuable aspects, such as the degree of political freedom and those opportunities for personal and collective autonomy which exist, would be lost or diminished: political freedom �27. for example, is a high price to pay for consumerism and and energy extravagence. Again, as in the case of the poverty arguments, clear alternatives, alternative social and political choices, which do not involve such unacceptable consequences, are available. The alternative to the high technology-nuclear option is not a return to the cave, the loss of all that is valuable, but either the adoption of an available alternative such as coal for power or, better, the development of alternative technologies and lifestyles which offer far greater scope for the maintenance and further development of what is valuable in our society than the highly centralised nuclear option. The Lights-going-out argument, as a moral conflict argument, accordingly fails. Thus the further escape route, the appeal to conflict, is, like the appeal to futurity, closed. If then we apply, as we have argued we should, the same standards of morality to the future as we ought to acknowledge for the present, the conclusion that large-scale nuclear development is a crime against the future is inevitable. Closed also, in the much same way, are the escape routes to other arguments (from reactor meltdown, radiation emissions, etc.) for concluding that nuclear development is unacceptable. Tn sum, nuclear development is morally unacceptable on several grounds. VIII. SOCIAL OPTIONS : SHALLOW AND DEEP ALTERNATIVES. The future energy option that is most often contrasted with nuclear power, namely coal power, while no doubt preferable to nuclear power, is hardly acceptable. For it carries with it the likelihood of serious (air) pollution, and associated phenomena such as acid rain and atmospheric heating, not to mention the despoliation caused by extensive strip mining, all of which will result from its use in meeting very Such an option would, moreover, also violate high projected consumption figures. the Transfer-limiting principle : for it would impose widespread costs on nonbeneficiaries for some concentrated benefits to some profit takers and to some users who do not pay the full costs of production and replacement. To these main conventional options a third is often added which emphasizes softer and more benign technologies, such as those of solar energy and hydroelectricity. Such softer options — if suitably combined with energy conservation measures (for there are solar ways, as well as nuclear ways, of energy extravagance and of producing unnecessary trivia which answer to no genuine needs) - can avoid the ethical objectives to nuclear power. choice is not however technological, The deeper nor merely^individual^ 1 bUL Social, and involves the restructuring of production away from energy intensive uses and, at a more basic level, a change to nonconsumeristic, less consumptive life­ styles and social arrangements’!:6 These more fundamental choices between social alternatives, conventional technologically-oriented discussion of energy options tends to obscure. It is not just a matter of deciding in which way to meet the �unexamined goals nuclear development aspires to meet, but also a matter of examining the goals themselves. That is, we are not merely faced with the question of comparing different technologies for meeting some fixed or given demand or level of consumption, and of trying to see how best to meet these; we are also faced, and primarily, with the matter of examining those alleged needs and the cost of a society that creates them. It is doubtful that any technology, however benign in principle, will be likely to leave a tolerable world for the future if it is expected to meet unbounded and uncontrolled energy consumption and demands. Even more benign technologies may well be used in a way which creates costs for future people and ^are?which^ /them. ^likely to result in a deteriorated world being handed on to In short, even more benign technologies may le/id to violation of the Transmission JjteQu^-remen^• Consider, to illustrate, the effect on the world s forests, commonly counted as a solar resource, should they be extensively used for production of methanol or of electricity by woodchipping. While few would object to the use of genuine waste material for energy production, the unrestricted exploitation of forests - whether it goes under the name of ’’solar energy” or not - to meet ever increasing energy demands could well be the final indignity for the world’s already hard-pressed natural forests. The effects of such additional demands on the maintenance of the forests are often dismissed by the simple expedient of waving around the label "renewable resources”. Many forests are in principle renewable, it is a true, given a certain (low) rate and kind of exploitation, but in fact there are now very few forestry operations anywhere in the world where the forests are treated as completely renewable in the sense of the renewal of all their values, In many regions too the rate of exploitation which would enable renewal has already been exceeded, so that a total decline is widely thought to be imminent, It certainly has begun in many regions, and many forest types, especially rain17 ^/forest types^ are now, and rapidly, being lost for the future. The addition of y/a maj^r further and not readily limitable demand pressure for energy on top /of /the present demands is one which anyone with both a realistic appreciation of the conduct of forestry operations and a concern for the long-term conservation of the forests and remaining natural communities must regard with alarm. The result of massive deforestation for energy purposes, resembling the deforestation of much of Europe at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, again for energy purposes, could be extensive and devastating erosion in steeper lands and tropical areas, desertification in more arid regions, possible climatic change, and massive impoverishment of natural ecosystems, including enormous loss of natural species. Some of us do not want to pass on, and by the Transmission principles we are not entitled to pass on, a deforested world to the future, any more than we want to pass on one poisoned by nuclear �29. products or polluted by coal products. illustrates, a mere switch to In short, as the forest situation more benign technologies - important though this is - without any more basic structural and social change,is inadequate. The deeper social option involves challenging and beginning to alter a social structure which promotes consumerism, consumption far beyond genuine needs and an economic structure which encourages increasing use of highly energy-intensi modes of production. The social change option tends to be obscured in most discussions of energy options and of how to meet energy needs, in part because it does question underlying values of current social arrangements. The conventional discussion proceeds by taking alleged demand (often conflated with wants or needs) as unchallengeable, and the issue to be one of which technology can be most profitably employed to meet them. This effectively presents a false choice, and is the result of taking needs and demand as lacking a social context so that the social structure which produces the needs is similarly taken as unchallengeable and unchangeable. The point is readily illustrated. It is commonly argued by representatives of such industries as transportation and petroleum, as for example by McGrowth of the XS Consumption Co., that people want deep freezers, air conditions, power gadgets, .... authoritarian to prevent them from satisfying these wants. from created wants It would be Such an argument conveniently ignores the social framework in which such needs and wants arise or are produced. To point to the determination of many such wants at the framework level is not however to assume that they are entirely determined at the framework level (e.g. by industrial organisation) and there is no such thing as individual choice or determination at all. It is to see the social framework as a major factor in determining certain kinds of choices, such as those for travel, and kinds of infrastructure, and to see apparently individual choices made in such matters as being channelled and directed by a social framework determined largely in the interests of corporate and private profit and advantage. The social change option is a hard option, insofar as it will be difficult to implement politically; but it is ultimately the only way of avoiding the passing on of serious costs to future people. reasons than such ethical ones for taking it: And there are other sorts of it is the main, indeed the only sort of option,open to those who adopt what is now called a deep ecological perspective, as contrasted with a shallow ecological outlook which regards the natural world and its nonhuman denizens as not worthwhile in themselves but only of value in as much as they answer back to human interests. The deep ecological perspective is an integral part of the Alternative Ecological Paradigm and is incompatible with central theses of the Dominant Social Paradigm (which is essentially the ideology of classical and neoclassical economics) �30. and its variants (roughly, what are called State Socialism, and Democratic 18 Socialism). It is incompatible with such assumptions as that the natural environment is of value only as a resource, is by and large hostile, but is controllable in human interests,and with the further domination over nature themes of the Dominant Paradigm and its variants. The conflict between Alternative and Dominant Paradigms, which is fast increasing, extends of course far beyond attitudes to the natural world, since core values of the Dominant Paradigm such as the merits of unimpeded economic growth and material progress are at stake; the conflict involves fundamental differences over the whole front of economical, political and social arrangements. The conflict underlies much of the nuclear debate, insofar as it is not specifically limited to questions of technological fixes, but takes up the 19 basic ethical issues and the social questions to which they lead. The ethical requirements already defended and applied bring us out, when followed through, on the Alternative side of the paradigm conflict, and accordingly lead to the difficult social change option. The social changes that the deep alternative requires will be strongly resisted because they mean changes in current social organisation and power 'structure. To the extenj? that the option represents some kind of threat to parts of present political and economic arrangements, it is not surprising that official energy option discussion proceeds by misrepresenting and often obscuring it. But difficult as it is to suitably alter "the system,” especially one with such far-reaching effects on the prevailing power structure, it is imperative to try: we are all on the nuclear train. �FOOTNOTES This paper is a condensation of an early version of our ’Nuclear 1. power - ethical, social, and political dimensions * (ESP for short, available from the authors), which in turn grew out of Routley (i.e. the work so referred to in the reference list). For help with the condensation we are very considerably indebted to the editors. In the condensation, we simplify the structure of the argument and suppress underlying political and ideological dimensions (for example, the large measure of responsibility of the USA for spreading nuclear reactors around the world, and thereby in enhancing the chances of nuclear disasters, including nuclear war). We also considerably reduce a heavy load of footnotes and references designed and needed to help make good many of our claims. Further, in order to contain references to a modest length, reference to primary sources has often been replaced by reference through secondary sources. Little difficulty should be encountered however in tracing fuller references through secondary sources or in filling out much Important background material from work cited herein. For example, virtually all the data cited in sections, and VII is referenced in Routley. At worst ESP can always be consulted. All but the last line of the quote is drawn from Goodin, p. 417; 2. the last line is from the Fox Report, p. 6. While it is unnecessary to know much about the nuclear fuel cycle in order to consider ethical and social dimensions of nuclear power, it helps to know a little. & Abbotts, Gyorgy. The basics are presented in many texts, e.g. Nader Of course in order to assess fully reports as to such important background and stage-setting matters as the likelihood of a core meltdown of # (lightwater) reactors, much more information is required. For many assessment purposes however, some knowledge of economic fallacies and decision theory is at least as important as knowledge of nuclear technology. 3. Naturally the effect on humans is not the only factor that has to be taken into account in arriving at moral assessments. Nuclear radiation, unlike most ethical theories, does not confine its scope to human life and welfare. But since the harm ' ~ nuclear development may afflict on non­ human life, for example, can hardly improve its case, it suffices if the case against it can be made out solely in terms of its effects on human life in the conventional way. �For reference to and a brief discussion of (human-oriented) ^simulation models see Gooding, 428. The Opportunity-cost 4. respects. argument is also defective in other It presupposes not merely the (mistaken) reductions involved in the contraction of the ethical domain to the economic; it also presupposes that the /proper methods for decision which ^ffect the choice, apply discounting. future, such as that of energy But, as Goodin argues, more appropriate decision rules do not allow discounting. This is one of the reasons why expected utility theory, 5. roughly cost-benefit analysis with probability frills, is inadequate as a decision method in such contexts. Apparent exceptions to the principle such as taxation (and 6. redistribution of income generally) vanish when wealth is construed (as it has to be if taxation is to be properly justified) as at least partly a social asset unfairly monopolised by a minority of the population. Examples such as that of motoring dangerously do not constitute counterexamples to the principle; for one is not morally entitled to so motor. / 7. For details, and as to how the official analyses become arguments against nuclear development when some attempt is made to take the ignored costs into account, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 55 ff. See Routley, p. 160. /\ the preceding two para£ I graphs, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 35 ff.; and also Nader and Abbotts. For much further discussion of the points of [10. Most of the reactors^Ln the world are of this type; see Gyorgy. 11. See Shrader-Frechette, chapter 4. 12. See Shrader-Frechette. / shortcomings A worthwhile initial view of the of the Rass^ftussen report may be reached by combining ' /the critique in Shrader-Frechette with that in Nader and Abbotts. 13. There are variations on Ai against numbers such as probabilities. and Aii which multiply costs In this way risks, construed as probable costs, can be taken into account in the assessment. risks may be assessed (Alternatively, through such familiar methods as insurance). �A principle varying Aii’. a Aii, and formulated as follows: is ethically acceptable if (for some b) a includes no more risks than b and b is socially accepted. Aii’. was the basic ethical principle in terms of which the Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry recently decided that nuclear power development see Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry in Saskatchewan is ethically acceptable: Department of Environment, Government of Saskatchewan, 1978, Final Report, p. 305 and p. 288. In this report, a is nuclear power and b is either activities clearly accepted by society as alternative power sources. other applications b In has been taken as cigarette smoking, motoring, mining and even the Vietnam war (!). The points made in the text do not exhaust the objections to principles Ai - Aii’. The principles are certainly ethically substantive, since an ethical consequence cannot be deduced from nonethical premisses, but they have an inadmissible conventional origin of b ; b character. For look at the may be socially accepted though it is no longer socially acceptable, or though its social acceptibility is no longer so clearcut and it would not have been socially accepted if as much as is now known had been known when it was introduced. What is required in Aii’, for instance, for the argument to begin to look convincing is that ’ethically acceptable’ rather than ’socially accepted’. b is But even with the amendments the principles are invalid, for the reasons given in the text, and others. It is not disconcerting that principles of this type do not work. It would be sad to see yet another area lost to the experts, ethics to actuaries. 14. See Shrader-Frechette, p. 15. 15. Goodin 16. The argument is elaborated in ESP. 17. For some of the more philosophically important material p. 433. 'alternative Mannlaon ~ Asocial arrangements and lifestyles, see work cited in V. and R. Routley, ’Social theories, self management and environmental problems’ in al, where a beginning is made on working out one set of alternatives, those of a pluralistic anarchism. �The parlous 18. situation of the world’s tropical rainforests is explained in, for instance, Myers; the reasons are untangled in R. and V. Routley ’World rainforest destruction - the social causes’ (available from the authors). 19. > rival, For a fuller account of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its Paradigm, see Cot^royfe and Duff, especially the Alternative Environmental the assumptions the table on p. 341 which /of the paradigms; compare also Cotton and Dunljzfp, especially p. 34. Contemporary varients in the Dominant Social Paradigm were considered in ESP. The shallow/deep contrast as applied to ecological positions, which A s /is an important component of the paradigm conflict, was introduced by Naess. // S /For further explanation of the contract and of the larger array of ecological positions into which it fits, see R. and V. Routley, ’ in Mannison environmental ethics ___ ’Human chauvinism and et al, and the references there cited, ^especially to R^d man’s work. 20. The more elaborate argument of ESP sets the nuclear debate in the context of paradigm conflict. But it is also argued that, even within assumptions framework of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its variants, Ti. Nuclear development is not the rational choice among energy options. The main argument put up for nuclear development within the framework of the dominant paradigm is an Economic growth argument. It is the following version of the Lights-going-out argument (with economic growth duly standing Nuclear power is in for material wealth, and for what is valuable!^ necessary to sustain economic growth. Economic growth is desirable (for all the usual reasons, e.g. to increase the size of the pie, to postpone redistribution problems, etc.). k Therefore nuclear power is desirable. / /The first premiss is part of US energy policy (see Shrader-Frechette, p.lll), and the second premiss is supplied by standard economics textbooks. But both premisses are defective, the second because what is valuable in economic growth can be achieved by (not without growth but) selective X //"growth, which economic the heavy social and environmental costs carried by unqualified economic growth. More to the point, since the second premiss is an assumption of the Dominant Paradigm, the first premiss (or rather an appropriate and less vulnerable restatement of it) Paradigm standards. fails even by Dominant For of course nuclear power is not necessary that there are other, perhaps costlier alternatives. defended is some elaboration of the premiss : given The premiss usually Nuclear power is the economically best way to sustain economic growth, ’economically best’ �being filled out as ’most efficient’, ’cheapest’, benefit-cost ratio’, etc. ’having the most favourable Unfortunately for the argument, and for nuclear development schemes, nuclear power is none of these things decisively (unless a good deal of economic cheating - easy to do - is done). Tii. On proper Dominant Paradigjfi accounting, nuclear choices should generally be rejected, both as private utility investments and as public choices. Nuclear development is not economically viable but has been kept going, not by clear economic viability, but by massive subsidization of several types Gyorgy and Nader alrd Abbotts). discussed in Shrader-Frechette, ZU Even on variants of the Dominant Paradigm, nuclear development is //not justified, oi consideration of decision theory methods will reveal: Tiii. Whatever reasonable decision rule is adopted, the nuclear choice is rejected^Jas the arguments op Goodin on alternative decision rules help to show. |l*^ What sustains the nuclear juggernaut is not the Dominant Paradigm or its variants, but contemporary corporate capitalism (or its state enterprise image) and associated third world imperialism, as the historical details of nuclear X ^development both in developed countries and in less developed countries (for main details, see Gyorgy p. 307 ff.). Are the practices of contemporary corporate capitalism and associated imperialism are not acceptable by the standards of either of the Paradigms or their variants : not ethically acceptable. they are certainly � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Richard and Vai Routley 1. » NUCLEAR POWER - SOME ETHICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS1 One hardly needs initiation into the dark mysteries of nuclear physics to contribute usefully to the debate now widely ranging over nuclear power. While many important empirical questions are still unresolved, these do not really lie at the centre of the controversy. Instead, it is a debate about values... many of the questions which arise are social and ethical ones.2 I. THE TRAIN PARABLE AND THE NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEM. train has just pulled out. passengers and freight. The train which is A long distance country crowded carries both At an early stop in the journey someone consigns as freight, to a far distant destination, a package which contains a highly toxic and explosive gas. This is packed in a very thin container which, as the consigner is aware, may well not contain the gas for the full distance for which it is consigned, and certainly will not do so if the train should strike any real trouble, for example, if the train should be derailed or involved in a collision, or if some passenger should interfere inadvertently or deliberately with the freight, perhaps trying to steal some of it. of these sorts of things have happened on some previous journeys. All If the container should break the resulting disaster would probably kill at least some of the people on the train in adjacent carriages, while others could be maimed or poisoned or sooner or later incur serious diseases. Most of us would roundly condemn such an action. of the parcel say to try to justify it? What might the consigner He might say that it is not certain that the gas will escape, or that the world needs his product and it is his duty to supply it, or that in any case he is not or the people on it. responsible for the train These sorts of excuses however would normally be seen as ludicrous when set in this context. Unfortunately, similar excuses are not also seen when the consigner, again a (responsible) businessman,puts his workers' health or other peoples’ welfare at risk. Suppose he says that it is his own and others’p ressing needs which justify his action. The company he controls, which produces the material as a by-product, is in bad financial straits, and could not afford to produce a better container even if it knew how to make one. If the company fails, he and his family will suffer, his employees will lose their jobs and have to look for others, and the whole company town, through loss of spending, will be worse off. The poor and unemployed of the town, whom he would otherwise have been able to help, will suffer especially. Few people would accept such grounds as justification. 2. Even where there are serious risks and costs to oneself or some group for whom one is concerned one is usually considered not to be entitled to simply transfer the heavy burden of those risks and costs onto other uninvolved parties, especially where they arise from one’s own, or one’s group’s chosen life-style. The matter of nuclear waste has many moral features which resemble the train case. How fitting the analogy is will become apparent as the argument progresses. There is no known proven safe way to package the highly toxic wastes generated by the nuclear plants that will be spread around the world as large-scale nuclear development goes ahead. The waste problem will be much more serious than that generated by the 50 or so reactors in use at present, with each one of the 2000 or so reactors envisaged by the end of the century producing, on average, annual wastes containing 1000 times the radioactivity of the Hiroshima bomb. Much of this waste is extremely toxic. For example, a millionth of a gramme of plutonium is enough to induce a lung cancer. A leak of even a part of the waste material could involve much loss of life, widespread disease and genetic damage, and contamination of immense areas of land. Wastes will include the reactors themselves, which will have to be abandoned after their expected life times of perhaps 40 years, and which, some have estimated, may require 1^ million years to reach safe levels of radioactivity. Nuclear wastes must be kept suitably isolated from the environment for their entire active lifetime. For fission products the required storage period averages a thousand years or so, and for transuranic elements, which include plutonium, there is a half million to a million year storage problem. Serious problems have arisen with both short-term and proposed long-term methods of storage, even with the comparatively small quantities of waste produced over the last twenty years. Short-term methods of storage require continued human intervention, while proposed longer term methods are subject to both human inter­ ference and risk of leakage through non-human factors. No one with even a slight knowledge of the geological and climatic history of the earth over the last million years, a period whose fluctuations in climate we are only just beginning to guage and which has seen four Ice Ages, could be confident that a rigorous guarantee of safe storage could be provided for the vast period of time involved. Nor does the history of human affairs over the last 3000 years give ground for confidence in safe storage by methods requiring human intervention over perhaps a million years. Proposed long-term storage methods such as storage in granite formations or in salt mines, are largely speculative and relatively untested, and have already proved to involve difficulties with attempts made to put them into practice. Even as regards expensive recent proposals for first embedding concentrated wastes in glass and encapsulating the result in multilayered metal containers before rock deposit, simulation models 3. reveal that radioactive material may not remain suitably isolated from human environments.1^ In short, the best present storage proposals carry very real 3 possibilities of irradiating future people and damaging their environment. Given the heavy costs which could be involved for the future, and given the known limits of technology, it is methodologically unsound to bet, as nuclear nations have, on the discovery of safe procedures for storage of wastes. Any new procedures (required before 2000) will probably be but variations on not only have I present proposals, and subject to the same inadequacies. For instance,^none of the proposed methods for safe storage has been properly tested, but they may well prove to involve unforeseen difficulties and risks when an attempt is made to put them into practice on a commercial scale. Only a method that could provide a rigorous guarantee of safety over the storage period, that placed safety beyond reasonable doubt, would be acceptable. It is difficult to see how such rigorous guarantees could be given concerning either the geological or future human factors. But even if an economically viable, rigorously safe long term storage method could be devised, there is the problem of guaranteeing that it would be universally and invariably used. The assumption that it would be (especially if, as appears likely, such a method proved expensive economically and politically) seems to presuppose a level of efficiency, perfection, and concern for the future which has not previously been encountered in human affairs, and has certainly not been conspicuous in the nuclear industry. The risks imposed on the future by proceeding with nuclear development are, then, significant. to bear Perhaps 40,000 generations of future people could be forced significant risks resulting from the provision of the (extravagant) energy use of only a small proportion of the people of 10 generations. Nor is the risk of direct harm from the escape or misuse of radioactive materials the only burden the nuclear solution imposes on the future. Because the energy provided by nuclear fission is merely a stop gap, it seems probable that in due course the same problem, that of making a transition to renewable sources of energy, will have to be faced again by a future population which will probably, again as a result of our actions, be very much worse placed to cope with it. Their world will most likely be a world which is seriously depleted of non-renewable resources, and in which such renewable resources as forests and soils as remain, resources which inevitably form an important part of the basis of life, are run-down or destroyed. Such points tell against the idea that future people must be, if not direct beneficiaries of energy from nuclear fission, at least indirect beneficiaries. 4. The "solution” then is to buy time for contemporary society at a price which not only creates serious problems for future people but which reduces their ability to cope with these problems. Like the consigner in the train parable, contemporary industrial society proposes, in order to get itself out of a mess arising from its own life-style - the creation of economies dependent on an abundance of non-re newable energy, which is limited in supply - to pass on costs and risks of serious harm to others who will obtain no corresponding benefits. The "solution” may enable the avoidance of some uncomfortable changes in the lifetime of those now living and their immediate descendants, just as the consigner's action avoids uncomfortable changes for him and those in his immediate surroundings, but at the expense of passing heavy burdens to other uninvolved parties whose opportunity to lead decent lives may be seriously jeopardised. If we apply to the nuclear situation the standards of behaviour and moral principles generally acknowledged (in principle, if not so often in fact) in the contemporary world, it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that nuclear development involves injustice with respect to the future on a grand scale. There appear to be only two plausible ways of trying to avoid such a conclusion. First, it might be argued that the moral principles and obligations which we acknowledge for the contemporary world and perhaps the immediate future do not apply to those in the non-immediate future. Secondly, an attempt might be made to appeal to overriding circumstances; for to reject the consigner's action in the circumstances outlined is not to imply that there are no circumstances in which such an action might be justifiable. As in the case of the consigner of the package there is a need to consider what these justifying circumstances might be, and whether they apply in the present case. We consider these possible escape routes for the proponent of nuclear development in turn. II.OBLIGATIONS TO THE (DISTANT) FUTURE. A The especially problematic area is that of the distant (i.e. non-immediate) future, the future with which people alive today will have no direct contact; by comparison, the immediate future gives fewer problems for most ethical theories. In fact the question of obligations to future people presents tests which a number of ethical theories fail to pass, and also has serious repercussions in political philosophy as regards the adequacy of accepted (democratic and other) institutions which do not take due account of the interests of future creatures. 5. Moral philosophers have, predictably, differed on questions of obligations to distant future creatures. A good many of the philosophers who have explicitly considered the question have come down in favour of the same consideration being given to the rights and interests of future people as to those of contemporary or immediately future people. Others fall into three categories: those who acknowledge obligations to the future but who do not take them seriously or who assign them a lesser weight, those who deny, or who are committed by their general moral position to denying, that there are moral obligations beyond the immediate future, and those who come down, with admirable philosophical caution, on both sides of the issue, but with the weight of the argument favouring the view underlying prevailing economic and political institutions, that there are no moral obligations to the future beyond those perhaps to the next generation. According to the most extreme of these positions against moral obligations to the future, our behaviour with respect to the future is morally unconstrained', there are no moral restrictions on acting or failing to act deriving effect of our actions on future people. from the Of those philosophers who say, or whose views imply that we do not have obligations to the (non-immediate) future, many have based this view on accounts of moral obligation which are built on relations which presuppose some degree of temporal or spatial contiguity. Thus, moral obligation is seen as presupposing various relations which could not hold between people widely separated in time (or sometimes in space). Let us call the position that we have no obligations to (distant) future people the No­ constraints position. Among suggested bases or grounds of moral obligation for the position, which would rule out obligations to the non-immediate future, are these. Firstly, there are those accounts which require that someone to whom a moral obligation is held be able to claim his rights or entitlement. People in the distant future will not be able to claim rights and entitlements against us, and of course they can do nothing to enforce any claims they might have against us. Secondly, there are those accounts which base moral obligations on social or legal convention, for example a convention which would require punishment of offenders or at least some kind of social enforcement. But plainly these and other conventions will not be invariant over change in society and amendment of legal conventions; hence they will not be invariant over time. Also future people have no way of enforcing their interests or punishing offending predecessors. 6. The No-constraints view is a very difficult one to sustain. Consider, for example, a scientific group which, for no particular reason other than to test a particular piece of technology, places in orbit a cobalt bomb set off by a triggering device designed to go off several hundred years from the time of its despatch. No presently living person and none of their immediate descendants would be affected, but the population of the earth in the distant future would be wiped out as a direct and predictable result of the action. The no-constraints position clearly implies that this is an acceptable moral enterprise, that whatever else we might legitimately criticize in the scientists’ experiment (perhaps its being over-expensive or badly designed) we cannot lodge a moral protest about the damage it will do to future people. The no-constraints position also endorses as morally acceptable the following sorts of policy:- A firm discovers it can make a handsome profit from mining, processing and manufacturing a new type of material which, although it causes no problem for present people or their immediate descendants, will over a period of hundreds of years decay into a substance which will cause an enormous epidemic of cancer among the inhabitants of the earth at that time. According to the no-constraints view the firm is free to act in its own interests, without any consideration for the harm it does remote future people. Such counterexamples to the No-constraints position, which are easily varied and multiplied, might seem childlishly obvious. Yet this view is far from being a straw man; not only have several philosophers endorsed this position, but it is a clear implication of many currently popular views of the basis of moral obligation, as well as of prevailing economic theory. It seems that those who opt for the No-constraints position have not considered such examples, despite their being clearly implied by their position. We suspect that (we certainly hope that) when it is brought out that their position admits such counterexamples, that without any constraints we are free to cause pointless harm for example, most of those who opted for this position would want to assert that it was not what they intended. What many of those who have put forward the No-constraints position seem to have had in mind (in denying moral obligation) is rather that future people can look after themselves, that we are not responsible for their lives. The popular view that the future can take care of itself also seems to assume a future causally independent of the present. But it is not. It is not as if, in the counterexample cases or in the nuclear case, the future is simply being left alone to take care of itself. Present people are influencing it, and in doing so thereby acquire many of the same sorts of moral responsibilities as they do in causally affecting the present and immediate future, most notably the obligation to take account in 7. what they do of people affected and their interests, to be careful in their actions, to take account of the genuine probability of their actions causing harm, and to see that they do not act so as to rob future people, of the chance of a good life. Furthermore, to say that we are not resposible for the lives of future people does not amount to the same thing as saying that we are free to do as we like with respect to them. In just the same way, the fact that one does not have or has not acquired an obligation to some stranger with whom one has never been involved does not imply that one is free to do what one likes with respect to him, for example to rob him or to seriously harm him when this could be avoided. These difficulties for the No-constraints position result in part because of a failure to make an important distinction. Some of our obligations to others arise because we have voluntarily entered into some agreement with them - for example, we have made a promise. Other obligations, however, such as our duty not to damage or harm someone, do not assume that an agreement has been struck between us. former kind acquired obligations Let us call obligations of the and those of the latter unacquired obligations. There is a considerable difference in the type of responsibility associated with each. In the case of acquired obligations responsibility arises because one should do something which one can fail to do, e.g. keep a promise. In the case of unacquired duties responsibility arises as a result of being a causal agent who is aware of the consequences or consequences of his action, a responsibility that is not dependent on one’s having performed some act in the past (e.g., made a promise). Our obligations to future people clearly are of unacquired, not acquired obligations, a fact the No-constraints position simply fails to take into account. These obligations arise as a result of our ability to produce causal effects of a reasonably predictable nature, whether on our contemporaries or on those in the distant future. Thus, to return to the train parable, the consigner cannot argue in justification of his action that he has, for example, never assumed or acquired responsibility for the passengers, that he does not know them and therefore has no love or sympathy for them and that they are not part of his moral community; in short, that he has acquired no obligation, and has no special obligations to help them. All that 8. one needs to argue concerning the train, and in the nuclear case, is that there z are moral obligations against imposing harm for instance which are not specially o thQ distant acquired. Nor can this claim be rebutted by the pretence ure involve heroic self sacrifice, something ’’above and beyond” what is normally required. One is no more engaging in heroic self sacrifice by not forcing future people into an unviable life position or by refraining from causing them direct harm than the consigner is resorting to heroic self sacrifice in refraining from shipping the dangerous package on the train. III. ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE OBLIGATIONS TO THE FUTURE. In evading these difficulties the No—constraints position may be qualified rather than wholly abandoned. According to the Qualified position we are not entirely unconstrained There are obligations, even to distant future with respect to the distant future. people, but these are not so important as those to the present, and the interests of distant future people cannot weigh very much in the scale against those of the present and immediate future. The interests of future people then, except in unusual cases, count for very much less than the interests of present people. Hence such things as nuclear development and various exploitative activities which benefit present people should proceed, even if people of the distant future are (somewhat) disadvantaged by them. The Qualified position appears to be widely held and is implicit in prevailing economic theories, where the position of a decrease in weight of future costs and benefits (and so of future interests) is obtained by application over time of a discount rate, so discounting costs and risks to future people. The attempt to apply economics as a moral theory, something that is becoming increasingly common, can lead thei to the Qualified position. What is objectionable in such an approach is that economics must operate within the bounds of acknowledged non-acquired moral constraints, just as in practice it operates within legal constraints. What economics cannot legitimately do is determine what these constraints are. There are, moreover, alternative economic theories and simply to adopt, without further ado, one which discounts the future, giving much less importance to the interests of future people, is to beg all the questions at issue. Among the arguments that economists offer for generally discounting the future, the most threadbare is based on the Rosy-future assumption, that future generations will be better off than present ones (and so better placed to handle the waste problem). generations may well not Since there is mounting evidence that future be better off then present ones, especially in things that matter, no argument for discounting the interests of future generations on this basis can carry much weight. For the waste problem to be handed 9. to the future generations, it would have to be shown, what recent economic progress hardly justifies, that future generations will be not just better off but so much better off that they can (easily) carry and control the nuclear freight. A more plausible argument for discounting, the Opportunity-cost argument, ^builds directly on the notion of opportunity cost. It is argued from the fact that a dollar gained now is worth much more than a dollar received in the nonimmediate future (because the first dollar could meanwhile be invested at compound interest), that discounting is required to obtain equivalent monetary values. This same line of reasoning is then applied to the allocation of resources. Thus, compensation - which is what the waste problem is taken to come _ to economically - costs much less now than later, e.g. a few pennies set aside /(e.g. in a trust fund) in the future, if need be, will suffice to compensate eventually for any victims of remote radioactive waste leakage. beset this approach. Two problems First, there are, presently at least, insurmountable practical difficulties about applying such discounting. how to determine appropriate future discount rates. that the argument depends on a false assumption. We simply do not know A more serious objection is It is not true that value, or damages, can always be converted into monetary equivalents. There is no clear ’’monetary compensation" for a variety of damages, including cancer, loss of life, a lost species. The discounting theme, however argued for, is inadequate, because it leads back in practice to the No-constraints position. discounting imposes an ” economic horizon" The reason is that beyond which nothing need be considered, since any costs or benefit which might arise are, when discounted back to the present, negligible. A different argument for the Qualified position, the Probabilities argument, avoids the objections from cases of certain damage through appeal to probability considerations. The distant future, it is argued, is much more uncertain than the present and immediate future, so that probabilities are consequently lower, perhaps even approaching or coinciding with zero for any hypothesis concerning the distant future. Thus, the argument continues, the interests of future people must (apart from exceptional cases where there is an unusually high degree of certainty) count for (very much) less than those of present and neighbouring people where (much) higher probabilities are attached. So in the case of conflict between the present and the future, where it is a question of weighing certain benefits to the people of the present and the immediate future against a much lower probability of indeterminate costs to an indeterminate number of iisfcsrs”'.... . • 10. distant future people, the issue would normally be decided in favour of the present assuming anything like similar costs and benefits were involved. is however The argument Firstly, probabilities involving distant badly flawed. future situations are not always less than those concerning the immediate future in the way the argument supposes. problems often Moreover the outcomes of some moral do not depend on a high level of probability. In many cases it is enough, as the train parable reveals, that a significant risk is created; such cases do not depend critically on high probability assignments. Nor, /of course, VitTcar) be assumed that anything like similarly weighted costs and benefits are involved in the nuclear case, especially if it is a question of risking poisoning some of the earth for half a million or so years, with consequent risk of serious harm to thousands of generations of future people, i»n e>rd^f -Lt? 'fc-C I in the shape of the opportunity to continue (unnecessarily) high energy use. z the costs and benefits were comparable or evenly weighted, such And even, if an argument would be defective, since an analogous argument would show that the consigner’s action in the train parable, is acceptable provided the benefit (e.g. the profit the company stood to gain from imposing significant risks on other people) was sufficiently large. Such a cost-benefit approach to moral and decision problems, with or is quite inadequate when different parties without the probability frills, are involved or when cases of conflict of interest involving moral obligations are at issue. permissible 5 For example, such a cost-benefit approach would imply that it is for a company to injure, or very likely injure, some innocent party provided only that the company stands to make a sufficiently large gain from it, that costs to some group are more than larger benefits to another group. transferred in any morally compensated for by But costs or benefits are not legitimately simple way from one group to another. The often appealed to maxim "If you (or your group) want the benefits you have to accept the costs" is one thing, but the maxim "If I (or my group) want the benefits then you have to accept the costs (or some of them at least)" is another and very different thing. It is a widely accepted moral principle that one is not, in general, entitled to simply transfer costs of a significant kind arising from an activity which benefits oneself onto other parties who are not involved in the activity and are not beneficiaries.This Transfer-limiting principle is especially clear in cases of which a thalidomide manufacturing and marketing company is one, where the significant costs include an effect on life or health or a risk thereof, and where the benefit to the benefitting party is of a noncrucial or dispensible nature. The principle is of fundamental importance in the nuclear debate, and appears again and again : it applies not merely to the waste problem but as regards several other liabilities of nuclear development, e.g. the risk of nuclear war, the matter / 9 'of reactor meltdown. In particular, the principle invalidates the comparison, heavily relied on in building a case for the acceptability of the nuclear risks, between nuclear risks and those from such activities as airplane travel or cigarette smoking. In the latter case those who supposedly benefit from the activity are also, to an overwhelming extent, those who bear the serious health costs and risks involved. In contrast the users and supposed beneficiearies of nuclear energy will be risking not only, or even primarily, their own lives and health, but also that of others who may not be beneficiaries at all who may be just the opposite! More generally, the distribution of costs and damage in such a fashion, i.e. on to non-beneficiaries, is a characteristic of certain serious forms of pollution, and is among its morally objectionable features. / j Large-scale energy y»ss// /production, from nuclear or foe-itc fuel sources, can cause or lead to serious !pollution. Thus from the Transfer-limiting t>fe principle emerges an important necessary condition for energy options: To be morally acceptable k -era, OE£12^ should not involve the transfer of s.igif leant costs or risks of harm onto parties who are not involved, who do not use or do not benefit correspondingly from the energy source. Included in the scope of 12. this condition, which nuclear development violates , are future people, i.e. not merely people living at the present time but also future generations (those Principle, that we should not hand the world we have so exploited on to our successors in substantially worse shape than we ’'received” it. For if we did then that would be a significant transfer of costs. The Transfer-limiting principle can be derived from certain ethical theories (e.g. those of a deontic cast such as Kant's and Ra and from common precepts (such as the Golden Rule), where one seriously considers putting oneself in another’s position. But the principle is perhaps best defended, on a broader basis, inductively, by way of examples. embroider the train parable, the company town decides to Suppose, to solve its disposal problem by shipping its noxious waste to another town down the line, which (like future towns) lacks the means to ship it back or to register due protest. The inhabitants of this town are then forced to face the problem either of undertaking the expensive and difficult disposal process or of sus­ taining risks to their own lives and health. Most of us would regard this kind of transfer of costs as morally unacceptable, however much the consigner’s company town flourishes. / /IV. c UNCERTAINTY AND INDETERMINACY ARGUMENTS FOR REDUCED RESPONSIBILITY. 7 /Many of the arguments designed to show that we cannot be ed to take too much account of the effects of our actions on the distant future appeal to uncertain/y. There are two main components to the argument, capable of separation, but frequently tangled up. Both arguments are mistaken, the first, an argument from ignorance, on a priori second on a posteriori grounds. follows:- grounds, the The Argument from ignorance concerned runs as In contrast to the exact information we can obtain about the present, the information we can obtain about the effects of our actions on the distant future is unreliable, woolly and highly speculative. But we cannot base assessments of how we should act on information of this kind, especially when accurate information is obtainable about the present which would indicate Therefore we must regretfully ignore the different action. our actions on the distant future. ignorance uncertain effects of A striking example of the argument from at work is afforded by official US analyses favouring nuclear development, which ignore (the extensive) costs of waste control on the 7 grounds of uncertainty. the argument concerned is this: More formally and crudely (%)£/only has obligations to the future if these obligations are based on reliable information. distant future. There is no reliable information at present as regards the Therefore one has no obligations to the distant future. This argument is essentially a variant on a sceptical argument concerning * our knowledge of the future (formally, replace ’obligations in the crude statement of the argument above). by ’knowledge’ The main ploy is to considerably overestimate and overstate the degree of certainty available with respect to the present and immediate future, and the degree of certainty which is required as the basis for moral consideration both with respect to the present and with respect to the future. Associated with this is the attempt to suggest a sharp division as regards certainty between the present and immediate future on the one hand and the distant future on the other. We shall not find, we suggest, that there is any such sharp or simple division between the distant future and the adjacent future and the present, at least with respect to those things in the present which are normally subject to moral constraints. We can and constantly , such do act on the basis of^"unreliable" information, which the sceptic as regards the future conveniently labels "uncertainty". In moral situations in the present, assessments of what to do often take account of risk and probability, even quite low probabilities. Consider again the train parable. We do not need to know for certain that the container will break and the lethal gas escape. In fact it does not even have to be probable, in the relevant sense of more probable than not, in order for us to condemn the consigner’s action. that there is a significant risk of harm It is enough in this sort of case. It does not matter if the decreased well-being of the consigner is certain and that the 14. prospects of the passengers quite uncertain. It is wrong to ship the gas. But if we do not require certainty of action to apply moral constraints in contemporary affairs, why should we require a much higher standard of certainty in the future? The unwarranted insistence on certainty as a necessary condition before moral consideration can be given to the distant future, then, amounts to a flagrant double standard. According to the second argument, the Practical-uncertainty argument, even if in theory we have obligations to the future, we cannot in practice take the interests of future people into account because uncertainty about the distant future is so gross that we cannot determine what the likely consequences of actions on it will be. Therefore, however good our intentions to the people of the distant future are, in practice we have no choice but to ignore their interests. Given that moral principles are characteristically of universal implicational form, e.g. of forms such as "if x has character then x is wrong, for every (action) sharply thus: x", h the argument may be stated more We can never obtain the information about future actions which would enable us to detach the antecedent of the implication. Therefore, even if in theory moral principles do extend to future people, in practice they cannot be applied to obtain clear conclusions. It is true that if the distant future really were so grossly uncertain . that in every case it was impossible to determine in any way better than chance what the effects of present action would be, and whether any given action would help or hinder future people, then moral principles, although applicable in theory to the future, would not in practice yield any clear conclusions about how to act. In this event the distant future would impose no practical moral constraints on action. However, the argument is factually incorrect in assuming that the future always is so grossly uncertain or indeterminate. Admittedly there is often a high degree of uncertainty concerning the distant future, but as a matter of (contingent) fact it is not always so gross or sweeping as the argument has to assume. There are some areas where uncertainty is 15. not so great as to exclude constraints on action. For example, we may have little idea what the fashions will be in a hundred years or, to take another morally^irrelevant^factor, what brands of ice cream people will be eating, if any, but we do have excellent reason to believe, especially if we consider 3000 years of history, that what people there are in a hundred years are likely to have material and psychic needs not entirely unlike our own, that they will need a healthy biosphere for a good life; that like us they will not be immune to radiation; that their welfare will not be enhanced by a high incidence of ^cancer genetic defects, by the destruction of resources, or the elimination from the face of the earth of that wonderful variety of non-human life which at present makes it such a rich and interesting place. The case of nuclear waste storage, and of uncertainty of the effects of it on future people, is one area where uncertainty in morally relevant respects is not so great as to preclude moral constraints on action. For this sort of reason, the practical uncertainty argument should be rejected. Through the defects of the preceding arguments, we can see the defects in a number of widely employed uncertainty arguments used to write off probably harm to future people as outside the scope of proper consideration. Most of these popular moves employ both of the uncertainty arguments as suits the case, switching from one to the other. For example, we may be told that we cannot really take account of future people because we cannot be sure that they will exist or that their tastes and wants will not be completely different from our own, to the point where they will not suffer from our exhaustion of resources or from the things that would affect us. But this is to insist upon complete certainty of a sort beyond what is required for the present and immediate future, where there is also commonly no guarantee that some disaster will not overtake those to whom we are morally committed. Again we may be told that there is no guarantee that future people will be worthy of any efforts on our part, because they may be morons of forever plugged into enjoyment of other machines. Even if one is prepared to accept the elitist approach presupposed - according to which only those who meet certain properly civilized or intellectual standards are eligible for moral consideration - what we are being handed in such arguments 16. is again a mere outside possibility. Neither the contemporary nor the historical situation gives any positive reason for supposing that a lapse into universal moronity or universal-pleasure-machine escapism is a serious possibility. We can contrast with these mere logical possibilities the very real historically supportable risks of escape of nuclear waste or decline of a civilisation through destruction of its resource base. Closely related to uncertainty arguments are arguments premissed on the indeterminacy of the future. For example, according to the Indeterminacy argument, the indeterminacy of the number and exact character of people at future times will prevent the interest of future people being taken into account where there is a conflict with the present. Since their numbers are indeterminate and their interests unknown how, it is asked, can we weigh their competing claims against those of the present and immediate future, where this information is available in a more or less accurate form? The question is raised particularly by problems of sharing fixed quantities of resources among present and future people, for example oil, when the numbers of the latter are indeterminate. Such problems are indeed difficult, but they are not resolved by ignoring the claims of the future. Nor are distributional problems involving non-renewable resources as large and representative a class of moral problems concerning the future as the tendency to focus on them would suggest. It can be freely admitted, that there will be cases where the indeterminacy of aspects of the future will make conflicts very difficult to resolve or indeed irresoluble - no realistic ethical theory can give a precise answer to every ethical question. But, as the train parable again illustrates, /there are cases where such difficulties do not hinder resolution, and .anci cases of conflict which are not properly approached by weighing numbers, numbers of interests, or whatever, cases for which one needs to know only the most general probable characteristics of future people. The case of nuclear power is like that. The failure of these various arguments reveals, what c^e^| ^^^men^does nc argued from the universalisability features of moral principles, that/ disqualify future people from full moral consideration or reduce their claims below the claims of present people. That is, we have the same general obligations to future people as to the present; thus there is the same obligation to take account of them and their interests in what we do, to be careful in our actions, to take account of the probability (and not just the certainty) of our actions causing harm or damage, and to see, other things being equal, that we do not act so as to rob them of what is necessary for the chance of a good life. Uncertainty and indeterminacy do not relieve us of these obligations. V. PROBLEMS OF SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATION : REACTOR EMISSIONS AND CORE MELTDOWN. The ethical problems with nuclear power are by no means confined to waste storage and future creatures. entitlement Just as remoteness in time does not erode obligations or to just treatment, neither does location in space, or a particular and arguments like those already arrived at in considering the waste problem ^apply. For example, if one group (social uriit^ or state) decides to dump its radioactive wastes in the territory or region of another group, or not to prevent its (radioactive) pollution entering the territory of another group, then it imposes risks and costs on presently existing people of the second group, in much the way that present nuclear developments impose costs and risks on future people. There are differences however : spatially distant people cannot be discounted in quite the way that future people can be, though their interests and objectives can be ignored or overridden. People living in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor are subject to special costs and risks. One is radioactive pollution, because reactors routinely discharj radioactive materials into the air and Emission problem. water near the plant : hence the Such ’’normal" emission during plant operation of low level radiation carries carcinogenic and mutagenic costs. While there are undoubtedly costs, the number of cancers and the precise extent of genetic damage induced by exposure to such radiation are both uncertain. If our permitted free transfer of costs and risks from one person to another, the ethical issue directly raised by nuclear emissions would be : what extent of 18. cancer and genetic damage, if any, is permissibly traded for the advantages of nuclear power, and under what conditions? Since, however, risks and benefits are NOT (morally) transferable this way - recall the Transfer-limiting I principle - such a cost-benefit approach to the risks nuclear emission poses for those who live near a reactor cannot with justice be approached in this fashio, these risks are In the USA, people who live within 50 miles oMmclear real! power plant bear a risk of cancer and genetic damage of as much as 50 times that borne by the population at large. And children living in this region are even more vulnerable, since they and several times more likely to contract cancer through exposure than normal adults. The serious costs to these people cannot be J us tit led by the alleged benefits for others, expecially when these benefits could be obtained without these costs. a pity about Thus it is not just complacent to say 'It’s Aunt Ethel dying of cancer, but the new make life comfortable’. airconditioners For such benefits to some as airconditioners provide, which can be alternatively obtained, for example by modification of buildings, can in no way compensate for what others suffer. Among the other strategies used in trying to persuade us that the imposition of radiation on minorities - most of whom have no genuine voice in the. location of reactors in their environment and cannot move away without serious losses - is really quite alright is the Doubling argument. Accord to the US Atomic Energy Commission, who deployed this trick, it is permissable to double, through nuclear technology, the level of (natural) radiation that a population have received with apparently negligible consequences, the argument being that the additional amount (being equivalent to the "natural” level) is also likely to have negligible consequences. The increased amounts of radiation - with their large man-made component - are then accounted normal, and, it is claimed, what is normal is morally acceptable. in this argument is sound. None of the steps Drinking one bottle of wine a day may have no ill-effects, whereas drinking two a day certainly may affect a person’s well-being; and while the smaller intake may have become normal for the person, the larger one will, under such conditions, not be. Finally, what is or has become normal, 19. e.g. two murders or twenty cancers a day in a given city, may be far from acceptable. In fact, even the USA, which has very strict standards by comparison with most other countries with planned nuclear reactors, permits radiation emissions very substantially in excess of the standards laid down; so the emission situation is much worse than what consideration of the standards would disclose. Furthermore, the monitoring of the standards ’’imposed'’ is entrusted to the nuclear operators themselves, scarcely disinterested parties. Thus public policy is determined not so as to guarantee public health, but rather to serve as a public pacifier” while publicly-subsidized private nuclear operations proceed relatively unhampered? While radioactive emissions are an ordinary feature of reactor operation, reactor breakdown is, hopefully, not: official reports even try to make an accident of magnitude, as a matter of definition, an ’extraordinary nuclear occurrence . But "definitions” notwithstanding, such accidents can happen, and almost have on several occasions (the most notorious being Three Mile Island): hence the Core-meltdown problem. If the cooling and emergency core cooling systems fail in American (light water) reactors, then the core melts and ’containment failure’ is likely, the result that an area of 40,000 square miles could be radioactively 10 contaminated. In the event of the worst type of accident in a very small reactor, a steam explosion in the reactor vessel, about 45,000 people would be killed instantly and at least 100,000 would die as a result of the accident, property damages would exceed $17 billion and an area the size of Pennsylvania would be destroyed. Modern nuclear reactors are about five times the size of the reactor for which these conservative US (still the best available from official sources) are given : the consequences of a similar accident with a modern reactor would accordingly be much greater. The consigner who risks the lives and well-being of passengers on the O ^train acts in^admissibly. A government or government-endorsed utility appears to act in a way that does not differ in morally significant respects in 20. siting a nuclear reactor in a community, in planting such a dangerous package on the ’’community train”. More directly, the location of a nuclear reactor in a community, even if it should happen to receive a favourable benefit-cost as the Transfer-limiting principle. The advocates of nuclear power have, in effect, endeavoured to avoid questions of cost-transfer and equity, by shifting the dispute out of the extraordinary reactor malfunction. They have argued, in particular, what contrasts with the train parable, that there is no real possibility of a catastrophic nuclear accident. Indeed in the influential Rassmussen report - which was extensively used to support public confidence in US nuclear fission technology - an even stronger, an incredibly strong, improbability claim was stated: namely, the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident is so remote as to be (almost) impossible. However, the mathematical models relied upon in this report, variously called "fault tree analysis” and "reliability estimating techniques", are unsound, because, among other things, they exclude as "not credible" possibilities that may well happen in the real world. that the It is not surprising, then i methodology and data of the report have been soundly and decisively criticised, or that official support for the report has now been withdrawn. 12 Moreover, use of alternative methods and data indicates that there is a real possibility, a non-negligible probability of a serious accident. In response it is contended that, even if there is a non-negligible probability of a reactor accident, still that is acceptable, being of no greater order than risks of accidents that are already socially accepted. Here we encounter again that insidious engineering approach to morality built into decision models of an economic cast, e.g. benefit-cost balance sheets, risk­ assessment models, etc. Risk assessment, a sophistication of transaction or trade-off models, purports to provide a comparison between the relative risks attached to different options, e.g. energy otpions, which settles their 21. ethical status. The following assumptions are encountered in risk assessment as applied to energy options: Ai. If option a imposes (comparable) costs on fewer people than option b then option a is preferable to option Aii. b ; Option a involves a total net cost in terms of cost to people (e.g. deaths, injuries, etc.) which is less than that of option b, which is alreay^ accepted; therefore option a is acceptable. 3 These assumptions are then applied as follows. be killed Since the number likely to eventuall by nuclear power station catastrophe is less than the likely number killed by cigarette smoking, and since the risks of cigarette smoking are accepted; it follows that the risks of huclear power are acceptable. A little reflection reveals that this sort of risk assessment argument grossly violates the Transfer­ limiting principle. In order to obtain a proper ethical assessment we need a much fuller picture, and we need to know at least these things:- costs and benefits go to the same parties; Do the and is the person who voluntarily the risks also the person who primarily receives the benefits, as in undertakes driving or cigarette smoking, or are the costs imposed not benefit? on other parties who do It is only if the parties are the same in the case of the options compared, and there are no such distributional problems, a basis would be soundly based. that a comparison on such This is rarely the case, and it is not so in the case of risk assessments of energy options. VI. OTHER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND COSTS OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR WAR. The problems already discussed by no means exhaust the environmental, health and safety risks and costs in, or arising from, the nuclear fuel cycle. The full fuel cycle includes many stages both before and after reactor operation, apart from waste disposal, namely^ mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and preparation, reprocessing spent fuel, and transportation of materials. Several of these stages involve hazards. risks in the nuclear cycle Unlike the special - of sabotage of plants, of theft of fissionable material, and of the further proliferation of nuclear armaments - these hazards 22. have parallels, if not exact equivalents, in other highly polluting methods of generating power, e.g. ’workers in the uranium mining industry sustain ’’the same u 14 risk" of fatal and nonfatal injury as workers in the coal industry’. The problems are not really produced by nuclear development. Other social and environmental problems endemic where dangerous large-scale industry operates in societies that are highly inegalitarian and include sectors that are far from affluent - are more intimately linked with the J nuclear power cycle. Though pollution is a common and generally undesirable component of large-scale industrial operation, radioactive pollution ,such as uranium mining for instance produces, is especially a legacy of nuclear development, and a specially undesirable one, as rectification costs for dead radioactive lands and waterways reveal. Though sabotage is a threat to many large industries, sabotage of a nuclear reactor can have dire consequences, of a different order of magnitude from most industrial sabotage (where core meltdown is not a possibility). Though theft of material from more dubious enterprises such as munitions works can pose threats to populations at large and can assist terrorism, no thefts for allegedly peaceful enterprises pose problems of the same order as theft of fissionable material. No other industry produces materials which so readily permit fabrication into such massive explosives. No other industry is, to sum it up, so vulnerable on so many fronts. In part to reduce its vulnerability, in part because of its long and continuing association with military activities, the nuclear industry is subject to, and encourages, several practices which (given their scale) run counter to basic features of free and open societies, crucial features such as personal These practices include secrecy, restriction of information, formation of special police and guard forces, espionage, curtailment of civil liberties. Already operators of nuclear installations are given extraordinary powers, in vetting employees, to investigate the background and activities not only of employees but also of their families and sometimes even of their friends. The installations themselves become armed camps, which especially offends British sensibilities. The U.K. Atomic Energy (Special Constables) Act of 1976 created a special armed force to guard nuclear installations and- made it answerable ... to the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. ..iwu- 23. These developments, and worse ones in West Germany and elsewhere,presage along with nuclear development increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic societies. That nuclear development appears to force such political <— i ' (consequences tells heavily against it. Nuclear development is further indicated politically by the direct connection of nuclear power with nuclear war. It is true that ethical questions concerning nuclear war - for example, whether a nuclear war is justified, or just, under any circumstances, and if so what circumstances - are distinguishable from those concerning nuclear power. Undoubtedly, however, the spread of nuclear power is substantially increasing the technical means for engaging in nuclear war and so, to that extent, the opportunity for, and chances of, nuclear engagement. \ /jL Since nuclear wars are /nevei/ accountable- positive goods, but are at best the lesser of major evils, nuclear wars are always highly ethically undesirable. The spread of nuclear power accordingly expands the opportunity for, and chances of, highly undesirable consequences. 0^!/\ Finally the latter, so increasing these chances and opportunities, is itself undesirable, and therefore what le^jtds to it, nuclear development^ is undesirable. This is, in outline, the argument from nuclear wa£ against large-scale nuclear development. VII. CONFLICT ARGUMENTS, AND BEGINNING ON NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT. UNCOVERING THE IDEOLOGICAL BASES OF Much as with nuclear war, so given the cumulative case against nuclear development, only one justificatory that of appeal to overriding circumstances. route remains open, That appeal, to be ethically acceptable, must go beyond merely economic considerations. For, as observed, the consigner’s action, in the train parable, cannot be justified by purely I ^conomistic arguments, such as that his profits would rise, the company or the town would be more prosperous, or by appealing to the fact that some possibly uncomfortable changes would otherwise be needed. case: a Transfer-limiting principle applies. So it is also in the nuclear But suppose now the consigner argues that his action is justified because unless it is taken the town will die. It is 24. by no means clear that even such a justification as this would be sufficient, especially where the risk to the passengers is high, since the case still /amount s^one of transfer of costs and risks onto others. But such a conflict situation, where a given course of action, though normally undesirable, is alleged to be the lesser of two evils in a given case, is morally more problemthan cases atical/frhere Transfer-limiting principle is clearly violated. Nuclear develop­ ment is often defended in this way, through Conflict arguments, to the effect that even though nuclear development does have undesirable features, nevertheless the alternatives are worse. Some of the arguments advanced to demonstrate conflict are based on competing commitments to present people, and others on competing obligations to future people, both of which are taken to override the obligations not to impose on the future significant risk of serious harm. The success of such /conflict arguments require^the presentation of a genuine and exhaustive set of alternatives (or at least practical alternatives) and showing that the only alternatives to admittedly morally undesirable actions are even more undesirable ones. If some practical alternative which is not morally worse than the action to be justified is overlooked, suppressed, or neglected in the argument (for example, if in the train parable it turns out that the town has another option to starving or to shipping the parcel, namely earning a living in some other way), then the argument is defective and cannot readily be patched. Just such a suppression of practicable alternatives, we shall argue, has occurred in the argument designed to show that the alternatives to the nuclear option are even worse than the option itself. A first argument, the Poverty argument, is that there is an overriding obligation to the poor, both the poor of the third world and the poor of indus­ trialised countries. Failure to develop nuclear energy, it is often claimed, would amount to denying them the opportunity to reach the standard of affluence we currently enjoy and would create unemployment and poverty in the industrialisec nations. And this would be worse - a greater evil - than such things as violating the Transfer-limiting principle through nuclear development. The Poverty argument does not stand up to examination, either for the poor of the industrial countries or for those of the. third world. There is good evidence that large-scale nuclear energy will help increase unemployment and poverty in the industrial world, through the diversion of very much available capital into an industry which is not only an exceptionally poor provider of direct employment, but also tends to reduce available jobs through encouraging substitution of energy use for labour use. The argument that nuclear energy is needed for the third world is even less convincing. Nuclear energy is both politically and economically inappropriate for the third world, since it requires massive amounts of capital, requires numbers of imported scientists and engineers, 25. WT creates negligible local employment, and depends for its feasibility upon largely non-existent utility systems - e.g. established electricity transmission systems and back-up facilities, and sufficient electrical appliances to plug into the system. Politically it increases foreign dependence, adds to centralised entrenched power and reduces the chance for change in the oppressive political structures which are a large part of the problem. The fact that nuclear energy is not in the interests of the people of the third world does not of course mean that it is not in the interests of, and wanted (often for military purposes) by, their rulers, the westernised and often military elites in whose interests the economies of these countries are usually organised. than what it is: But that does not make the poverty argument anything other a fraud. There are well-known energy-conserving alternatives and the practical option of developing further alternative energy sources, alternatives some of which offer far better prospects for helping the poor, both in the third world and in industrial countries: coal and other fossil fuels, geothermal, and a range of solar options (including as well as narrowly solar sources, wind, water and tidal power). Another major argument advanced to show conflict, the Lights-goingout argument, pppeals to a set of supposedly overriding and competing obligations to future people. We have, it is said, a duty to pass on the immensely valuable things and institutions which our culture has developed. Unless our high-technology, high-energy industrial society is continued and fostered, our valuable institutions and traditions will fall into decay or be swept away. The argument is essentially that without nuclear power, without the continued level of material wealth it alone is assumed to make possible, the lights of our civilization will go out. Future people will be the losers. The argument does raise important questions about what is valuable in But for our society and what characteristics are necessary for a good society. the most part these large questions can be by-passed. The reason is that the argument adopts an extremely uncritical attitude to present high-technology societies, apparently assuming that they are uniformly and uniquely valuable. $I I it assuine</ that technological society is unmodifiable, that^cannot be changed in ' the direction of energy conservation or alternative (perhaps high technology) energy sources without collapse. These assumptions are all hard to accept. The assumption that technological society’s energy patterns are unmodifiable is especially so; after all, it has survived events such as world wars which required major social and technological restructuring and consumption modification. If western society’s demands for energy were (contrary to the evidence) totally unmodifiable without collapse, not only would it be committed to a program of increasing destruction, but much of its culture would be of dubious value to 26. future people, who would very likely, as a consequence of this destruction, lack the resource base which the argument assumes to be essential in the case of contemporary society. The uniformity assumption should certainly be challenged. Since high- technology societies appear not to be uniformly valuable, the central question is, what is necessary to maintain what is valuable in such a society? While it may be easy to argue that high energy consumption centrally controlled is necessary to maintain the political and economic status quo of such a society, it is not so easy to argue that it is essential to maintain what is valuable, and it is what is valuable, presumably that we have a duty to pass on to the future. The evidence from history is that no very high level of material affluence or energy consumption is needed to maintain what is valuable. There is good reason in fact to believe that a society with much lower energy and resource^ consumption would better foster what is valuable than our own. But even if a radical change in these directions is independently desirable, it is unnecessary to presuppose such a change in order to see that the assumptions of the Lights-going-out argument are wrong. The consumption of less energy than at present/ need involve no reduction of well-being; and certainly a large increase over present levels of consumption assumed trr the usual economic case for nuclear energy, is quite unnecessary. then What the nuclear strategy is really designed to do is not to prevent the lights going out in western civilisation, but to enable the lights to go on burning all the time - to maintain and even increase the wattage output of the Energy Extravaganza . In fact there is good reason to think that, far from the high energy consumption society fostering what is valuable, it will, especially if energy is obtained by means of nuclear fission, be positively inimical to it. A society which has become heavily dependent upon a^ highly centralised, controlled and garrisoned md expertise-intensive energy source, must be one which is highly susceptible to entrenchment of power, and one in which the forces which control this energy source, whether capitalist or bureaucratic, can exert enormous power over the political system and over people’s lives, even more then they do at present. Such a society would/' almost inevitably tend to become authoritatian and increasingly anti-democratic, as an outcome, among other things, of its response to the threat posed by dissident groups in the nuclear situation. Nuclear development may thus help in passing on to future generations some of the worst aspects of our society - the consumerism, alienation, destruction of nature, and latent authoritarianism - while many valuable aspects, such as the degree of political freedom and those opportunities for personal and collective autonomy which exist, would be lost or diminished: political freedom 27. for example, is a high price to pay for consumerism and and energy extravagence. Again, as in the case of the poverty arguments, clear alternatives, alternative social and political choices, which do not involve such unacceptable consequences, are available. The alternative to the high technology-nuclear option is not a return to the cave, the loss of all that is valuable, but either the adoption of an available alternative such as coal for power or, better, the development of alternative technologies and lifestyles which offer far greater scope for the maintenance and further development of what is valuable in our society than the highly centralised nuclear option. The Lights-going-out argument, as a moral conflict argument, accordingly fails. Thus the further escape route, the appeal to conflict, is, like the appeal to futurity, closed. If then we apply, as we have argued we should, the same standards of morality to the future as we ought to acknowledge for the present, the conclusion that large-scale nuclear development is a crime against the future is inevitable. Closed also, in the much same way, are the escape routes to other arguments (from reactor meltdown, radiation emissions, etc.) for concluding that nuclear development is unacceptable. Tn sum, nuclear development is morally unacceptable on several grounds. VIII. SOCIAL OPTIONS : SHALLOW AND DEEP ALTERNATIVES. The future energy option that is most often contrasted with nuclear power, namely coal power, while no doubt preferable to nuclear power, is hardly acceptable. For it carries with it the likelihood of serious (air) pollution, and associated phenomena such as acid rain and atmospheric heating, not to mention the despoliation caused by extensive strip mining, all of which will result from its use in meeting very Such an option would, moreover, also violate high projected consumption figures. the Transfer-limiting principle : for it would impose widespread costs on nonbeneficiaries for some concentrated benefits to some profit takers and to some users who do not pay the full costs of production and replacement. To these main conventional options a third is often added which emphasizes softer and more benign technologies, such as those of solar energy and hydroelectricity. Such softer options — if suitably combined with energy conservation measures (for there are solar ways, as well as nuclear ways, of energy extravagance and of producing unnecessary trivia which answer to no genuine needs) - can avoid the ethical objectives to nuclear power. choice is not however technological, The deeper nor merely^individual^ 1 bUL Social, and involves the restructuring of production away from energy intensive uses and, at a more basic level, a change to nonconsumeristic, less consumptive life­ styles and social arrangements’!:6 These more fundamental choices between social alternatives, conventional technologically-oriented discussion of energy options tends to obscure. It is not just a matter of deciding in which way to meet the unexamined goals nuclear development aspires to meet, but also a matter of examining the goals themselves. That is, we are not merely faced with the question of comparing different technologies for meeting some fixed or given demand or level of consumption, and of trying to see how best to meet these; we are also faced, and primarily, with the matter of examining those alleged needs and the cost of a society that creates them. It is doubtful that any technology, however benign in principle, will be likely to leave a tolerable world for the future if it is expected to meet unbounded and uncontrolled energy consumption and demands. Even more benign technologies may well be used in a way which creates costs for future people and ^are?which^ /them. ^likely to result in a deteriorated world being handed on to In short, even more benign technologies may le/id to violation of the Transmission JjteQu^-remen^• Consider, to illustrate, the effect on the world s forests, commonly counted as a solar resource, should they be extensively used for production of methanol or of electricity by woodchipping. While few would object to the use of genuine waste material for energy production, the unrestricted exploitation of forests - whether it goes under the name of ’’solar energy” or not - to meet ever increasing energy demands could well be the final indignity for the world’s already hard-pressed natural forests. The effects of such additional demands on the maintenance of the forests are often dismissed by the simple expedient of waving around the label "renewable resources”. Many forests are in principle renewable, it is a true, given a certain (low) rate and kind of exploitation, but in fact there are now very few forestry operations anywhere in the world where the forests are treated as completely renewable in the sense of the renewal of all their values, In many regions too the rate of exploitation which would enable renewal has already been exceeded, so that a total decline is widely thought to be imminent, It certainly has begun in many regions, and many forest types, especially rain17 ^/forest types^ are now, and rapidly, being lost for the future. The addition of y/a maj^r further and not readily limitable demand pressure for energy on top /of /the present demands is one which anyone with both a realistic appreciation of the conduct of forestry operations and a concern for the long-term conservation of the forests and remaining natural communities must regard with alarm. The result of massive deforestation for energy purposes, resembling the deforestation of much of Europe at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, again for energy purposes, could be extensive and devastating erosion in steeper lands and tropical areas, desertification in more arid regions, possible climatic change, and massive impoverishment of natural ecosystems, including enormous loss of natural species. Some of us do not want to pass on, and by the Transmission principles we are not entitled to pass on, a deforested world to the future, any more than we want to pass on one poisoned by nuclear 29. products or polluted by coal products. illustrates, a mere switch to In short, as the forest situation more benign technologies - important though this is - without any more basic structural and social change,is inadequate. The deeper social option involves challenging and beginning to alter a social structure which promotes consumerism, consumption far beyond genuine needs and an economic structure which encourages increasing use of highly energy-intensi modes of production. The social change option tends to be obscured in most discussions of energy options and of how to meet energy needs, in part because it does question underlying values of current social arrangements. The conventional discussion proceeds by taking alleged demand (often conflated with wants or needs) as unchallengeable, and the issue to be one of which technology can be most profitably employed to meet them. This effectively presents a false choice, and is the result of taking needs and demand as lacking a social context so that the social structure which produces the needs is similarly taken as unchallengeable and unchangeable. The point is readily illustrated. It is commonly argued by representatives of such industries as transportation and petroleum, as for example by McGrowth of the XS Consumption Co., that people want deep freezers, air conditions, power gadgets, .... authoritarian to prevent them from satisfying these wants. from created wants It would be Such an argument conveniently ignores the social framework in which such needs and wants arise or are produced. To point to the determination of many such wants at the framework level is not however to assume that they are entirely determined at the framework level (e.g. by industrial organisation) and there is no such thing as individual choice or determination at all. It is to see the social framework as a major factor in determining certain kinds of choices, such as those for travel, and kinds of infrastructure, and to see apparently individual choices made in such matters as being channelled and directed by a social framework determined largely in the interests of corporate and private profit and advantage. The social change option is a hard option, insofar as it will be difficult to implement politically; but it is ultimately the only way of avoiding the passing on of serious costs to future people. reasons than such ethical ones for taking it: And there are other sorts of it is the main, indeed the only sort of option,open to those who adopt what is now called a deep ecological perspective, as contrasted with a shallow ecological outlook which regards the natural world and its nonhuman denizens as not worthwhile in themselves but only of value in as much as they answer back to human interests. The deep ecological perspective is an integral part of the Alternative Ecological Paradigm and is incompatible with central theses of the Dominant Social Paradigm (which is essentially the ideology of classical and neoclassical economics) 30. and its variants (roughly, what are called State Socialism, and Democratic 18 Socialism). It is incompatible with such assumptions as that the natural environment is of value only as a resource, is by and large hostile, but is controllable in human interests,and with the further domination over nature themes of the Dominant Paradigm and its variants. The conflict between Alternative and Dominant Paradigms, which is fast increasing, extends of course far beyond attitudes to the natural world, since core values of the Dominant Paradigm such as the merits of unimpeded economic growth and material progress are at stake; the conflict involves fundamental differences over the whole front of economical, political and social arrangements. The conflict underlies much of the nuclear debate, insofar as it is not specifically limited to questions of technological fixes, but takes up the 19 basic ethical issues and the social questions to which they lead. The ethical requirements already defended and applied bring us out, when followed through, on the Alternative side of the paradigm conflict, and accordingly lead to the difficult social change option. The social changes that the deep alternative requires will be strongly resisted because they mean changes in current social organisation and power 'structure. To the extenj? that the option represents some kind of threat to parts of present political and economic arrangements, it is not surprising that official energy option discussion proceeds by misrepresenting and often obscuring it. But difficult as it is to suitably alter "the system,” especially one with such far-reaching effects on the prevailing power structure, it is imperative to try: we are all on the nuclear train. FOOTNOTES This paper is a condensation of an early version of our ’Nuclear 1. power - ethical, social, and political dimensions * (ESP for short, available from the authors), which in turn grew out of Routley (i.e. the work so referred to in the reference list). For help with the condensation we are very considerably indebted to the editors. In the condensation, we simplify the structure of the argument and suppress underlying political and ideological dimensions (for example, the large measure of responsibility of the USA for spreading nuclear reactors around the world, and thereby in enhancing the chances of nuclear disasters, including nuclear war). We also considerably reduce a heavy load of footnotes and references designed and needed to help make good many of our claims. Further, in order to contain references to a modest length, reference to primary sources has often been replaced by reference through secondary sources. Little difficulty should be encountered however in tracing fuller references through secondary sources or in filling out much Important background material from work cited herein. For example, virtually all the data cited in sections, and VII is referenced in Routley. At worst ESP can always be consulted. All but the last line of the quote is drawn from Goodin, p. 417; 2. the last line is from the Fox Report, p. 6. While it is unnecessary to know much about the nuclear fuel cycle in order to consider ethical and social dimensions of nuclear power, it helps to know a little. & Abbotts, Gyorgy. The basics are presented in many texts, e.g. Nader Of course in order to assess fully reports as to such important background and stage-setting matters as the likelihood of a core meltdown of # (lightwater) reactors, much more information is required. For many assessment purposes however, some knowledge of economic fallacies and decision theory is at least as important as knowledge of nuclear technology. 3. Naturally the effect on humans is not the only factor that has to be taken into account in arriving at moral assessments. Nuclear radiation, unlike most ethical theories, does not confine its scope to human life and welfare. But since the harm ' ~ nuclear development may afflict on non­ human life, for example, can hardly improve its case, it suffices if the case against it can be made out solely in terms of its effects on human life in the conventional way. For reference to and a brief discussion of (human-oriented) ^simulation models see Gooding, 428. The Opportunity-cost 4. respects. argument is also defective in other It presupposes not merely the (mistaken) reductions involved in the contraction of the ethical domain to the economic; it also presupposes that the /proper methods for decision which ^ffect the choice, apply discounting. future, such as that of energy But, as Goodin argues, more appropriate decision rules do not allow discounting. This is one of the reasons why expected utility theory, 5. roughly cost-benefit analysis with probability frills, is inadequate as a decision method in such contexts. Apparent exceptions to the principle such as taxation (and 6. redistribution of income generally) vanish when wealth is construed (as it has to be if taxation is to be properly justified) as at least partly a social asset unfairly monopolised by a minority of the population. Examples such as that of motoring dangerously do not constitute counterexamples to the principle; for one is not morally entitled to so motor. / 7. For details, and as to how the official analyses become arguments against nuclear development when some attempt is made to take the ignored costs into account, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 55 ff. See Routley, p. 160. /\ the preceding two para£ I graphs, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 35 ff.; and also Nader and Abbotts. For much further discussion of the points of [10. Most of the reactors^Ln the world are of this type; see Gyorgy. 11. See Shrader-Frechette, chapter 4. 12. See Shrader-Frechette. / shortcomings A worthwhile initial view of the of the Rass^ftussen report may be reached by combining ' /the critique in Shrader-Frechette with that in Nader and Abbotts. 13. There are variations on Ai against numbers such as probabilities. and Aii which multiply costs In this way risks, construed as probable costs, can be taken into account in the assessment. risks may be assessed (Alternatively, through such familiar methods as insurance). A principle varying Aii’. a Aii, and formulated as follows: is ethically acceptable if (for some b) a includes no more risks than b and b is socially accepted. Aii’. was the basic ethical principle in terms of which the Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry recently decided that nuclear power development see Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry in Saskatchewan is ethically acceptable: Department of Environment, Government of Saskatchewan, 1978, Final Report, p. 305 and p. 288. In this report, a is nuclear power and b is either activities clearly accepted by society as alternative power sources. other applications b In has been taken as cigarette smoking, motoring, mining and even the Vietnam war (!). The points made in the text do not exhaust the objections to principles Ai - Aii’. The principles are certainly ethically substantive, since an ethical consequence cannot be deduced from nonethical premisses, but they have an inadmissible conventional origin of b ; b character. For look at the may be socially accepted though it is no longer socially acceptable, or though its social acceptibility is no longer so clearcut and it would not have been socially accepted if as much as is now known had been known when it was introduced. What is required in Aii’, for instance, for the argument to begin to look convincing is that ’ethically acceptable’ rather than ’socially accepted’. b is But even with the amendments the principles are invalid, for the reasons given in the text, and others. It is not disconcerting that principles of this type do not work. It would be sad to see yet another area lost to the experts, ethics to actuaries. 14. See Shrader-Frechette, p. 15. 15. Goodin 16. The argument is elaborated in ESP. 17. For some of the more philosophically important material p. 433. 'alternative Mannlaon ~ Asocial arrangements and lifestyles, see work cited in V. and R. Routley, ’Social theories, self management and environmental problems’ in al, where a beginning is made on working out one set of alternatives, those of a pluralistic anarchism. The parlous 18. situation of the world’s tropical rainforests is explained in, for instance, Myers; the reasons are untangled in R. and V. Routley ’World rainforest destruction - the social causes’ (available from the authors). 19. > rival, For a fuller account of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its Paradigm, see Cot^royfe and Duff, especially the Alternative Environmental the assumptions the table on p. 341 which /of the paradigms; compare also Cotton and Dunljzfp, especially p. 34. Contemporary varients in the Dominant Social Paradigm were considered in ESP. The shallow/deep contrast as applied to ecological positions, which A s /is an important component of the paradigm conflict, was introduced by Naess. // S /For further explanation of the contract and of the larger array of ecological positions into which it fits, see R. and V. Routley, ’ in Mannison environmental ethics ___ ’Human chauvinism and et al, and the references there cited, ^especially to R^d man’s work. 20. The more elaborate argument of ESP sets the nuclear debate in the context of paradigm conflict. But it is also argued that, even within assumptions framework of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its variants, Ti. Nuclear development is not the rational choice among energy options. The main argument put up for nuclear development within the framework of the dominant paradigm is an Economic growth argument. It is the following version of the Lights-going-out argument (with economic growth duly standing Nuclear power is in for material wealth, and for what is valuable!^ necessary to sustain economic growth. Economic growth is desirable (for all the usual reasons, e.g. to increase the size of the pie, to postpone redistribution problems, etc.). k Therefore nuclear power is desirable. / /The first premiss is part of US energy policy (see Shrader-Frechette, p.lll), and the second premiss is supplied by standard economics textbooks. But both premisses are defective, the second because what is valuable in economic growth can be achieved by (not without growth but) selective X //"growth, which economic the heavy social and environmental costs carried by unqualified economic growth. More to the point, since the second premiss is an assumption of the Dominant Paradigm, the first premiss (or rather an appropriate and less vulnerable restatement of it) Paradigm standards. fails even by Dominant For of course nuclear power is not necessary that there are other, perhaps costlier alternatives. defended is some elaboration of the premiss : given The premiss usually Nuclear power is the economically best way to sustain economic growth, ’economically best’ being filled out as ’most efficient’, ’cheapest’, benefit-cost ratio’, etc. ’having the most favourable Unfortunately for the argument, and for nuclear development schemes, nuclear power is none of these things decisively (unless a good deal of economic cheating - easy to do - is done). Tii. On proper Dominant Paradigjfi accounting, nuclear choices should generally be rejected, both as private utility investments and as public choices. Nuclear development is not economically viable but has been kept going, not by clear economic viability, but by massive subsidization of several types Gyorgy and Nader alrd Abbotts). discussed in Shrader-Frechette, ZU Even on variants of the Dominant Paradigm, nuclear development is //not justified, oi consideration of decision theory methods will reveal: Tiii. Whatever reasonable decision rule is adopted, the nuclear choice is rejected^Jas the arguments op Goodin on alternative decision rules help to show. |l*^ What sustains the nuclear juggernaut is not the Dominant Paradigm or its variants, but contemporary corporate capitalism (or its state enterprise image) and associated third world imperialism, as the historical details of nuclear X ^development both in developed countries and in less developed countries (for main details, see Gyorgy p. 307 ff.). Are the practices of contemporary corporate capitalism and associated imperialism are not acceptable by the standards of either of the Paradigms or their variants : not ethically acceptable. they are certainly  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 97, Item 5: Draft of Nuclear power - some ethical and social dimensions Subject The topic of the resource Typescript (photocopy) of draft, with handwritten, undated. Paper published, Routley R and Routley V (1982) 'Nuclear power—some ethical and social dimensions', in Regan T and VanDeVeer D (eds) And justice for all: new introductory essays in ethics and public policy, Rowman and Littlefield. Description An account of the resource Unnumbered paper from collection, item number assigned by library staff. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=val+routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Val Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 97, Item 5 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [35] leaves. 27.24 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:1f45be4">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:1f45be4</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1982-01-01 Box 97: Paper - Extracts - Articles and Chapters by Richard Sylvan https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/f22b23a78d228312ce7b43ed0d6346d7.pdf 9946e551f830c3d4b028b52364266c19 PDF Text Text ' i ' Vai Routley Richa/ 1. NUCLEAR POWER - SOME ETHICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS1 One hardly needs initiation into the dark mysteries of nuclear physics to contribute usefully to the debate now widely ragging over nuclear power. While many important empirical questions are still unresolved, these do not really lie at the centre of the controversy. Instead, it is a debate about values... many of the questions which arise are social and ethical ones. I. THE TRAIN PARABLE AND THE NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEM. train has just pulled out. passengers and freight. The train which is A long distance country crowded carries both At an early stop in the journey someone consigns as freight, to a far distant destination, a package which contains a highly toxic and explosive gas. This is packed in a very thin container which, as the consigner is aware, may well not contain the gas for the full distance for which it is consigned, and certainly will not do so if the train should strike any real trouble, for example, if the train should be derailed or involved in a collision, or if some passenger should interfere inadvertently or deliberately with the freight, perhaps trying to steal some of it. of these sorts of things have happened on some previous journeys. All If the container should break the resulting disaster would probably kill at least some of the people on the train in adjacent carriages, while others could be maimed or poisoned or sooner or later incur serious diseases. Most of us would roundly condemn such an action. of the parcel say to try to justify it? What might the consigner He might say that it is not certain that the gas will escape, or that the world needs his product and it is his duty to supply it, or that in any case he is not or the people on it. X responsible for the train These sorts of excuses however would normally be seen /as ludicrous when set in this context. Unfortunately, similar excuses are not -aiso seen when the consigner, again a (responsible) businessman,puts his workers’ health or other peoples’ welfare at risk. Suppose he says that it is his own and others’p ressing needs which justify his action. The company he controls, which produces the material as a by-product, is in bad financial straits, and could not afford to produce a better container even if it knew how to make one. If the company fails, he and his family will suffer, his employees will lose their jobs and have to look for others, and the whole company town, through loss of spending, will be worse off. The poor and unemployed of the town, whom he would otherwise have been able to help, will suffer especially. Few people would accept such grounds as justification. �Even where there are serious risks and costs to oneself or some group for whom one is concerned one is usually considered not to be entitled to simply transfer the heavy burden of those risks and costs onto other uninvolved parties, especially wheie they arise from one’s own, or one’s group’s chosen life-style. The matter of nuclear waste has many moral features which resemble the train case. How fitting the analogy is will become apparent as the argument progresses. There is no known proven safe way to package the highly toxic wastes generated by the nuclear plants that will be spread around the world as large-scale nuclear development goes ahead. The waste problem will be much more serious than that generated by the 50 or so reactors in use at present, with each one of the 2000 or so reactors envisaged by the end of the century producing, on average, annual wastes containing 1000 times the radioactivity of the Hiroshima bomb. Much of this waste is extremely toxic. For example, a millionth of a gramme of plutonium is enough to induce a lung cancer. A leak of even a part of the waste material could involve much loss of life, widespread disease and genetic damage, and contamination of immense areas of land. Wastes will include the reactors themselves, which will have to be abandoned after their expected life times of perhaps 40 years, and which, some have estimated, may require 1% million years to reach safe levels of radioactivity. Nuclear wastes must be kept suitably isolated from the environment for their entire active lifetime. For fission products the required storage period averages a thousand years or so, and for transuranic elements, which include plutonium, there is a half million to a million year storage problem. Serious problems have arisen with both short-term and proposed long-term methods of storage, even with the comparatively small quantities of waste produced over I the last twenty years. Short-term methods of storage require continued human intervention, while proposed longer term methods are subject to both human inter­ ference and risk of leakage through non-human factors. No one with even a slight knowledge of the geological and climatic history of the earth over the last million years, a period whose fluctuations in climate we are only just beginning to guage and which has seen four Ice Ages, could be confident that a rigorous guarantee of safe storage could be provided for the vast period of time involved. Nor does the history of human affairs over the last 3000 years give ground for confidence in safe storage by methods requiring human intervention over perhaps a million years. Proposed long-term storage methods such as storage in granite formations or in salt mines, are largely speculative and relatively untested, and have already proved to involve difficulties with attempts made to put them into practice. Even as regards expensive recent proposals for first embedding concentrated wastes in glass and encapsulating the result in multilayered metal containers before rock deposit, simulation models �3. reveal that radioactive material may not remain suitably isolated from human 10 environments. In short, the best present storage proposals carry very real possibilities of irradiating future people and damaging their environmentP Given the heavy costs which could be involved for the future, and given the known limits of technology, it is methodologically unsound to bet, as nuclear nations have, on the discovery of safe procedures for storage of wastes. Any new procedures (required before 2000) will probably be but variations on not only have present proposals, and subject to the same inadequacies. For instance,y none of the proposed methods for safe storage has been properly tested, but they may well prove to involve unforeseen difficulties and risks when an attempt is made to put them into practice on a commercial scale. Only a method that could provide a rigorous guarantee of safety over the storage period, that placed safety beyond reasonable doubt, would be acceptable. It is difficult to see how such rigorous guarantees could be given concerning either the geological or future human factors. But even if an economically viable, rigorously safe long term storage method could be devised, there is the problem of guaranteeing that it would be universally and invariably used. The assumption that it would be (especially if, as appears likely, such a method proved expensive economically and politically) seems to presuppose a level of efficiency, perfection, and concern for the future which has not previously been encountered in human affairs, and has certainly not been conspicuous in the nuclear industry. The risks imposed on the future by proceeding with nuclear development are, then, significant. to bear Perhaps 40,000 generations of future people could be forced significant risks resulting from the provision of the (extravagant) energy use of only a small proportion of the people of 10 generations. Nor is the risk of direct harm from the escape or misuse of radioactive materials the only burden the nuclear solution imposes on the future. Because the energy provided by nuclear fission is merely a stop gap, it seems probable that in due course the same problem, that of making a transition to renewable sources of energy, will have to be faced again by a future population which will probably, again as a result of our actions, be very much worse placed to cope with it. Their world will most likely be a world which is seriously depleted of non-renewable resources, and in which such renewable resources as forests and soils as remain, resources which inevitably form an important part of the basis of life, are run-down or destroyed. Such points tell against the idea that future people must be, if not direct beneficiaries of energy from nuclear fission, at least indirect beneficiaries. �The "solution” then is to buy time for contemporary society at a price which not only creates serious problems for future people but which reduces their ability to cope with these problems. Like the consigner in the train parable, contemporary industrial society proposes, in order to get itself out of a mess arising from its own life-style - the creation of economies dependent on an abundance of non-rerewable energy, which is limited in supply - to pass on costs and risks of serious harm to others who will obtain no corresponding benefits. The "solution" may enable the avoidance of some uncomfortable changes in the lifetime of those now living and their immediate descendants, just as the consigner’s action avoids uncomfortable changes for him and those in his immediate surroundings, but at the expense of passing heavy burdens to other uninvolved parties whose opportunity to lead decent lives may be seriously jeopardised. If we apply to the nuclear situation the standards of behaviour and moral principles generally acknowledged (in principle, if not so often in fact) in the contemporary world, it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that nuclear development involves injustice with respect to the future on a grand scale. There appear to be only two plausible ways of trying to avoid such a conclusion. First, it might be argued that the moral principles and obligations which we acknowledge for the contemporary world and perhaps the immediate future do not apply to those in the non-immediate future. Secondly, an attempt might be made to appeal to overriding circumstances; for to reject the consigner’s action in the circumstances Outlined is not to imply that there are no circumstances in which such an action might be justifiable. As in the case of the consigner of the package there is a need to consider what these justifying circumstances might be, and whether they apply in the present case. We consider these possible escape routes for the proponent of nuclear development in turn. II. OBLIGATIONS TO THE (DISTANT) FUTURE. The especially problematic area is that of the distant (i.e. non-immediate) future, the future with which people alive today will have no direct contact; by comparison, the immediate future gives fewer problems for most ethical theories. In fact the question of obligations to future people presents tests which a number of ethical theories fail to pass, and also has serious repercussions in political philosophy as regards the adequacy of accepted (democratic and other) institutions which do not take due account of the interests of future creatures. �5. Moral philosophers have, predictably, differed on questions of obligations to distant future creatures. A good many of the philosophers who have explicitly considered the question have come down in favour of the same consideration being given to the rights and interests of future people as to those of contemporary or immediately future people. Others fall into three categories: those who acknowledge obligations to the future but who do not take them seriously or who assign them a lesser weight, those who deny, or who are committed by their general moral position to denying, that there are moral obligations beyond the immediate future, and those who come down, with admirable philosophical caution, on both sides of the issue, but with the weight of the argument favouring the view underlying prevailing economic and political institutions, that there are no moral obligations to the future beyond those perhaps to the next generation. According to the most extreme of these positions against moral obligations to the future, our behaviour with respect to the future is morally unconstrained; there are no moral restrictions on acting or failing to act deriving effect of our actions on future people. from the Of those philosophers who say, or whose views imply that we do not have obligations to the (non-immediate) future, many have based this view on accounts of moral obligation which are built on relations which presuppose some degree of temporal or spatial contiguity. Thus, moral obligation is seen as presupposing various relations which could not hold between people widely separated in time (or sometimes in space). Let us call the position that we have no obligations to (distant) future people the constraints position. ' -*■ ■■■--------- ----- No­ , Among suggested bases or grounds of moral obligation for the position, which would rule out obligations to the non-immediate future, are these. Firstly, there are those accounts which require that someone to whom a moral obligation is held be able to claim his rights or entitlement. People in the distant future will not be able to claim rights and entitlements against us, and of course they can do nothing to enforce any claims they might have against us. Secondly, there are those accounts which base moral obligations on social or legal convention, for example a convention which would require punishment of offenders or at least some kind of social enforcement. But plainly these and other conventions will not be invariant over change in society and amendment of legal conventions; hence they will not be invariant over time. Also future people have no way of enforcing their interests or punishing offending predecessors. �The No-constraints view is a very difficult one to sustain. Consider, for example, a scientific group which, for no particular reason other than to test a particular piece of technology, places in orbit a cobalt bomb set off by a triggering device designed to go off several hundred years from the time of its despatch. No presently living person and none of their immediate descendants would be affected, but the population of the earth in the distant future would be wiped out as a direct and predictable result of the action. The no—constraints position clearly implies that this is an acceptable moral enterprise, that whatever else we might legitimately criticize in the scientists’ experiment (perhaps its being over-expensive or badly designed) we cannot lodge a moral protest about the damage it will do to future people. The no-constraints position also endorses as morally acceptable the following sorts of policy A firm discovers it can make a handsome profit from mining, processing and manufacturing a new type of material which, although it causes no problem for present people or their immediate descendants, will over a period of hundreds of years decay into a substance which will cause an enormous epidemic of cancer among the inhabitants of the earth at that time. According to the no-constraints view the firm is free to act in its own interests, without any consideration for the harm it does remote future people. Such counterexamples to the No-constraints position, which are easily varied and multiplied, might seem childlishly obvious. Yet this view is far from being a straw man; not only have several philosophers endorsed this position, but it is a clear implication of many currently popular views of the basis of moral obligation, as well as of prevailing economic theory. It seems that those who opt for the No-constraints position have not considered such examples, despite their being clearly implied by their position. We suspect that (we certainly hope that) when it is brought out that their position admits such counterexamples, that without any constraints we are free to cause pointless harm for example, most of those who opted for this position would want to assert that it was not what they intended. What many of those who have put forward the No-constraints position seem to have had in mind (in denying moral obligation) is rather that future people can look after themselves, that we are not responsible for their lives. The popular view that the future can take care of itself also seems to assume a future causally independent of the present. But it is not. It is not as if, in the counterexample cases or in the nuclear case, the future is simply being left alone to take care of itself. Present people are influencing it, and in doing so thereby acquire many of the same sorts of moral responsibilities as they do in causally affecting the present and immediate future, most notably the obligation to take account in �7. what they do of people affected and their Interests, to be careful in their actions, to take account of the genuine probability of their actions causing harm, and to see that they do not act so as to rob future people of the chance of a good life. Furthermore, to say that we are not resposible for the lives of future people does not amount to the same thing as saying that we are free to do as we like with respect to them. In just the same way, the fact that one does not have or has not acquired an obligation to some stranger with whom one has never been involved does not imply that one is free to do what one likes with respect to him, for example to rob him or to seriously harm him when this could be avoided. These difficulties for the No-constraints position result in part because of a failure to make an important distinction. Some of our obligations to others arise because we have voluntarily entered into some agreement with them - for example, we have made a promise. Other obligations, however, such as our duty not to damage or harm someone, do not assume that an agreement has been struck between us. former kind acquired obligations Let us call obligations of the and those of the latter unacquired obligations. There is a considerable difference in the type of responsibility associated with each. In the case of acquired obligations responsibility arises because one should do something which one can fail to do, e.g. keep a promise. In the case of unacquired duties responsibility arises as a result of being a causal agent who is aware of the consequences or probable consequences of his action, a responsibility that is not dependent on one’s having performed some act in the past (e.g., made a promise). Our obligations to future people clearly are of unacquired, not acquired obligations, a fact the No-constraints position simply fails to take into account. These obligations arise as a result of our ability to produce causal effects of a reasonably predictable nature, whether on our contemporaries or on those in the distant future. Thus, to return to the train parable, the consigner cannot argue in justification of his action that he has, for example, never assumed or acquired responsibility for the passengers, that he does not know them and therefore has no love or sympathy for them and that they are not part of his moral community; in short, that he has acquired no obligation, and has no special obligations to help them. All that �8. one needs to argue concerning the train, and in the nuclear case, is that there are moral obligations against imposing harm for instance which are not specially ions, to the distant acquired. Nor can this claim be rebutted by the pretence' .at/future involve heroic self sacrifice, something ’’above and beyond" what is normally required. One is no more engaging in heroic self sacrifice by not forcing future people into an unviable life position or by refraining from causing them direct harm than the consigner is resorting to heroic self sacrifice in refraining from shipping the dangerous package on the train. III. ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE OBLIGATIONS TO THE FUTURE. In evading these difficulties the No-constraints position may be qualified rather than wholly abandoned. According to the Qualified position we are not entirely unconstrained There are obligations, even to distant future with respect to the distant future. people, but these are not so important as those to the present, and the interests of distant future people cannot weigh very much in the scale against those of the present and immediate future. The interests of future people then, except in unusual cases, count for very much less than the interests of present people. Hence such things as nuclear development and various exploitative activities which benefit present people should proceed, even if people of the distant future are (somewhat) disadvantaged by them. The Qualified position appears to be widely held and is implicit in prevailing economic theories, where the position of a decrease in weight of future costs and benefits (and so of future interests) is obtained by application over time of a discount rate, so discounting costs and risks to future people. The attempt to apply economics as a moral theory, something that is becoming increasingly common, can lead theft to the Qualified position. What is objectionable in such an approach is that economics must operate within the bounds of acknowledged non-acquired moral constraints, just as in practice it operates within legal constraints. What economics cannot legitimately do is determine what these constraints are. There are, moreover, alternative economic theories and simply to adopt, without further ado, one which discounts the future, giving much less importance to the interests of future people, is to beg all the questions at issue. Among the arguments that economists offer for generally discounting the future, the most threadbare is based on the Rosy-future assumption, that future generations will be better off than present ones (and so better placed to handle the waste problem). generations may well not Since there is mounting evidence that future be better off then present ones, especially in things that matter, no argument for discounting the interests of future generations on this basis can carry much weight. For the waste problem to be handed down �9. to the future generations, it would have to be shown, what recent economic progress hardly justifies, that future generations will be not just better off but so much better off that they can (easily) carry and control the nuclear freight. A more plausible argument for discounting, the Opportunity-cost argument, builds directly It is argued from the fact on the notion of opportunity cost. that a dollar gained now is worth much more than a dollar received in the non- immediate future (because the first dollar could meanwhile be invested at compound interest), that discounting is required to obtain equivalent monetary values. This same line of reasoning is then applied to the allocation of resources. Thus, compensation - which is what the waste problem is taken to come to economically - costs much less now than later, e.g. a few pennies set aside (e.g. in a trust fund) in the future, if need be, will suffice to compensate eventually for any victims of remote radioactive waste leakage. beset this approach. Two problems First, there are, presently at least, insurmountable practical difficulties about applying such discounting. how to determine appropriate future discount rates. that the argument depends on a false assumption. We simply do not know A more serious objection is It is not true that value, or damages, can always be converted into monetary equivalents. There is no clear ’’monetary compensation” for a variety of damages, including cancer, loss of life, a lost species. The discounting theme, however argued for, is inadequate, because it leads back in practice to the No-constraints position. discounting imposes an ” economic horizon” The reason is that beyond which nothing need be considered, since any costs or benefit which might arise are, when discounted back to the present, negligible. » A different argument for the Qualified position, the Probabilities argument, avoids the objections from cases of certain damage through appeal to probability considerations. The distant future, it is argued, is much more uncertain than the present and immediate future, so that probabilities are consequently lower, perhaps even approaching or coinciding with zero for any hypothesis concerning the distant future. Thus, the argument continues, the interests of future people must (apart from exceptional cases where there is an unusually high degree of certainty) count for (very much) less than those of present and neighbouring people where (much) higher probabilities are attached. So in the case of conflict between the present and the future, where it is a question of weighing certain benefits to the people of the present and the immediate future against a much lower probability of indeterminate costs to an indeterminate number of �10. distant future people, the issue would normally be decided in favour of the present, assuming anything like similar costs and benefits were involved. is however The argument Firstly, probabilities involving distant badly flawed. future situations are not always less than those concerning the immediate future in the way the argument supposes. problems often Moreover the outcomes of some moral do not depend on a high level of probability. In many cases it is enough, as the train parable reveals, that a significant risk is created; such cases do not depend critically on high probability assignments. Nor, of course, can it be assumed that anything like similarly weighted costs and benefits are involved in the nuclear case, especially if it is a question of risking poisoning some of the earth for half a million or so years, with consequent risk of serious harm to thousands of generations of future people, in order to obtain quite doubtful, or even trivial, benefits for some present people, ^in the shape of the opportunity to continue (unnecessarily) high energy use. And even the costs and benefits were comparable or evenly weighted, such if an argument would be defective, since an analogous argument would show that the consigner's action in the train parable, is acceptable provided the benefit (e.g. the profit the company stood to gain from imposing significant risks on other people) was sufficiently large. Such a cost-benefit approach to moral and decision, problems, with or is quite inadequate when different parties without the probability frills, are involved or when cases of conflict of interest involving moral obligations are at issue. permissible 5 For example, such a cost-benefit approach would imply that it is for a company to injure, or very likely injure, some innocent party provided only that the company stands to make a sufficiently large gain from it, that costs to some group are more than morally larger benefits to another group. transferred in any compensated for by But costs or benefits are not legitimately simple way from one group to another. The often appealed to maxim "If you (or your group) want the benefits you have to accept the costs" is one thing, but the maxim "If I (or my group) want the benefits then you have to accept the costs (or some of them at least)" is another and �i very different thing. I 11. It is a widely accepted moral principle that one is not, in general, entitled to simply transfer costs of a significant kind arising from an activity which benefits oneself onto other parties who are not involved g in the activity and are not beneficiaries. This Transfer-limiting principle is especially clear in cases of which a thalidomide manufacturing and marketing company is one, where the significant costs include an effect on life or health or a risk thereof, and where the benefit to the benefitting party is of a noncrucial or dispensible nature. The principle is of fundamental importance in the nuclear debate, and appears again and again : it applies not merely to the waste problem but as regards several other liabilities of nuclear development, e.g. the risk of nuclear war, the matter of reactor meltdown. In particular, the principle, invalidates the comparison, heavily relied on in building a case for the acceptability of the nuclear risks, between nuclear risks and those from such activities as airplane travel or cigarette smoking. In the latter case those who supposedly benefit from the activity are also, to an overwhelming extent, those who bear the serious health costs and risks involved. In contrast the users and supposed beneficiearies of nuclear energy will be risking not only, or even primarily, their own lives and health, but also that of others who may not be beneficiaries at all— who may be just the opposite! , More generally, the distribution of costs and damage in such a fashion, i.e. on to non-beneficiaries, is a characteristic of certain serious forms of pollution, and is among its morally objectionable features. production, from nuclear or fossil pollution. fuel sources, can cause or lead to serious Thus from the Transfer-limiting important necessary condition for energy options: an energy option Large-scale energy principle emerges an To be morally acceptable should not involve the transfer of significant costs or risks of harm onto parties who are not involved, who do not use or do not benefit correspondingly from the energy source. Included in the scope of �12. this condition, which nuclear development violates , are future people, i.e. not merely people living at the present time but also future generations (those of the next towns). A further corollary of the principle is the Transmission Principle, that we should not hand the world we have so exploited on to our successors in substantially worse shape than we "received” it. For if we did then that would be a significant transfer of costs. The Transfer-limiting principle can be derived from certain ethical theories (e.g. those of a deontic cast such as Kant’s and Rawls’) and from common precepts (such as the Golden Rule), where one seriously considers putting oneself in another’s position. But the principle is perhaps best defended, on a broader basis, inductively, by way of examples. embroider the train parable, the company town decides to Suppose, to solve its disposal problem by shipping its noxious waste to another town down the line, which (like future towns) lacks the means to ship it back or to register due protest. The inhabitants of this town are then forced to face the problem either of undertaking the expensive and difficult disposal process or of sus­ taining risks to their own lives and health. Most of us would regard this kind of transfer of costs as morally unacceptable, however much the consigner’s company town flourishes. IV. UNCERTAINTY AND INDETERMINACY ARGUMENTS FOR REDUCED RESPONSIBILITY. Many of the arguments designed to show that we cannot be expected to take too much account of the effects of our actions on the distant future appeal to uncertainty. There are two main components to the General Uncertainty argument, capable of separation, but frequently tangled up. Both arguments are mistaken, the first, an argument from ignorance, on a priori second on a posteriori grounds. follows:- grounds, the The Argument from ignorance concerned runs as In contrast to the exact information we can obtain about the present, the information we can obtain about the effects of our actions on the distant future is unreliable, woolly and highly speculative. But we cannot base assessments of how we should act on information of this kind, especially when �13. accurate information is obtainable about the present which would indicate Therefore we must regretfully ignore the uncertain effects of different action. our actions on the distant future. ignorance A striking example of the argument from at work is afforded by official US analyses favouring nuclear development, which ignore (the extensive) costs of grounds of uncertainty. More formally and crudely waste control on the the argument concerned is this- One only has obligations to the future if these obligations are based on reliable information. distant future. There is no reliable information at present as regards the Therefore one has no obligations to the distant future. This argument is essentially a variant on a sceptical argument concerning our knowledge of the future (formally, replace obligations in the crude statement of the argument above). The main ploy is to considerably overestimate and overstate the degree of certainty available by knowledge with respect to the present and immediate future, and the degree of certainty which is required as the basis for moral consideration both with respect to the present and with respect to the future. Associated with this is the attempt to suggest a sharp division as regards certainty between the present and immediate future on the one hand and the distant future on the other. We shall not find, we suggest, that there is any such sharp or simple division between the distant future and the adjacent future and the present, at least with respect to those things in the present which are normally subject to moral constraints. do act on the basis We can and constantly such f/"unreliable” information, which the sceptic as regards the future conveniently labels "uncertainty". In moral situations in the present, assessments of what to do often take account of risk and probability, even quite low probabilities. Consider again the train parable. We do not need to know for certain that the container will break and the lethal gas escape. In lact it does not even have to be probable, in the relevant sense of more probable than not, in order for us to condemn the consigner’s action. that there is a significant risk of harm It is enough in this sort of case. It does not matter if the decreased well-being of the consigner is certain and that the �14. prospects of the passengers quite uncertain. It is wrong to ship the gas. But if we do not require certainty of action to apply moral constraints in contemporary affairs, why should we require a much higher standard of certainty in the future? The unwarranted insistence on certainty as a necessary condition before moral consideration can be given to the distant future, then, amounts to a flagrant double standard. According to the second argument, the Practical-uncertainty argument, even if in theory we have obligations to the future, we cannot in practice take the interests of future people into account because uncertainty about the distant future is so gross that we cannot determine what the likely consequences of actions on it will be. Therefore, however good our intentions to the people of the distant future are, in practice we have no choice but to ignore their interests. Given that moral principles are characteristically of universal implicational form, e.g. of forms such as "if x has character then x is wrong, for every (action) sharply thus: x", h the argument may be stated more We can never obtain the information about future actions which would enable us to detach the antecedent of the implication. Therefore, even if in theory moral principles do extend to future people, in practice they cannot be applied to obtain clear conclusions. It is true that if the distant future really were so grossly uncertain . that in every case it was impossible to determine in any way better than chance what the effects of present action would be, and whether any given action would help or hinder future people, then moral principles, although applicable in theory to the future, would not in practice yield any clear conclusions about how to act. In this event the distant future would impose no practical moral constraints on action. However, the argument is factually incorrect in assuming that the future always is so grossly uncertain or indeterminate. Admittedly there is often a high degree of uncertainty concerning the distant future, but as a matter of (contingent) fact it is not always so gross or sweeping as the argument has to assume. There are some areas where uncertainty is �15. not so great as to exclude constraints on action. For example, we may have little idea what the fashions will be in a hundred years or, to take another morally-irrelevant factor, what brands of ice cream people will be eating, if any, but we do have excellent reason to believe, especially if we consider 3000 years of history, that what people there are in a hundred years are likely to have material and psychic needs not entirely unlike our own, that they will need a healthy biosphere for a good life; that like us they will not be immune to radiation; that their welfare will not be enhanced by a high incidence of cancer or genetic defects, by the destruction of resources, or the elimination from the face of the earth of that wonderful variety of non-human life which at present makes it such a rich and interesting place. The case of nuclear waste storage, and of uncertainty of the effects of it on future people, is one area where uncertainty in morally relevant respects is not so great as to preclude moral constraints on action. For this sort of reason, the Practical uncertainty argument should be rejected. Through the defects of the preceding arguments, we can see the defects in a number of widely employed uncertainty arguments used to write off probable harm to future people as outside the scope of proper consideration. Most of these popular moves employ both of the uncertainty arguments as suits the case, switching from one to the other. For example, we may be told that we cannot really take account of future people because we cannot be sure that they will exist or that their tastes and wants will not be completely different from our own, to the point where they will not suffer from our exhaustion of resources or from the things that would affect us. But this is to insist upon complete certainty of a sort beyond what is required for the present and immediate future, where there is also commonly no guarantee that some disaster will not overtake those to whom we are morally committed. Again we may be told that there is no guarantee that future people will be worthy of any efforts on our part, because they may be morons of forever plugged into enjoyment of other machines. Even if one is prepared to accept the elitist approach presupposed - according to which only those who meet certain properly civilized or intellectual standards are eligible for moral consideration ~ what we are being handed in such arguments �16. is again a mere outside possibility. Neither the contemporary nor the historical situation gives any positive reason for supposing that a lapse into universal moronity or universal-pleasure-machine escapism is a serious possibility. We can contrast with these mere logical possibilities the very real historically supportable risks of escape of nuclear waste or decline of a civilisation through destruction of its resource base. Closely related to uncertainty arguments are arguments premissed on the indeterminacy of the future. For example, according to the Indeterminacy argument,_ the indeterminacy of the number and exact character of people at future times will prevent the interest of future people being taken into account where there is a conflict with the present. Since their numbers are indeterminate and their interests unknown how, it is asked, can we weigh their competing claims against those of the present and immediate future, where this information is available in a more or less accurate form? The question is raised particularly by problems of sharing fixed quantities of resources among present and future people, for example oil, when the numbers of the latter are indeterminate. Such problems are indeed difficult, but they are not resolved by ignoring the claims of the future. Nor are distributional problems involving non-renewable resources as large and representative a class of moral problems concerning the future as the tendency to focus on them would suggest. It can be freely admitted, that there will be cases where the indeterminacy of aspects of the future will make conflicts very difficult to resolve or indeed irresoluble - no realistic ethical theory can give a precise answer to every ethical question. But, as the train parable again illustrates, there are cases where such difficulties do not hinder resolution, and cases of conflict which are not properly approached by weighing numbers, numbers of interests, or whatever, cases for which one needs to know only the most general probable characteristics of future people. The case of nuclear power is like that. The failure of these various arguments reveals, what caiji^e independently^ argued from the universalisability features of moral principles, thata disqualify future people from full moral consideration or reduce their claims below the claims of present people. That is, we have the same general obligations �17. to future people as to the present; thus there is the same obligation to take account of them and their interests in what we do, to be careful in our actions, to take account of the probability (and not just the certainty) of our actions causing harm or damage, and to see, other things being equal, that we do not act so as to rob them of what is necessary for the chance of a good life. Uncertainty and indeterminacy do not relieve us of these obligations. V. PROBLEMS OF SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATION : REACTOR EMISSIONS AND CORE MELTDOWN. The ethical problems with nuclear power are by no means confined to waste storage Just as remoteness in time does not erode obligations or and future creatures. entitlement to just treatment, neither does location in space, or a particular geographical position. Hence several further problems arise, to which principles and arguments like those already arrived at in considering the waste problem apply. For example, if one group (social unit, or state) decides to dump its radioactive wastes in the territory or region of another group, or not to prevent its (radioactive) pollution entering the territory of another group, then it imposes risks and costs on presently existing people of the second group, in much the way that present nuclear developments impose costs and risks on future people. There are differences however : distant people spatially cannot be discounted in quite the way that future people can be, though their interests and objectives can be ignored or overridden. People living in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor are subject to special costs and risks. One is radioactive pollution, because reactors routinely discharge radioactive materials into the air and Emission problem. water near the plant : hence the Such "normal" emission during plant operation of low level radiation carries carcinogenic and mutagenic costs. While there are undoubtedly costs, the number of cancers and the precise extent of genetic damage induced by exposure to such radiation are both uncertain. If our ethical principles permitted free transfer of costs and risks from one person to another, the ethical issue directly raised by nuclear emissions would be : what extent of �18. cancer and genetic damage, if any, is permissibly traded for the advantages of nuclear power, and under what conditions? Since, however, risks and benefits are NOT (morally) transferable this way - recall the Transfer-limiting principle - such a cost-benefit approach to the risks nuclear emission poses for those who live near a reactor cannot with justice be approached in this fashion And these risks are real.’ In the USA, people who live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant bear a risk of cancer and genetic damage of as much as 50 times that borne by the population at large. And children living in this region are even more vulnerable, since they are several times more likely to contract cancer through exposure than normal adults. The serious costs to these people cannot be justified by the alleged benefits for others, especially when these benefits could be obtained without these costs. Thus it is not just complacent to say It s a pity about Aunt Ethel dying of cancer, but the new airconditioners make life comfortable’. For such benefits to some as airconditioners provide, which can be alternatively obtained, for example by modification of buildings, can in no way compensate for what others suffer. Among the other strategies used in trying to persuade us that the imposition of radiation on minorities - most of whom have no genuine voice in the location of reactors in their environment and cannot move away without serious losses - is really quite alright is the Doubling argument. According I to the US Atomic Energy Commission, who deployed this trick, it is permissable to double, through nuclear technology, the level of (natural) radiation that a population ha^ received with apparently negligible consequences, the argument being that the additional amount (being equivalent is also likely to have negligible consequences. to the "natural” level) The increased amounts of radiation - with their large man-made component - are then accounted normal, and, it si claimed, what is normal is morally acceptable. in this argument is sound. None of the steps Drinking one bottle of wine a day may have no ill-effects, whereas drinking two a day certainly may affect a person s well-being, and while the smaller intake may have become normal for the person, the larger one will, under such conditions, no t be. Finally, what is or has become normal, �19. e.g. two murders or twenty cancers a day in a given city, may be far from acceptable. In fact, even the USA, which has very strict standards by comparison with most other countries with planned nuclear reactors, permits radiation emissions very substantially in excess of the standards laid down; so the emission situation is much worse than what consideration of the standards would disclose. Furthermore, the monitoring of the standards ’'imposed” is entrusted to the nuclear operators themselves, scarcely disinterested parties. Thus public policy is determined not so as to guarantee public health, but rather to serve as a ’’public pacifier” while publicly-subsidized private nuclear operations q proceed relatively unhamperedT While radioactive emissions are an ordinary feature of reactor operation, reactor breakdown is, hopefully, not: official reports even try to make an accident of magnitude, as a matter of definition, an ’extraordinary nuclear occurrence’. But "definitions” notwithstanding, such accidents can happen, and almost have on several occasions (the most notorious being Three Mile Island): hence the Core-meltdown problem. If the cooling and emergency core cooling systems fail in American (light water) reactors, then the core melts and ’containment failure’ is likely, with the result that an area of 40,000 square miles could be radioactively 10 contaminated. In the event of the worst type of accident in a very small reactor, a steam explosion in the reactor vessel, about 45,000 people would be killed Instantly and at least 100,000 would die as a result of the accident, property damages would exceed $17 billion and an area the size of Pennsylvania would be destroyed. Modern nuclear reactors are about five times the size of the reactor for which these conservative US (still the best available from A . 11 official sources' are given : the consequences of a similar accident with a modern reactor would accordingly be much greater. The consigner who risks the lives and well-being of passengers on the train acts inadmissibly. a government or government-endorsed utility appears to act in a way that does not differ in morally significant respects in �20. siting a nuclear reactor in a community, in planting such a dangerous package on the "community train". More directly, the location of a nuclear reactor in a community, even if it should happen to receive a favourable benefit-cost analysis and other economic appraisal, would violate such ethical requirements as the Transfer-limiting principle. The advocates of nuclear power have, in effect, endeavoured to avoid questions of cost-transfer and equity, by shifting the dispute out of the extraordinary improbability ethical arena and into a technological dispute about about the/ of reactor malfunction. They have argued, in particular, what contrasts with the train parable, that there is no real possibility of a catastrophic nuclear accident. Indeed in the influential Rassmussen report - which was extensively used to support public confidence in US nuclear fission technology - an even stronger, an incredibly strong, improbability claim was stated: namely, the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident is so remote as to be (almost) impossible. However, the mathematical models relied upon in this report, variously called "fault tree analysis" and "reliability estimating techniques", are unsound, because, among other things, they exclude as "not credible" possibilities that may well happen in the real world. that the It is not surprising, then,^ methodology and data of the report have been soundly and decisively criticised, or that official support for the report has now'been withdrawn.. 12 Moreover, use of alternative methods and data indicates that there is a real possibility, a non-negligible probability of a serious accident. In response it is contended that, even if there is a non-negligible probability of a reactor accident, still that is acceptable, being of no greater order than risks of accidents that are already socially accepted. Here we encounter again that insidious engineering approach to morality built into decision models of an economic cast, e.g. benefit-cost balance sheets, risk­ assessment models, etc. Risk assessment, a sophistication of transaction or trade-off models, purports to provide a comparison between the relative risks attached to different options, e.g. energy otpions, which settles their �1 21. ethical status. The following assumptions are encountered in risk assessment as applied to energy options: ( Ai. If option a imposes (comparable) costs on fewer people than option b then option a is preferable to option Aii. b ; Option a involves a total net cost in terms of cost to people (e.g. deaths, injuries, etc.) which is less than that of option b, which is already /3 accepted; therefore option a is acceptable. These assumptions are then applied as follows. be killed Since the number likely to eventually by nuclear power station catastrophe is less than the likely number killed by cigarette smoking, and since the risks of cigarette smoking are accepted; it follows that the risks of nuclear power are acceptable. A little reflection reveals that this sort of risk assessment argument grossly violates the Transfer­ limiting principle. In order to obtain a proper ethical assessment we need a much fuller picture, and we need to know at least these things:- costs and benefits go to the same parties; Do the and is the person who voluntarily the risks also the person who primarily receives the benefits, as in undertakes driving or cigarette smoking, or are the costs imposed not benefit? on other parties who do It is only if the parties are the same in the case of the options compared, and there are no such distributional problems, a basis would be soundly based. that a comparison on such This is rarely 'the case, and it is not so in the case of risk assessments of energy options. VI. OTHER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND COSTS OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR WAR. The problems already discussed by no means exhaust the environmental, health and safety risks and costs in, or arising from, the nuclear fuel cycle. The full fuel cycle includes many stages both before and after reactor operation, apart from waste disposal, namely,mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and preparation, reprocessing spent fuel, and transportation of materials. Several of these stages involve hazards. risks in the nuclear cycle Unlike the special - of sabotage of plants, of theft of fissionable material, and of the further proliferation of nuclear armaments - these hazards �22. have parallels, if not exact equivalents, in other highly polluting methods of generating power, e.g. ’workers in the uranium mining industry sustain ’’the same 14 risk” of fatal and nonfatal injury as workers in the coal industry’. The A problems are not produced—by nuclear development. Other social and environmental problems - though endemic where dangerous large-scale industry operates in societies that are highly inegalitarian and include sectors that are far from affluent - are more intimately linked with the nuclear power cycle. Though pollution is a common and generally undesirable component of large-scale industrial operation, radioactive pollution , such as uranium mining for instance produces, is especially a legacy of nuclear development, and a specially undesirable one, as rectification costs for dead radioactive lands and waterways reveal. Though sabotage is a threat to many large industries, sabotage of a nuclear reactor can have dire consequences, of a different order of magnitude from most industrial sabotage (where core meltdown is not a possibility). Though theft of material from more dubious enterprises such as munitions works can pose threats to populations at large and can assist terrorism, no thefts for allegedly peaceful enterprises pose problems of the same order as theft of fissionable material. No other industry produces materials which so readily permit fabrication into such massive explosives. No other industry is, to sum it up,,so vulnerable on so many fronts. In part to reduce its vulnerability, in part because of its long and continuing association with military activities, the nuclear industry is subject to, and encourages, several practices which (given their scale) run counter to basic features of free and open societies, crucial features such as personal liberty, freedom of association and of expression,and free access to information. These practices include secrecy, restriction of information, formation of special police and guard forces, espionage, curtailment of civil liberties. Already operators of nuclear installations are given extraordinary powers, in vetting employees, to investigate the background and activities not only of employees but also of their families and sometimes even of their friends. The installations themselves become armed camps, which especially offends British sensibilities. The U.K. Atomic Energy (Special Constables) Act of 1976 created a special armed force to guard nuclear installations ami made it answerable ... to the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. �23. These developments, and worse ones in West Germany and elsewhere,presage along with nuclear development increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic That nuclear development appears to force such political societies. consequences tells heavily against it. Nuclear development is further indicted politically by the direct connection of nuclear power with nuclear war. It is true that ethical questions concerning nuclear war - for example, whether a nuclear war is justified, or just, under any circumstances, and if so what circumstances - are distinguishable from those concerning nuclear power. Undoubtedly, however, the spread of nuclear power is substantially increasing the technical means for engaging in nuclear war and so, to that extent, the opportunity for, and chances of, nuclear engagement. never accounted Since nuclear wars are positive goods, but are at best the lesser of major evils, nuclear wars are always highly ethically undesirable. The spread of nuclear power accordingly expands the opportunity for, and chances of, highly undesirable consequences. Finally the latter, so increasing these chances and opportunities, is itself undesirable, and therefore what leads to it, nuclear development is undesirable. This is, in outline, the argument from nuclear war against large-scale nuclear development. VII. CONFLICT ARGUMENTS, AND BEGINNING ON NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT. UNCOVERING THE IDEOLOGICAL BASES OF Much as with nuclear war, so given the cumulative case against nuclear development, only one justificatory that of appeal to overriding circumstances. route remains open, That appeal, to be ethically acceptable, must go beyond merely economic considerations. For, as observed, the consigner’s action, in the train parable, cannot be justified by purely economistic arguments, such as that his profits would rise, the company or the town would be more prosperous, or by appealing to the fact that some possibly uncomfortable changes would otherwise be needed. case: a Transfer-limiting principle applies. So it is also in the nuclear But suppose now the consigner argues that his action is justified because unless it is taken the town will die. It is �by no means clear that even such a justification as this would be sufficient, especially where the risk to the passengers is high, since the case still to amounts^one of transfer of costs and risks onto others. But such a conflict situation, where a given course of action, though normally undesirable, is alleged to be the lesser of two evils in a given case, is morally more problemthan cases atical^where Transfer-limiting principle is clearly violated,. Nuclear develop­ ment is often defended in this way, through Conflict arguments, to the effect that even though nuclear development does have undesirable features, nevertheless the alternatives are worse. Some of the arguments advanced to demonstrate conflict are based on competing commitments to present people, and others on competing obligations to future people, both of which are taken to override the obligations not to impose on the future significant risk of serious harm. The success of such conflict arguments requires the presentation of a genuine and exhaustive set of alternatives (or at least practical alternatives) and showing that the only alternatives to admittedly morally undesirable actions are even more undesirable ones. If some practical alternative which is not morally worse than the action to be justified is overlooked, suppressed, or neglected in the argument (for example, if in the train parable it turns out that the town has another option to starving or to shipping the parcel, namely earning a living in some other way), then the argument is defective and cannot readily be patched. Just such a suppression of practicable alternatives, we shall argue, has occurred in the argument designed to show that the alternatives to the nuclear option are even worse than the option itself. A first argument, the Poverty argument, is that there is an overriding obligation to the poor, both the poor of the third world and the poor of Indus» trialised countries. Failure to develop nuclear energy, it is often claimed, would amount to denying them the opportunity to reach the standard of affluence we currently enjoy and would create unemployment and poverty in the industrialised nations. And this would be worse - a greater evil - than such things as violating the Transfer-limiting principle through nuclear development. The Poverty argument does not stand up to examination, either for the poor of the industrial countries or for those of the third world. There is good evidence that large-scale nuclear energy will help increase unemployment and poverty in the industrial world, through the diversion of very much available capital into an industry which is not only an exceptionally poor provider of direct employment, but also tends to reduce available jobs through encouraging substitution of energy use for labour use. The argument that nuclear energy is needed for the third world is even less convincing. Nuclear energy is both politically and economically inappropriate for the third world, since it requires massive amounts of capital, requires numbers of imported scientists and engineers, �25. —.creates negligible local employment, and depends for its feasibility upon largely non-existent utility systems - e.g. established electricity transmission systems and back-up facilities, and sufficient electrical appliances to plug into the system. Politically it increases foreign dependence, adds to centralised entrenched power and reduces the chance for change in the oppressive political structures which are a large part of the problem. The fact that nuclear energy is not in the interests of the people of the third world does not of course mean that it is not in the interests of, and wanted (often for military purposes) by, their rulers, the westernised and often military elites in whose interests the economies of these countries are usually organised. than what it is: But that does not make the poverty argument anything other a fraud. There are well-known energy-conserving alternatives and the practical option of developing further alternative energy sources, alternatives some of which offer far better prospects for helping the poor, both in the third world and in industrial countries: coal and other fossil fuels, geothermal, and a range of solar options (including as well as narrowly solar sources, wind, water and tidal power). Another major argument advanced to show conflict, the Lights-goingout argument, pppeals to a set of supposedly overriding and competing obligations to future people. We have, it is said, a duty to pass on the immensely valuable things and institutions which our culture has developed. Unless our high-technology, high-energy industrial society is continued and fostered, our valuable institutions and traditions will fall into decay or be swept away. The argument is essentially that without nuclear power, without the continued level of material wealth it alone is assumed to make possible, the lights of our civilization will go out. Future people will be the losers. > The argument does raise important questions about what is valuable in our society and what characteristics are necessary for a good society. the most part these large questions can be by-passed. But for The reason is that the argument adopts an extremely uncritical attitude to present high-technology societies, apparently assuming that they are uniformly and uniquely valuable. . it It assumes that technological society is unmodifiable, that/cannot be changed in the direction of energy conservation or alternative (perhaps high technology) energy sources without collapse. These assumptions are all hard to accept. The assumption that technological society’s energy patterns are unmodifiable is especially so; after all, it has survived events such as world wars which required major social and technological restructuring and consumption modification. If western society’s demands for energy were (contrary to the evidence) totally unmodifiable without collapse, not only would it be committed to a program of increasing destruction, but much of its culture would be of dubious value to �future people, who would very likely, as a consequence of this destruction, lack the resource base which the argument assumes to be essential in the case of contemporary society. The uniformity assumption should certainly be challenged. Since high- technology societies appear not to be uniformly valuable, the central question is, what is necessary to maintain what is valuable in such a society? While it may be easy to argue that high energy consumption centrally controlled is necessary to maintain the political and economic status quo of such a society, it is not so easy to argue that it is essential to maintain what is valuable, and it is what is valuable, presumably, that we have a duty to pass on to the future. The evidence from history is that no very high level of material affluence or energy consumption is needed to maintain what is valuable. There is good reason in fact to believe that a society with much lower energy and resource consumption would better foster what is valuable than our own. But even if a radical change in these directions is independently desirable, it is unnecessary to presuppose such a change in order to see that the assumptions of the Lights-going-out argument are wrong. present The consumption of less energy than at need involve no reduction of well-being;and certainly a large increase over present levels of consumption assumed in the usual economic case for nuclear energy, is quite unnecessary. then What the nuclear strategy is really designed to do is not to prevent the lights going out in western civilisation, but to enable the lights to go on burning all the time - to maintain and even increase the wattage output of the Energy Extravaganza . In fact there is good reason to think that, far from the high energy consumption society fostering what is valuable, it will, especially if energy is obtained by means of nuclear fission,be positively inimical to it. which has become heavily dependent upon a A society highly centralised, controlled and garrisoned, capital- and expertise-intensive energy source, must be one which is highly susceptible to entrenchment of power, and one in which the forces which control this energy source, whether capitalist or bureaucratic, can exert enormous power over the political system and over people’s lives, even more then they do at present. Such a society would almost inevitably tend to become authoritarian and increasingly anti-democratic, as an outcome, among other things, of its response to the threat posed by dissident groups in the nuclear situation. Nuclear development may thus help in passing on to future generations some of the worst aspects of our society - the consumerism, alienation, destruction of nature, and latent authoritarianism - while many valuable aspects, such as the degree of political freedom and those opportunities for personal and collective autonomy which exist, would be lost or diminished: political freedom �27. for example, is a high price to pay for consumerism and and energy extravagence. Again, as in the case of the poverty arguments, clear alternatives, alternative social and political choices, which do not involve such unacceptable consequences, are available. The alternative to the high technology-nuclear option is not a return to the cave, the loss of all that is valuable, but either the adoption of an available alternative such as coal for power or, better,the development of alternative technologies and lifestyles which offer far greater scope for the maintenance and further development of what is valuable in our society than the highly centralised nuclear option. The Lights-going-out argument, as a moral conflict argument, accordingly fails. Thus the further escape route, the appeal to conflict, is, like the appeal to futurity, closed. If then we apply, as we have argued we should, the same standards of morality to the future as we ought to acknowledge for the present, the conclusion that large-scale nuclear development is a crime against the future is inevitable. Closed also, in the much same way, are the escape routes to other arguments (from reactor meltdown, radiation emissions, etc.) for concluding that nuclear development is unacceptable. In sum, nuclear development is morally unacceptable on several grounds. VIII. SOCIAL OPTIONS : SHALLOW AND DEEP ALTERNATIVES. The future energy option that is most often contrasted with nuclear power, namely coal power, while no doubt preferable to nuclear power, is hardly acceptable. For it carries with it the likelihood of serious (air) pollution, and associated phenomena such as acid rain and atmospheric heating, not to mention the despoliation caused by extensive strip mining, all of which will result from its use in meeting very high projected consumption figures. the Transfer-limiting principle : Such an option would, moreover, also violate for it would impose widespread costs on nonbeneficiaries for some concentrated benefits to some profit takers and to some users who do not pay the full costs of production and replacement. To these main conventional options a third is often added which emphasizes softer and more benign technologies, such as those of solar energy and hydroelectricity. Such softer options — if suitably combined with energy conservation measures (for there are solar ways, as well as nuclear ways, of energy extravagance and of producing unnecessary trivia which answer to no genuine needs) - can avoid the ethical objections to nuclear power, The deeper choice is not however technological, nor merely^individual^, £u£ Social , and involves the restructuring of production away from energy intensive uses and, at a more basic level, a change to nonconsumeristic, less consumptive life­ styles and social arrangements^6 These more fundamental choices between social alternatives, conventional technologically-oriented discussion of energy options tends to obscure. It is not just a matter of deciding in which way to meet the �28. unexamined goals nuclear development aspires to meet, but also a matter of examining the goals themselves. That is, we are not merely faced with the question of comparing different technologies for meeting some fixed or given demand or level of consumption, and of trying to see how best to meet these; we are also faced, and primarily, with the matter of examining those alleged needs and the cost of a society that creates them. It is doubtful that any technology, however benign in principle, will be likely to leave a tolerable world for the future if it is expected to meet unbounded and uncontrolled energy consumption and demands. Even more benign technologies may well be used in a way which creates costs for future people and which are^5" them. "2?likely to result in a deteriorated world being handed on to In short, even more benign technologies may lead to violation of the Transmission ^2 2,1^g q u i rement. Consider, to illustrate, the effect on the world s forests, commonly counted as a solar resource, should they be extensively used for production of methanol or of electricity by woodchipping. While few would object to the use of genuine waste material for energy production, the unrestricted exploitation of forests - whether it goes under the name of "solar energy" or not - to meet ever increasing energy demands could well be the final indignity for the world’s already hard-pressed natural forests. The effects of such additional demands on the maintenance of the forests are often dismissed by the simple expedient of waving around the label "renewable resources". Many forests are in principle renewable, it is a true, given a certain (low) rate and kind of exploitation, but in fact there are now very few forestry operations anywhere in the world where the forests are treated as completely renewable in the sense of the renewal of all their values. In many regions too the rate of exploitation which would enable renewal has already been exceeded, so that a total decline, is widely thought to be imminent. It certainly has begun in many regions, and many forest types, especially rain forest types, are now, and rapidly, being lost for the future. The addition of a ma|nr^ f ur ther and not readily limitable demand pressure for energy on top of ^the present demands is one which anyone with both a realistic appreciation of the conduct of forestry operations and a concern for the long-term conservation of the forests and remaining natural communities must regard with alarm. The result of massive deforestation for energy purposes, resembling the deforestation of much of Europe at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, again for energy purposes, could be extensive and devastating erosion in steeper lands and tropical areas, desertification in more arid regions, possible climatic change, and massive impoverishment of natural ecosystems, including enormous loss of natural species. Some of us do not want to pass on, and by the Transmission principles we are not entitled to pass on, a deforested world to the future, any more than we want to pass on one poisoned by nuclear �29. products or polluted by coal products. illustrates, a mere switch to In short, as the forest situation more benign technologies - important though this is - without any more basic structural and social change, is inadequate. The deeper social option involves challenging and beginning to alter a social structure which promotes consumerism, consumption far beyond genuine needs, and an economic structure which encourages increasing use of highly energy-intensive modes of production. The social change option tends to be obscured in most discussions of energy options and of how to meet energy needs, in part because it does question underlying values of current social arrangements. The conventional discussion proceeds by taking alleged demand (often conflated with wants or needs) as unchallengeable, and the issue to be one of which technology can be most profitably employed to meet them. This effectively presents a false choice, and is the result of taking needs and demand as lacking a social context so that the social structure which produces the needs is similarly taken as unchallengeable and unchangeable. The point is readily illustrated. It is commonly argued by representatives of such industries as transportation and petroleum, as for example by McGrowth of the XS Consumption Co., that people want deep freezers, air conditions, power gadgets, .... authoritarian to prevent them from satisfying these wants. from created wants It would be Such an argument conveniently ignores the social framework in which such needs and wants arise or are produced. To point to the determination of many such wants at the framework level is not however to assume that they are entirely determined at the framework level (e.g. by industrial organisation) and there is no such thing as individual choice or determination at all. It is to see the social framework as a major factor in determining certain kinds of choices, such as those for travel, and kinds, of infrastructure, and to see apparently individual choices made in such matters as being channelled and directed by a social framework determined largely in the interests of corporate and private profit and advantage. The social change option is a hard option, insofar as it will be difficult to implement politically; but it is ultimately the only way of avoiding the passing on of serious costs to future people. reasons than such ethical ones for taking it: And there are other sorts of it is the main, indeed the only sort of option,open to those who adopt what is now called a deep ecological perspective, as contrasted with a shallow ecological outlook which regards the natural world and its nonhuman denizens as not worthwhile in themselves but only of value in as much as they answer back to human interests. The deep ecological perspective is an Integral part of the Alternative Ecological Paradigm and is incompatible with central theses of the Dominant Social Paradigm (which is essentially the ideology of classical and neoclassical economics) �30. and its variants (roughly, what are called State Socialism, and Democratic 18 Socialism). It is incompatible with such assumptions as that the natural environment is of value only as a resource, is by and large hostile, but is controllable in human interests,and with the further domination over nature themes of the Dominant Paradigm and its variants. The conflict between Alternative and Dominant Paradigms, which is fast increasing, extends of course far beyond attitudes to the natural world, since core values of the Dominant Paradigm such as the merits of unimpeded economic growth and material progress are at stake; the conflict involves fundamental differences over the whole front of economical, political and social arrangements. The conflict underlies much of the nuclear debate, insofar as it is not specifically limited to questions of technological fixes, but takes up the 19 basic ethical issues and the social questions to which they lead. The ethical requirements already defended and applied bring us out, when followed through, on the Alternative side of the paradigm conflict, and accordingly lead to the difficult social change option. The social changes that the deep alternative requires will be strongly resisted because they mean changes in current social organisation and power structure. To the extent that the option represents some kind of threat to parts of present political and economic arrangements, it is not surprising that official energy option discussion proceeds by misrepresenting and often obscuring it. But difficult as it is to suitably alter "the system," especially one with such far-reaching effects on the prevailing power structure, it is imperative to try: we are all on the nuclear train. �FOOTNOTES This paper is a condensation of an early version of our ’Nuclear 1. power - ethical, social, and political dimensions’ (ESP for short, available from the authors), which in turn grew out of Routley (i.e. the work so referred to in the reference list). For help with the condensation we are very considerably indebted to the editors. In the condensation, we simplify the structure of the argument and suppress underlying political and ideological dimensions (for example, the large measure of responsibility of the USA for spreading nuclear reactors around the world, and thereby in enhancing the chances of nuclear disasters, including nuclear war). We also considerably reduce a heavy load of footnotes and references designed and needed to help make good many of our claims. Further, in order to contain references to a modest length, reference to primary sources has often been replaced by reference through secondary sources. Little difficulty should be encountered however in tracing fuller references through secondary sources or in filling out much important background material from work cited herein. For example, virtually all the data cited in sections^ and VII is referenced in Routley. At worst ESP can always be consulted. All but the last line of the quote is drawn from Goodin, p. 417; 2. the last line is from the Fox Report, p. 6. While it is unnecessary to know much about the nuclear fuel cycle in order to consider ethical and social dimensions of nuclear power, it helps to know a little. The basics are presented in many texts, e.g. Nader Of course in order to assess fully reports as to such I important background and stage-setting matters as the likelihood of a & Abbotts, Gyorgy. core meltdown of (lightwater) reactors, much more information is required. For many assessment purposes however, some knowledge of economic fallacies and decision theory is at least as important as knowledge of nuclear technology. 3. Naturally the effect on humans is not the only factor that has to be taken into account in arriving at moral assessments. Nuclear radiation, unlike most ethical theories, does not confine its scope to human life and welfare. But since the harm nuclear development may afflict on non­ human life, for example, can hardly improve its case, it suffices if the case against it can be made out solely in terms of its effects on human life in the conventional way. �For reference to and a brief discussion of (human-oriented) simulation models p.428. The Opportunity-cost 4. respects. see Goodin, argument is also defective in other It presupposes not merely the (mistaken) reductions involved in the contraction of the ethical domain to the economic; it also presupposes that the proper methods for decision which affect the choice, apply discounting. future, such as that of energy But, as Goodin argues, more appropriate decision rules do not allow discounting. This is one of the reasons why expected utility theory, 5. roughly cost-benefit analysis with probability frills, is inadequate as a decision method in such contexts. Apparent exceptions to the principle such as taxation (and 6. redistribution of income generally) vanish when wealth is construed (as it has to be if taxation is to be properly justified) as at least partly a social asset unfairly monopolised by a minority of the population. Examples such as that of motoring dangerously do not constitute counterexamples to the principle; for one is not morally entitled to so motor. 7. For details, and as to how the official analyses become arguments against nuclear development when some attempt is made to take the ignored costs into account, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 55 ff. 8. See Routley, p. 160. 9. For much further discussion of the points of the preceding two para- » graphs, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 35 ff.; and also Nader 10. & Abbotts. Most of the reactors in the world are of this type; see Gyorgy. 11. See Shrader-Frechette, chapter 4. 12. See Shrader-Frechette. shortcomings A worthwhile initial view of the of the Rassmussen report may be reached by combining the critique in Shrader-Frechette with that in Nader 13. There are variations on Ai against numbers such as probabilities. and Aii & Abbotts. which multiply costs In this way risks, construed as probable costs, can be taken into account in the assessment. risks may be assessed (Alternatively, through such familiar methods as insurance). �A principle varying . * Aii a Aii, and formulated as follows: is ethically acceptable if (for some b) a includes no more risks than b and b is socially accepted. was the basic ethical principle in terms of which the Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry recently decided that nuclear power development see Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry in Saskatchewan is ethically acceptable: Department of Environment, Government of Saskatchewan, 1978, Final Report, p. 305 and p. 288. In this report, a is nuclear power and b is either activities clearly accepted by society as alternative power sources. other applications b In has been taken as cigarette smoking, motoring, mining and even the Vietnam war () . The points made in the text do not exhaust the objections to principles Ai - Aii’. The principles are certainly ethically substantive, since an ethical consequence cannot be deduced from nonethical premisses, but they have an inadmissible conventional origin of b : b character. For look at the may be socially accepted though it is no longer socially acceptable, or though its social acceptibility is no longer so clearcut and it would not have been socially accepted if as much as is now known had been known when it was introduced. What is required in Aii’, for instance, for the argument to begin to look convincing is that ’ethically acceptable’ rather than ’socially accepted'. b is But even with the amendments the principles are invalid, for the reasons given in the text, and others. It is not disconcerting that principles of this type do not work. It would be sad to see yet another area lost to the experts, ethics to actuaries. 14. See Shrader-Frechette, p. 15. 15. Goodin 16. The argument is elaborated in ESP. 17. For some of the more philosophically important material on p. 433. alternative nonconsumeristic .social arrangements and lifestyles, see work cited in V. and R. Routley, 'Social theories, self management and environmental problems’ in Mannison et al, where a beginning is made on working out one set of alternatives, those of a pluralistic anarchism. �The parlous 18. situation of the world’s tropical rainforests is explained in, for instance, Myers; the reasons are untangled in R. and V. Routley ’World rainforest destruction - the social causes’ (available from the authors). For a fuller account of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its 19. rival, the Alternative Environmental Paradigm, see Cotgrove and Duff, especially _ the main the table on p. 341 which encapsulates of the assumptions paradigms; compare also Catton and Dunlap, especially p. 34. Contemporary variants ^.n the Dominant Social Paradigm wer-e considered in ESP. -X The shallow/deep contrast as applied to ecological positions, which is an important component of the paradigm conflict, was introduced by Naess. For further explanation of the contrast and of the larger array of ecological positions into which it fits, see R. and V. Routley, environmental ethics' in Mannison especially to Rodman’s 20. ’Human chauvinism and et al, and the references there cited, work. The more elaborate argument of ESP sets the nuclear debate in the context of paradigm conflict. But it is also argued that, even within assumptions framework of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its variants, Ti. Nuclear development is not the rational choice among energy options. The main argument put up for nuclear development within the framework of the dominant paradigm is an Economic growth argument. It is the following version of the Lights-going-out argument (with economic growth duly standing in for material wealth, and for what is valuable.’ necessary to sustain economic growth. Nuclear power is Economic: growth is desirable (for all the usual reasons, e.g. to increase the size of the pie, to postpone redistribution problems, etc.). Therefore nuclear power is desirable. The first premiss is part of US energy policy (see Shrader-Frechette, p.lll), and the second premiss is supplied by standard economics textbooks. But both premisses are defective, the second because what is valuable in economic growth can be achieved by (not without growth but) selective growth, which jettisons economic the heavy social and environmental costs carried by unqualified economic growth. More to the point, since the second premiss is an assumption of the Dominant Paradigm, the first premiss (or rather an fails even by Dominant appropriate and less vulnerable restatement of it) Paradigm standards. For of course nuclear power is not necessary that there are other, perhaps costlier alternatives. defended is some elaboration of the premiss : given The premiss usually Nuclear power is the economically best way to sustain economic growth, ’economically best’ �being filled out as ’most efficient’, ’cheapest’, benefit-cost ratio’, etc. ’having the most favourable Unfortunately for the argument, and for nuclear development schemes, nuclear power is none of these things decisively (unless a good deal of economic cheating - easy to do - is done). Tii- On proper Dominant Paradigm accounting, nuclear choices should generally be rejected, both as private utility investments and as public choices. Nuclear development is not economically viable but has been kept going, not by clear economic viability, but by massive subsidization of several types (discussed in Shrader-Flechette, Gyorgy and Nader & Abbotts). Even on variants of the Dominant Paradigm, nuclear development is not justified, as consideration of decision theory methods will reveal: Tiii. Whatever reasonable decision rule is adopted, the nuclear choice is rej ected f as the arguments of Goodin on ^Alternative decision rules help to show. What sustains the nuclear juggernaut is not the Dominant Paradigm or its variants, but contemporary corporate capitalism (or its state enterprise image) and associated third world imperialism, as the historical details of nuclear development both in developed countries and in less developed countries makes plain (for main details, see Gyorgy p. 307 ff.). the practices of contemporary Ayi corporate capitalism and associated imperialism are not acceptable by the standards of either of the Paradigms or their variants : not ethically acceptable. , they are certainly �<0 O to REFERENCES USED Works especially useful for further investigation of the ethical issues raised by nuclear development are indicated with an asterisk (* ). S. C^yove. and A. Duff, ’’Environmentalism, middle-class radicalism and politics’, Sociological Review 28(2) (1980), 333-51. W. R. Catton, Jr., and R. E. Dunlap, ’A new ecological paradigm for post exuberant sociology’ American Behavioral Scientist 24 (1980). 15-47. For Report : Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry First Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1977. *R. E. Goodin, "No moral nukes’, Ethics 90 (1980), 417-49. *A. Gyorgy and friends, No Nukes : everyone’s guide to nuclear power, South End Press, Boston, Mass., 1979. *D. Mannison, M. McRobbie and R. Routley (editors), Environmental Philosophy, RSSS, Australian National University, 1980. N. Myers, The Sinking Ark, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1979. R. Nader and J. Abbotts, The Menace of Atomic Energy, Outback Press, Melbourne, 1977. *K. S. Shrader-Frechette, Nuclear Power and Public Policy, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980.preferred Lo as SF)T~" R. and V. Routley, ’Nuclear energy and obligations to the future’, Inquiry 21 (1978), 133-79. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ' i ' Vai Routley Richa/ 1. NUCLEAR POWER - SOME ETHICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS1 One hardly needs initiation into the dark mysteries of nuclear physics to contribute usefully to the debate now widely ragging over nuclear power. While many important empirical questions are still unresolved, these do not really lie at the centre of the controversy. Instead, it is a debate about values... many of the questions which arise are social and ethical ones. I. THE TRAIN PARABLE AND THE NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEM. train has just pulled out. passengers and freight. The train which is A long distance country crowded carries both At an early stop in the journey someone consigns as freight, to a far distant destination, a package which contains a highly toxic and explosive gas. This is packed in a very thin container which, as the consigner is aware, may well not contain the gas for the full distance for which it is consigned, and certainly will not do so if the train should strike any real trouble, for example, if the train should be derailed or involved in a collision, or if some passenger should interfere inadvertently or deliberately with the freight, perhaps trying to steal some of it. of these sorts of things have happened on some previous journeys. All If the container should break the resulting disaster would probably kill at least some of the people on the train in adjacent carriages, while others could be maimed or poisoned or sooner or later incur serious diseases. Most of us would roundly condemn such an action. of the parcel say to try to justify it? What might the consigner He might say that it is not certain that the gas will escape, or that the world needs his product and it is his duty to supply it, or that in any case he is not or the people on it. X responsible for the train These sorts of excuses however would normally be seen /as ludicrous when set in this context. Unfortunately, similar excuses are not -aiso seen when the consigner, again a (responsible) businessman,puts his workers’ health or other peoples’ welfare at risk. Suppose he says that it is his own and others’p ressing needs which justify his action. The company he controls, which produces the material as a by-product, is in bad financial straits, and could not afford to produce a better container even if it knew how to make one. If the company fails, he and his family will suffer, his employees will lose their jobs and have to look for others, and the whole company town, through loss of spending, will be worse off. The poor and unemployed of the town, whom he would otherwise have been able to help, will suffer especially. Few people would accept such grounds as justification. Even where there are serious risks and costs to oneself or some group for whom one is concerned one is usually considered not to be entitled to simply transfer the heavy burden of those risks and costs onto other uninvolved parties, especially wheie they arise from one’s own, or one’s group’s chosen life-style. The matter of nuclear waste has many moral features which resemble the train case. How fitting the analogy is will become apparent as the argument progresses. There is no known proven safe way to package the highly toxic wastes generated by the nuclear plants that will be spread around the world as large-scale nuclear development goes ahead. The waste problem will be much more serious than that generated by the 50 or so reactors in use at present, with each one of the 2000 or so reactors envisaged by the end of the century producing, on average, annual wastes containing 1000 times the radioactivity of the Hiroshima bomb. Much of this waste is extremely toxic. For example, a millionth of a gramme of plutonium is enough to induce a lung cancer. A leak of even a part of the waste material could involve much loss of life, widespread disease and genetic damage, and contamination of immense areas of land. Wastes will include the reactors themselves, which will have to be abandoned after their expected life times of perhaps 40 years, and which, some have estimated, may require 1% million years to reach safe levels of radioactivity. Nuclear wastes must be kept suitably isolated from the environment for their entire active lifetime. For fission products the required storage period averages a thousand years or so, and for transuranic elements, which include plutonium, there is a half million to a million year storage problem. Serious problems have arisen with both short-term and proposed long-term methods of storage, even with the comparatively small quantities of waste produced over I the last twenty years. Short-term methods of storage require continued human intervention, while proposed longer term methods are subject to both human inter­ ference and risk of leakage through non-human factors. No one with even a slight knowledge of the geological and climatic history of the earth over the last million years, a period whose fluctuations in climate we are only just beginning to guage and which has seen four Ice Ages, could be confident that a rigorous guarantee of safe storage could be provided for the vast period of time involved. Nor does the history of human affairs over the last 3000 years give ground for confidence in safe storage by methods requiring human intervention over perhaps a million years. Proposed long-term storage methods such as storage in granite formations or in salt mines, are largely speculative and relatively untested, and have already proved to involve difficulties with attempts made to put them into practice. Even as regards expensive recent proposals for first embedding concentrated wastes in glass and encapsulating the result in multilayered metal containers before rock deposit, simulation models 3. reveal that radioactive material may not remain suitably isolated from human 10 environments. In short, the best present storage proposals carry very real possibilities of irradiating future people and damaging their environmentP Given the heavy costs which could be involved for the future, and given the known limits of technology, it is methodologically unsound to bet, as nuclear nations have, on the discovery of safe procedures for storage of wastes. Any new procedures (required before 2000) will probably be but variations on not only have present proposals, and subject to the same inadequacies. For instance,y none of the proposed methods for safe storage has been properly tested, but they may well prove to involve unforeseen difficulties and risks when an attempt is made to put them into practice on a commercial scale. Only a method that could provide a rigorous guarantee of safety over the storage period, that placed safety beyond reasonable doubt, would be acceptable. It is difficult to see how such rigorous guarantees could be given concerning either the geological or future human factors. But even if an economically viable, rigorously safe long term storage method could be devised, there is the problem of guaranteeing that it would be universally and invariably used. The assumption that it would be (especially if, as appears likely, such a method proved expensive economically and politically) seems to presuppose a level of efficiency, perfection, and concern for the future which has not previously been encountered in human affairs, and has certainly not been conspicuous in the nuclear industry. The risks imposed on the future by proceeding with nuclear development are, then, significant. to bear Perhaps 40,000 generations of future people could be forced significant risks resulting from the provision of the (extravagant) energy use of only a small proportion of the people of 10 generations. Nor is the risk of direct harm from the escape or misuse of radioactive materials the only burden the nuclear solution imposes on the future. Because the energy provided by nuclear fission is merely a stop gap, it seems probable that in due course the same problem, that of making a transition to renewable sources of energy, will have to be faced again by a future population which will probably, again as a result of our actions, be very much worse placed to cope with it. Their world will most likely be a world which is seriously depleted of non-renewable resources, and in which such renewable resources as forests and soils as remain, resources which inevitably form an important part of the basis of life, are run-down or destroyed. Such points tell against the idea that future people must be, if not direct beneficiaries of energy from nuclear fission, at least indirect beneficiaries. The "solution” then is to buy time for contemporary society at a price which not only creates serious problems for future people but which reduces their ability to cope with these problems. Like the consigner in the train parable, contemporary industrial society proposes, in order to get itself out of a mess arising from its own life-style - the creation of economies dependent on an abundance of non-rerewable energy, which is limited in supply - to pass on costs and risks of serious harm to others who will obtain no corresponding benefits. The "solution" may enable the avoidance of some uncomfortable changes in the lifetime of those now living and their immediate descendants, just as the consigner’s action avoids uncomfortable changes for him and those in his immediate surroundings, but at the expense of passing heavy burdens to other uninvolved parties whose opportunity to lead decent lives may be seriously jeopardised. If we apply to the nuclear situation the standards of behaviour and moral principles generally acknowledged (in principle, if not so often in fact) in the contemporary world, it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that nuclear development involves injustice with respect to the future on a grand scale. There appear to be only two plausible ways of trying to avoid such a conclusion. First, it might be argued that the moral principles and obligations which we acknowledge for the contemporary world and perhaps the immediate future do not apply to those in the non-immediate future. Secondly, an attempt might be made to appeal to overriding circumstances; for to reject the consigner’s action in the circumstances Outlined is not to imply that there are no circumstances in which such an action might be justifiable. As in the case of the consigner of the package there is a need to consider what these justifying circumstances might be, and whether they apply in the present case. We consider these possible escape routes for the proponent of nuclear development in turn. II. OBLIGATIONS TO THE (DISTANT) FUTURE. The especially problematic area is that of the distant (i.e. non-immediate) future, the future with which people alive today will have no direct contact; by comparison, the immediate future gives fewer problems for most ethical theories. In fact the question of obligations to future people presents tests which a number of ethical theories fail to pass, and also has serious repercussions in political philosophy as regards the adequacy of accepted (democratic and other) institutions which do not take due account of the interests of future creatures. 5. Moral philosophers have, predictably, differed on questions of obligations to distant future creatures. A good many of the philosophers who have explicitly considered the question have come down in favour of the same consideration being given to the rights and interests of future people as to those of contemporary or immediately future people. Others fall into three categories: those who acknowledge obligations to the future but who do not take them seriously or who assign them a lesser weight, those who deny, or who are committed by their general moral position to denying, that there are moral obligations beyond the immediate future, and those who come down, with admirable philosophical caution, on both sides of the issue, but with the weight of the argument favouring the view underlying prevailing economic and political institutions, that there are no moral obligations to the future beyond those perhaps to the next generation. According to the most extreme of these positions against moral obligations to the future, our behaviour with respect to the future is morally unconstrained; there are no moral restrictions on acting or failing to act deriving effect of our actions on future people. from the Of those philosophers who say, or whose views imply that we do not have obligations to the (non-immediate) future, many have based this view on accounts of moral obligation which are built on relations which presuppose some degree of temporal or spatial contiguity. Thus, moral obligation is seen as presupposing various relations which could not hold between people widely separated in time (or sometimes in space). Let us call the position that we have no obligations to (distant) future people the constraints position. ' -*■ ■■■--------- ----- No­ , Among suggested bases or grounds of moral obligation for the position, which would rule out obligations to the non-immediate future, are these. Firstly, there are those accounts which require that someone to whom a moral obligation is held be able to claim his rights or entitlement. People in the distant future will not be able to claim rights and entitlements against us, and of course they can do nothing to enforce any claims they might have against us. Secondly, there are those accounts which base moral obligations on social or legal convention, for example a convention which would require punishment of offenders or at least some kind of social enforcement. But plainly these and other conventions will not be invariant over change in society and amendment of legal conventions; hence they will not be invariant over time. Also future people have no way of enforcing their interests or punishing offending predecessors. The No-constraints view is a very difficult one to sustain. Consider, for example, a scientific group which, for no particular reason other than to test a particular piece of technology, places in orbit a cobalt bomb set off by a triggering device designed to go off several hundred years from the time of its despatch. No presently living person and none of their immediate descendants would be affected, but the population of the earth in the distant future would be wiped out as a direct and predictable result of the action. The no—constraints position clearly implies that this is an acceptable moral enterprise, that whatever else we might legitimately criticize in the scientists’ experiment (perhaps its being over-expensive or badly designed) we cannot lodge a moral protest about the damage it will do to future people. The no-constraints position also endorses as morally acceptable the following sorts of policy A firm discovers it can make a handsome profit from mining, processing and manufacturing a new type of material which, although it causes no problem for present people or their immediate descendants, will over a period of hundreds of years decay into a substance which will cause an enormous epidemic of cancer among the inhabitants of the earth at that time. According to the no-constraints view the firm is free to act in its own interests, without any consideration for the harm it does remote future people. Such counterexamples to the No-constraints position, which are easily varied and multiplied, might seem childlishly obvious. Yet this view is far from being a straw man; not only have several philosophers endorsed this position, but it is a clear implication of many currently popular views of the basis of moral obligation, as well as of prevailing economic theory. It seems that those who opt for the No-constraints position have not considered such examples, despite their being clearly implied by their position. We suspect that (we certainly hope that) when it is brought out that their position admits such counterexamples, that without any constraints we are free to cause pointless harm for example, most of those who opted for this position would want to assert that it was not what they intended. What many of those who have put forward the No-constraints position seem to have had in mind (in denying moral obligation) is rather that future people can look after themselves, that we are not responsible for their lives. The popular view that the future can take care of itself also seems to assume a future causally independent of the present. But it is not. It is not as if, in the counterexample cases or in the nuclear case, the future is simply being left alone to take care of itself. Present people are influencing it, and in doing so thereby acquire many of the same sorts of moral responsibilities as they do in causally affecting the present and immediate future, most notably the obligation to take account in 7. what they do of people affected and their Interests, to be careful in their actions, to take account of the genuine probability of their actions causing harm, and to see that they do not act so as to rob future people of the chance of a good life. Furthermore, to say that we are not resposible for the lives of future people does not amount to the same thing as saying that we are free to do as we like with respect to them. In just the same way, the fact that one does not have or has not acquired an obligation to some stranger with whom one has never been involved does not imply that one is free to do what one likes with respect to him, for example to rob him or to seriously harm him when this could be avoided. These difficulties for the No-constraints position result in part because of a failure to make an important distinction. Some of our obligations to others arise because we have voluntarily entered into some agreement with them - for example, we have made a promise. Other obligations, however, such as our duty not to damage or harm someone, do not assume that an agreement has been struck between us. former kind acquired obligations Let us call obligations of the and those of the latter unacquired obligations. There is a considerable difference in the type of responsibility associated with each. In the case of acquired obligations responsibility arises because one should do something which one can fail to do, e.g. keep a promise. In the case of unacquired duties responsibility arises as a result of being a causal agent who is aware of the consequences or probable consequences of his action, a responsibility that is not dependent on one’s having performed some act in the past (e.g., made a promise). Our obligations to future people clearly are of unacquired, not acquired obligations, a fact the No-constraints position simply fails to take into account. These obligations arise as a result of our ability to produce causal effects of a reasonably predictable nature, whether on our contemporaries or on those in the distant future. Thus, to return to the train parable, the consigner cannot argue in justification of his action that he has, for example, never assumed or acquired responsibility for the passengers, that he does not know them and therefore has no love or sympathy for them and that they are not part of his moral community; in short, that he has acquired no obligation, and has no special obligations to help them. All that 8. one needs to argue concerning the train, and in the nuclear case, is that there are moral obligations against imposing harm for instance which are not specially ions, to the distant acquired. Nor can this claim be rebutted by the pretence' .at/future involve heroic self sacrifice, something ’’above and beyond" what is normally required. One is no more engaging in heroic self sacrifice by not forcing future people into an unviable life position or by refraining from causing them direct harm than the consigner is resorting to heroic self sacrifice in refraining from shipping the dangerous package on the train. III. ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE OBLIGATIONS TO THE FUTURE. In evading these difficulties the No-constraints position may be qualified rather than wholly abandoned. According to the Qualified position we are not entirely unconstrained There are obligations, even to distant future with respect to the distant future. people, but these are not so important as those to the present, and the interests of distant future people cannot weigh very much in the scale against those of the present and immediate future. The interests of future people then, except in unusual cases, count for very much less than the interests of present people. Hence such things as nuclear development and various exploitative activities which benefit present people should proceed, even if people of the distant future are (somewhat) disadvantaged by them. The Qualified position appears to be widely held and is implicit in prevailing economic theories, where the position of a decrease in weight of future costs and benefits (and so of future interests) is obtained by application over time of a discount rate, so discounting costs and risks to future people. The attempt to apply economics as a moral theory, something that is becoming increasingly common, can lead theft to the Qualified position. What is objectionable in such an approach is that economics must operate within the bounds of acknowledged non-acquired moral constraints, just as in practice it operates within legal constraints. What economics cannot legitimately do is determine what these constraints are. There are, moreover, alternative economic theories and simply to adopt, without further ado, one which discounts the future, giving much less importance to the interests of future people, is to beg all the questions at issue. Among the arguments that economists offer for generally discounting the future, the most threadbare is based on the Rosy-future assumption, that future generations will be better off than present ones (and so better placed to handle the waste problem). generations may well not Since there is mounting evidence that future be better off then present ones, especially in things that matter, no argument for discounting the interests of future generations on this basis can carry much weight. For the waste problem to be handed down 9. to the future generations, it would have to be shown, what recent economic progress hardly justifies, that future generations will be not just better off but so much better off that they can (easily) carry and control the nuclear freight. A more plausible argument for discounting, the Opportunity-cost argument, builds directly It is argued from the fact on the notion of opportunity cost. that a dollar gained now is worth much more than a dollar received in the non- immediate future (because the first dollar could meanwhile be invested at compound interest), that discounting is required to obtain equivalent monetary values. This same line of reasoning is then applied to the allocation of resources. Thus, compensation - which is what the waste problem is taken to come to economically - costs much less now than later, e.g. a few pennies set aside (e.g. in a trust fund) in the future, if need be, will suffice to compensate eventually for any victims of remote radioactive waste leakage. beset this approach. Two problems First, there are, presently at least, insurmountable practical difficulties about applying such discounting. how to determine appropriate future discount rates. that the argument depends on a false assumption. We simply do not know A more serious objection is It is not true that value, or damages, can always be converted into monetary equivalents. There is no clear ’’monetary compensation” for a variety of damages, including cancer, loss of life, a lost species. The discounting theme, however argued for, is inadequate, because it leads back in practice to the No-constraints position. discounting imposes an ” economic horizon” The reason is that beyond which nothing need be considered, since any costs or benefit which might arise are, when discounted back to the present, negligible. » A different argument for the Qualified position, the Probabilities argument, avoids the objections from cases of certain damage through appeal to probability considerations. The distant future, it is argued, is much more uncertain than the present and immediate future, so that probabilities are consequently lower, perhaps even approaching or coinciding with zero for any hypothesis concerning the distant future. Thus, the argument continues, the interests of future people must (apart from exceptional cases where there is an unusually high degree of certainty) count for (very much) less than those of present and neighbouring people where (much) higher probabilities are attached. So in the case of conflict between the present and the future, where it is a question of weighing certain benefits to the people of the present and the immediate future against a much lower probability of indeterminate costs to an indeterminate number of 10. distant future people, the issue would normally be decided in favour of the present, assuming anything like similar costs and benefits were involved. is however The argument Firstly, probabilities involving distant badly flawed. future situations are not always less than those concerning the immediate future in the way the argument supposes. problems often Moreover the outcomes of some moral do not depend on a high level of probability. In many cases it is enough, as the train parable reveals, that a significant risk is created; such cases do not depend critically on high probability assignments. Nor, of course, can it be assumed that anything like similarly weighted costs and benefits are involved in the nuclear case, especially if it is a question of risking poisoning some of the earth for half a million or so years, with consequent risk of serious harm to thousands of generations of future people, in order to obtain quite doubtful, or even trivial, benefits for some present people, ^in the shape of the opportunity to continue (unnecessarily) high energy use. And even the costs and benefits were comparable or evenly weighted, such if an argument would be defective, since an analogous argument would show that the consigner's action in the train parable, is acceptable provided the benefit (e.g. the profit the company stood to gain from imposing significant risks on other people) was sufficiently large. Such a cost-benefit approach to moral and decision, problems, with or is quite inadequate when different parties without the probability frills, are involved or when cases of conflict of interest involving moral obligations are at issue. permissible 5 For example, such a cost-benefit approach would imply that it is for a company to injure, or very likely injure, some innocent party provided only that the company stands to make a sufficiently large gain from it, that costs to some group are more than morally larger benefits to another group. transferred in any compensated for by But costs or benefits are not legitimately simple way from one group to another. The often appealed to maxim "If you (or your group) want the benefits you have to accept the costs" is one thing, but the maxim "If I (or my group) want the benefits then you have to accept the costs (or some of them at least)" is another and i very different thing. I 11. It is a widely accepted moral principle that one is not, in general, entitled to simply transfer costs of a significant kind arising from an activity which benefits oneself onto other parties who are not involved g in the activity and are not beneficiaries. This Transfer-limiting principle is especially clear in cases of which a thalidomide manufacturing and marketing company is one, where the significant costs include an effect on life or health or a risk thereof, and where the benefit to the benefitting party is of a noncrucial or dispensible nature. The principle is of fundamental importance in the nuclear debate, and appears again and again : it applies not merely to the waste problem but as regards several other liabilities of nuclear development, e.g. the risk of nuclear war, the matter of reactor meltdown. In particular, the principle, invalidates the comparison, heavily relied on in building a case for the acceptability of the nuclear risks, between nuclear risks and those from such activities as airplane travel or cigarette smoking. In the latter case those who supposedly benefit from the activity are also, to an overwhelming extent, those who bear the serious health costs and risks involved. In contrast the users and supposed beneficiearies of nuclear energy will be risking not only, or even primarily, their own lives and health, but also that of others who may not be beneficiaries at all— who may be just the opposite! , More generally, the distribution of costs and damage in such a fashion, i.e. on to non-beneficiaries, is a characteristic of certain serious forms of pollution, and is among its morally objectionable features. production, from nuclear or fossil pollution. fuel sources, can cause or lead to serious Thus from the Transfer-limiting important necessary condition for energy options: an energy option Large-scale energy principle emerges an To be morally acceptable should not involve the transfer of significant costs or risks of harm onto parties who are not involved, who do not use or do not benefit correspondingly from the energy source. Included in the scope of 12. this condition, which nuclear development violates , are future people, i.e. not merely people living at the present time but also future generations (those of the next towns). A further corollary of the principle is the Transmission Principle, that we should not hand the world we have so exploited on to our successors in substantially worse shape than we "received” it. For if we did then that would be a significant transfer of costs. The Transfer-limiting principle can be derived from certain ethical theories (e.g. those of a deontic cast such as Kant’s and Rawls’) and from common precepts (such as the Golden Rule), where one seriously considers putting oneself in another’s position. But the principle is perhaps best defended, on a broader basis, inductively, by way of examples. embroider the train parable, the company town decides to Suppose, to solve its disposal problem by shipping its noxious waste to another town down the line, which (like future towns) lacks the means to ship it back or to register due protest. The inhabitants of this town are then forced to face the problem either of undertaking the expensive and difficult disposal process or of sus­ taining risks to their own lives and health. Most of us would regard this kind of transfer of costs as morally unacceptable, however much the consigner’s company town flourishes. IV. UNCERTAINTY AND INDETERMINACY ARGUMENTS FOR REDUCED RESPONSIBILITY. Many of the arguments designed to show that we cannot be expected to take too much account of the effects of our actions on the distant future appeal to uncertainty. There are two main components to the General Uncertainty argument, capable of separation, but frequently tangled up. Both arguments are mistaken, the first, an argument from ignorance, on a priori second on a posteriori grounds. follows:- grounds, the The Argument from ignorance concerned runs as In contrast to the exact information we can obtain about the present, the information we can obtain about the effects of our actions on the distant future is unreliable, woolly and highly speculative. But we cannot base assessments of how we should act on information of this kind, especially when 13. accurate information is obtainable about the present which would indicate Therefore we must regretfully ignore the uncertain effects of different action. our actions on the distant future. ignorance A striking example of the argument from at work is afforded by official US analyses favouring nuclear development, which ignore (the extensive) costs of grounds of uncertainty. More formally and crudely waste control on the the argument concerned is this- One only has obligations to the future if these obligations are based on reliable information. distant future. There is no reliable information at present as regards the Therefore one has no obligations to the distant future. This argument is essentially a variant on a sceptical argument concerning our knowledge of the future (formally, replace obligations in the crude statement of the argument above). The main ploy is to considerably overestimate and overstate the degree of certainty available by knowledge with respect to the present and immediate future, and the degree of certainty which is required as the basis for moral consideration both with respect to the present and with respect to the future. Associated with this is the attempt to suggest a sharp division as regards certainty between the present and immediate future on the one hand and the distant future on the other. We shall not find, we suggest, that there is any such sharp or simple division between the distant future and the adjacent future and the present, at least with respect to those things in the present which are normally subject to moral constraints. do act on the basis We can and constantly such f/"unreliable” information, which the sceptic as regards the future conveniently labels "uncertainty". In moral situations in the present, assessments of what to do often take account of risk and probability, even quite low probabilities. Consider again the train parable. We do not need to know for certain that the container will break and the lethal gas escape. In lact it does not even have to be probable, in the relevant sense of more probable than not, in order for us to condemn the consigner’s action. that there is a significant risk of harm It is enough in this sort of case. It does not matter if the decreased well-being of the consigner is certain and that the 14. prospects of the passengers quite uncertain. It is wrong to ship the gas. But if we do not require certainty of action to apply moral constraints in contemporary affairs, why should we require a much higher standard of certainty in the future? The unwarranted insistence on certainty as a necessary condition before moral consideration can be given to the distant future, then, amounts to a flagrant double standard. According to the second argument, the Practical-uncertainty argument, even if in theory we have obligations to the future, we cannot in practice take the interests of future people into account because uncertainty about the distant future is so gross that we cannot determine what the likely consequences of actions on it will be. Therefore, however good our intentions to the people of the distant future are, in practice we have no choice but to ignore their interests. Given that moral principles are characteristically of universal implicational form, e.g. of forms such as "if x has character then x is wrong, for every (action) sharply thus: x", h the argument may be stated more We can never obtain the information about future actions which would enable us to detach the antecedent of the implication. Therefore, even if in theory moral principles do extend to future people, in practice they cannot be applied to obtain clear conclusions. It is true that if the distant future really were so grossly uncertain . that in every case it was impossible to determine in any way better than chance what the effects of present action would be, and whether any given action would help or hinder future people, then moral principles, although applicable in theory to the future, would not in practice yield any clear conclusions about how to act. In this event the distant future would impose no practical moral constraints on action. However, the argument is factually incorrect in assuming that the future always is so grossly uncertain or indeterminate. Admittedly there is often a high degree of uncertainty concerning the distant future, but as a matter of (contingent) fact it is not always so gross or sweeping as the argument has to assume. There are some areas where uncertainty is 15. not so great as to exclude constraints on action. For example, we may have little idea what the fashions will be in a hundred years or, to take another morally-irrelevant factor, what brands of ice cream people will be eating, if any, but we do have excellent reason to believe, especially if we consider 3000 years of history, that what people there are in a hundred years are likely to have material and psychic needs not entirely unlike our own, that they will need a healthy biosphere for a good life; that like us they will not be immune to radiation; that their welfare will not be enhanced by a high incidence of cancer or genetic defects, by the destruction of resources, or the elimination from the face of the earth of that wonderful variety of non-human life which at present makes it such a rich and interesting place. The case of nuclear waste storage, and of uncertainty of the effects of it on future people, is one area where uncertainty in morally relevant respects is not so great as to preclude moral constraints on action. For this sort of reason, the Practical uncertainty argument should be rejected. Through the defects of the preceding arguments, we can see the defects in a number of widely employed uncertainty arguments used to write off probable harm to future people as outside the scope of proper consideration. Most of these popular moves employ both of the uncertainty arguments as suits the case, switching from one to the other. For example, we may be told that we cannot really take account of future people because we cannot be sure that they will exist or that their tastes and wants will not be completely different from our own, to the point where they will not suffer from our exhaustion of resources or from the things that would affect us. But this is to insist upon complete certainty of a sort beyond what is required for the present and immediate future, where there is also commonly no guarantee that some disaster will not overtake those to whom we are morally committed. Again we may be told that there is no guarantee that future people will be worthy of any efforts on our part, because they may be morons of forever plugged into enjoyment of other machines. Even if one is prepared to accept the elitist approach presupposed - according to which only those who meet certain properly civilized or intellectual standards are eligible for moral consideration ~ what we are being handed in such arguments 16. is again a mere outside possibility. Neither the contemporary nor the historical situation gives any positive reason for supposing that a lapse into universal moronity or universal-pleasure-machine escapism is a serious possibility. We can contrast with these mere logical possibilities the very real historically supportable risks of escape of nuclear waste or decline of a civilisation through destruction of its resource base. Closely related to uncertainty arguments are arguments premissed on the indeterminacy of the future. For example, according to the Indeterminacy argument,_ the indeterminacy of the number and exact character of people at future times will prevent the interest of future people being taken into account where there is a conflict with the present. Since their numbers are indeterminate and their interests unknown how, it is asked, can we weigh their competing claims against those of the present and immediate future, where this information is available in a more or less accurate form? The question is raised particularly by problems of sharing fixed quantities of resources among present and future people, for example oil, when the numbers of the latter are indeterminate. Such problems are indeed difficult, but they are not resolved by ignoring the claims of the future. Nor are distributional problems involving non-renewable resources as large and representative a class of moral problems concerning the future as the tendency to focus on them would suggest. It can be freely admitted, that there will be cases where the indeterminacy of aspects of the future will make conflicts very difficult to resolve or indeed irresoluble - no realistic ethical theory can give a precise answer to every ethical question. But, as the train parable again illustrates, there are cases where such difficulties do not hinder resolution, and cases of conflict which are not properly approached by weighing numbers, numbers of interests, or whatever, cases for which one needs to know only the most general probable characteristics of future people. The case of nuclear power is like that. The failure of these various arguments reveals, what caiji^e independently^ argued from the universalisability features of moral principles, thata disqualify future people from full moral consideration or reduce their claims below the claims of present people. That is, we have the same general obligations 17. to future people as to the present; thus there is the same obligation to take account of them and their interests in what we do, to be careful in our actions, to take account of the probability (and not just the certainty) of our actions causing harm or damage, and to see, other things being equal, that we do not act so as to rob them of what is necessary for the chance of a good life. Uncertainty and indeterminacy do not relieve us of these obligations. V. PROBLEMS OF SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATION : REACTOR EMISSIONS AND CORE MELTDOWN. The ethical problems with nuclear power are by no means confined to waste storage Just as remoteness in time does not erode obligations or and future creatures. entitlement to just treatment, neither does location in space, or a particular geographical position. Hence several further problems arise, to which principles and arguments like those already arrived at in considering the waste problem apply. For example, if one group (social unit, or state) decides to dump its radioactive wastes in the territory or region of another group, or not to prevent its (radioactive) pollution entering the territory of another group, then it imposes risks and costs on presently existing people of the second group, in much the way that present nuclear developments impose costs and risks on future people. There are differences however : distant people spatially cannot be discounted in quite the way that future people can be, though their interests and objectives can be ignored or overridden. People living in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor are subject to special costs and risks. One is radioactive pollution, because reactors routinely discharge radioactive materials into the air and Emission problem. water near the plant : hence the Such "normal" emission during plant operation of low level radiation carries carcinogenic and mutagenic costs. While there are undoubtedly costs, the number of cancers and the precise extent of genetic damage induced by exposure to such radiation are both uncertain. If our ethical principles permitted free transfer of costs and risks from one person to another, the ethical issue directly raised by nuclear emissions would be : what extent of 18. cancer and genetic damage, if any, is permissibly traded for the advantages of nuclear power, and under what conditions? Since, however, risks and benefits are NOT (morally) transferable this way - recall the Transfer-limiting principle - such a cost-benefit approach to the risks nuclear emission poses for those who live near a reactor cannot with justice be approached in this fashion And these risks are real.’ In the USA, people who live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant bear a risk of cancer and genetic damage of as much as 50 times that borne by the population at large. And children living in this region are even more vulnerable, since they are several times more likely to contract cancer through exposure than normal adults. The serious costs to these people cannot be justified by the alleged benefits for others, especially when these benefits could be obtained without these costs. Thus it is not just complacent to say It s a pity about Aunt Ethel dying of cancer, but the new airconditioners make life comfortable’. For such benefits to some as airconditioners provide, which can be alternatively obtained, for example by modification of buildings, can in no way compensate for what others suffer. Among the other strategies used in trying to persuade us that the imposition of radiation on minorities - most of whom have no genuine voice in the location of reactors in their environment and cannot move away without serious losses - is really quite alright is the Doubling argument. According I to the US Atomic Energy Commission, who deployed this trick, it is permissable to double, through nuclear technology, the level of (natural) radiation that a population ha^ received with apparently negligible consequences, the argument being that the additional amount (being equivalent is also likely to have negligible consequences. to the "natural” level) The increased amounts of radiation - with their large man-made component - are then accounted normal, and, it si claimed, what is normal is morally acceptable. in this argument is sound. None of the steps Drinking one bottle of wine a day may have no ill-effects, whereas drinking two a day certainly may affect a person s well-being, and while the smaller intake may have become normal for the person, the larger one will, under such conditions, no t be. Finally, what is or has become normal, 19. e.g. two murders or twenty cancers a day in a given city, may be far from acceptable. In fact, even the USA, which has very strict standards by comparison with most other countries with planned nuclear reactors, permits radiation emissions very substantially in excess of the standards laid down; so the emission situation is much worse than what consideration of the standards would disclose. Furthermore, the monitoring of the standards ’'imposed” is entrusted to the nuclear operators themselves, scarcely disinterested parties. Thus public policy is determined not so as to guarantee public health, but rather to serve as a ’’public pacifier” while publicly-subsidized private nuclear operations q proceed relatively unhamperedT While radioactive emissions are an ordinary feature of reactor operation, reactor breakdown is, hopefully, not: official reports even try to make an accident of magnitude, as a matter of definition, an ’extraordinary nuclear occurrence’. But "definitions” notwithstanding, such accidents can happen, and almost have on several occasions (the most notorious being Three Mile Island): hence the Core-meltdown problem. If the cooling and emergency core cooling systems fail in American (light water) reactors, then the core melts and ’containment failure’ is likely, with the result that an area of 40,000 square miles could be radioactively 10 contaminated. In the event of the worst type of accident in a very small reactor, a steam explosion in the reactor vessel, about 45,000 people would be killed Instantly and at least 100,000 would die as a result of the accident, property damages would exceed $17 billion and an area the size of Pennsylvania would be destroyed. Modern nuclear reactors are about five times the size of the reactor for which these conservative US (still the best available from A . 11 official sources' are given : the consequences of a similar accident with a modern reactor would accordingly be much greater. The consigner who risks the lives and well-being of passengers on the train acts inadmissibly. a government or government-endorsed utility appears to act in a way that does not differ in morally significant respects in 20. siting a nuclear reactor in a community, in planting such a dangerous package on the "community train". More directly, the location of a nuclear reactor in a community, even if it should happen to receive a favourable benefit-cost analysis and other economic appraisal, would violate such ethical requirements as the Transfer-limiting principle. The advocates of nuclear power have, in effect, endeavoured to avoid questions of cost-transfer and equity, by shifting the dispute out of the extraordinary improbability ethical arena and into a technological dispute about about the/ of reactor malfunction. They have argued, in particular, what contrasts with the train parable, that there is no real possibility of a catastrophic nuclear accident. Indeed in the influential Rassmussen report - which was extensively used to support public confidence in US nuclear fission technology - an even stronger, an incredibly strong, improbability claim was stated: namely, the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident is so remote as to be (almost) impossible. However, the mathematical models relied upon in this report, variously called "fault tree analysis" and "reliability estimating techniques", are unsound, because, among other things, they exclude as "not credible" possibilities that may well happen in the real world. that the It is not surprising, then,^ methodology and data of the report have been soundly and decisively criticised, or that official support for the report has now'been withdrawn.. 12 Moreover, use of alternative methods and data indicates that there is a real possibility, a non-negligible probability of a serious accident. In response it is contended that, even if there is a non-negligible probability of a reactor accident, still that is acceptable, being of no greater order than risks of accidents that are already socially accepted. Here we encounter again that insidious engineering approach to morality built into decision models of an economic cast, e.g. benefit-cost balance sheets, risk­ assessment models, etc. Risk assessment, a sophistication of transaction or trade-off models, purports to provide a comparison between the relative risks attached to different options, e.g. energy otpions, which settles their 1 21. ethical status. The following assumptions are encountered in risk assessment as applied to energy options: ( Ai. If option a imposes (comparable) costs on fewer people than option b then option a is preferable to option Aii. b ; Option a involves a total net cost in terms of cost to people (e.g. deaths, injuries, etc.) which is less than that of option b, which is already /3 accepted; therefore option a is acceptable. These assumptions are then applied as follows. be killed Since the number likely to eventually by nuclear power station catastrophe is less than the likely number killed by cigarette smoking, and since the risks of cigarette smoking are accepted; it follows that the risks of nuclear power are acceptable. A little reflection reveals that this sort of risk assessment argument grossly violates the Transfer­ limiting principle. In order to obtain a proper ethical assessment we need a much fuller picture, and we need to know at least these things:- costs and benefits go to the same parties; Do the and is the person who voluntarily the risks also the person who primarily receives the benefits, as in undertakes driving or cigarette smoking, or are the costs imposed not benefit? on other parties who do It is only if the parties are the same in the case of the options compared, and there are no such distributional problems, a basis would be soundly based. that a comparison on such This is rarely 'the case, and it is not so in the case of risk assessments of energy options. VI. OTHER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND COSTS OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR WAR. The problems already discussed by no means exhaust the environmental, health and safety risks and costs in, or arising from, the nuclear fuel cycle. The full fuel cycle includes many stages both before and after reactor operation, apart from waste disposal, namely,mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and preparation, reprocessing spent fuel, and transportation of materials. Several of these stages involve hazards. risks in the nuclear cycle Unlike the special - of sabotage of plants, of theft of fissionable material, and of the further proliferation of nuclear armaments - these hazards 22. have parallels, if not exact equivalents, in other highly polluting methods of generating power, e.g. ’workers in the uranium mining industry sustain ’’the same 14 risk” of fatal and nonfatal injury as workers in the coal industry’. The A problems are not produced—by nuclear development. Other social and environmental problems - though endemic where dangerous large-scale industry operates in societies that are highly inegalitarian and include sectors that are far from affluent - are more intimately linked with the nuclear power cycle. Though pollution is a common and generally undesirable component of large-scale industrial operation, radioactive pollution , such as uranium mining for instance produces, is especially a legacy of nuclear development, and a specially undesirable one, as rectification costs for dead radioactive lands and waterways reveal. Though sabotage is a threat to many large industries, sabotage of a nuclear reactor can have dire consequences, of a different order of magnitude from most industrial sabotage (where core meltdown is not a possibility). Though theft of material from more dubious enterprises such as munitions works can pose threats to populations at large and can assist terrorism, no thefts for allegedly peaceful enterprises pose problems of the same order as theft of fissionable material. No other industry produces materials which so readily permit fabrication into such massive explosives. No other industry is, to sum it up,,so vulnerable on so many fronts. In part to reduce its vulnerability, in part because of its long and continuing association with military activities, the nuclear industry is subject to, and encourages, several practices which (given their scale) run counter to basic features of free and open societies, crucial features such as personal liberty, freedom of association and of expression,and free access to information. These practices include secrecy, restriction of information, formation of special police and guard forces, espionage, curtailment of civil liberties. Already operators of nuclear installations are given extraordinary powers, in vetting employees, to investigate the background and activities not only of employees but also of their families and sometimes even of their friends. The installations themselves become armed camps, which especially offends British sensibilities. The U.K. Atomic Energy (Special Constables) Act of 1976 created a special armed force to guard nuclear installations ami made it answerable ... to the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. 23. These developments, and worse ones in West Germany and elsewhere,presage along with nuclear development increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic That nuclear development appears to force such political societies. consequences tells heavily against it. Nuclear development is further indicted politically by the direct connection of nuclear power with nuclear war. It is true that ethical questions concerning nuclear war - for example, whether a nuclear war is justified, or just, under any circumstances, and if so what circumstances - are distinguishable from those concerning nuclear power. Undoubtedly, however, the spread of nuclear power is substantially increasing the technical means for engaging in nuclear war and so, to that extent, the opportunity for, and chances of, nuclear engagement. never accounted Since nuclear wars are positive goods, but are at best the lesser of major evils, nuclear wars are always highly ethically undesirable. The spread of nuclear power accordingly expands the opportunity for, and chances of, highly undesirable consequences. Finally the latter, so increasing these chances and opportunities, is itself undesirable, and therefore what leads to it, nuclear development is undesirable. This is, in outline, the argument from nuclear war against large-scale nuclear development. VII. CONFLICT ARGUMENTS, AND BEGINNING ON NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT. UNCOVERING THE IDEOLOGICAL BASES OF Much as with nuclear war, so given the cumulative case against nuclear development, only one justificatory that of appeal to overriding circumstances. route remains open, That appeal, to be ethically acceptable, must go beyond merely economic considerations. For, as observed, the consigner’s action, in the train parable, cannot be justified by purely economistic arguments, such as that his profits would rise, the company or the town would be more prosperous, or by appealing to the fact that some possibly uncomfortable changes would otherwise be needed. case: a Transfer-limiting principle applies. So it is also in the nuclear But suppose now the consigner argues that his action is justified because unless it is taken the town will die. It is by no means clear that even such a justification as this would be sufficient, especially where the risk to the passengers is high, since the case still to amounts^one of transfer of costs and risks onto others. But such a conflict situation, where a given course of action, though normally undesirable, is alleged to be the lesser of two evils in a given case, is morally more problemthan cases atical^where Transfer-limiting principle is clearly violated,. Nuclear develop­ ment is often defended in this way, through Conflict arguments, to the effect that even though nuclear development does have undesirable features, nevertheless the alternatives are worse. Some of the arguments advanced to demonstrate conflict are based on competing commitments to present people, and others on competing obligations to future people, both of which are taken to override the obligations not to impose on the future significant risk of serious harm. The success of such conflict arguments requires the presentation of a genuine and exhaustive set of alternatives (or at least practical alternatives) and showing that the only alternatives to admittedly morally undesirable actions are even more undesirable ones. If some practical alternative which is not morally worse than the action to be justified is overlooked, suppressed, or neglected in the argument (for example, if in the train parable it turns out that the town has another option to starving or to shipping the parcel, namely earning a living in some other way), then the argument is defective and cannot readily be patched. Just such a suppression of practicable alternatives, we shall argue, has occurred in the argument designed to show that the alternatives to the nuclear option are even worse than the option itself. A first argument, the Poverty argument, is that there is an overriding obligation to the poor, both the poor of the third world and the poor of Indus» trialised countries. Failure to develop nuclear energy, it is often claimed, would amount to denying them the opportunity to reach the standard of affluence we currently enjoy and would create unemployment and poverty in the industrialised nations. And this would be worse - a greater evil - than such things as violating the Transfer-limiting principle through nuclear development. The Poverty argument does not stand up to examination, either for the poor of the industrial countries or for those of the third world. There is good evidence that large-scale nuclear energy will help increase unemployment and poverty in the industrial world, through the diversion of very much available capital into an industry which is not only an exceptionally poor provider of direct employment, but also tends to reduce available jobs through encouraging substitution of energy use for labour use. The argument that nuclear energy is needed for the third world is even less convincing. Nuclear energy is both politically and economically inappropriate for the third world, since it requires massive amounts of capital, requires numbers of imported scientists and engineers, 25. —.creates negligible local employment, and depends for its feasibility upon largely non-existent utility systems - e.g. established electricity transmission systems and back-up facilities, and sufficient electrical appliances to plug into the system. Politically it increases foreign dependence, adds to centralised entrenched power and reduces the chance for change in the oppressive political structures which are a large part of the problem. The fact that nuclear energy is not in the interests of the people of the third world does not of course mean that it is not in the interests of, and wanted (often for military purposes) by, their rulers, the westernised and often military elites in whose interests the economies of these countries are usually organised. than what it is: But that does not make the poverty argument anything other a fraud. There are well-known energy-conserving alternatives and the practical option of developing further alternative energy sources, alternatives some of which offer far better prospects for helping the poor, both in the third world and in industrial countries: coal and other fossil fuels, geothermal, and a range of solar options (including as well as narrowly solar sources, wind, water and tidal power). Another major argument advanced to show conflict, the Lights-goingout argument, pppeals to a set of supposedly overriding and competing obligations to future people. We have, it is said, a duty to pass on the immensely valuable things and institutions which our culture has developed. Unless our high-technology, high-energy industrial society is continued and fostered, our valuable institutions and traditions will fall into decay or be swept away. The argument is essentially that without nuclear power, without the continued level of material wealth it alone is assumed to make possible, the lights of our civilization will go out. Future people will be the losers. > The argument does raise important questions about what is valuable in our society and what characteristics are necessary for a good society. the most part these large questions can be by-passed. But for The reason is that the argument adopts an extremely uncritical attitude to present high-technology societies, apparently assuming that they are uniformly and uniquely valuable. . it It assumes that technological society is unmodifiable, that/cannot be changed in the direction of energy conservation or alternative (perhaps high technology) energy sources without collapse. These assumptions are all hard to accept. The assumption that technological society’s energy patterns are unmodifiable is especially so; after all, it has survived events such as world wars which required major social and technological restructuring and consumption modification. If western society’s demands for energy were (contrary to the evidence) totally unmodifiable without collapse, not only would it be committed to a program of increasing destruction, but much of its culture would be of dubious value to future people, who would very likely, as a consequence of this destruction, lack the resource base which the argument assumes to be essential in the case of contemporary society. The uniformity assumption should certainly be challenged. Since high- technology societies appear not to be uniformly valuable, the central question is, what is necessary to maintain what is valuable in such a society? While it may be easy to argue that high energy consumption centrally controlled is necessary to maintain the political and economic status quo of such a society, it is not so easy to argue that it is essential to maintain what is valuable, and it is what is valuable, presumably, that we have a duty to pass on to the future. The evidence from history is that no very high level of material affluence or energy consumption is needed to maintain what is valuable. There is good reason in fact to believe that a society with much lower energy and resource consumption would better foster what is valuable than our own. But even if a radical change in these directions is independently desirable, it is unnecessary to presuppose such a change in order to see that the assumptions of the Lights-going-out argument are wrong. present The consumption of less energy than at need involve no reduction of well-being;and certainly a large increase over present levels of consumption assumed in the usual economic case for nuclear energy, is quite unnecessary. then What the nuclear strategy is really designed to do is not to prevent the lights going out in western civilisation, but to enable the lights to go on burning all the time - to maintain and even increase the wattage output of the Energy Extravaganza . In fact there is good reason to think that, far from the high energy consumption society fostering what is valuable, it will, especially if energy is obtained by means of nuclear fission,be positively inimical to it. which has become heavily dependent upon a A society highly centralised, controlled and garrisoned, capital- and expertise-intensive energy source, must be one which is highly susceptible to entrenchment of power, and one in which the forces which control this energy source, whether capitalist or bureaucratic, can exert enormous power over the political system and over people’s lives, even more then they do at present. Such a society would almost inevitably tend to become authoritarian and increasingly anti-democratic, as an outcome, among other things, of its response to the threat posed by dissident groups in the nuclear situation. Nuclear development may thus help in passing on to future generations some of the worst aspects of our society - the consumerism, alienation, destruction of nature, and latent authoritarianism - while many valuable aspects, such as the degree of political freedom and those opportunities for personal and collective autonomy which exist, would be lost or diminished: political freedom 27. for example, is a high price to pay for consumerism and and energy extravagence. Again, as in the case of the poverty arguments, clear alternatives, alternative social and political choices, which do not involve such unacceptable consequences, are available. The alternative to the high technology-nuclear option is not a return to the cave, the loss of all that is valuable, but either the adoption of an available alternative such as coal for power or, better,the development of alternative technologies and lifestyles which offer far greater scope for the maintenance and further development of what is valuable in our society than the highly centralised nuclear option. The Lights-going-out argument, as a moral conflict argument, accordingly fails. Thus the further escape route, the appeal to conflict, is, like the appeal to futurity, closed. If then we apply, as we have argued we should, the same standards of morality to the future as we ought to acknowledge for the present, the conclusion that large-scale nuclear development is a crime against the future is inevitable. Closed also, in the much same way, are the escape routes to other arguments (from reactor meltdown, radiation emissions, etc.) for concluding that nuclear development is unacceptable. In sum, nuclear development is morally unacceptable on several grounds. VIII. SOCIAL OPTIONS : SHALLOW AND DEEP ALTERNATIVES. The future energy option that is most often contrasted with nuclear power, namely coal power, while no doubt preferable to nuclear power, is hardly acceptable. For it carries with it the likelihood of serious (air) pollution, and associated phenomena such as acid rain and atmospheric heating, not to mention the despoliation caused by extensive strip mining, all of which will result from its use in meeting very high projected consumption figures. the Transfer-limiting principle : Such an option would, moreover, also violate for it would impose widespread costs on nonbeneficiaries for some concentrated benefits to some profit takers and to some users who do not pay the full costs of production and replacement. To these main conventional options a third is often added which emphasizes softer and more benign technologies, such as those of solar energy and hydroelectricity. Such softer options — if suitably combined with energy conservation measures (for there are solar ways, as well as nuclear ways, of energy extravagance and of producing unnecessary trivia which answer to no genuine needs) - can avoid the ethical objections to nuclear power, The deeper choice is not however technological, nor merely^individual^, £u£ Social , and involves the restructuring of production away from energy intensive uses and, at a more basic level, a change to nonconsumeristic, less consumptive life­ styles and social arrangements^6 These more fundamental choices between social alternatives, conventional technologically-oriented discussion of energy options tends to obscure. It is not just a matter of deciding in which way to meet the 28. unexamined goals nuclear development aspires to meet, but also a matter of examining the goals themselves. That is, we are not merely faced with the question of comparing different technologies for meeting some fixed or given demand or level of consumption, and of trying to see how best to meet these; we are also faced, and primarily, with the matter of examining those alleged needs and the cost of a society that creates them. It is doubtful that any technology, however benign in principle, will be likely to leave a tolerable world for the future if it is expected to meet unbounded and uncontrolled energy consumption and demands. Even more benign technologies may well be used in a way which creates costs for future people and which are^5" them. "2?likely to result in a deteriorated world being handed on to In short, even more benign technologies may lead to violation of the Transmission ^2 2,1^g q u i rement. Consider, to illustrate, the effect on the world s forests, commonly counted as a solar resource, should they be extensively used for production of methanol or of electricity by woodchipping. While few would object to the use of genuine waste material for energy production, the unrestricted exploitation of forests - whether it goes under the name of "solar energy" or not - to meet ever increasing energy demands could well be the final indignity for the world’s already hard-pressed natural forests. The effects of such additional demands on the maintenance of the forests are often dismissed by the simple expedient of waving around the label "renewable resources". Many forests are in principle renewable, it is a true, given a certain (low) rate and kind of exploitation, but in fact there are now very few forestry operations anywhere in the world where the forests are treated as completely renewable in the sense of the renewal of all their values. In many regions too the rate of exploitation which would enable renewal has already been exceeded, so that a total decline, is widely thought to be imminent. It certainly has begun in many regions, and many forest types, especially rain forest types, are now, and rapidly, being lost for the future. The addition of a ma|nr^ f ur ther and not readily limitable demand pressure for energy on top of ^the present demands is one which anyone with both a realistic appreciation of the conduct of forestry operations and a concern for the long-term conservation of the forests and remaining natural communities must regard with alarm. The result of massive deforestation for energy purposes, resembling the deforestation of much of Europe at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, again for energy purposes, could be extensive and devastating erosion in steeper lands and tropical areas, desertification in more arid regions, possible climatic change, and massive impoverishment of natural ecosystems, including enormous loss of natural species. Some of us do not want to pass on, and by the Transmission principles we are not entitled to pass on, a deforested world to the future, any more than we want to pass on one poisoned by nuclear 29. products or polluted by coal products. illustrates, a mere switch to In short, as the forest situation more benign technologies - important though this is - without any more basic structural and social change, is inadequate. The deeper social option involves challenging and beginning to alter a social structure which promotes consumerism, consumption far beyond genuine needs, and an economic structure which encourages increasing use of highly energy-intensive modes of production. The social change option tends to be obscured in most discussions of energy options and of how to meet energy needs, in part because it does question underlying values of current social arrangements. The conventional discussion proceeds by taking alleged demand (often conflated with wants or needs) as unchallengeable, and the issue to be one of which technology can be most profitably employed to meet them. This effectively presents a false choice, and is the result of taking needs and demand as lacking a social context so that the social structure which produces the needs is similarly taken as unchallengeable and unchangeable. The point is readily illustrated. It is commonly argued by representatives of such industries as transportation and petroleum, as for example by McGrowth of the XS Consumption Co., that people want deep freezers, air conditions, power gadgets, .... authoritarian to prevent them from satisfying these wants. from created wants It would be Such an argument conveniently ignores the social framework in which such needs and wants arise or are produced. To point to the determination of many such wants at the framework level is not however to assume that they are entirely determined at the framework level (e.g. by industrial organisation) and there is no such thing as individual choice or determination at all. It is to see the social framework as a major factor in determining certain kinds of choices, such as those for travel, and kinds, of infrastructure, and to see apparently individual choices made in such matters as being channelled and directed by a social framework determined largely in the interests of corporate and private profit and advantage. The social change option is a hard option, insofar as it will be difficult to implement politically; but it is ultimately the only way of avoiding the passing on of serious costs to future people. reasons than such ethical ones for taking it: And there are other sorts of it is the main, indeed the only sort of option,open to those who adopt what is now called a deep ecological perspective, as contrasted with a shallow ecological outlook which regards the natural world and its nonhuman denizens as not worthwhile in themselves but only of value in as much as they answer back to human interests. The deep ecological perspective is an Integral part of the Alternative Ecological Paradigm and is incompatible with central theses of the Dominant Social Paradigm (which is essentially the ideology of classical and neoclassical economics) 30. and its variants (roughly, what are called State Socialism, and Democratic 18 Socialism). It is incompatible with such assumptions as that the natural environment is of value only as a resource, is by and large hostile, but is controllable in human interests,and with the further domination over nature themes of the Dominant Paradigm and its variants. The conflict between Alternative and Dominant Paradigms, which is fast increasing, extends of course far beyond attitudes to the natural world, since core values of the Dominant Paradigm such as the merits of unimpeded economic growth and material progress are at stake; the conflict involves fundamental differences over the whole front of economical, political and social arrangements. The conflict underlies much of the nuclear debate, insofar as it is not specifically limited to questions of technological fixes, but takes up the 19 basic ethical issues and the social questions to which they lead. The ethical requirements already defended and applied bring us out, when followed through, on the Alternative side of the paradigm conflict, and accordingly lead to the difficult social change option. The social changes that the deep alternative requires will be strongly resisted because they mean changes in current social organisation and power structure. To the extent that the option represents some kind of threat to parts of present political and economic arrangements, it is not surprising that official energy option discussion proceeds by misrepresenting and often obscuring it. But difficult as it is to suitably alter "the system," especially one with such far-reaching effects on the prevailing power structure, it is imperative to try: we are all on the nuclear train. FOOTNOTES This paper is a condensation of an early version of our ’Nuclear 1. power - ethical, social, and political dimensions’ (ESP for short, available from the authors), which in turn grew out of Routley (i.e. the work so referred to in the reference list). For help with the condensation we are very considerably indebted to the editors. In the condensation, we simplify the structure of the argument and suppress underlying political and ideological dimensions (for example, the large measure of responsibility of the USA for spreading nuclear reactors around the world, and thereby in enhancing the chances of nuclear disasters, including nuclear war). We also considerably reduce a heavy load of footnotes and references designed and needed to help make good many of our claims. Further, in order to contain references to a modest length, reference to primary sources has often been replaced by reference through secondary sources. Little difficulty should be encountered however in tracing fuller references through secondary sources or in filling out much important background material from work cited herein. For example, virtually all the data cited in sections^ and VII is referenced in Routley. At worst ESP can always be consulted. All but the last line of the quote is drawn from Goodin, p. 417; 2. the last line is from the Fox Report, p. 6. While it is unnecessary to know much about the nuclear fuel cycle in order to consider ethical and social dimensions of nuclear power, it helps to know a little. The basics are presented in many texts, e.g. Nader Of course in order to assess fully reports as to such I important background and stage-setting matters as the likelihood of a & Abbotts, Gyorgy. core meltdown of (lightwater) reactors, much more information is required. For many assessment purposes however, some knowledge of economic fallacies and decision theory is at least as important as knowledge of nuclear technology. 3. Naturally the effect on humans is not the only factor that has to be taken into account in arriving at moral assessments. Nuclear radiation, unlike most ethical theories, does not confine its scope to human life and welfare. But since the harm nuclear development may afflict on non­ human life, for example, can hardly improve its case, it suffices if the case against it can be made out solely in terms of its effects on human life in the conventional way. For reference to and a brief discussion of (human-oriented) simulation models p.428. The Opportunity-cost 4. respects. see Goodin, argument is also defective in other It presupposes not merely the (mistaken) reductions involved in the contraction of the ethical domain to the economic; it also presupposes that the proper methods for decision which affect the choice, apply discounting. future, such as that of energy But, as Goodin argues, more appropriate decision rules do not allow discounting. This is one of the reasons why expected utility theory, 5. roughly cost-benefit analysis with probability frills, is inadequate as a decision method in such contexts. Apparent exceptions to the principle such as taxation (and 6. redistribution of income generally) vanish when wealth is construed (as it has to be if taxation is to be properly justified) as at least partly a social asset unfairly monopolised by a minority of the population. Examples such as that of motoring dangerously do not constitute counterexamples to the principle; for one is not morally entitled to so motor. 7. For details, and as to how the official analyses become arguments against nuclear development when some attempt is made to take the ignored costs into account, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 55 ff. 8. See Routley, p. 160. 9. For much further discussion of the points of the preceding two para- » graphs, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 35 ff.; and also Nader 10. & Abbotts. Most of the reactors in the world are of this type; see Gyorgy. 11. See Shrader-Frechette, chapter 4. 12. See Shrader-Frechette. shortcomings A worthwhile initial view of the of the Rassmussen report may be reached by combining the critique in Shrader-Frechette with that in Nader 13. There are variations on Ai against numbers such as probabilities. and Aii & Abbotts. which multiply costs In this way risks, construed as probable costs, can be taken into account in the assessment. risks may be assessed (Alternatively, through such familiar methods as insurance). A principle varying . * Aii a Aii, and formulated as follows: is ethically acceptable if (for some b) a includes no more risks than b and b is socially accepted. was the basic ethical principle in terms of which the Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry recently decided that nuclear power development see Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry in Saskatchewan is ethically acceptable: Department of Environment, Government of Saskatchewan, 1978, Final Report, p. 305 and p. 288. In this report, a is nuclear power and b is either activities clearly accepted by society as alternative power sources. other applications b In has been taken as cigarette smoking, motoring, mining and even the Vietnam war () . The points made in the text do not exhaust the objections to principles Ai - Aii’. The principles are certainly ethically substantive, since an ethical consequence cannot be deduced from nonethical premisses, but they have an inadmissible conventional origin of b : b character. For look at the may be socially accepted though it is no longer socially acceptable, or though its social acceptibility is no longer so clearcut and it would not have been socially accepted if as much as is now known had been known when it was introduced. What is required in Aii’, for instance, for the argument to begin to look convincing is that ’ethically acceptable’ rather than ’socially accepted'. b is But even with the amendments the principles are invalid, for the reasons given in the text, and others. It is not disconcerting that principles of this type do not work. It would be sad to see yet another area lost to the experts, ethics to actuaries. 14. See Shrader-Frechette, p. 15. 15. Goodin 16. The argument is elaborated in ESP. 17. For some of the more philosophically important material on p. 433. alternative nonconsumeristic .social arrangements and lifestyles, see work cited in V. and R. Routley, 'Social theories, self management and environmental problems’ in Mannison et al, where a beginning is made on working out one set of alternatives, those of a pluralistic anarchism. The parlous 18. situation of the world’s tropical rainforests is explained in, for instance, Myers; the reasons are untangled in R. and V. Routley ’World rainforest destruction - the social causes’ (available from the authors). For a fuller account of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its 19. rival, the Alternative Environmental Paradigm, see Cotgrove and Duff, especially _ the main the table on p. 341 which encapsulates of the assumptions paradigms; compare also Catton and Dunlap, especially p. 34. Contemporary variants ^.n the Dominant Social Paradigm wer-e considered in ESP. -X The shallow/deep contrast as applied to ecological positions, which is an important component of the paradigm conflict, was introduced by Naess. For further explanation of the contrast and of the larger array of ecological positions into which it fits, see R. and V. Routley, environmental ethics' in Mannison especially to Rodman’s 20. ’Human chauvinism and et al, and the references there cited, work. The more elaborate argument of ESP sets the nuclear debate in the context of paradigm conflict. But it is also argued that, even within assumptions framework of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its variants, Ti. Nuclear development is not the rational choice among energy options. The main argument put up for nuclear development within the framework of the dominant paradigm is an Economic growth argument. It is the following version of the Lights-going-out argument (with economic growth duly standing in for material wealth, and for what is valuable.’ necessary to sustain economic growth. Nuclear power is Economic: growth is desirable (for all the usual reasons, e.g. to increase the size of the pie, to postpone redistribution problems, etc.). Therefore nuclear power is desirable. The first premiss is part of US energy policy (see Shrader-Frechette, p.lll), and the second premiss is supplied by standard economics textbooks. But both premisses are defective, the second because what is valuable in economic growth can be achieved by (not without growth but) selective growth, which jettisons economic the heavy social and environmental costs carried by unqualified economic growth. More to the point, since the second premiss is an assumption of the Dominant Paradigm, the first premiss (or rather an fails even by Dominant appropriate and less vulnerable restatement of it) Paradigm standards. For of course nuclear power is not necessary that there are other, perhaps costlier alternatives. defended is some elaboration of the premiss : given The premiss usually Nuclear power is the economically best way to sustain economic growth, ’economically best’ being filled out as ’most efficient’, ’cheapest’, benefit-cost ratio’, etc. ’having the most favourable Unfortunately for the argument, and for nuclear development schemes, nuclear power is none of these things decisively (unless a good deal of economic cheating - easy to do - is done). Tii- On proper Dominant Paradigm accounting, nuclear choices should generally be rejected, both as private utility investments and as public choices. Nuclear development is not economically viable but has been kept going, not by clear economic viability, but by massive subsidization of several types (discussed in Shrader-Flechette, Gyorgy and Nader & Abbotts). Even on variants of the Dominant Paradigm, nuclear development is not justified, as consideration of decision theory methods will reveal: Tiii. Whatever reasonable decision rule is adopted, the nuclear choice is rej ected f as the arguments of Goodin on ^Alternative decision rules help to show. What sustains the nuclear juggernaut is not the Dominant Paradigm or its variants, but contemporary corporate capitalism (or its state enterprise image) and associated third world imperialism, as the historical details of nuclear development both in developed countries and in less developed countries makes plain (for main details, see Gyorgy p. 307 ff.). the practices of contemporary Ayi corporate capitalism and associated imperialism are not acceptable by the standards of either of the Paradigms or their variants : not ethically acceptable. , they are certainly <0 O to REFERENCES USED Works especially useful for further investigation of the ethical issues raised by nuclear development are indicated with an asterisk (* ). S. C^yove. and A. Duff, ’’Environmentalism, middle-class radicalism and politics’, Sociological Review 28(2) (1980), 333-51. W. R. Catton, Jr., and R. E. Dunlap, ’A new ecological paradigm for post exuberant sociology’ American Behavioral Scientist 24 (1980). 15-47. For Report : Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry First Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1977. *R. E. Goodin, "No moral nukes’, Ethics 90 (1980), 417-49. *A. Gyorgy and friends, No Nukes : everyone’s guide to nuclear power, South End Press, Boston, Mass., 1979. *D. Mannison, M. McRobbie and R. Routley (editors), Environmental Philosophy, RSSS, Australian National University, 1980. N. Myers, The Sinking Ark, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1979. R. Nader and J. Abbotts, The Menace of Atomic Energy, Outback Press, Melbourne, 1977. *K. S. Shrader-Frechette, Nuclear Power and Public Policy, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980.preferred Lo as SF)T~" R. and V. Routley, ’Nuclear energy and obligations to the future’, Inquiry 21 (1978), 133-79.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 97, Item 4: Draft of Nuclear power - some ethical and social dimensions Subject The topic of the resource Typescript (photocopy) of draft, with handwritten emendations and corrections with whiteout, undated. Paper published, Routley R and Routley V (1982) 'Nuclear power—some ethical and social dimensions', in Regan T and VanDeVeer D (eds) And justice for all: new introductory essays in ethics and public policy, Rowman and Littlefield. Description An account of the resource Unnumbered paper from collection, item number assigned by library staff. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=val+routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Val Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 97, Item 4 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [36] leaves. 27.13 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:623c64a">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:623c64a</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1982-01-01 Box 97: Paper - Extracts - Articles and Chapters by Richard Sylvan https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/3d6f700c4d63dddd9b3a3db43b54391a.pdf 024f4bf0f001d601f9aa58840b75c425 PDF Text Text Richard and Vai Routley 1. NUCLEAR POWER - SOME ETHICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS 1 One hardly needs initiation into the dark mysteries of nuclear physics to contribute usefully to the debate now widely raging over nuclear power. While many important empirical questions are still unresolved, these do not really lie at the centre of the controversy. Instead, it is a debate about values... many of the questions which arise are social and ethical ones. I. THE TRAIN PARABLE AND THE NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEM. train has just pulled out. passengers and freight. The train which is A long distance country crowded carries both At an early stop in the journey someone consigns as freight, to a far distant destination, a package which contains a highly toxic and explosive gas. This is packed in a very thin container which, as the consigner is aware, may well not contain the gas for the full distance for which it is consigned, and certainly will not do so if the train should strike any real trouble, for example, if the train should be derailed or involved in a collision, or if some passenger should interfere inadvertently or deliberately with the freight, perhaps trying to steal some of it. of these sorts of things have happened on some previous journeys. All If the container should break the resulting disaster would probably kill at least some of the people on the train in adjacent carriages, while others could be maimed or poisoned or sooner or later incur serious diseases. Most of us would roundly condemn such an action. of the parcel say to try to justify it? What might the consigner He might say that it is not certain that the gas will escape, or that the world needs his product and it is his duty to supply it, or that in any case he is not or the people on it. These sorts of excuses however would normally be seen as ludicrous when set in this context. not responsible for the train Unfortunately, similar excuses are often so seen when the consigner, again a (responsible) businessman,puts his workers1 health or other peoples’ welfare at risk. Suppose he says that it is his own and others’p ressing needs which justify his action. The company he controls, which produces the material as a by-product, is in bad financial straits, and could not afford to produce a better container even if it knew how to make one. If the company fails, he and his family will suffer, his employees will lose their jobs and have to look for others, and the whole company town, through loss of spending, will be worse off. The poor and unemployed of the town, whom he would otherwise have been able to help, will suffer especially. Few people would accept such grounds as justification. �2. Even where there are serious risks and costs to oneself or some group for whom one is concerned one is usually considered not to be entitled to simply transfer the heavy burden of those risks and costs onto other uninvolved parties, especially where they arise from one’s own, or one’s group’s chosen life-style. The matter of nuclear waste has many moral features which resemble the train case. How fitting the analogy is will become apparent as the argument progresses. There is no known proven safe way to package the highly toxic wastes generated by the nuclear plants that will be spread around the world as large-scale nuclear development goes ahead. The waste problem will be much more serious than that generated by the 50 or so reactors in use at present, with each one of the 2000 or so reactors envisaged by the end of the century producing, on average, annual wastes containing 1000 times the radioactivity of the Hiroshima bomb. Much of this waste is extremely toxic. For example, a millionth of a gramme of plutonium is enough to induce a lung cancer. A leak of even a part of the waste material could involve much loss of life, widespread disease and genetic damage, and contamination of immense areas of land. Wastes will include the reactors themselves, which will have to be abandoned after their expected life times of perhaps 40 years, and which, some have estimated, may require 1-1 million years to reach safe levels of radioactivity. Nuclear wastes must be kept suitably isolated from the environment for their entire active lifetime. For fission products the required storage period averages a thousand years or so, and for transuranic elements, which include plutonium, there is a half million to a million year storage problem. Serious problems have arisen with both short-term and proposed long-term methods of storage, even with the comparatively small quantities of waste produced over the last twenty years. Short-term methods of storage require continued human intervention, while proposed longer term methods are subject to both human inter­ ference and risk of leakage through non-human factors. No one with even a slight knowledge of the geological and climatic history of the earth over the last million years, a period whose fluctuations in climate we are only just beginning to guage and which has seen four Ice Ages, could be confident that a rigorous guarantee of safe storage could be provided for the vast period of time involved. Nor does the history of human affairs over the last 3000 years give ground for confidence in safe storage by methods requiring human intervention over perhaps a million years. Proposed long-term storage methods such as storage in granite formations or in salt mines, are largely speculative and relatively untested, and have already proved to involve difficulties with attempts made to put them into practice. Even as regards expensive recent proposals for first embedding concentrated wastes in glass and encapsulating the result in multilayered metal containers before rock deposit, simulation models �3. reveal that radioactive material may not remain suitably isolated from human environments.10 In short, the best present storage proposals carry very real possibilities of irradiating future people and damaging their environment. Given the 3 heavy costs which could be involved for the future, and given the known limits of technology, it is methodologically unsound to bet, as nuclear nations have, on the discovery of safe procedures for storage of wastes. Any new procedures (required before 2000) will probably be but variations on r not only have present proposals, and subject to the same inadequacies. For instance,^/none of the proposed methods for safe storage has been properly tested, but they may well prove to involve unforeseen difficulties and risks when an attempt is made to put them into practice on a commercial scale. Only a method that could provide a rigorous guarantee of safety over the storage period, that placed safety beyond reasonable doubt, would be acceptable. It is difficult to see how such rigorous guarantees could be given concerning either the geological or future human factors. But even if an economically viable, rigorously safe long term storage method could be devised, there is the problem of guaranteeing that it would be universally and invariably used. The assumption that it would be (especially if, as appears likely, such a method proved expensive economically and politically) seems to presuppose a level of efficiency, perfection, and concern for the future which has not previously been encountered in human affairs, and has certainly not been conspicuous in the nuclear industry. The risks imposed on the future by proceeding with nuclear development are, then, significant. to bear Perhaps 40,000 generations of future people could be forced significant risks resulting from the provision of the (extravagant) energy use of only a small proportion of the people of 10 generations. Nor is the risk of direct harm from the escape or misuse of radioactive materials the only burden the nuclear solution imposes on the future. Because the energy provided by nuclear fission is merely a stop gap, it seems probable that in due course the same problem, that of making a transition to renewable sources of energy, will have to be faced again by a future population which will probably, again as a result of our actions, be very much worse placed to cope with it. Their world will most likely be a world which is seriously depleted of non-renewable resources, and in which such renewable resources as forests and soils as remain, resources which inevitably form an important part of the basis of life, are run-down or destroyed. Such points tell against the idea that future people must be, if not direct beneficiaries of energy from nuclear fission, at least indirect beneficiaries. �The "solution" then is to buy time for contemporary society at a price which not only creates serious problems for future people but which reduces their ability to cope with these problems. Like the consigner in the train parable, contemporary industrial society proposes, in order to get itself out of a mess arising from its own life-style - the creation of economies dependent on an abundance of non-rerewable energy, which is limited in supply to pass on costs and risks of serious harm to others who will obtain no corresponding benefits. The "solution" may enable the avoidance of some uncomfortable changes in the lifetime of those now living and their immediate descendants, just as the consigner’s action avoids uncomfortable changes for him and those in his immediate surroundings, but at the expense of passing heavy burdens to other uninvolved parties whose opportunity to lead decent lives may be seriously jeopardised. If we apply to the nuclear situation the standards of behaviour and moral principles generally acknowledged (in principle, if not so often in fact) in the contemporary world, it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that nuclear development involves injustice with respect to the future on a grand scale. There appear to be only two plausible ways of trying to avoid such a conclusion. First, it might be argued that the moral principles and obligations which we acknowledge for the contemporary world and perhaps the immediate future do not apply to those in the non-immediate future. Secondly, an attempt might be made to appeal to overriding circumstances; for to reject the consigner’s action in the circumstances outlined is not to imply that there are no circumstances in which such an action might be justifiable. As in the case of the consigner of the package there is a need to consider what these justifying circumstances might be, and whether they apply in the present case. We consider these possible escape routes for the proponent of nuclear development in turn. I II. OBLIGATIONS TO THE (DISTANT) FUTURE. The especially problematic area is that of the distant (i.e. non-immediate) future, the future with which people alive today will have no direct contact; by comparison, the immediate future gives fewer problems for most ethical theories. In fact the question of obligations to future people presents tests which a number of ethical theories fail to pass, and also has serious repercussions in political philosophy as regards the adequacy of accepted (democratic and other) institutions which do not take due account of the interests of future creatures. �5. Moral philosophers have, predictably, differed on questions of obligations to distant future creatures. A good many of the philosophers who have explicitly considered the question have come down in favour of the same consideration being given to the rights and interests of future people as to those of contemporary or immediately future people. Others fall into three categories: those who acknowledge obligations to the future but who do not take them seriously or who assign them a lesser weight, those who deny, or who are committed by their general moral position to denying, that there are moral obligations beyond the immediate future, and those who come down, with admirable philosophical caution, on both sides of the issue, but with the weight of the argument favouring the view underlying prevailing economic and political institutions, that there are no moral obligations to the future beyond those perhaps to the next generation. According to the most extreme of these positions against moral obligations to the future, our behaviour with respect to the future is morally unconstrained', there are no moral restrictions on acting or failing to act deriving effect of our actions on future people. from the Of those philosophers who say, or whose views imply that we do not have obligations to the (non-immediate) future, many have based this view on accounts of moral obligation which are built on relations which presuppose some degree of temporal or spatial contiguity. Thus, moral obligation is seen as presupposing various relations which could not hold between people widely separated in time (or sometimes in space). Let us call the position that we have no obligations to (distant) future people the No­ constraints position. Among suggested bases or grounds of moral obligation for the position, which would rule out obligations to the non-immediate future, are these. Firstly, there are those accounts which require that someone to whom a moral obligation is held be able to claim his rights or entitlement. People in the distant future will not be able to claim rights and entitlements against us, and of course they can do nothing to enforce any claims they might have against us. Secondly, there are those accounts which base moral obligations on social or legal convention, for example a convention which would require punishment of offenders or at least some kind of social enforcement. But plainly these and other conventions will not be invariant over change in society and amendment of legal conventions; hence they will not be invariant over time. Also future people have no way of enforcing their interests or punishing offending predecessors. �6. The No-constraints view is a very difficult one to sustain. Consider, for example, a scientific group which, for no particular reason other than to test a particular piece of technology, places in orbit a cobalt bomb set off by a triggering device designed to go off several hundred years from the time of its despatch. No presently living person and none of their immediate descendants would be affected, but the population of the earth in the distant future would be wiped out as a direct and predictable result of the action. The no-constraints position clearly implies that this is an acceptable moral enterprise, that whatever else we might legitimately criticize in the scientists’ experiment (perhaps its being over-expensive or badly designed) we cannot lodge a moral protest about the damage it will do to future people. The no-constraints position also endorses as morally acceptable the following sorts of policy:A firm discovers it can make a handsome profit from mining, processing and manufacturing a new type of material which, although it causes no problem for present people or their immediate descendants, will over a period of hundreds of years decay into a substance which will cause an enormous epidemic of cancer among the inhabitants of the earth at that time. According to the no-constraints view the firm is free to act in its own interests, without any consideration for the harm it does remote future people. Such counterexamples to the No-constraints position, which are easily varied and multiplied, might seem childlishly obvious. Yet this view is far from being a straw man; not only have several philosophers endorsed this position, but it is a clear implication of many currently popular views of the basis of moral obligation, as well as of prevailing economic theory. It seems that those who opt for the No-constraints position have not considered such examples, despite their being clearly implied by their position. We suspect that (we certainly hope that) when it is brought out that their position admits such counterexamples, that without any constraints we are free to cause pointless harm for example, most of those who opted for this position would want to assert that it was not what they intended. What many of those who have put forward the No-constraints position seem to have had in mind (in denying moral obligation) is rather that future people can look after themselves, that we are not responsible for their lives. The popular view that the future can take care of itself also seems to assume a future causally independent of the present. But it is not. It is not as if, in the counterexample cases or in the nuclear case, the future is simply being left alone to take care of itself. Present people are influencing it, and in doing so thereby acquire many of the same sorts of moral responsibilities as they do in causally affecting the present and immediate future, most notably the obligation to take account in �7. what they do of people affected and their interests, to be careful, in their actions, to take account of the genuine probability of their actions causing harm, and to see that they do not act so as to rob future people of the. chance of a good life. Furthermore, to say that we are not resposible for the lives of future people does not amount to the same thing as saying that we are free to do as we like with respect to them. In just the same way, the fact that one does not have or has not acquired an obligation to some stranger with whom one has never been involved does not imply that one is free to do what one likes with respect to him, for example to rob him or to seriously harm him when this could be avoided. These difficulties for the No-constraints position result in part because of a failure to make an important distinction. Some of our obligations to others arise because we have voluntarily entered into some agreement with them - for example, we have made a promise. Other obligations, however, such as our duty not to damage or harm someone, do not assume that an agreement has been struck between us. former kind acquired obligations Let us call obligations of the and those of the latter unacquired obligations. There is a considerable difference in the type of responsibility associated with each. In the case of acquired obligations responsibility arises because one should do something which one can fail to do, e.g. keep a promise. In the case of unacquired duties responsibility arises as a result of being a causal agent who is aware of the consequences or probable consequences of his action, a responsibility that is not dependent on one’s having performed some act in the past (e.g., made a promise). Our obligations to future people clearly are of unacquired, not acquired obligations, a fact the No-constraints position simply fails to take into account. These obligations arise as a result of our ability to produce causal effects of a reasonably predictable nature, whether on our contemporaries or on those in the distant future. Thus, to return to the train parable, the consigner cannot argue in justification of his action that he has, for example, never assumed or acquired responsibility for the passengers, that he does not know them and therefore has no love or sympathy for them and that they are not part of his moral community; in short, that he has acquired no obligation, and has no special obligations to help them. All that �8. one needs to argue concerning the train, and in the nuclear case, is that there are moral obligations against imposing harm for instance which are not specially , , . , , , , , all obligat to the distant acquired. Nor can this claim be rebutted by the pretence th uture involve heroic self sacrifice, something "above and beyond" what is normally required. One is no more engaging in heroic self sacrifice by not forcing future people into an unviable life position or by refraining from causing them direct harm than the consigner is resorting to heroic self sacrifice in refraining from III. ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE OBLIGATIONS TO THE FUTURE. In evading these difficulties the No-constraints position may be qualified rather than wholly abandoned. According to the Qualified position we are not entirely unconstrained There are obligations, even to distant future with respect to the distant future. people, but these are not so important as those to the present, and the interests of distant future people cannot weigh very much in the scale against those of the present and immediate future. The interests of future people then, except in unusual cases, count for very much less than the interests of present people. Hence such things as nuclear development and various exploitative activities which benefit present people should proceed, even if people of the distant future are (somewhat) disadvantaged by them. The Qualified position appears to be widely held and is implicit in prevailing economic theories, where the position of a decrease in weight of future costs and benefits (and so of future interests) is obtained by application over time of a discount rate, so discounting costs and risks to future people. The attempt to apply economics as a moral theory, something that is becoming increasingly common, can lead then to the Qualified position. What is objectionable in such an approach is that economics must operate within the bounds of acknowledged non-acquired moral constraints, just as in practice it operates within legal constraints. What economics cannot legitimately do is determine what these constraints are. There are, moreover, alternative economic theories and simply to adopt, without further ado, one which discounts the future, giving much less importance to the interests of future people, is to beg all the questions at issue. Among the arguments that economists offer for generally discounting the future, the most threadbare is based on the Rosy-future assumption, that future generations will be better off than present ones (and so better placed to handle the waste problem). generations may well not Since there is mounting evidence that future be better off then present ones, especially in things that matter, no argument for discounting the interests of future generations on this basis can carry much weight. For the waste problem to be handed down �9. to the future generations, it would have to be shown, what recent economic progress hardly justifies, that future generations will be not just better off but so much better off that they can (easily) carry and control the nuclear freight. A more plausible argument for discounting, the Opportunity-cost argument, builds directly It is argued from the fact on the notion of opportunity cost. that a dollar gained now is worth much more than a dollar received in the nonimmediate future (because the first dollar could meanwhile be invested at compound interest), that discounting is required to obtain equivalent monetary values. This same line of reasoning is then applied to the allocation of resources. Thus, compensation - which is what the waste problem is taken to come to economically - costs much less now than later, e.g. a few pennies set aside (e.g. in a trust fund) in the future, if need be, will suffice to compensate eventually for any victims of remote radioactive waste leakage. beset this approach. Two problems First, there are, presently at least, insurmountable practical difficulties about applying such discounting. how to determine appropriate future discount rates. that the argument depends on a false assumption. We simply do not know A more serious objection is It is not true that value, or damages, can always be converted into monetary equivalents. There is no clear "monetary compensation" for a variety of damages, including cancer, loss of life, a lost species. The discounting theme, however argued for, is inadequate, because it leads back in practice to the No-constraints position. discounting imposes an " economic horizon" The reason is that beyond which nothing need be considered, since any costs or benefit which might arise are, when discounted back to the present, negligible. A different argument for the Qualified position, the Probabilities argument, avoids the objections from cases of certain damage through appeal to probability considerations. The distant future, it is argued, is much more uncertain than the present and immediate future, so that probabilities are consequently lower, perhaps even approaching or coinciding with zero for any hypothesis concerning the distant future. Thus, the argument continues, the interests of future people must (apart from exceptional cases where there is an unusually high degree of certainty) count for (very much) less than those of present and neighbouring people where (much) higher probabilities are attached. So in the case of conflict between the present and the future, where it is a question of weighing certain benefits to the people of the present and the immediate future against a much lower probability of indeterminate costs to an indeterminate number of �10. distant future people, the issue would normally be decided in favour of the present, assuming anything like similar costs and benefits were involved. Firstly, probabilities involving distant badly flawed. is however The argument future situations are not always less than those concerning the immediate future in the way the argument supposes. problems often Moreover the outcomes of some moral do not depend on a high level of probability. In many cases it is enough, as the train parable reveals, that a significant risk is created; such cases do not depend critically on high probability assignments. Nor, of course, can it be assumed that anything like similarly weighted costs and benefits are involved in the nuclear case, especially if it is a question of risking poisoning some of the earth for half a million or so years, with consequent risk of serious harm to thousands of generations of future people, in order to obtain quite doubtful, or even trivial, benefits for some present people, fin the shape of the opportunity to continue (unnecessarily) high energy use. And even the costs and benefits were comparable or evenly weighted, such if an argument would be defective, since an analogous argument would show that the consigner’s action in the train parable, is acceptable provided the benefit (e.g. the profit the company stood to gain from imposing significant risks on < other people) was sufficiently large. Such a cost-benefit approach to moral and decision, problems, with or is quite inadequate when different parties without the probability frills, are involved or when cases of conflict of interest involving moral obligations are at issue. permissible 5 For example, such a cost-benefit approach would imply that it is for a company to injure, or very likely injure, some innocent party provided only that the company stands to make a sufficiently large gain from it, that costs to some group are more than morally larger benefits to another group. transferred in any compensated for by But costs or benefits are not legitimately simple way from one group to another. The often appealed to maxim "If you (or your group) want the benefits you have to accept the costs” is one thing, but the maxim "If I (or my group) want the benefits then you have to accept the costs (or some of them at least)" is another and �11. very different thing. It is a widely accepted moral principle that one is not, in general, entitled to simply transfer costs of a significant kind arising from an activity which benefits oneself onto other parties who are not involved £ in the activity and are not beneficiaries. This Transfer-limiting principle is especially clear in cases of which a thalidomide manufacturing and marketing company is one, where the significant costs include an effect on life or health or a risk thereof, and where the benefit to the benefitting party is of a noncrucial or dispensible nature. The principle is of fundamental importance in the nuclear debate, and appears again and again : it applies not merely to the waste problem but as regards several other liabilities of nuclear development, e.g. the risk of nuclear war, the matter of reactor meltdown. In particular, the principle invalidates the comparison, heavily relied on in building a case for the acceptability of the nuclear risks, between nuclear risks and those from such activities as airplane travel or cigarette smoking. In the latter case those who supposedly benefit from the activity are also, to an overwhelming extent, those who bear the serious health costs and risks involved. In contrast the users and supposed beneficiearies of nuclear energy will be risking not only, or even primarily, their own lives and health, but also that of others who may not be beneficiaries at all— who may be just the opposite! More generally, the distribution of costs and damage in such a fashion, i.e. on to non-beneficiaries, is a characteristic of certain serious forms of pollution, and is among its morally objectionable features. production, from nuclear or fossil pollution. fuel sources, can cause or lead to serious Thus from the Transfer-limiting important necessary condition for energy options: an energy option Large-scale energy principle emerges an To be morally acceptable should not involve the transfer of significant costs or risks of harm onto parties who are not involved, who do not use or do not benefit correspondingly from the energy source. Included in the scope of �12. this condition, which nuclear development violates , are future people, i.e. not merely people living at the present time but also future generations (those of the next towns). A further corollary of the principle is the Transmission Principle, that we should not hand the world we have so exploited on to our successors in substantially worse shape than we "received” it. For if we did then that would be a significant transfer of costs. The Transfer-limiting principle can be derived from certain ethical theories (e.g. those of a deontic cast such as Kant’s and Rawls’) and from common precepts (such as the Golden Rule), where one seriously considers putting oneself in another’s position. But the principle is perhaps best defended, on a broader basis, inductively, by way of examples. embroider the train parable, the company town decides to Suppose, to solve its disposal problem by shipping its noxious waste to another town down the line, which (like future towns) lacks the means to ship it back or to register due protest. The inhabitants of this town are then forced to face the problem either of undertaking the expensive and difficult disposal process or of sus­ taining risks to their own lives and health. Most of us would regard this kind of transfer of costs as morally unacceptable, however much the consigner’s company town flourishes. IV. UNCERTAINTY AND INDETERMINACY ARGUMENTS FOR REDUCED RESPONSIBILITY. Many of the arguments designed to show that we cannot be expected to take too much account of the effects of our actions on the distant future appeal to uncertainty. There are two main components to the General Uncertainty argument, capable of separation, but frequently tangled up. Both arguments are mistaken, the first, an argument from ignorance, on ai priori second on a posteriori grounds. follows:- grounds, the The Argument from ignorance concerned runs as In contrast to the exact information we can obtain about the present, the information we can obtain about the effects of our actions on the distant future is unreliable, woolly and highly speculative. But we cannot base assessments of how we should act on information of this kind, especially when �13. accurate information is obtainable about the present which would indicate Therefore we must regretfully ignore the uncertain effects of different action. our actions on the distant future. ignorance A striking example of the argument from at work is afforded by official US analyses favouring nuclear development, which ignore (the extensive) costs of waste control on the 7 grounds of uncertainty. the argument concerned is this J- More formally and crudely One only has obligations to the future if these obligations are based on reliable information. distant future. There is no reliable information at present as regards the Therefore one has no obligations to the distant future. This argument is essentially a variant on a sceptical argument concerning our knowledge of the future (formally, replace ’obligations’ by ’knowledge’ in the crude statement of the argument above). The main ploy is to considerably overestimate and overstate the degree of certainty available with respect to the present and immediate future, and the degree of certainty which is required as the basis for moral consideration both with respect to the present and with respect to the future. Associated with this is the attempt to suggest a sharp division as regards certainty between the present and immediate future on the one hand and the distant future on the other. We shall not find, we suggest, that there is any such sharp or simple division between the distant future and the adjacent future and the present, at least with respect to those things in the present which are normally subject to moral constraints. We can and constantly such do act on the basis of^"unreliable" information, which the sceptic as regards the future conveniently labels "uncertainty". In moral situations in the present, assessments of what to do often take account of risk and probability, even quite low probabilities. Consider again the train parable. We do not need to know for certain that the container will break and the lethal gas escape. In fact it does not even have to be probable, in the relevant sense of more probable than not, in order for us to condemn the consigner’s action. that there is a significant risk of harm It is enough in this sort of case. It does not matter if the decreased well-being of the consigner is certain and that the �14. prospects of the passengers quite uncertain. It is wrong to ship the gas. But if we do not require certainty of action to apply moral constraints in contemporary affairs, why should we require a much higher standard of certainty in the future? The unwarranted insistence on certainty as a necessary condition before moral consideration can be given to the distant future, then, amounts to a flagrant double standard. According to the second argument, the Practical-uncertainty argument, even if in theory we have obligations to the future, we cannot in practice take the interests of future people into account because uncertainty about the distant future is so gross that we cannot determine what the likely consequences of actions on it will be. Therefore, however good our intentions to the people of the distant future are, in practice we have no choice but to ignore their interests. Given that moral principles are characteristically of universal implicational form, e.g. of forms such as "if x has character then x is wrong, for every (action) sharply thus: x”, h the argument may be stated more We can never obtain the information about future actions which would enable us to detach the antecedent of the implication. Therefore, even if in theory moral principles do extend to future people, in practice they cannot be applied to obtain clear conclusions. It is true that if the distant future really were so grossly uncertain , that in every case it was impossible to determine in any way better than chance what the effects of present action would be, and whether any given action would help or hinder future people, then moral principles, although applicable in theory to the future, would not in practice yield any clear conclusions about how to act. In this event the distant future would impose no practical moral constraints on action. However, the argument is factually incorrect in assuming that the future always is so grossly uncertain or indeterminate. Admittedly there is often a high degree of uncertainty concerning the distant future, but as a matter of (contingent) fact it is not always so gross or sweeping as the argument has to assume. There are some areas where uncertainty is �15. not so great as to exclude constraints on action. For example, we may have little idea what the fashions will be in a hundred years or, to take another morally-irrelevant factor, what brands of ice cream people will be eating, if any, but we do have excellent reason to believe, especially if we consider 3000 years of history, that what people there are in a hundred years are likely to have material and psychic needs not entirely unlike our own, that they will need a healthy biosphere for a good life; that like us they will not be immune to radiation; that their welfare will not be enhanced by a high incidence of cancer or genetic defects, by the destruction of resources, or the elimination from the face of the earth of that wonderful variety of non-human life which at present makes it such a rich and interesting place. The case of nuclear waste storage, and of uncertainty of the effects of it on future people, is one area where uncertainty in morally relevant respects is not so great as to preclude moral constraints on action. For this sort of reason, the Practical uncertainty argument should be rejected. Through the defects of the preceding arguments, we can see the defects in a number of widely employed uncertainty arguments used to write off pxQhabLe. harm to future people as outside the scope of proper consideration. Most of these popular moves employ both of the uncertainty arguments as suits the case, switching from one to the other. For example, we may be told that we cannot really take account of future people because we cannot be sure that they will exist or that their tastes and wants will not be completely different from our own, to the point where they will not suffer from our exhaustion of resources or from the things that would affect us. But this is to insist upon complete certainty of a sort beyond what is required for the present and immediate future, where there is also commonly no guarantee that some disaster will not overtake those to whom we are morally committed. Again we may be told that there is no guarantee that future people will be worthy of any efforts on our part, because they may be morons of forever plugged into enjoyment of other machines. Even if one is prepared to accept the elitist approach presupposed - according to which only those who meet certain properly civilized or intellectual standards are eligible for moral consideration - what we are being handed in such arguments �16. is again a mere outside possibility. Neither the contemporary nor the historical situation gives any positive reason for supposing that a lapse into universal moronity or universal-pleasure—machine escapism is a serious possibility. We can contrast with these mere logical possibilities the very real historically supportable risks of escape of nuclear waste or decline of a civilisation through destruction of its resource base. Closely related to uncertainty arguments are arguments premissed on the indeterminacy of the future. For example, according to the Indeterminacy argument, the indeterminacy of the number and exact character of people at future times will prevent the interest of future people being taken into account where there is a conflict with the present. Since their numbers are indeterminate and their interests unknown how, it is asked, can we weigh their competing claims against those of the present and immediate future, where this information is available in a more or less accurate form? The question is raised particularly by problems of sharing fixed quantities of resources among present and future people, for example oil, when the numbers of the latter are indeterminate. Such problems are indeed difficult, but they are not resolved by ignoring the claims Nor are distributional of the future. problems involving non-renewable resources as large and representative a class of moral problems concerning the future as the tendency to focus on them would suggest. It can be freely admitted, that there will be cases where the indeterminacy of aspects of the future will make conflicts very difficult to resolve or indeed irresoluble - no realistic ethical theory can give a precise answer to every ethical question. But, as the train parable again illustrates, there are cases where such difficulties do not hinder resolution, and cases of conflict which are not properly approached by weighing numbers, numbers of interests, or whatever, cases for which one needs to know only the most general probable characteristics of future people. The case of nuclear power is like that. The failure of these various arguments reveals, what ca^e independentlys • argued from the universalisability features of • 1 moral principles, 8 K / thatA disqualify future people from full moral consideration or reduce their claims below the claims of present people. That is, we have the same general obligations �17. to future people as to the present; thus there is the same obligation to take account of them and their interests in what we do, to be careful in our actions, to take account of the probability (and not just the certainty) of our actions causing harm or damage, and to see, other things being equal, that we do not act so as to rob them of what is necessary for the chance of a good life. Uncertainty and indeterminacy do not relieve us of these obligations. V. PROBLEMS OF SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATION : REACTOR EMISSIONS AND CORE MELTDOWN. The ethical problems with nuclear power are by no means confined to waste storage Just as remoteness in time does not erode obligations or and future creatures. entitlement to just treatment, neither does location in space, or a particular geographical position. Hence several further problems arise, to which principles and arguments like those already arrived at in considering the waste problem apply. For example, if one group (social unit, or state) decides to dump its radioactive wastes in the territory or region of another group, or not to prevent its (radioactive) pollution entering the territory of another group, then it imposes risks and costs on presently existing people of the second group, in much the way that present nuclear developments impose costs and risks on future people. There are differences however : distant people spatially cannot be discounted in quite the way that future people can be, though their interests and objectives can be ignored or overridden. People living in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor are subject to special costs and risks. One is radioactive pollution, because reactors routinely discharge radioactive materials into the air and water near Emission problem. the plant : hence the Such ’’normal” emission during plant operation of low level radiation carries carcinogenic and mutagenic costs. While there are undoubtedly costs, the number of cancers and the precise extent of genetic damage induced by exposure to such radiation are both uncertain. If our ethical principles permitted free transfer of costs and risks from one person to another, the ethical issue directly raised by nuclear emissions would be : what extent of �18. cancer and genetic damage, if any, is permissibly traded for the advantages of nuclear power, and under what conditions? Since, however, risks and benefits are NOT (morally) transferable this way - recall the Transfer-limiting principle - such a cost-benefit approach to the risks nuclear emission poses for those who live near a reactor cannot with justice be approached in this fashion And these risks are real! In the USA, people who live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant bear a risk of cancer and genetic damage of as much as 50 times that borne by the population at large. And children living in this region are even more vulnerable, since they are several times more likely to contract cancer through exposure than normal adults. The serious costs to these people cannot be justified by the alleged benefits for others, especially when these benefits could be obtained without these costs. Thus it is not just complacent to say It s a pity about Aunt Ethel dying of cancer, but the new airconditioners make life comfortable’. For such benefits to some as airconditioners provide, which can be alternatively obtained, for example by modification of buildings, can in no way compensate for what others suffer. Among the other strategies used in trying to persuade us that the imposition of radiation on minorities - most of whom have no genuine voice in the location of reactors in their environment and cannot move away without serious losses — is really quite alright is the Doubling argument. According to the US Atomic Energy Commission, who deployed this trick, it is permissable to double, through nuclear technology, the level of (natural) radiation that a population has received with apparently negligible consequences, the argument being that the additional amount (being equivalent is also likely to have negligible consequences. to the "natural" level) The increased amounts of radiation — with their large man-made component — are then accounted normal, and, it si claimed, what is normal is morally acceptable. in this argument is sound. None of the steps Drinking one bottle of wine a day may have no ill-effects, whereas drinking two a day certainly may affect a person’s well-being; and while the smaller intake may have become normal for the person, the larger one will, under such conditions, not be. Finally, what is or has become normal, �19. e.g. two murders or twenty cancers a day in a given city, may be far from acceptable. In fact, even the USA, which has very strict standards by comparison with most other countries with planned nuclear reactors, permits radiation emissions very substantially in excess of the standards laid down; so the emission situation is much worse than what consideration of the standards would disclose. Furthermore, the monitoring of the standards "imposed" is entrusted to the nuclear operators themselves, scarcely disinterested parties. Thus public policy is determined not so as to guarantee public health, but rather to serve as a "public pacifier" while publicly-subsidized private nuclear operations a proceed relatively unhamperedi While radioactive emissions are an ordinary feature of reactor operation, reactor breakdown is, hopefully, not: official reports even try to make an accident of magnitude, as a matter of definition, an ’extraordinary nuclear occurrence’. But "definitions" notwithstanding, such accidents can happen, and almost have on several occasions (the most notorious being Three Mile Island): hence the Core-meltdown problem. If the cooling and emergency core cooling systems fail in American (light water) reactors, then the core melts and ’containment failure’ is likely, with the result that an area of 40,000 square miles could be radioactively 10 contaminated. In the event of the worst type of accident in a very small reactor, a steam explosion in the reactor vessel, about 45,000 people would be killed instantly and at least 100,000 would die as a result of the accident, property damages would exceed $17 billion and an area the size of Pennsylvania would be destroyed. Modern nuclear reactors are about five times the size of the reactor for which these conservative US figures (still the best available from official sources7 are given : the consequences of a similar accident with a modern reactor would accordingly be much greater. The consigner who risks the lives and well-being of passengers on the train acts inadmissibly. a government or government-endorsed utility appears to act in a way that does not differ in morally significant respects in �20. siting a nuclear reactor in a community, in planting such a dangerous package on the ’’community train”. More directly, the location of a nuclear reactor in a community, even if it should happen to receive a favourable benefit-cost analysis and other economic appraisal, would violate such ethical requirements as the Transfer-limiting principle. The advocates of nuclear power have, in effect, endeavoured to avoid questions of cost-transfer and equity, by shifting the dispute out of the extraordinary improbability ethical arena and into a technological dispute about about the^ of reactor malfunction. They have argued, in particular, what contrasts with the train parable, that there is no real possibility of a catastrophic nuclear accident. indeed in the influential Rassmussen report - which was extensively used to support public confidence in US nuclear fission technology - an even stronger, an incredibly strong, improbability claim was stated: namely, the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident is so remote as to be (almost) impossible. However, the mathematical models relied upon in this report, variously called "fault tree analysis" and "reliability estimating techniques", are unsound, because, among other things, they exclude as "not credible" possibilities that may well happen in the real world. that the It is not surprising, then,y methodology and data of the report have been soundly and decisively criticised, or that official support for the report has now been withdrawn. 12 Moreover, use of alternative methods and data indicates that there is a real possibility, a non-negligible probability of a serious accident. In response it is contended that, even if there is a non-negligible probability of a reactor accident, still that is acceptable, being of no greater order than risks of accidents that are already socially accepted. Here we encounter again that insidious engineering approach to morality built into decision models of an economic cast, e.g. benefit-cost balance sheets, risk­ assessment models, etc. Risk assessment, a sophistication of transaction or trade-off models, purports to provide a comparison between the relative risks attached to different options, e.g. energy otpions, which settles their �21. ethical status. The following assumptions are encountered in risk assessment as applied to energy options: Ai. If option a imposes (comparable) costs on fewer people than option b then option a is preferable to option Aii. b ; Option a involves a total net cost in terms of cost to people (e.g. deaths, injuries, etc.) which is less than that of option b, which is already 13 accepted; therefore option a is acceptable. These assumptions are then applied as follows. be killed Since the number likely to eventually by nuclear power station catastrophe is less than the likely number killed by cigarette smoking, and since the risks of cigarette smoking are accepted; it follows that the risks of ntaclear power are acceptable. A little reflection reveals that this sort of risk assessment argument grossly violates the Transfer­ limiting principle. In order to obtain a proper ethical assessment we need a much fuller picture, and we need to know at least these things:costs and benefits go to the same parties; undertakes and is the person who voluntarily the risks also the person who primarily receives the benefits, as in driving or cigarette smoking, or are the costs imposed not benefit? Do the on other parties who do It is only if the parties are the same in the case of the options compared, and there are no such distributional problems, a basis would be soundly based. that a comparison on such This is rarely the case, and it is not so in the case of risk assessments of energy options. VI. OTHER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND COSTS OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR WAR. The problems already discussed by no means exhaust the environmental, health and safety risks and costs in, or arising from, the nuclear fuel cycle. The full fuel cycle includes many stages both before and after reactor operation, apart from waste disposal, namely,mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and preparation, reprocessing spent fuel, and transportation of materials. Several of these stages involve hazards. risks in the nuclear cycle Unlike the special - of sabotage of plants, of theft of fissionable material, and of the further proliferation of nuclear armaments - these hazards �22. have parallels, if not exact equivalents, in other highly polluting methods of generating power, e.g. ’workers in the uranium mining industry sustain "the same 14 risk" of fatal and nonfatal injury as workers in the coal industry’. The problems are not unique to nuclear development. Other social and environmental problems - though endemic where dangerous large-scale industry operates in societies that are highly inegalitarian and include sectors that are far from affluent - are more intimately linked with the nuclear power cycle. Though pollution is a common and generally undesirable component of large-scale industrial operation, radioactive pollution , such as uranium mining for instance produces, is especially a legacy of nuclear development, and a specially undesirable one, as rectification costs for dead radioactive lands and waterways reveal. Though sabotage is a threat to many large industries, sabotage of a nuclear reactor can have dire consequences, of a different order of magnitude from most industrial sabotage (where core A meltdown is not a possibility). Though theft of material from more dubious enterprises such as munitions works can pose threats to populations at large and can assist terrorism, no thefts for allegedly peaceful enterprises pose problems of the same order as theft of fissionable material. No other industry produces materials which so readily permit fabrication into such massive explosives. No other industry is, to sum it up, so vulnerable on so many fronts. In part to reduce its vulnerability, in part because of its long and continuing association with military activities, the nuclear industry is subject to, and encourages, several practices which (given their scale) run counter to basic features of free and open societies, crucial features such as personal liberty, freedom of association and of expression,and free access to information. These practices include secrecy, restriction of information, formation of special police and guard forces, espionage, curtailment of civil liberties. Already operators of nuclear installations are given extraordinary powers, in vetting employees, to investigate the background and activities not only of employees but also of their families and sometimes even of their friends. The installations themselves become armed camps, which especially offends British sensibilities. The U.K. Atomic Energy (Special Constables) Act of 1976 created a special armed force to guard nuclear installations ancl made it answerable ... to the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. �23. These developments, and worse ones in West Germany and elsewhere,presage along with nuclear development increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic That nuclear development appears to force such political societies. consequences tells heavily against it. Nuclear development is further indicted politically by the direct connection of nuclear power with nuclear war. It is true that ethical questions concerning nuclear war - for example, whether a nuclear war is justified, or just, under any circumstances, and if so what circumstances - are distinguishable from those concerning nuclear power. Undoubtedly, however, the spread of nuclear power is substantially increasing the technical means for engaging in nuclear war and so, to that extent, the opportunity for, and chances of, nuclear engagement. never accounted Since nuclear wars are positive goods, but are at best the lesser of major evils, nuclear wars are always highly ethically undesirable. The spread of nuclear power accordingly expands the opportunity for, and chances of, highly undesirable consequences. Finally the latter, so increasing these chances and opportunities, is itself undesirable, and therefore what leads to it, nuclear development is undesirable. This is, in outline, the argument from nuclear war against large-scale nuclear development. VII. 16 CONFLICT ARGUMENTS, AND BEGINNING QN NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT. UNCOVERING THE IDEOLOGICAL BASES OF Much as with nuclear war, so given the cumulative case against nuclear development, only one justificatory that of appeal to overriding circumstances. route remains open, That appeal, to be ethically acceptable, must go beyond merely economic considerations. For, as observed, the consigner’s action, in the train parable, cannot be justified by purely economistic arguments, such as that his profits would rise, the company or the town would be more prosperous, or by appealing to the fact that some possibly uncomfortable changes would otherwise be needed. case: a Transfer-limiting principle applies. So it is also in the nuclear But suppose now the consigner argues that his action is justified because unless it is taken the town will die. It is �by no means clear that even such a justification as this would be sufficient, especially where the risk to the passengers is high, since the case still amountsjjone of transfer of costs and risks onto others. But such a conflict situation, where a given course of action, though normally undesirable, is alleged to be the lesser of two evils in a given case, is morally more problemthan cases aticaJVwhere Transfer-limiting principle is clearly violated,. Nuclear develop­ ment is often defended in this way, through Conflict arguments, to the effect that even though nuclear development does have undesirable features, nevertheless the alternatives are worse. Some of the arguments advanced to demonstrate conflict are based on competing commitments to present people, and others on competing obligations to future people, both of which are taken to override the obligations not to impose on the future significant risk of serious harm. The success of such conflict arguments requires the presentation of a genuine and exhaustive set of alternatives (or at least practical alternatives) and showing that the only alternatives to admittedly morally undesirable actions are even more undesirable ones. If some practical alternative which is not morally worse than the action to be justified is overlooked, suppressed, or neglected in the argument (for example, if in the train parable it turns out that the town has another option to starving or to shipping the parcel, namely earning a living in some other way), then the argument is defective and cannot readily be patched. Just such a suppression of practicable alternatives, we shall argue, has occurred in the argument designed to show that the alternatives to the nuclear option are even worse than the option itself. A first argument, the Poverty argument, is that there is an overriding obligation to the poor, both the poor of the third world and the poor of indus­ trialised countries. Failure to develop nuclear energy, it is often claimed, would amount to denying them the opportunity to reach the standard of affluence we currently enjoy and would create unemployment and poverty in the industrialised nations. And this would be worse - a greater evil - than such things as violating the Transfer-limiting principle through nuclear development. The Poverty argument does not stand up to examination, either for the poor of the industrial countries or for those of the third world. There is good evidence that large-scale nuclear energy will help increase unemployment and poverty in the industrial world, through the diversion of very much available capital into an industry which is not only an exceptionally poor provider of direct employment, but also tends to reduce available jobs through encouraging substitution of energy use for labour use. The argument that nuclear energy is needed for the third world is even less convincing. Nuclear energy is both politically and economically inappropriate for the third world, since it requires massive amounts of capital, requires numbers of imported scientists and engineers, �25. —-creates negligible local employment, and depends for its feasibility upon largely non-existent utility systems - e.g. established electricity transmission systems and back-up facilities, and sufficient electrical appliances to plug into the system. Politically it increases foreign dependence, adds to centralised entrenched power and reduces the chance for change in the oppressive political structures which are a large part of the problem. The fact that nuclear energy is not in the interests of the people of the third world does not of course mean that it is not in the interests of, and wanted (often for military purposes) by, their rulers, the westernised and often military elites in whose interests the economies of these countries are usually organised. than what it is: But that does not make the poverty argument anything other a fraud. There are well-known energy-conserving alternatives and the practical option of developing further alternative energy sources, alternatives some of which offer far better prospects for helping the poor, both in the third world and in industrial countries: coal and other fossil fuels, geothermal, and a range of solar options (including as well as narrowly solar sources, wind, water and tidal power). Another major argument advanced to show conflict, the Lights-going- out argument, pppeals to a set of supposedly overriding and competing obligations to future people. We have, it is said, a duty to pass on the immensely valuable things and institutions which our culture has developed. Unless our high-technology, high-energy industrial society is continued and fostered, our valuable institutions and traditions will fall into decay or be swept away. The argument is essentially that without nuclear power, without the continued level of material wealth it alone is assumed to make possible, the lights of our civilization will go out. Future people will be the losers. The argument does raise important questions about what is valuable in our society and what characteristics are necessary for a good society. the most part these large questions can be by-passed. But for The reason is that the argument adopts an extremely uncritical attitude to present high-technology societies, apparently assuming that they are uniformly and uniquely valuable. / it: It assumes that technological society is unmodifiable, that/cannot be changed in the direction of energy conservation or alternative (perhaps high technology) energy sources without collapse. These assumptions are all hard to accept. The assumption that technological society’s energy patterns are unmodifiable is especially so; after all, it has survived events such as world wars which required major social and technological restructuring and consumption modification. If western society’s demands for energy were (contrary to the evidence) totally unmodifiable without collapse, not only would it be committed to a program of increasing destruction, but much of its culture would be of dubious value to �26. future people, who would very likely, as a consequence of this destruction, lack the resource base which the argument assumes to be essential in the case of contemporary society. Since high- The uniformity assumption should certainly be challenged. technology societies appear not to be uniformly valuable, the central question is, what is necessary to maintain what is valuable in such a society? While it may be easy to argue that high energy consumption centrally controlled is necessary to maintain the political and economic status quo of such a society, it is not so easy to argue that it is essential to maintain what is valuable, and it is what is valuable, presumably,that we have a duty to pass on to the future. The evidence from history is that no very high level of material affluence There is good or energy consumption is needed to maintain what is valuable. reason in fact to believe that a society with much lower energy and resource consumption would better foster what is valuable than our own. But even if a radical change in these directions is independently desirable, it is unnecessary to presuppose such a change in order to see that the assumptions of the Lights-going-out argument are wrong. present The consumption of less energy than at need involve no reduction of well-being * and certainly a large increase over present levels of consumption assumed in the usual economic case for nuclear energy, is quite unnecessary. then What the nuclear strategy is really designed to do is not to prevent the lights going out in western civilisation, but to enable the lights to go on burning all the time - to maintain and even increase the wattage output of the Energy Extravaganza . In fact there is good reason to think that, far from the high energy consumption society fostering what is valuable, it will, especially if energy is obtained by means of nuclear fission, be positively inimical to it. which has become heavily dependent upon a A society highly centralised, controlled and garrisoned, capital- and expertise-intensive energy source, must be one which is highly susceptible to entrenchment of power, and one in which the forces which control this energy source, whether capitalist or bureaucratic, can exert enormous power over the political system and over people’s lives, even more then they do at present. Such a society would almost inevitably tend to become authoritatian and increasingly anti-democratic, as an outcome, among other things, of its response to the threat posed by dissident groups in the nuclear situation. Nuclear development may thus help in passing on to future generations some of the worst aspects of our society - the consumerism, alienation, destruction of nature, and latent authoritarianism - while many valuable aspects, such as the degree of political freedom and those opportunities for personal and collective autonomy which exist, would be lost or diminished: political freedom �27. for example, is a high price to pay for consumerism and and energy extravagence. Again, as in the case of the poverty arguments, clear alternatives, alternative social and political choices, which do not involve such unacceptable consequences, are available. The alternative to the high technology-nuclear option is not a return to the cave, the loss of all that is valuable, but either the adoption of an available alternative such as coal for power or, better,the development of alternative technologies and lifestyles which offer far greater scope for the maintenance and further development of what is valuable in our society than the highly centralised nuclear option. The Lights-going-out argument, as a moral conflict argument, accordingly fails. Thus the further escape route, the appeal to conflict, is, like the appeal to futurity, closed. If then we apply, as we have argued we should, the same standards of morality to the future as we ought to acknowledge for the present, the conclusion that large-scale nuclear development is a crime against the future is inevitable. Closed also, in the much same way, are the escape routes to other arguments (from reactor meltdown, radiation emissions, etc.) for concluding that nuclear development is unacceptable. In sum, nuclear development is morally unacceptable on several grounds. VIII. SOCIAL OPTIONS : SHALLOW AND DEEP ALTERNATIVES. The future energy option that is most often contrasted with nuclear power, namely coal power, while no doubt preferable to nuclear power, is hardly acceptable. For it carries with it the likelihood of serious (air) pollution, and associated phenomena such as acid rain and atmospheric heating, not to mention the despoliation caused by extensive strip mining, all of which will result from its use in meeting very high projected consumption figures. the Transfer-limiting principle : Such an option would, moreover, also violate for it would impose widespread costs on nonbeneficiaries for some concentrated benefits to some profit takers and to some users who do not pay the full costs of production and replacement. To these main conventional options a third is often added which emphasizes softer and more benign technologies, such as those of solar energy and hydroelectricity. Such softer options - if suitably combined with energy conservation measures (for there are solar ways, as well as nuclear ways, of energy extravagance and of producing unnecessary trivia which answer to no genuine needs) - can avoid the ethical objections to nuclear power. choice is not however technological, The deeper nor merely/individual/ but Social, and involves the restructuring of production away from energy intensive uses and, at a more basic level, a change to nonconsumeristic, less consumptive life­ styles and social arrangements^ These more fundamental choices between social alternatives, conventional technologically-oriented discussion of energy options tends to obscure. It is not just a matter of deciding in which way to meet the �28. unexamined goals nuclear development aspires to meet, but also a matter of examining the goals themselves. That is, we are not merely faced with the question of comparing different technologies for meeting some fixed or given demand or level of consumption, and of trying to see how best to meet these; we are also faced, and primarily, with the matter of examining those alleged needs and the cost of a society that creates them. It is doubtful that any technology, however benign in principle, will be likely to leave a tolerable world for the future if it is expected to meet unbounded and uncontrolled energy consumption and demands. Even more benign technologies may well be used in a way which creates costs for future people and which are^' them. ^likely to result in a deteriorated world being handed on to In short, even more benign technologies may lead to violation of the Transmission ^Requirement. Consider, to illustrate, the effect on the world s forests, commonly counted as a solar resource, should they be extensively used for production of methanol or of electricity by woodchipping. While few would object to the use of genuine waste material for energy production, the unrestricted exploitation of forests — whether it goes under the name of "solar energy" or not - to meet ever increasing energy demands could well be the final indignity for the world’s already hard-pressed natural forests. The effects of such additional demands on the maintenance of the forests are often dismissed by the simple expedient of waving around the label "renewable resources". Many forests are in principle renewable, it is a true, given a certain (low) rate and kind of exploitation, but in fact there are now very few forestry operations anywhere in the world where the forests are treated as completely renewable in the sense of the renewal of all their values. In many regions too the rate of exploitation which would enable renewal has already been exceeded, so that a total decline is widely thought to be imminent. It certainly has begun in many regions, and many forest types, especially rain- forest types, are now, and rapidly, being lost for the future. The addition of a major further and not readily limitable demand pressure for energy on top of the present demands is one which anyone with both a realistic appreciation of the conduct of forestry operations and a concern for the long-term conservation of the forests and remaining natural communities must regard with alarm. The result of massive deforestation for energy purposes, resembling the deforestation of much of Europe at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, again for energy purposes, could be extensive and devastating erosion in steeper lands and tropical areas, desertification in more arid regions, possible climatic change, and massive impoverishment of natural ecosystems, including enormous loss of natural species. Some of us do not want to pass on, and by the Transmission principles we are not entitled to pass on, a deforested world to the future, any more than we want to pass on one poisoned by nuclear �29. products or polluted by coal products. illustrates, a mere switch to In short, as the forest situation more benign technologies - important though this is - without any more basic structural and social change, is inadequate. The deeper social option involves challenging and beginning to alter a social structure which promotes consumerism, consumption far beyond genuine needs, and an economic structure which encourages increasing use of highly energy-intensive modes of production. The social change option tends to be obscured in most discussions of energy options and of how to meet energy needs, in part because it does question underlying values of current social arrangements. The conventional discussion proceeds by taking alleged demand (often conflated with wants or needs) as unchallengeable, and the issue to be one of which technology can be most profitably employed to meet them. This effectively presents a false choice, and is the result of taking needs and demand as lacking a social context so that the social structure which produces the needs is similarly taken as unchallengeable and unchangeable. The point is readily illustrated. It is commonly argued by representatives of such industries as transportation and petroleum, as for example by McGrowth of the XS Consumption Co., that people want deep freezers, air conditions, power gadgets, .... authoritarian to prevent them from satisfying these wants. from created wants It would be Such an argument conveniently ignores the social framework in which such needs and wants arise or are produced. To point to the determination of many such wants at the framework level is not however to assume that they are entirely determined at the framework level (e.g. by industrial organisation) and there is no such thing as individual choice or determination at all. It is to see the social framework as a major factor in determining certain kinds of choices, such as those for travel, and kinds of infrastructure, and to see apparently individual choices made in such matters as being channelled and directed by a social framework determined largely in the interests of corporate and private profit and advantage. The social change option is a hard option, insofar as it will be difficult to implement politically; but it is ultimately the only way of avoiding the passing on of serious costs to future people. reasons than such ethical ones for taking it: And there are other sorts of it is the main, indeed the only sort of option,open to those who adopt what is now called a deep ecological perspective, as contrasted with a shallow ecological outlook which regards the natural world and its nonhuman denizens as not worthwhile in themselves but only of value in as much as they answer back to human interests. The deep ecological perspective is an integral part of the Alternative Ecological Paradigm and is incompatible with central theses of the Dominant Social Paradigm (which is essentially the ideology of classical and neoclassical economics) �30. and its variants (roughly, what are called State Socialism, and Democratic Socialism)^ It is incompatible with such assumptions as that the natural environment is of value only as a resource, is by and large hostile, but is controllable in human interests,and with the further domination over nature themes of the Dominant Paradigm and its variants. The conflict between Alternative and Dominant Paradigms, which is fast increasing, extends of course far beyond attitudes to the natural world, since core values of the Dominant Paradigm such as the merits of unimpeded economic growth and material progress are at stake; the conflict involves fundamental differences over the whole front of economical, political and social arrangements. The conflict underlies much of the nuclear debate, insofar as it is not specifically limited to questions of technological fixes, but takes up the 20 basic ethical issues and the social questions to which they lead. The ethical requirements already defended and applied bring us out, when followed through, on the Alternative side of the paradigm conflict, and accordingly lead to the difficult social change option. The social changes that the deep alternative requires will be strongly resisted because they mean changes in current social organisation and power structure. To the extent that the option represents some kind of threat to parts of present political and economic arrangements, it is not surprising that official energy option discussion proceeds by misrepresenting and often obscuring it. But difficult as it is to suitably alter "the system,” especially one with such far-reaching effects on the prevailing power structure, it is imperative to try: we are all on the nuclear train. �FOOTNOTES This paper is a condensation of an early version of our ’Nuclear 1. power - ethical, social, and political dimensions’ (ESP for short, available from the authors), which in turn grew out of Routley (i.e. the work so referred For help with the condensation we are very to in the reference list). considerably indebted to the editors. In the condensation, we simplify the structure of the argument and suppress underlying political and ideological dimensions (for example, the large measure of responsibility of the USA for spreading nuclear reactors around the world, and thereby in enhancing the chances of nuclear disasters, including nuclear war). We also considerably reduce a heavy load of footnotes and references designed and needed to help make good many of our claims. Further, in order to contain references to a modest length, reference to primary sources has often been replaced by reference through secondary sources. Little difficulty should be encountered however in tracing fuller references through secondary sources or in filling out much important background material from work cited herein. For example, virtually all the data cited in sections I and VII is referenced in Routley. 2. At worst ESP can always be consulted. All but the last line of the quote is drawn from Goodin, p. 417; the last line is from the Fox Report, p. 6. While it is unnecessary to know much about the nuclear fuel cycle in order to consider ethical and social dimensions of nuclear power, it helps to know a little. & Abbotts, Gyorgy. The basics are presented in many texts, e.g. Nader Of course in order to assess fully reports as to such important background and stage-setting matters as the likelihood of a core meltdown of (lightwater) reactors, much more information is required. For many assessment purposes however, some knowledge of economic fallacies and decision theory is at least as important as knowledge of nuclear technology. 3. Naturally the effect on humans is not the only factor that has to be taken into account in arriving at moral assessments. Nuclear radiation, unlike most ethical theories, does not confine its scope to human life and welfare. But since the harm 'nuclear development may afflict on non­ human life, for example, can hardly improve its case, it suffices if the case against it can be made out solely in terms of its effects on human life in the conventional way. �For reference to and a brief discussion of (human-oriented) simulation models 4. respects. see Goodin, p.428. The Opportunity-cost argument is also defective in other It presupposes not merely the (mistaken) reductions involved in the contraction of the ethical domain to the economic; it also presupposes that the proper methods for decision which affect, the choice, apply discounting. future, such as that of energy But, as Goodin argues, more appropriate decision rules do not allow discounting. 5. This is one of the reasons why expected utility theory, roughly cost-benefit analysis with probability frills, is inadequate as a decision method in such contexts. 6. Apparent exceptions to the principle such as taxation (and redistribution of income generally) vanish when wealth is construed (as it has to be if taxation is to be properly justified) as at least partly a social asset unfairly monopolised by a minority of the population. Examples such as that of motoring dangerously do not constitute counterexamples to the principle; for one is not morally entitled to so motor. 7. For details, and as to how the official analyses become arguments against nuclear development when some attempt is made to take the ignored costs into account, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 55 ff. 8. See Routley, p. 160. 9. For much further discussion of the points of the preceding two para­ graphs, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 35 ff.; and also Nader 10. & Abbotts. Most of the reactors in the world are of this type; see Gyorgy. 11. See Shrader-Frechette, chapter 4. 12. See Shrader-Frechette. shortcomings A worthwhile initial view of the of the Rassmussen report may be reached by combining the critique in Shrader-Frechette with that in Nader 13. There are variations on Ai against numbers such as probabilities. and Aii & Abbotts. which multiply costs In this way risks, construed as probable costs, can be taken into account in the assessment. risks may be assessed (Alternatively, through such familiar methods as insurance). �A principle varying Aii’. a Aii, and formulated as follows: is ethically acceptable if (for some b) a includes no more risks than b and b is socially accepted, was the basic ethical principle in terms of which the Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry recently decided that nuclear power development in Saskatchewan is ethically acceptable: see Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry Department of Environment, Government of Saskatchewan, 1978, Final Report, p. 305 and p. 288. In this report, a is nuclear power and b is either activities clearly accepted by society as alternative power sources. other applications b In has been taken as cigarette smoking, motoring, mining and even the Vietnam war (.’ ) . The points made in the text do not exhaust the objections to principles Ai - Aii1. The principles are certainly ethically substantive, since an ethical consequence cannot be deduced from nonethical premisses, but they have an inadmissible conventional origin of b ; b character. For look at the may be socially accepted though it is no longer socially acceptable, or though its social acceptibility is no longer so clearcut and it would not have been socially accepted if as much as is now known had been known when it was introduced. What is required in Aii', for instance, for the argument to begin to look convincing is that 'ethically acceptable' rather than 'socially accepted'. b is But even with the amendments the principles are invalid, for the reasons given in the text, and others. It is not disconcerting that principles of this type do not work. It would be sad to see yet another area lost to the experts, ethics to actuaries. 14. See Shrader-Frechette, p. 15. 15. Goodin 16. The argument is elaborated in ESP. 17. For some of the more philosophically important material on p. 433. alternative nonconsumeristic work cited in V. and R. Routley, .social arrangements and lifestyles, see 'Social theories, self management and environmental problems’ in Mannison et al, where a beginning is made on working out one set of alternatives, those of a pluralistic anarchism. �18. The parlous situation of the world’s tropical rainforests is explained in, for instance, Myers; the reasons are untangled in R. and V. Routley ’World rainforest destruction - the social causes’ (available from the authors). For a fuller account of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its 19. rival, the Alternative Environmental Paradigm, see "1 the main the table on p. 341 which encapsulates J" of the respective paradigms; Cotgrove and Duff, especially assumptions compare also Catton and Dunlap, especially p.33. Contemporary variants on the Dominant Social Paradigm are considered in ESP. The shallow/deep contrast as applied to ecological positions, which is an important component of the paradigm conflict, was introduced by Naess. For further explanation of the contrast and of the larger array of ecological positions into which it fits, see R. and V. Routley, ’Human chauvinism and environmental ethics’ in Mannison ^~^,et al, and the references there cited, especially to Rodman’s 20. work. The more elaborate argument of ESP sets the nuclear debate in the context of paradigm conflict. But it is also argued that, even within assumptions framework of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its variants, Ti. Nuclear development is not the rational choice among energy options. The main argument put up for nuclear development within the framework of the dominant paradigm is an Economic growth argument. It is the following version of the Lights-going-out argument (with economic growth duly standing in for material wealth, and for what is valuable.’ ) necessary to sustain economic growth. Nuclear power is Economic growth is desirable (for all the usual reasons, e.g. to increase the size of the pie, to postpone redistribution problems, etc.). Therefore nuclear power is desirable. The first premiss is part of US energy policy (see Shrader-Frechette, p.lll), But both and the second premiss is supplied by standard economics textbooks. premisses are defective, the second because what is valuable in economic growth can be achieved by (not without growth but) selective growth, which jettisons economic the heavy social and environmental costs carried by unqualified economic growth. More to the point, since the second premiss is an assumption of the Dominant Paradigm, the first premiss (or rather an appropriate and less vulnerable restatement of it) Paradigm standards. fails even by Dominant For of course nuclear power is not necessary that there are other, perhaps costlier alternatives. defended is some elaboration of the premiss : given The premiss usually Nuclear power is the economically best way to sustain economic growth, ’economically best’ �being filled out as ’most efficient’, ’cheapest’, ’having the most favourable benefit-cost ratio’, etc. Unfortunately for the argument, and for nuclear development schemes, nuclear power is none of these things decisively (unless a good deal of economic cheating - easy to do - is done). Tii. On proper Dominant Paradigm accounting, nuclear choices should generally be rejected, both as private utility investments and as public choices. Nuclear development is not economically viable but has been kept going, not by clear economic viability, but by massive subsidization of several types (discussed in Shrader-Flechette, Gyorgy and Nader & Abbotts). Even on variants of the Dominant Paradigm, nuclear development is not justified, as consideration of decision theory methods will reveal: Tiii. Whatever reasonable decision rule is adopted, the nuclear choice is rejected, as the arguments of Goodin on alternative decision rules help to show. What sustains the nuclear juggernaut is not the Dominant Paradigm or its variants, but contemporary corporate capitalism (or its state enterprise image) and associated third world imperialism, as the historical details of nuclear development both in developed countries and in less developed countries makes plain (for main details, see Gyorgy p. 307 ff.). And the practices of contemporary corporate capitalism and associated imperialism are not acceptable by the standards of either of the Paradigms or their variants : not ethically acceptable. they are certainly �REFERENCES USED Works especially useful for further investigation of the ethical issues raised by nuclear development are indicated with an asterisk (* ). S. Cotgrove and A. Duff, "Environmentalism, middle-class radicalism and politics’, Sociological Review W. R. Catton, Jr., and R. E. Dunlap, 28(2) (1980), 333-51. ’A new ecological paradigm for post exuberant sociology’ American Behavioral Scientist 24 (1980). 15-47. For Report : Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry First Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1977. *R. E. Goodin, "No moral nukes’, Ethics 90 (1980), 417-49. *A. Gyorgy and friends, No Nukes : everyone’s guide to nuclear power, South End Press, Boston, Mass., 1979. *D. Mannison, M. McRobbie and R. Routley (editors), Environmental Philosophy, RSSS, Australian National University, 1980. N. Myers, The Sinking Ark, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1979. R. Nader and J. Abbotts, The Menace of Atomic Energy, Outback Press, Melbourne, 1977. *K. S. Shrader-Frechette, Nuclear Power and Public Policy, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980. R. and V. Routley, ’Nuclear energy and obligations to the future’, Inquiry 21 (1978), 133-79. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Richard and Vai Routley 1. NUCLEAR POWER - SOME ETHICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS 1 One hardly needs initiation into the dark mysteries of nuclear physics to contribute usefully to the debate now widely raging over nuclear power. While many important empirical questions are still unresolved, these do not really lie at the centre of the controversy. Instead, it is a debate about values... many of the questions which arise are social and ethical ones. I. THE TRAIN PARABLE AND THE NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEM. train has just pulled out. passengers and freight. The train which is A long distance country crowded carries both At an early stop in the journey someone consigns as freight, to a far distant destination, a package which contains a highly toxic and explosive gas. This is packed in a very thin container which, as the consigner is aware, may well not contain the gas for the full distance for which it is consigned, and certainly will not do so if the train should strike any real trouble, for example, if the train should be derailed or involved in a collision, or if some passenger should interfere inadvertently or deliberately with the freight, perhaps trying to steal some of it. of these sorts of things have happened on some previous journeys. All If the container should break the resulting disaster would probably kill at least some of the people on the train in adjacent carriages, while others could be maimed or poisoned or sooner or later incur serious diseases. Most of us would roundly condemn such an action. of the parcel say to try to justify it? What might the consigner He might say that it is not certain that the gas will escape, or that the world needs his product and it is his duty to supply it, or that in any case he is not or the people on it. These sorts of excuses however would normally be seen as ludicrous when set in this context. not responsible for the train Unfortunately, similar excuses are often so seen when the consigner, again a (responsible) businessman,puts his workers1 health or other peoples’ welfare at risk. Suppose he says that it is his own and others’p ressing needs which justify his action. The company he controls, which produces the material as a by-product, is in bad financial straits, and could not afford to produce a better container even if it knew how to make one. If the company fails, he and his family will suffer, his employees will lose their jobs and have to look for others, and the whole company town, through loss of spending, will be worse off. The poor and unemployed of the town, whom he would otherwise have been able to help, will suffer especially. Few people would accept such grounds as justification. 2. Even where there are serious risks and costs to oneself or some group for whom one is concerned one is usually considered not to be entitled to simply transfer the heavy burden of those risks and costs onto other uninvolved parties, especially where they arise from one’s own, or one’s group’s chosen life-style. The matter of nuclear waste has many moral features which resemble the train case. How fitting the analogy is will become apparent as the argument progresses. There is no known proven safe way to package the highly toxic wastes generated by the nuclear plants that will be spread around the world as large-scale nuclear development goes ahead. The waste problem will be much more serious than that generated by the 50 or so reactors in use at present, with each one of the 2000 or so reactors envisaged by the end of the century producing, on average, annual wastes containing 1000 times the radioactivity of the Hiroshima bomb. Much of this waste is extremely toxic. For example, a millionth of a gramme of plutonium is enough to induce a lung cancer. A leak of even a part of the waste material could involve much loss of life, widespread disease and genetic damage, and contamination of immense areas of land. Wastes will include the reactors themselves, which will have to be abandoned after their expected life times of perhaps 40 years, and which, some have estimated, may require 1-1 million years to reach safe levels of radioactivity. Nuclear wastes must be kept suitably isolated from the environment for their entire active lifetime. For fission products the required storage period averages a thousand years or so, and for transuranic elements, which include plutonium, there is a half million to a million year storage problem. Serious problems have arisen with both short-term and proposed long-term methods of storage, even with the comparatively small quantities of waste produced over the last twenty years. Short-term methods of storage require continued human intervention, while proposed longer term methods are subject to both human inter­ ference and risk of leakage through non-human factors. No one with even a slight knowledge of the geological and climatic history of the earth over the last million years, a period whose fluctuations in climate we are only just beginning to guage and which has seen four Ice Ages, could be confident that a rigorous guarantee of safe storage could be provided for the vast period of time involved. Nor does the history of human affairs over the last 3000 years give ground for confidence in safe storage by methods requiring human intervention over perhaps a million years. Proposed long-term storage methods such as storage in granite formations or in salt mines, are largely speculative and relatively untested, and have already proved to involve difficulties with attempts made to put them into practice. Even as regards expensive recent proposals for first embedding concentrated wastes in glass and encapsulating the result in multilayered metal containers before rock deposit, simulation models 3. reveal that radioactive material may not remain suitably isolated from human environments.10 In short, the best present storage proposals carry very real possibilities of irradiating future people and damaging their environment. Given the 3 heavy costs which could be involved for the future, and given the known limits of technology, it is methodologically unsound to bet, as nuclear nations have, on the discovery of safe procedures for storage of wastes. Any new procedures (required before 2000) will probably be but variations on r not only have present proposals, and subject to the same inadequacies. For instance,^/none of the proposed methods for safe storage has been properly tested, but they may well prove to involve unforeseen difficulties and risks when an attempt is made to put them into practice on a commercial scale. Only a method that could provide a rigorous guarantee of safety over the storage period, that placed safety beyond reasonable doubt, would be acceptable. It is difficult to see how such rigorous guarantees could be given concerning either the geological or future human factors. But even if an economically viable, rigorously safe long term storage method could be devised, there is the problem of guaranteeing that it would be universally and invariably used. The assumption that it would be (especially if, as appears likely, such a method proved expensive economically and politically) seems to presuppose a level of efficiency, perfection, and concern for the future which has not previously been encountered in human affairs, and has certainly not been conspicuous in the nuclear industry. The risks imposed on the future by proceeding with nuclear development are, then, significant. to bear Perhaps 40,000 generations of future people could be forced significant risks resulting from the provision of the (extravagant) energy use of only a small proportion of the people of 10 generations. Nor is the risk of direct harm from the escape or misuse of radioactive materials the only burden the nuclear solution imposes on the future. Because the energy provided by nuclear fission is merely a stop gap, it seems probable that in due course the same problem, that of making a transition to renewable sources of energy, will have to be faced again by a future population which will probably, again as a result of our actions, be very much worse placed to cope with it. Their world will most likely be a world which is seriously depleted of non-renewable resources, and in which such renewable resources as forests and soils as remain, resources which inevitably form an important part of the basis of life, are run-down or destroyed. Such points tell against the idea that future people must be, if not direct beneficiaries of energy from nuclear fission, at least indirect beneficiaries. The "solution" then is to buy time for contemporary society at a price which not only creates serious problems for future people but which reduces their ability to cope with these problems. Like the consigner in the train parable, contemporary industrial society proposes, in order to get itself out of a mess arising from its own life-style - the creation of economies dependent on an abundance of non-rerewable energy, which is limited in supply to pass on costs and risks of serious harm to others who will obtain no corresponding benefits. The "solution" may enable the avoidance of some uncomfortable changes in the lifetime of those now living and their immediate descendants, just as the consigner’s action avoids uncomfortable changes for him and those in his immediate surroundings, but at the expense of passing heavy burdens to other uninvolved parties whose opportunity to lead decent lives may be seriously jeopardised. If we apply to the nuclear situation the standards of behaviour and moral principles generally acknowledged (in principle, if not so often in fact) in the contemporary world, it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that nuclear development involves injustice with respect to the future on a grand scale. There appear to be only two plausible ways of trying to avoid such a conclusion. First, it might be argued that the moral principles and obligations which we acknowledge for the contemporary world and perhaps the immediate future do not apply to those in the non-immediate future. Secondly, an attempt might be made to appeal to overriding circumstances; for to reject the consigner’s action in the circumstances outlined is not to imply that there are no circumstances in which such an action might be justifiable. As in the case of the consigner of the package there is a need to consider what these justifying circumstances might be, and whether they apply in the present case. We consider these possible escape routes for the proponent of nuclear development in turn. I II. OBLIGATIONS TO THE (DISTANT) FUTURE. The especially problematic area is that of the distant (i.e. non-immediate) future, the future with which people alive today will have no direct contact; by comparison, the immediate future gives fewer problems for most ethical theories. In fact the question of obligations to future people presents tests which a number of ethical theories fail to pass, and also has serious repercussions in political philosophy as regards the adequacy of accepted (democratic and other) institutions which do not take due account of the interests of future creatures. 5. Moral philosophers have, predictably, differed on questions of obligations to distant future creatures. A good many of the philosophers who have explicitly considered the question have come down in favour of the same consideration being given to the rights and interests of future people as to those of contemporary or immediately future people. Others fall into three categories: those who acknowledge obligations to the future but who do not take them seriously or who assign them a lesser weight, those who deny, or who are committed by their general moral position to denying, that there are moral obligations beyond the immediate future, and those who come down, with admirable philosophical caution, on both sides of the issue, but with the weight of the argument favouring the view underlying prevailing economic and political institutions, that there are no moral obligations to the future beyond those perhaps to the next generation. According to the most extreme of these positions against moral obligations to the future, our behaviour with respect to the future is morally unconstrained', there are no moral restrictions on acting or failing to act deriving effect of our actions on future people. from the Of those philosophers who say, or whose views imply that we do not have obligations to the (non-immediate) future, many have based this view on accounts of moral obligation which are built on relations which presuppose some degree of temporal or spatial contiguity. Thus, moral obligation is seen as presupposing various relations which could not hold between people widely separated in time (or sometimes in space). Let us call the position that we have no obligations to (distant) future people the No­ constraints position. Among suggested bases or grounds of moral obligation for the position, which would rule out obligations to the non-immediate future, are these. Firstly, there are those accounts which require that someone to whom a moral obligation is held be able to claim his rights or entitlement. People in the distant future will not be able to claim rights and entitlements against us, and of course they can do nothing to enforce any claims they might have against us. Secondly, there are those accounts which base moral obligations on social or legal convention, for example a convention which would require punishment of offenders or at least some kind of social enforcement. But plainly these and other conventions will not be invariant over change in society and amendment of legal conventions; hence they will not be invariant over time. Also future people have no way of enforcing their interests or punishing offending predecessors. 6. The No-constraints view is a very difficult one to sustain. Consider, for example, a scientific group which, for no particular reason other than to test a particular piece of technology, places in orbit a cobalt bomb set off by a triggering device designed to go off several hundred years from the time of its despatch. No presently living person and none of their immediate descendants would be affected, but the population of the earth in the distant future would be wiped out as a direct and predictable result of the action. The no-constraints position clearly implies that this is an acceptable moral enterprise, that whatever else we might legitimately criticize in the scientists’ experiment (perhaps its being over-expensive or badly designed) we cannot lodge a moral protest about the damage it will do to future people. The no-constraints position also endorses as morally acceptable the following sorts of policy:A firm discovers it can make a handsome profit from mining, processing and manufacturing a new type of material which, although it causes no problem for present people or their immediate descendants, will over a period of hundreds of years decay into a substance which will cause an enormous epidemic of cancer among the inhabitants of the earth at that time. According to the no-constraints view the firm is free to act in its own interests, without any consideration for the harm it does remote future people. Such counterexamples to the No-constraints position, which are easily varied and multiplied, might seem childlishly obvious. Yet this view is far from being a straw man; not only have several philosophers endorsed this position, but it is a clear implication of many currently popular views of the basis of moral obligation, as well as of prevailing economic theory. It seems that those who opt for the No-constraints position have not considered such examples, despite their being clearly implied by their position. We suspect that (we certainly hope that) when it is brought out that their position admits such counterexamples, that without any constraints we are free to cause pointless harm for example, most of those who opted for this position would want to assert that it was not what they intended. What many of those who have put forward the No-constraints position seem to have had in mind (in denying moral obligation) is rather that future people can look after themselves, that we are not responsible for their lives. The popular view that the future can take care of itself also seems to assume a future causally independent of the present. But it is not. It is not as if, in the counterexample cases or in the nuclear case, the future is simply being left alone to take care of itself. Present people are influencing it, and in doing so thereby acquire many of the same sorts of moral responsibilities as they do in causally affecting the present and immediate future, most notably the obligation to take account in 7. what they do of people affected and their interests, to be careful, in their actions, to take account of the genuine probability of their actions causing harm, and to see that they do not act so as to rob future people of the. chance of a good life. Furthermore, to say that we are not resposible for the lives of future people does not amount to the same thing as saying that we are free to do as we like with respect to them. In just the same way, the fact that one does not have or has not acquired an obligation to some stranger with whom one has never been involved does not imply that one is free to do what one likes with respect to him, for example to rob him or to seriously harm him when this could be avoided. These difficulties for the No-constraints position result in part because of a failure to make an important distinction. Some of our obligations to others arise because we have voluntarily entered into some agreement with them - for example, we have made a promise. Other obligations, however, such as our duty not to damage or harm someone, do not assume that an agreement has been struck between us. former kind acquired obligations Let us call obligations of the and those of the latter unacquired obligations. There is a considerable difference in the type of responsibility associated with each. In the case of acquired obligations responsibility arises because one should do something which one can fail to do, e.g. keep a promise. In the case of unacquired duties responsibility arises as a result of being a causal agent who is aware of the consequences or probable consequences of his action, a responsibility that is not dependent on one’s having performed some act in the past (e.g., made a promise). Our obligations to future people clearly are of unacquired, not acquired obligations, a fact the No-constraints position simply fails to take into account. These obligations arise as a result of our ability to produce causal effects of a reasonably predictable nature, whether on our contemporaries or on those in the distant future. Thus, to return to the train parable, the consigner cannot argue in justification of his action that he has, for example, never assumed or acquired responsibility for the passengers, that he does not know them and therefore has no love or sympathy for them and that they are not part of his moral community; in short, that he has acquired no obligation, and has no special obligations to help them. All that 8. one needs to argue concerning the train, and in the nuclear case, is that there are moral obligations against imposing harm for instance which are not specially , , . , , , , , all obligat to the distant acquired. Nor can this claim be rebutted by the pretence th uture involve heroic self sacrifice, something "above and beyond" what is normally required. One is no more engaging in heroic self sacrifice by not forcing future people into an unviable life position or by refraining from causing them direct harm than the consigner is resorting to heroic self sacrifice in refraining from III. ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE OBLIGATIONS TO THE FUTURE. In evading these difficulties the No-constraints position may be qualified rather than wholly abandoned. According to the Qualified position we are not entirely unconstrained There are obligations, even to distant future with respect to the distant future. people, but these are not so important as those to the present, and the interests of distant future people cannot weigh very much in the scale against those of the present and immediate future. The interests of future people then, except in unusual cases, count for very much less than the interests of present people. Hence such things as nuclear development and various exploitative activities which benefit present people should proceed, even if people of the distant future are (somewhat) disadvantaged by them. The Qualified position appears to be widely held and is implicit in prevailing economic theories, where the position of a decrease in weight of future costs and benefits (and so of future interests) is obtained by application over time of a discount rate, so discounting costs and risks to future people. The attempt to apply economics as a moral theory, something that is becoming increasingly common, can lead then to the Qualified position. What is objectionable in such an approach is that economics must operate within the bounds of acknowledged non-acquired moral constraints, just as in practice it operates within legal constraints. What economics cannot legitimately do is determine what these constraints are. There are, moreover, alternative economic theories and simply to adopt, without further ado, one which discounts the future, giving much less importance to the interests of future people, is to beg all the questions at issue. Among the arguments that economists offer for generally discounting the future, the most threadbare is based on the Rosy-future assumption, that future generations will be better off than present ones (and so better placed to handle the waste problem). generations may well not Since there is mounting evidence that future be better off then present ones, especially in things that matter, no argument for discounting the interests of future generations on this basis can carry much weight. For the waste problem to be handed down 9. to the future generations, it would have to be shown, what recent economic progress hardly justifies, that future generations will be not just better off but so much better off that they can (easily) carry and control the nuclear freight. A more plausible argument for discounting, the Opportunity-cost argument, builds directly It is argued from the fact on the notion of opportunity cost. that a dollar gained now is worth much more than a dollar received in the nonimmediate future (because the first dollar could meanwhile be invested at compound interest), that discounting is required to obtain equivalent monetary values. This same line of reasoning is then applied to the allocation of resources. Thus, compensation - which is what the waste problem is taken to come to economically - costs much less now than later, e.g. a few pennies set aside (e.g. in a trust fund) in the future, if need be, will suffice to compensate eventually for any victims of remote radioactive waste leakage. beset this approach. Two problems First, there are, presently at least, insurmountable practical difficulties about applying such discounting. how to determine appropriate future discount rates. that the argument depends on a false assumption. We simply do not know A more serious objection is It is not true that value, or damages, can always be converted into monetary equivalents. There is no clear "monetary compensation" for a variety of damages, including cancer, loss of life, a lost species. The discounting theme, however argued for, is inadequate, because it leads back in practice to the No-constraints position. discounting imposes an " economic horizon" The reason is that beyond which nothing need be considered, since any costs or benefit which might arise are, when discounted back to the present, negligible. A different argument for the Qualified position, the Probabilities argument, avoids the objections from cases of certain damage through appeal to probability considerations. The distant future, it is argued, is much more uncertain than the present and immediate future, so that probabilities are consequently lower, perhaps even approaching or coinciding with zero for any hypothesis concerning the distant future. Thus, the argument continues, the interests of future people must (apart from exceptional cases where there is an unusually high degree of certainty) count for (very much) less than those of present and neighbouring people where (much) higher probabilities are attached. So in the case of conflict between the present and the future, where it is a question of weighing certain benefits to the people of the present and the immediate future against a much lower probability of indeterminate costs to an indeterminate number of 10. distant future people, the issue would normally be decided in favour of the present, assuming anything like similar costs and benefits were involved. Firstly, probabilities involving distant badly flawed. is however The argument future situations are not always less than those concerning the immediate future in the way the argument supposes. problems often Moreover the outcomes of some moral do not depend on a high level of probability. In many cases it is enough, as the train parable reveals, that a significant risk is created; such cases do not depend critically on high probability assignments. Nor, of course, can it be assumed that anything like similarly weighted costs and benefits are involved in the nuclear case, especially if it is a question of risking poisoning some of the earth for half a million or so years, with consequent risk of serious harm to thousands of generations of future people, in order to obtain quite doubtful, or even trivial, benefits for some present people, fin the shape of the opportunity to continue (unnecessarily) high energy use. And even the costs and benefits were comparable or evenly weighted, such if an argument would be defective, since an analogous argument would show that the consigner’s action in the train parable, is acceptable provided the benefit (e.g. the profit the company stood to gain from imposing significant risks on < other people) was sufficiently large. Such a cost-benefit approach to moral and decision, problems, with or is quite inadequate when different parties without the probability frills, are involved or when cases of conflict of interest involving moral obligations are at issue. permissible 5 For example, such a cost-benefit approach would imply that it is for a company to injure, or very likely injure, some innocent party provided only that the company stands to make a sufficiently large gain from it, that costs to some group are more than morally larger benefits to another group. transferred in any compensated for by But costs or benefits are not legitimately simple way from one group to another. The often appealed to maxim "If you (or your group) want the benefits you have to accept the costs” is one thing, but the maxim "If I (or my group) want the benefits then you have to accept the costs (or some of them at least)" is another and 11. very different thing. It is a widely accepted moral principle that one is not, in general, entitled to simply transfer costs of a significant kind arising from an activity which benefits oneself onto other parties who are not involved £ in the activity and are not beneficiaries. This Transfer-limiting principle is especially clear in cases of which a thalidomide manufacturing and marketing company is one, where the significant costs include an effect on life or health or a risk thereof, and where the benefit to the benefitting party is of a noncrucial or dispensible nature. The principle is of fundamental importance in the nuclear debate, and appears again and again : it applies not merely to the waste problem but as regards several other liabilities of nuclear development, e.g. the risk of nuclear war, the matter of reactor meltdown. In particular, the principle invalidates the comparison, heavily relied on in building a case for the acceptability of the nuclear risks, between nuclear risks and those from such activities as airplane travel or cigarette smoking. In the latter case those who supposedly benefit from the activity are also, to an overwhelming extent, those who bear the serious health costs and risks involved. In contrast the users and supposed beneficiearies of nuclear energy will be risking not only, or even primarily, their own lives and health, but also that of others who may not be beneficiaries at all— who may be just the opposite! More generally, the distribution of costs and damage in such a fashion, i.e. on to non-beneficiaries, is a characteristic of certain serious forms of pollution, and is among its morally objectionable features. production, from nuclear or fossil pollution. fuel sources, can cause or lead to serious Thus from the Transfer-limiting important necessary condition for energy options: an energy option Large-scale energy principle emerges an To be morally acceptable should not involve the transfer of significant costs or risks of harm onto parties who are not involved, who do not use or do not benefit correspondingly from the energy source. Included in the scope of 12. this condition, which nuclear development violates , are future people, i.e. not merely people living at the present time but also future generations (those of the next towns). A further corollary of the principle is the Transmission Principle, that we should not hand the world we have so exploited on to our successors in substantially worse shape than we "received” it. For if we did then that would be a significant transfer of costs. The Transfer-limiting principle can be derived from certain ethical theories (e.g. those of a deontic cast such as Kant’s and Rawls’) and from common precepts (such as the Golden Rule), where one seriously considers putting oneself in another’s position. But the principle is perhaps best defended, on a broader basis, inductively, by way of examples. embroider the train parable, the company town decides to Suppose, to solve its disposal problem by shipping its noxious waste to another town down the line, which (like future towns) lacks the means to ship it back or to register due protest. The inhabitants of this town are then forced to face the problem either of undertaking the expensive and difficult disposal process or of sus­ taining risks to their own lives and health. Most of us would regard this kind of transfer of costs as morally unacceptable, however much the consigner’s company town flourishes. IV. UNCERTAINTY AND INDETERMINACY ARGUMENTS FOR REDUCED RESPONSIBILITY. Many of the arguments designed to show that we cannot be expected to take too much account of the effects of our actions on the distant future appeal to uncertainty. There are two main components to the General Uncertainty argument, capable of separation, but frequently tangled up. Both arguments are mistaken, the first, an argument from ignorance, on ai priori second on a posteriori grounds. follows:- grounds, the The Argument from ignorance concerned runs as In contrast to the exact information we can obtain about the present, the information we can obtain about the effects of our actions on the distant future is unreliable, woolly and highly speculative. But we cannot base assessments of how we should act on information of this kind, especially when 13. accurate information is obtainable about the present which would indicate Therefore we must regretfully ignore the uncertain effects of different action. our actions on the distant future. ignorance A striking example of the argument from at work is afforded by official US analyses favouring nuclear development, which ignore (the extensive) costs of waste control on the 7 grounds of uncertainty. the argument concerned is this J- More formally and crudely One only has obligations to the future if these obligations are based on reliable information. distant future. There is no reliable information at present as regards the Therefore one has no obligations to the distant future. This argument is essentially a variant on a sceptical argument concerning our knowledge of the future (formally, replace ’obligations’ by ’knowledge’ in the crude statement of the argument above). The main ploy is to considerably overestimate and overstate the degree of certainty available with respect to the present and immediate future, and the degree of certainty which is required as the basis for moral consideration both with respect to the present and with respect to the future. Associated with this is the attempt to suggest a sharp division as regards certainty between the present and immediate future on the one hand and the distant future on the other. We shall not find, we suggest, that there is any such sharp or simple division between the distant future and the adjacent future and the present, at least with respect to those things in the present which are normally subject to moral constraints. We can and constantly such do act on the basis of^"unreliable" information, which the sceptic as regards the future conveniently labels "uncertainty". In moral situations in the present, assessments of what to do often take account of risk and probability, even quite low probabilities. Consider again the train parable. We do not need to know for certain that the container will break and the lethal gas escape. In fact it does not even have to be probable, in the relevant sense of more probable than not, in order for us to condemn the consigner’s action. that there is a significant risk of harm It is enough in this sort of case. It does not matter if the decreased well-being of the consigner is certain and that the 14. prospects of the passengers quite uncertain. It is wrong to ship the gas. But if we do not require certainty of action to apply moral constraints in contemporary affairs, why should we require a much higher standard of certainty in the future? The unwarranted insistence on certainty as a necessary condition before moral consideration can be given to the distant future, then, amounts to a flagrant double standard. According to the second argument, the Practical-uncertainty argument, even if in theory we have obligations to the future, we cannot in practice take the interests of future people into account because uncertainty about the distant future is so gross that we cannot determine what the likely consequences of actions on it will be. Therefore, however good our intentions to the people of the distant future are, in practice we have no choice but to ignore their interests. Given that moral principles are characteristically of universal implicational form, e.g. of forms such as "if x has character then x is wrong, for every (action) sharply thus: x”, h the argument may be stated more We can never obtain the information about future actions which would enable us to detach the antecedent of the implication. Therefore, even if in theory moral principles do extend to future people, in practice they cannot be applied to obtain clear conclusions. It is true that if the distant future really were so grossly uncertain , that in every case it was impossible to determine in any way better than chance what the effects of present action would be, and whether any given action would help or hinder future people, then moral principles, although applicable in theory to the future, would not in practice yield any clear conclusions about how to act. In this event the distant future would impose no practical moral constraints on action. However, the argument is factually incorrect in assuming that the future always is so grossly uncertain or indeterminate. Admittedly there is often a high degree of uncertainty concerning the distant future, but as a matter of (contingent) fact it is not always so gross or sweeping as the argument has to assume. There are some areas where uncertainty is 15. not so great as to exclude constraints on action. For example, we may have little idea what the fashions will be in a hundred years or, to take another morally-irrelevant factor, what brands of ice cream people will be eating, if any, but we do have excellent reason to believe, especially if we consider 3000 years of history, that what people there are in a hundred years are likely to have material and psychic needs not entirely unlike our own, that they will need a healthy biosphere for a good life; that like us they will not be immune to radiation; that their welfare will not be enhanced by a high incidence of cancer or genetic defects, by the destruction of resources, or the elimination from the face of the earth of that wonderful variety of non-human life which at present makes it such a rich and interesting place. The case of nuclear waste storage, and of uncertainty of the effects of it on future people, is one area where uncertainty in morally relevant respects is not so great as to preclude moral constraints on action. For this sort of reason, the Practical uncertainty argument should be rejected. Through the defects of the preceding arguments, we can see the defects in a number of widely employed uncertainty arguments used to write off pxQhabLe. harm to future people as outside the scope of proper consideration. Most of these popular moves employ both of the uncertainty arguments as suits the case, switching from one to the other. For example, we may be told that we cannot really take account of future people because we cannot be sure that they will exist or that their tastes and wants will not be completely different from our own, to the point where they will not suffer from our exhaustion of resources or from the things that would affect us. But this is to insist upon complete certainty of a sort beyond what is required for the present and immediate future, where there is also commonly no guarantee that some disaster will not overtake those to whom we are morally committed. Again we may be told that there is no guarantee that future people will be worthy of any efforts on our part, because they may be morons of forever plugged into enjoyment of other machines. Even if one is prepared to accept the elitist approach presupposed - according to which only those who meet certain properly civilized or intellectual standards are eligible for moral consideration - what we are being handed in such arguments 16. is again a mere outside possibility. Neither the contemporary nor the historical situation gives any positive reason for supposing that a lapse into universal moronity or universal-pleasure—machine escapism is a serious possibility. We can contrast with these mere logical possibilities the very real historically supportable risks of escape of nuclear waste or decline of a civilisation through destruction of its resource base. Closely related to uncertainty arguments are arguments premissed on the indeterminacy of the future. For example, according to the Indeterminacy argument, the indeterminacy of the number and exact character of people at future times will prevent the interest of future people being taken into account where there is a conflict with the present. Since their numbers are indeterminate and their interests unknown how, it is asked, can we weigh their competing claims against those of the present and immediate future, where this information is available in a more or less accurate form? The question is raised particularly by problems of sharing fixed quantities of resources among present and future people, for example oil, when the numbers of the latter are indeterminate. Such problems are indeed difficult, but they are not resolved by ignoring the claims Nor are distributional of the future. problems involving non-renewable resources as large and representative a class of moral problems concerning the future as the tendency to focus on them would suggest. It can be freely admitted, that there will be cases where the indeterminacy of aspects of the future will make conflicts very difficult to resolve or indeed irresoluble - no realistic ethical theory can give a precise answer to every ethical question. But, as the train parable again illustrates, there are cases where such difficulties do not hinder resolution, and cases of conflict which are not properly approached by weighing numbers, numbers of interests, or whatever, cases for which one needs to know only the most general probable characteristics of future people. The case of nuclear power is like that. The failure of these various arguments reveals, what ca^e independentlys • argued from the universalisability features of • 1 moral principles, 8 K / thatA disqualify future people from full moral consideration or reduce their claims below the claims of present people. That is, we have the same general obligations 17. to future people as to the present; thus there is the same obligation to take account of them and their interests in what we do, to be careful in our actions, to take account of the probability (and not just the certainty) of our actions causing harm or damage, and to see, other things being equal, that we do not act so as to rob them of what is necessary for the chance of a good life. Uncertainty and indeterminacy do not relieve us of these obligations. V. PROBLEMS OF SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATION : REACTOR EMISSIONS AND CORE MELTDOWN. The ethical problems with nuclear power are by no means confined to waste storage Just as remoteness in time does not erode obligations or and future creatures. entitlement to just treatment, neither does location in space, or a particular geographical position. Hence several further problems arise, to which principles and arguments like those already arrived at in considering the waste problem apply. For example, if one group (social unit, or state) decides to dump its radioactive wastes in the territory or region of another group, or not to prevent its (radioactive) pollution entering the territory of another group, then it imposes risks and costs on presently existing people of the second group, in much the way that present nuclear developments impose costs and risks on future people. There are differences however : distant people spatially cannot be discounted in quite the way that future people can be, though their interests and objectives can be ignored or overridden. People living in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor are subject to special costs and risks. One is radioactive pollution, because reactors routinely discharge radioactive materials into the air and water near Emission problem. the plant : hence the Such ’’normal” emission during plant operation of low level radiation carries carcinogenic and mutagenic costs. While there are undoubtedly costs, the number of cancers and the precise extent of genetic damage induced by exposure to such radiation are both uncertain. If our ethical principles permitted free transfer of costs and risks from one person to another, the ethical issue directly raised by nuclear emissions would be : what extent of 18. cancer and genetic damage, if any, is permissibly traded for the advantages of nuclear power, and under what conditions? Since, however, risks and benefits are NOT (morally) transferable this way - recall the Transfer-limiting principle - such a cost-benefit approach to the risks nuclear emission poses for those who live near a reactor cannot with justice be approached in this fashion And these risks are real! In the USA, people who live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant bear a risk of cancer and genetic damage of as much as 50 times that borne by the population at large. And children living in this region are even more vulnerable, since they are several times more likely to contract cancer through exposure than normal adults. The serious costs to these people cannot be justified by the alleged benefits for others, especially when these benefits could be obtained without these costs. Thus it is not just complacent to say It s a pity about Aunt Ethel dying of cancer, but the new airconditioners make life comfortable’. For such benefits to some as airconditioners provide, which can be alternatively obtained, for example by modification of buildings, can in no way compensate for what others suffer. Among the other strategies used in trying to persuade us that the imposition of radiation on minorities - most of whom have no genuine voice in the location of reactors in their environment and cannot move away without serious losses — is really quite alright is the Doubling argument. According to the US Atomic Energy Commission, who deployed this trick, it is permissable to double, through nuclear technology, the level of (natural) radiation that a population has received with apparently negligible consequences, the argument being that the additional amount (being equivalent is also likely to have negligible consequences. to the "natural" level) The increased amounts of radiation — with their large man-made component — are then accounted normal, and, it si claimed, what is normal is morally acceptable. in this argument is sound. None of the steps Drinking one bottle of wine a day may have no ill-effects, whereas drinking two a day certainly may affect a person’s well-being; and while the smaller intake may have become normal for the person, the larger one will, under such conditions, not be. Finally, what is or has become normal, 19. e.g. two murders or twenty cancers a day in a given city, may be far from acceptable. In fact, even the USA, which has very strict standards by comparison with most other countries with planned nuclear reactors, permits radiation emissions very substantially in excess of the standards laid down; so the emission situation is much worse than what consideration of the standards would disclose. Furthermore, the monitoring of the standards "imposed" is entrusted to the nuclear operators themselves, scarcely disinterested parties. Thus public policy is determined not so as to guarantee public health, but rather to serve as a "public pacifier" while publicly-subsidized private nuclear operations a proceed relatively unhamperedi While radioactive emissions are an ordinary feature of reactor operation, reactor breakdown is, hopefully, not: official reports even try to make an accident of magnitude, as a matter of definition, an ’extraordinary nuclear occurrence’. But "definitions" notwithstanding, such accidents can happen, and almost have on several occasions (the most notorious being Three Mile Island): hence the Core-meltdown problem. If the cooling and emergency core cooling systems fail in American (light water) reactors, then the core melts and ’containment failure’ is likely, with the result that an area of 40,000 square miles could be radioactively 10 contaminated. In the event of the worst type of accident in a very small reactor, a steam explosion in the reactor vessel, about 45,000 people would be killed instantly and at least 100,000 would die as a result of the accident, property damages would exceed $17 billion and an area the size of Pennsylvania would be destroyed. Modern nuclear reactors are about five times the size of the reactor for which these conservative US figures (still the best available from official sources7 are given : the consequences of a similar accident with a modern reactor would accordingly be much greater. The consigner who risks the lives and well-being of passengers on the train acts inadmissibly. a government or government-endorsed utility appears to act in a way that does not differ in morally significant respects in 20. siting a nuclear reactor in a community, in planting such a dangerous package on the ’’community train”. More directly, the location of a nuclear reactor in a community, even if it should happen to receive a favourable benefit-cost analysis and other economic appraisal, would violate such ethical requirements as the Transfer-limiting principle. The advocates of nuclear power have, in effect, endeavoured to avoid questions of cost-transfer and equity, by shifting the dispute out of the extraordinary improbability ethical arena and into a technological dispute about about the^ of reactor malfunction. They have argued, in particular, what contrasts with the train parable, that there is no real possibility of a catastrophic nuclear accident. indeed in the influential Rassmussen report - which was extensively used to support public confidence in US nuclear fission technology - an even stronger, an incredibly strong, improbability claim was stated: namely, the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident is so remote as to be (almost) impossible. However, the mathematical models relied upon in this report, variously called "fault tree analysis" and "reliability estimating techniques", are unsound, because, among other things, they exclude as "not credible" possibilities that may well happen in the real world. that the It is not surprising, then,y methodology and data of the report have been soundly and decisively criticised, or that official support for the report has now been withdrawn. 12 Moreover, use of alternative methods and data indicates that there is a real possibility, a non-negligible probability of a serious accident. In response it is contended that, even if there is a non-negligible probability of a reactor accident, still that is acceptable, being of no greater order than risks of accidents that are already socially accepted. Here we encounter again that insidious engineering approach to morality built into decision models of an economic cast, e.g. benefit-cost balance sheets, risk­ assessment models, etc. Risk assessment, a sophistication of transaction or trade-off models, purports to provide a comparison between the relative risks attached to different options, e.g. energy otpions, which settles their 21. ethical status. The following assumptions are encountered in risk assessment as applied to energy options: Ai. If option a imposes (comparable) costs on fewer people than option b then option a is preferable to option Aii. b ; Option a involves a total net cost in terms of cost to people (e.g. deaths, injuries, etc.) which is less than that of option b, which is already 13 accepted; therefore option a is acceptable. These assumptions are then applied as follows. be killed Since the number likely to eventually by nuclear power station catastrophe is less than the likely number killed by cigarette smoking, and since the risks of cigarette smoking are accepted; it follows that the risks of ntaclear power are acceptable. A little reflection reveals that this sort of risk assessment argument grossly violates the Transfer­ limiting principle. In order to obtain a proper ethical assessment we need a much fuller picture, and we need to know at least these things:costs and benefits go to the same parties; undertakes and is the person who voluntarily the risks also the person who primarily receives the benefits, as in driving or cigarette smoking, or are the costs imposed not benefit? Do the on other parties who do It is only if the parties are the same in the case of the options compared, and there are no such distributional problems, a basis would be soundly based. that a comparison on such This is rarely the case, and it is not so in the case of risk assessments of energy options. VI. OTHER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND COSTS OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR WAR. The problems already discussed by no means exhaust the environmental, health and safety risks and costs in, or arising from, the nuclear fuel cycle. The full fuel cycle includes many stages both before and after reactor operation, apart from waste disposal, namely,mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and preparation, reprocessing spent fuel, and transportation of materials. Several of these stages involve hazards. risks in the nuclear cycle Unlike the special - of sabotage of plants, of theft of fissionable material, and of the further proliferation of nuclear armaments - these hazards 22. have parallels, if not exact equivalents, in other highly polluting methods of generating power, e.g. ’workers in the uranium mining industry sustain "the same 14 risk" of fatal and nonfatal injury as workers in the coal industry’. The problems are not unique to nuclear development. Other social and environmental problems - though endemic where dangerous large-scale industry operates in societies that are highly inegalitarian and include sectors that are far from affluent - are more intimately linked with the nuclear power cycle. Though pollution is a common and generally undesirable component of large-scale industrial operation, radioactive pollution , such as uranium mining for instance produces, is especially a legacy of nuclear development, and a specially undesirable one, as rectification costs for dead radioactive lands and waterways reveal. Though sabotage is a threat to many large industries, sabotage of a nuclear reactor can have dire consequences, of a different order of magnitude from most industrial sabotage (where core A meltdown is not a possibility). Though theft of material from more dubious enterprises such as munitions works can pose threats to populations at large and can assist terrorism, no thefts for allegedly peaceful enterprises pose problems of the same order as theft of fissionable material. No other industry produces materials which so readily permit fabrication into such massive explosives. No other industry is, to sum it up, so vulnerable on so many fronts. In part to reduce its vulnerability, in part because of its long and continuing association with military activities, the nuclear industry is subject to, and encourages, several practices which (given their scale) run counter to basic features of free and open societies, crucial features such as personal liberty, freedom of association and of expression,and free access to information. These practices include secrecy, restriction of information, formation of special police and guard forces, espionage, curtailment of civil liberties. Already operators of nuclear installations are given extraordinary powers, in vetting employees, to investigate the background and activities not only of employees but also of their families and sometimes even of their friends. The installations themselves become armed camps, which especially offends British sensibilities. The U.K. Atomic Energy (Special Constables) Act of 1976 created a special armed force to guard nuclear installations ancl made it answerable ... to the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. 23. These developments, and worse ones in West Germany and elsewhere,presage along with nuclear development increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic That nuclear development appears to force such political societies. consequences tells heavily against it. Nuclear development is further indicted politically by the direct connection of nuclear power with nuclear war. It is true that ethical questions concerning nuclear war - for example, whether a nuclear war is justified, or just, under any circumstances, and if so what circumstances - are distinguishable from those concerning nuclear power. Undoubtedly, however, the spread of nuclear power is substantially increasing the technical means for engaging in nuclear war and so, to that extent, the opportunity for, and chances of, nuclear engagement. never accounted Since nuclear wars are positive goods, but are at best the lesser of major evils, nuclear wars are always highly ethically undesirable. The spread of nuclear power accordingly expands the opportunity for, and chances of, highly undesirable consequences. Finally the latter, so increasing these chances and opportunities, is itself undesirable, and therefore what leads to it, nuclear development is undesirable. This is, in outline, the argument from nuclear war against large-scale nuclear development. VII. 16 CONFLICT ARGUMENTS, AND BEGINNING QN NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT. UNCOVERING THE IDEOLOGICAL BASES OF Much as with nuclear war, so given the cumulative case against nuclear development, only one justificatory that of appeal to overriding circumstances. route remains open, That appeal, to be ethically acceptable, must go beyond merely economic considerations. For, as observed, the consigner’s action, in the train parable, cannot be justified by purely economistic arguments, such as that his profits would rise, the company or the town would be more prosperous, or by appealing to the fact that some possibly uncomfortable changes would otherwise be needed. case: a Transfer-limiting principle applies. So it is also in the nuclear But suppose now the consigner argues that his action is justified because unless it is taken the town will die. It is by no means clear that even such a justification as this would be sufficient, especially where the risk to the passengers is high, since the case still amountsjjone of transfer of costs and risks onto others. But such a conflict situation, where a given course of action, though normally undesirable, is alleged to be the lesser of two evils in a given case, is morally more problemthan cases aticaJVwhere Transfer-limiting principle is clearly violated,. Nuclear develop­ ment is often defended in this way, through Conflict arguments, to the effect that even though nuclear development does have undesirable features, nevertheless the alternatives are worse. Some of the arguments advanced to demonstrate conflict are based on competing commitments to present people, and others on competing obligations to future people, both of which are taken to override the obligations not to impose on the future significant risk of serious harm. The success of such conflict arguments requires the presentation of a genuine and exhaustive set of alternatives (or at least practical alternatives) and showing that the only alternatives to admittedly morally undesirable actions are even more undesirable ones. If some practical alternative which is not morally worse than the action to be justified is overlooked, suppressed, or neglected in the argument (for example, if in the train parable it turns out that the town has another option to starving or to shipping the parcel, namely earning a living in some other way), then the argument is defective and cannot readily be patched. Just such a suppression of practicable alternatives, we shall argue, has occurred in the argument designed to show that the alternatives to the nuclear option are even worse than the option itself. A first argument, the Poverty argument, is that there is an overriding obligation to the poor, both the poor of the third world and the poor of indus­ trialised countries. Failure to develop nuclear energy, it is often claimed, would amount to denying them the opportunity to reach the standard of affluence we currently enjoy and would create unemployment and poverty in the industrialised nations. And this would be worse - a greater evil - than such things as violating the Transfer-limiting principle through nuclear development. The Poverty argument does not stand up to examination, either for the poor of the industrial countries or for those of the third world. There is good evidence that large-scale nuclear energy will help increase unemployment and poverty in the industrial world, through the diversion of very much available capital into an industry which is not only an exceptionally poor provider of direct employment, but also tends to reduce available jobs through encouraging substitution of energy use for labour use. The argument that nuclear energy is needed for the third world is even less convincing. Nuclear energy is both politically and economically inappropriate for the third world, since it requires massive amounts of capital, requires numbers of imported scientists and engineers, 25. —-creates negligible local employment, and depends for its feasibility upon largely non-existent utility systems - e.g. established electricity transmission systems and back-up facilities, and sufficient electrical appliances to plug into the system. Politically it increases foreign dependence, adds to centralised entrenched power and reduces the chance for change in the oppressive political structures which are a large part of the problem. The fact that nuclear energy is not in the interests of the people of the third world does not of course mean that it is not in the interests of, and wanted (often for military purposes) by, their rulers, the westernised and often military elites in whose interests the economies of these countries are usually organised. than what it is: But that does not make the poverty argument anything other a fraud. There are well-known energy-conserving alternatives and the practical option of developing further alternative energy sources, alternatives some of which offer far better prospects for helping the poor, both in the third world and in industrial countries: coal and other fossil fuels, geothermal, and a range of solar options (including as well as narrowly solar sources, wind, water and tidal power). Another major argument advanced to show conflict, the Lights-going- out argument, pppeals to a set of supposedly overriding and competing obligations to future people. We have, it is said, a duty to pass on the immensely valuable things and institutions which our culture has developed. Unless our high-technology, high-energy industrial society is continued and fostered, our valuable institutions and traditions will fall into decay or be swept away. The argument is essentially that without nuclear power, without the continued level of material wealth it alone is assumed to make possible, the lights of our civilization will go out. Future people will be the losers. The argument does raise important questions about what is valuable in our society and what characteristics are necessary for a good society. the most part these large questions can be by-passed. But for The reason is that the argument adopts an extremely uncritical attitude to present high-technology societies, apparently assuming that they are uniformly and uniquely valuable. / it: It assumes that technological society is unmodifiable, that/cannot be changed in the direction of energy conservation or alternative (perhaps high technology) energy sources without collapse. These assumptions are all hard to accept. The assumption that technological society’s energy patterns are unmodifiable is especially so; after all, it has survived events such as world wars which required major social and technological restructuring and consumption modification. If western society’s demands for energy were (contrary to the evidence) totally unmodifiable without collapse, not only would it be committed to a program of increasing destruction, but much of its culture would be of dubious value to 26. future people, who would very likely, as a consequence of this destruction, lack the resource base which the argument assumes to be essential in the case of contemporary society. Since high- The uniformity assumption should certainly be challenged. technology societies appear not to be uniformly valuable, the central question is, what is necessary to maintain what is valuable in such a society? While it may be easy to argue that high energy consumption centrally controlled is necessary to maintain the political and economic status quo of such a society, it is not so easy to argue that it is essential to maintain what is valuable, and it is what is valuable, presumably,that we have a duty to pass on to the future. The evidence from history is that no very high level of material affluence There is good or energy consumption is needed to maintain what is valuable. reason in fact to believe that a society with much lower energy and resource consumption would better foster what is valuable than our own. But even if a radical change in these directions is independently desirable, it is unnecessary to presuppose such a change in order to see that the assumptions of the Lights-going-out argument are wrong. present The consumption of less energy than at need involve no reduction of well-being * and certainly a large increase over present levels of consumption assumed in the usual economic case for nuclear energy, is quite unnecessary. then What the nuclear strategy is really designed to do is not to prevent the lights going out in western civilisation, but to enable the lights to go on burning all the time - to maintain and even increase the wattage output of the Energy Extravaganza . In fact there is good reason to think that, far from the high energy consumption society fostering what is valuable, it will, especially if energy is obtained by means of nuclear fission, be positively inimical to it. which has become heavily dependent upon a A society highly centralised, controlled and garrisoned, capital- and expertise-intensive energy source, must be one which is highly susceptible to entrenchment of power, and one in which the forces which control this energy source, whether capitalist or bureaucratic, can exert enormous power over the political system and over people’s lives, even more then they do at present. Such a society would almost inevitably tend to become authoritatian and increasingly anti-democratic, as an outcome, among other things, of its response to the threat posed by dissident groups in the nuclear situation. Nuclear development may thus help in passing on to future generations some of the worst aspects of our society - the consumerism, alienation, destruction of nature, and latent authoritarianism - while many valuable aspects, such as the degree of political freedom and those opportunities for personal and collective autonomy which exist, would be lost or diminished: political freedom 27. for example, is a high price to pay for consumerism and and energy extravagence. Again, as in the case of the poverty arguments, clear alternatives, alternative social and political choices, which do not involve such unacceptable consequences, are available. The alternative to the high technology-nuclear option is not a return to the cave, the loss of all that is valuable, but either the adoption of an available alternative such as coal for power or, better,the development of alternative technologies and lifestyles which offer far greater scope for the maintenance and further development of what is valuable in our society than the highly centralised nuclear option. The Lights-going-out argument, as a moral conflict argument, accordingly fails. Thus the further escape route, the appeal to conflict, is, like the appeal to futurity, closed. If then we apply, as we have argued we should, the same standards of morality to the future as we ought to acknowledge for the present, the conclusion that large-scale nuclear development is a crime against the future is inevitable. Closed also, in the much same way, are the escape routes to other arguments (from reactor meltdown, radiation emissions, etc.) for concluding that nuclear development is unacceptable. In sum, nuclear development is morally unacceptable on several grounds. VIII. SOCIAL OPTIONS : SHALLOW AND DEEP ALTERNATIVES. The future energy option that is most often contrasted with nuclear power, namely coal power, while no doubt preferable to nuclear power, is hardly acceptable. For it carries with it the likelihood of serious (air) pollution, and associated phenomena such as acid rain and atmospheric heating, not to mention the despoliation caused by extensive strip mining, all of which will result from its use in meeting very high projected consumption figures. the Transfer-limiting principle : Such an option would, moreover, also violate for it would impose widespread costs on nonbeneficiaries for some concentrated benefits to some profit takers and to some users who do not pay the full costs of production and replacement. To these main conventional options a third is often added which emphasizes softer and more benign technologies, such as those of solar energy and hydroelectricity. Such softer options - if suitably combined with energy conservation measures (for there are solar ways, as well as nuclear ways, of energy extravagance and of producing unnecessary trivia which answer to no genuine needs) - can avoid the ethical objections to nuclear power. choice is not however technological, The deeper nor merely/individual/ but Social, and involves the restructuring of production away from energy intensive uses and, at a more basic level, a change to nonconsumeristic, less consumptive life­ styles and social arrangements^ These more fundamental choices between social alternatives, conventional technologically-oriented discussion of energy options tends to obscure. It is not just a matter of deciding in which way to meet the 28. unexamined goals nuclear development aspires to meet, but also a matter of examining the goals themselves. That is, we are not merely faced with the question of comparing different technologies for meeting some fixed or given demand or level of consumption, and of trying to see how best to meet these; we are also faced, and primarily, with the matter of examining those alleged needs and the cost of a society that creates them. It is doubtful that any technology, however benign in principle, will be likely to leave a tolerable world for the future if it is expected to meet unbounded and uncontrolled energy consumption and demands. Even more benign technologies may well be used in a way which creates costs for future people and which are^' them. ^likely to result in a deteriorated world being handed on to In short, even more benign technologies may lead to violation of the Transmission ^Requirement. Consider, to illustrate, the effect on the world s forests, commonly counted as a solar resource, should they be extensively used for production of methanol or of electricity by woodchipping. While few would object to the use of genuine waste material for energy production, the unrestricted exploitation of forests — whether it goes under the name of "solar energy" or not - to meet ever increasing energy demands could well be the final indignity for the world’s already hard-pressed natural forests. The effects of such additional demands on the maintenance of the forests are often dismissed by the simple expedient of waving around the label "renewable resources". Many forests are in principle renewable, it is a true, given a certain (low) rate and kind of exploitation, but in fact there are now very few forestry operations anywhere in the world where the forests are treated as completely renewable in the sense of the renewal of all their values. In many regions too the rate of exploitation which would enable renewal has already been exceeded, so that a total decline is widely thought to be imminent. It certainly has begun in many regions, and many forest types, especially rain- forest types, are now, and rapidly, being lost for the future. The addition of a major further and not readily limitable demand pressure for energy on top of the present demands is one which anyone with both a realistic appreciation of the conduct of forestry operations and a concern for the long-term conservation of the forests and remaining natural communities must regard with alarm. The result of massive deforestation for energy purposes, resembling the deforestation of much of Europe at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, again for energy purposes, could be extensive and devastating erosion in steeper lands and tropical areas, desertification in more arid regions, possible climatic change, and massive impoverishment of natural ecosystems, including enormous loss of natural species. Some of us do not want to pass on, and by the Transmission principles we are not entitled to pass on, a deforested world to the future, any more than we want to pass on one poisoned by nuclear 29. products or polluted by coal products. illustrates, a mere switch to In short, as the forest situation more benign technologies - important though this is - without any more basic structural and social change, is inadequate. The deeper social option involves challenging and beginning to alter a social structure which promotes consumerism, consumption far beyond genuine needs, and an economic structure which encourages increasing use of highly energy-intensive modes of production. The social change option tends to be obscured in most discussions of energy options and of how to meet energy needs, in part because it does question underlying values of current social arrangements. The conventional discussion proceeds by taking alleged demand (often conflated with wants or needs) as unchallengeable, and the issue to be one of which technology can be most profitably employed to meet them. This effectively presents a false choice, and is the result of taking needs and demand as lacking a social context so that the social structure which produces the needs is similarly taken as unchallengeable and unchangeable. The point is readily illustrated. It is commonly argued by representatives of such industries as transportation and petroleum, as for example by McGrowth of the XS Consumption Co., that people want deep freezers, air conditions, power gadgets, .... authoritarian to prevent them from satisfying these wants. from created wants It would be Such an argument conveniently ignores the social framework in which such needs and wants arise or are produced. To point to the determination of many such wants at the framework level is not however to assume that they are entirely determined at the framework level (e.g. by industrial organisation) and there is no such thing as individual choice or determination at all. It is to see the social framework as a major factor in determining certain kinds of choices, such as those for travel, and kinds of infrastructure, and to see apparently individual choices made in such matters as being channelled and directed by a social framework determined largely in the interests of corporate and private profit and advantage. The social change option is a hard option, insofar as it will be difficult to implement politically; but it is ultimately the only way of avoiding the passing on of serious costs to future people. reasons than such ethical ones for taking it: And there are other sorts of it is the main, indeed the only sort of option,open to those who adopt what is now called a deep ecological perspective, as contrasted with a shallow ecological outlook which regards the natural world and its nonhuman denizens as not worthwhile in themselves but only of value in as much as they answer back to human interests. The deep ecological perspective is an integral part of the Alternative Ecological Paradigm and is incompatible with central theses of the Dominant Social Paradigm (which is essentially the ideology of classical and neoclassical economics) 30. and its variants (roughly, what are called State Socialism, and Democratic Socialism)^ It is incompatible with such assumptions as that the natural environment is of value only as a resource, is by and large hostile, but is controllable in human interests,and with the further domination over nature themes of the Dominant Paradigm and its variants. The conflict between Alternative and Dominant Paradigms, which is fast increasing, extends of course far beyond attitudes to the natural world, since core values of the Dominant Paradigm such as the merits of unimpeded economic growth and material progress are at stake; the conflict involves fundamental differences over the whole front of economical, political and social arrangements. The conflict underlies much of the nuclear debate, insofar as it is not specifically limited to questions of technological fixes, but takes up the 20 basic ethical issues and the social questions to which they lead. The ethical requirements already defended and applied bring us out, when followed through, on the Alternative side of the paradigm conflict, and accordingly lead to the difficult social change option. The social changes that the deep alternative requires will be strongly resisted because they mean changes in current social organisation and power structure. To the extent that the option represents some kind of threat to parts of present political and economic arrangements, it is not surprising that official energy option discussion proceeds by misrepresenting and often obscuring it. But difficult as it is to suitably alter "the system,” especially one with such far-reaching effects on the prevailing power structure, it is imperative to try: we are all on the nuclear train. FOOTNOTES This paper is a condensation of an early version of our ’Nuclear 1. power - ethical, social, and political dimensions’ (ESP for short, available from the authors), which in turn grew out of Routley (i.e. the work so referred For help with the condensation we are very to in the reference list). considerably indebted to the editors. In the condensation, we simplify the structure of the argument and suppress underlying political and ideological dimensions (for example, the large measure of responsibility of the USA for spreading nuclear reactors around the world, and thereby in enhancing the chances of nuclear disasters, including nuclear war). We also considerably reduce a heavy load of footnotes and references designed and needed to help make good many of our claims. Further, in order to contain references to a modest length, reference to primary sources has often been replaced by reference through secondary sources. Little difficulty should be encountered however in tracing fuller references through secondary sources or in filling out much important background material from work cited herein. For example, virtually all the data cited in sections I and VII is referenced in Routley. 2. At worst ESP can always be consulted. All but the last line of the quote is drawn from Goodin, p. 417; the last line is from the Fox Report, p. 6. While it is unnecessary to know much about the nuclear fuel cycle in order to consider ethical and social dimensions of nuclear power, it helps to know a little. & Abbotts, Gyorgy. The basics are presented in many texts, e.g. Nader Of course in order to assess fully reports as to such important background and stage-setting matters as the likelihood of a core meltdown of (lightwater) reactors, much more information is required. For many assessment purposes however, some knowledge of economic fallacies and decision theory is at least as important as knowledge of nuclear technology. 3. Naturally the effect on humans is not the only factor that has to be taken into account in arriving at moral assessments. Nuclear radiation, unlike most ethical theories, does not confine its scope to human life and welfare. But since the harm 'nuclear development may afflict on non­ human life, for example, can hardly improve its case, it suffices if the case against it can be made out solely in terms of its effects on human life in the conventional way. For reference to and a brief discussion of (human-oriented) simulation models 4. respects. see Goodin, p.428. The Opportunity-cost argument is also defective in other It presupposes not merely the (mistaken) reductions involved in the contraction of the ethical domain to the economic; it also presupposes that the proper methods for decision which affect, the choice, apply discounting. future, such as that of energy But, as Goodin argues, more appropriate decision rules do not allow discounting. 5. This is one of the reasons why expected utility theory, roughly cost-benefit analysis with probability frills, is inadequate as a decision method in such contexts. 6. Apparent exceptions to the principle such as taxation (and redistribution of income generally) vanish when wealth is construed (as it has to be if taxation is to be properly justified) as at least partly a social asset unfairly monopolised by a minority of the population. Examples such as that of motoring dangerously do not constitute counterexamples to the principle; for one is not morally entitled to so motor. 7. For details, and as to how the official analyses become arguments against nuclear development when some attempt is made to take the ignored costs into account, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 55 ff. 8. See Routley, p. 160. 9. For much further discussion of the points of the preceding two para­ graphs, see Shrader-Frechette, p. 35 ff.; and also Nader 10. & Abbotts. Most of the reactors in the world are of this type; see Gyorgy. 11. See Shrader-Frechette, chapter 4. 12. See Shrader-Frechette. shortcomings A worthwhile initial view of the of the Rassmussen report may be reached by combining the critique in Shrader-Frechette with that in Nader 13. There are variations on Ai against numbers such as probabilities. and Aii & Abbotts. which multiply costs In this way risks, construed as probable costs, can be taken into account in the assessment. risks may be assessed (Alternatively, through such familiar methods as insurance). A principle varying Aii’. a Aii, and formulated as follows: is ethically acceptable if (for some b) a includes no more risks than b and b is socially accepted, was the basic ethical principle in terms of which the Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry recently decided that nuclear power development in Saskatchewan is ethically acceptable: see Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry Department of Environment, Government of Saskatchewan, 1978, Final Report, p. 305 and p. 288. In this report, a is nuclear power and b is either activities clearly accepted by society as alternative power sources. other applications b In has been taken as cigarette smoking, motoring, mining and even the Vietnam war (.’ ) . The points made in the text do not exhaust the objections to principles Ai - Aii1. The principles are certainly ethically substantive, since an ethical consequence cannot be deduced from nonethical premisses, but they have an inadmissible conventional origin of b ; b character. For look at the may be socially accepted though it is no longer socially acceptable, or though its social acceptibility is no longer so clearcut and it would not have been socially accepted if as much as is now known had been known when it was introduced. What is required in Aii', for instance, for the argument to begin to look convincing is that 'ethically acceptable' rather than 'socially accepted'. b is But even with the amendments the principles are invalid, for the reasons given in the text, and others. It is not disconcerting that principles of this type do not work. It would be sad to see yet another area lost to the experts, ethics to actuaries. 14. See Shrader-Frechette, p. 15. 15. Goodin 16. The argument is elaborated in ESP. 17. For some of the more philosophically important material on p. 433. alternative nonconsumeristic work cited in V. and R. Routley, .social arrangements and lifestyles, see 'Social theories, self management and environmental problems’ in Mannison et al, where a beginning is made on working out one set of alternatives, those of a pluralistic anarchism. 18. The parlous situation of the world’s tropical rainforests is explained in, for instance, Myers; the reasons are untangled in R. and V. Routley ’World rainforest destruction - the social causes’ (available from the authors). For a fuller account of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its 19. rival, the Alternative Environmental Paradigm, see "1 the main the table on p. 341 which encapsulates J" of the respective paradigms; Cotgrove and Duff, especially assumptions compare also Catton and Dunlap, especially p.33. Contemporary variants on the Dominant Social Paradigm are considered in ESP. The shallow/deep contrast as applied to ecological positions, which is an important component of the paradigm conflict, was introduced by Naess. For further explanation of the contrast and of the larger array of ecological positions into which it fits, see R. and V. Routley, ’Human chauvinism and environmental ethics’ in Mannison ^~^,et al, and the references there cited, especially to Rodman’s 20. work. The more elaborate argument of ESP sets the nuclear debate in the context of paradigm conflict. But it is also argued that, even within assumptions framework of the Dominant Social Paradigm and its variants, Ti. Nuclear development is not the rational choice among energy options. The main argument put up for nuclear development within the framework of the dominant paradigm is an Economic growth argument. It is the following version of the Lights-going-out argument (with economic growth duly standing in for material wealth, and for what is valuable.’ ) necessary to sustain economic growth. Nuclear power is Economic growth is desirable (for all the usual reasons, e.g. to increase the size of the pie, to postpone redistribution problems, etc.). Therefore nuclear power is desirable. The first premiss is part of US energy policy (see Shrader-Frechette, p.lll), But both and the second premiss is supplied by standard economics textbooks. premisses are defective, the second because what is valuable in economic growth can be achieved by (not without growth but) selective growth, which jettisons economic the heavy social and environmental costs carried by unqualified economic growth. More to the point, since the second premiss is an assumption of the Dominant Paradigm, the first premiss (or rather an appropriate and less vulnerable restatement of it) Paradigm standards. fails even by Dominant For of course nuclear power is not necessary that there are other, perhaps costlier alternatives. defended is some elaboration of the premiss : given The premiss usually Nuclear power is the economically best way to sustain economic growth, ’economically best’ being filled out as ’most efficient’, ’cheapest’, ’having the most favourable benefit-cost ratio’, etc. Unfortunately for the argument, and for nuclear development schemes, nuclear power is none of these things decisively (unless a good deal of economic cheating - easy to do - is done). Tii. On proper Dominant Paradigm accounting, nuclear choices should generally be rejected, both as private utility investments and as public choices. Nuclear development is not economically viable but has been kept going, not by clear economic viability, but by massive subsidization of several types (discussed in Shrader-Flechette, Gyorgy and Nader & Abbotts). Even on variants of the Dominant Paradigm, nuclear development is not justified, as consideration of decision theory methods will reveal: Tiii. Whatever reasonable decision rule is adopted, the nuclear choice is rejected, as the arguments of Goodin on alternative decision rules help to show. What sustains the nuclear juggernaut is not the Dominant Paradigm or its variants, but contemporary corporate capitalism (or its state enterprise image) and associated third world imperialism, as the historical details of nuclear development both in developed countries and in less developed countries makes plain (for main details, see Gyorgy p. 307 ff.). And the practices of contemporary corporate capitalism and associated imperialism are not acceptable by the standards of either of the Paradigms or their variants : not ethically acceptable. they are certainly REFERENCES USED Works especially useful for further investigation of the ethical issues raised by nuclear development are indicated with an asterisk (* ). S. Cotgrove and A. Duff, "Environmentalism, middle-class radicalism and politics’, Sociological Review W. R. Catton, Jr., and R. E. Dunlap, 28(2) (1980), 333-51. ’A new ecological paradigm for post exuberant sociology’ American Behavioral Scientist 24 (1980). 15-47. For Report : Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry First Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1977. *R. E. Goodin, "No moral nukes’, Ethics 90 (1980), 417-49. *A. Gyorgy and friends, No Nukes : everyone’s guide to nuclear power, South End Press, Boston, Mass., 1979. *D. Mannison, M. McRobbie and R. Routley (editors), Environmental Philosophy, RSSS, Australian National University, 1980. N. Myers, The Sinking Ark, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1979. R. Nader and J. Abbotts, The Menace of Atomic Energy, Outback Press, Melbourne, 1977. *K. S. Shrader-Frechette, Nuclear Power and Public Policy, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980. R. and V. Routley, ’Nuclear energy and obligations to the future’, Inquiry 21 (1978), 133-79.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 97, Item 3: Draft of Nuclear power - some ethical and social dimensions Subject The topic of the resource Typescript of draft, with handwritten emendations and corrections with whiteout, undated. Paper published, Routley R and Routley V (1982) 'Nuclear power—some ethical and social dimensions', in Regan T and VanDeVeer D (eds) And justice for all: new introductory essays in ethics and public policy, Rowman and Littlefield. Description An account of the resource Unnumbered paper from collection, item number assigned by library staff. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=val+routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Val Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 97, Item 3 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [36] leaves. 31.39 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:a81ed37">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:a81ed37</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1982-01-01 Box 97: Paper - Extracts - Articles and Chapters by Richard Sylvan https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/d6dee996e4a826a5364ced17efb8e381.pdf 2a7c91dab4b339049ea5f589ef30ee7e PDF Text Text SOCIAL AND POLITICAL DIMENSIONS PETING PARADIGMS AND THE NUCLEAR DEBATE. One hardly needs initiation into the dark mysteries of nuclear physics to contribute usefully to the debate now widely ranging over nuclear power. While many important empirical questions are still unresolved, these do not really lie at the centre of the controversy. Instead, it is a debate about values ... many of the questions which arise are social and ethical ones. Sociological investigations have confirmed that the nuclear debate is primarily one over what is worth having or pursuing and over what we are entitled to do A, to others. They have also confirmed that the debate is polarised along the 'ij^nes of competing paradigms." According to the entrenched paradigm discerned, that constellation of values, attitudes and beliefs often called the Dominant Social Paradigm (hereafter the Old Paradigm), economic criteria become the benchmark by which a wide range of individual and social action is judged ahd evaluated. And belief in the market and market mechanisms is quite central. Clustering around this core belief is the conviction that enterprise flourishes best in a system of risks and rewards, that differentials are necessary ..., and in the necessity for some form of division of labour, and a hierarchy of skills and expertise. In particular, there is a belief in the competence of experts in general and of scientists in particular. ... there is an emphasis on quantification. The rival world view, sometimes called the Alternative Environmental Paradigm (the New Paradigm) differs on almost every point, and, according to sociologists, 4 in ways summarised in the following table �Dominant Social Paradigm^ Alternative Env'i ronmen tal Paradigm CORE VALUES Material (economic growth, progress and development) Natural environment valued as resource Domination over nature Non-material (self­ realisation) Natural environment intrinsically valued Harmony with nature * ECONOMY Market forces Risk and reward Towards for achievement Differentials Individual self-help Public interest Safety Incomes related to need Egalitarian Collective/social provision I POLITY Authoritative structures (experts influential) Hierarchical ----.Law and order ^Action through official institutions) ——Centralized ---------Large-scale Associational Ordered Participative structures (citizen/worker involvement) ^■Non-hierarchical Liberation Direct action /Decentralised" * Small-scale Communal Flexible NATURE Ample reserves Nature hostile/neutral Environment controllable Earth’s resources limited Nature benign Nature delicately balanced KNOWLEDGE Confidence in science and technology Rationality of means (only) Limits to science Rationality of ends * ^tate socialism, as practiced in most of the "Eastern bloc", differs from the Old Paradigm really only as to economic organisation, the market in particular being replaced by central planning (a market system by a command system). But since there is virtually no debate over a nuclear future within the confines of state socialism,that minor variant on the Old Paradigm need not be delineated here. �No doubt the competing paradigm picture is a trifle simple ^and subsequently it is important to disentangle a Modified Old Paradigm, which softens the old economic assumptions with social welfare requirements’^: and really ^instead of a New Paradigm there are rather counterparadigms, a cluster of not very well worked out positions that diverge from the cluster marked out as the Old Paradigm). Nonetheless it is empirically investigable, and, most important, it enables the nuclear debate to be focussed. Large- scale nuclear development, of the sort now occurring in much of the world, runs counter to leading tenets (such as societal features) of the New Paradigm. Indeed to introduce ethical and social dimensions into the assessment of nuclear power, instead of or in addition to merely economic factors such as cost and efficiency, is already to move somewhat beyond the received paradigm. For under the Old Paradigm, strictly construed, the nuclear debate is confined to the terms of the narrow utilitarianism upon which contemporary economic practice is premissed, the issues to questions of economic means (to assumed economistic ends) along with technological, social engineering and other ^instrumental details^: whatever falls outside these terms is (dismissed as) irrational. Furthermore, nuclear development receives its support from adherents of the Old Paradigm. Virtually all the arguments in favour of it are set within the assumption framework of the Old Paradigm, and without these assumptions the case for the nuclear future the world is presently committed to fails. But in fact the argument for a nuclear future from the Old Paradigm is itself broken-backed and ultimately fails, unless the free enterprise economic assumptions are replaced by the ethically unacceptable assumptions of advanced (corporate) capitalism. The two paradigm picture also enables our case against a nuclear future (a case written from outside the Old Paradigm) to be structured. There are two main parts'^?:- It is argued, firstly, from without the Old Paradigm, that nuclear development is ethically unjustifiable; but that, secondly, even from within the framework of the ethically dubious Old Paradigm, such development is unacceptable, since significant features of nuclear development conflict with indispensible features of the Paradigm (e.g. costs of project development and state subsidization with market independence and criteria for project selection). It has appeared acceptable from within the dominant paradigm only because ideals do not square with practice, only because the assumptions of the Old Paradigm are but very rarely applied in contemporary political practice, �3 the place of pure (or mixed) capitalism having been usurped by corporate capitalism. It is because the nuclear debate can be carried on within the framework of the Old Paradigm that the debate - although it is a debate about values, because of the conflicting values of the competing paradigms - is not just a debate about values; it is also a debate within a paradigm as to means to already assumed (economistic) ends, and of rational choice as to energy roptions within a predetermined framework of values. ^In this corner belong, as explained in section VIII, most decision theory arguments, arguments often considered as encompassing all the nuclear debate is ethically about, best utilitarian means to predetermined ends.) For another leading characteristic of the nuclear debate is the attempt, under the dominant paradigm to remove it from the ethical and social sphere, and to divert it into specialist issues whether over minutiae and contingencies of present technology or over medical g or legal or mathematical details. The double approach can be applied as regards each of the main problems nuclear development poses. There are many interrelated problems, and the argument is further structured in terms of these. For in the advancement and promotion of nuclear power we encounter a remarkable combination of factors, never ^before assembled^: establishment, on a. massive scale, of an industry which involves at each stage of its processing serious risks and at some stages of production possible catastrophe, which delivers as a by-product radioactive wastes which require up to a million years’ storage but for which no sound and economic storage methods are known, which grew up as part of the war industry and which is easily subverted to deliver nuclear weapons, which requires for its operation considerable secrecy, limitations on the flow of information and restrictions on civil liberties, which depends for its economics, and in order to generate expected profits, on substantial state subsidization, support, and intervention. with problems. It is, in short, a very high techological development, beset A first important problem, which serves also to exemplify ethical issues and principles involved in other nuclear power questions, is the unresolved matter of disposal of nuclear wastes. II. THE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEM, AND THE TRAIN PARABLE. A long distance country train has just pulled out. crowded carries both passengers and freight. The train which is At an early stop in the journey someone consigns as freight, to a far distant destination, a package which contains a highly toxic and explosive gas. This is packaged in a very thin container which, as the consigner is aware, may not contain the gas for the �4 full distance for which it is consigned, and certainly will not do so if the train should strike any real trouble, for example if there is a breakdown and the interior of the train becomes very hot, if the train should be derailed or involved in a collision, or if some passenger should interefere inadvertently or deliberately with the freight, perhaps trying to steal some of it. All of these sorts of contingencies have occurred on some previous journeys. If the container should break the resulting disaster would probably kill at least some of the people on the train in adjacent carriages, while others could be maimed or incur serious diseases. Most of us would roundly condemn such an action. consigner of the parcel say to try to justify it? What might the He might say that it is not certain that the gas will escape and that it is mere speculation to suppose it will, that the world needs his product and it is his duty to supply it, and that in any case he is not responsible for the train or the people on it. These sorts of excuses however would normally be seen as ludicrous when set in this context. What is worth remarking is that similar excuses are not always so seen when the consigner, again a "responsible” businessman, puts his workers' health or other peoples' welfare at risk. Suppose he ways that it is his own and others1pressing needs which justify his action. The company he controls, which produces the material as a by-product, is in bad financial straits, and could not afford to produce a better container even if it knew how to make one. If the company fails, he and his family will suffer, his employees will lose their jobs and have to look for others, and the whole company town, through loss of spending and the cancellation of the Multiplier Effect, will be worse off. The poor and unemployed of the town, whom he would otherwise have been able to help, will suffer especially. Few people would accept such a story, even if correct, as justification. Even where there are serious risks and costs to oneself or some group for whom one is concerned one is usually considered not to be entitled to simply transfer the heavy burden of those risks and costs onto other uninvolved parties, especially where they arise from one's own, or one's group's, chosen life-style. The matter of nuclear waste disposal has many moral features which resemble the train case. /progresses. How fitting the a^gwaent is will become apparent as the argument There is no known proven safe way tjfi package the highly toxic wastes generated by the nuclear plants that will be spread around the world as 9 large-scale nuclear development goes ahead. The waste problem will be much more serious than that generated by the 50 or so reactors in use at present, with �5. each one of the 2000 or so reactors envisaged by the end of the century producing, on average, annual wastes containing 1000 times the radioactivity of the Hiroshima bomb. Much of this waste is extremely toxic. For example, a millionth of a gramme of plutonium is enough to induce a lung cancer. Wastes will include the reactors themselves, which will have to be abandoned after their expected life times of perhaps 40 years, and which, some have estimated, may require 1^ million years to reach safe levels of radioactivity. Nuclear wastes must be kept suitably isolated from the environment for their entire active lifetime. For fission products the required storage period averages a thousand years or so, and for transuranic elements, which include plutonium, there is a half to a million year storage problem. Serious problems have arisen with both short-term and proposed long-term methods of storage, even with the comparatively small quantities of waste produced over the last twenty years.10 Short-term methods of storage require continued human inter­ vention, while proposed longer term methods are subject to both human inter­ ference and risk of leakage through non-human factors. No one with even a slight knowledge of the geological and climatic history of the earth over the last million years, a period whose fluctuations in climate we are only just beginning to guage and which has seen four Ice Ages, could be confident that a rigorous guarantee of safe storage could be provided for the vast period of time involved. Nor does the history of human affairs over the last 3000 years give ground for confidence in safe storage by methods requiring human intervention over perhaps a million years. Proposed long-term storage methods such as storage in granite formations or in salt mines, are largely speculative and relatively untested, and have already proved to involve difficulties with attempts made to put them into practice. Even as regards expensive recent proposals for first embedding concentrated wastes in glass and encapsulating the result in multilayered metal containers before rock deposit, simulation models reveal that radioactive material may not remain suitably isolated from human environment. In short, the best present storage proposals carry very real possibilities of irradiating future people and 1 la damaging their environment. Given the heavy costs which could be involved for the future, and given the known limits of technology, it is methodologically unsound to bet, as nuclear nations have, on the discovery of safe procedures for storage of wastes. Any new procedures (required before 2000) will probably be but variations on present proposals, and subject to the same inadequacies. For instance, none of the proposed methods for safe storage has been properly tested, and they may �6. well prove to involve unforeseen difficulties and risks when an attempt is made to put them into practice on a commercial scale. provide a rigorous guarantee of Only a method that could safety over the storage period, that placed safety beyond reasonable doubt, would be acceptable. It is difficult to see how such rigorous guarantees could be given concerning either the geological or future human factors. But even if an economically viable, rigorously safe long term storage method could be devised, there is the problem of guaranteeing that it would be universally and invariably used. The assumption that it would be (especially if, as appears likely, such a method proved expensive economically and politically) seems to presuppose a level of efficiency, perfection and concern for the future which has not previously been encountered in human affairs, and has certainly not been conspicuous in the nuclear industry. Again, unless we assume continuous and faultless guarding of long term storage sites through perhaps a million years of possible future human activity, weapons- grade radioactive material will be accessible, over much of the million year storage period, to any party who is in a position to retrieve it. (L The assumption that a way will nonetheless be found, before 2000, / e. 'which gets around the wast^ storage problem (no longer a nere disposal problem) is accordingly not rationally based, but is rather like many assumptions of ways, / /'n /an article of faith. It is an assumption supplied by the Old Paradigm, a no limitations assumption, that there are really no (development) problems that cannot be solved technologically (if not in a fashion that is always immediately economically feasible). The assumption has played an important part in development plans and practice. It has not only encouraged an unwarranted 13 technological optimism (not to say hubris ), that there are no limits to what humans can accomplish, especially through science; it has led to the embarcation on projects before crucial problems have been satisfactorily solved or a solution is even in sight, and it has led to the idea that technology can always be suitably controlled. It has also led, not surprisingly, to disasters. There are severe limits on what technology can achieve (some of which are becoming known in the 14 form of limitation theorems ); and in addition there are human limitations which modern technological developments often fail to take due account of (risk analysis of the likelihood of reactor accidents is a relevant example, discussed below). The original nuclear technology dream was that nuclear fission would provide unlimited energy (a ’clean unlimited supply of power’). shattered. and nuclear That dream soon The nuclear industry apparently remains a net consumer of power, fission will be but a quite short-term supplier of power. �7. The risks imposed on the future by proceeding with nuclear development are, then, significant. Nuclear fission creates wastes which may remain toxic for a million years, but even with the (suspect) breeder reactor it could be an energy source for only perhaps 150 years. It will do nothing for the energy problems of the people of the distant future whose lives could be seriously affected by the wastes. Thus perhaps 40,000 generations of future people could be forced to bear significant risks resulting from the provision of the (extravagant) energy use of only a small proportion of the people of 10 generations. Nor is the risk of direct harm from the escape or misuse of radioactive materials the only burden the nuclear solution imposes on the future. Because the energy provided by nuclear fission is merely a stop gap, it seems probable that in due course the same problem, that of making a transition to renewable sources of energy, will have to be faced again by a future population which will probably, again as a result of our actions, be very much worse placed to cope For they may well have to face the change to renewable resources in an with it. over-populated world not only burdened with the legacy of our nuclear wastes, but also in a world in which, if the nuclear proponents' dreams of global industrialisation are realised, more and more ^pf the global population will have become dependent on high energy consumption and associated technology and heavy resource use and will have lost or reduced its ability to survive without it. It will, moreover, probably be a world which is largely depleted of non-renewable resources, and in which such renewable resources as forests and soils as remain, resources which will have to form a very important part of the basis of life, 15a are in a run-down condition. Such points tell against the idea that future people muelF be, if not direct beneficiaries of nuclear fission energy, at least indirect beneficiaries. It is for such reasons that the train parable cannot be turned around to work in favour of nuclear power, with for example, the nuclear train bringing relief as well as wastes to a remote town powered (only) by nuclear power. The 'Solution" then is to buy time for contemporary industrial society at a price which not only creates serious problems for future people but which reduces their ability to cope with those problems. Like the consigner in the train parable, contemporary industrial society proposes, in order to get itself out of a mess arising from its chosen life style - the creation of economies dependent on an abundance of non-renewable energy, which is limited in supply - to pass on costs and risks of serious harm to others who will obtain no corresponding benefits. The "solution” may enable the avoidance of some uncomfortable changes �8. in the lifetime of those now living and their immediate descendants, just as the consigner’s action avoids uncomfortable changes for him and his immediate surroundings, but at the expense of passing heavy burdens to other uninvolved parties, whose opportunity to lead decent lives may be seriously jeopardised. I Industrial society has - under each paradigm, so it will be argued - clear alternatives to this action, which is taken essentially to avoid changing corporately-controlled patterns of consumption and protect the interest of those comparatively few who benefit from them. If we apply to the nuclear situation, so perceived, the standards of behaviour and moral principles generally acknowledged (in principle if perhaps often not in fact) in the contemporary world, it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that nuclear development involves gross injustice with respect to the future.There appear to be only two plausible moves that might enable the avoidance of such a conclusion. First, it might be argued that the moral principles and obligations which we acknowledge for the contemporary world and the immediate future do not apply because the recipients of the nuclear parcel are in the non-immediate future. Secondly, an attempt might be made to appeal to overriding circumstances, for to reject the consigner’s action in the circum­ stances outlined is not of course to imply that there are no circumstances in which such an action might be justifiable, or at least where the matter is less clearcut. It is the same with the nuclear case. Just as in the case of the consigner of the package there is a need to consider what these justifying circumstances might be, and whether they apply in the present case. We consider these possible escape routes for the proponent of nuclear development in turn, beginning with the question of our obligations to the future. Resolution of this question casts light on other ethical questions concerning nuclear develop­ ment. It is only when these have been considered that the matter of whether there are overriding circumstances is taken up again (in section VII). Ill OBLIGATIONS TO THE (DISTANT) FUTURE. The especially problematic area is that of the distant (i.e. non-immediate) future, the future with which people alive today will have no direct contact: by comparison, the immediate future gives fewer problems for most ethical theories. In fact the question of obligations to future people presents tests which a number of ethical theories fail to pass, and also has serious repercussions in political philosophy as regards the adequacy of accepted (democratic and other) institutions which do not take due. account of the interests of future creatures. �Moral philosophers have, predictably, differed on the issue. A good many of the philosophers who have explicitly considered the question have come down in favour of the same considerations being given to the rights and interests of future people as to those of contemporary or immediately future people. Other philosophers have tended to fall into three categories - those who acknowledge obligations to the future but who do not take them seriously or who assign them a lesser weight, those who deny or who are committed by their general moral position to denying that there are moral obligations beyond the immediate future, and those who come down with admirable philosophical caution, on both sides of the issue, but with the weight of the argument favouring the view underlying prevailing economic and political institutions, that there are no moral obligations to the future beyond perhaps those to the next generation. According to the most extreme of these positions against moral obligations to the future, our behaviour with respect to the future is morally unconstrained, there are no moral restrictions on acting or failing to act deriving from the effect of our actions on future people. Of those philosophers who say, or whose views imply that we do not have obligations to the (non-immediate) future, who have opted for the unconstrained position, many have based this view on accounts of moral obligation which are built on relations which presuppose some temporal or spatial contiguity. Thus moral obligation is seen as grounded on or as presupposing various relations which could not hold between people widely separated in time (or sometimes in space). For example, obligation is seen as grounded in relations which are proximate or of short duration and also non-transitive. Among such suggested bases or grounds of moral obligation, or requirements on moral obligation, which would rule out obligations to the nonimmediate future are these:- Firstly there are those accounts which require that someone to whom a moral obligation is held be able to claim his rights or entitlement. People in the distant future will not be able to claim rights and entitlements as against us, and of course they can do nothing effective to enforce any claims they might have for their rights Secondly, there are those accounts which base moral obligations on social or legal convention, for example a convention which would require punishment of offenders or at least some kind of social enforcement. But plainly these and other conventions will not hold invariant over change in society and amendment of legal conventions and so will not be invariant over time. Also future people have no way of enforcing their interests or punishing offenders, and there could be no guarantee that any contemporary institutions would do it for them. �10. Both the view that moral obligation requires the context of a moral community and the view that it is contractually based appear to rule out the distant future as a field of moral obligation as they not only require a commonality or some sort of common basis which cannot be guaranteed in the case of the distant future, but also a possibility of interchange or reciprocity of action which cannot apply to the future. Where the basis of moral obligation is seen as mutual exchange the interests of future people must be set aside because they cannot change the past and cannot be parties to any mutual contract. The exclusion of moral obligations to the distant future also follows from those views which attempt to ground moral obligations in non-transitive relations of short duration such as sympathy and love. As well there are difficulties about love and sympathy for (non-existent) people in the far distant future about whose personal qualities and characteristics one must know very little and who may well be committed to a life-style for which one. has little or no sympathy. On the current showing in the case of nuclear energy it would be easy to conclude that contemporary society lacks both love and sympathy for future people; and it would appear to follow from this that contemporary people had no obligations concerning future people and could damage them as it suited them. What all these views have in common is a picture of obligation as something acquired, either individually or institutionally, something which is conditional on doing something or failing to do something (e.g. participating in the moral community, contracting), or having some characteristic one can fail to have (e.g. love, sympathy, empathy).^ Because obligation therefore becomes conditional, features usually (and correctly) thought to characterise obligation such as universality of application and necessitation (i.e. the binding features) are lost, especially where there is a choice whether or not to do the thing required to acquire the obligation, and so as to whether to acquire it. The criteria for acquisition suggested are such as to exclude people in the distant future. The view that there are no moral constraints with respect to future people, that one is free to act however one likes with respect to them, is not however sustainable. Consider, for example, a scientific group which, for no particular reason other than to test a particular piece of technology, places in orbit a cobalt bomb set off by a triggering device designed to go off several hundred years from the time of its despatch. No presently living person and none of their immediate descendants would be affected, but the population of �11. the earth in the distant future would be wiped out as a result of the action. direct and predictable The unconstrained position clearly implies that this is an acceptable moral enterprise, that whatever else we might legitimately criticize in the scientists’ experiment, perhaps its being over-expensive or badly designed, we cannot lodge a moral protest about the damage it will do to future people. The unconstrained position also endorses as morally acceptable the following sort^ of policy:- A firm discovers it can make a handsome profit from mining, processing and manufacturing a new type of material which, although it causes no problem for present people or their immediate descendants, will over a period of hundreds of years decay into a substance which will cause an enormous epidemic of cancer among the inhabitants of the earth at that time. According to the unconstrained view the firm is free to act in its own interests, without any consideration for the harm it does remote future people. Such counterexamples to the unconstrained view, which are easily varied and multiplied, might seem childishly obvious. Yet the unconstrained position concerning the future from which they follow is far from being a straw man; not only have several philosophers endorsed this position, but it is a clear implication of many currently popular views of the basis of moral obligation, as well as of prevailing economic theory. It seems that those who opt for the unconstrained position have not considered such examples, despite their being clearly implied by their position. We suspect that - we would certainly hope that - when it is brought out that the unconstrained position admits such counterexamples, that being free to act implies among other things being free to inflict pointless harm for example, most of those who opted for the unconstrained position would want to assert that it was not what they intended. What many of those who have put forward the unconstrained position seem to have had in /mind^denying moral obligation is rather that future people can look after themselves, that we are not responsible for their lives. The popular view that the future can take care of itself also seems to assume a future causally But it is not. It is not as if, in the counter- example cases or in the nuclear case, the future is simply being left alone to take care of itself. Present people are influencing it, and in doing so thereby acquire many ^Jf the same sorts of moral responsibilities as they do in causally affecting the present and immediate future, namely the obligation to take account in what they do of people affected and their interests, to be careful in their actions, to take account of the genuine probability of their actions causing harm, and to see that they do not act so as to rob future people of the chance of a good life. �12. Furthermore, to say that we are not responsible for the lives of future people does not amount to the same thing as saying that we are free to do as we like with respect to them, that there are no moral constraints on our action involving them. In just the same way, the fact that one does not have or has not acquired an obligation to some stranger with whom one has never been involved, that one has no responsibility for his life, does not imply that one is free to do what one likes with respect to him, for example to rob him or to pursue some course of action of advantage to oneself which could seriously harm him. These difficulties for the unconstrained position arise in part from the (sometimes deliberate) failure to make an important distinction between acquired or assumed obligation toward somebody, for which some act of acquisition or assumption is required as a qualifying condition, and moral constraints, which require, for example, that one should not act so as to damage or harm someone, and for which no act of acquisition is required. There is a considerable difference in the level and kind of responsibility involved. In the first case one must do something or be something which one can fail to do or be, e.g. In the second case responsibility arises I have loves, sympathy, be contracted. as a result of being a causal agent who is aware of the consequences or probable consequences of his action, and thus does not have to be especially acquired or assumed. Thus there is no problem about how the latter class, moral constraints, can apply to the distant future in cases where it may be difficult or impossible for acquisition or assumption conditions to be satisfied. They apply as a result of the ability to produce causal effects on the distant future of a reasonably predictable nature. Thus also moral constraints can apply to what does not (yet) exist, just as actions can cause results that do not (yet) exist. While it may perhaps be the case that there would need to be an acquired or assumed obligation in order for it to be claimed that contemporary people must make special sacrifices for future people of an heroic kind, or even to help them especially, only moral constraints are needed in order for us to be constrained from harming them. Thus, to return to the train parable, the consigner cannot argue in justification of his action that he has never assumed or acquired responsibility for the passengers, that he does not know them and therefore has no love or sympathy for them and that they are not part of his moral community, in short that he has no special obligations to help them. All that one needs to argue concerning the train, and the nuclear case, is that there are moral constraints against harming, not that there are specially acquired obligations to take responsibility for the lives of people involved. There has been an attempt to represent all obligations to the distant future in terms of heroic self-sacrifice, something which cannot of course be morally required. But in view of the distinctions between constraints and acquired obligation and between obligation and supererogation this is just �13. to misrepresent the position of these obligations. For example, one is no more engaging in heroic self-sacrifice by not forcing future people into an unviable life position or by refraining from causing then direct harm than the consigner resorting to heroic self-sacrifice in refraining from placing his dangerous package on the train. The conflation of moral restraints with acquired obligation, and the attempt therewith to view all constraints as acquired and to write off nonacquired constraints, is facilitated through the use of the term ’moral obligation’ both to signify any type of deontic constraints and also to indicate rather something which has to be assumed or required. The conflation is encouraged by reductionist positions which, in attempting to account for obligation in general, mistakenly endeavour to collapse all obligations. Hence the equation, and some main roots * of the unconstrained position, of the erroneous belief that there are no moral constraints concerning the distant future. The unconstrained view tends to give way, under the weight of counter­ examples, to more qualified, and sometimes ambivalent, positions, for example the position that our obligations are to immediate posterity, we ought to try to improve the world so that we shall be able to hand it over to our immediate successors in a better condition, and that is all;17 there are in practice no obligations to the distant future. A main argument in favour of the latter theme is that such obligations would in practice be otiose. Everything that needs to be accounted for can be encompassed through the chain picture of obligation as linking successive generations, under which each generation has obligations, based on loves or sympathy, only to the succeeding generation. account. There are at least three objections to this chain First, it is inadequate to treat constraints concerning the future as if they applied only between generations, as if there were no question of constraints on individuals as opposed to whole generations, since individuals can create causal effects, e.g. harm, on the future in a way which may create individual responsibility, and which often cannot be sheeted home to an entire generation. Nuclear power and its wastes, for example, are strictly the responsibility of small groups of power-holders, not a generational responsibility. Secondly, such chains, since non-transitive, cannot yield direct obligations to the distant future. But for this very reason the chain picture cannot be adequate, as examples again show. For the picture is unable to explain several of the cases that have to be dealt with, e.g. the examples already discussed which show that we can have a direct effect on the distant future without affecting the next generation, who may not even be able to influence matters. �14. Thirdly, improvements for immediate successors may be achieved at the expense of disadvantages to people of the more distant future. Improving the world for immediate successors is quite compatible with, and may even in some circumstances be most easily achieved by, ruining it for less immediate successors. Such cases can hardly be written off as ’’never-never land" examples since many cases of environmental exploitation might be. seen as of just this type. e.g. not just the nuclear case but also the exhaustion of non-renewable resources and the long-term depletion of renewable resources such as soils and forests through overuse. If then such obvious injustices to future people arising from the favouring or exclusive concern with immediate successors are to be avoided, obligations to the future will have to be seen as in some way fairly distributed over time, and not merely as accruing to particular generations in the way the chain picture suggests. IV. ATTEMPTS TO QUALIFY OBLIGATIONS TO THE FUTURE : ECQNQMISTIC UNCERTAINTY AND INDETERMINACY ARGUMENTS. While there are grave difficulties for the unconstrained position, qualification leads to a more defensible position. According to the main qualified position we are not entirely unconstrained with respect to the distant future, there are obligations, but these are not so important as those to the present, and the interests of distant future people cannot weigh very much in the scale against those of the present and immediate future. The interests of future people then, except in unusual cases, count for very much less than the interests of present people. Hence such things as nuclear development and various exploitative activities which benefit present people should proceed, even if people of the distant future are (somewhat) disadvantaged by them. The qualified position appears to be widely held and is implicit in prevailing economic theories, where the position of a decrease in weight of future costs and benefits (and so of future interests) is obtained by application over time of a discount rate, so discounting costs and risks to future people. The attempt to apply economics as a moral theory, something that is becoming increasingly common, can lead then to the qualified position. objectionable in such an approach is that What is economics should operate within the bounds of moral (deontic) constraints, just as in practice it operates within legal constraints, not determine what those constraints are. There are moreover alternative economic theories and simply to adopt, without further ado, one which discounts the future is to beg many questions at issue. �15. Among the arguments that economists offer for generally discounting the future, the most threadbare is based on the assumption that future generations will be better off than present ones, and so better placed to handle 18 the waste problem. Since there is mounting evidence that future generations may well not be better off than present ones, especially in things that matter, no argument for discounting the interests of future generations on this basis can carry much weight. Nor is that all that is wrong with the argument. For it depends at base on the assumption that poorer contemporaries would be making sacrifices to richer successors in foregoing such (allegedly beneficial) developments as nuclear power. sacrifice argument. That is, it depends on the already scotched In any case, for the waste disposal problem to be legitimately bequeathed to the future generations, it would have to be shown, what recent economic progress hardly justifies, that future generations will be, not just better off, but so much better off and more capable that they can duly absorb the nuclear waste burden. A more plausible argument for discounting is directly in terms of opportunity costs. It is argued, from the fact that a dollar gained now is worth much more than a dollar received in the non-immediate future (because the first dollar could meanwhile be invested at compound interest), that discounting is required to obtain equivalent monetary values, and so for efficient allocation of resources. Similarly it is argued, by virtue again of equalization of monetary value, that compensation - which is what the waste problem is taken to come to economically - costs much less now than later. Thus a few pennies set aside (e.g. in a trust fund) now or in the future, if need be, will suffice to compensate eventually for any victims of remote radioactive waste leakage. There are, presently at least, insurmountable practical difficulties about applying such discounting, e.g. how to determine appropriate future discount rates. A more serious objection is that applied generally, the argument presupposes, what is false, that compensation, like value, can always be converted into monetary equivalents, that people (including those outside market frameworks) can be monetarily compensated for a variety of damages, including cancer and loss of life. There is no compensating a dead man, or for a lost species. In fact the argument presupposes a double reduction neither part of which can succeed: it is not just that value cannot in general be represented at all adequately 19 monetarily, but (as against utilitarianism, for example) that constraints and obligations can not be somehow reduced to matters of value. It is also presupposed that all decision methods, suitable for requisite nuclear choices, �16. are bound to apply discounting. This is far from so : indeed Goodin argues that, on the contrary, more appropriate decision rules do not allow discounting, and discounting only works in practice with expected utility rules (such as underlie cost-benefit and benefit-risk analyses), which are, he contends strictly inapplicable for nuclear choices (since not all outcomes can be duly determined x 20 and assigned probabilities, in the way that application of the rules requires.). As the preceding arguments reveal, the discounting move often has the same result as the unconstrained position. If, for instance, we consider the cancer example and reduce costs to payable compensation, it is evident that over a sufficiently long period of time discounting at current prices would lead to the conclusion that there are no recoverable damages and so, in economic terms, no constraints. In short, even certain damage to future people could be written off. One way to achieve the bias against future people is by the application of discount rates which are set in accord with the current economic horizons of no 21 more than about 15 years, and application of such rates would simply beg the question against the interests and rights of future people. Where there is certain future damage of a morally forbidden type, for example, the whole method of discounting is simply inapplicable, and its use would violate moral constraints. Another argument for the qualified position, which avoids the objections from cases of certain damage, comes from probability considerations. The distant future, it is argued, is much more uncertain than the present and immediate future, so that probabilities are consequently lower, perhaps even approaching or coinciding with zero for any hypothesis concerning the distant future. But then if we take account of probabilities in the obvious way, by simply multiplying them against costs and benefits, it is evident that the interests of future people, except in cases where there is an unusually high degree of certainty, must count for (very much) less than those of present and neighbouring people where (much) higher probabilities are attached. So in the case of conflict between the present and the future where it is a question of weighing certain benefits to the people of the present and the immediate future against a much lower probability of indeterminate costs to an indeterminate number of distant future people, the issue would normally be decided in favour of the present, assuming anything like similar costs and benefits were involved. But of course it cannot be assumed that anything like similarly weighted costs and benefits are involved in the nuclear case, especially if it is a question of risking poisoning some of the earth for half a million or so years, with consequent risk of serious harm to thousands of generations of future people, in order to obtain doubtful benefits for some present people, in the shape of the opportunity to maintain corporation profitability or to continue unnecessarily high energy use. And even if the costs and benefits were comparable or unevenly weighted, �17. such an argument would be defective, since an analogous argument would show that the consigner’s action is acceptable provided the benefit, e.g. the profit he stood to gain from imposing significant risks on other people, was sufficiently large. Such a cost-benefit or risk-benefit approach to moral and decision problems, with or without the probability frills, is quite inadequate where different parties are concerned or to deal with cases of conflict of interest or moral problems where deontic constraints are involved, and commonly yields counterintuitive results. For example, it would follow on such principles that it is permissible for a firm to injure, or very likely injure, some innocent party provided the firm stands to make a sufficiently large gain from it. But the costs and benefits involved are not transferable in any simple or general way from one party to another . Transfers of this kind, of costs and benefits involving different parties, commonly raise moral issues - e.g. is x entitled to benefit himself by imposing costs on y - which are not susceptible to a simple cost-benefit approach of the sort adopted in promotion of nuclear energy, where costs to future people are sometimes dismissed with the soothing remark that any development involves costs as well as benefits. The limitations of transfer point is enough to invalidate the comparison, heavily relied on in building a case for the acceptability of the nuclear risk, between nuclear risks and those from such activities as airplane travel or cigarette smoking. In the latter case those who supposedly benefit from the activity are also, to an overwhelming extent, those who bear the serious health costs and risks involved. In contrast the users and supposed beneficiaries of nuclear energy will be risking not only, or even primarily, their own lives and health, but also that of others who may be non-beneficiaries and who may be spatially or temporally removed, and these risks will not be in any direct way related to a person’s extent of use. The transfer objection is essentially the same as that to the utilitarian’s (happiness) sums as a way of solving moral conflict between different parties, and the introduction of probability considerations - as in utilitarian decision methods such as expected utility rules - does not change the principles involved but merely complicates the analysis. One might further object to the probability argument that probabilities involving distant future situations are not always less than those concerning the immediate future in the wa/ the argument supposes, and that the outcomes of some moral problems do not depend on a high level of probability anyway. In some sorts of cases it is enough, as the train parable reveals, that a significant risk is created^ such cases do not depend critically on high probability assignments. �18. Uncertainty arguments in various forms are the most common and important ones used by philosophers, economists and others to argue for the position that we cannot be expected to taj^ke serious account of the effects of our actions on the distant future. There are two strands to the uncertainty argument, capable of separation, but frequently tangled up. Both arguments are mistaken, the first on a priori grounds, the second on a posteriori grounds. The first argument is a generalised uncertainty argument which runs as follows:- In contrast to the exact information we can obtain about the present, the information we can obtain about the effects of our actions on the distant future is unreliable, fuzzy and highly speculative. But we cannot base assessments of how we should act on information of this kind, especially when accurate information is obtain­ able about the present which would indicate different action. Therefore we must regretfully ignore the uncertain effects of our actions on the distant future. More formally and crudely: One only has obligations to the future if these obligations are based on reliable information at present as regards the distant future. Therefore one has no obligations to the distant future. This first argument is essentially a variant on a sceptical argument in epistemology concerning our knowledge of the future (formally, replace ’obligations’ by ’knowledge’ in the crude statement of the argument above). The main ploy is to considerably overestimate and overstate the degree of certainty available with respect to the present and immediate future, and the degree of certainty which is required as the basis for moral consideration with respect to the present Associated with this is the attempt to suggest and with respect to the future. a sharp division as regards certainty between the present and immediate future on the one hand and the distant future on the other. We shall not find, we suggest, that there is any such sharp or simple division between the distant future and the adjacent future and the present, at least with respect to those things in the present which are normally subject to moral constraints. We can and constantly do act on the basis of such ’’unreliable" information, as the sceptic as regards the future conveniently labels "uncertainty"; for sceptic­ proof certainty is rarely, or never, available with respect to much of the,, present and immediate future. In moral situations in the present, action often takes account of risk and probability, even quite low probabilities. Consider again the train example. We do not need to know for certain that the container will break and the lethal gas escape. In fact it does not even have to be probable, in the relevant sense of more probable than not, in order for us to condemn the consigner’s action. risk of harm in this sort of case. It is enough that there is a significant It does not matter if the decreased well­ being of the consigner is certain and that the prospects of the passengers quite uncertain, the resolution of the problem is nevertheless clearly in favour of the so-called "speculative" and "unreliable". But if we do not require certainty of action to apply moral constraints in contemporary affairs, why �19. should we require a much higher standard of certainty in the future? Why should we require for the future, epistemic standards which the more familiar sphere of moral action concerning the present and adjacent future does not need to meet? The insistence on certainty as a necessary condition before moral consideration can be given to the distant future, then, amounts to an eipstemic double standard. But such an epistemic double standard, proposed in explaining the difference between the present and the future and to justify ignoring future peoples' interests, in fact cannot itself provide an explanation of the differences, since it already presupposes different standards of certainty appropriate to each class, which difference is in turn in need of justification. The second uncertainty argument is a practical uncertainty argument, that whatever our theoretical obligations to the future, we cannot in practice take the interests of future people into account because uncertainty about the distant future is so gross that we canmot determine what the likely consequences of actions on it will be and therefore, however good our intentions to the people of the distant future are, in practice we have no choice but to ignore their interests. Uncertainty is gross where certain incompatible hypotheses are as good as one another and there is no rational ground for choosing between them. this way:- The second uncertainty argument can be put alternatively If moral principles are. like other principles, implicational in form, that is of such forms as "if x has character h then x is wrong, for every (action) x", then what the argument claims is that we cannot ever obtain the information about future actions which would enable us to detach the antecedent of the implication. So even if moral principles theoretically apply to future people, in practice they cannot be applied to obtain clear conclusions or directions concerning contemporary action action of the "It is wrong to do x" type. Many of the assumptions of the second argument can be conceded. If the distant future really is so grossly uncertain that in every case it is impossible to determine in any way that is better than chance what the effects of present action will be, and whether any given action will help or hinder future people, then moral principles, although they may apply theoretically to the future, will in practice not be applicable to obtain any clear conclusions about how to act. on action. Hence the distant future will impose no practical moral constraints However the argument is factually incorrect in assuming that the future always is so grossly uncertain or indeterminate. Admittedly there is often a high degree of uncertainty concerning the distant future, but as a matter of (contingent) fact it is not always so gross or sweeping as the �20. argument has to assume. There are some areas where uncertainty is not so great as to exclude constraints on action, especially when account is taken of the point, which was noticed in connection with the first argument, that complete certainty is commonly not required for moral constraints and that all that may be needed in Again there is considerable some cases is the creation of a significant risk. uncertainty about many factors which are not highly, or at all, morally relevant, but this does not extend to many factors which are of much greater importance to moral issues. For example, we may not have any idea what the fashions will be in a hundred years in names or footwear, or what flavours of ice cream people will be eating if any, but we do have excellent reason to believe, especially if we consider 3000 years of history, that what people there are in a hundred years are likely to have material and psychic needs not entirely unlike our own, that they will need a healthy biosphere for a good life; that like us they will not be immune to radiation; that their welfare will not be enhanced by a high incidence of cancer or genetic defects, by the destruction of resources, or the elimination from the earth of that wonderful variety of non-human life which at present makes it such a rich and interesting place. For this sort of reason, the second uncertainty argument should be rejected. The case of nuclear waste storage, and of uncertainty of the effects of it on future people, is one area where uncertainty in morally relevant respects is not so great as to preclude moral constraints on action, where we can ascertain if not absolute certainties at least probabilities of the same sort of order as are considered sufficient for the application of moral principles in parallel contemporary cases, especially where spatially remote people are involved. In particular there is not gross indeterminacy or uncertainty; it is simply not true that incompatible hypotheses about what may happen are as good as each other. It is plain that nuclear waste storage does impose significant risks of harm on future people, and, as is evident from the train example, the significant risk of harm is enough in cases of this type to make moral constraints applicable. In terms of the defects of the preceding uncertainty arguments, we can see the defects in a number of widely employed uncertainty arguments used to write off probable or possible harm to future people as outside the scope of proper consideration. Most of these popular moves employ both of the uncertainty arguments as suits the case, switching from one to the other in a way that is again reminiscent of sceptical moves. For example, we may be told that we cannot really take account of future people because we cannot be sure that they will exist or that their tastes and wants will not be completely different from our own, to the point where they will not suffer from our exhaustion of resources or from the �21. things that would affect us. But this is to insist upon complete certainty of a sort beyond what is required for the present and immediate future, where there is also commonly no guarantee that some disaster will not overtake those we are morally committed to. Again we may be told that there is no guarantee that future people will be worthy of any efforts on our part, because they may be r I morons o^ forever plugged into enjoyment of other machines. /prepared to accent the elitist approach presupposed p Even if one is according to which only those who meet certain properly civilized or intellectual standards are eligible for moral consideration - what we are being handed in such arguments as a serious defeating consideration is again a mere outside possibility - like the sceptic who says that solid-looking desk in front of us is perhaps only a facade, not because he has any particular reason for doing so, but because he hasn’t looked around the back, drilled holes in it, etc. etc. Neither the contemporary nor the historical situation gives any positive reason for supposing that a lapse into universal moronity or universal-pleasure-machine escapism is a serious possibility, as opposed to a logical possibility. We can contrast with these mere logical possibilities the very real historically supportable risks of escape of nuclear waste or decline of a civilisation through destruction of its resource base. p The possibilities just considered in these uncertainty arguments of /sceptical character are not ^feal possibilities. Another argument which may consider a real possibility, but still does not succeed in showing that it is acceptable to proceed with an action which would appear to be harmful to future people, is often introduced in the nuclear waste case. This is the argument that future people may discover a rigorously safe and permanent storage method for nuclear wastes before they are damaged by escaped waste material. Let us grant for the sake of the argument that this is a real possibility (though physical arguments may show that it is not). This still does not affect the fact that there is a significant risk of serious damage and that the creation of a significant risk is enough to rule out an action of this type as morally impermissible. In just the same way, future people may discover a cure for cancer: that this appears to be a live possibility, and not merely a logical possibility, does not make the action of the firm earlier discussed, of producing a substance likely to cause cancer in future people, morally admissible. The fact that there was a real possibility of future people avoiding the harm would show that actions of these sorts were admissible only if what was required for inadmissibility was certainty of harm or a very high probability of it. In such cases before such actions could �22. be considered admissible what would be required is far more than a possibility, 22 real or not - it is at least the availability of an applicable, safe, and rigorously tested, not merely speculative, technique for achieving it, something that future people could reasonably be expected to apply to protect themselves. The strategy of these and other uncertainty arguments is fairly clear then, and may be brought out by looking yet again at the train example where the consigner says that he cannot be expected to take account of the effect of his actions on the passengers because they may find an effective way to deal with his parcel or some lucky or unlucky accident may occur, e.g. the train may break down and they may all change to a different transport leaving the parcel behind, or the train may crash killing all the passengers before the container gets a chance to leak. These are all possibilities of course, but there is no positive reason to believe The 'that they are any more than that^ that is they are not live possibilities. strategy is to stress such remote possibilities in order to create the false impression that there is gross uncertainty about the future, that the real possibility that the container will break should be treated in the same way as these mere logical possibilities, that uncertainty about the future yis so great as to preclude the consigner’s taking account of the passengers’ welfare and the real possibility of harm from his parcel and thereby to excuse his action. A related strategy is to stress a real possibility, such as finding a cure for cancer, and thereby imply that this removes the case for applying moral constraints. This move implicitly makes the assumptions of the first argument, that certainty of harm, or at least a very high probability of harm is required before an action can be judged morally inadmissible, and the point of stressing the real possibility of avoidance of damage is to show that this allegedly required high degree of certainty or probability cannot be attained. That is, the strategy draws attention to some real uncertainty implying that this is sufficient to defeat the application of moral constraints. But, as we have seen, this is often not so. Closely related to uncertainty arguments are arguments premissed on the indeterminacy of the future. In particular it is argued that the indeterminacy, for example, with respect to the number and exact character of people at future times, would at least prevent the interest of future people being taken into account where there is a conflict with the present. Since their numbers are indeterminate and their interests unknown how, it is asked, can we weigh their competing claims against those of the present and immediate future where this information is available in a more or less accurate form? The question is raised particularly by problems of sharing fixed quantities of resources among present and future people, for example oil, when the numbers of the latter are indeterminate. Such problems are indeed difficult, but they are not resolved by ignoring the claims of the future, any more than the problems raised by the need to take account in decision-making of factors difficult to quantify are resolved by �23. ignoring such factors. Nor are distributional problems as large and representative of a class of moral problems concerning the future as the tendency to focus on them would suggest. It can be conceded that there will be cases where the indeterminacy of aspects of the future will make conflicts very difficult to resolve^ or indeed irresoluble - a realistic ethical theory will not deliver a decision procedure - but there will equally be other conflict cases where the level of indeterminacy does not hinder resolution of the issue, n e.g. the train example which is a conflict case of a type. In particular, there will be many cases which are not solved by weighing numbers, numbers of interests, or whatever, cases for which one needs to know only the most general probable characteristics of future people. The crucial question which emerges is then?: are there any features of future people which would disqualify them from full moral consideration or reduce their claims to such below those of present people? principle None. The answer is?: in Prima facie, moral principles are universalisable, and lawlike, in that they apply independently of position in space or in time, for example. But universalisability of principles is an outcome of those ethical theories which are capable of dealing satisfactorily with the present?: in other words, a theory that did not allow properly for the future would be found to have defects as regards the present, to deal unjustly or unfairly with some present people, e.g. those remotely located, those outside some select subgroup, such as (white­ skinned) humans, etc. The only candidates for characteristics that would fairly rule out future people are the logical features we have been looking at, such as uncertainty and indeterminacy; but, as we have argued, it would be far too sweeping to see these features as affecting the moral claims of future people in a general way. These special features only affect certain sorts of cases (e.g. the determination of best probable ol * present information). practical course of action given only In particular, they do not affect cases of the sort being considered, nuclear development, where highly determinate or certain information about the numbers and characteristics of the class likely to be harmed is not required, nor is certainty of damage. To establish obligations to the future a full universalizability principle is not required : it is enough that the temporal position of a person cannot affect his entitlement to just and fair treatment, to full moral 7/ consideration; inversely, that it is without basis to discriminate morally against a person in virtue of his temporal position. As a result of this �23a. universalizability, there are the same general obligations to future people as to the present; and thus there is the same obligation to take account of them and their interests in what we do, to be careful in our actions, to take account of the probability (and not just the certainty) of our actions causing harm or damage, and to see, other things being equal, that we do not act so as to rob them of what is necessary for the chance of a good life. and indeterminacy do not relieve us of these obligations. Uncertainty If in a closely comparable case concerning the present the creation of a significant risk is enough to rule out an action as immoral, and there are no independent grounds for requiring greater certainty of �harm in the future case under consideration, then futurity alone will not provide adequate grounds for proceeding with the action, thus discriminating against future people. Accordingly we cannot escape, through appeal to futurity, the conclusion already tentatively reached, that proposals for nuclear development in the present and likely future state of technology and practices for future waste disposal are immoral. Before we consider (in section VII) the remaining escape route from this conclusion, through appeal to overriding circumstances, it is important to pick up the further case (which heavily reinforces the tentative conclusion) against nuclear development, since much of it relies on ethical principles similar to those that underlie obligations to the future, and since it too is commonly met by similar appeal to extenuating circumstances. V. PROBLEMS OF SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATION: REACTOR EMISSIONS, AND CORE MELTDOWN. The ethical problems with nuclear power are by no means confined to future creatures. Just as remoteness in time does not erode obligations or entitlements to just treatment, neither does location in spa^e, or a particular geographical position. First of all, the problem of nuclear waste disposal raises serious questions of distributive justice not only across time,1 across generations, but also across space. Is one state or region entitled to dump its radioactive pollution in I another state’s or region’s (or waters^ yar<^ When that region receives no due compensation (whatever that would amount to , in such a case), and the people do not agree (though the leaders imposed upon them might)? The answer, and the arguments underpinning the answer, are both like those already given in arguing to the tentative conclusion concerning the injustice of imposing radioactive wastes upon future people. But the cases are not exactly the same: USA and Japan cannot endeavour to discount peoples of the Pacific in whose regions they propose to drop some of their radioactive pollution in quite the same way they can discount people of two centuries hence. (But what this consideration really reveals is yet another flaw in the idea that entitlement to just treatment can (be discounted over time)L Ethical issues of distributive justice, as to equity, concern not only the spatio-temporal location of nuclear waste, but also arise elsewhere in the assessment of nuclear development; in particular, as regards the treatment of f kood' those in the neighbouij/ of reactors, and, differently, as regards the distribution of (alleged) benefits and costs from nuclear power across nations. People living or working in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor are subject to special costs and risks: firstly, radioactive pollution, due to the fact that reactors discharge radioactive materials into the air and water near the plant, �25. and secondly catastrophic accidents, such as (steam) explosion of a reactor. An immediate question is whether such costs and risks can be imposed, with any ethical legitimacy, on these people, who frequently have little or no say in their imposition, and who have mostly not been informed of any choices regarding the "risk/benefit tradeoffs” of nuclear technology. That they are so imposed, without local participation, indeed often without local input or awareness as with local opposition, reveals one part of the antidemocratic face of nuclear development, a part that nuclear development shares however with other largescale polluting industry, where local participation and questions, fundamental to a genuine democracy of regional determination and popular sovereignty, are commonly ignored or avoided. The "normal” emission, during plant operation, of low level radiation (A 'carries carcinogenic and mutagenic costs. While there are undoubtedly costs, there remains, however, substantial disagreement over the likely number of cancers and precise extent of genetic damage induced by exposure to such radiation, over the local health costs involved. Under the Old Paradigm, which (illegitimately) permits free transfer of costs and risks from one person to another, the ethical issue directly raised is said to be: what extent of cancer and genetic damage, if any, is permissibly traded for the advantages of nuclear power, and under what conditions? Under the Old Paradigm the issue is then translated into decision-theoretic questions, such as to ’how to employ risk/benefit analysis as a prelude to government regulation’ and ’how to determine what is an 26 acceptable level of risk/safety for the public. The Old Paradigm attitude, reflected in the public policy of some countries that have such policies, is that the economic benefits conferred by allowing radiation emissions outweigh the costs of an increase in cancer and genetic damage. An example will reveal that such evaluations, which rely for what appeal they have on a dubious utilitarianism, will not pass muster. It is a pity about Aunt Ethyl getting cancer, but it’s nice to have this air conditioner working in summer. Such frequently trivial and rather inessential benefits, which may be obtained alternatively, e.g. by modification of houses, in no way 27 compensate for the agony of cancer. The point is that the costs to one party are not justified, especially when such benefits to other parties can be alternatively obtained without such awful costs, and morally indefensible, being imposed. People, minorities, whose position is particularly compromised are those who live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. (Children, for example, are in a �26. particularly vulnerable position, since they are several times more likely to contract cancer through exposure than normal adults). In USA, such people bear a risk of cancer and genetic damage of as much as 50 times that borne by the population at large. A non-negligible percentage (in excess of 3% of those exposed for 30 years) of people in the area will die, allegedly for the sake of the majority who are benefitted by nuclear power production (allegedly, for the real reasons for nuclear development do not concern this silent majority). Whatever i-ktr charm the argument from overriding benefits had, even under the Old Paradigm, vanishes once it is seen that there are alternative, and in several respects less expensive, ways of delivering the real benefits involved. There are several other tricks used in showing that the imposition of radiation on minorities, most of whom have little or no genuine voice in the location of reactors in their environment and cannot move away without serious losses, is quite (morally) acceptable. One cheaper trick, deployed by the US 28 Atomic Energy Commission,” is to suppose that it is permissible to double, through nuclear technology, the level of (natural) radiation that a population received with apparently negligible consequences, the argument being that the additional amount (being equivalent to the ’’natural” level) is also likely to have negligible consequences. The increased amounts of radiation - with their large man-made component - are then accounted normal, and, of course, so it is then claimed, what is normal is morally acceptable. in this argument is sound. None of the steps Drinking one bottle of wine a day may have no ill- effects, whereas drinking two a day certainly may affect a person’s well-being; and while the smaller intake may have become normal for the person, the larger one will, under such conditions, not be. Finally, what is or has become normal, e.g. two murders or twenty cancers a day in a given city, may be far from acceptable. In fact, even the USA, which has strict standards by comparison with most other countries with planned nuclear reactors, permits radiation emissions very substantially in excess of the standards laid down; so the emission situation is worse than mere consideration of the standards would disclose. Furthermore, the monitoring of the standards ’’imposed” is entrusted to the nuclear operators themselves, scarcely disinterested parties. Public policy is determined not so as to guarantee public health, but rather to serve as a ’public pacifier' while 29 private nuclear operations proceed relatively unhampered. �27. While radioactive emissions are an ordinary feature of reactor operation, breakdown is, hopefully, not: an accident of magnitude is accounted, by official definition, an 'extraordinary nuclear occurrence . * But such accidents can happen, and almost have on several occasions (the most notorious being Three Mile Island). 30 If the cooling and emergency core cooling systems fail in American (light water) 30a reactors, then the core melts and ’containment failure’ is likely, with the result that an area of 40,000 square miles could be radioactively contaminated. In the event of the worst type of accident ini a very small reactor, a steam explosion in the reactor vessel, about 45,000l people would be killed instantly •and at least 100,000 would die as a result of: the accident, property damages would exceed $17 billion and an area the sizei of Pennsylvania would be destroyed, Modern nuclear reactors are about five times the size of the reactor for which 31 -k the consequences ofr a these conservative US government figures are given : similar accident with a modern reactor would accordingly be much greater still. V The consigner in risking the li^es, well-being and property of the / passengers on the train has acted inadmissibly. Does a government-sponsored private utility act in a way that is anything other than much less responsible in siting a nuclear reactor in a community, in planting such a dangerous package on the community train, The answer will be No, if the analogy holds good and the consigners' action is, as we would ordinarily •suppose, inadmissible and irrespon- The proponents of nuclear power have in effect argued to the contrary, & (while at the same time endeavouring to shift the dispute out if the ethical arena / and into a technological dispute as to means (in accordance with the Old Paradigm). sible. 0 It has been contended, firstly, what contrasts with the train example, that Indeed in the there is no real possibility of a catastrophic nuclear accident. 32 influential Rassmussen report - which was extensively used to support public confidence in US nuclear fission technology - an even stronger, an incredibly CO jstrong, imp?yjbability claim was stated: namely, the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident is so remote as to be Almost) impossible. The main argument for this claim derives from the assumptions and estimates of the report itself. These assumptions like the claim are undercut by nuclear incidents that came very close to accidents, incidents which reflect what happens in a reactor rather better than mathematical models. As with the storage of nuclear wastes, so with the operation of nuclear reactors, it is important to look at what happens in the actual world of technological limitatioms and human error, of waste leakage and reactor incidents and quite possibly accidents, not in an ideal world far removed from the actual, a technological dream world where there is no real possibility of a nuclear �28. catastrophe. In such an ideal nuclear world, where waste disposal were fool-proof and reactors were accident-proof, things would no doubt be morally different. But we do not live in such a world. According to the Rasmussen report its calculation of extremely low accident probabilities is based upon reasonable mathematical and technological assumptions and is methodologically sound. This is very far from being the case. The under­ lying mathematical methods, variously called "fault tree analysis" and "reliability estimating techniques", are unsound, because they exclude as "not credible" possibilities or as "not significant" branches that are real possibilities, which may well be realised in the real world. It is the In fact the methodology and data of the report 33 has been soundly and decisively criticized. And it has been shown that there eliminations that are otherworldly. is a real possibility, a non-negligible probability, of a serious accident. It is contended, secondly, that even if there is a non-negligible probability of a reactor accident, still it is acceptable, being of no greater order than risks of accidents that are already socially accepted. Here we encounter again that insidious engineering approach to morality built into models of an economic cast, e.g. benefit-cost balance sheets, risk assessment models, etc. Risk assessment, a sophistication of transaction or trade-off models, purports to provide a comparison between the relative risks attached to different options, e.g. energy options, which settles their ethical status. The following lines of argument are encountered in a risk assessment as applied to energy options: (i) if option a imposes costs on fewer people than option b then option a is preferable to option b; rV\ (ii) option a involves a total net cost in ter^s of cost to people (e.g. deaths, injuries, etc.) which is less than that of option b, which is already accepted; 34 therefore option a is acceptable. For example, the number lively to be killed by nuclear power stations is less than k the likely number killed by cigarette smoking or in road accidents, which are < 'accepted: so nuclear power stations are acceptable.^ little reflection reveals that this sort of risk assessment argument involves the same kind of fallacy as transaction models. It is far too simple-minded, and it ignores distributional and other relevant aspects of the context. In order to obtain an ethical assessment we should need a much fuller picture and we should need to know at least these things:- do the costs and benefits go to the same parties; and is the person who undertakes the risks also the person who receives the benefits or �29. primarily, as in driving or cigarette smoking, or are the costs imposed on other parties who do not benefit? It is only if the parties are the same in the case of the options compared, and there are no such distributional problems, that a 35 comparison on such a basis would be valid. This is rarely the case, and it is not so in the case of risk assessments of energy options. Secondly, does the person incur the risk as a result of an activity which he knowingly undertakes in a situation where he has a reasonable choice, knowing it entails the risk, etc., and is the level of risk in proportion to the level of the relevant activity, e.g. as in smoking? Thirdly, for what reason is the risk imposed: is it for a serious or a relatively trivial reason? A risk that is ethically acceptable for a serious reason may not be ethically acceptable for a trivial reason. Both the arguments (i) and (ii) are often employed in trying to justify nuclear power. The second argument (ii) involves the fallacies of the first (i) and an additional set, namely that of forgetting that the health risks in the or nuclear sense are cumulative, and already high if not, some say, too high. The maxim "If you want the benefits you have to accept the costs” is one thing and the maxim "If I want the benefits then you have to accept the costs (or some of them at least)" is another and very different thing. It is a widely accepted moral principle, already argued for by way of examples and already invoked, that one is not, in general, entitled to simply transfer costs of a significant kind arising fron an activity which benefits oneself onto other 37 parties who are not involved in the activity and are not beneficiaries. This transfer principle is especially clear in cases where the significant costs include an effect on life or health or a risk thereof, and where the benefit to the benefitting party is of a noncrucial or dispensible nature, because, e.g. it can be substituted for or done without. Thus, for instance, one is not usually entitled to harm, or risk harming, another in the process of benefitting oneself. Suppose, for another example, we consider a village which produces, as a result of an industrial process by which it lives , a noxious waste material which J !is expensive and difficult to dispose of and yet creates a risk to life and health if undisposed of. Instead of giving up their industrial process and turning to some other way of making a living such as farming the surrounding countryside, they persist with this way of life but ship their problem on a one-way delivery service, on the train, to the next village. The inhabitants of this village are then forced to face the problem either of undertaking the expensive and difficult disposal process oor of sustaining risks to their own lives and health or else leaving the village and their livelihoods. transfer of costs as morally unacceptable. Most of us would see this kind of �30. From this arises a necessary condition for energy options: that to be morally acceptable they should not involve the transfer of significant costs or risks of harm onto parties who are not involved, do not use the energy source or do not benefit correspondingly from its use. Included in the scope of this condition are not only future people and future generations (those of the next villages) but neighbours of nuclear reactors, especially, as in third world countries, neighbours who are not nuclear power users. The distribution of costs and damage in such a fashion, i.e. on to non-beneficiaries is a characteristic of certain widespread and serious forms of pollution, and is one of its most objectionable moral features. It is a corollary of the condition that we should not hand the world on to our successors in substantially worse shape than we received it - the tramsmission principle. For if we did then that would be a significant transfer of costs. (The corollary can be independently argued for on the basis of certain ethical theories). VI. OTHER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND COSTS OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR WAR. The problems already discussed by no means exhaust the ^environmental, health and safety risks and costs in^or arising from the * fuel cycle. nuclear The full fuel cycle includes many stages both before and after reactor operation, apart from waste disposal, namely mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and preparation, reprocessing spent fuel, and transportation of , 5 materials. Several of these stageyf involve hazards. Unlike the special risks in the nuclear cycle - of sabotage of plants, of theft of fissionable material, and of the further proliferation of nuclear armaments - these hazards have parallels, if not exact equivalents, in other very polluting methods of generating power, e.g. ’’workers in the uranium mining industry sustain ’the same risk’ of 38 ffatal and nonfatal injury as workers in the coal industry^. Furthermore, the Various (often serious) hazards encountered in working in some sectoj^ of uranium fabrication should be differently viewed from those resulting from location for instance from already living where a reactor is built or wastes are dumped. For an occupation is, in principle at any rate, chosen (as is occupational relocation), and many types of hazards incurred in working with radioactive material are now known in advance of choice of such an occupation: with where one already lives things are very different. The uranium miner’s choice of occupation can be compared with the airline pilot’s choice, whereas the Pacific Islander’s ’’fact" of location cannot be. The social issue of arrangements that contract occupational choices and opportunities and often at least ease people into hazardous occupations such as uranium or tin or coal mining (where the risks, in contrast to airline piloting, are mostly not duly compensated), while very important, is not an issue newly produced by nuclear associated occupations. �Other social and environmental problems - though endemic where large-scale industry operates in societies that are highly inegalitarian and include sectors /that are far from affluent - are more intimately linked with the nuclear power cycle. Though pollution is a common and generally undesirable component of large-scale industrial operation, radioactive pollution, such as uranium mining for instance produces, is especially a legacy of nuclear development, and a specially undesirable one, as enormous rectification estimates for dead radio­ active lands and waterways reveal. Though sabotage is a threat to many large industries, so that modern factory complexes are often guarded like concentration camps (but from us on the outside), sabotage of a nuclear reactor can have dire consequences, of a different order of magnitude from most industrial sabotage (consider again the effects of core meltdown), Though theft of material from more dubious enterprises such as munitions works can pose threats to populations at large and can assist terrorism, no thefts for allegedly peaceful enterprises pose problems of the same order as theft of fissionable material. No other industry produces materials which so readily permit of fabrication into such /massive explosives/ No other industry is, to sum it up, so vulnerable on so many fronts. / / 5 In part to reduce it/ vulnerability, in part because of its long and continuing association with military activities, the nuclear industry is subject to, and encourages, several practices which (certainly given their scale) run counter to basic features of free and open societies, crucial features such as personal liberty, freedom of association and of expression, and free access to information. These practices include secrecy, restriction of information, formation of special police and guard forces, espionage, curtailment of civil liberties. Already operators of nuclear installations are given extraordinary powers, in vetting employees, to investigate the background and activities not only of employees but also of their families and sometimes even of their friends. The installations themselves become armed camps, which especially offends British sensibilities. The U.K. Atomic Energy (Special Constables) Act of 1976 created a special armed force to guard nuclear installations and made it ^nswerable ... to the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority.^9 developments the Uni-ted Kingdom; and worse i-R Weot Germany presage along with nuclear development increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic societies. That nuclear development appears to force such political consequences tells heavily against it. /•fS j2a?c bEHmR - - *. i » /> . . Bvhi nd what mirt bv one of the most impregnable fortifications this side of the East-West German border, work has just begun on building West Gerpianv’s latest nuclear power station.- Much of the perimeter of the 75-acre site, at Brokdorf m the marshlands of the lower Elbe, is screened by a concrete wall io feet high, surmounted by coils of barbed wire. I he rest, regarded as ‘strategic ally observable.' is girdled by a ditch io feet wide and fill ed with water. Approach roads to the site arc patrolled by dozens of policemen and the compound itself is guarded by 6oo men from a private security organization and b\ jg dogs. '* -4? �32. Nuclear development is further indicted politically by the direct connection of nuclear power with nuclear war. It is fortunately true that ethical questions concerning nuclear war - for example, whether a nuclear war is justified, or just, under any circumstances, and if so what circumstances are distinguishable from those concerning nuclear power. Undoubtedly, however, the spread of nuclear power is substantially increasing the technical means for engaging in nuclear war and so, to that extent, the opportunity for, and chances of, nuclear engagement. Since nuclear wars are never accountable positive goods, but are at best the lesser of major evils, nuclear wars are always highly ethically undesirable. The spread of nuclear power accordingly expands the opportunity for, and chances of, highly undesirable consequences. Finally the latter, so increasing these chances and opportunities, is itself undesirable, and therefore what leads to it, nuclear development, is also undesirable. The details and considerations that fill out this argument, from nuclear war against nuclear development, are many. They are firstly technical, that it is a relatively straightforward and inexpensive matter to make nuclear explosives given access to, a nuclear power plant, secondly' political, A that nuclear engagements once instituted likely to escalate and that those A who control (or differently are likely to force access to) nuclear power plants do not shrink from nuclear confrontation and are certainly prepared to toy with A nuclear engagement (up to "strategic nuclear strikes” at least), and thirdly ** , $ A /ethical, that warj( invariably have immoral consequences, such as massive 5 damage to involved parties, however high sounding their justification is. Nuclear wars are certain to be considerably worse as regards damage inflicted than any previous wars (they are likely to be much worse than all previous wars put together), because of the enormous destructive power of nuclear weapons, and the extent of spread of their radioactive effects, and because of the expected rapidity and irreversibility of any such confrontations. The supporting considerations are, fourthly, drawn from decision theory, and yare designed to show that the chances of such undesirable outcomes is itself y undesirable. The core argument is in brief this (the argument will be elaborated in section VIII):- Energy choice between alternative options is O . 27 ya case of decision making under uncertainty, because in particular /f the gross uncertainties involved in nuclear development. In cases of this type the appropriate rational procedure is to compare worst consequences of each alternative, to reject those alternatives with the worst of these worst 5 / consequence^ (this is a pretty un con troversial part of the maxim'nw rule which enjoins selection of the alternative with the best worst consequences). The nuclear alternative has, in particular because of the real possibility of a nuclear war, the worst worst consequences and is accordingly a particularly undesirable alternative. �33. /VII. CONFLICT ARGUMENTS^ AND UNCOVERING THE IDEOLOGICAL BASES OF NUCLEAR I DEVELOPMENT♦ As with nuclear war, so given the cumulative case against nuclear development, only one justificatory route remains open, that of appeal to important overriding circumstances. That appeal, to be ethically acceptable, must go far beyond merely economic considerations. For, as already observed, the consigner’s action cannot be justified by purely economistic arguments, such as that his profits would rise, the firm or the village would be more prosperous, or by appealing to the fact that some possibly uncomfortable changes would otherwise be needed. The transfer principle on which this assessment was based, that one was not usually entitled to create a serious risk to others for these sorts of reasons, applied more generally and, in particular, applied to the nuclear case. For this reason the economistic arguments which are those most commonly advanced under the Old Paradigm to promote nuclear development - e.g. cheapness, efficiency, profitability for electricity utilities, and the need otherwise for uncomfortable changes such as restructuring of employment, investment and consumption - do not even begin to show that the nuclear alternative is an acceptable one. Even if these economistic assumptions about benefits to present people were correct - it will be contended that most of them are not - the arguments would fail because economics (like the utilitarianism from which it characteristically derives) has to operate within the framework of moral constraints, and not vice versa. What do have to be considered are however moral conflict arguments, that is arguments to the effect that, unless the prima facie unacceptable (nuclear) alternative is taken, some even more unacceptable alternative is the only possible outcome, and will ensue. For example, in the train parable, the consigner may argue that his action is justified because unless it is taken his village will starve. It is by no means clear that even such a justification as this would be sufficient, especially where the risk to the passengers is high, as the case seems to become one of transfer of costs and risks onto others; but such a moral situation would no longer be so clearcut, and one would perhaps hesitate to condemn any action taken in such circumstances. Some, of the arguments advanced to show moral conflict are based on / /competing^to present people, and others on competing obligations to future people, both of which are taken to override the obligations not to impose on the future o I significant risk ^f serious harm. The structure of such moral conflict arguments is based crucially on the presentation of a genuine and exhaustive set of alternatives (or at least practical alternatives) and upon showing that the only alternatives to admittedly morally undesirable actions are even more undesirable ones. If some practical alternative which is not morally worse than the action to be justified is overlooked, suppressed, or neglected in the argument - for example, if in the village case it turns out that the villagers have another option �34. I to starving or to the sending off of the parcel, namely earning a living i/' some other way - then the argument is defective and cannot readily be patched. Just such a suppression of practicable alternatives has occurred in the argument designed to show that the alternatives to the nuclear option are even worse than the option itself, and that there are other factual defects in these arguments In short, the arguments depend essentially on the presentation of as well. false dichotomies. A first argument, the poverty argument, is that there is an overriding obligation to the poor, both the poor of the third world and the poor of industrialised countries. Failure to develop nuclear energy, it is often claimed, would amount to denying them the opportunity to reach the standard of affluence we currently enjoy and would create unemployment and poverty in the industrialised nations. The unemployment and poverty argument does not stand up to examination either for the poor of the industrial countries or for those of the third world. There is good evidence that large-scale nuclear energy will help to increase unemployment and poverty in the industrial world, through the diversion of very much available capital into an industry which is not only an exceptionally poor provider of direct employment, but also helps to reduce available jobs through 40 encouraging substitution of energy use for labour use. The argument that nuclear energy is needed for the third world is even less convincing. Nuclear energy is both politically and economically inappropriate for the third world, since it requires massive amounts of capital, requires numbers of imported scientists and engineers, but creates negligible local employment, and depends for its feasibility upon, what is largely lacking, established electricity transmission systems and back-up facilities and sufficient electrical appliances to plug into the system. Politically it increases foreign dependence, adds to centralised entrenched power and reduces the chance for change in the oppressive political 41 structures which are a large part of the problem. The fact that nuclear energy is not in the interests of the people of the third world does not of course mean that it is not in the interests of, and wanted by, their rulers, the westernised and often military elites in whose interests the economies of these countries are usually organised, and wanted often for military purposes. It is not paternalistic to examine critically the demands these ruling elites may make in the name of the poor. �35. The poverty argument is then a fraud. help the poor. Nuclear energy will not be used to Both for the third world and for the industrialised countries there are well-known energy-conserving alternatives and the practical option of developing other energy sources, alternatives some of which offer far better prospects for helping the poor. It can no longer be pretended that there is no alternative to nuclear development: indeed nuclear development is itself but a bridging, or stop-gap, procedure on route to solar or perhaps fusion development. And there are various alternatives: coal and other fossil fuels, geothermal, and a range of solar options (including as well as narrowly solar, wind, water, tidal and plant power), 42 each possibly in combination with conservation measures; Despite the availability of alternatives, it may still be pretended that nuclear development is necessary for affluence (what will emerge is that it is advantageous for the power and affluence of certain select groups). Such an assumption really underlies part of the poverty argument, which thus amounts to an elaboration of the trickle- down argument (much favoured within the Old Paradigm setting). runs:- For the argument Nuclear development is necessary for (continuing and increasing) affluence. Affluence inevitably trickles down to the poor. Therefore nuclear First, the argument does not on its own show development benefits the poor. anything specific about nuclear power: for it works equally well if ’energy’ is substituted for ’nuclear’. It has also to be shown, what the next major argument will try to claim, that nuclear development is unique among energy alternatives in increasing affluence. The second assumption, that affluence inevitably trickles down, has now been roundly refuted, both by recent historical data, which show increasing affluence (e.g. in terms of GNP averaged per capita) coupled with increasing poverty in several countries, both developing and developed, and through economic models which reveal how "affluence" can increase without redistribution occurring. Another major argument advanced to show moral conflict appeals to a set of supposedly overriding and competing obligations to future people. We have, it is said, a duty to pass on the immensely valuable things and institutions which our culture has developed. Unless our high-technology, high energy industrial society is continued and fostered, our valuable institutions and traditions will fall into decay or be swept away. The argument is essentially that without nuclear power, without the continued level of material wealth it alone is assumed to make possible, the lights of our civilization will go out. Future people will be the losers. 4 �36. The lights-going-out argument does raise questions as to what is valuable in our society, and of what characteristics are necessary for a good society. But for the most part these large questions, which deserve much fuller examination, can be avoided. The reason is that the argument adopts an extremely uncritical position with respect to present high-technology societies, apparently assuming that they are uniformly and uniquely valuable. It assumes that technological society is unmodifiable, that it cannot be changed in the direction of energy conservation or alternative (perhaps high technology) energy sources without collapse. It has to be accepted and assessed as a whole, and virtually unlimited supplies of energy - such as nuclear and only nuclear power is alleged to furnish - are essential to maintain this whole. These assumptions are hard to accept. Xz The assumption that technological ^soc^ety's energy patterns are unmodifiable is especially so - after all it has survived events such as world wars which have required major social and technological restructuring and consumption modification. If western society’s demands for energy are totally unmodifiable without collapse, not only would it be committed to a program of increasing destruction, but one might ask what use its culture could be to future people who would very likely, as a consequence of this destruction, lack the resource base which the argument assumes to be essential in the case of contemporary society. There is also difficulty with the assumption of uniform valuableness; but if this is rejected the question becomes not: what is necessary to maintain existing high-technological society and its political institutions, but rather: what is necessary to maintain what is valuable in that society and the political institutions which are needed to maintain those valuable things. While it may be easy to argue that high energy consumption centrally controlled is necessary to maintain the political and economic status quo, it is not so easy to argue that it is essential to maintain what is valuable, and it is what is valuable, presumably that we have a duty to pass on to the future. The evidence, for instance from history, is that no very high level of material affluence or energy consumption is needed to maintain what is valuable. There is good reason in fact to believe that a society with much lower energy and resource consumption would better foster what is valuable than our own. But even if a radical change in these directions is independently desirable, as we should argue, it is not necessary to presuppose such a change, in the short term at least, in order to see that the assumptions of the lights-going-out argument are wrong. No enormous reduction of well-being is required to consume less energy than at �37. present, and certainly far less than the large increase over present levels of /assumption which 44 is assumed in the usual economic case for nuclear energy, 6©' What the nuclear strategy is really designed to do then is not to prevent the lights going out in western civilisation, but to enable the lights to go on burning all the time to maintain and even increase the wattage output of the Energy Extravaganza. In fact there is good reason to think that, far from the high energy consumption society fostering what is valuable, it will, especially if energy is obtained by nuclear fission means, be positively inimical to it. A society which has become heavily dependent upon an extremely high centralised, controlled and garrisoned, capital- and expertise-intensive energy source, must be one which is highly susceptible to entrenchment of power, and one in which the forces which control this energy source, whether capitalist or bureaucratic, can exert enormous power over the political system and over people’s lives, even more than they do at present. Such a society would, almost inevitably tend to become authoritarian and increasingly anti-democratic, as an outcome, among other thingsJof its response to the threat posed by dissident groups in the nuclear ' 45 situation. Nuclear development may thus help in passing on to future generations some of the worst aspects of our society - the consumerism, alienation, destruction of nature, and latent authoritarianism - while many valuable aspects, such as the degree of political freedom and those opportunities for personal and collective autonomy which exist, would be lost or diminished: political freedom, for example, is a high price to pay for consumerism and energy extravagance. But it is not the status quo, but what is valuable in our society, presumably, that we have some obligation to pass on to the future, and if possible enhance. Again, as in the case of the poverty arguments, clear alternatives, alternative social, economic and political choices, which do not involve such unacceptable consequences, are available. The alternative to the high technology- nuclear option is not a return to the cave, the loss of all that is valuable, but either the adoption of an available alternative such as coal for power or, rather, the development of alternative technologies and lifestyles which offer far greater scope for the maintenance and further development of what is valuable in our society than the highly centralised nuclear option. The lights- going-out argument, as a moral conflict argument, accordingly fails, because it also is based on a false dichotomy. �38. Thus the further escape route, the appeal to moral conflict, is, like the If then we apply - as we have argued we should - appeal to futurity, closed. the same standards of morality to the future as we ought to acknowledge for the present, the conclusion that large-scale nuclear development is a crime against the future is inevitable. Closed also, in the same way, are the escape routes to other arguments - from reactor melt-down, radiation emissions, and so on for rejecting nuclear development as morally unacceptable, for saying that it is not only a moral crime against the distant future but also a crime against the present and immediate future. In sum, nuclear development is morally unacceptable on several grounds. A corollary is that only political arrangements that are morally unacceptable will support the impending nuclear future. VIII. A NUCLEAR FUTURE IS NOT A RATIONAL CHOICE, EVEN IN OLD PARADIGM TERMS. The argument thus far, to anti-nuclear conclusions, has relied upon, and defended premisses that would be rejected under the Old Paradigm; for example, such theses as that the interests and utilities of future people are not discounted (in contrast to the temporally-limited utilitarianism of market- centred economic theory), and that serious costs and risks to health and life cannot admissibly be simply transferred to uninvolved parties (in contrast to the transfer and limited compensation assumptions of mainstream economic theory). To close the case, arguments will now be outlined which are designed to show that even within the confines of the Old Paradigm, choosing the nuclear future is not a rational choice. Large-scale nuclear development is not just something that happens, it requires, on a continuing basis, an immense input of capital and energy. Such investment calls for substantial reasons; for the investment should be, on Old Paradigm assumptions, the best among feasible alternatives to given economic ends. Admittedly so much capital has already been invested in nuclear fission ^research and development, in marke^T contrast to other newer rival sources of power, that there is strong political incentive to proceed - as distinct from requisite reasons for further capital and energy inputs. The reasons can be 'divided roughly into two groups, front reasons, which are the reasons given ^(out), and which are, in accordance with Old Paradigm p^gcepts, publicly economic (in that they are approved for public consumption), and the real reasons, which involve private economic factors and matters of power and social control. �39. The main argument put up, an economic growth argument, upon which variations are played, is the following version of the lights-going-out argument (with economic growth duly standing in for material wealth, and even for what is valuable!):- Nuclear power is necessary to sustain economic growth. Economic growth is desirable (for all the usual reasons, e.g. to increase the size of the pie, to avoid or postpone redistribution problems, and connected social Therefore nuclear power is desirable. The first premiss is 46 part of US energy policy, and the second premiss is supplied by standard unrest, etc.). economics textbooks. But both premisses are defective, the second because what is valuable in economic growth can be achieved by selective economic growth, which jettisons the heavy social and environmental costs carried by unqualified 47 economic growth. More to the point, since the second premiss is an assumption of the dominant paradigm, the first premiss (or rather an appropriate and less vulnerable restatement of it) fails even on Old Paradigm standards. For of course nuclear power is not necessary given that there are other, perhaps costlier alternatives. The premiss usually defended is some elaboration of the premiss : Nuclear power is the economically best way to sustain economic growth, 'economically best’ being filled out as ’most efficient’, ’cheapest’, ’having most favourable benefit-cost ratio', etc. Unfortunately for the argument, and for nuclear ^development schemes, nuclear power is none of these things a good deal of economic cheating (easy to do) is done. decisively, unless Much data, beginning with /the cancellation of nuclear plant orders, can\be assembled to show as much. Yet the argument requires a true premiss, not an uncertain or merely possible one, if it is to succeed and detachment is to be permitted at all, and evidently true premissiFve** /f the argument is to be decisive. The data to be summarised splits into two parts, public (governmental) analyses, and private (utility) assessments. Virtually all available data /concerns the USA; in Euro^ _e, West and East, true costs of uniformly "publicly/controlled” nuclear power are generally not divulged. / A Firstly, the capital costs of nuclear plants, which have been rising much more rapidly than inflation, now exceed those of coal-fired plants. Ka-emanoff has estimated that capital costs of a nuclear generator (of optimal capacity) 49 will exceed comparable costs of a coal-fired unit by about 26% in 1985. And I capital costs are only one part of the equation that now tell^ rather decisively against private utility purchase of new nuclear plants. Another main factor is the poor performance and low reliability of nuclear generators. Coney showed that nuclear plants can only generate about half the electricity they were designed to produce, and that when Atomic Energy Commission estimates of relative fcosts of nuclear and coal/, which assumed that both operated at 80% of design capacity, were adjusted accordingly, nuclear generated power proved to be far more �40. expensive than estimated.The discrepancy between actual and estimated ‘ capacity is especially important because a plant with an actual1/factor of 55% produced electricity at a cost about 25% higher than if the plant had performed at the manufacturers’ projected capacity rate of 70-75%. y The low reliability / of nuclear plants (per kilowatt output) as compared with the coal-fired plants adds to the case, on conventional economic /reliability of y /grounds of efficiency and product production costs, against nucleai/'. / These unfavourable assessments are from a private (utility) perspective, before the very extensive public subsidization of nuclear power is duly taken into account. The main subsidies are through research and development, by way of insurance (under the important but doubtfully constitutional Price-Anderson /kct^S, in enrichment, and in waste management, It has been estimated that charging such costs to the electricity consumer would increase electricity bills for nuclear power by at least 25% (and probably much more). When official US cost/benefit analyses favouring nuclear power over coal are examined, it is found that they inadmissibly omit several of the public costs involved in producing nuclear power, For example, the analyses ignore waste costs on the quite inadmissible ground that it is not known currently what the costs involved are. o 4 But even using actual waste handling costs (while /wastes await storage) is enough to show that coa ljjis preferable to nuclear. When further public costs, such as insurance against accident and for radiation damage, are duly taken into account, the balance is swung still further in ✓ y / ^ / favo ur of alternatives to nuclear and against nucleaj/. In short,, even on p/per 'r Q1& Paradigm accounting, the nuclear alternative should be j ze- Nuclear development is not economical, it certainly seems; it has been /kept going not through its clear economic viability, but by massive public subsidization, of several types. In USA, to take a main example where information is available, nuclear development is publicly supported through s heavily subsidized or sometimes free research and development, ■through the ^Price-Anderson Act/ which sharply limits both private and public liability, i.e. which in effect provided the insurance subsidy making corporate nuclear development economically feasible, and through government agreement to handle all radioactive wastes. While the Old Paradigm strictly construed cannot support uneconomical developments, contemporary liberalisation of the Paradigm does allow for uneconomic projects, seen as operated in the public interest, in such fields as /social welfare. Duly admitting social welfare and some principles �41. 6t / /in the distribution of wealth (not necessarily of pollution) leads/the modern //version of the Old Paradigm, called the Modified Old Paradigm. The main /changes from the Old Paradigm are (as with state socialism) a^emphasis of economic factors, e.g. individual self-help is down-played, wealth is to a small extent redistributed, e.g. through taxation, market forces are regulated or displaced (not in principle eliminated, as with state socialism). Now it has been contended - outrageous though it should now seem - that nuclear power ll« is in the public interest as a means to various sought public ends , for example, As (j&lj 45 • from those already mentioned such as energy for growth and cheap e, ./electricity, and such as plentiful power for heating and cooking and appliance /use, avoidance of shortages, rationing, C2 -outs and the like. Since /alternative power sources, such as coal, could serve ends given power was /supplied with suitable extravagance, the d^eement has again to show that the choice of nuclear power over other alternatives is best in the requisite respects, in serving the public interest. Such an argument is a matter for decision theory, under which head cost-benefit analyses which rank alternatives also fall as special cases. Decision theory purports to cover theoretically the field of choice between alternatives; it is presented as the theory which ’deals with the 53 problem of choosing one course of action among several possible courses’. Thus the choice of alternati’ve modes of energy production, the energy choice ^problem, becomes an exercise -arrrd decision theory; and the nuclear choice is of ten ’5 us tified" in Old Paradigm terms through appeal to decision theory. But though decision theory is in principle comprehensive, as soon as it is put to work in such practical cases as energy choice, it is very considerably contracted in scope, several major assumptions are surreptitiously imported, and what one is confronted with is theory drastically /pruned down to conform with the narrow utilitarianism of mainstream economic theory. The extent of reduction can be glimpsed by comparing, to take one important example, a general optimisation model for decision (where uncertainty is not gross) with comparable decision theory methods, such as the 5 expected utility model. The general model for best choice among alternatives /specified maximisation of expected value subject to constraints, which may include ethical constraints excluding certain alternatives under given /conditions. models demote value to utility, assuming thereby measurability and transference properties that may not obtain, and eliminate constraints altogether (absorbing what is forbidden, for example, as having a high disutility, but one that can be compensated for nonetheless). Thus, in �particular, ethical constraints against nuclear development are replaced, in Old Paradigm fashion, by allowance in principle for compensation for damage sustained. Still it is with decision making in Old Paradigm terms that we are now embroiled, so no longer at issue are the defective (neo-classical) economic assumptions made in the theory, for example as to the assessment of everything to be taken into account through utility (which comes down to monetary terms : everything w^Lth account^n^/has a price), and as to the legitimacy of transferring with limited compensation risks and costs to involved parties. The energy choice problem is, so it has commonly been argued in the assumed Old Paradigm framework, a case of decision under uncertainty. It is not a case of decision under risk (and so expected utility models are not applicable), because some possible outcomes are so uncertain that, in contrast to the case of risk, no (suitably objective) quantifiable probabilities can be assigned to them, Items that are so uncertain are taken to include nuclear 1war and core meltdown 54 [of a reactor, possible outcomes of nuclear development/ widespread radio active pollution is, by contrast, not uncertain. The correct rule for decision under uncertainty is, in the case of energy /choice, maximum, to maximize the minimum payoff, so it is sometimes contended. In fact, once again, it is unnecessary for present purposes to decide which energy option is selected, but only whether the nuclear option is rejected. f Since competing selection rules tend to deliver the same for options early rejected as the nuclear options, a convergence in the rejection of the nuclear option can be effected. All rational roads lead, not to Rome, but to rejection of the nuclear option. t z A further convergence can be effected also, L'tbecause ci LiO Lthe best possible (economic) outcomes of such leading options as Ci .r D l/ j, [coal and^hydroO Celectric mix are very roughly of the same order as the nuclear option (so Elster contends, and his argument can be elaborated). Under these conditions complex decision rules (^such as the Arrow-H^^wicz rule) which take £ /account of both best possible and /reduce to the maxim^in rule. possible outcomes under wfk *ch option^ Whichever energy option is selected under the /maximwffi rule, the nuclear option is certainly rejected since/(eere options where worst outcomes are than that of the nuclear option (just consider the scenario if the nuclear nightmare, not the nuclear dream, is realised). Further application of the rejection rule will reject the fossil fuel (predominantly coal) option, on the basis of estimated effects on the earth's climate from burning massive quantities of such fuels. �HHHB 43. Although the rejection rule coupled with enjoys a privileged several rivals to maximise for decision under uncertainty have been of which has associated rejection rules. proposed, rules, such as the risk- AdkW Some of these reasoning criticised by Goodin (pp.507-8), the riskiness of a policy in terms of the increment of which ’ risk it adds to those pre-existing in the status quo, rather than in terms of the absolute value of the risk associated with the policy’ are decidedly decision procedure appears to and rather than offering a dubious, afford protection of the (nuclear) status quo. What will be argued, or rather what Goodin has in effect argued for us, is that wherever one of these rules is applicable. and not dubious, it leads to rejection of the nuclear option. For example, the keep-options-open or allow-for-reversibility rule (not an entirely unquestionable rule/ ’of strictly limited applicability’) excludes the nuclear option because ’nuclear plants and their by-products have a nuclear reactor ran air of irreversibility ... "One cannot pimply a coal-fired plant'” (p.506). The compare-the /alternatives rule, in ordinary application, leads back to the cost-benefit assessments, which, as already observed, tell decisively against a nuclear option when costing is done properly. The maximise-sustainable-benefits rule, which 'directs us to opt for the policy producing the highest level of net benefits which can be sustained indefinitely’, ’decisively favours renewable sources', ruling out the nuclear option. Other lesser rules Goodin discusses, which have not really been applied in the nuclear debate, and which lead yet ^further from the Old Paradigm ie framework ^arm-avoidance and protecting-the- vulnerable^also yieldj/ the same nuclear-excluding results. Harm-avoidance, in particular, points ’decisively in favour of "alternative" and "renewable" energy sources ... combined with strenuous efforts at energy conservation’ The upshot is evident: whatever reasonable decision rule is adopted (p.442). the result is the same, a^ nuclear choice is rejected, even by Old Paradigm standards. Nor would reversion to an expected utility analysis alter this conclusion; for such analyses are but glorified cost-benefit analyses, with probabilities duly multiplied in, and the is as before from cost-benefit considerations, against a nuclear choice. The Old Paradigm does not, it thus appears, sustain the nuclear juggernaut: nor does its Modification. The real reasons for the continuing development program and the heavy commitment to the program have to be sought elsewhere, outside the Old Paradigm, at least as preached. It is, in any case, sufficiently evident that contemporary economic behaviour does not accord with Old Paradigm percepts, practice does not accord with neo-classical, economic �/theory nor, to consider the main modification, with social 1 theory. There are, firstly, reasons of previous commitment, when nuclear power, cleverly promoted at least, looked a rather cheaper and safer deal, and certainly profitable one: corporations so committed are understandably keen to realise returns on capital already invested. There are also typical self-interest reasons for commitment to the program, that advantages accrue to some, like those whose field happens to be nuclear engineering, that profits accrue to some, like giant corporations, that are influential in political affairs, and as a spin-off profits accrue to others, and so on. There are just as important, ideological reasons, such as a belief in the control of both political and physical power by technocratic-entreprenial elite, a belief in social control from above, control which nuclear power offers far more than alternatives, some of which (vaguely) threaten to alter the power base, a faith in the unlimitedness of technological enterprise, and nuclear in particular, so that any real problems that arise will be solved as development proceeds. Such beliefs are especially conspicuous in the British scene, among the governing and technocratic classes. Within contemporary corporate capitalism, these sorts of reasons for nuclear development are intimately linked, because those whose types of enterprise benefit substantially from nuclear development are commonly those who hold the requisite beliefs. It is then, contemporary corporate capitals^m, along with its state enterprise image, that fuels the nuclear juggernaut. To be sure, corporate capitalism, which is the political economy largely thrust upon us in western nations, is not necessary for a nuclear future; a totalitarian state of the type such capitalism often supports in the third world will suffice. But, unlike a hypothetical state that does conform to precepts of the Old Paradigm, it is sufficient for a nuclear future - evidently, since we are well embarked on such a future. The historical route by which the world reached its present advanced threshold to a nuclear future, confirms this diagnosis. This diagnosis can be /split into two main cases, the national development of nuclear power in the /US^ and the international spread of nuclear technology for which the US has been largely responsible. By comparison with the West, nuclear power production in /the Eastern bloc is which had in 1977 only nuclear plants. II and is largely confined to the Soviet Union oneCj-5^ -** the wattage output of U/ Nuclear development in USSR has been, of course, a state controlled and subsidized venture, in which there has been virtually no public participation or discussion; but Russian technology has not been exported else­ where to any great extent. American technology has. �45. The 60s were, because of the growth in electricity demand, a period of great expansion of the electrical utilities in the US. These companies were encouraged to build nuclear plants, rather than coal or oil burning plants, for several state controlled or influenced reasons:- Firstly, owing to governmental regulation procedures the utilities could (it then seemed) earn a higher rate of profit on a nuclear plant than a fossil fuel one. Secondly, the US government arranged to meet crucial costs and risks of nuclear operation, and in this way, and more directly through its federal agencies, actively encouraged a nuclear choice and nuclear development. In particular, state limitation of liability and shouldering of part of insurance for nuclear accidents and state arrangements to handle nuclear wastes were what made profitable private utility operation appear feasible and resulting in nuclear 4 /investment. In the 70s, though the state subsidization picture changed : continued, the private ’high costs of construction combined with low capacity //factors and poor reliability have wiped out the advantage that nuclear/ had enjoyed in the US. Much as the domestic nuclear market in the US is controlled by a few corporations, so the world market is dominated by a few countries, predominantly and first of all the US, which through its two leading nuclear companies, Westinghouse and General Electric, has been the major exporter of nuclear technology. " These companies were enabled to gain entry into European and subsequently world markets by US foreign policies, basically the "Atoms for Peace" program supplemented by bilateral agreements providing for US technology, /research, enriched uranium and financial capital. (The US offered a jstate /subsidized) nuclear package that Europe could not refuse and with which the ' British could not compete’. In the 70s the picture of US domination of Common Market nuclear technology had given way to subtler influence: American companies /held dcadSjig with relevant governments) substantial interests in European and Japanese nuclear companies and held licences on the technology which remained largely American. Meanwhile in the 60s and 70s the US entered into bilateral agreements for civilian use of atomic energy with many other countries, for X example, Argentina, Brasil, Columbia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, / Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Portugal, South Africa, , /Taiwan, Turkey, Venezuela, South Vietnam. The US proceeded?in their way, to ship nuclear technology and nuclear materials in great quantities round the world. It also proceeded to spread nuclear technology through the International Atomic Energy Agency, originally designed to control and safeguard nuclear operations, but most of whose * budget activities’. and activities ... have gone to promote nuclear �A main reason for the promotion and sales pressure on Third World countries has been the failure of US domestic market and industrial world Less developed countries markets for reactors. 2 offer a new frontier where reactors can be built with easy public financing, where health and safety regulations are loose and enforcement rare, where public opposition is not permitted and where weak and corrupt regimes offer / easy sales. fForJ ... the US has considerable leverage with many of these countries. We know from painful experience that many of the worst dictatorships in the planet . would not be able to stand without overt and covert US support. ' Many of those are now^ y?ocrinithe nuclear path, for all the worst reasons. ' J It is evident from this sketch of the ways and means of reactor proliferation that not only have practices departed far from the framework of the Old Paradigm and social Modification, but that the practices (of corporate capitalism and associated third world imperialism) involve much that is ethically unacceptable, by o^rfer, modified, or alternative percepts;^ for principles such as assembled. viyxAi/r and self-determination are grossly violated. IX. SOCIAL OPTIONS : SHALLOWER AND DEEPER ALTERNATIVES. The future energy option that is most often contrasted with nuclear power, namely coal power, while no doubt preferable to nuclear power, is hardly acceptable. For it ii carries with it the likelihood of serious (air) pollution and associated phenomena such as acid rain and atmospheric heating, not to mention the despoliation caused by extensive strip mining, all of which result from its use in meeting very high projected consumption figures. Such an option would also fail, it seems, to meet the necessary transfer condition, because it would impose widespread costs on nonbeneficiaries for some concentrated benefits to some profit takers and to some users who do not pay the full costs of production 1 58 and replacement. To these conventional main options a third is often added which emphasizes softer and more benign technologies, such as those of solar energy and, in Northern Europe, hydroelectricity. The deeper choice, which even softer paths tend to neglect, is not technological but social, and involves both conservation measures and the restructuring of production away from energy intensive uses: at a more basic level there is a choice between consumeristic and nonconsumeristic futures. These more fundamental choices between social alternatives, conventional technologically-oriented discussion of energy options tends to be obscure. It is not just a matter of deciding in which way to meet �47. given and unexamined goals (as the Old Paradigm would imply), but also a matter of examining the goals. That is, we are not merely faced with the question of comparing different technologies or substitute ways of meeting some fixed or given demand or level of consumption, and of trying to see whether we can meet this with soft rather than hard technologies; we are also faced, and primarily, with the matter of examining those alleged needs and the cost of a society that creates them. It is not just a question of devising less damaging ways to meet these I alleged needs conceived of ps inevitable and unchangeable. (Hence there are solar ways of producing unnecessary trivia no one really wants, as opposed to nuclear ways.) Naturally this is not to deny that these softer options are superior because of the ethically unacceptable features of the harder options. But it is doubtful that any technology, however benign in principle, will be likely to leave a tolerable world for the future if it is expected to meet unbounded and uncontrolled energy consumption and demands. Even the more benign technologies such as solar technology could be used in a way which creates costs for future people and are likely to result in a deteriorated world being handed on to them. Consider, for example, the effect on the world’s forests, which are commonly counted as a solar resource, of use for production of methanol or of electricity by woodchipping (as already planned by forest authorities and contemplated by many other energy organisations). While few would object to the use of genuine waste material for energy production, the unrestricted exploitation of forests - whether it goes under the name of "solar energy" or not - to meet ever increasing energy demands could well be the final indignity for the world’s already hard-pressed natural forests. The effects of such additional demands on the maintenance of the forests are often dismissed, even by soft technologicalists, by the simple expedient of waving around the label ’renewable resources’. Many forests are in principle renewable, it is a true, given a certain (low) rate and kind of exploitation, but in fact there are now very few forestry operations anywhere in the world where the forests are treated as completely renewable in the sense 59 of the renewal of all their values. In many regions too the rate of exploitation which would enable renewal has already been exceeded, so that a total decline is widely thought to be imminent if not already well advanced. It certainly has begun in many regions, and for many forest types (such as rainforest types) which are now, and very rapidly, being lost for the future. The addition of a major further and not readily limitable demand pressure, that for energy, on top of present pressures is one which anyone with a realistic appreciation of the conduct of contemporary forestry operations, who is also concerned with long-term conservation of the forests and remaining natural communities, must regard with alarm. The result of massive deforestation for energy purposes, �48. resembling the deforestation of England at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, again for energy purposes, would be extensive and devastating erosion in steeper lands and tropical areas, desertification in more arid regions, possible climatic change, and massive impoverishment of natural ecosystems. Some of us do not want to pass on - we are not entitled to pass on - a deforested world to the future, any more than we want to pass on one poisoned by nuclear products or polluted by coal products. In short, a mere switch to a more benign technology - important though this is - without any more basic structural and social change is inadequate. Nor is such a simple technological switch likely to be achieved. It is not as if political pressure could oblige the US government to stop its nuclear program (and that of the countries it influences, much of the world), in the to succeed in halting the Vietnam war. way pressure appeared While without doubt it would be good if this could be accomplished, it is very unlikely given the integration of political powerholders with those sponsorinanuclear , . , 60 development. The deeper social options involve challenging and trying to change a social structure which promotes consumerism, consumption far beyond genuine needs, and an economic structure which encourages increasing use of highly energy-intensive modes of production. This means, for instance, trying to change a social structure in which those who are lucky enough to make it into the work force are cogs in a production machine over which they have very little real control and in which most people do unpleasant or boring work from which they derive very little real satisfaction in order to obtain the reward of consumer goods and services. A society in which social rewards are obtained primarily from products rather than processes, from consumption, rather than from satisfaction in work and in social relations and other activities, is virtually bound to be one which generates a vast amount of unnecessary consumption. (A production system that produces goods not to meet genuine needs but for created and non- genuine needs is virtually bound to overproduce.) Consumption frequently becomes a substitute for satisfaction in other areas. The adjustments focussed upon are only parts of the larger set of adjustments involved in socially implementing the New Paradigm, the move away from consumerism is for example part of the more general shift from materialism and materialist values. The social change option tends to be obscured in most discussions of energy options and of how to meet energy needs, in part because it does question underlying values of current social arrangements. The conventional discussion proceeds by taking alleged demand (often conflated with wants or needs ^) as unchallengeable, and the issue to be one of which technology can �49. be most profitably employed to meet them. This effectively presents a false choice, and is the result of taking needs and demand as lacking a social context so that the social structure which produces the needs is similarly taken as unchallengeable and unchangeable. I /'of The point is readily illustrated. such industries as f transportation It is commonly argued by representatives and petroleum, as for example by McGrowth of the XS Consumption Co., that people want deep freezers, air conditioners, power boats, ... It would be authoritarian to prevent them from satisfying these wants. Such an argument conveniently ignores the social framework in which such needs and wants arise or are produced. To point to the determination of many such wants at the framework level is not however to accept a Marxist approach according to which they are entirely determined at the framework level (e.g. by industrial organisation) and there is no such thing as individual choice or determination at all. It is to see the social framework as a major factor in determining certain kinds of choices, such as those for travel, and to see apparently individual choices made in such matters as being channelled and directed by a social framework determined largely in the interests of corporate and private profit and advantage. The social change option is a hard option - at least it will be difficult to obtain politically - but it is the only way, so it has been argued, of avoiding passing on serious costs to the future. And there are other sorts of reasons than such ethical ones for taking it: it is the main, indeed the only sort of option open to those who take a deeper ecological perspective0 , a perspective integral with the New Paradigm but not essential to radical departure from the dominant paradigm. The ethical transmission requirement defended accordingly requires, hardly surprisingly, social and political adjustment. The social and political changes that the deeper alternative requires will be strongly resisted because they and power structure. mean changes in current social organisation To the extent that the option represents some kind of threat to parts of present political and economic arrangements it is not surprising that official energy option discussion proceeds by misrepresenting and often obscuring it. But difficult though a change will be, especially one with such far-reaching effects on the prevailing power structure, is to obtain, it is imperative to try : we are all on the nuclear train. �FOOTNOTES 1. All but the last line of the quote is drawn from Goodin, p. 417; the last line is from the Fox Report, p. 6. While it is unnecessary to know much about the nuclear fuel cycle in order to consider ethical and social dimensions of nuclear power, it helps to know a little. & Abbotts, Gyorgy. The basics are presented in many texts, e.g. Nader Of course in order to assess fully reports as to such important background and stage-setting matters as the likelihood of a core meltdown of a (lightwater) reactor, much more information is required. For many assessment purposes however, some knowledge of economic fallacies and decision theory is at least as important as knowledge of nuclear technology. 2. As to the first, see references cited in Goodin, p. 417, footnote 1. As regards the second see Cotgrove and Duff, and some of the references given therein. 3. Cotgrove and Duff, p. 339. 4. The table is adapted from Cotgrove and Duff, p. 341; compare also Catton and Dunlap, especially p. 34. 5. See, e.g., Gyorgy, pp. 357-8. 6. For one illustration, see the conclusions of Mr Justice Parker at the Windscale inquiry (The Windscale Inquiry Vol. 1 Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 1978), discussed in both Cotgrove and Duff, p. 347 and in Goodin, p. 501 ff. 7. Much as with the argument of one theory or position against another. One can argue both from one’s own position against the other, and in the other’s own terms against the other. 8. As well as screening the debate from the public such manoeuvres favour the (pro-)nuclear establishment, since they (those of the alliance of military, large industry, and government) control much of the information and (subject to minor qualifications) can release what, and only what, suits them. 9. This is a conclusion of several governmental inquiries and is conceded by some leading proponents of nuclear development; for requisite details up to 1977 see Routley (a). The same conclusion has been reached in some, but not all, more recent official reports, see, e.g., �2 10. z For some details see Gyorgy, p. 60 ff. 11a. Naturally the effect on humans is not the only factor that has to be taken into account in arriving at moral assessments. Nuclear radiation, unlike most ethical theories, does not confine its scope to human life and welfare. But since the harm nuclear development may afflict on non-human life, for example, can hardly improve its case, it suffices if the case against it can be made out solely in terms of its effects on human life in the conventional (Old Paradigm) way. 11. See the papers, and simulations, discussed in Goodin, p. 42^? 12. On the pollution and waste disposal record of the nuclear industry, see Nader and Abbotts, Lovins and Price, and Gyorgy. On the more general problem of effective pollution controls, see also, Routley (a), footnote 7. Back of thus Humanity Unlimited assumption is the idea of Man 13. replacing God. First God had unlimited power, e.g. over nature, then when during the Enlightenment Man replaced God, Man was to have unlimited Science and technology were the tools which were to put Man into the power. position of unlimitedness. More recently nuclear power is seen as providing man at least with unlimited physical power, power obtained through technology, [ability to manage technology r&a/esents the past] On such limitation theorems, which go back to Finsler and Godel on one side and to Arrow on the other, see, e.g. Routley 80. All these theorems mimic paradoxes, semantical "paradoxes" on one side and voting "paradoxes" on the other. Other different limitation results are presented in Routley 81. It follows that there are many problems that have no solution and much that is necessarily unknowable. Limitative results put a serious dent in the progress picture. According the Dominant Western Worldview, / the his histo^ of humanity is one of progress; for every problem there is a solution, and thus progress need never cease (Catton and Dunlap, p. 34). 15. See Lovins and Price. /15a. The points also suggest a variant argument against a nuclear future, namely . A nuclear future narrows the range of opportunities open to future generations. . ’What justice requires ... is that the overall range of opportunities open to successor generations should not be narrowed' T- re (Barry, p.243). re~ a nuclear future contravenes requirements of justice. �3 16. For examples, and for some details of the history of philosophers' positions on obligations to the future, see Routley (a). 17. Passmore, p. 91. Passmore’s position is ambivalent and, to all appearances, inconsistent. It is considered in detail in Routley (a), as also is Rawls’ position. 18. For related criticisms of the economists’ arguments for discounting, and for citation of the often eminent economists who sponsor them, see Goodin, pp. 429-30. 19. The reasons (not elaborated here) are that the properties are different e.g. a monetary reduction of value imposes a linear ordering on values to which value rankings, being only partial orderings, do not conform. 20. Goodin however puts his case against those rules in a less than What he claims is that we cannot list all the satisfactory fashion. possible outcomes in the way that such rules as expected utility maximization presupposes, e.g. Goodin suggests that we cannot list all the things that can go wrong with a nuclear power plant or with waste storage procedures. But outstanding alternatives can always be comprehended logically, at worst by saying "all the rest” (e.g. ~p covers everything except p). For example, outcomes Goodin says cannot be listed, can be comprehended along such lines as "plant breakdown through human error”. Furthermore the different I mote rules Goodin subsequently considers also require listing of ' "possible" outcomes. Goodin's point can be alternatively stated however. are really two points. The first trouble is that such There alternative^ cannot in general be assigned required quantitative probabilities, and it is at that point that applications of the models breaks down. The breakdown is just what separates decision making under uncertainty from decision making under risk. Secondly, many influential Applications of decision theory methods, I the Rasmussen Report is a good example, do, illegitimately, delete possible X /alternatives from their 21. Discount, or bank, rates in the economists’ sense are usually set to follow the market, cf. P.A. Samuelson, TfoCTZCWWS., 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967, p.351. 22. Thus the rates have little moral relevance. A real possibility is one which there is evidence for believing could eventuate. A real possibility requires producible evidence for its consideration. The contrast is with mere logical possibility. �4 24. Such a principle is explicit both in classical utilitarianism (e.g. Sidgwick p. 414), and in a range of contract and other theories from Kant and •-jtA? >v / Rousseau to Rawls (p. 293). How the principle is will depend ' heavily, however, on the underlying theory; and we do not want to make our use depend heavily on particular ethical theories. 25. The latter question is taken up in section VII; see especially, the Poverty argument. 26. SF, p. 27. Shrader-Frechette is herself somewhat crritical of the /carte blanche adoption of these methods, suggesting that^whoever affirm^ denies the desirability of ... [such] standards is, to some degree, /symbollically assenting to a number of American value patterns and culture / * (p. 28). 27. The example parallels the sorts of utilitarianism, e.g. the admissible »unterexamples often advanced to I of an innocent person because of pleasure given to the large lynching party. For the more general case against utilitarianism, see ... 28. US Atomic Energy Commission, Comparative Risk-Cost-Benefit Study of Alternative sources of Electrical Energy (WASH-1224), US Government Printing Office, Washington, 29. , December 1974, p.4-7 and p. 1-16. As SF points out, p.37-44., in some detail. As she remarks, ... since standards need not be met, so long as the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory commission] judges that the licence shows ’a reasonable effort’ at meeting them, current policy allows government regulators to trade .■ human health and welfare for the [apparent] good. E^j/ch] / intentions of the promotors of technology. / good intentions have never been known to be sufficient for the morality of an act (p. 39). The failure of state regulation, even where the standards are as mostly not very X /demanding, and the alliance of regulators with they are supposed to be regulating, are conspicuous features of modern environmental control, not just of (nuclear) pollution control. 30. �The figures are those from the original Brookhaven Report: 31. possibilities and consequences of major ’Theoretical accidents in large nuclear plants’, USAEC Report WASH-740, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1957. This report was requested in the first place because the ^n Atomic Energy wanted positive safety conclusions "to reassure the private insurance companies" so that they would provide coverage for the nuclear industry. Since even the conservative statistics of the report were alarming it was suppressed and its data were not made public until almost 20 years later, after a suit was brought as a result of the Freedom of Information Act (Shrader-Frechette, pp. 78-9). Atomic Energy Commission, Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of 32. Accident Risks in US Commercial. Nuclear Power Plants, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975. This report, the only allegedly complete study, concluded that fission reactors presented only a minimal health risk to the public. Early in 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the relevant organisation that superseded the troubled Atomic Energy Commission) withdrew its support for the report, with the result that there is now no comprehensive analysis of nuclear power approved by the US Government. 32a. Most present and planned reactors are of this type: see Gyorgy. 33. 34. Even then relevant environment factors may have been neglected. 35. There are variations on (i) and (ii) which multiply costs against numbers such as probabilities. In this way risks, construed as probable costs, can be taken into account in the assessment. (Alternatively, risks may be assessed through such familiar methods as msuranc^Ly A principle varying (ii), and formulated as follows: a is ethically acceptable if (for some b) a includes no more risks than b and b is socially accepted, was the basic ethical principle in terms of which the Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry recently decided that nuclear power development �in Saskatchewan is ethically acceptable: see Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry Final- Report , Department of Environment, Government of Saskatchewan, 1978, p. 305 and p. 288. In this report, a is nuclear power and b is either activities clearly accepted by society as alternative power sources, In other applications b has been taken as cigarette smoking, motoring, mining and even the Vietnam War (!) points made in the text do not exhaust the objections to principles (i) - (ii’). The principles are certainly ethically substantive, since an ethical consequence cannot be deduced from nonethical premisses, but they have an inadmissible conventional character. For look at the origin of b: b may be socially accepted though it is no longer socially acceptable, or though its social acceptibility is no longer so clearcut and it would not have been socially ^accepted if as much as is nc^ known had been known when it was introduced. What is required in (ii'), for instance, for the argument to begin to look convincing is then ’ethically acceptable’ rather than ’socially accepted'. But even with the amendments the principles are invalid, for the reasons given in the text. It is not disconcerting that these arguments do not work. It would be sad to see yet another area lost to the experts, namely ethics to actuaries. 36. A main part of the troub|le/with the models is that they are narrowly utilitarian, and like utilitarianism they neglect distributional features, involve naturalistic fallacies, etc. Really they try to treat as an uncon- strained optimisation what is a deontically constrained optimisation: see R. and V. Routley 'An expensive repair kit for utilitarianism’. 37. Apparent exceptions to the principle such as taxation (and redistribution of income generally) vanish when wealth is construed (as it has to be taxation is to be properly justified) as at least partly a social asset unfairly monopolised by a minority of the population. Examples such as that of motoring dangerously do not constitute counterexamples to the principle; for one is not morally entitled to so motor. 38. SF, p. 15, where references are also cited. 39. Goodin, p. 433. 40. On all these points see R. Grossman and G. Daneker, Guide to Jobs and Energy3 Environmentalists for Full Employment, Washington DC, 1977, pp.1-7, the details supplied in substantiating the interesting case of Commoner-, well the absorption off available capital by the nuclear industry, see as e-'/ On the mployment issues, see too idd, p. 149. A Z|. K-ola&Az, -fl '(La. j>o/'-bics d �A more fundamental challenge to the poverty argument appears in I. Illicit, Energy and Equality, Calden and Boyars, London 1974, where it is argued that the sort of development nuclear energy represents is exactly the opposite of what the poor need. For much more detail on the inappropriateness see E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful, Blond, and Briggs, London, 19 73. o As_to the capital and <o other requirements, see/£2J, p. 48, and also For an illuminating look at the sort o technology will tend to promote in the so-called underdeveloped countries see the paper of Waiko and other papers in The Melanesian Environment (edited J.H. Winslow), ^usp/alian National University Press, Canberra, 1977. 42. A useful survey is given in A. Lovins, Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken, Friends of the Earth Australia, 1977 (reprinted from Foreign Affairs, October 19 76); see alsod^tT'J,p. 233«r-ff^ and Schumacher, op. cit. 43. An argument like this is suggested in Passmore, Chapters 4 and 7, with respect to the question saving resources. In Passmore this argument for the overriding importance of passing on contemporary culture is underpinned fl by what appears to be a future-directed ethical version of the Hidden Hand argument of economics that, by a coincidence which if correct would indeed fortunate, the best way to take care of the future (and perhaps even the only way to do so, since do-good intervention is almost certain to go wrong) is to take proper care of the present and immediate future. The argument has all the defects of the related Chain Argument discussed above and others. cK See Nader and Abbotts, p. 66, p. 191, and also Commor^. Very persuasive arguments to this effect have been advanced by civil liberties groups and others in a number of countries: see especially M. Flood and R. Grove-White, Nuclear Prospects. A comment on the individual^ the State and Nuclear Power, Friends of the Earth, Council for the Protection of Rural England and National Council for Civil Liberties, London, 1976. 46. ’US energy policy, fo^ example, since the passage of the 1954 Atomic / Energy Act, has been that/nuclear power is necessary to provide "an economical /and reliable basis" r^te'ded "to sustain economic growth" (SF, p.lll, and references there cited). �7 47. There are now a great many criticisms of the second premiss in the literature. n X For our criticism, and a reformulation of the premiss in terms of selective economic growth (which would exclude nuclear development), see - ■ — '■ Routley (b) , and alsoj'Berkley and Seckier. To simple-mindedly contrast economic growth with no-growth, in the fashion lZ-lof soiief discussions of nuciear power, c,f/ Elster, is to leave out crucial X /alternatives; the of course much simplifies the otherwise faulty case for unalleged growth. 48. In UK and USSR nuclear development is explicitly in the public domain, in such countries as France and West Germany the government has very substantial interests in main nuclear involved companies. Even as regards nuclear plant operation in the US, / I it is difficult to obtain comprehensive Estimates of cost very dramtically according to the samp 1p of plants chosen and the assumptions made concerning the measurement of plant performance (Gyorgy, p. 173). 49. See Kalmanoff, p. 50. See Comey. 51. Ref. to what it has to say about Price 52. Full ref to ^F from ignorance etc. 53. These e.g. Elster, p. 377. On decision theory see also, I f54. A recent theme iyymuch economic literature is that theory and risk analysis can be universally applied. The theme is upset as soon as one steps outside of select Old Paradigm confines. y £ /within these confines there is no decision In any case, even at all on, and few (and ^widely diverging) figures for> the probability of a reactor core meltdown, and no reliable estimates as to the likelihood of a nuclear confrontation, Thus Goodin argues (in 78) that ’such uncertainties plague energy theories’ utility calculations impossible”. as to ’ 55. For details see Gyorgy, P. 398 ff., from which presentation of the international story is adapted. �Gyorgy, p. 307, and p. 308. 56. For elaboration of some of the important points, see Chesrmsky and Hermann. Whatever one thinks of the ethical principles underlying the Old 57. Paradigm or its Modification - and they do form a coherent set that many J people respect - these are not the principles underlying contemporary corporate capitalism and associated third-world imperialism. Certainly practical transitional programs may involve temporary and 58. ^v\ limited use of unacceptable long ter^ commodities such as coal, but in presenting such practical details one should not lose sight of the more basic social and structural changes, and the problem is really one of making those. Similarly practical transitional strategies should make use of such measures as environmental (or replacement) pricing of energy i.e. so that the price of some energy unit includes the full cost of replacing it by an equivalent unit taking account of environmental cost of production. Other (sometimes cooptive) strategies towards more satisfactory alternatives should also, of course, be adopted, in particular the removal of institutional barriers to energy conservation and alternative technology (e.g. local government regulations blocking these), and the removal of state assistance to fuel and power industries. Symptomatic of the fact that it is not treated as renewable is that 59. forest economics do not generally allow for full renewability - if they did the losses and deficits on forestry operations would be much more striking than they already are often enough. It is doubtful, furthermore, that energy cropping of forests can be a fully renewable operation if net energy production is to be worthwhile; see, e.g. the argument in L.R.B. Mann ’Some difficulties with energy farming for portable fuels’ 9 60. and add in the costs of ecosystem maintenance. For an outline and explanation of this phenomena see Gyorgy, and also . The requisite distinction is made in several places, e.g. Routley (b), and and (to take one example from the real Marxist literature), 61. V Gyorgy-.' 62. by The distinction between shallow and deep ecology was first emphasised For its environmental importance see Routley (c) (where further references are cited). �/references. primary General the For t the reader ca ext that over er...ref^ences wilt—unS'"by consulting the latter ■ S. Cotgrove and A. Duff, ’Environmentalism, middle-class radicalism and politics’, Sociological Review 2$ (2) (1980), 333-51. R.E. Goodin, ’No moral nukes’, Ethics 90 (1980), 417-49. A. Gyorgy and Friends, No Nukes: everyone’s guide to nuclear power, South End Press, Boston, Mass., 1979. R. Nader and J. Abbotts, The Menace of Atomic Energy, Outback Press, Melbourne, 1977. R. and V. Routley, ’Nuclear energy and obligations to the future’, Inquiry 21 (1978), 133-79 (cited as Routley (a)). Fox Report: Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry First Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1977. K.S. Schrader-Frechette, Nuclear Power and Public Policy, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980 (referred to as SF). W.R. Catton, Jr., and R.E. Dunlap, ’A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology’, American Behavioral Scientist 24 (1980) 15-47. United States Interagency Review group on Nuclear Waste Management, Report to the President, Washington. (Dept, of Energy) 1979. (Ref. No. El. 28. TID- 29442) (cited as US(a)). L, A.B. Covins and J.H. Price, Non-Nuclear Futures: The Case for an Ethical Energy Strategy, Friends of the Earth International, San Francisco, 1975. R. Routley, ’On the impossibility of an orthodox social theory and of an orthodox solution to environmental problems’, Logique et Analyje, , 23 (1980), 145-66. R. Routley, ’Necessary limits for knowledge: unknowable truths’, in Essays in honour of Paul Weing^T^^ (ed. E. 'tforsc^er) , Salzberg, 1980. J. Passmore, Man’s Responsibility for Nature, D^ckwairth, London, 1974. Passmore, �2. R. and V. Routley, The Fight for the Forests, Third Edition, RSSS, Australian National University, 1975 (cited as Routley (b)). J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., J) 3fid ^/s^ckler o i/i_ t~ot^/c\ l * _ J. Elster, 'Risk, uncertainty and nuclear power’, Social Science Information 18 (3) (1979) 371-400. £, £ J. Robinson, Economic Heresies, Basic Books, New York, 1971. / Barry, ’Circumstances of Justice and future generations' in Obligations to Future Generations (ed. ^ .1. * Si^rrj^and B. Barry), Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 19 78. /f £< c Zy c>~f . - ) yT —f. f / 1 /f4. c~~tt\A c j < / /7Z , (X KT , // / /{. fi)o^S $ ; } //67- Zy? z77G_ /6 6z7 3)?r * 6 /V4 ■ C rr * /f / <^ch_^ /_ z?73. . \Jol.jJZ �o 0 Hh Z CL 3 TO o p. 3 3 Z 3 o z co rt O rt TO B z f Z CL TO 3 3 O Hi 3 3 3 3 PO □ 3 Z Prt pj £rt O Z O 00 *< *3 3 3 O '•s rt Z CL 'C 3 3 "o' 3 3 co o 3 3 fb 3 i-h O >< P- O rt (0 z 3 3 rt PO 0 (b z o w O a P M § o B rt rt 3 3 O' 3 Z 3 3 3 3 CL CL 3 Z Z 3 3 rt 3 Z L<J z 3 rt 3 3 3 prt 3 CL B Z Z z w 3 3 rt 3 a rt 3 S' 3 TO O' 3 3 3 3 P- TO 00 O 5 C 3 3 3 TO O' Z Z 3 3 3 rt rt O Z Z 3 3 * < rt •3 Z 3 Z 3 3 3 O 3 rt * 3 3 3 O CD to 3 3 rt rt 3 Z < O Z 3 O 3 CO M z > 3 3 > H g s M Z P1 3 X PO' Z 3 >3 g 3 3 Z n o P' P> 1 tn 3 3 * p 3 O > f rf CO 3 CL CD rf 3 O 00 3 O 3 3 P- 1 CL 3 3 rt O Z 3 O Z 3 3 3 * p 3 3 rt 3 3 * P PTO 3 CL 3 3 O 3 3 rt rf 3 Z Z TO 3 CL n O Z w A t< O <Z> * H O s cn rt H» rt C rt B co * H H« CD F—* n Hl Hl H« :r o > z o 5 1 S' P3 3 3 3 3 S' P3 3 P- Z 3 rf 3 H O S' PO 3 Z t-1 a o 3 Ft s: H« O 3 3 3 CL rt P" O H 3 O CL c 3 0Q 3 P3 <S n O rt C O 3 Z 3 3 Z 3 3 rt P. 3 Pz 3 rt * P < 3 rt P3 * p 3 3 C rt> p * 3 Z z—\ 3 M X) 3 3 rt co 3 3 tn C CD rt 3 c n rt > C rt * 3 O 3 Prt 3 rt Z < 3 f Z A A Z o z 3 «! 3 3 CL CO Z 2 z 3 O < Pco p> o 3 TO O 3 P3 Z 3 o p> P1 3 3 rt P< 3 M 00 3 Z p. rt 3 3 Z 3 3 3 3 3 CL rt O 3 3 Z 3 rt 3 CL H 3 3 O 3 3 TO rt 3 tn p rti 3 rt 3 rt 3 3 3 TO rt P‘ Z 3 O' z p3 H- 3 CD 3 z Z 3 3 3 3 CL rh 3 3 rt rt> 0 Z H- O 3 3 CD 3 $ O Si 3 CD H1 3 CD 3 3 CD 3 3 Z t-h S' CL 1 PS' 3 < 3 Z 3 B >3 3 Hi Hi fl) H fl) * 3 H pf o CL Z < PCL X- W n o z o J3j z 3 rt C 3 3 Z C 3 S P3 rt 3 P3 CD Pn 3 3 CD CD rt p. o 9 fl) CD rt) H Hi 1 z-s 1 3 jb rt rt) K * H CD z O 3 5 rt g CL 3 < 3 Z O Z 3 Z TO 3 O 3 00 3 3 CO 3 O CD C CD 3 3 3 3 3 CL 5 2 z-s 3 O O 3 ? 3 rt 3 3 Z (u Z B 3 3 P3 O rt 00 < 3 3 O Z « C rt 3 S' CL • 3 3 < P3 O 2 3 rt C 3 3 pi < 3 Z c 3 P- 3 0 rt CL < S' P3 O 3 3 g rt 3 3 3 rt 3 o 5 B SS 3 3 3 3 3 3 rt 3 O < 3 3 3 3 rt Z O 3 p- o B e W cz> n o Z w <3 > r c z 3 3 3 CL Z 00 B Z 3 3 3 CL P00 B cn o o p3 Z rt 3 3 5 z O O B Alternative Environmental �Dominant Social Paradigm Alternative Environmental Paradigm Domination over nature Non-material (self-realisation) Natural environment intrinsically valued Harmony with nature * ECONOMY Market forces Risk and reward Rewards for achievement Differentials Individual self-help Public interest Safety Incomes related to need Egalitarian Collective/social provision POLITY Authoritative structures (experts influential) Hierarchical Law and order Action through official institutions Participative structures (citizen/ worker involvement) Non-hierar chical Liberation Direct action SOCIETY Centralised Large-scale Associational Ordered Decentralised Small-scale Communal Flexible NATURE Ample reserves Nature hostile/neutral Environment controllable Earth’s resources limited Nature benign Nature delicately balanced KNOWLEDGE Confidence in science and technology Rationality of means (only) Limits to science Rationality of ends CORE VALUES Material (economic growth, progress and development) Natural environment valued as resource State socialism, as practised in most of the "Eastern bloc", differs as to economic organisation, the market in particular being replaced system by a command system).$ But since there is virtually no debate confines of state socialism, that minor variant on the Old Paradigm from the Old Paradigm really only by central planning (a market over a nuclear future within the need not be delineated here. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document SOCIAL AND POLITICAL DIMENSIONS PETING PARADIGMS AND THE NUCLEAR DEBATE. One hardly needs initiation into the dark mysteries of nuclear physics to contribute usefully to the debate now widely ranging over nuclear power. While many important empirical questions are still unresolved, these do not really lie at the centre of the controversy. Instead, it is a debate about values ... many of the questions which arise are social and ethical ones. Sociological investigations have confirmed that the nuclear debate is primarily one over what is worth having or pursuing and over what we are entitled to do A, to others. They have also confirmed that the debate is polarised along the 'ij^nes of competing paradigms." According to the entrenched paradigm discerned, that constellation of values, attitudes and beliefs often called the Dominant Social Paradigm (hereafter the Old Paradigm), economic criteria become the benchmark by which a wide range of individual and social action is judged ahd evaluated. And belief in the market and market mechanisms is quite central. Clustering around this core belief is the conviction that enterprise flourishes best in a system of risks and rewards, that differentials are necessary ..., and in the necessity for some form of division of labour, and a hierarchy of skills and expertise. In particular, there is a belief in the competence of experts in general and of scientists in particular. ... there is an emphasis on quantification. The rival world view, sometimes called the Alternative Environmental Paradigm (the New Paradigm) differs on almost every point, and, according to sociologists, 4 in ways summarised in the following table Dominant Social Paradigm^ Alternative Env'i ronmen tal Paradigm CORE VALUES Material (economic growth, progress and development) Natural environment valued as resource Domination over nature Non-material (self­ realisation) Natural environment intrinsically valued Harmony with nature * ECONOMY Market forces Risk and reward Towards for achievement Differentials Individual self-help Public interest Safety Incomes related to need Egalitarian Collective/social provision I POLITY Authoritative structures (experts influential) Hierarchical ----.Law and order ^Action through official institutions) ——Centralized ---------Large-scale Associational Ordered Participative structures (citizen/worker involvement) ^■Non-hierarchical Liberation Direct action /Decentralised" * Small-scale Communal Flexible NATURE Ample reserves Nature hostile/neutral Environment controllable Earth’s resources limited Nature benign Nature delicately balanced KNOWLEDGE Confidence in science and technology Rationality of means (only) Limits to science Rationality of ends * ^tate socialism, as practiced in most of the "Eastern bloc", differs from the Old Paradigm really only as to economic organisation, the market in particular being replaced by central planning (a market system by a command system). But since there is virtually no debate over a nuclear future within the confines of state socialism,that minor variant on the Old Paradigm need not be delineated here. No doubt the competing paradigm picture is a trifle simple ^and subsequently it is important to disentangle a Modified Old Paradigm, which softens the old economic assumptions with social welfare requirements’^: and really ^instead of a New Paradigm there are rather counterparadigms, a cluster of not very well worked out positions that diverge from the cluster marked out as the Old Paradigm). Nonetheless it is empirically investigable, and, most important, it enables the nuclear debate to be focussed. Large- scale nuclear development, of the sort now occurring in much of the world, runs counter to leading tenets (such as societal features) of the New Paradigm. Indeed to introduce ethical and social dimensions into the assessment of nuclear power, instead of or in addition to merely economic factors such as cost and efficiency, is already to move somewhat beyond the received paradigm. For under the Old Paradigm, strictly construed, the nuclear debate is confined to the terms of the narrow utilitarianism upon which contemporary economic practice is premissed, the issues to questions of economic means (to assumed economistic ends) along with technological, social engineering and other ^instrumental details^: whatever falls outside these terms is (dismissed as) irrational. Furthermore, nuclear development receives its support from adherents of the Old Paradigm. Virtually all the arguments in favour of it are set within the assumption framework of the Old Paradigm, and without these assumptions the case for the nuclear future the world is presently committed to fails. But in fact the argument for a nuclear future from the Old Paradigm is itself broken-backed and ultimately fails, unless the free enterprise economic assumptions are replaced by the ethically unacceptable assumptions of advanced (corporate) capitalism. The two paradigm picture also enables our case against a nuclear future (a case written from outside the Old Paradigm) to be structured. There are two main parts'^?:- It is argued, firstly, from without the Old Paradigm, that nuclear development is ethically unjustifiable; but that, secondly, even from within the framework of the ethically dubious Old Paradigm, such development is unacceptable, since significant features of nuclear development conflict with indispensible features of the Paradigm (e.g. costs of project development and state subsidization with market independence and criteria for project selection). It has appeared acceptable from within the dominant paradigm only because ideals do not square with practice, only because the assumptions of the Old Paradigm are but very rarely applied in contemporary political practice, 3 the place of pure (or mixed) capitalism having been usurped by corporate capitalism. It is because the nuclear debate can be carried on within the framework of the Old Paradigm that the debate - although it is a debate about values, because of the conflicting values of the competing paradigms - is not just a debate about values; it is also a debate within a paradigm as to means to already assumed (economistic) ends, and of rational choice as to energy roptions within a predetermined framework of values. ^In this corner belong, as explained in section VIII, most decision theory arguments, arguments often considered as encompassing all the nuclear debate is ethically about, best utilitarian means to predetermined ends.) For another leading characteristic of the nuclear debate is the attempt, under the dominant paradigm to remove it from the ethical and social sphere, and to divert it into specialist issues whether over minutiae and contingencies of present technology or over medical g or legal or mathematical details. The double approach can be applied as regards each of the main problems nuclear development poses. There are many interrelated problems, and the argument is further structured in terms of these. For in the advancement and promotion of nuclear power we encounter a remarkable combination of factors, never ^before assembled^: establishment, on a. massive scale, of an industry which involves at each stage of its processing serious risks and at some stages of production possible catastrophe, which delivers as a by-product radioactive wastes which require up to a million years’ storage but for which no sound and economic storage methods are known, which grew up as part of the war industry and which is easily subverted to deliver nuclear weapons, which requires for its operation considerable secrecy, limitations on the flow of information and restrictions on civil liberties, which depends for its economics, and in order to generate expected profits, on substantial state subsidization, support, and intervention. with problems. It is, in short, a very high techological development, beset A first important problem, which serves also to exemplify ethical issues and principles involved in other nuclear power questions, is the unresolved matter of disposal of nuclear wastes. II. THE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEM, AND THE TRAIN PARABLE. A long distance country train has just pulled out. crowded carries both passengers and freight. The train which is At an early stop in the journey someone consigns as freight, to a far distant destination, a package which contains a highly toxic and explosive gas. This is packaged in a very thin container which, as the consigner is aware, may not contain the gas for the 4 full distance for which it is consigned, and certainly will not do so if the train should strike any real trouble, for example if there is a breakdown and the interior of the train becomes very hot, if the train should be derailed or involved in a collision, or if some passenger should interefere inadvertently or deliberately with the freight, perhaps trying to steal some of it. All of these sorts of contingencies have occurred on some previous journeys. If the container should break the resulting disaster would probably kill at least some of the people on the train in adjacent carriages, while others could be maimed or incur serious diseases. Most of us would roundly condemn such an action. consigner of the parcel say to try to justify it? What might the He might say that it is not certain that the gas will escape and that it is mere speculation to suppose it will, that the world needs his product and it is his duty to supply it, and that in any case he is not responsible for the train or the people on it. These sorts of excuses however would normally be seen as ludicrous when set in this context. What is worth remarking is that similar excuses are not always so seen when the consigner, again a "responsible” businessman, puts his workers' health or other peoples' welfare at risk. Suppose he ways that it is his own and others1pressing needs which justify his action. The company he controls, which produces the material as a by-product, is in bad financial straits, and could not afford to produce a better container even if it knew how to make one. If the company fails, he and his family will suffer, his employees will lose their jobs and have to look for others, and the whole company town, through loss of spending and the cancellation of the Multiplier Effect, will be worse off. The poor and unemployed of the town, whom he would otherwise have been able to help, will suffer especially. Few people would accept such a story, even if correct, as justification. Even where there are serious risks and costs to oneself or some group for whom one is concerned one is usually considered not to be entitled to simply transfer the heavy burden of those risks and costs onto other uninvolved parties, especially where they arise from one's own, or one's group's, chosen life-style. The matter of nuclear waste disposal has many moral features which resemble the train case. /progresses. How fitting the a^gwaent is will become apparent as the argument There is no known proven safe way tjfi package the highly toxic wastes generated by the nuclear plants that will be spread around the world as 9 large-scale nuclear development goes ahead. The waste problem will be much more serious than that generated by the 50 or so reactors in use at present, with 5. each one of the 2000 or so reactors envisaged by the end of the century producing, on average, annual wastes containing 1000 times the radioactivity of the Hiroshima bomb. Much of this waste is extremely toxic. For example, a millionth of a gramme of plutonium is enough to induce a lung cancer. Wastes will include the reactors themselves, which will have to be abandoned after their expected life times of perhaps 40 years, and which, some have estimated, may require 1^ million years to reach safe levels of radioactivity. Nuclear wastes must be kept suitably isolated from the environment for their entire active lifetime. For fission products the required storage period averages a thousand years or so, and for transuranic elements, which include plutonium, there is a half to a million year storage problem. Serious problems have arisen with both short-term and proposed long-term methods of storage, even with the comparatively small quantities of waste produced over the last twenty years.10 Short-term methods of storage require continued human inter­ vention, while proposed longer term methods are subject to both human inter­ ference and risk of leakage through non-human factors. No one with even a slight knowledge of the geological and climatic history of the earth over the last million years, a period whose fluctuations in climate we are only just beginning to guage and which has seen four Ice Ages, could be confident that a rigorous guarantee of safe storage could be provided for the vast period of time involved. Nor does the history of human affairs over the last 3000 years give ground for confidence in safe storage by methods requiring human intervention over perhaps a million years. Proposed long-term storage methods such as storage in granite formations or in salt mines, are largely speculative and relatively untested, and have already proved to involve difficulties with attempts made to put them into practice. Even as regards expensive recent proposals for first embedding concentrated wastes in glass and encapsulating the result in multilayered metal containers before rock deposit, simulation models reveal that radioactive material may not remain suitably isolated from human environment. In short, the best present storage proposals carry very real possibilities of irradiating future people and 1 la damaging their environment. Given the heavy costs which could be involved for the future, and given the known limits of technology, it is methodologically unsound to bet, as nuclear nations have, on the discovery of safe procedures for storage of wastes. Any new procedures (required before 2000) will probably be but variations on present proposals, and subject to the same inadequacies. For instance, none of the proposed methods for safe storage has been properly tested, and they may 6. well prove to involve unforeseen difficulties and risks when an attempt is made to put them into practice on a commercial scale. provide a rigorous guarantee of Only a method that could safety over the storage period, that placed safety beyond reasonable doubt, would be acceptable. It is difficult to see how such rigorous guarantees could be given concerning either the geological or future human factors. But even if an economically viable, rigorously safe long term storage method could be devised, there is the problem of guaranteeing that it would be universally and invariably used. The assumption that it would be (especially if, as appears likely, such a method proved expensive economically and politically) seems to presuppose a level of efficiency, perfection and concern for the future which has not previously been encountered in human affairs, and has certainly not been conspicuous in the nuclear industry. Again, unless we assume continuous and faultless guarding of long term storage sites through perhaps a million years of possible future human activity, weapons- grade radioactive material will be accessible, over much of the million year storage period, to any party who is in a position to retrieve it. (L The assumption that a way will nonetheless be found, before 2000, / e. 'which gets around the wast^ storage problem (no longer a nere disposal problem) is accordingly not rationally based, but is rather like many assumptions of ways, / /'n /an article of faith. It is an assumption supplied by the Old Paradigm, a no limitations assumption, that there are really no (development) problems that cannot be solved technologically (if not in a fashion that is always immediately economically feasible). The assumption has played an important part in development plans and practice. It has not only encouraged an unwarranted 13 technological optimism (not to say hubris ), that there are no limits to what humans can accomplish, especially through science; it has led to the embarcation on projects before crucial problems have been satisfactorily solved or a solution is even in sight, and it has led to the idea that technology can always be suitably controlled. It has also led, not surprisingly, to disasters. There are severe limits on what technology can achieve (some of which are becoming known in the 14 form of limitation theorems ); and in addition there are human limitations which modern technological developments often fail to take due account of (risk analysis of the likelihood of reactor accidents is a relevant example, discussed below). The original nuclear technology dream was that nuclear fission would provide unlimited energy (a ’clean unlimited supply of power’). shattered. and nuclear That dream soon The nuclear industry apparently remains a net consumer of power, fission will be but a quite short-term supplier of power. 7. The risks imposed on the future by proceeding with nuclear development are, then, significant. Nuclear fission creates wastes which may remain toxic for a million years, but even with the (suspect) breeder reactor it could be an energy source for only perhaps 150 years. It will do nothing for the energy problems of the people of the distant future whose lives could be seriously affected by the wastes. Thus perhaps 40,000 generations of future people could be forced to bear significant risks resulting from the provision of the (extravagant) energy use of only a small proportion of the people of 10 generations. Nor is the risk of direct harm from the escape or misuse of radioactive materials the only burden the nuclear solution imposes on the future. Because the energy provided by nuclear fission is merely a stop gap, it seems probable that in due course the same problem, that of making a transition to renewable sources of energy, will have to be faced again by a future population which will probably, again as a result of our actions, be very much worse placed to cope For they may well have to face the change to renewable resources in an with it. over-populated world not only burdened with the legacy of our nuclear wastes, but also in a world in which, if the nuclear proponents' dreams of global industrialisation are realised, more and more ^pf the global population will have become dependent on high energy consumption and associated technology and heavy resource use and will have lost or reduced its ability to survive without it. It will, moreover, probably be a world which is largely depleted of non-renewable resources, and in which such renewable resources as forests and soils as remain, resources which will have to form a very important part of the basis of life, 15a are in a run-down condition. Such points tell against the idea that future people muelF be, if not direct beneficiaries of nuclear fission energy, at least indirect beneficiaries. It is for such reasons that the train parable cannot be turned around to work in favour of nuclear power, with for example, the nuclear train bringing relief as well as wastes to a remote town powered (only) by nuclear power. The 'Solution" then is to buy time for contemporary industrial society at a price which not only creates serious problems for future people but which reduces their ability to cope with those problems. Like the consigner in the train parable, contemporary industrial society proposes, in order to get itself out of a mess arising from its chosen life style - the creation of economies dependent on an abundance of non-renewable energy, which is limited in supply - to pass on costs and risks of serious harm to others who will obtain no corresponding benefits. The "solution” may enable the avoidance of some uncomfortable changes 8. in the lifetime of those now living and their immediate descendants, just as the consigner’s action avoids uncomfortable changes for him and his immediate surroundings, but at the expense of passing heavy burdens to other uninvolved parties, whose opportunity to lead decent lives may be seriously jeopardised. I Industrial society has - under each paradigm, so it will be argued - clear alternatives to this action, which is taken essentially to avoid changing corporately-controlled patterns of consumption and protect the interest of those comparatively few who benefit from them. If we apply to the nuclear situation, so perceived, the standards of behaviour and moral principles generally acknowledged (in principle if perhaps often not in fact) in the contemporary world, it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that nuclear development involves gross injustice with respect to the future.There appear to be only two plausible moves that might enable the avoidance of such a conclusion. First, it might be argued that the moral principles and obligations which we acknowledge for the contemporary world and the immediate future do not apply because the recipients of the nuclear parcel are in the non-immediate future. Secondly, an attempt might be made to appeal to overriding circumstances, for to reject the consigner’s action in the circum­ stances outlined is not of course to imply that there are no circumstances in which such an action might be justifiable, or at least where the matter is less clearcut. It is the same with the nuclear case. Just as in the case of the consigner of the package there is a need to consider what these justifying circumstances might be, and whether they apply in the present case. We consider these possible escape routes for the proponent of nuclear development in turn, beginning with the question of our obligations to the future. Resolution of this question casts light on other ethical questions concerning nuclear develop­ ment. It is only when these have been considered that the matter of whether there are overriding circumstances is taken up again (in section VII). Ill OBLIGATIONS TO THE (DISTANT) FUTURE. The especially problematic area is that of the distant (i.e. non-immediate) future, the future with which people alive today will have no direct contact: by comparison, the immediate future gives fewer problems for most ethical theories. In fact the question of obligations to future people presents tests which a number of ethical theories fail to pass, and also has serious repercussions in political philosophy as regards the adequacy of accepted (democratic and other) institutions which do not take due. account of the interests of future creatures. Moral philosophers have, predictably, differed on the issue. A good many of the philosophers who have explicitly considered the question have come down in favour of the same considerations being given to the rights and interests of future people as to those of contemporary or immediately future people. Other philosophers have tended to fall into three categories - those who acknowledge obligations to the future but who do not take them seriously or who assign them a lesser weight, those who deny or who are committed by their general moral position to denying that there are moral obligations beyond the immediate future, and those who come down with admirable philosophical caution, on both sides of the issue, but with the weight of the argument favouring the view underlying prevailing economic and political institutions, that there are no moral obligations to the future beyond perhaps those to the next generation. According to the most extreme of these positions against moral obligations to the future, our behaviour with respect to the future is morally unconstrained, there are no moral restrictions on acting or failing to act deriving from the effect of our actions on future people. Of those philosophers who say, or whose views imply that we do not have obligations to the (non-immediate) future, who have opted for the unconstrained position, many have based this view on accounts of moral obligation which are built on relations which presuppose some temporal or spatial contiguity. Thus moral obligation is seen as grounded on or as presupposing various relations which could not hold between people widely separated in time (or sometimes in space). For example, obligation is seen as grounded in relations which are proximate or of short duration and also non-transitive. Among such suggested bases or grounds of moral obligation, or requirements on moral obligation, which would rule out obligations to the nonimmediate future are these:- Firstly there are those accounts which require that someone to whom a moral obligation is held be able to claim his rights or entitlement. People in the distant future will not be able to claim rights and entitlements as against us, and of course they can do nothing effective to enforce any claims they might have for their rights Secondly, there are those accounts which base moral obligations on social or legal convention, for example a convention which would require punishment of offenders or at least some kind of social enforcement. But plainly these and other conventions will not hold invariant over change in society and amendment of legal conventions and so will not be invariant over time. Also future people have no way of enforcing their interests or punishing offenders, and there could be no guarantee that any contemporary institutions would do it for them. 10. Both the view that moral obligation requires the context of a moral community and the view that it is contractually based appear to rule out the distant future as a field of moral obligation as they not only require a commonality or some sort of common basis which cannot be guaranteed in the case of the distant future, but also a possibility of interchange or reciprocity of action which cannot apply to the future. Where the basis of moral obligation is seen as mutual exchange the interests of future people must be set aside because they cannot change the past and cannot be parties to any mutual contract. The exclusion of moral obligations to the distant future also follows from those views which attempt to ground moral obligations in non-transitive relations of short duration such as sympathy and love. As well there are difficulties about love and sympathy for (non-existent) people in the far distant future about whose personal qualities and characteristics one must know very little and who may well be committed to a life-style for which one. has little or no sympathy. On the current showing in the case of nuclear energy it would be easy to conclude that contemporary society lacks both love and sympathy for future people; and it would appear to follow from this that contemporary people had no obligations concerning future people and could damage them as it suited them. What all these views have in common is a picture of obligation as something acquired, either individually or institutionally, something which is conditional on doing something or failing to do something (e.g. participating in the moral community, contracting), or having some characteristic one can fail to have (e.g. love, sympathy, empathy).^ Because obligation therefore becomes conditional, features usually (and correctly) thought to characterise obligation such as universality of application and necessitation (i.e. the binding features) are lost, especially where there is a choice whether or not to do the thing required to acquire the obligation, and so as to whether to acquire it. The criteria for acquisition suggested are such as to exclude people in the distant future. The view that there are no moral constraints with respect to future people, that one is free to act however one likes with respect to them, is not however sustainable. Consider, for example, a scientific group which, for no particular reason other than to test a particular piece of technology, places in orbit a cobalt bomb set off by a triggering device designed to go off several hundred years from the time of its despatch. No presently living person and none of their immediate descendants would be affected, but the population of 11. the earth in the distant future would be wiped out as a result of the action. direct and predictable The unconstrained position clearly implies that this is an acceptable moral enterprise, that whatever else we might legitimately criticize in the scientists’ experiment, perhaps its being over-expensive or badly designed, we cannot lodge a moral protest about the damage it will do to future people. The unconstrained position also endorses as morally acceptable the following sort^ of policy:- A firm discovers it can make a handsome profit from mining, processing and manufacturing a new type of material which, although it causes no problem for present people or their immediate descendants, will over a period of hundreds of years decay into a substance which will cause an enormous epidemic of cancer among the inhabitants of the earth at that time. According to the unconstrained view the firm is free to act in its own interests, without any consideration for the harm it does remote future people. Such counterexamples to the unconstrained view, which are easily varied and multiplied, might seem childishly obvious. Yet the unconstrained position concerning the future from which they follow is far from being a straw man; not only have several philosophers endorsed this position, but it is a clear implication of many currently popular views of the basis of moral obligation, as well as of prevailing economic theory. It seems that those who opt for the unconstrained position have not considered such examples, despite their being clearly implied by their position. We suspect that - we would certainly hope that - when it is brought out that the unconstrained position admits such counterexamples, that being free to act implies among other things being free to inflict pointless harm for example, most of those who opted for the unconstrained position would want to assert that it was not what they intended. What many of those who have put forward the unconstrained position seem to have had in /mind^denying moral obligation is rather that future people can look after themselves, that we are not responsible for their lives. The popular view that the future can take care of itself also seems to assume a future causally But it is not. It is not as if, in the counter- example cases or in the nuclear case, the future is simply being left alone to take care of itself. Present people are influencing it, and in doing so thereby acquire many ^Jf the same sorts of moral responsibilities as they do in causally affecting the present and immediate future, namely the obligation to take account in what they do of people affected and their interests, to be careful in their actions, to take account of the genuine probability of their actions causing harm, and to see that they do not act so as to rob future people of the chance of a good life. 12. Furthermore, to say that we are not responsible for the lives of future people does not amount to the same thing as saying that we are free to do as we like with respect to them, that there are no moral constraints on our action involving them. In just the same way, the fact that one does not have or has not acquired an obligation to some stranger with whom one has never been involved, that one has no responsibility for his life, does not imply that one is free to do what one likes with respect to him, for example to rob him or to pursue some course of action of advantage to oneself which could seriously harm him. These difficulties for the unconstrained position arise in part from the (sometimes deliberate) failure to make an important distinction between acquired or assumed obligation toward somebody, for which some act of acquisition or assumption is required as a qualifying condition, and moral constraints, which require, for example, that one should not act so as to damage or harm someone, and for which no act of acquisition is required. There is a considerable difference in the level and kind of responsibility involved. In the first case one must do something or be something which one can fail to do or be, e.g. In the second case responsibility arises I have loves, sympathy, be contracted. as a result of being a causal agent who is aware of the consequences or probable consequences of his action, and thus does not have to be especially acquired or assumed. Thus there is no problem about how the latter class, moral constraints, can apply to the distant future in cases where it may be difficult or impossible for acquisition or assumption conditions to be satisfied. They apply as a result of the ability to produce causal effects on the distant future of a reasonably predictable nature. Thus also moral constraints can apply to what does not (yet) exist, just as actions can cause results that do not (yet) exist. While it may perhaps be the case that there would need to be an acquired or assumed obligation in order for it to be claimed that contemporary people must make special sacrifices for future people of an heroic kind, or even to help them especially, only moral constraints are needed in order for us to be constrained from harming them. Thus, to return to the train parable, the consigner cannot argue in justification of his action that he has never assumed or acquired responsibility for the passengers, that he does not know them and therefore has no love or sympathy for them and that they are not part of his moral community, in short that he has no special obligations to help them. All that one needs to argue concerning the train, and the nuclear case, is that there are moral constraints against harming, not that there are specially acquired obligations to take responsibility for the lives of people involved. There has been an attempt to represent all obligations to the distant future in terms of heroic self-sacrifice, something which cannot of course be morally required. But in view of the distinctions between constraints and acquired obligation and between obligation and supererogation this is just 13. to misrepresent the position of these obligations. For example, one is no more engaging in heroic self-sacrifice by not forcing future people into an unviable life position or by refraining from causing then direct harm than the consigner resorting to heroic self-sacrifice in refraining from placing his dangerous package on the train. The conflation of moral restraints with acquired obligation, and the attempt therewith to view all constraints as acquired and to write off nonacquired constraints, is facilitated through the use of the term ’moral obligation’ both to signify any type of deontic constraints and also to indicate rather something which has to be assumed or required. The conflation is encouraged by reductionist positions which, in attempting to account for obligation in general, mistakenly endeavour to collapse all obligations. Hence the equation, and some main roots * of the unconstrained position, of the erroneous belief that there are no moral constraints concerning the distant future. The unconstrained view tends to give way, under the weight of counter­ examples, to more qualified, and sometimes ambivalent, positions, for example the position that our obligations are to immediate posterity, we ought to try to improve the world so that we shall be able to hand it over to our immediate successors in a better condition, and that is all;17 there are in practice no obligations to the distant future. A main argument in favour of the latter theme is that such obligations would in practice be otiose. Everything that needs to be accounted for can be encompassed through the chain picture of obligation as linking successive generations, under which each generation has obligations, based on loves or sympathy, only to the succeeding generation. account. There are at least three objections to this chain First, it is inadequate to treat constraints concerning the future as if they applied only between generations, as if there were no question of constraints on individuals as opposed to whole generations, since individuals can create causal effects, e.g. harm, on the future in a way which may create individual responsibility, and which often cannot be sheeted home to an entire generation. Nuclear power and its wastes, for example, are strictly the responsibility of small groups of power-holders, not a generational responsibility. Secondly, such chains, since non-transitive, cannot yield direct obligations to the distant future. But for this very reason the chain picture cannot be adequate, as examples again show. For the picture is unable to explain several of the cases that have to be dealt with, e.g. the examples already discussed which show that we can have a direct effect on the distant future without affecting the next generation, who may not even be able to influence matters. 14. Thirdly, improvements for immediate successors may be achieved at the expense of disadvantages to people of the more distant future. Improving the world for immediate successors is quite compatible with, and may even in some circumstances be most easily achieved by, ruining it for less immediate successors. Such cases can hardly be written off as ’’never-never land" examples since many cases of environmental exploitation might be. seen as of just this type. e.g. not just the nuclear case but also the exhaustion of non-renewable resources and the long-term depletion of renewable resources such as soils and forests through overuse. If then such obvious injustices to future people arising from the favouring or exclusive concern with immediate successors are to be avoided, obligations to the future will have to be seen as in some way fairly distributed over time, and not merely as accruing to particular generations in the way the chain picture suggests. IV. ATTEMPTS TO QUALIFY OBLIGATIONS TO THE FUTURE : ECQNQMISTIC UNCERTAINTY AND INDETERMINACY ARGUMENTS. While there are grave difficulties for the unconstrained position, qualification leads to a more defensible position. According to the main qualified position we are not entirely unconstrained with respect to the distant future, there are obligations, but these are not so important as those to the present, and the interests of distant future people cannot weigh very much in the scale against those of the present and immediate future. The interests of future people then, except in unusual cases, count for very much less than the interests of present people. Hence such things as nuclear development and various exploitative activities which benefit present people should proceed, even if people of the distant future are (somewhat) disadvantaged by them. The qualified position appears to be widely held and is implicit in prevailing economic theories, where the position of a decrease in weight of future costs and benefits (and so of future interests) is obtained by application over time of a discount rate, so discounting costs and risks to future people. The attempt to apply economics as a moral theory, something that is becoming increasingly common, can lead then to the qualified position. objectionable in such an approach is that What is economics should operate within the bounds of moral (deontic) constraints, just as in practice it operates within legal constraints, not determine what those constraints are. There are moreover alternative economic theories and simply to adopt, without further ado, one which discounts the future is to beg many questions at issue. 15. Among the arguments that economists offer for generally discounting the future, the most threadbare is based on the assumption that future generations will be better off than present ones, and so better placed to handle 18 the waste problem. Since there is mounting evidence that future generations may well not be better off than present ones, especially in things that matter, no argument for discounting the interests of future generations on this basis can carry much weight. Nor is that all that is wrong with the argument. For it depends at base on the assumption that poorer contemporaries would be making sacrifices to richer successors in foregoing such (allegedly beneficial) developments as nuclear power. sacrifice argument. That is, it depends on the already scotched In any case, for the waste disposal problem to be legitimately bequeathed to the future generations, it would have to be shown, what recent economic progress hardly justifies, that future generations will be, not just better off, but so much better off and more capable that they can duly absorb the nuclear waste burden. A more plausible argument for discounting is directly in terms of opportunity costs. It is argued, from the fact that a dollar gained now is worth much more than a dollar received in the non-immediate future (because the first dollar could meanwhile be invested at compound interest), that discounting is required to obtain equivalent monetary values, and so for efficient allocation of resources. Similarly it is argued, by virtue again of equalization of monetary value, that compensation - which is what the waste problem is taken to come to economically - costs much less now than later. Thus a few pennies set aside (e.g. in a trust fund) now or in the future, if need be, will suffice to compensate eventually for any victims of remote radioactive waste leakage. There are, presently at least, insurmountable practical difficulties about applying such discounting, e.g. how to determine appropriate future discount rates. A more serious objection is that applied generally, the argument presupposes, what is false, that compensation, like value, can always be converted into monetary equivalents, that people (including those outside market frameworks) can be monetarily compensated for a variety of damages, including cancer and loss of life. There is no compensating a dead man, or for a lost species. In fact the argument presupposes a double reduction neither part of which can succeed: it is not just that value cannot in general be represented at all adequately 19 monetarily, but (as against utilitarianism, for example) that constraints and obligations can not be somehow reduced to matters of value. It is also presupposed that all decision methods, suitable for requisite nuclear choices, 16. are bound to apply discounting. This is far from so : indeed Goodin argues that, on the contrary, more appropriate decision rules do not allow discounting, and discounting only works in practice with expected utility rules (such as underlie cost-benefit and benefit-risk analyses), which are, he contends strictly inapplicable for nuclear choices (since not all outcomes can be duly determined x 20 and assigned probabilities, in the way that application of the rules requires.). As the preceding arguments reveal, the discounting move often has the same result as the unconstrained position. If, for instance, we consider the cancer example and reduce costs to payable compensation, it is evident that over a sufficiently long period of time discounting at current prices would lead to the conclusion that there are no recoverable damages and so, in economic terms, no constraints. In short, even certain damage to future people could be written off. One way to achieve the bias against future people is by the application of discount rates which are set in accord with the current economic horizons of no 21 more than about 15 years, and application of such rates would simply beg the question against the interests and rights of future people. Where there is certain future damage of a morally forbidden type, for example, the whole method of discounting is simply inapplicable, and its use would violate moral constraints. Another argument for the qualified position, which avoids the objections from cases of certain damage, comes from probability considerations. The distant future, it is argued, is much more uncertain than the present and immediate future, so that probabilities are consequently lower, perhaps even approaching or coinciding with zero for any hypothesis concerning the distant future. But then if we take account of probabilities in the obvious way, by simply multiplying them against costs and benefits, it is evident that the interests of future people, except in cases where there is an unusually high degree of certainty, must count for (very much) less than those of present and neighbouring people where (much) higher probabilities are attached. So in the case of conflict between the present and the future where it is a question of weighing certain benefits to the people of the present and the immediate future against a much lower probability of indeterminate costs to an indeterminate number of distant future people, the issue would normally be decided in favour of the present, assuming anything like similar costs and benefits were involved. But of course it cannot be assumed that anything like similarly weighted costs and benefits are involved in the nuclear case, especially if it is a question of risking poisoning some of the earth for half a million or so years, with consequent risk of serious harm to thousands of generations of future people, in order to obtain doubtful benefits for some present people, in the shape of the opportunity to maintain corporation profitability or to continue unnecessarily high energy use. And even if the costs and benefits were comparable or unevenly weighted, 17. such an argument would be defective, since an analogous argument would show that the consigner’s action is acceptable provided the benefit, e.g. the profit he stood to gain from imposing significant risks on other people, was sufficiently large. Such a cost-benefit or risk-benefit approach to moral and decision problems, with or without the probability frills, is quite inadequate where different parties are concerned or to deal with cases of conflict of interest or moral problems where deontic constraints are involved, and commonly yields counterintuitive results. For example, it would follow on such principles that it is permissible for a firm to injure, or very likely injure, some innocent party provided the firm stands to make a sufficiently large gain from it. But the costs and benefits involved are not transferable in any simple or general way from one party to another . Transfers of this kind, of costs and benefits involving different parties, commonly raise moral issues - e.g. is x entitled to benefit himself by imposing costs on y - which are not susceptible to a simple cost-benefit approach of the sort adopted in promotion of nuclear energy, where costs to future people are sometimes dismissed with the soothing remark that any development involves costs as well as benefits. The limitations of transfer point is enough to invalidate the comparison, heavily relied on in building a case for the acceptability of the nuclear risk, between nuclear risks and those from such activities as airplane travel or cigarette smoking. In the latter case those who supposedly benefit from the activity are also, to an overwhelming extent, those who bear the serious health costs and risks involved. In contrast the users and supposed beneficiaries of nuclear energy will be risking not only, or even primarily, their own lives and health, but also that of others who may be non-beneficiaries and who may be spatially or temporally removed, and these risks will not be in any direct way related to a person’s extent of use. The transfer objection is essentially the same as that to the utilitarian’s (happiness) sums as a way of solving moral conflict between different parties, and the introduction of probability considerations - as in utilitarian decision methods such as expected utility rules - does not change the principles involved but merely complicates the analysis. One might further object to the probability argument that probabilities involving distant future situations are not always less than those concerning the immediate future in the wa/ the argument supposes, and that the outcomes of some moral problems do not depend on a high level of probability anyway. In some sorts of cases it is enough, as the train parable reveals, that a significant risk is created^ such cases do not depend critically on high probability assignments. 18. Uncertainty arguments in various forms are the most common and important ones used by philosophers, economists and others to argue for the position that we cannot be expected to taj^ke serious account of the effects of our actions on the distant future. There are two strands to the uncertainty argument, capable of separation, but frequently tangled up. Both arguments are mistaken, the first on a priori grounds, the second on a posteriori grounds. The first argument is a generalised uncertainty argument which runs as follows:- In contrast to the exact information we can obtain about the present, the information we can obtain about the effects of our actions on the distant future is unreliable, fuzzy and highly speculative. But we cannot base assessments of how we should act on information of this kind, especially when accurate information is obtain­ able about the present which would indicate different action. Therefore we must regretfully ignore the uncertain effects of our actions on the distant future. More formally and crudely: One only has obligations to the future if these obligations are based on reliable information at present as regards the distant future. Therefore one has no obligations to the distant future. This first argument is essentially a variant on a sceptical argument in epistemology concerning our knowledge of the future (formally, replace ’obligations’ by ’knowledge’ in the crude statement of the argument above). The main ploy is to considerably overestimate and overstate the degree of certainty available with respect to the present and immediate future, and the degree of certainty which is required as the basis for moral consideration with respect to the present Associated with this is the attempt to suggest and with respect to the future. a sharp division as regards certainty between the present and immediate future on the one hand and the distant future on the other. We shall not find, we suggest, that there is any such sharp or simple division between the distant future and the adjacent future and the present, at least with respect to those things in the present which are normally subject to moral constraints. We can and constantly do act on the basis of such ’’unreliable" information, as the sceptic as regards the future conveniently labels "uncertainty"; for sceptic­ proof certainty is rarely, or never, available with respect to much of the,, present and immediate future. In moral situations in the present, action often takes account of risk and probability, even quite low probabilities. Consider again the train example. We do not need to know for certain that the container will break and the lethal gas escape. In fact it does not even have to be probable, in the relevant sense of more probable than not, in order for us to condemn the consigner’s action. risk of harm in this sort of case. It is enough that there is a significant It does not matter if the decreased well­ being of the consigner is certain and that the prospects of the passengers quite uncertain, the resolution of the problem is nevertheless clearly in favour of the so-called "speculative" and "unreliable". But if we do not require certainty of action to apply moral constraints in contemporary affairs, why 19. should we require a much higher standard of certainty in the future? Why should we require for the future, epistemic standards which the more familiar sphere of moral action concerning the present and adjacent future does not need to meet? The insistence on certainty as a necessary condition before moral consideration can be given to the distant future, then, amounts to an eipstemic double standard. But such an epistemic double standard, proposed in explaining the difference between the present and the future and to justify ignoring future peoples' interests, in fact cannot itself provide an explanation of the differences, since it already presupposes different standards of certainty appropriate to each class, which difference is in turn in need of justification. The second uncertainty argument is a practical uncertainty argument, that whatever our theoretical obligations to the future, we cannot in practice take the interests of future people into account because uncertainty about the distant future is so gross that we canmot determine what the likely consequences of actions on it will be and therefore, however good our intentions to the people of the distant future are, in practice we have no choice but to ignore their interests. Uncertainty is gross where certain incompatible hypotheses are as good as one another and there is no rational ground for choosing between them. this way:- The second uncertainty argument can be put alternatively If moral principles are. like other principles, implicational in form, that is of such forms as "if x has character h then x is wrong, for every (action) x", then what the argument claims is that we cannot ever obtain the information about future actions which would enable us to detach the antecedent of the implication. So even if moral principles theoretically apply to future people, in practice they cannot be applied to obtain clear conclusions or directions concerning contemporary action action of the "It is wrong to do x" type. Many of the assumptions of the second argument can be conceded. If the distant future really is so grossly uncertain that in every case it is impossible to determine in any way that is better than chance what the effects of present action will be, and whether any given action will help or hinder future people, then moral principles, although they may apply theoretically to the future, will in practice not be applicable to obtain any clear conclusions about how to act. on action. Hence the distant future will impose no practical moral constraints However the argument is factually incorrect in assuming that the future always is so grossly uncertain or indeterminate. Admittedly there is often a high degree of uncertainty concerning the distant future, but as a matter of (contingent) fact it is not always so gross or sweeping as the 20. argument has to assume. There are some areas where uncertainty is not so great as to exclude constraints on action, especially when account is taken of the point, which was noticed in connection with the first argument, that complete certainty is commonly not required for moral constraints and that all that may be needed in Again there is considerable some cases is the creation of a significant risk. uncertainty about many factors which are not highly, or at all, morally relevant, but this does not extend to many factors which are of much greater importance to moral issues. For example, we may not have any idea what the fashions will be in a hundred years in names or footwear, or what flavours of ice cream people will be eating if any, but we do have excellent reason to believe, especially if we consider 3000 years of history, that what people there are in a hundred years are likely to have material and psychic needs not entirely unlike our own, that they will need a healthy biosphere for a good life; that like us they will not be immune to radiation; that their welfare will not be enhanced by a high incidence of cancer or genetic defects, by the destruction of resources, or the elimination from the earth of that wonderful variety of non-human life which at present makes it such a rich and interesting place. For this sort of reason, the second uncertainty argument should be rejected. The case of nuclear waste storage, and of uncertainty of the effects of it on future people, is one area where uncertainty in morally relevant respects is not so great as to preclude moral constraints on action, where we can ascertain if not absolute certainties at least probabilities of the same sort of order as are considered sufficient for the application of moral principles in parallel contemporary cases, especially where spatially remote people are involved. In particular there is not gross indeterminacy or uncertainty; it is simply not true that incompatible hypotheses about what may happen are as good as each other. It is plain that nuclear waste storage does impose significant risks of harm on future people, and, as is evident from the train example, the significant risk of harm is enough in cases of this type to make moral constraints applicable. In terms of the defects of the preceding uncertainty arguments, we can see the defects in a number of widely employed uncertainty arguments used to write off probable or possible harm to future people as outside the scope of proper consideration. Most of these popular moves employ both of the uncertainty arguments as suits the case, switching from one to the other in a way that is again reminiscent of sceptical moves. For example, we may be told that we cannot really take account of future people because we cannot be sure that they will exist or that their tastes and wants will not be completely different from our own, to the point where they will not suffer from our exhaustion of resources or from the 21. things that would affect us. But this is to insist upon complete certainty of a sort beyond what is required for the present and immediate future, where there is also commonly no guarantee that some disaster will not overtake those we are morally committed to. Again we may be told that there is no guarantee that future people will be worthy of any efforts on our part, because they may be r I morons o^ forever plugged into enjoyment of other machines. /prepared to accent the elitist approach presupposed p Even if one is according to which only those who meet certain properly civilized or intellectual standards are eligible for moral consideration - what we are being handed in such arguments as a serious defeating consideration is again a mere outside possibility - like the sceptic who says that solid-looking desk in front of us is perhaps only a facade, not because he has any particular reason for doing so, but because he hasn’t looked around the back, drilled holes in it, etc. etc. Neither the contemporary nor the historical situation gives any positive reason for supposing that a lapse into universal moronity or universal-pleasure-machine escapism is a serious possibility, as opposed to a logical possibility. We can contrast with these mere logical possibilities the very real historically supportable risks of escape of nuclear waste or decline of a civilisation through destruction of its resource base. p The possibilities just considered in these uncertainty arguments of /sceptical character are not ^feal possibilities. Another argument which may consider a real possibility, but still does not succeed in showing that it is acceptable to proceed with an action which would appear to be harmful to future people, is often introduced in the nuclear waste case. This is the argument that future people may discover a rigorously safe and permanent storage method for nuclear wastes before they are damaged by escaped waste material. Let us grant for the sake of the argument that this is a real possibility (though physical arguments may show that it is not). This still does not affect the fact that there is a significant risk of serious damage and that the creation of a significant risk is enough to rule out an action of this type as morally impermissible. In just the same way, future people may discover a cure for cancer: that this appears to be a live possibility, and not merely a logical possibility, does not make the action of the firm earlier discussed, of producing a substance likely to cause cancer in future people, morally admissible. The fact that there was a real possibility of future people avoiding the harm would show that actions of these sorts were admissible only if what was required for inadmissibility was certainty of harm or a very high probability of it. In such cases before such actions could 22. be considered admissible what would be required is far more than a possibility, 22 real or not - it is at least the availability of an applicable, safe, and rigorously tested, not merely speculative, technique for achieving it, something that future people could reasonably be expected to apply to protect themselves. The strategy of these and other uncertainty arguments is fairly clear then, and may be brought out by looking yet again at the train example where the consigner says that he cannot be expected to take account of the effect of his actions on the passengers because they may find an effective way to deal with his parcel or some lucky or unlucky accident may occur, e.g. the train may break down and they may all change to a different transport leaving the parcel behind, or the train may crash killing all the passengers before the container gets a chance to leak. These are all possibilities of course, but there is no positive reason to believe The 'that they are any more than that^ that is they are not live possibilities. strategy is to stress such remote possibilities in order to create the false impression that there is gross uncertainty about the future, that the real possibility that the container will break should be treated in the same way as these mere logical possibilities, that uncertainty about the future yis so great as to preclude the consigner’s taking account of the passengers’ welfare and the real possibility of harm from his parcel and thereby to excuse his action. A related strategy is to stress a real possibility, such as finding a cure for cancer, and thereby imply that this removes the case for applying moral constraints. This move implicitly makes the assumptions of the first argument, that certainty of harm, or at least a very high probability of harm is required before an action can be judged morally inadmissible, and the point of stressing the real possibility of avoidance of damage is to show that this allegedly required high degree of certainty or probability cannot be attained. That is, the strategy draws attention to some real uncertainty implying that this is sufficient to defeat the application of moral constraints. But, as we have seen, this is often not so. Closely related to uncertainty arguments are arguments premissed on the indeterminacy of the future. In particular it is argued that the indeterminacy, for example, with respect to the number and exact character of people at future times, would at least prevent the interest of future people being taken into account where there is a conflict with the present. Since their numbers are indeterminate and their interests unknown how, it is asked, can we weigh their competing claims against those of the present and immediate future where this information is available in a more or less accurate form? The question is raised particularly by problems of sharing fixed quantities of resources among present and future people, for example oil, when the numbers of the latter are indeterminate. Such problems are indeed difficult, but they are not resolved by ignoring the claims of the future, any more than the problems raised by the need to take account in decision-making of factors difficult to quantify are resolved by 23. ignoring such factors. Nor are distributional problems as large and representative of a class of moral problems concerning the future as the tendency to focus on them would suggest. It can be conceded that there will be cases where the indeterminacy of aspects of the future will make conflicts very difficult to resolve^ or indeed irresoluble - a realistic ethical theory will not deliver a decision procedure - but there will equally be other conflict cases where the level of indeterminacy does not hinder resolution of the issue, n e.g. the train example which is a conflict case of a type. In particular, there will be many cases which are not solved by weighing numbers, numbers of interests, or whatever, cases for which one needs to know only the most general probable characteristics of future people. The crucial question which emerges is then?: are there any features of future people which would disqualify them from full moral consideration or reduce their claims to such below those of present people? principle None. The answer is?: in Prima facie, moral principles are universalisable, and lawlike, in that they apply independently of position in space or in time, for example. But universalisability of principles is an outcome of those ethical theories which are capable of dealing satisfactorily with the present?: in other words, a theory that did not allow properly for the future would be found to have defects as regards the present, to deal unjustly or unfairly with some present people, e.g. those remotely located, those outside some select subgroup, such as (white­ skinned) humans, etc. The only candidates for characteristics that would fairly rule out future people are the logical features we have been looking at, such as uncertainty and indeterminacy; but, as we have argued, it would be far too sweeping to see these features as affecting the moral claims of future people in a general way. These special features only affect certain sorts of cases (e.g. the determination of best probable ol * present information). practical course of action given only In particular, they do not affect cases of the sort being considered, nuclear development, where highly determinate or certain information about the numbers and characteristics of the class likely to be harmed is not required, nor is certainty of damage. To establish obligations to the future a full universalizability principle is not required : it is enough that the temporal position of a person cannot affect his entitlement to just and fair treatment, to full moral 7/ consideration; inversely, that it is without basis to discriminate morally against a person in virtue of his temporal position. As a result of this 23a. universalizability, there are the same general obligations to future people as to the present; and thus there is the same obligation to take account of them and their interests in what we do, to be careful in our actions, to take account of the probability (and not just the certainty) of our actions causing harm or damage, and to see, other things being equal, that we do not act so as to rob them of what is necessary for the chance of a good life. and indeterminacy do not relieve us of these obligations. Uncertainty If in a closely comparable case concerning the present the creation of a significant risk is enough to rule out an action as immoral, and there are no independent grounds for requiring greater certainty of harm in the future case under consideration, then futurity alone will not provide adequate grounds for proceeding with the action, thus discriminating against future people. Accordingly we cannot escape, through appeal to futurity, the conclusion already tentatively reached, that proposals for nuclear development in the present and likely future state of technology and practices for future waste disposal are immoral. Before we consider (in section VII) the remaining escape route from this conclusion, through appeal to overriding circumstances, it is important to pick up the further case (which heavily reinforces the tentative conclusion) against nuclear development, since much of it relies on ethical principles similar to those that underlie obligations to the future, and since it too is commonly met by similar appeal to extenuating circumstances. V. PROBLEMS OF SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATION: REACTOR EMISSIONS, AND CORE MELTDOWN. The ethical problems with nuclear power are by no means confined to future creatures. Just as remoteness in time does not erode obligations or entitlements to just treatment, neither does location in spa^e, or a particular geographical position. First of all, the problem of nuclear waste disposal raises serious questions of distributive justice not only across time,1 across generations, but also across space. Is one state or region entitled to dump its radioactive pollution in I another state’s or region’s (or waters^ yar<^ When that region receives no due compensation (whatever that would amount to , in such a case), and the people do not agree (though the leaders imposed upon them might)? The answer, and the arguments underpinning the answer, are both like those already given in arguing to the tentative conclusion concerning the injustice of imposing radioactive wastes upon future people. But the cases are not exactly the same: USA and Japan cannot endeavour to discount peoples of the Pacific in whose regions they propose to drop some of their radioactive pollution in quite the same way they can discount people of two centuries hence. (But what this consideration really reveals is yet another flaw in the idea that entitlement to just treatment can (be discounted over time)L Ethical issues of distributive justice, as to equity, concern not only the spatio-temporal location of nuclear waste, but also arise elsewhere in the assessment of nuclear development; in particular, as regards the treatment of f kood' those in the neighbouij/ of reactors, and, differently, as regards the distribution of (alleged) benefits and costs from nuclear power across nations. People living or working in the vicinity of a nuclear reactor are subject to special costs and risks: firstly, radioactive pollution, due to the fact that reactors discharge radioactive materials into the air and water near the plant, 25. and secondly catastrophic accidents, such as (steam) explosion of a reactor. An immediate question is whether such costs and risks can be imposed, with any ethical legitimacy, on these people, who frequently have little or no say in their imposition, and who have mostly not been informed of any choices regarding the "risk/benefit tradeoffs” of nuclear technology. That they are so imposed, without local participation, indeed often without local input or awareness as with local opposition, reveals one part of the antidemocratic face of nuclear development, a part that nuclear development shares however with other largescale polluting industry, where local participation and questions, fundamental to a genuine democracy of regional determination and popular sovereignty, are commonly ignored or avoided. The "normal” emission, during plant operation, of low level radiation (A 'carries carcinogenic and mutagenic costs. While there are undoubtedly costs, there remains, however, substantial disagreement over the likely number of cancers and precise extent of genetic damage induced by exposure to such radiation, over the local health costs involved. Under the Old Paradigm, which (illegitimately) permits free transfer of costs and risks from one person to another, the ethical issue directly raised is said to be: what extent of cancer and genetic damage, if any, is permissibly traded for the advantages of nuclear power, and under what conditions? Under the Old Paradigm the issue is then translated into decision-theoretic questions, such as to ’how to employ risk/benefit analysis as a prelude to government regulation’ and ’how to determine what is an 26 acceptable level of risk/safety for the public. The Old Paradigm attitude, reflected in the public policy of some countries that have such policies, is that the economic benefits conferred by allowing radiation emissions outweigh the costs of an increase in cancer and genetic damage. An example will reveal that such evaluations, which rely for what appeal they have on a dubious utilitarianism, will not pass muster. It is a pity about Aunt Ethyl getting cancer, but it’s nice to have this air conditioner working in summer. Such frequently trivial and rather inessential benefits, which may be obtained alternatively, e.g. by modification of houses, in no way 27 compensate for the agony of cancer. The point is that the costs to one party are not justified, especially when such benefits to other parties can be alternatively obtained without such awful costs, and morally indefensible, being imposed. People, minorities, whose position is particularly compromised are those who live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. (Children, for example, are in a 26. particularly vulnerable position, since they are several times more likely to contract cancer through exposure than normal adults). In USA, such people bear a risk of cancer and genetic damage of as much as 50 times that borne by the population at large. A non-negligible percentage (in excess of 3% of those exposed for 30 years) of people in the area will die, allegedly for the sake of the majority who are benefitted by nuclear power production (allegedly, for the real reasons for nuclear development do not concern this silent majority). Whatever i-ktr charm the argument from overriding benefits had, even under the Old Paradigm, vanishes once it is seen that there are alternative, and in several respects less expensive, ways of delivering the real benefits involved. There are several other tricks used in showing that the imposition of radiation on minorities, most of whom have little or no genuine voice in the location of reactors in their environment and cannot move away without serious losses, is quite (morally) acceptable. One cheaper trick, deployed by the US 28 Atomic Energy Commission,” is to suppose that it is permissible to double, through nuclear technology, the level of (natural) radiation that a population received with apparently negligible consequences, the argument being that the additional amount (being equivalent to the ’’natural” level) is also likely to have negligible consequences. The increased amounts of radiation - with their large man-made component - are then accounted normal, and, of course, so it is then claimed, what is normal is morally acceptable. in this argument is sound. None of the steps Drinking one bottle of wine a day may have no ill- effects, whereas drinking two a day certainly may affect a person’s well-being; and while the smaller intake may have become normal for the person, the larger one will, under such conditions, not be. Finally, what is or has become normal, e.g. two murders or twenty cancers a day in a given city, may be far from acceptable. In fact, even the USA, which has strict standards by comparison with most other countries with planned nuclear reactors, permits radiation emissions very substantially in excess of the standards laid down; so the emission situation is worse than mere consideration of the standards would disclose. Furthermore, the monitoring of the standards ’’imposed” is entrusted to the nuclear operators themselves, scarcely disinterested parties. Public policy is determined not so as to guarantee public health, but rather to serve as a ’public pacifier' while 29 private nuclear operations proceed relatively unhampered. 27. While radioactive emissions are an ordinary feature of reactor operation, breakdown is, hopefully, not: an accident of magnitude is accounted, by official definition, an 'extraordinary nuclear occurrence . * But such accidents can happen, and almost have on several occasions (the most notorious being Three Mile Island). 30 If the cooling and emergency core cooling systems fail in American (light water) 30a reactors, then the core melts and ’containment failure’ is likely, with the result that an area of 40,000 square miles could be radioactively contaminated. In the event of the worst type of accident ini a very small reactor, a steam explosion in the reactor vessel, about 45,000l people would be killed instantly •and at least 100,000 would die as a result of: the accident, property damages would exceed $17 billion and an area the sizei of Pennsylvania would be destroyed, Modern nuclear reactors are about five times the size of the reactor for which 31 -k the consequences ofr a these conservative US government figures are given : similar accident with a modern reactor would accordingly be much greater still. V The consigner in risking the li^es, well-being and property of the / passengers on the train has acted inadmissibly. Does a government-sponsored private utility act in a way that is anything other than much less responsible in siting a nuclear reactor in a community, in planting such a dangerous package on the community train, The answer will be No, if the analogy holds good and the consigners' action is, as we would ordinarily •suppose, inadmissible and irrespon- The proponents of nuclear power have in effect argued to the contrary, & (while at the same time endeavouring to shift the dispute out if the ethical arena / and into a technological dispute as to means (in accordance with the Old Paradigm). sible. 0 It has been contended, firstly, what contrasts with the train example, that Indeed in the there is no real possibility of a catastrophic nuclear accident. 32 influential Rassmussen report - which was extensively used to support public confidence in US nuclear fission technology - an even stronger, an incredibly CO jstrong, imp?yjbability claim was stated: namely, the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident is so remote as to be Almost) impossible. The main argument for this claim derives from the assumptions and estimates of the report itself. These assumptions like the claim are undercut by nuclear incidents that came very close to accidents, incidents which reflect what happens in a reactor rather better than mathematical models. As with the storage of nuclear wastes, so with the operation of nuclear reactors, it is important to look at what happens in the actual world of technological limitatioms and human error, of waste leakage and reactor incidents and quite possibly accidents, not in an ideal world far removed from the actual, a technological dream world where there is no real possibility of a nuclear 28. catastrophe. In such an ideal nuclear world, where waste disposal were fool-proof and reactors were accident-proof, things would no doubt be morally different. But we do not live in such a world. According to the Rasmussen report its calculation of extremely low accident probabilities is based upon reasonable mathematical and technological assumptions and is methodologically sound. This is very far from being the case. The under­ lying mathematical methods, variously called "fault tree analysis" and "reliability estimating techniques", are unsound, because they exclude as "not credible" possibilities or as "not significant" branches that are real possibilities, which may well be realised in the real world. It is the In fact the methodology and data of the report 33 has been soundly and decisively criticized. And it has been shown that there eliminations that are otherworldly. is a real possibility, a non-negligible probability, of a serious accident. It is contended, secondly, that even if there is a non-negligible probability of a reactor accident, still it is acceptable, being of no greater order than risks of accidents that are already socially accepted. Here we encounter again that insidious engineering approach to morality built into models of an economic cast, e.g. benefit-cost balance sheets, risk assessment models, etc. Risk assessment, a sophistication of transaction or trade-off models, purports to provide a comparison between the relative risks attached to different options, e.g. energy options, which settles their ethical status. The following lines of argument are encountered in a risk assessment as applied to energy options: (i) if option a imposes costs on fewer people than option b then option a is preferable to option b; rV\ (ii) option a involves a total net cost in ter^s of cost to people (e.g. deaths, injuries, etc.) which is less than that of option b, which is already accepted; 34 therefore option a is acceptable. For example, the number lively to be killed by nuclear power stations is less than k the likely number killed by cigarette smoking or in road accidents, which are < 'accepted: so nuclear power stations are acceptable.^ little reflection reveals that this sort of risk assessment argument involves the same kind of fallacy as transaction models. It is far too simple-minded, and it ignores distributional and other relevant aspects of the context. In order to obtain an ethical assessment we should need a much fuller picture and we should need to know at least these things:- do the costs and benefits go to the same parties; and is the person who undertakes the risks also the person who receives the benefits or 29. primarily, as in driving or cigarette smoking, or are the costs imposed on other parties who do not benefit? It is only if the parties are the same in the case of the options compared, and there are no such distributional problems, that a 35 comparison on such a basis would be valid. This is rarely the case, and it is not so in the case of risk assessments of energy options. Secondly, does the person incur the risk as a result of an activity which he knowingly undertakes in a situation where he has a reasonable choice, knowing it entails the risk, etc., and is the level of risk in proportion to the level of the relevant activity, e.g. as in smoking? Thirdly, for what reason is the risk imposed: is it for a serious or a relatively trivial reason? A risk that is ethically acceptable for a serious reason may not be ethically acceptable for a trivial reason. Both the arguments (i) and (ii) are often employed in trying to justify nuclear power. The second argument (ii) involves the fallacies of the first (i) and an additional set, namely that of forgetting that the health risks in the or nuclear sense are cumulative, and already high if not, some say, too high. The maxim "If you want the benefits you have to accept the costs” is one thing and the maxim "If I want the benefits then you have to accept the costs (or some of them at least)" is another and very different thing. It is a widely accepted moral principle, already argued for by way of examples and already invoked, that one is not, in general, entitled to simply transfer costs of a significant kind arising fron an activity which benefits oneself onto other 37 parties who are not involved in the activity and are not beneficiaries. This transfer principle is especially clear in cases where the significant costs include an effect on life or health or a risk thereof, and where the benefit to the benefitting party is of a noncrucial or dispensible nature, because, e.g. it can be substituted for or done without. Thus, for instance, one is not usually entitled to harm, or risk harming, another in the process of benefitting oneself. Suppose, for another example, we consider a village which produces, as a result of an industrial process by which it lives , a noxious waste material which J !is expensive and difficult to dispose of and yet creates a risk to life and health if undisposed of. Instead of giving up their industrial process and turning to some other way of making a living such as farming the surrounding countryside, they persist with this way of life but ship their problem on a one-way delivery service, on the train, to the next village. The inhabitants of this village are then forced to face the problem either of undertaking the expensive and difficult disposal process oor of sustaining risks to their own lives and health or else leaving the village and their livelihoods. transfer of costs as morally unacceptable. Most of us would see this kind of 30. From this arises a necessary condition for energy options: that to be morally acceptable they should not involve the transfer of significant costs or risks of harm onto parties who are not involved, do not use the energy source or do not benefit correspondingly from its use. Included in the scope of this condition are not only future people and future generations (those of the next villages) but neighbours of nuclear reactors, especially, as in third world countries, neighbours who are not nuclear power users. The distribution of costs and damage in such a fashion, i.e. on to non-beneficiaries is a characteristic of certain widespread and serious forms of pollution, and is one of its most objectionable moral features. It is a corollary of the condition that we should not hand the world on to our successors in substantially worse shape than we received it - the tramsmission principle. For if we did then that would be a significant transfer of costs. (The corollary can be independently argued for on the basis of certain ethical theories). VI. OTHER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND COSTS OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR WAR. The problems already discussed by no means exhaust the ^environmental, health and safety risks and costs in^or arising from the * fuel cycle. nuclear The full fuel cycle includes many stages both before and after reactor operation, apart from waste disposal, namely mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and preparation, reprocessing spent fuel, and transportation of , 5 materials. Several of these stageyf involve hazards. Unlike the special risks in the nuclear cycle - of sabotage of plants, of theft of fissionable material, and of the further proliferation of nuclear armaments - these hazards have parallels, if not exact equivalents, in other very polluting methods of generating power, e.g. ’’workers in the uranium mining industry sustain ’the same risk’ of 38 ffatal and nonfatal injury as workers in the coal industry^. Furthermore, the Various (often serious) hazards encountered in working in some sectoj^ of uranium fabrication should be differently viewed from those resulting from location for instance from already living where a reactor is built or wastes are dumped. For an occupation is, in principle at any rate, chosen (as is occupational relocation), and many types of hazards incurred in working with radioactive material are now known in advance of choice of such an occupation: with where one already lives things are very different. The uranium miner’s choice of occupation can be compared with the airline pilot’s choice, whereas the Pacific Islander’s ’’fact" of location cannot be. The social issue of arrangements that contract occupational choices and opportunities and often at least ease people into hazardous occupations such as uranium or tin or coal mining (where the risks, in contrast to airline piloting, are mostly not duly compensated), while very important, is not an issue newly produced by nuclear associated occupations. Other social and environmental problems - though endemic where large-scale industry operates in societies that are highly inegalitarian and include sectors /that are far from affluent - are more intimately linked with the nuclear power cycle. Though pollution is a common and generally undesirable component of large-scale industrial operation, radioactive pollution, such as uranium mining for instance produces, is especially a legacy of nuclear development, and a specially undesirable one, as enormous rectification estimates for dead radio­ active lands and waterways reveal. Though sabotage is a threat to many large industries, so that modern factory complexes are often guarded like concentration camps (but from us on the outside), sabotage of a nuclear reactor can have dire consequences, of a different order of magnitude from most industrial sabotage (consider again the effects of core meltdown), Though theft of material from more dubious enterprises such as munitions works can pose threats to populations at large and can assist terrorism, no thefts for allegedly peaceful enterprises pose problems of the same order as theft of fissionable material. No other industry produces materials which so readily permit of fabrication into such /massive explosives/ No other industry is, to sum it up, so vulnerable on so many fronts. / / 5 In part to reduce it/ vulnerability, in part because of its long and continuing association with military activities, the nuclear industry is subject to, and encourages, several practices which (certainly given their scale) run counter to basic features of free and open societies, crucial features such as personal liberty, freedom of association and of expression, and free access to information. These practices include secrecy, restriction of information, formation of special police and guard forces, espionage, curtailment of civil liberties. Already operators of nuclear installations are given extraordinary powers, in vetting employees, to investigate the background and activities not only of employees but also of their families and sometimes even of their friends. The installations themselves become armed camps, which especially offends British sensibilities. The U.K. Atomic Energy (Special Constables) Act of 1976 created a special armed force to guard nuclear installations and made it ^nswerable ... to the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority.^9 developments the Uni-ted Kingdom; and worse i-R Weot Germany presage along with nuclear development increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic societies. That nuclear development appears to force such political consequences tells heavily against it. /•fS j2a?c bEHmR - - *. i » /> . . Bvhi nd what mirt bv one of the most impregnable fortifications this side of the East-West German border, work has just begun on building West Gerpianv’s latest nuclear power station.- Much of the perimeter of the 75-acre site, at Brokdorf m the marshlands of the lower Elbe, is screened by a concrete wall io feet high, surmounted by coils of barbed wire. I he rest, regarded as ‘strategic ally observable.' is girdled by a ditch io feet wide and fill ed with water. Approach roads to the site arc patrolled by dozens of policemen and the compound itself is guarded by 6oo men from a private security organization and b\ jg dogs. '* -4? 32. Nuclear development is further indicted politically by the direct connection of nuclear power with nuclear war. It is fortunately true that ethical questions concerning nuclear war - for example, whether a nuclear war is justified, or just, under any circumstances, and if so what circumstances are distinguishable from those concerning nuclear power. Undoubtedly, however, the spread of nuclear power is substantially increasing the technical means for engaging in nuclear war and so, to that extent, the opportunity for, and chances of, nuclear engagement. Since nuclear wars are never accountable positive goods, but are at best the lesser of major evils, nuclear wars are always highly ethically undesirable. The spread of nuclear power accordingly expands the opportunity for, and chances of, highly undesirable consequences. Finally the latter, so increasing these chances and opportunities, is itself undesirable, and therefore what leads to it, nuclear development, is also undesirable. The details and considerations that fill out this argument, from nuclear war against nuclear development, are many. They are firstly technical, that it is a relatively straightforward and inexpensive matter to make nuclear explosives given access to, a nuclear power plant, secondly' political, A that nuclear engagements once instituted likely to escalate and that those A who control (or differently are likely to force access to) nuclear power plants do not shrink from nuclear confrontation and are certainly prepared to toy with A nuclear engagement (up to "strategic nuclear strikes” at least), and thirdly ** , $ A /ethical, that warj( invariably have immoral consequences, such as massive 5 damage to involved parties, however high sounding their justification is. Nuclear wars are certain to be considerably worse as regards damage inflicted than any previous wars (they are likely to be much worse than all previous wars put together), because of the enormous destructive power of nuclear weapons, and the extent of spread of their radioactive effects, and because of the expected rapidity and irreversibility of any such confrontations. The supporting considerations are, fourthly, drawn from decision theory, and yare designed to show that the chances of such undesirable outcomes is itself y undesirable. The core argument is in brief this (the argument will be elaborated in section VIII):- Energy choice between alternative options is O . 27 ya case of decision making under uncertainty, because in particular /f the gross uncertainties involved in nuclear development. In cases of this type the appropriate rational procedure is to compare worst consequences of each alternative, to reject those alternatives with the worst of these worst 5 / consequence^ (this is a pretty un con troversial part of the maxim'nw rule which enjoins selection of the alternative with the best worst consequences). The nuclear alternative has, in particular because of the real possibility of a nuclear war, the worst worst consequences and is accordingly a particularly undesirable alternative. 33. /VII. CONFLICT ARGUMENTS^ AND UNCOVERING THE IDEOLOGICAL BASES OF NUCLEAR I DEVELOPMENT♦ As with nuclear war, so given the cumulative case against nuclear development, only one justificatory route remains open, that of appeal to important overriding circumstances. That appeal, to be ethically acceptable, must go far beyond merely economic considerations. For, as already observed, the consigner’s action cannot be justified by purely economistic arguments, such as that his profits would rise, the firm or the village would be more prosperous, or by appealing to the fact that some possibly uncomfortable changes would otherwise be needed. The transfer principle on which this assessment was based, that one was not usually entitled to create a serious risk to others for these sorts of reasons, applied more generally and, in particular, applied to the nuclear case. For this reason the economistic arguments which are those most commonly advanced under the Old Paradigm to promote nuclear development - e.g. cheapness, efficiency, profitability for electricity utilities, and the need otherwise for uncomfortable changes such as restructuring of employment, investment and consumption - do not even begin to show that the nuclear alternative is an acceptable one. Even if these economistic assumptions about benefits to present people were correct - it will be contended that most of them are not - the arguments would fail because economics (like the utilitarianism from which it characteristically derives) has to operate within the framework of moral constraints, and not vice versa. What do have to be considered are however moral conflict arguments, that is arguments to the effect that, unless the prima facie unacceptable (nuclear) alternative is taken, some even more unacceptable alternative is the only possible outcome, and will ensue. For example, in the train parable, the consigner may argue that his action is justified because unless it is taken his village will starve. It is by no means clear that even such a justification as this would be sufficient, especially where the risk to the passengers is high, as the case seems to become one of transfer of costs and risks onto others; but such a moral situation would no longer be so clearcut, and one would perhaps hesitate to condemn any action taken in such circumstances. Some, of the arguments advanced to show moral conflict are based on / /competing^to present people, and others on competing obligations to future people, both of which are taken to override the obligations not to impose on the future o I significant risk ^f serious harm. The structure of such moral conflict arguments is based crucially on the presentation of a genuine and exhaustive set of alternatives (or at least practical alternatives) and upon showing that the only alternatives to admittedly morally undesirable actions are even more undesirable ones. If some practical alternative which is not morally worse than the action to be justified is overlooked, suppressed, or neglected in the argument - for example, if in the village case it turns out that the villagers have another option 34. I to starving or to the sending off of the parcel, namely earning a living i/' some other way - then the argument is defective and cannot readily be patched. Just such a suppression of practicable alternatives has occurred in the argument designed to show that the alternatives to the nuclear option are even worse than the option itself, and that there are other factual defects in these arguments In short, the arguments depend essentially on the presentation of as well. false dichotomies. A first argument, the poverty argument, is that there is an overriding obligation to the poor, both the poor of the third world and the poor of industrialised countries. Failure to develop nuclear energy, it is often claimed, would amount to denying them the opportunity to reach the standard of affluence we currently enjoy and would create unemployment and poverty in the industrialised nations. The unemployment and poverty argument does not stand up to examination either for the poor of the industrial countries or for those of the third world. There is good evidence that large-scale nuclear energy will help to increase unemployment and poverty in the industrial world, through the diversion of very much available capital into an industry which is not only an exceptionally poor provider of direct employment, but also helps to reduce available jobs through 40 encouraging substitution of energy use for labour use. The argument that nuclear energy is needed for the third world is even less convincing. Nuclear energy is both politically and economically inappropriate for the third world, since it requires massive amounts of capital, requires numbers of imported scientists and engineers, but creates negligible local employment, and depends for its feasibility upon, what is largely lacking, established electricity transmission systems and back-up facilities and sufficient electrical appliances to plug into the system. Politically it increases foreign dependence, adds to centralised entrenched power and reduces the chance for change in the oppressive political 41 structures which are a large part of the problem. The fact that nuclear energy is not in the interests of the people of the third world does not of course mean that it is not in the interests of, and wanted by, their rulers, the westernised and often military elites in whose interests the economies of these countries are usually organised, and wanted often for military purposes. It is not paternalistic to examine critically the demands these ruling elites may make in the name of the poor. 35. The poverty argument is then a fraud. help the poor. Nuclear energy will not be used to Both for the third world and for the industrialised countries there are well-known energy-conserving alternatives and the practical option of developing other energy sources, alternatives some of which offer far better prospects for helping the poor. It can no longer be pretended that there is no alternative to nuclear development: indeed nuclear development is itself but a bridging, or stop-gap, procedure on route to solar or perhaps fusion development. And there are various alternatives: coal and other fossil fuels, geothermal, and a range of solar options (including as well as narrowly solar, wind, water, tidal and plant power), 42 each possibly in combination with conservation measures; Despite the availability of alternatives, it may still be pretended that nuclear development is necessary for affluence (what will emerge is that it is advantageous for the power and affluence of certain select groups). Such an assumption really underlies part of the poverty argument, which thus amounts to an elaboration of the trickle- down argument (much favoured within the Old Paradigm setting). runs:- For the argument Nuclear development is necessary for (continuing and increasing) affluence. Affluence inevitably trickles down to the poor. Therefore nuclear First, the argument does not on its own show development benefits the poor. anything specific about nuclear power: for it works equally well if ’energy’ is substituted for ’nuclear’. It has also to be shown, what the next major argument will try to claim, that nuclear development is unique among energy alternatives in increasing affluence. The second assumption, that affluence inevitably trickles down, has now been roundly refuted, both by recent historical data, which show increasing affluence (e.g. in terms of GNP averaged per capita) coupled with increasing poverty in several countries, both developing and developed, and through economic models which reveal how "affluence" can increase without redistribution occurring. Another major argument advanced to show moral conflict appeals to a set of supposedly overriding and competing obligations to future people. We have, it is said, a duty to pass on the immensely valuable things and institutions which our culture has developed. Unless our high-technology, high energy industrial society is continued and fostered, our valuable institutions and traditions will fall into decay or be swept away. The argument is essentially that without nuclear power, without the continued level of material wealth it alone is assumed to make possible, the lights of our civilization will go out. Future people will be the losers. 4 36. The lights-going-out argument does raise questions as to what is valuable in our society, and of what characteristics are necessary for a good society. But for the most part these large questions, which deserve much fuller examination, can be avoided. The reason is that the argument adopts an extremely uncritical position with respect to present high-technology societies, apparently assuming that they are uniformly and uniquely valuable. It assumes that technological society is unmodifiable, that it cannot be changed in the direction of energy conservation or alternative (perhaps high technology) energy sources without collapse. It has to be accepted and assessed as a whole, and virtually unlimited supplies of energy - such as nuclear and only nuclear power is alleged to furnish - are essential to maintain this whole. These assumptions are hard to accept. Xz The assumption that technological ^soc^ety's energy patterns are unmodifiable is especially so - after all it has survived events such as world wars which have required major social and technological restructuring and consumption modification. If western society’s demands for energy are totally unmodifiable without collapse, not only would it be committed to a program of increasing destruction, but one might ask what use its culture could be to future people who would very likely, as a consequence of this destruction, lack the resource base which the argument assumes to be essential in the case of contemporary society. There is also difficulty with the assumption of uniform valuableness; but if this is rejected the question becomes not: what is necessary to maintain existing high-technological society and its political institutions, but rather: what is necessary to maintain what is valuable in that society and the political institutions which are needed to maintain those valuable things. While it may be easy to argue that high energy consumption centrally controlled is necessary to maintain the political and economic status quo, it is not so easy to argue that it is essential to maintain what is valuable, and it is what is valuable, presumably that we have a duty to pass on to the future. The evidence, for instance from history, is that no very high level of material affluence or energy consumption is needed to maintain what is valuable. There is good reason in fact to believe that a society with much lower energy and resource consumption would better foster what is valuable than our own. But even if a radical change in these directions is independently desirable, as we should argue, it is not necessary to presuppose such a change, in the short term at least, in order to see that the assumptions of the lights-going-out argument are wrong. No enormous reduction of well-being is required to consume less energy than at 37. present, and certainly far less than the large increase over present levels of /assumption which 44 is assumed in the usual economic case for nuclear energy, 6©' What the nuclear strategy is really designed to do then is not to prevent the lights going out in western civilisation, but to enable the lights to go on burning all the time to maintain and even increase the wattage output of the Energy Extravaganza. In fact there is good reason to think that, far from the high energy consumption society fostering what is valuable, it will, especially if energy is obtained by nuclear fission means, be positively inimical to it. A society which has become heavily dependent upon an extremely high centralised, controlled and garrisoned, capital- and expertise-intensive energy source, must be one which is highly susceptible to entrenchment of power, and one in which the forces which control this energy source, whether capitalist or bureaucratic, can exert enormous power over the political system and over people’s lives, even more than they do at present. Such a society would, almost inevitably tend to become authoritarian and increasingly anti-democratic, as an outcome, among other thingsJof its response to the threat posed by dissident groups in the nuclear ' 45 situation. Nuclear development may thus help in passing on to future generations some of the worst aspects of our society - the consumerism, alienation, destruction of nature, and latent authoritarianism - while many valuable aspects, such as the degree of political freedom and those opportunities for personal and collective autonomy which exist, would be lost or diminished: political freedom, for example, is a high price to pay for consumerism and energy extravagance. But it is not the status quo, but what is valuable in our society, presumably, that we have some obligation to pass on to the future, and if possible enhance. Again, as in the case of the poverty arguments, clear alternatives, alternative social, economic and political choices, which do not involve such unacceptable consequences, are available. The alternative to the high technology- nuclear option is not a return to the cave, the loss of all that is valuable, but either the adoption of an available alternative such as coal for power or, rather, the development of alternative technologies and lifestyles which offer far greater scope for the maintenance and further development of what is valuable in our society than the highly centralised nuclear option. The lights- going-out argument, as a moral conflict argument, accordingly fails, because it also is based on a false dichotomy. 38. Thus the further escape route, the appeal to moral conflict, is, like the If then we apply - as we have argued we should - appeal to futurity, closed. the same standards of morality to the future as we ought to acknowledge for the present, the conclusion that large-scale nuclear development is a crime against the future is inevitable. Closed also, in the same way, are the escape routes to other arguments - from reactor melt-down, radiation emissions, and so on for rejecting nuclear development as morally unacceptable, for saying that it is not only a moral crime against the distant future but also a crime against the present and immediate future. In sum, nuclear development is morally unacceptable on several grounds. A corollary is that only political arrangements that are morally unacceptable will support the impending nuclear future. VIII. A NUCLEAR FUTURE IS NOT A RATIONAL CHOICE, EVEN IN OLD PARADIGM TERMS. The argument thus far, to anti-nuclear conclusions, has relied upon, and defended premisses that would be rejected under the Old Paradigm; for example, such theses as that the interests and utilities of future people are not discounted (in contrast to the temporally-limited utilitarianism of market- centred economic theory), and that serious costs and risks to health and life cannot admissibly be simply transferred to uninvolved parties (in contrast to the transfer and limited compensation assumptions of mainstream economic theory). To close the case, arguments will now be outlined which are designed to show that even within the confines of the Old Paradigm, choosing the nuclear future is not a rational choice. Large-scale nuclear development is not just something that happens, it requires, on a continuing basis, an immense input of capital and energy. Such investment calls for substantial reasons; for the investment should be, on Old Paradigm assumptions, the best among feasible alternatives to given economic ends. Admittedly so much capital has already been invested in nuclear fission ^research and development, in marke^T contrast to other newer rival sources of power, that there is strong political incentive to proceed - as distinct from requisite reasons for further capital and energy inputs. The reasons can be 'divided roughly into two groups, front reasons, which are the reasons given ^(out), and which are, in accordance with Old Paradigm p^gcepts, publicly economic (in that they are approved for public consumption), and the real reasons, which involve private economic factors and matters of power and social control. 39. The main argument put up, an economic growth argument, upon which variations are played, is the following version of the lights-going-out argument (with economic growth duly standing in for material wealth, and even for what is valuable!):- Nuclear power is necessary to sustain economic growth. Economic growth is desirable (for all the usual reasons, e.g. to increase the size of the pie, to avoid or postpone redistribution problems, and connected social Therefore nuclear power is desirable. The first premiss is 46 part of US energy policy, and the second premiss is supplied by standard unrest, etc.). economics textbooks. But both premisses are defective, the second because what is valuable in economic growth can be achieved by selective economic growth, which jettisons the heavy social and environmental costs carried by unqualified 47 economic growth. More to the point, since the second premiss is an assumption of the dominant paradigm, the first premiss (or rather an appropriate and less vulnerable restatement of it) fails even on Old Paradigm standards. For of course nuclear power is not necessary given that there are other, perhaps costlier alternatives. The premiss usually defended is some elaboration of the premiss : Nuclear power is the economically best way to sustain economic growth, 'economically best’ being filled out as ’most efficient’, ’cheapest’, ’having most favourable benefit-cost ratio', etc. Unfortunately for the argument, and for nuclear ^development schemes, nuclear power is none of these things a good deal of economic cheating (easy to do) is done. decisively, unless Much data, beginning with /the cancellation of nuclear plant orders, can\be assembled to show as much. Yet the argument requires a true premiss, not an uncertain or merely possible one, if it is to succeed and detachment is to be permitted at all, and evidently true premissiFve** /f the argument is to be decisive. The data to be summarised splits into two parts, public (governmental) analyses, and private (utility) assessments. Virtually all available data /concerns the USA; in Euro^ _e, West and East, true costs of uniformly "publicly/controlled” nuclear power are generally not divulged. / A Firstly, the capital costs of nuclear plants, which have been rising much more rapidly than inflation, now exceed those of coal-fired plants. Ka-emanoff has estimated that capital costs of a nuclear generator (of optimal capacity) 49 will exceed comparable costs of a coal-fired unit by about 26% in 1985. And I capital costs are only one part of the equation that now tell^ rather decisively against private utility purchase of new nuclear plants. Another main factor is the poor performance and low reliability of nuclear generators. Coney showed that nuclear plants can only generate about half the electricity they were designed to produce, and that when Atomic Energy Commission estimates of relative fcosts of nuclear and coal/, which assumed that both operated at 80% of design capacity, were adjusted accordingly, nuclear generated power proved to be far more 40. expensive than estimated.The discrepancy between actual and estimated ‘ capacity is especially important because a plant with an actual1/factor of 55% produced electricity at a cost about 25% higher than if the plant had performed at the manufacturers’ projected capacity rate of 70-75%. y The low reliability / of nuclear plants (per kilowatt output) as compared with the coal-fired plants adds to the case, on conventional economic /reliability of y /grounds of efficiency and product production costs, against nucleai/'. / These unfavourable assessments are from a private (utility) perspective, before the very extensive public subsidization of nuclear power is duly taken into account. The main subsidies are through research and development, by way of insurance (under the important but doubtfully constitutional Price-Anderson /kct^S, in enrichment, and in waste management, It has been estimated that charging such costs to the electricity consumer would increase electricity bills for nuclear power by at least 25% (and probably much more). When official US cost/benefit analyses favouring nuclear power over coal are examined, it is found that they inadmissibly omit several of the public costs involved in producing nuclear power, For example, the analyses ignore waste costs on the quite inadmissible ground that it is not known currently what the costs involved are. o 4 But even using actual waste handling costs (while /wastes await storage) is enough to show that coa ljjis preferable to nuclear. When further public costs, such as insurance against accident and for radiation damage, are duly taken into account, the balance is swung still further in ✓ y / ^ / favo ur of alternatives to nuclear and against nucleaj/. In short,, even on p/per 'r Q1& Paradigm accounting, the nuclear alternative should be j ze- Nuclear development is not economical, it certainly seems; it has been /kept going not through its clear economic viability, but by massive public subsidization, of several types. In USA, to take a main example where information is available, nuclear development is publicly supported through s heavily subsidized or sometimes free research and development, ■through the ^Price-Anderson Act/ which sharply limits both private and public liability, i.e. which in effect provided the insurance subsidy making corporate nuclear development economically feasible, and through government agreement to handle all radioactive wastes. While the Old Paradigm strictly construed cannot support uneconomical developments, contemporary liberalisation of the Paradigm does allow for uneconomic projects, seen as operated in the public interest, in such fields as /social welfare. Duly admitting social welfare and some principles 41. 6t / /in the distribution of wealth (not necessarily of pollution) leads/the modern //version of the Old Paradigm, called the Modified Old Paradigm. The main /changes from the Old Paradigm are (as with state socialism) a^emphasis of economic factors, e.g. individual self-help is down-played, wealth is to a small extent redistributed, e.g. through taxation, market forces are regulated or displaced (not in principle eliminated, as with state socialism). Now it has been contended - outrageous though it should now seem - that nuclear power ll« is in the public interest as a means to various sought public ends , for example, As (j&lj 45 • from those already mentioned such as energy for growth and cheap e, ./electricity, and such as plentiful power for heating and cooking and appliance /use, avoidance of shortages, rationing, C2 -outs and the like. Since /alternative power sources, such as coal, could serve ends given power was /supplied with suitable extravagance, the d^eement has again to show that the choice of nuclear power over other alternatives is best in the requisite respects, in serving the public interest. Such an argument is a matter for decision theory, under which head cost-benefit analyses which rank alternatives also fall as special cases. Decision theory purports to cover theoretically the field of choice between alternatives; it is presented as the theory which ’deals with the 53 problem of choosing one course of action among several possible courses’. Thus the choice of alternati’ve modes of energy production, the energy choice ^problem, becomes an exercise -arrrd decision theory; and the nuclear choice is of ten ’5 us tified" in Old Paradigm terms through appeal to decision theory. But though decision theory is in principle comprehensive, as soon as it is put to work in such practical cases as energy choice, it is very considerably contracted in scope, several major assumptions are surreptitiously imported, and what one is confronted with is theory drastically /pruned down to conform with the narrow utilitarianism of mainstream economic theory. The extent of reduction can be glimpsed by comparing, to take one important example, a general optimisation model for decision (where uncertainty is not gross) with comparable decision theory methods, such as the 5 expected utility model. The general model for best choice among alternatives /specified maximisation of expected value subject to constraints, which may include ethical constraints excluding certain alternatives under given /conditions. models demote value to utility, assuming thereby measurability and transference properties that may not obtain, and eliminate constraints altogether (absorbing what is forbidden, for example, as having a high disutility, but one that can be compensated for nonetheless). Thus, in particular, ethical constraints against nuclear development are replaced, in Old Paradigm fashion, by allowance in principle for compensation for damage sustained. Still it is with decision making in Old Paradigm terms that we are now embroiled, so no longer at issue are the defective (neo-classical) economic assumptions made in the theory, for example as to the assessment of everything to be taken into account through utility (which comes down to monetary terms : everything w^Lth account^n^/has a price), and as to the legitimacy of transferring with limited compensation risks and costs to involved parties. The energy choice problem is, so it has commonly been argued in the assumed Old Paradigm framework, a case of decision under uncertainty. It is not a case of decision under risk (and so expected utility models are not applicable), because some possible outcomes are so uncertain that, in contrast to the case of risk, no (suitably objective) quantifiable probabilities can be assigned to them, Items that are so uncertain are taken to include nuclear 1war and core meltdown 54 [of a reactor, possible outcomes of nuclear development/ widespread radio active pollution is, by contrast, not uncertain. The correct rule for decision under uncertainty is, in the case of energy /choice, maximum, to maximize the minimum payoff, so it is sometimes contended. In fact, once again, it is unnecessary for present purposes to decide which energy option is selected, but only whether the nuclear option is rejected. f Since competing selection rules tend to deliver the same for options early rejected as the nuclear options, a convergence in the rejection of the nuclear option can be effected. All rational roads lead, not to Rome, but to rejection of the nuclear option. t z A further convergence can be effected also, L'tbecause ci LiO Lthe best possible (economic) outcomes of such leading options as Ci .r D l/ j, [coal and^hydroO Celectric mix are very roughly of the same order as the nuclear option (so Elster contends, and his argument can be elaborated). Under these conditions complex decision rules (^such as the Arrow-H^^wicz rule) which take £ /account of both best possible and /reduce to the maxim^in rule. possible outcomes under wfk *ch option^ Whichever energy option is selected under the /maximwffi rule, the nuclear option is certainly rejected since/(eere options where worst outcomes are than that of the nuclear option (just consider the scenario if the nuclear nightmare, not the nuclear dream, is realised). Further application of the rejection rule will reject the fossil fuel (predominantly coal) option, on the basis of estimated effects on the earth's climate from burning massive quantities of such fuels. HHHB 43. Although the rejection rule coupled with enjoys a privileged several rivals to maximise for decision under uncertainty have been of which has associated rejection rules. proposed, rules, such as the risk- AdkW Some of these reasoning criticised by Goodin (pp.507-8), the riskiness of a policy in terms of the increment of which ’ risk it adds to those pre-existing in the status quo, rather than in terms of the absolute value of the risk associated with the policy’ are decidedly decision procedure appears to and rather than offering a dubious, afford protection of the (nuclear) status quo. What will be argued, or rather what Goodin has in effect argued for us, is that wherever one of these rules is applicable. and not dubious, it leads to rejection of the nuclear option. For example, the keep-options-open or allow-for-reversibility rule (not an entirely unquestionable rule/ ’of strictly limited applicability’) excludes the nuclear option because ’nuclear plants and their by-products have a nuclear reactor ran air of irreversibility ... "One cannot pimply a coal-fired plant'” (p.506). The compare-the /alternatives rule, in ordinary application, leads back to the cost-benefit assessments, which, as already observed, tell decisively against a nuclear option when costing is done properly. The maximise-sustainable-benefits rule, which 'directs us to opt for the policy producing the highest level of net benefits which can be sustained indefinitely’, ’decisively favours renewable sources', ruling out the nuclear option. Other lesser rules Goodin discusses, which have not really been applied in the nuclear debate, and which lead yet ^further from the Old Paradigm ie framework ^arm-avoidance and protecting-the- vulnerable^also yieldj/ the same nuclear-excluding results. Harm-avoidance, in particular, points ’decisively in favour of "alternative" and "renewable" energy sources ... combined with strenuous efforts at energy conservation’ The upshot is evident: whatever reasonable decision rule is adopted (p.442). the result is the same, a^ nuclear choice is rejected, even by Old Paradigm standards. Nor would reversion to an expected utility analysis alter this conclusion; for such analyses are but glorified cost-benefit analyses, with probabilities duly multiplied in, and the is as before from cost-benefit considerations, against a nuclear choice. The Old Paradigm does not, it thus appears, sustain the nuclear juggernaut: nor does its Modification. The real reasons for the continuing development program and the heavy commitment to the program have to be sought elsewhere, outside the Old Paradigm, at least as preached. It is, in any case, sufficiently evident that contemporary economic behaviour does not accord with Old Paradigm percepts, practice does not accord with neo-classical, economic /theory nor, to consider the main modification, with social 1 theory. There are, firstly, reasons of previous commitment, when nuclear power, cleverly promoted at least, looked a rather cheaper and safer deal, and certainly profitable one: corporations so committed are understandably keen to realise returns on capital already invested. There are also typical self-interest reasons for commitment to the program, that advantages accrue to some, like those whose field happens to be nuclear engineering, that profits accrue to some, like giant corporations, that are influential in political affairs, and as a spin-off profits accrue to others, and so on. There are just as important, ideological reasons, such as a belief in the control of both political and physical power by technocratic-entreprenial elite, a belief in social control from above, control which nuclear power offers far more than alternatives, some of which (vaguely) threaten to alter the power base, a faith in the unlimitedness of technological enterprise, and nuclear in particular, so that any real problems that arise will be solved as development proceeds. Such beliefs are especially conspicuous in the British scene, among the governing and technocratic classes. Within contemporary corporate capitalism, these sorts of reasons for nuclear development are intimately linked, because those whose types of enterprise benefit substantially from nuclear development are commonly those who hold the requisite beliefs. It is then, contemporary corporate capitals^m, along with its state enterprise image, that fuels the nuclear juggernaut. To be sure, corporate capitalism, which is the political economy largely thrust upon us in western nations, is not necessary for a nuclear future; a totalitarian state of the type such capitalism often supports in the third world will suffice. But, unlike a hypothetical state that does conform to precepts of the Old Paradigm, it is sufficient for a nuclear future - evidently, since we are well embarked on such a future. The historical route by which the world reached its present advanced threshold to a nuclear future, confirms this diagnosis. This diagnosis can be /split into two main cases, the national development of nuclear power in the /US^ and the international spread of nuclear technology for which the US has been largely responsible. By comparison with the West, nuclear power production in /the Eastern bloc is which had in 1977 only nuclear plants. II and is largely confined to the Soviet Union oneCj-5^ -** the wattage output of U/ Nuclear development in USSR has been, of course, a state controlled and subsidized venture, in which there has been virtually no public participation or discussion; but Russian technology has not been exported else­ where to any great extent. American technology has. 45. The 60s were, because of the growth in electricity demand, a period of great expansion of the electrical utilities in the US. These companies were encouraged to build nuclear plants, rather than coal or oil burning plants, for several state controlled or influenced reasons:- Firstly, owing to governmental regulation procedures the utilities could (it then seemed) earn a higher rate of profit on a nuclear plant than a fossil fuel one. Secondly, the US government arranged to meet crucial costs and risks of nuclear operation, and in this way, and more directly through its federal agencies, actively encouraged a nuclear choice and nuclear development. In particular, state limitation of liability and shouldering of part of insurance for nuclear accidents and state arrangements to handle nuclear wastes were what made profitable private utility operation appear feasible and resulting in nuclear 4 /investment. In the 70s, though the state subsidization picture changed : continued, the private ’high costs of construction combined with low capacity //factors and poor reliability have wiped out the advantage that nuclear/ had enjoyed in the US. Much as the domestic nuclear market in the US is controlled by a few corporations, so the world market is dominated by a few countries, predominantly and first of all the US, which through its two leading nuclear companies, Westinghouse and General Electric, has been the major exporter of nuclear technology. " These companies were enabled to gain entry into European and subsequently world markets by US foreign policies, basically the "Atoms for Peace" program supplemented by bilateral agreements providing for US technology, /research, enriched uranium and financial capital. (The US offered a jstate /subsidized) nuclear package that Europe could not refuse and with which the ' British could not compete’. In the 70s the picture of US domination of Common Market nuclear technology had given way to subtler influence: American companies /held dcadSjig with relevant governments) substantial interests in European and Japanese nuclear companies and held licences on the technology which remained largely American. Meanwhile in the 60s and 70s the US entered into bilateral agreements for civilian use of atomic energy with many other countries, for X example, Argentina, Brasil, Columbia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, / Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Portugal, South Africa, , /Taiwan, Turkey, Venezuela, South Vietnam. The US proceeded?in their way, to ship nuclear technology and nuclear materials in great quantities round the world. It also proceeded to spread nuclear technology through the International Atomic Energy Agency, originally designed to control and safeguard nuclear operations, but most of whose * budget activities’. and activities ... have gone to promote nuclear A main reason for the promotion and sales pressure on Third World countries has been the failure of US domestic market and industrial world Less developed countries markets for reactors. 2 offer a new frontier where reactors can be built with easy public financing, where health and safety regulations are loose and enforcement rare, where public opposition is not permitted and where weak and corrupt regimes offer / easy sales. fForJ ... the US has considerable leverage with many of these countries. We know from painful experience that many of the worst dictatorships in the planet . would not be able to stand without overt and covert US support. ' Many of those are now^ y?ocrinithe nuclear path, for all the worst reasons. ' J It is evident from this sketch of the ways and means of reactor proliferation that not only have practices departed far from the framework of the Old Paradigm and social Modification, but that the practices (of corporate capitalism and associated third world imperialism) involve much that is ethically unacceptable, by o^rfer, modified, or alternative percepts;^ for principles such as assembled. viyxAi/r and self-determination are grossly violated. IX. SOCIAL OPTIONS : SHALLOWER AND DEEPER ALTERNATIVES. The future energy option that is most often contrasted with nuclear power, namely coal power, while no doubt preferable to nuclear power, is hardly acceptable. For it ii carries with it the likelihood of serious (air) pollution and associated phenomena such as acid rain and atmospheric heating, not to mention the despoliation caused by extensive strip mining, all of which result from its use in meeting very high projected consumption figures. Such an option would also fail, it seems, to meet the necessary transfer condition, because it would impose widespread costs on nonbeneficiaries for some concentrated benefits to some profit takers and to some users who do not pay the full costs of production 1 58 and replacement. To these conventional main options a third is often added which emphasizes softer and more benign technologies, such as those of solar energy and, in Northern Europe, hydroelectricity. The deeper choice, which even softer paths tend to neglect, is not technological but social, and involves both conservation measures and the restructuring of production away from energy intensive uses: at a more basic level there is a choice between consumeristic and nonconsumeristic futures. These more fundamental choices between social alternatives, conventional technologically-oriented discussion of energy options tends to be obscure. It is not just a matter of deciding in which way to meet 47. given and unexamined goals (as the Old Paradigm would imply), but also a matter of examining the goals. That is, we are not merely faced with the question of comparing different technologies or substitute ways of meeting some fixed or given demand or level of consumption, and of trying to see whether we can meet this with soft rather than hard technologies; we are also faced, and primarily, with the matter of examining those alleged needs and the cost of a society that creates them. It is not just a question of devising less damaging ways to meet these I alleged needs conceived of ps inevitable and unchangeable. (Hence there are solar ways of producing unnecessary trivia no one really wants, as opposed to nuclear ways.) Naturally this is not to deny that these softer options are superior because of the ethically unacceptable features of the harder options. But it is doubtful that any technology, however benign in principle, will be likely to leave a tolerable world for the future if it is expected to meet unbounded and uncontrolled energy consumption and demands. Even the more benign technologies such as solar technology could be used in a way which creates costs for future people and are likely to result in a deteriorated world being handed on to them. Consider, for example, the effect on the world’s forests, which are commonly counted as a solar resource, of use for production of methanol or of electricity by woodchipping (as already planned by forest authorities and contemplated by many other energy organisations). While few would object to the use of genuine waste material for energy production, the unrestricted exploitation of forests - whether it goes under the name of "solar energy" or not - to meet ever increasing energy demands could well be the final indignity for the world’s already hard-pressed natural forests. The effects of such additional demands on the maintenance of the forests are often dismissed, even by soft technologicalists, by the simple expedient of waving around the label ’renewable resources’. Many forests are in principle renewable, it is a true, given a certain (low) rate and kind of exploitation, but in fact there are now very few forestry operations anywhere in the world where the forests are treated as completely renewable in the sense 59 of the renewal of all their values. In many regions too the rate of exploitation which would enable renewal has already been exceeded, so that a total decline is widely thought to be imminent if not already well advanced. It certainly has begun in many regions, and for many forest types (such as rainforest types) which are now, and very rapidly, being lost for the future. The addition of a major further and not readily limitable demand pressure, that for energy, on top of present pressures is one which anyone with a realistic appreciation of the conduct of contemporary forestry operations, who is also concerned with long-term conservation of the forests and remaining natural communities, must regard with alarm. The result of massive deforestation for energy purposes, 48. resembling the deforestation of England at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, again for energy purposes, would be extensive and devastating erosion in steeper lands and tropical areas, desertification in more arid regions, possible climatic change, and massive impoverishment of natural ecosystems. Some of us do not want to pass on - we are not entitled to pass on - a deforested world to the future, any more than we want to pass on one poisoned by nuclear products or polluted by coal products. In short, a mere switch to a more benign technology - important though this is - without any more basic structural and social change is inadequate. Nor is such a simple technological switch likely to be achieved. It is not as if political pressure could oblige the US government to stop its nuclear program (and that of the countries it influences, much of the world), in the to succeed in halting the Vietnam war. way pressure appeared While without doubt it would be good if this could be accomplished, it is very unlikely given the integration of political powerholders with those sponsorinanuclear , . , 60 development. The deeper social options involve challenging and trying to change a social structure which promotes consumerism, consumption far beyond genuine needs, and an economic structure which encourages increasing use of highly energy-intensive modes of production. This means, for instance, trying to change a social structure in which those who are lucky enough to make it into the work force are cogs in a production machine over which they have very little real control and in which most people do unpleasant or boring work from which they derive very little real satisfaction in order to obtain the reward of consumer goods and services. A society in which social rewards are obtained primarily from products rather than processes, from consumption, rather than from satisfaction in work and in social relations and other activities, is virtually bound to be one which generates a vast amount of unnecessary consumption. (A production system that produces goods not to meet genuine needs but for created and non- genuine needs is virtually bound to overproduce.) Consumption frequently becomes a substitute for satisfaction in other areas. The adjustments focussed upon are only parts of the larger set of adjustments involved in socially implementing the New Paradigm, the move away from consumerism is for example part of the more general shift from materialism and materialist values. The social change option tends to be obscured in most discussions of energy options and of how to meet energy needs, in part because it does question underlying values of current social arrangements. The conventional discussion proceeds by taking alleged demand (often conflated with wants or needs ^) as unchallengeable, and the issue to be one of which technology can 49. be most profitably employed to meet them. This effectively presents a false choice, and is the result of taking needs and demand as lacking a social context so that the social structure which produces the needs is similarly taken as unchallengeable and unchangeable. I /'of The point is readily illustrated. such industries as f transportation It is commonly argued by representatives and petroleum, as for example by McGrowth of the XS Consumption Co., that people want deep freezers, air conditioners, power boats, ... It would be authoritarian to prevent them from satisfying these wants. Such an argument conveniently ignores the social framework in which such needs and wants arise or are produced. To point to the determination of many such wants at the framework level is not however to accept a Marxist approach according to which they are entirely determined at the framework level (e.g. by industrial organisation) and there is no such thing as individual choice or determination at all. It is to see the social framework as a major factor in determining certain kinds of choices, such as those for travel, and to see apparently individual choices made in such matters as being channelled and directed by a social framework determined largely in the interests of corporate and private profit and advantage. The social change option is a hard option - at least it will be difficult to obtain politically - but it is the only way, so it has been argued, of avoiding passing on serious costs to the future. And there are other sorts of reasons than such ethical ones for taking it: it is the main, indeed the only sort of option open to those who take a deeper ecological perspective0 , a perspective integral with the New Paradigm but not essential to radical departure from the dominant paradigm. The ethical transmission requirement defended accordingly requires, hardly surprisingly, social and political adjustment. The social and political changes that the deeper alternative requires will be strongly resisted because they and power structure. mean changes in current social organisation To the extent that the option represents some kind of threat to parts of present political and economic arrangements it is not surprising that official energy option discussion proceeds by misrepresenting and often obscuring it. But difficult though a change will be, especially one with such far-reaching effects on the prevailing power structure, is to obtain, it is imperative to try : we are all on the nuclear train. FOOTNOTES 1. All but the last line of the quote is drawn from Goodin, p. 417; the last line is from the Fox Report, p. 6. While it is unnecessary to know much about the nuclear fuel cycle in order to consider ethical and social dimensions of nuclear power, it helps to know a little. & Abbotts, Gyorgy. The basics are presented in many texts, e.g. Nader Of course in order to assess fully reports as to such important background and stage-setting matters as the likelihood of a core meltdown of a (lightwater) reactor, much more information is required. For many assessment purposes however, some knowledge of economic fallacies and decision theory is at least as important as knowledge of nuclear technology. 2. As to the first, see references cited in Goodin, p. 417, footnote 1. As regards the second see Cotgrove and Duff, and some of the references given therein. 3. Cotgrove and Duff, p. 339. 4. The table is adapted from Cotgrove and Duff, p. 341; compare also Catton and Dunlap, especially p. 34. 5. See, e.g., Gyorgy, pp. 357-8. 6. For one illustration, see the conclusions of Mr Justice Parker at the Windscale inquiry (The Windscale Inquiry Vol. 1 Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 1978), discussed in both Cotgrove and Duff, p. 347 and in Goodin, p. 501 ff. 7. Much as with the argument of one theory or position against another. One can argue both from one’s own position against the other, and in the other’s own terms against the other. 8. As well as screening the debate from the public such manoeuvres favour the (pro-)nuclear establishment, since they (those of the alliance of military, large industry, and government) control much of the information and (subject to minor qualifications) can release what, and only what, suits them. 9. This is a conclusion of several governmental inquiries and is conceded by some leading proponents of nuclear development; for requisite details up to 1977 see Routley (a). The same conclusion has been reached in some, but not all, more recent official reports, see, e.g., 2 10. z For some details see Gyorgy, p. 60 ff. 11a. Naturally the effect on humans is not the only factor that has to be taken into account in arriving at moral assessments. Nuclear radiation, unlike most ethical theories, does not confine its scope to human life and welfare. But since the harm nuclear development may afflict on non-human life, for example, can hardly improve its case, it suffices if the case against it can be made out solely in terms of its effects on human life in the conventional (Old Paradigm) way. 11. See the papers, and simulations, discussed in Goodin, p. 42^? 12. On the pollution and waste disposal record of the nuclear industry, see Nader and Abbotts, Lovins and Price, and Gyorgy. On the more general problem of effective pollution controls, see also, Routley (a), footnote 7. Back of thus Humanity Unlimited assumption is the idea of Man 13. replacing God. First God had unlimited power, e.g. over nature, then when during the Enlightenment Man replaced God, Man was to have unlimited Science and technology were the tools which were to put Man into the power. position of unlimitedness. More recently nuclear power is seen as providing man at least with unlimited physical power, power obtained through technology, [ability to manage technology r&a/esents the past] On such limitation theorems, which go back to Finsler and Godel on one side and to Arrow on the other, see, e.g. Routley 80. All these theorems mimic paradoxes, semantical "paradoxes" on one side and voting "paradoxes" on the other. Other different limitation results are presented in Routley 81. It follows that there are many problems that have no solution and much that is necessarily unknowable. Limitative results put a serious dent in the progress picture. According the Dominant Western Worldview, / the his histo^ of humanity is one of progress; for every problem there is a solution, and thus progress need never cease (Catton and Dunlap, p. 34). 15. See Lovins and Price. /15a. The points also suggest a variant argument against a nuclear future, namely . A nuclear future narrows the range of opportunities open to future generations. . ’What justice requires ... is that the overall range of opportunities open to successor generations should not be narrowed' T- re (Barry, p.243). re~ a nuclear future contravenes requirements of justice. 3 16. For examples, and for some details of the history of philosophers' positions on obligations to the future, see Routley (a). 17. Passmore, p. 91. Passmore’s position is ambivalent and, to all appearances, inconsistent. It is considered in detail in Routley (a), as also is Rawls’ position. 18. For related criticisms of the economists’ arguments for discounting, and for citation of the often eminent economists who sponsor them, see Goodin, pp. 429-30. 19. The reasons (not elaborated here) are that the properties are different e.g. a monetary reduction of value imposes a linear ordering on values to which value rankings, being only partial orderings, do not conform. 20. Goodin however puts his case against those rules in a less than What he claims is that we cannot list all the satisfactory fashion. possible outcomes in the way that such rules as expected utility maximization presupposes, e.g. Goodin suggests that we cannot list all the things that can go wrong with a nuclear power plant or with waste storage procedures. But outstanding alternatives can always be comprehended logically, at worst by saying "all the rest” (e.g. ~p covers everything except p). For example, outcomes Goodin says cannot be listed, can be comprehended along such lines as "plant breakdown through human error”. Furthermore the different I mote rules Goodin subsequently considers also require listing of ' "possible" outcomes. Goodin's point can be alternatively stated however. are really two points. The first trouble is that such There alternative^ cannot in general be assigned required quantitative probabilities, and it is at that point that applications of the models breaks down. The breakdown is just what separates decision making under uncertainty from decision making under risk. Secondly, many influential Applications of decision theory methods, I the Rasmussen Report is a good example, do, illegitimately, delete possible X /alternatives from their 21. Discount, or bank, rates in the economists’ sense are usually set to follow the market, cf. P.A. Samuelson, TfoCTZCWWS., 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967, p.351. 22. Thus the rates have little moral relevance. A real possibility is one which there is evidence for believing could eventuate. A real possibility requires producible evidence for its consideration. The contrast is with mere logical possibility. 4 24. Such a principle is explicit both in classical utilitarianism (e.g. Sidgwick p. 414), and in a range of contract and other theories from Kant and •-jtA? >v / Rousseau to Rawls (p. 293). How the principle is will depend ' heavily, however, on the underlying theory; and we do not want to make our use depend heavily on particular ethical theories. 25. The latter question is taken up in section VII; see especially, the Poverty argument. 26. SF, p. 27. Shrader-Frechette is herself somewhat crritical of the /carte blanche adoption of these methods, suggesting that^whoever affirm^ denies the desirability of ... [such] standards is, to some degree, /symbollically assenting to a number of American value patterns and culture / * (p. 28). 27. The example parallels the sorts of utilitarianism, e.g. the admissible »unterexamples often advanced to I of an innocent person because of pleasure given to the large lynching party. For the more general case against utilitarianism, see ... 28. US Atomic Energy Commission, Comparative Risk-Cost-Benefit Study of Alternative sources of Electrical Energy (WASH-1224), US Government Printing Office, Washington, 29. , December 1974, p.4-7 and p. 1-16. As SF points out, p.37-44., in some detail. As she remarks, ... since standards need not be met, so long as the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory commission] judges that the licence shows ’a reasonable effort’ at meeting them, current policy allows government regulators to trade .■ human health and welfare for the [apparent] good. E^j/ch] / intentions of the promotors of technology. / good intentions have never been known to be sufficient for the morality of an act (p. 39). The failure of state regulation, even where the standards are as mostly not very X /demanding, and the alliance of regulators with they are supposed to be regulating, are conspicuous features of modern environmental control, not just of (nuclear) pollution control. 30. The figures are those from the original Brookhaven Report: 31. possibilities and consequences of major ’Theoretical accidents in large nuclear plants’, USAEC Report WASH-740, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1957. This report was requested in the first place because the ^n Atomic Energy wanted positive safety conclusions "to reassure the private insurance companies" so that they would provide coverage for the nuclear industry. Since even the conservative statistics of the report were alarming it was suppressed and its data were not made public until almost 20 years later, after a suit was brought as a result of the Freedom of Information Act (Shrader-Frechette, pp. 78-9). Atomic Energy Commission, Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of 32. Accident Risks in US Commercial. Nuclear Power Plants, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975. This report, the only allegedly complete study, concluded that fission reactors presented only a minimal health risk to the public. Early in 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the relevant organisation that superseded the troubled Atomic Energy Commission) withdrew its support for the report, with the result that there is now no comprehensive analysis of nuclear power approved by the US Government. 32a. Most present and planned reactors are of this type: see Gyorgy. 33. 34. Even then relevant environment factors may have been neglected. 35. There are variations on (i) and (ii) which multiply costs against numbers such as probabilities. In this way risks, construed as probable costs, can be taken into account in the assessment. (Alternatively, risks may be assessed through such familiar methods as msuranc^Ly A principle varying (ii), and formulated as follows: a is ethically acceptable if (for some b) a includes no more risks than b and b is socially accepted, was the basic ethical principle in terms of which the Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry recently decided that nuclear power development in Saskatchewan is ethically acceptable: see Cluff Lake Board of Inquiry Final- Report , Department of Environment, Government of Saskatchewan, 1978, p. 305 and p. 288. In this report, a is nuclear power and b is either activities clearly accepted by society as alternative power sources, In other applications b has been taken as cigarette smoking, motoring, mining and even the Vietnam War (!) points made in the text do not exhaust the objections to principles (i) - (ii’). The principles are certainly ethically substantive, since an ethical consequence cannot be deduced from nonethical premisses, but they have an inadmissible conventional character. For look at the origin of b: b may be socially accepted though it is no longer socially acceptable, or though its social acceptibility is no longer so clearcut and it would not have been socially ^accepted if as much as is nc^ known had been known when it was introduced. What is required in (ii'), for instance, for the argument to begin to look convincing is then ’ethically acceptable’ rather than ’socially accepted'. But even with the amendments the principles are invalid, for the reasons given in the text. It is not disconcerting that these arguments do not work. It would be sad to see yet another area lost to the experts, namely ethics to actuaries. 36. A main part of the troub|le/with the models is that they are narrowly utilitarian, and like utilitarianism they neglect distributional features, involve naturalistic fallacies, etc. Really they try to treat as an uncon- strained optimisation what is a deontically constrained optimisation: see R. and V. Routley 'An expensive repair kit for utilitarianism’. 37. Apparent exceptions to the principle such as taxation (and redistribution of income generally) vanish when wealth is construed (as it has to be taxation is to be properly justified) as at least partly a social asset unfairly monopolised by a minority of the population. Examples such as that of motoring dangerously do not constitute counterexamples to the principle; for one is not morally entitled to so motor. 38. SF, p. 15, where references are also cited. 39. Goodin, p. 433. 40. On all these points see R. Grossman and G. Daneker, Guide to Jobs and Energy3 Environmentalists for Full Employment, Washington DC, 1977, pp.1-7, the details supplied in substantiating the interesting case of Commoner-, well the absorption off available capital by the nuclear industry, see as e-'/ On the mployment issues, see too idd, p. 149. A Z|. K-ola&Az, -fl '(La. j>o/'-bics d A more fundamental challenge to the poverty argument appears in I. Illicit, Energy and Equality, Calden and Boyars, London 1974, where it is argued that the sort of development nuclear energy represents is exactly the opposite of what the poor need. For much more detail on the inappropriateness see E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful, Blond, and Briggs, London, 19 73. o As_to the capital and <o other requirements, see/£2J, p. 48, and also For an illuminating look at the sort o technology will tend to promote in the so-called underdeveloped countries see the paper of Waiko and other papers in The Melanesian Environment (edited J.H. Winslow), ^usp/alian National University Press, Canberra, 1977. 42. A useful survey is given in A. Lovins, Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken, Friends of the Earth Australia, 1977 (reprinted from Foreign Affairs, October 19 76); see alsod^tT'J,p. 233«r-ff^ and Schumacher, op. cit. 43. An argument like this is suggested in Passmore, Chapters 4 and 7, with respect to the question saving resources. In Passmore this argument for the overriding importance of passing on contemporary culture is underpinned fl by what appears to be a future-directed ethical version of the Hidden Hand argument of economics that, by a coincidence which if correct would indeed fortunate, the best way to take care of the future (and perhaps even the only way to do so, since do-good intervention is almost certain to go wrong) is to take proper care of the present and immediate future. The argument has all the defects of the related Chain Argument discussed above and others. cK See Nader and Abbotts, p. 66, p. 191, and also Commor^. Very persuasive arguments to this effect have been advanced by civil liberties groups and others in a number of countries: see especially M. Flood and R. Grove-White, Nuclear Prospects. A comment on the individual^ the State and Nuclear Power, Friends of the Earth, Council for the Protection of Rural England and National Council for Civil Liberties, London, 1976. 46. ’US energy policy, fo^ example, since the passage of the 1954 Atomic / Energy Act, has been that/nuclear power is necessary to provide "an economical /and reliable basis" r^te'ded "to sustain economic growth" (SF, p.lll, and references there cited). 7 47. There are now a great many criticisms of the second premiss in the literature. n X For our criticism, and a reformulation of the premiss in terms of selective economic growth (which would exclude nuclear development), see - ■ — '■ Routley (b) , and alsoj'Berkley and Seckier. To simple-mindedly contrast economic growth with no-growth, in the fashion lZ-lof soiief discussions of nuciear power, c,f/ Elster, is to leave out crucial X /alternatives; the of course much simplifies the otherwise faulty case for unalleged growth. 48. In UK and USSR nuclear development is explicitly in the public domain, in such countries as France and West Germany the government has very substantial interests in main nuclear involved companies. Even as regards nuclear plant operation in the US, / I it is difficult to obtain comprehensive Estimates of cost very dramtically according to the samp 1p of plants chosen and the assumptions made concerning the measurement of plant performance (Gyorgy, p. 173). 49. See Kalmanoff, p. 50. See Comey. 51. Ref. to what it has to say about Price 52. Full ref to ^F from ignorance etc. 53. These e.g. Elster, p. 377. On decision theory see also, I f54. A recent theme iyymuch economic literature is that theory and risk analysis can be universally applied. The theme is upset as soon as one steps outside of select Old Paradigm confines. y £ /within these confines there is no decision In any case, even at all on, and few (and ^widely diverging) figures for> the probability of a reactor core meltdown, and no reliable estimates as to the likelihood of a nuclear confrontation, Thus Goodin argues (in 78) that ’such uncertainties plague energy theories’ utility calculations impossible”. as to ’ 55. For details see Gyorgy, P. 398 ff., from which presentation of the international story is adapted. Gyorgy, p. 307, and p. 308. 56. For elaboration of some of the important points, see Chesrmsky and Hermann. Whatever one thinks of the ethical principles underlying the Old 57. Paradigm or its Modification - and they do form a coherent set that many J people respect - these are not the principles underlying contemporary corporate capitalism and associated third-world imperialism. Certainly practical transitional programs may involve temporary and 58. ^v\ limited use of unacceptable long ter^ commodities such as coal, but in presenting such practical details one should not lose sight of the more basic social and structural changes, and the problem is really one of making those. Similarly practical transitional strategies should make use of such measures as environmental (or replacement) pricing of energy i.e. so that the price of some energy unit includes the full cost of replacing it by an equivalent unit taking account of environmental cost of production. Other (sometimes cooptive) strategies towards more satisfactory alternatives should also, of course, be adopted, in particular the removal of institutional barriers to energy conservation and alternative technology (e.g. local government regulations blocking these), and the removal of state assistance to fuel and power industries. Symptomatic of the fact that it is not treated as renewable is that 59. forest economics do not generally allow for full renewability - if they did the losses and deficits on forestry operations would be much more striking than they already are often enough. It is doubtful, furthermore, that energy cropping of forests can be a fully renewable operation if net energy production is to be worthwhile; see, e.g. the argument in L.R.B. Mann ’Some difficulties with energy farming for portable fuels’ 9 60. and add in the costs of ecosystem maintenance. For an outline and explanation of this phenomena see Gyorgy, and also . The requisite distinction is made in several places, e.g. Routley (b), and and (to take one example from the real Marxist literature), 61. V Gyorgy-.' 62. by The distinction between shallow and deep ecology was first emphasised For its environmental importance see Routley (c) (where further references are cited). /references. primary General the For t the reader ca ext that over er...ref^ences wilt—unS'"by consulting the latter ■ S. Cotgrove and A. Duff, ’Environmentalism, middle-class radicalism and politics’, Sociological Review 2$ (2) (1980), 333-51. R.E. Goodin, ’No moral nukes’, Ethics 90 (1980), 417-49. A. Gyorgy and Friends, No Nukes: everyone’s guide to nuclear power, South End Press, Boston, Mass., 1979. R. Nader and J. Abbotts, The Menace of Atomic Energy, Outback Press, Melbourne, 1977. R. and V. Routley, ’Nuclear energy and obligations to the future’, Inquiry 21 (1978), 133-79 (cited as Routley (a)). Fox Report: Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry First Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1977. K.S. Schrader-Frechette, Nuclear Power and Public Policy, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980 (referred to as SF). W.R. Catton, Jr., and R.E. Dunlap, ’A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology’, American Behavioral Scientist 24 (1980) 15-47. United States Interagency Review group on Nuclear Waste Management, Report to the President, Washington. (Dept, of Energy) 1979. (Ref. No. El. 28. TID- 29442) (cited as US(a)). L, A.B. Covins and J.H. Price, Non-Nuclear Futures: The Case for an Ethical Energy Strategy, Friends of the Earth International, San Francisco, 1975. R. Routley, ’On the impossibility of an orthodox social theory and of an orthodox solution to environmental problems’, Logique et Analyje, , 23 (1980), 145-66. R. Routley, ’Necessary limits for knowledge: unknowable truths’, in Essays in honour of Paul Weing^T^^ (ed. E. 'tforsc^er) , Salzberg, 1980. J. Passmore, Man’s Responsibility for Nature, D^ckwairth, London, 1974. Passmore, 2. R. and V. Routley, The Fight for the Forests, Third Edition, RSSS, Australian National University, 1975 (cited as Routley (b)). J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., J) 3fid ^/s^ckler o i/i_ t~ot^/c\ l * _ J. Elster, 'Risk, uncertainty and nuclear power’, Social Science Information 18 (3) (1979) 371-400. £, £ J. Robinson, Economic Heresies, Basic Books, New York, 1971. / Barry, ’Circumstances of Justice and future generations' in Obligations to Future Generations (ed. ^ .1. * Si^rrj^and B. Barry), Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 19 78. /f £< c Zy c>~f . - ) yT —f. f / 1 /f4. c~~tt\A c j < / /7Z , (X KT , // / /{. fi)o^S $ ; } //67- Zy? z77G_ /6 6z7 3)?r * 6 /V4 ■ C rr * /f / <^ch_^ /_ z?73. . \Jol.jJZ o 0 Hh Z CL 3 TO o p. 3 3 Z 3 o z co rt O rt TO B z f Z CL TO 3 3 O Hi 3 3 3 3 PO □ 3 Z Prt pj £rt O Z O 00 *< *3 3 3 O '•s rt Z CL 'C 3 3 "o' 3 3 co o 3 3 fb 3 i-h O >< P- O rt (0 z 3 3 rt PO 0 (b z o w O a P M § o B rt rt 3 3 O' 3 Z 3 3 3 3 CL CL 3 Z Z 3 3 rt 3 Z L<J z 3 rt 3 3 3 prt 3 CL B Z Z z w 3 3 rt 3 a rt 3 S' 3 TO O' 3 3 3 3 P- TO 00 O 5 C 3 3 3 TO O' Z Z 3 3 3 rt rt O Z Z 3 3 * < rt •3 Z 3 Z 3 3 3 O 3 rt * 3 3 3 O CD to 3 3 rt rt 3 Z < O Z 3 O 3 CO M z > 3 3 > H g s M Z P1 3 X PO' Z 3 >3 g 3 3 Z n o P' P> 1 tn 3 3 * p 3 O > f rf CO 3 CL CD rf 3 O 00 3 O 3 3 P- 1 CL 3 3 rt O Z 3 O Z 3 3 3 * p 3 3 rt 3 3 * P PTO 3 CL 3 3 O 3 3 rt rf 3 Z Z TO 3 CL n O Z w A t< O <Z> * H O s cn rt H» rt C rt B co * H H« CD F—* n Hl Hl H« :r o > z o 5 1 S' P3 3 3 3 3 S' P3 3 P- Z 3 rf 3 H O S' PO 3 Z t-1 a o 3 Ft s: H« O 3 3 3 CL rt P" O H 3 O CL c 3 0Q 3 P3 <S n O rt C O 3 Z 3 3 Z 3 3 rt P. 3 Pz 3 rt * P < 3 rt P3 * p 3 3 C rt> p * 3 Z z—\ 3 M X) 3 3 rt co 3 3 tn C CD rt 3 c n rt > C rt * 3 O 3 Prt 3 rt Z < 3 f Z A A Z o z 3 «! 3 3 CL CO Z 2 z 3 O < Pco p> o 3 TO O 3 P3 Z 3 o p> P1 3 3 rt P< 3 M 00 3 Z p. rt 3 3 Z 3 3 3 3 3 CL rt O 3 3 Z 3 rt 3 CL H 3 3 O 3 3 TO rt 3 tn p rti 3 rt 3 rt 3 3 3 TO rt P‘ Z 3 O' z p3 H- 3 CD 3 z Z 3 3 3 3 CL rh 3 3 rt rt> 0 Z H- O 3 3 CD 3 $ O Si 3 CD H1 3 CD 3 3 CD 3 3 Z t-h S' CL 1 PS' 3 < 3 Z 3 B >3 3 Hi Hi fl) H fl) * 3 H pf o CL Z < PCL X- W n o z o J3j z 3 rt C 3 3 Z C 3 S P3 rt 3 P3 CD Pn 3 3 CD CD rt p. o 9 fl) CD rt) H Hi 1 z-s 1 3 jb rt rt) K * H CD z O 3 5 rt g CL 3 < 3 Z O Z 3 Z TO 3 O 3 00 3 3 CO 3 O CD C CD 3 3 3 3 3 CL 5 2 z-s 3 O O 3 ? 3 rt 3 3 Z (u Z B 3 3 P3 O rt 00 < 3 3 O Z « C rt 3 S' CL • 3 3 < P3 O 2 3 rt C 3 3 pi < 3 Z c 3 P- 3 0 rt CL < S' P3 O 3 3 g rt 3 3 3 rt 3 o 5 B SS 3 3 3 3 3 3 rt 3 O < 3 3 3 3 rt Z O 3 p- o B e W cz> n o Z w <3 > r c z 3 3 3 CL Z 00 B Z 3 3 3 CL P00 B cn o o p3 Z rt 3 3 5 z O O B Alternative Environmental Dominant Social Paradigm Alternative Environmental Paradigm Domination over nature Non-material (self-realisation) Natural environment intrinsically valued Harmony with nature * ECONOMY Market forces Risk and reward Rewards for achievement Differentials Individual self-help Public interest Safety Incomes related to need Egalitarian Collective/social provision POLITY Authoritative structures (experts influential) Hierarchical Law and order Action through official institutions Participative structures (citizen/ worker involvement) Non-hierar chical Liberation Direct action SOCIETY Centralised Large-scale Associational Ordered Decentralised Small-scale Communal Flexible NATURE Ample reserves Nature hostile/neutral Environment controllable Earth’s resources limited Nature benign Nature delicately balanced KNOWLEDGE Confidence in science and technology Rationality of means (only) Limits to science Rationality of ends CORE VALUES Material (economic growth, progress and development) Natural environment valued as resource State socialism, as practised in most of the "Eastern bloc", differs as to economic organisation, the market in particular being replaced system by a command system).$ But since there is virtually no debate confines of state socialism, that minor variant on the Old Paradigm from the Old Paradigm really only by central planning (a market over a nuclear future within the need not be delineated here.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 97, Item 2: Draft of Nuclear power - ethical, social and political dimensions Subject The topic of the resource Typescript of draft, with handwritten emendations and corrections with whiteout, undated. Paper published, Routley R and Routley V (1982) 'Nuclear power—some ethical and social dimensions', in Regan T and VanDeVeer D (eds) And justice for all: new introductory essays in ethics and public policy, Rowman and Littlefield. Description An account of the resource Unnumbered paper from collection, item number assigned by library staff. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=val+routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Val Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 97, Item 2 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [64] leaves.48.16 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:78dac39">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:78dac39</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1982-01-01 Box 97: Paper - Extracts - Articles and Chapters by Richard Sylvan https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/dd9d3643c6fef8d9b42bd99891f3504d.pdf 59d1d3200dc67ec37105255ec1b23c13 PDF Text Text Richa rd and Val Rout ley 1. NUCLEAR POWER - SOME ETHICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS 1 One hardl y needs initi ation into the dark myst eries of nucle ar phys ics to cont ribut e usefu lly to the deba te now wide ly ragin g over nucle ar powe r. While many impo rtant empi rical ques tions are still unres olved , these do not reall y lie at the centr e of the contr over sy. Inste ad, it is a deba te abou t value s .•. many of the ques tions which arise are socia l and ethic al ones .2 I. THE TRAIN PARABLE AND THE NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEM. A long dista nce coun try trai n has just pulle d out. The train which is crowd ed carri es both passe ngers and freig ht. At an early stop in the journ ey someone consi gns as fr e ight, to a far dista nt desti natio n, a packa ge which conta ins a highl y toxic an d explo sive gas. This is packe d in a very thin conta iner which , as t he consi gner is awar e, may well not conta in the gas for the full dista nce f or whi ch it is consi gned , and certa inly will not do so if the train shou ld s t r i ke any real troub le, for exam ple, if the train shou ld be dera iled or i nvo l ved in a colli sion , or if some passe nger sh:>u ld inter fere inad verte ntly or de liber ately with the freig ht, perha ps tryin g to stea l some of it. All o f these sorts of thing s have happe ned on some previ ous journ eys~ If the co ntain er shoul d break the resu lting disa ster would proba bly kill at least some of the peop le on the train in adjac ent carri ages , while othe rs could be maimed ~or poiso ned or soon er or later incur serio us disea ses. Most of us would round ly condemn such an actio n. What migh t the cons igner of the parc el say to try to justi fy it? He migh t say that it is not certa in that the gas will escap e, or that the world needs his prod uct and it is his duty to supp ly it, or that in any case he is not respo nsibl e for the train or the peop le on it. These sorts of ~xcu ses howe ver would norm ally be seen as ludic rous when set in this conte xt. Unfo rtuna tely, simi lar excu ses are o ;,...:'. ~ f'\ o t- s " 99• ole~~ seen when the cons igner , again a (resp onsib le) busin essm an.pu ts his wor kers' healt h or other peop les' welf are at risk. Suppo se he says that it is his own and othe rapr essin g needs which justi fy his actio n. The company he cont rols, which produ ces the mate rial as a by-p rodu ct, i s in bad finan cial stra its, and could not affor d to produ ce a bette r cont ainer even if it knew how to make one. If the company fails , he and his famil y wi ll suffe r, his empl oyees will lose their jobs and have to look for othe rs, aP.d the whole company town, throu gh loss of spend ing, will be worse off. The poor and unem ploye d of the town, whom he would other wise have been able to help , will suffe r espe ciall y. Few peop le would acce pt such groun da as justi ficat ion. �Even where there are serio us risks and costs to ones elf or some group for whom one is conce rned one is usua lly cons idere d not to be entit led to simp ly trans fer the heavy burde n of those risks and costs onto othe r uninv olved parti es, espe ciall y where they arise from one's own, or one's grou p's chose n life- style . The matte r of nucle ar waste has many mora l featu res which resem ble the train case. How fitti ng the analo gy is will becom e appa rent as the argum ent prog resse s. There is no known prove n safe way to packa ge the high ly toxic waste s gene rated by the nucle ar plan ts that will be sprea d aroun d the world as large -scal e nucle ar devel opme nt goes ahead . The waste probl em will be much more serio us than that gene rated by the 50 or so react ors in use at prese nt, with each one of the 2000 or so react ors envis aged by the end of the centu ry produ cing, on avera ge, annu al waste s conta ining 1000 times the radio activ ity of the Hiros hima bomb. Much of this waste is extre mely toxic . For exam ple, a milli onth of a gramme of pluto nium is enoug h to induc e a lung canc er. A leak of even a part of the waste mate rial could invol ve much loss of life, wide sprea d disea se and gene tic dama ge, and conta mina tion of innnense areas of land. Wast es will inclu de the react ors them selve s, which will have to be aband oned after their expe cted life times of perha ps 40 year s, and whic h, some have estim ated, may requ ire U~ milli on y~ars to reach safe leve ls of radio activ ity. Nucl ear waste s must be kept suita bly isola ted from the envir onme nt for their entir e activ e lifet ime. For fissi on prod ucts the requ ired stora ge perio d avera ges a thous and years or so, and for trans uran ic elem ents, which inclu de . pluto nium, there is a half milli on to a milli on year stora ge probl em. Serio us probl ems have arise n with both shor t-term and propo sed long- term metho ds of stora ge , even with the comp arativ ely ~mal l quan tities of waste produ ced over th last twent y years . Shor t-term metho ds of stora ge requ ire conti nued human inter vent ion, while propo sed longe r term metho ds are subje ct to both human inter feren ce and risk of leaka ge throu gh non-human facto rs. No one with even a sligh t know ledge of the geolo gical and clim atic histo ry of the earth over the last milli on year s, a perio d whose fluct uatio ns in clim ate we are only just begin ning to guage and which has seen four Ice Ages , could be confi dent that a rigor ous guara ntee of safe stora ge could be provi ded for the vast perio d of time invol ved. Nor does the histo ry of human affa irs over the last 3000 years give groun d for confi denc e in safe stora ge by metho ds requ iring human inter vent ion over perha ps a milli on year s. Propo sed long- term stora ge meth ods such as stora ge in gran ite form ation s or in salt mine s, are large ly spec ulati ve and relat ively unte sted, and have alrea dy prove d to invol ve diffi culti es with attem pts made to put them into prac tice. Even as regar ds expe nsive recen t prop osals for first embe dding conc entra ted wast es in glass and enca psula ting the resu lt in mult ilaye red meta l conta iner• befor e rock depo sit, aimu latio n mode l• , �J, 3. revea l that radio activ e mate rial may not remai n suita bly isola ted from human envir onm ents. - In short , the best prese nt stora ge propo sals carry very real poss ibilit ies of irrad iatin g futur e peopl e and damaging their enviro nmen t. 3 Given the heavy costs which could be invol ved for the futur e, and given the known limit s of techn ology , it is metho dolog ically unsou nd to bet, as nucle ar natio ns have, on the disco very of safe proce dures for stora ge of waste s. Any new proce dures (requ ired befor e 2000) will proba bly be but varia tions on not. only have prese nt propo sals, and subje ct to the same inade quaci_e s. For insta nce,/ none of the propo sed metho ds for safe stor age~ been prope rly teste d, but they may well prove to invol ve unfor eseen diffi culti es and risks when an attem pt is made to put them into pract ice on a comm ercial scale . Only a method that could provi de a rigor ous guara ntee of safet y over the stora ge perio d, that place d safet y beyond reaso nable doubt , would be accep table . It is diffi cult to see how -such rigor ous guara ntees could be given conce rning eithe r the geolo gical or futur e human facto rs. But even if an econo mical ly viabl e, rigor ously safe long term stora ge met~ d could be devis ed, there is the proble m of guara nteein g that it would be unive rsally and invar iably used. The assum ption that it would be (espe cially if, as appea rs likel y, such a method prove d expen sive econo mical ly and polit icall y) seems to presu ppose a level of effic iency , perfe ction , and conce rn for the futur e which has not previ ously been encou ntered in human affai rs, and has certa inly not been consp icuou s in the nucle ar indus try. The risks imposed on the futur e by proce eding with nucle ar devel opme nt are, then, signi fican t. Perha ps 40,00 0 gener ation s of futur e peopl e could be force d to bear signi fican t risks resul ting from the provi sion of the (extra vagan t) energ y use of only a small propo rtion of the peopl e of 10 gener ation s. Nor is the risk of direc t harm from the escap e or misus e of radio activ e mate rials the only burde n the nucle ar solut ion impos es on the futur e. Becau se the energ y provi ded by nucle ar fissio n is merel y a etop gap, it seems proba ble that in due cours e the same proble m, that of making a trans ition to renew able sourc es of energ y, will have to be faced again by a futur e popu lation which will proba bly, again as a resul t of our actio ns, be very much worse place d to cope with it. Their world will most likel y be a world which is serio usly deple ted of non-r enewa ble resou rces, and in which such renew able resou rces as fores ts and soils as remai n, resou rces which inevi tably form an impo rtant part of the basis of life, are run-down or destr oyed. Such point s tell again st the idea that futur e peopl e must be, if not direc t bene ficiar ies of energ y from nucle ar fissio n, at least indir ect bene ficiar ies. �( The "solu tion" then is to buy time for conte mpora ry socie ty at a price .which not only creat es serio us proble ms for futur e peopl e but which reduc es their abili ty to cope with these probl ems. Like the consi gner in the train parab le, conte mpora ry indus trial socie ty propo ses, in order to get itsel f out of a mess arisin g from its own life- style - the creat ion of econo mies depen dent on an abund ance of non-r emwa ble energ y, which is limit ed in suppl y to pass on costs and risks of serio us harm to other s who will obtai n no corre spond ing bene fits. The "solu tion" may enabl e the avoid ance of some uncom fortab le chang es in the lifeti me of those now livin g and their imme diate desce ndant s, just as the consi gner• • actio n avoid s uncom foriab le chang es for him and those in his imme diate surro undin gs, but at the expen se of passi ng heavy burde ns to other uninv olved parti es whose oppo rtunit y to lead decen t lives may be serio usly jeopa rdise d. If we apply to the nucle ar situa tion the stand ards of behav iour and moral princ iples gener ally ackno wledg ed (in princ iple, if not so often in fact) in the ·conte mpora ry world , it is not easy to avoid the concl usion that nucle ar devel opme nt invol ves injus tice with respe ct to the futur e on a grand scale . There appea r to be only two plaus ible ways of tryin g to avoid such a concl usion . First , it might be argue d that the moral princ iples and oblig ation s which we ackno wledg e for the conte mpora ry world and perha ps the imme diate futur e do not apply to those in the non-im media te futur e. Secon dly, an attem pt might be made to appea l to overr iding circu mstan ces; for to rejec t the consi gner' s actio n in the circum stanc es outlin ed is not to imply that there are no circum stanc es in which such an actio n might be justi fiabl e. As in the case of the consi gner .of the packa ge there is a need to consi der what these justif ying circum stanc es might be, and wheth er they apply in the prese nt case. We consi der these possi ble escap e route s for the propo nent of nucle ar develo pmen t in turn. l II. OBLIGATIONS TO THE (DISTANT) FUTURE. ./ I I The espec ially probl emati c area is that of the dista nt (i.e. non-im media te) futur e, the futur e with which peopl e alive today will have no direc t conta ct; by comp arison , the imme diate futur e gives fewer proble ms for most ethic al theor ies. In fact the quest ion of oblig ation s to futur e peopl e prese nts tests which a number of ethic al theor ies fail to pass, and also has serio us reper cussi ons in polit ical philo sophy as regar ds the adequ acy of accep ted (demo cratic and other ) insti tutio ns which do not take due accou nt of the inter est• of futur e creat ures. \ r �Moral phil osop hers have , pred icta bly, diff ered on ques tion s of obli gati ons to dist ant futu re crea ture s. A good many of the phil osop hers who have exp lici tly cons ider ed the ques tion have come down in favo ur of the same cons ider atio n bein g give n to the righ ts and inte rest s of futu re peop le as to thos e of cont emp orary or imm edia tely futu re peop le. Othe rs fall into thre e cate gori es: thos e who ackn owle dge obli gati ons to the futu re but who do not take them seri ousl y or who assi gn them a less er weig ht, thos e who deny , or who are com mitte d by thei r gene ral mora l posi tion to deny ing, that ther e are mor al obli gati ons beyond the imm edia te futu re, and thos e who come down, with adm irab le phil osop hica l caut ion, on both side s of the issu e, but with the weig ht of the argu men t favo urin g the view unde rlyin g prev ailin g economic and poli tica l inst itut ions , that ther e are no mora l obli gati ons to the futu re beyond thos e perh aps to the next gene ratio n. Acco rdin g to the most extre me of thes e posi tion s agai nst mora l obli gati ons to the futu re, our beha viou r with resp ect to the futu re is mor ally unco nstra ined ~ ther e are no mora l rest rict ions on acti ng or fail ing to act deri ving from the effe ct of our acti ons on futu re peop le. Of thos e phil osop hers who say, or whose view s impl y that we do not have obli gati ons to the (non -imm edia te) futu re, many have base d this view on acco unts of mora l obli gati on which are buil t on rela tion s which pres uppo se some degr ee of temp oral or spa tial con tigu ity. Thus , mora l obli gati on is seen as pres uppo sing vari ous rela tion s whic h coul d not hold betw een peop le wide ly sepa rate d in time (or some time s in spac e). Let us call the posi tion that we have no obli gati ons to (dis tant ) futu re peop le the Nocon stra ints posi tion . Among sugg este d base s or grou nds of mora l obli gati on for the pos itio n, which would rule out obli gati ons to the nonimm edia te futu re, are thes e. Firs tly. ther e are thos e acco unts whic h requ ire that someone to whom a mora l obli gati on is held be able to claim his righ ts or enti tlem ent. Peop le in the dist ant futu re will not be able to claim righ ts and enti tlem ents agai nst us, and of cour se they can do noth ing to enfo rce any claim s they migh t have agai nst us. Seco ndly , ther e are thos e acco unts whic h base mora l obli gati ons on soci al or lega l conv enti on, for exam ple a conv entio n whic h would requ ire puni shm ent of offe nder s or at leas t some kind of soci al enfo rcem ent. But plai nly thes e and othe r conv entio ns will not be inva rian t over chan ge in soci ety and amendment of lega l conv enti ons; henc e they will not be inva rian t over time . Also futu re peop le have no way of enforcin & thei r inte rest s or puni shin g off~ ndin g pred eces aora . \ I i _L �The No-cons traints view is a very difficu lt one to sustain . Conside r, for example , a scienti fic group which, for no particu lar reason other than to test a particu lar piece of technolo gy, places in orbit a cobalt bomb set off by a triggeri ng device designed to go off several hundred years from the time of its despatch . No present ly living person and none of their immedia te descend ants would be affected , but the populat ion of the earth in the distant future would be wiped out as a direct and predicta ble result of the action. The ·Ho-con straints position clearly implies that this is an accepta ble moral enterpr ise, that whateve r else we might legitim ately criticiz e in the scienti sts' experim ent (perhaps its being over-ex pensive or badly designed ) we cannot lodge a moral protest about the damage it will do to future people. The no-cons traints position also endorse s as morally accepta ble the followin g sorts of policy: I A firm discove rs it can make a handsome profit from mining, process ing and manufac turing a new type of materia l which, although it ca~ses no problem for present people or their immedia te descend ants, will over a period of hundred s of years decay into a substan ce which will cause an enormous epidemi c of cancer among the inhabita nts of the earth at that time. Accordi ng to the Ko-con straints view the firm is free to act in its own interes ts, without any conside ration for the harm it does remote future people. Such countere xamples to the NQ-con straints position , which are easily varied and multipl ied, might seem childlis hly obvious . Yet this view is far from being a straw man; not only have several philosop hers endorsed this position , but it is a clear implica tion of many current ly popular views of the basis of moral obligat ion, as ~eli as of prevaili ng economic theory. It seems that those who opt for the No-con straints position have not conside red such example s, despite their being clearly implied by their position . We suspect that {we certain ly hope that) when it is brought out that their position admits such countere xamples , that without any constra ints we are free to cause pointles s harm for example , most of those who opted for this position would want to assert that it was not what they intended . What many of those who have put forward the No-con straints posit ion~ to have had in mind (in denying moral obligat ion) is rather that future people can look after themsel ves, that we are not respons ible for their lives. The popular view that the future can take care of itself also seems to assume a future causally indepen dent of the present . But it is not. It is not as if, in the countere xample cases or in the nuclear case, the future is simply being left alone to take care of itself. Present people are influenc ing it, and in doing so thereby acquire many of the same sorts of moral respons ibilitie s as they do in causally affectin g the present and immediate future, a.oat notably the obligat ion to take account in �7. 'what they do of peop le affec ted and their inter ests, to be care ful in their ac tions , to take accou nt of the genu ine prob abili ty of their actio ns causi ng harm, and to sec that they do not act so as to rob futur e peop le of the chnnc c of a good life. Furth ermo re, to say that we are not resp !~ibl e for the lives of futur e peop le does not amount to the same thing as sayin g that we are free to do as we like with respe ct to them. In just the same way, the fact that one does not have or has not acqu ired an oblig ation to some stran ger with whom one has neve r been invol ved does not imply that one is free to do what one likes with respe ct to him, for example to rob him or to serio usly harm him when this could be avoid ed. V These diffi culti es for the No-c onstr aints posi tion resu lt in part becau se of a failu re to make an impo rtant disti nctio n. Some of our oblig ation s to othe rs arise becau se we have volu ntari ly enter ed into some a greem ent with them - for exam ple, we have made a prom ise. Othe r oblig ation s, howe ver, such as our duty not to damage or harm some one, do not assume that an agree ment has been struc k betwe en us. Let us call oblig ation s of the f ormer kind acqu ired oblig ation s and those of the latte r unac quire d oblig ation s. There is a cons idera ble diffe renc e in the type of resp onsi bilit y asso ciate d with each. In the case of acqu ired oblig ation s resp onsi bilit y arise s becau se one s hould do some thing which one can fail to do, e.g. keep a prom ise. In the case of unac quire d dutie s resp onsi bilit y arise s as a resu lt of being a caus al ag ent who is aware of the conse quen ces or prob able conse quen ces of his actio n, a resp onsi bilit y that is not depen dent on one's havin g perfo rmed some act in the past (e.g. , made a prom ise). Our oblig ation s to futur e peop le clear ly are ,una cqui red. not acqu ired oblig ation s, a fact the No-c onstr aints posi tion ~ simpl y fails to take into acco unt. These oblig ation s arise as a resu lt of our abili ty to produ ce caus al effec ts of a reaso nably pred ictab le natu re, whet her on our cont emp orar ies~ on those in the dista nt futur e. Thus , to retur n to the train para ble, the cons igner cann ot argue in justi ficat ion of his actio n that he has. for exam ple, neve r assumed or acqu ired resp onsi bilit y for the passe ngers . that he does not know them and there fore has no love or symp athy for them and that they are not part of his mora l comm unity; in shor t, that he has acqu ired no oblig ation , and baa no apec ial oblig ation • to help them. All that v t ' r . �". one needs to argue conce rning the train , and in the nucle ar case, is that there are moral oblig ation s again st impos ing harm ~ ~ ~·~ which are not speci ally oblig atiq9 s to the dista nt acqui red. Nor can this claim be rebut ted by the all prete nce tha:,( tutur e i~vo1 ve heroi c self sacri fice, somet hing "abov e and beyon d" what is norm ally requi red. One is no more engag ing in heroi c self sacri fice by not forcin g futur e peopl e into an unvia ble life posit ion or by refra ining from causi ng them direc t harm than the consi gner is resor ting to heroi c self sacri fice in refra ining from shipp ing the dange rous packa ge on the train . V III. ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE OBLIGATIONS TO THE FUTURE. In evadi ng these diffi culti es the No-c onstr aints posit ion may be quali fied rathe r than wholl y aband oned. Accor ding to the Quali fied posit ion we are not entir ely uncon strain ed wi th respe ct to the dista nt futur e. There are oblig ation s, even to dista nt futur e peopl e, but these are not so impor tant as those to the prese nt, and the inter ests of dista nt futur e peopl e canno t weigh very much in the scale again st those of the prese nt and imme diate futur e. The inter ests of futur e peopl e then, excep t in unusu al cases , count for very much less than the inter ests of prese nt peopl e. Hence such thing s aa nucle ar devel opme nt and vario us explo itativ e activ ities which bene fit prese nt peopl e shoul d proce ed, even if peopl e of the dista nt futur e are (somewhat) disad vanta ged by them. The Quali fied posit ion appea rs to be widel y held and is impli cit in preva iling economic theor ies, where the posit ion of a decre ase in weigh t of futur e costs and bene fits (and so of futur e inter ests) is obtai ned by appli catio n over time of a disco unt rate, so disco untin g costs and risks to . aM- a...-pi~ ~ \ -4 . futur e peopl e. The attem pt to apply econo mics as a moral theor y, -eeme th'-t that is becoming incre asing ly common, can lead the~ to the Quali fied posit ion. What is objec tiona ble in such an appro ach is that econo mics must opera te withi n the bounds of ackno wledg ed non-a cquir ed moral cons train ts, just as in pract ice it opera tes withi n legal const raint s. What econo mics canno t legiti mate ly do is determ ine what these const raint s are. There are, moreo ver, alter nativ e econo mic theor ies and simpl y to adopt . witho ut furth er ado, one which disco unts the futur e, givin g much less impor tance to the inter ests of futur e peopl e, is to beg all the quest ions at issue . Among the argum ents that econo mists offer for gener ally disco untin g the futur e, the most threa dbare is based on the Rosy -futur e assum ption , that futur e gener ation s will be bette r off than prese nt ones (and so bette r place d to handl e the waste probl em). Since there is moun ting evide nce that futur e gener ation s may wel l~ be bette r off th,Z prese nt ones, espec ially in thing s that matte r, no argum ent for disco untin g the inter ests of futur e gener ation s on this basis can carry much weigh t. For the waste proble m to be hande d dovn V I �to the futur e gener ation s, it would have to be shown, what recen t economic progr ess hardl y justi fies, that futur e gener ation s will be not just bette r off but so much bette r off that they can (easi ly)ca rry and contr ol the nucle ar freig ht. A more plaus ible argum ent for disco untin g, the Oppo rtunit y-cos t argum ent, build s direc tly on the notio n of oppo rtunit y cost. It is argue d from the fact that a dolla r gaine d now is worth much more than a dolla r receiv ed in the nonimme diate futur e (beca use the first dolla r could meanw hile be inves ted at compound inter est}, that disco untin g is requi red to obtai n equiv alent mone tary value s. This same line of reaso ning is then appli ed to the alloc ation of re sourc es. Thus, comp ensati on - which,___1s what the waste proble m is taken to come to econo mical ly - cost~ much less now than later , e.g. a few penni es set aside 1-1:>V (e.g. in a trust fund ).the futur e, if need be, will suffi ce to comp ensate event ually for any ~ctim s of remot e radio activ e waste leaka ge. Two proble ms ~ First , there are, beset this appro ach. prese ntly at least , insurm ounta ble pract ical diffi culti es about apply ing such disco untin g. We simpl y do not know how to determ ine appro priate futur e disco unt rates . A more serio us objec tion is that the argum ent depen ds on a false assum ption. It is not true that value , or damages, can alway s be conve rted into mone tary equiv alent s. There is no clear "mon etary comp ensati on" for a varie ty of damag es, inclu ding cance r, loss of life, a lost speci es. The disco untin g theme , however argue d for, is inade quate , becau se it leads back in pract ice to the No-c onstr aints posit ion. The reaso n is that disco untin g impos es an" economic horiz on" beyond which nothi ng need be consi dered , since any costs or bene fit which might arise are, when disco unted back to the prese nt, negli gible . A diffe rent argum ent fot the Quali fied posit io~. the Prob abilit ies argum ent, avoid s the objec tions from cases of certa in damage throu gh appea l to proba bility consi derat ions. The dista nt futur e, it is argue d, is much more uncer tain than the prese nt and imme diate futur e, so that prob abili ties are conse quent ly lower , perha ps even appro achin g or coinc iding with zero for any hypot hesis conce rning the dista nt futur e. Thus, the argum ent conti nues, the -inter ests of futur e peopl e must (apar t from excep tiona l cases where there is an unusu ally high degre e of certa inty} count for (very much) less than those of prese nt and neigh bouri ng peopl e where (much') highe r prob abili ties are attac hed. So in the case of confl ict betwe en the prese nt and the futur e, where it is a quest ion of weigh ing certa in bene fits to the peopl e of the prese nt and the imme diate futur e again st a much lower proba bility of indet ermin ate coats to an indet ermin ate number of V �assuming anything like similar costs and benefit s were involve d. is however badly flawed. The argumen t Firstly , probab ilities involvin g distant future situatio ns are not always less than those concern ing the immedia te '"'tt..N ~ ~ -~ -q Nat l'-.Now wJ~a..+. ~,NA. «f ~~e J~N f2.(;.~ ~L of. ~~ft.. - ~ t~( _d-'z..,ve.. , ~ 1t:e.. future in the way the argumen t suppose s.AMor eove)th e outcome s of some moral problem s often do not depend on a high level of probabi lity. . In many cases it is enough, as the train parable reveals , that a signific ant risk is created ; such cases do not depend critica lly on high probabi lity assignm ents. Nor, of course, can it be assumed that anything like similar ly weighte d costs and benefits are involved in the nuclear case, especia lly if it is a question of risking poisonin g some of the earth for half a million or so years, with consequ ent risk of serious harm to· thousand s of generat ions of future people, in order to obtain quite doubtfu l, or even trivial , benefit for some present peopl jin the shape of the opportu nity to continu e (unnece ssarily) shigh energy use. And even if the costs and benefit s were compara ble or evenly weighte d, such an argumen t would be defectiv e, since an analogo us argumen t would show that the consign er's action in the train parable , is accepta ble provided the benefit (e.g. the profit the company stood to gain from imposin g signific ant risks on · other people) was sufficie ntly large. Such a cost-be nefit approac h to moral and decisio n problem s, with or without the probabi lity frills, is quite inadequ ate when differe nt parties are involved or when cases of conflic t of interes t involvin g moral obligat ions are at issue. permiss ible s For example , such a cost-be nefit approac h would imply that it is for a company to injure, or very likely injure, some innocen t party provided only that the company stands to make a sufficie ntly large gain from it, that costs to some group are more than morally larger benefit s to another group. compens ated for by But costs or benefit s are not legitim ately transfer red in any simple way from one group to another . The often appealed to maxim "If you (or your group) want the benefit s . you have to accept the costs" is one thing, but the maxim "If I (or my group) want the benefit • then~ have to accept the coat• (or aome of theDJ at leaat)" i• another an_d_ _ __ �// very different thing. It is a widely accepted moral principle that one is not, in general, entitled to simply transfer costs of a significa nt kind arising fro~ an activity which benefits oneself onto other parties whQ are not involved in the activity and are not beneficia ries. 6 This Transfer -limiting principle is especiall y clear in cases of whiea e thalidomide rnaoufact u~ias and mark.eti.Ag eompany J:9 or.a.,.. where the significa nt costs include an effect on life or health or a risk thereof, and where the benefit to the benefitti qg - e. -1, J -tt.. e ~ ~ "" { party is of a noncrucia l or dispensib le nature/\ The principle is of o ~f'(.,v,._{ ,~ fundamen tal importanc e in the nuclear debate, and appears again and again ~ c. ta it applies not merely to the waste problem but as regards several other liabiliti es of nuclear developm ent, e.g. the risk of nuclear war, the matter of reactor meltdown. ln particula r, the principle invalidat es the compariso n, heavily relied on in building a case for the ~cceptab ility of the nuclear risks, \ between nuclear risks and those from such activitie s as airplane travel or cigarette smoking. In the latter case those who supposedl y benefit from the activity are also, to an overwhelm ing extent, those who bear the serious health costs and risks involved. In contrast the users and supposed beneficie aries of nuclear energy will be risking not only, or even primarily , their own lives and health, but also that of others who may not be beneficia ries at allwho may be just the opposite! More generally , the distribut ion of costs and damage in such a fashion, i.e. on to non-bene ficiaries, is a characte ristic of certain serious forms of po llution, and is among its morally objection able features. productio n, from nuclear or fossil pollution . i mportant necessary condition for energy options: ~ energy option risks of harm Large-sca le energy fuel sources, can cause or lead to serious Thus from the Transfer -limiting principle emerges an To be morally acceptab le should not involve the transfer of significa nt costs or ~ parties who .!!!. ~ involved, benefit correspon dingly from!!!.!, energy source. ~ do ~ ~ ~ do n_ ~ ~ ~ t::.-L-~ ~ Included in the acope of c~ @. �this cond ition , which nucl ear deve lopm ent viol ates , are futu re peop le, i.e. not mere ly peop le livin g at the pres ent time but also futu re gene ratio ns (tho se of the next town s). A furth er coro llary of the prin cipl e is the Tran smis sion Prin ciple , that we shou ld not hand the worl d we have so expl oited on to our succ esso rs in subs tant ially wors e shap e than we "rec eive d" it. For if we did then that would be a sign ifica nt tran sfer of cost s. The Tran sfer- limi ting prin cipl e can be deriv ed from cert ain ethi cal theo ries (e.g . thos e of a deon tic cast such as Kan t's and Raw ls') and from common prec epts (such as the Golden Rule ), where one serio usly cons iders putt ing ones elf in anot her's posi tion . But the prin cipl e is perh aps best defe nded , on a broa der basi s, indu ctive ly, by way of exam ples. Supp ose, to embr oider the train para ble, the company town deci des to solv e its disp osal prob lem by ship ping its noxi ous wast e to anot her town down the line , which (like futu re towns) lack s the means to ship it back or to regi ster due prot est. The inha bitan ts of this town are then force d to face the prob lem eith er of unde rtaki ng the expe nsive and diff icul t disp osal proc ess or of sustaini ng risk s to thei r own live s and heal th. Most of us would rega rd this kind of tran sfer of cost s as mora lly una~ cept able , however much the cons igne r's company town flou rish es. IV. UNCERTAINTY AND INDETERMINACY ARGUMENTS FOR REDUCED RESPONSI BILITY. Many of the argu ment s desig ned to show that we cann ot be expe cted to take too much acco unt of the effe cts of our actio ns on the dist ant futu re appe al to unce rtain ty. Ther e are two main components to the Gene ral Unc ertai nty argu ment , capa ble of sepa ratio n, but freq uent ly tang led up. Both argu ment s are mist aken , the firs t, an argum ent from igno ranc e, on.! prio ri grou nds, the seco nd on a post erio ri grou nds. The Argument from igno ranc e conc erned runs as foll ows :/ In cont rast to the exac t info rmat ion we can obta in abou t the pr;s ent, the infor mati on we can obta in abou t the effe cts of our actio ns on the dist ant futu re is unre liab le, wool ly and high ly spec ulati ve. But we cann ot base asse ssme nts of how we shou ld act on info rmat ion of this kind , espe ciall y when �IE accurate informati on is obtainabl e about the present which would indicate different action. Therefore we must regretful ly ignore the · uncertain effects of our actions on the distant future. ignorance A striking example of the argument from at work is afforded by official US analyses favouring nuclear developm ent, which ignore (the extensive ) costs of 7 grounds of uncertain ty. More formally and crudely waste control on the the argument concerned is this: One only has obligatio rts to the future if these obligatio ns are based on reliable informati on. distant future. There is no reliable informati on at present as regards the Therefore one has no obligatio ns to the distant future. This argument is essential ly a variant on a sceptical argument concernin g our knowledge of the future (formally , replace 'obligati ons' by 'knowledg e' in the crude statement of the argument above). The main ploy is to considera bly overestim ate and overstate the degree of certainty available with respect to the present and immediate future, and the degree of certainty which is - required as the basis for moral considera tion both with respect to the present and with respect to the future. Associate d with this is the attempt to suggest a sharp division as regards certainty between the present and immediate future on the one hand and the distant future on the other. We shall not find, we suggest, that there is any such sharp or simple division between the distant future and the adjacent future and the present, at least with respect to those things in the present which are normally subject to moral constrain ts. We can an~ constantl y such do act on the basis ofj"unre liable" informati on, which the sceptic as regards the future convenien tly labels "uncerta inl,,'. In moral situation s in the present, assessmen ts of what to do often take account of risk and probabil ity, even quite low probabil ities. Consider again the train parable. We do not need to know for certain that the container will break and the lethal gas escape. In fact it does not even have to be probable, in the relevant sense of more probable than not, in order for us to condemn the consigne r's action. that there is a significa nt risk of harm . It is enough in this sort of case. It does not matter if the decreased well-bein g of the consigner ia certain and that the �...... prospects of the passenger s quite uncertain . It is wrong to ship the gas. But if we do not require certainty of action to apply moral constrain ts in contempo rary affairs, why should we require a much higher standard of certainty in the future? The unwarrant ed insistenc e on certainty as a ·necessary condition before moral considera tion can be given to the distant future, then, amounts to a flagrant double standard. According to the second argument, the Practical -uncertai nty argument. even if in theory we have obligatio ns to the future, we cannot in practice take the interests of future peopl~ into account because uncertain ty about . the distant future is so gross that we cannot determine what the likely consequen ces of actions on it will be. Therefore , however good our intention s to the people of the distant future are, in practice we have no choice but to ignore their interests . Given that moral principle s are characte ristically of universal implicati onal form, e.g. of forms such as "if x has character then x is wrong, for every (action) sharply thus: x", h the argument may be stated more We can never obtain the informati on about future actions whicl\. ~ t-~ ,< tt a.s c t..tu._ a.. ~~ h J• would enable us to iea ■ Jh the anteceden t of the implicati on/\ Therefore , even r.r; c if in theory moral principle s do extend to future people, in practice they cannot be applied to obtain clear conclusio ns. It is true that if the distant future really were so grossly uncertain that in every case it was impossibl e to determine in any way better than chance what the effects of present action would be, and whether any given action would help or hinder future people, then moral principle s, although applicab le in theory to the future, would not in practice yield any clear conclusio ns about how to act. In this event the distant future would impose no practica l . moral constrain ts on action. ~ However. the argument is factually incorrect in as s uming that the future always is ao grossly uncertain or indeterm inate. Admittedl y -there is often a high degree of uncertain ty concernin g the distant future, but as a matter of (continge nt) fact it is not always so gross or sweeping •• the argument ha• to •••um•. There are aome areas where uncertain ty ia - �not so great as to exclud e const raints on action . For examp le, we may have little id ea what the fashio ns will be in a hundre d years or, to take anothe r morally -irrel evant factor , what brands of ice cream people will be eating , if any, but we do have excel lent reason to believ e, espec ially if we consid er 3000 years of histor y, that what people there are in a hundre d years are likely to have mater ial and psych ic needs not entire ly unlike our own, that they will need a health y biosph ere for a good life; that like us they will not be immune to radiat ion; that their welfa re will not be enhanc ed by a high incide nce of cancer or geneti c defec ts, by the destru ction of resou rces, or the elimin ation from the face of the earth of that wonde rful variet y of non-human life which at presen t makes it such a rich and intere sting place. The case of nuclea r waste storag e, and of uncer tainty of the effec ts of it on future people , is onearea where uncer tainty in moral ly releva nt ~espe cts is not so great as to preclu de moral const raints on action . For this sort of reason , the Pract ical uncer tainty argum ent should be reject ed. Through the defec ts of the prec~d ing argum ents, we can see the defec ts in a number of widely employed uncer tainty argum ents used to write off proba ble harm to future people as outsid e the scope of prope r consid eratio n. Most of these popula r moves employ both of the uncer tainty argum ents as suits the case, switch ing from one to the other. For examp le, we may be told that we canno t really take accou nt of future people becaus e we canno t be sure that they will exist or that their tastes and wants will not be compl etely differ ent from our own, to the point where t.hey will not suffer from our exhau stion of reso\l rces or from the things that _would affec t us. But this is to insist upon compl ete - certai nty of a sort beyond what is requir ed for the presen t and immed iate future , where there is also commonly no guaran tee that some disas ter will not overta ke those to whom we are moral ly comm itted. Again we may be told that there is no guaran tee that future people will be worthy o( any effort s on our part, becau se ,a- MOc-CJ. , Ne,,.,i ~v -fl~ ,v- they may be morons o/ foreve r plugge d into/\Emjoyment., _/-- ef othe ·, ±-ultiR ea Even if one is prepar ed to accep t the elitis t approa ch presup posed - accord ing to which only those who meet certai n prope rly civili zed or intell ectua l standa rds are l eligib le for moral consid eratio n - what we are being handed in such argum ents V �... ..,. i s again a mere outside possibility. . Neither the contemporary nor the historical situation gives any positive reason for supposing that a lapse into universal moronity or universal-pleasure-machine escapism is a serious possibility. We can contrast with these mere logical possibilities the very real historically supportable risks of escape of nuclear waste or decline of a civilisation through destruction of its resource base. Closely related to uncertainty arguments are arguments premissed on the indeterminacy of the future. For example, according to the tndeterminacy argument, the indeterminacy of the number and exact character of people at future times will prevent the interest of future peopie being taken into account where there is a conflict with the present. Since their numbers are indeterminate and their interests unknown how, it is asked, can we weigh their competing claims against those of the present and immediate future, where this information is available in a more or less accurate form? The question is raised particularly by problems of sharing fixed quantities of resources among present and future people, for example oil, when the numbers of the latter are indeterminate. Such problems are indeed difficult, but they are not resolved by ignoring the claims of the future. Nor are distributional problems involving non-renewable resources as large and representative a class of moral problems concerning the future as the tendency to focus on them would suggest. It can be freely admitted, that there will be cases where the - indeterminacy of aspects of the future will make conflicts very difficult to resolve or indeed irresoluble - no realistic ethical theory can give a precise answer to every ethical question. But, as the train parable again illustrates, there are cases where such difficulties do not hinder resolution, and cases of conflict which are not properly approached by weighing numbers, numbers of interests, or whatever, cases for which one needs to know only the most general probable characteristics of future people. The case of nuclear power is like that. The failure of these various arguments reveals, what can be iodependently -+- '-" thelr placement . does noL ar gued from the universalisability features of moral principles, 8 thatf disqualify future people from full moral consideration or reduce their claimsr , tllUU' ,.., ') \trt2r / below the claima of present people. That ia, we hav, "tbe ••m• ions V �/1 to future people as to the presen t; 1 thus there is the same obliga tion to take accoun t of them and their intere sts in what we do, to be carefu l in our action s, to take accoun t of the probab ility (and not just the certain ty) of our action s causing harm or damage, and to see, other things being equal, that we do not act so as to rob them of what is necessa ry for the chance of _a good life. Uncert ainty _,, and indeter minacy do not relieve us of these obliga tions. v. PROBLEMS OF SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATION REACTOR EMISSIONS AND CORE MELTDOWN. The ethica l problem s with nuclea r power are by no means confine d to waste storag e and future creatu res. entitle ment Just as remote ness in. time does not er~de obliga tions or to just treatm ent, neithe r does locatio n in space, or a partic ular geogra phical positio n. Hence severa l furthe r problem s arise, to which princip les and argume nts like those already arrived at in consid ering the waste problem apply. For exampl e, if one group (socia l unit, or state) decide s to dump its radioa ctive wastes in the territo ry or region of anothe r group, or not to preven t its (radioa ctive) polluti on enterin g the territo ry of anothe r group, then it impose s risks and costs on presen tly existin g people of the second group, in much the way that presen t nuclea r develop ments impose costs and risks on future people . There are differe nces howev er: spatia lly distan t people cannot be discou nted in quite the way that future people can be, though their Jiie ~~~ o·F-tu ~t..+ . intere sts and objecti ves/\Nt ?Wlc ignored or overrid den. People living in the vicini ty of a nuclea r reacto r are subjec t to specia l costs and risks. One is radioa ctive pollut ion, becaus e reacto rs routin ely dischar 1 radioa ctive materi als into the air and water near Emissio n problem . the plant : hence the Such "norma l" emissio n during plant operat ion of low level radiati on carrie s carcino genic and mutage nic costs. While there are undoub tedly costs, the number of cancer s and the precis e extent of geneti c damage induced by exposu re to such radiati on are both uncert ain. If our ethica l princi ples permit ted free transfe r of coata and riaka from one person to anothe r, the ethica l iaaue direct ly raised by nuclea r ••miaa ion•wo uld be: what extent of Q__ .......- �..... cancer and genetic damage, if any, is permissibly traded for the advantages of nuclear power, and unde{ what conditions? Since, however, risks and benefits are NOT {morally) transferable this way - recall the Transfer-limit ing principle - such a cost-benefit approach to the risks nuclear emission poses - for those who live near a reactor cannot with justice be approached in this fashion~ > And these risks are real! v In the USA, people who live within 50 miles of a nuclea · power plant bear a risk of cancer and genetic damage/as much as 50 times that borne by the population at large. ✓ And children living in this region are even more vulnerable, since they ar~ several times more likely to contract cancer through exposure than normal adults. The serious costs to these people cannot be justified by the alleged benefits for others, especially when these benefits could be obtained without these costs. Thus it is not just complacent to say 'It's a pity about Aunt Ethel dying of cancer, but the new airconditioner s ' make life comfprtable'. ~~e+,~ For such benefits to some as airconditioner~ provide,~which can be alternatively obtained, for example by modification of buildings, can in no way compensate for what others suffer. Among the other strategies used in trying to persuade us that the +£«-0:sc w~ \,14 e close ~ Nu<.. (e..a.,R,. pt~~ imposition of radiation ~ d i H - most of whom have no genuine voice in the location of reactors in their environment and cannot move away without ~\ \ serious losses - is really quite ,'right is the Doubling argument. ~ccording I to the US Atomic Energy Commission, "ho dcployud dU.&i nr• it is pennissfble to double, through nuclear technology, the level of (natural) radiation that a population ha$ received with apparently negligible consequences, the argument bei ng that the additional amount (being equivalent is also likely to have negligible consequences. to the "natural" level) The increased amounts of radiation - with their large man-made component - are then accounted normal, and, its; claimed, what is normal is morally acceptable. ;-tTb1s ::J ,"6r argument is sound. I, ~er.c of eh@ seeps Drinking one bottle of wine a day may have no ill-effects, whereas drinking two a day certainly may affect a person'• well-being; and while the smaller intake may have become norm.al for the person, the larger one will, under euch conditiona, not be. Finally, what ia or has become norcna_l_, _ _ _~ . �e.g. two murders or twenty canc ers a day in a give n city , may be far from acce ptab le. / IJ \ In fact , even the USA, which has very stri ct stan dard s by compar_ison with most othe r cou ntrie s with planned nucl ear reac tors , perm its radi atio n emis sion s very sub stan tiall y in exce ss of the stan dard s laid down; so the emis sion situ atio n is much worse than what cons ider atio n of the stan dard s would disc lose . Furt herm ore, the mon itori ng of the stan dard s "imp osed " is entr uste d to the nucl ear oper ator s them selv es, scar cely disi nter este d part ies. Thus pub lic poli cy is dete rmin ed not so as to guar ante e pub lic hea lth, but rath er to serv e as a "pub lic pac ifie r" whil e pub licly -sub sidi zed priv ate nucl ear oper atio ns proc eed rela tive ly unhampered? · While radi oact ive emis sion s are an ordi nary feat ure of reac tor ope ratio n, reac tor breakdown is, hop eful ly, not: offi cial repo rts even try to make an acci dent of mag nitud e, as a mat ter of defi niti on, an 'ext raor dina ry nucl ear occu rren ce'. But "def init ions " notw iths tand ing, such acci dent s can happ en, and almo st have on seve ral occa sion s (the most noto riou s bein g Thre e Mile Isla nd): henc e the Core-meltdown prob lem. If the cool ing and emergency core cool ing syst ems fail in American (lig ht wate r) reac tors , then the core melt s and 'con tain men t fail ure' is like ly, with the resu lt that an area of 40,0 00 squa re mile s coul d be radi oact ivel y 10 cont amin ated . In the even t of the wors t type of acci dent in a very sma ll reac tor, a steam expl osio n in the reac tor vess el, abou t 45,0 00 peop le would be kill ed inst antl y and at leas t 100, 000 would die as a resu lt of the acci den t, prop erty damages would exce ed $17 bill ion and an area the size of Penn sylv ania would be dest roye d. Modern nucl ear reac tors are abou t five time s the size of the reac tor for which thes e cons erva tive US figu res (sti ll the best avai labl e from 11 offi cial sour ces) are give n: the cons eque nces of a sim ilar acci dent with a modern reac tor would acco rdin gly be much grea ter. The cons igne r who risk s the live s and well -bei ng of pass enge rs on the trai n acts .i nadm issib ly. A government or gove rnm ent- endo rsed util ity appe ars to act in a way that doe• not diff er in mor all;y aign ifica nt resp ect• in -------~ �siti ng a nuc lear rea cto r in a commun ity, in pla ntin g such a dan gero us pac kag e on the "community trai n". More dir ect ly, the loc atio n of a nuc lear rea cto r in a community, even if it sho uld hap pen to rec eiv e a fav our able ben efit -co st ana lysi s and oth er economic app rais al, would vio late such eth ica l requ irem ents ~ as the Tra nsf er-l imi ting prin cip le. The adv oca tes of nuc lear power hav e, in eff ect , end eav oure d to avo id que stio ns of cos t-tr ans fer and equ ity, by shi ftin g the disp ute out of the extr aor din ary imp rob abil it't, , V e thic al aren a and into a tech nol ogi cal disp ute abo ut eaau~ theJ of · 0 r eac tor mal fun ctio n. They hav e argu ed, in par ticu lar, what con tras ts with the trai n par able , tha t the re is no rea l pos sib ilit y of a cata stro phi c nuc lear v acc iden t. Inde ed in the infl uen tial Rassmussen rep ort - which was ext ens ive ly used to sup por t pub lic con fide nce in US nuc lear fiss ion tech nolo gy - an even stro nge r, an inc red ibly stro ng, imp rob abil ity clai m was stat ed: nam ely, the ' like liho od of a cata stro phi c nuc lear acc iden t is so rem ote as to be (alm ost) imp ossi ble. However, the mat hem atic al models reli ed upon in this rep ort, var iou sly call ed "fa ult tree ana lysi s" and "re liab ilit y esti mat ing tech niq ues ". are unso und , bec aus e, among oth er thin gs, they exc lude as "no t cre dib le" tha t the pos sib ilit ies tha t may wel l happen in the rea l wor ld. It is not sur pris ing , the n,/ methodology and dat a of the rep ort hav e bee n sou ndly and dec isiv ely crit icis ed, or tha t off icia l sup por t for the rep ort has now been with draw n.12 Mor eov er, use of alte rna tive methods and data ind icat es tha t the re is a rea l pos sib ilit y, a non -ne glig ible pro bab ility of a · seri ous acc ide nt. In resp ons e it is con tend ed tha t, even if the re is a non -ne glig ible \ pro bab ility of a rea cto r acc ide nt. sti ll tha t is acc epta ble, bein g of no gre ater ord er than risk s of acc iden ts tha t are alre ady soc iall y acc epte d. Here we enc oun ter aga in tha t insi dio us eng inee ring app roac h to mor alit y bui lt into dec isio n models of an economic cas t, e.g . ben efit -co st bala nce she ets, risk asse ssm ent mod els, etc . Ris k asse ssm ent, a sop his tica tion of tran sac tion or trad e-o ff mod els, pur por ts to pro vide a com pari son betw een the rela tive riak a atta che d to diff ere nt opt ion s, ••I• ene rgy otp ion a, whi ch aet tlea the ir �eth ica l stat us. The foll owi ng assu mpt ions are enc oun tere d in risk asse ssm ent as app lied to ene rgy opt ion s: A · If o~io n'.J t_im pos es (co mpa rab le)B osts B on few er peo ple than op tio n~ then opt ion ,i_ pre fera ble to opt ion . ; AL is ,,_....,_,, . AH. Op tion iinv olv es a tota l net cos t in term s of cos t to peo ple (e.g . t3J dea ths, inju ries , etc .) which is less than tha t of opt ion .wh ich is •~re ady acc epte d; the refo re opt ion ~is acc ept abl ef 3 These assu mpt ions are then app lied as foll ows . \....--" Sin ce 't he number like ly to eve ntu all' i' by nuc lear power sta tion cata stro phe is less !ha n the like ly number I kill ed by cig are tte smoking, and sinc e the risk s of cig are tte smoking are acc epte d; it foll ows tha t the risk s of nuc lear power are acc epta ble. A litt le refl ect ion rev eals tha t this sor t of risk asse ssm ent argument gro ssly vio late s the Tra nsfe r~ lim itin g prin cip le. In ord er to obt ain a pro per eth ica l asse ssm ent we need be kill ed J a much full er pic ture , and we need to know at lea st thes e thin gs: / Do the cos ts and ben efit s go to the same par ties ; and is the pers on who vol unt aril y und erta kes the risk s also the pers on who prim aril y rece ives the ben efit s, as in driv ing or cig are tte smoking, or are the cos ts imposed on oth er par ties who do not ben efit ? It is only if the par ties are the same in the cas e of the opt ion s l S vC-t... compared, and the re are no ~d ist rib uti on al prob lem s, tha t a com pari son 8ft •-•h ~ would be sou ndly bas ed. Thi s is rare ly the cas e, and it is not ao in the case of risk asse ssm ents of ene rgy opt ion s. VI. OTHER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND COSTS OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR WAR. The prob lem s alre ady disc uss ed by no means exh aus t the env iron men tal, hea lth and safe ty risk s and cos ts in, or aris ing from , the nuc lear fue l cyc le. The ful l fue l cyc le incl ude s many stag es both bef ore and afte r rea ct or ope rati on, apa rt from was te disp osa l, nam ely, min ing, mil ling , con ver sion , enri chm ent and pre par atio n, rep roc essi ng spe nt fue l, and tran spo rtat ion of materia ls. Sev eral of thes e stag es inv olv e haz ard s. Unl ike the spe cial " risk s in the nuc lear cyc le - of sab otag e of pla nts , of the ft of fiss ion abl e mat eria l, and of the furt her pro life rati on of nuc lear armaments - thes e haz ards µ �have para llels . if not exac t equi vale nts, in othe r high ly poll utin g methods of gene ratin g powe r. e.g. 'wor kers in the uran ium mini ng indu stry sust ain "the same risk" of fata l and nonf atal inju ry as work ers in the coal indu stry '.14 The prob lems are not uniq ue to nucl ear deve lopm ent. Othe r soci al and envi ronm enta l prob lems - thou gh endemic wher e dang erou s larg e-sc ale indu stry oper ates in soci etie s that are high ly ineg alita rian and inclu de sect ors that are far from afflu ent - are more intim ately linke d with the nucl ear power cycl e. Though poll utio n is a comm on and gene rally unde sirab le component of larg e-sc ale indu stria l oper ation , rad~ oact ive poll utio n .suc h as urani um mini ng for insta nce prod uces . is espe ciall y a lega cy of nucl ear deve lopm ent. and a spec ially unde sirab le one, as rect ifica tion cost s for dead radi oact ive land s and wate rway s reve al. Though sabo tage is a thre at to many larg e indu strie s, sabo tage of a nucl ear reac tor can have dire cons eque nces , of a diffe rent orde r of magn itude from most indu stria l sabo tage (where core meltdown is not a poss ibili ty). Though thef t of mate rial from more dubi ous ente rpris es such as mun ition s works can pose thre ats to popu latio ns at larg e and can assi st terro rism , no thef ts for alleg edly peac eful ente rpris es pose prob lems of the same orde r as thef t of fissi onab le mate rial. No othe r indu stry prod uces mate rials which so read ily perm it fabr icati on into such mass ive expl osiv es. No othe r indu stry is, to sum it up, so vuln erab le on so many fron ts. In part to redu ce its vuln erab ility , in part beca use of its long and cont inuin g asso ciati on with mili tary acti viti es, the nucl ear indu stry is subj ect to, and enco urag es, seve ral prac tices whic h (give n thei r scal e) run coun ter to basi c featu res of free and open soci etie s, cruc ial featu res such as pers onal libe rty, freedom of asso ciati on and of expr essio n,an d free acce ss to info rmat ion. Thes e prac tices inclu de secr ecy, rest ricti on of info rmat ion, form ation of spec ial poli ce and guar d forc es, espio nage , curt ailm ent of civi l libe rtie s. Alre ady oper ators of nucl ear inst alla tion s are give n extr aord inar y powe rs, in vett ing empl oyee s, to inve stiga te the back grou nd and acti vitie s not only of empl oyee s but also of thei r fami lies and sometimes even of thei r frien ds. The inst alla tion s them selve s become armed camps, whic h espe ciall y offe nds Brit ish sens ibili ties . The U.K. Atomic Energy (Spe cial Con stab les) Act of 1976 crea ted a spec ial armed forc e to guar nucl ear inst alla tion s aud..made it answ erab le • • • to the U.K. .. dAtom ic En• · ~ ' �These devel opme nts, and worse ones in West Germany and elsew here, presa ge along with nucle ar devel opme nt incre asing ly auth orita rian and anti- demo crati c soci eties . That nucle ar devel opme nt appe ars to force such poli tical conse quen ces tells heav ily again st it. Nucl ear devel opme nt is furth er indic ted poli tical ly by the direc t conn ectio n of nucle ar powe r with nucle ar war. It ia true that ethic al ques tions conc ernin g nucle ar war - for exam ple, whet her a nucle ar war is justi fied , or just, unde r any circu msta nces, and if so what circu msta nces - are disti ngui shab le from those conc ernin g nucle ar power. Undo ubted ly, however, the sprea d of nucle ar power is subs tanti ally incre asing the techn ical means for engag ing in nucle ar war and so, to that exte nt, the oppo rtuni ty for, and chanc es of, nuc~ ear engagement. Since nucle ar wars are neve r accou nted posi tive good s, but are at best the lesse r of majo r evils , nucle ar wars are alway s high ly ethic ally unde sirab le. The sprea d of nucle ar power acco rding ly expan ds the oppo rtuni ty for, and chanc es of, high ly unde sirab le conse quen ces. .,.fina l:½) the lac cet, sb irlete a&In g r.huuw cbancac i'itid Opt111c I Oil I I te:::s, is Heal f unda sha~ h, ■Rd 'lber efore )wha t . leads to it;nu clea r devel opme ntA is unde sirab le. This is, in outli ne, the argum ent from nucle ar war again st large -scal e nucle ar devel opme nt. 16 t5 F ·~ , ~ ATl" VII. ,\CONFLICT ARGUMENTS~ JND R5Ila ff!f~ ~1 JN C~ THE IDEOLOGICAL BASES OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT. Much as with _nucle ar war, so given the cumu lative caTe again st nucle ar deve lop~e nt, only one justi ficat ory route rema ins open , that of appe al to over ridin g circu msta nces. That appe al, to be ethic ally acce ptabl e; must go beyond mere ly economic cons idera tions . For, as obse rved, the cons igne r's actio n, in the train para ble, cann ot be juati fied by pure ly econ omis tic . argum ents, such as that his prof its would rise, the company or the town would be more prosp erous , or by appe aling to the fact that some poss ibly unco mfor table chang es would other wise be neede d. So it is also in the nucle ar ½-12., case: ./Tra nsfe r-lim iting princ iple appl ies. But suppo se now the cons igner argue s that his actio n ia justi fied becau ae unlea a it 1• taken the town will die. It ia ✓ i l �by no means clear that even such a justification as this would be sufficient, especia lly where the risK5 to the passengers is high, since the case still to A amo~ntsione of transfer of costs and risks onto others. But such a conflict situation, where a given course of action, though normally undesirable, is alleged to be the lesser of two evils in a given case, is morally more problemthan c~ses atica;(where v~fer-limitin g principle is clearly violated. Nuclear development is often defended in this way, through Conflict arguments, to the effect that even though nuclear development does have undesirable features, nevertheless the alternatives are worse. Some of the arguments advanced to demonstrate conflict are based on competing commitments to present people, and others on competing obligations to future people, both of which are taken to override the obligations not to i mpose on the future significant risk of serious harm. The success of such conflict arguments requirESthe presentation of a genuine and exhaustive set of alternatives (or at least practical alternatives) and showing that the only al ternatives to admittedly morally undesirable actions are even more undesirable ones. If some practical alternative which is not morally worse than the action to be justified is overlooked, suppressed, or neglected in the argument (for example, if in the train parable it turns out that the town has another option to starving or to shipping the parcel, namely earning a living in some other way), then the argument is defective and cannot readily be patched. Just such a suppression of practicable alternatives, we shall argue, has occurred in the argument designed to show that the alternatives to the nuclear option are even worse than the option itself. A first argument, the Poverty argument, is that there is an overriding obligation to the poor, both the poor of the third world and the poor of industrialised countries. Failure to develop nuclear energy, it is often claimer, would amount to denying them the opportunity to reach the standard of affluence we currently enjoy and would create unemployment and poverty in the industrialised nations. And this would be worse - a greater evil - than such things as violating the Transfer-limit ing principle through nuclear development. The Poverty argument does not stand up to examination, either for the poor of the industrial countries or for those of the third world. There is good evid ence that large-scale nuclear energy will help increase unemployment and poverty in the industrial world, through the diversion of very much available capital into an industry which is not only an exceptionally poor provider of direct employment, but also tends to reduce available jobs through encouraging substitution of energy use for labour use. The argument that nuclear energy is needed for the third world is even less convincing. Nuclear energy is both politically and economically inappropriate for the third world, since it requires massive amounts of capital, require• number• of imported acientiata and en2ineera. --------- �~cr eate s negl igibl e loca l employment, and depen ds for its feas ibili ty upon large ly non- exist ent utili ty syste ms - e.g. estab lishe d elec trici ty trans miss ion syste ms and back- up faci litie s, and suffi cien t elec trica l appli ance s to plug into the syste m. Poli tical ly it incre ases forei gn depen dence , adds to cent ralis ed entre nche d power and reduc es the chanc e for chang e in the oppr essiv e poli tical struc tures which are a large part of the probl em. The fact that nucle ar energ y is not in the inter ests of the peop le of the third world does not of cours e mean that it is not in the inter ests of, and wante d (ofte n for milit ary purpo ses) by, their ruler s, the west ernis ed and often milit ary elite s in whose inter ests the econo mies of these coun tries are usua lly organ ised. But that does not make the pove rty argum ent anyth ing othe r than what it is: a fraud . There are well- know n energ y-con servi ng alter nativ es and the prac tical optio n of deve lopin g furth er alter nativ e energ y sourc es, alter nativ es some of which offe r far bette r prosp ects for helpi ng the poor , both in the third world and in indu stria l coun tries : coal and othe r foss il fuels , geoth erma l, and a range of solar optio ns (incl udin g as well as narro wly sola r sourc es, wind , wate r and tidal powe r). Anot her majo r argum ent advan ced to show conf lict, the Ligh ts-go ingout argum ent, pppe als to a set of supp osedl y over ridin g and comp eting oblig ation s to futur e peop le. We have , it is said, a duty to pass on the immensely valua ble thing s and insti tutio ns which our cultu re has devel oP,ed . Unle ss our high- techn ology , high- energ y indu stria l socie ty is conti nued and foste red, our valua ble insti tutio ns and tradi tions will fall into decay or be swep t away. The argum ent is esse ntial ly that witho ut nucle ar powe r, witho ut the conti nued level of mate rial weal th it alone is assumed to make poss ible, the light s of our civil izati on will go out. Futu re peop le will be the loser s. The argum ent does raise impo rtant ques tions abou t what is valua ble in our socie ty and what char acte risti cs are nece ssary for a good socie ty. But for the most part these large ques tions can be by-p assed . The reaso n is that the argum ent adop ts an extre mely uncr itica l attit ude to prese nt high- techn ology soci eties , appa rentl y assum ing that they are unifo rmly and uniqu ely valu able. it It assum es that techn olog ical socie ty is unmo difia ble, thaic anno t be chang ed in the direc tion of energ y cons ervat ion or alter nativ e.(pe rhap s high techn ology ) energ y sourc es witho ut colla pse. These assum ption s are all hard to acce pt. The assum ption that techn olog ical soci ety's energ y patte rns are unmo difia ble is espe ciall y so; after all, it has survi ved even ts such as world wars which requ ired majo r socia l and techn olog ical restr uctu ring and consu mptio n modi ficat ion. If west ern soci ety's demands for energ y were (con trary to the evide nce) total ly unmo difia ble witho ut colla pse, not only would it be comm itted to a progr am of incre asing destr uctio n, but much of ita cultu re would be of dubio us value to �future people, who would very likely, as a consequence of this destruction , lack the resource base which the argument assumes to be essential in the case of contemporar y society. The uniformity assumption should certainly be challenged. Since hightechnology societies appear not to be uniformly valuable, the central question is, what is necessary to maintain what is valuable in such a society? While it may be easy to argue that high energy consumption centrally controlled is necessary to maintain the political and economic status quo of such a society, it is not so easy to argue that it is essential to maintain what is valuable, and it is what is valuable, presumably ,that we have a duty to pass on to the future. The evidence from history is that no very high level of material affluence or energy consumption is needed to maintain what is valuable. There is good reason in fact to believe that a society with much lower energy and resource consumption would better foster what is valuable than our own. But even if a radical change in these directions is independen tly desirable, it is unnecessary to presuppose such a change in order to see that the assumptions of the Lights-goin g-out argument are wrong. The consumption of less energy than at present need involve no reduction of well-being: and certainly a large increase over present levels of consumption assumed in the usual economic case for nuclear energy, is quite unnecessary . What the nuclear strategy is really designed to do then is not to prevent the lights going out in western civilisatio n, but to enable the lights to go on burning all the time - to maintain and even increase the wattage output of the Energy Extravagan za. ~ In fact there is good reason to think that, far from~hig h energy consumption society fostering what is valuable, it will, especially if energy is obtained by means of nuclear fission,be positively inimical to it. A society which has become heavily dependent upon a highly centralised , controlled and garrisoned, capital- and expertise-i ntensive e~ergy source, must be one which is highly susceptible to entrenchmen t of power, and one in which the forces which control this energy source, whether capitalist or bureaucrati c, can exert enormous power over the political system and over people's lives, even more then they do at present. Such a society would almost inevitably tend to become authoritati an and increasingl y anti-democ ratic, as an outcome, among other things, of its response to the threat posed by dissident groups in the nuclear situation. Nuclear development may thus help in passing on to future generations some of the worst aspects of our society - the consumerism , alienation, destruction of nature, and latent authoritaria nism - while many valuable aspects, such as the degree of political freedom and those opportuniti es for personal and collective autonomy which exist, would be loat or diminished: political fr eedqp �for example, is a high price to pay for consumerism and.#ener gy extravagenc e. Again, as in the case of the poverty arguments, clear alternative s, a lternative social and political choices, which do not involve such unacceptabl e consequence s, are available. The alternative to _the high technology- nuclear option is not a return to the cave, the loss of all that is valuable, but either the adoption of an available alternative such as coal for power or, better,the development of alternative technologie s and lifestyles which offer far greater scope for the maintenance and further development of what is valuable in our society than the highly centralised nuclear option. The Li ghts-going -out~umen t, as a moral conflict argument, accordingly fails. Thus the fttrther escape route, the appeal to conflict, is, like the appeal t ~ futurity, closed. If tbea we apply, as we have argued we should, the ~ 1, t. same standards ef ■eral1t¥ to the future as we ought to acknowledge for the ;present, the conclusion that large-scale nuclear development is a crime against the future is inevitable. Closed also, in the much same way, are the escape routes to other arguments (from reactor meltdown, radiation emissions, etc.) for concluding that nuclear development is unacceptab le. In sum, nuclear development is morally unacceptabl e on several grounds. SOCIAL OPTIONS: SHALLOW AND DEEP ALTERNATIVES. The future energy option that is most often contrasted with nuclear power, namely coal power, while no ·doubt preferable to nuclear power. is hardly acceptable. For it carries with it VIII. the likelihood of serious (air) pollution, and associated phenomena such as acid rain and atmospheric heating, not to mention the despoliatio n caused by extensive strip mining, all of which will result from its use in meeting very high projected consumption figures. Such an option would,more over, also violate the Transfer-li miting principle: for it would impose widespread costs on nonbenefic iaries for some concentrate d benefits to some profit takers and to some users who do not pay the full costs of production and replacemen t. To these main conventiona l options a third is often added which emphasizes softer and more benign technologie s, such as those of solar energy and hydroelec tricity. Such softer options - if suitably combined with energy conservatio n measures (for there are solar ways, as well as nuclear ways, of energy extravaganc e and of producing unnecessary trivia which answer to no genuine needs) - can avoid the ethical objections to nuclear power. The deeper 8 choice is not however technolo~ic al, nor merel~Jindi vidua1}' 6fifrtocial, and involves the restructuri ng of production away from energy intensive uses and, v at a more basic level, a change to nonconsum eristic, less consumptive lifestyles and social arrangem~n ts} 7 Thes.e iore fundamental choices between social +"f? "'- •• t tt ti, fll ~ ~ t- e ,, ., , ~ f'I t- ~l.al t e rna t 1v e s,""convent i ona 1 technologic a~ly-orient ed discussion of energy options, ~ teod• to e&acur•. It ie not juet • utter of decidina in which way to meet the v 1 �unexamined goals nuclear development aspires to meet, but also a matter of examining the goals themselves. That is, we are not merely faced with the question of comparing different technologie s for meeting some fixed or given demand or level of consumption , and of trying to see how best to meet these; we are also faced, and primarily, with the matter of examining those alleged needs and the cost of a society that creates them. It is doubtful that any technology, however benign in principle, will be likely to leave a tolerable world for the future if it is expected to meet unbounded and uncontrolle d energy consumption and demands. Even more benign technologie s may well be used in a way which creates costs for future people and ~ ,~hich are....., __, likely to result in a deteriorate d world being handed on to them. In short, even more benign technologie s may lead to violation of the Transmissio n ~equirem ent. Consider, to illustrate, the effect on the world's forests, commonly counted as a solar resource, should they be extensively used for production of methanol or of electricity by woodchippin g. While few would object to the use of genuine waste material for energy production, the unrestricte d exploitatio n of forests - whether it goes under the name of "solar energy" or not - to meet ever increasing energy demands could well be the final indignity for the world's already hard-presse d natural forests. The effects of such additional demands on the maintenance of the forests are often dismissed by the simple expedient of waving around the label "renewable resources". Many forests are in principle renewable, it is a true, given a certain (low) rate and kind of exploitatio n, but in fact there are now very few forestry operations anywh~re in the world where the forests are treated as completely renewable in the sense of the renewal of all their values. In many regions too the rate of exploitatio n which would enable renewal has already been exceeded, so that a total decline is widely thought to be imminent. It certainly has begun in many regions, and many forest types, especially rainforest types,are now, and rapidly, being lost for the future;s The addition of a major further and not readily !imitable demand pressure for energy on top of the present demands is one which anyone with both a realistic appreciatio n of the conduct of forestry operations and a concern for the long-term conservatio n of the forests and remaining natural conununities must regard with alarm. The result of massive deforestati on for energy purposes, resembling the deforestati on of much of Europe at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, again for energy purposes, could be extensive and devastating erosion in steeper lands and tropical areas, desertifica tion in more arid regions, possible climatic change, and massive impoverishm ent of natural ecosys~ems, including enormous loss of natural species. Some of us do not want to pass on, and by the Transmissio n principles we are not entitled to pass on, a deforested world to the future, any more than we want to pass on one poisoned by nuclear �29. produ cts or pollu ted by coal prod ucts. In abor t, as the fores t situa tion illus trate s, a mere switc h to more benig n techn olog ies - impo rtant thoug h this is - witho ut any more basic struc tural and soci al chang e1 is inade quate . The deep er socia l optio n invol ves chall engin g and ·begi nning to alter a socia l .stru cture which prom ote, consu meris m, consu mptio n far beyond genu ine needs and an economic struc ture which enco urage s incre asing use of high ly ener gy-in tensi ~e_ modes of prod uctio n. The socia l chang e optio n tends to be obscu red in most dis cussi ons of energ y optio ns and of how to meet energ y ~eed s, in part becau se it does ques tion unde rlyin g value s of curre nt socia l arran geme nts. The conv entip nal discu ssion proce eds by takin g alleg ed demand (ofte n conf lated with e ::s<.)..,..J1.~ f,. ~ants or need s) as unch allen geab le, and the issue to be one ,',If which techn ology V can be most prof itabl y employed to meet.llhetft. This effec tivel y prese nts a ( "'"tt--~ ~ cJL.t ~ J.. ....~4'-- l~..,, wL., c v .~ ~.:i.4~ - <e ---4(\ 1 >-..~ wt:S,;....,..1~ ,.s l r N Cl'-'~ r false choic e. M\-d is the reett l-~-ef -t-ald'--:rigC. needs and=' CQRt ext IJl.h-.-t'f-- '"ft~ so that d'etnamt=-n--bek-i ftt-a- &&&, i-a.J- ~ . the.--ao,Q,:l:-a-1- ·etrt:t et·ttr-e,--wMeh-p-tt&titte-ee--the-, ,:nead&---i&- •&im-i-l&r-l-y-· t aken as unch allen geab le and unch angea ble. The poin t is read ily illus trate d. I t is commonly argue d by repre senta tives of such indu strie s as trans porta tion and petro leum , as for exam ple by McGrowth of the XS Consumption Co., that peop le want deep freez ers, air cond ition s, power gadg ets, •••• It would be auth orita rian to preve nt them from satis fyin g these want s. Such an argum ent from creat ed wants conv enien tly ignor es the socia l framew-0rk in which ~uch \ " N ~c..;'2,... f -t1,.Q. ~ft:. plA,.i--1~<' needs and wan~ arise or are produ ced. 'I:..+To pe~ n~ . th ~ dat.e i;m-~ &~ ~:::,... t >-.irl "'(At.J c" .... c..!,,..~, (IC . ~N t\ f1..,e_ ~~ ' f''-'l ~~t'. ...~ tN tu 9A-( C2..... o!&n,-J ma"n¥- sueh-warrt s· a c rhe "'fl"'~Trnrk- ieve-1-- ia.:. no,.t....,.,.•how e\t~t o., assum e .,tha.t, ...-t,h&y-. ~ c l-«:i , c...12.o ,J'!:', ~-ft. -.<./ t..-f 4'}. c.. ,._ 1.1 ..+ e. bF. ~t" 1£~ ~ :i~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~~ :;;; ;a : : h se ~ -.,~ft~ .....__ ~-~; ,.; ;~ 2 ~eval.-<a--e--~ l ~' tdal _w;g_ ;!_nf, _!!_at ~ ~hing as ·-tndi~ .tl!u arcir o-i-e ~••t~ i.nat io.n -at.._jl_ll... ~ t .. is 1Te--- ao£ ial framework as a majo r facto r in deter mini ng~c e~tai n kinds ................ .,,....,.....,.... ,•• of choic es, such as those -.. ·fo.t_ _~rav el, and k.inds ---~ f . ,...:1-nf-r·a struc ture, and to see appa rentl y indiv idua l choic es ~~:i°~') .n :,.'8uch':·;;~; ers as being chan nelle d and direc ted by a soci al fr,amework deter mine d large ly "' 1n ·· th&.-. .inter ests of corp orate ...,, and priva te prpf~-t" -~nd adva ntage . The soci al chang e optio n ia a hard optio n, inso far as it will be diffi cult to imple ment poli tical ly; but it ia ultim ately the only way of avoid ing the passi ng on of serio us costs to futur e peop le. And there are othe r sorts of reaso ns than such ethic al ones for takin g it: it is the main , indee d the only sort of optio n,ope n to those who adop t what is now calle d a deep ecolo gical persp ectiv e, as cont raste d with _a shall ow ecolo gical outlo ok which regar ds the natu ral world and its nonhuinan deniz ens as not worth while in them selve s but only of value in as much as ther answ er back to human inter ests. The .deep ecolo gical persp ectiv e is an integ ral part of the Alte rnati ve Ecol ogica l Parad igm and is incom patib le wi;~h cent ral these s of the Dominant Soci al Parad igm (whic h is esse ntial ly the ideol pgy of claa aica l and neoc lassi cal econo mics) _·-~ . ,.....,,, ,......... ,.... •, • c..-,.t. ... , �• 30. and its vari ants (rou ghly , what are calle d Stat e Soci alism , and Dem ocrat ic \/,-tu JtN,k Soci alism ).19 It is inco mpa tible with &w&h . a&Fhmptiafts as •h•• the n~tu ral l( N ~0.S k.Mlt- JL,.. a..~ °'M.A ~ " " Co.. I ~ ~ envir onme nt '" "' va'1u,e .9nly as a reso urce , ~b y And la~ hos tile /\~. .> ~ vM~ ~ .s -to ' t«. A~ ~~ o :r 9'\ d 11\.J , ~ -tt. «... o-t\...va... ~ u~ le ee11 tnlla hle :f:n ht1 11a ~a, e 1 a,ul uhAl ~ · r t h e • A.do mina tion- over wkt ,~ '-'4.. /2.42.A .... '' natu re themes ~th e Dominant Parad igm and its vari ants . The conf lict betw een Alte rnat ive and Dominant Para digm s, which is fast incr easi ng, exte nds of cour se far beyond attit udes to the natu ral worl d, sinc e core valu es of the Dominant Par,~digm such as the meri ts of unimpeded economic growth and mate rial prog ress ar ~ at stak e; the conf lict invo lves fund amen tal 1 diffe renc es over the whole fron t of econ omic al, poli tica l and soci al arra ngem ents. The conf lict unde rlies much of ;the nucl ear deba te, inso far as it is not spec ifica lly limi ted to questio1~s of tech nolo gica l fixe s, but take s up the basi c ethi cal issu es and the so ~ial ques tions to which they lead .20 The 1 ethi cal requ irem ents alrea dy de1fended and appl ied brin g us out, when follo wed throu gh, on the Alte rnat ive sid1~ of the parad igm conf lict, and acco rdin gly lead to the diff icul t soci al ch1nge optio n. The soci al chan ges that the deep alte rnat ive requ ires will be stron gly resis ted beca use they mean chan ges in curr ent soci al orga nisa tion and power stru ctur e. To the exte nt that the optio n repr esen ts some kind of thre at to part s of pres ent poli tica l and economic arran gem ents, it is not surp risin g that offi cial ener gy ppti on disc ussi on proc eeds by misr epre sent ing and ofte n obsc uring it. But diff icul t as it is to suita bly alte r "the syste m," espe ciall y one with such far-r each ing effe cts on the prev ailin g power stru ctur e, it is impe rativ e to try: we are all on the nucl ear train . w �• FOOTNOTES 1. This paper is a condens ation of an early version of our 'Nuclea r power - ethical , social, and politic al dimensi ons' (ESP for short, availab le from the authors ), which in turn grew out of Routley (i.e. the work so referred to in the referenc e list). For help with the condens ation we are very conside rably indebted to the e~itors . In the condens ation, we simplify the structu re of the argument and suppres s underly ing politic al ~1nd ideolog ical dimensi ons (for example , the large measure of respons ibilit~r of the USA for spreadin g nuclear reactor s around the world, and thereby in enhancin g the chances of nuclear disaste rs, includin g nuclear war). We also considet ·ably reduce a heavy load of footnote s and referenc es designed and needed to help make good many of our claims. · Further , in order to contain referenc es to a modest length, referenc e to primary sources has often been replaced by referenc e through seconda ry sources . Little difficu lty should be encount ered however in tracing fuller referenc es through seconda ry sources or in filling out much importa nt backgrou nd materia l from work cited herein. For example , virtual ly all the data cited in section s I and VII is referenc ed in Routley . At worst ESP can always be consulte d. 2. All but the last line of the quote is drawn from Goodin, p. 417; the last line is from the Fox Report, p. 6. While it is unneces sary to know much about the nuclear fuel cycle in order to conside r ethical and social dimensio ns of nuclear power, it helps to know a little. The b~~sics are presente d in many texts, e.g. Nader & Abbotts , Gyorgy. Of course ~~n order to assess fully reports as to such importa nt backgrou nd and stage~,s etting matters as the likeliho od of a core meltdown of (lightw ater)1 reactor s, much more informa tion is require d. For many assessm ent purpose s h~,wever, some knowledge of economic fallacie s and decision theory is at least as importa nt aa knowledge of nuclear technolo gy. 3. Natural ly the effect on humans is not the only factor that has to be taken into account in arrivln g at moral assessm ents. Nuclear radiatio n, unlike most ethical theorie s. does not confine its scope to human life and welfare . But since the ham nuclear developm ent may afflict on nonhuman life, for example , can hardly improve its case, it suffice s if the case against it can be made out solely in term• of its effects on human life in the convent ional way. �.For refe ren ce to apd a brie f disc uss ion of (hu man -ori ente d) sim ulat ion models see Goodin, p.42 8. 4. The Opp ortu nity -co st . argument is also def ecti ve in oth er resp ects . It pres upp ose s not mer ely the (mi stak en) red ucti ons invo lved in the con trac tion of the eth ica l domain to the economic; it also pres upp ose s tha t the pro per methods for dec isio n which affe ct. the futu re, such as tha t of ene rgy cho ice, app ly disc oun ting . But , as Goo din arg ues , more app rop riat e dec isio n rule s do not allo w disc oun ting . 5. Thi s is one of the reas ons why exp ecte d uti lity theo ry, roug hly cos t-be nef it ana lysi s wit h pro bab ility fril ls, is inad equ ate as a dec isio n method in such con tex ts. 6. App aren t exc epti on~ to the prin cip le such as tax atio n (and red istr ibu tion of income gen era, lly) van ish when wea lth is con stru ed (as it has to be if tax atio n is to be pro per ly jus tifi ed) as at lea st par tly a soc ial ass et unf airl y mon opo lise d by a min orit y of the pop ulat ion . Examples such as tha t of mot orin g dan gero usly do not con stit ute cou nter exa mpl es to the prin cip le; for one is not mor ally ent itle d to so mot or. 7. For det ails , and as to how the off icia l ana lys~ s become argu men ts aga inst nuc lear dev elop men t whe.p some atte mpt is made to tak e the -ign ored cos ts into acc oun t, see Shr ade r-Fr ech ette , p. 55 ff. 8. See Rou tley , p. 160 . 9. For much furt her disc uss ion of the poi nts of the prec edin g two par agrap hs, see Shr ade r-F rec het te, p. 35 ff.; and also Nader & Abbott&. 10. Gyorgy. Most of the rea cto rs in the wor ld are of this typ e; 11. See Shr ade r-Fr ech ette , cha pter 4. see 12. See Shr ade r-Fr ech ette . A wor thw hile ini tia l view of the sho rtco min gs of the RassmutJsen rep ort may be reac hed by com bini ng the crit iqu e in Shr ade r-Fr ech et~e wit h tha t in Nader & Abb otts . 13. The re are var iati on$ on Ai and Aii which mul tipl y cos ts aga inst numbers such as pro bab ilit ies. In this way risk s, con stru ed as pro bab le cos ts, can be take n into acc oun t in the asse ssm ent. (Al tern ativ ely . risk .a may be aaaeaaed thro ugh •~e h fam ilia r aeth oda •• inau ran ce). �• A princ iple varyi ng Aii, and formu lated as follow s: Aii'. a is ethic ally accep table if {for some b) a inclu des no more risks than band bis socia lly accep ted, was the basic ethic al princ iple in terms of which the Cluff Lake Board of . Inqui ry recen tly decid ed that nucle ar power devel opme nt in Saska tchew an is ethic ally accep table : see Cluff Lake Board of Inqui ry Final Repo rt, Department of Envir onme nt, Government of Saska tchew an, 1978, p. 305 and p. 288. In this repor t, a is nucle ar power and b is eithe r activ ities clear ly accep ted by socie ty as alter nativ e power sourc es. In other appli catio ns b has b•en taken as cigar ette smoki ng, motor ing, minin g and even the Vietnam ~ar (!). The point s made in the text do not exhau st the objec tions to princ iples Ai - Aii'. The princ iples are certa inly ethic ally subst antiv e, since an ethic al conse quenc e canno t be deduced from nonet hical prem isses, but they have an inadm issibl e conve ntion al chara cter. For look at the origi n of b b may be socia lly accep ted thoug h it is no longe r socia lly accep table , or thoug h its socia l accep tibili ty is no longe r so clear cut and it would not have been socia lly accep ted if as much as is now known had been known when it was introd uced. What is requi red in Aii', for insta nce, for the argument tQ begin to look convi ncing is that b is 'ethic ally accep table ' rath, r than 'soci ally accep ted'. But even with the amendments the princ iples are inval id, for the reaso ns given in the text, and other s. It is not disco neert ing that princ iples of this type do not work. It would be sad to see yet anoth er area lost to the expe rts, ethic s to actua ries. 14. See Shrad er-Fr echet te, p. 15. 15. Goodin . p. 433. 16. The argum ent is elabo rated in ESP. 17. For some of the more philo sophi cally impor tant mate rial on alter nativ e nonco nsum eristi c $OCi al arran geme nts and lifes tyles , see work cited in V. and R. Routl ey, 'Soci al theor ies, self manag ement and envir onme ntal probl ems' in M,nni son et al, where a begin ning ia made on worki ng out ~ of alter nativ ••• thoaa of a plura listic anarchism. ••t �flA-t fn 18. l ·.:. The~ situa tion of the world 's tropi cal rainf orest s is expla ined in, for insta nce, My~ra; the reaso ns are untan gled in R. and V. Routl ey 'World rainf orest destr uctio n - the socia l cause s' (avai lable from the autho rs). 19·. For a fulle r accou nt of the Dominant Socia l Parad igm and its rival , the Alter nativ e Envir onme ntal Parad igm, see Cotgr ovean d Duff, espec ially the table on p. 341 which encap sulate s ' ' the main assum ption s of the respe ctive parad igms; compare also Catto n and Dunla p, espec ially p. 33. Contemporary varia nts on the Dominant Socia l Parad igm are consi dered in ESP • .., The shallo w/dee p contr ast as appli ed to ecolo gical posit ions, which is an impor tant component of the parad igm conf lict, was introd uced by Naess . For furth er expla natio n of the contr ast and of the large r array of ecolo gical posit ions into which it fits, see R. and V. Routl ey, 'Huma n chauv inism and ~ envir onme ntal ethic s' in Mannison '------'"'et al, and the refer ences there cited , espec ially to Rodman's work. 20. The more elabo rate afgum ent of ESP sets the nucle ar debat e in the conte xt of parad igm confl ict. But it is also argue d that, even withi n assum ptions framework of the ~,min ant Socia l Parad igm and its varia nts, Ti. Nucle ar develo pmen t is no,~ the ratio nal choic e among energ y optio ns. The main argument put up for n\Jcle ar devel opme nt withi n the framework of the dominant parad igm is an Ec~,nomic growth argum ent. It is the follow ing I' versi on of the Light s-goin g-ou~; argument (with economic growt h duly stand ing in for mate rial wealt h, and fo~r what is valua ble!) :- Nucle ar power is neces sary to susta in economic $rowt h. Economic growt h is desir able (for all the usual reaso ns, e.g. to incre ase the size of the pie, to postp one redis tribu tion probl ems, etc.) . There fore nucle ar power is desir able. The first premi ss is part of US energ y polic y (see Shrad er-Fr echet te, p.111 ), and the secon d prem iss ia suppl ied by stand ard economics textb ooks. But both premi sses are defec tive, the secon d becau se what is valua ble in economic growth can be achie ved by (not witho ut growt h but) selec tive economic growt h, which jettis ons the heavy socia l and envir onme ntal costs carri ed by unqu alifie d economic growt h. More to the point , since the secon d premi ss is an assum ption of the Dominant Parad igm, the first premi ss (or rathe r an appro priate and less vulne rable restat emen t of it) fails even by Dominant Paradigm stand ards. For of cours e nucle ar power is not neces sary given that there are other , perha ps costl ier alter nativ es. The premi ss usual ly defen doJ is some elabo ration of the prem iae: Nucle ar power is the econo mical ly beat way to auata in economic arowth. 'econ omica lly beat' �be ing fill ed out as 'mo at eff icie nt', 'che ape st', 'hav ing the most favo urab le ben efit -co st rat io', etc~ Unf oitu nate ly for the argu men t, and for nuc lear development sche mes , nuc lear power is none of thes e thin gs dec isiv ely (un less a good dea l of economic che atin g - easy to do - is don e). Tii . ' pro per Dominant Para digm acc oun ting , nuc lear cho ices sho uld gen era l ly be reje cte d, both as priv ate uti lity inve stm ents and as pub lic cho ices . On Nuc lea r dev elop men t is not eco nom ical ly via ble but has bee n kep t goin g, not by cle ar economic via bili ty, butr by mas sive sub sidi zati on of sev era l typ es (dis cus sed in Shr ade r-Fl ech ette ~, Gyorgy and Nader & Abb otts ). Even on var ian ts of ~;he Dominant Para digm , nuc lear dev elop men t is not jus tifi ed, as con side rati on of dec isio n theo ry methods wil l rev eal: Til i. rej cted , Whatever reas ona ble 4ec iaio n rule is ado pted , the nuc lear cho ice is as the argu men ts of Goodin on alte rna tive dec isio n rule s help to show. What sus tain s the nuc lear jug ger nau t is not the Dominant Para digm ~r i ts var ian ts, but con tem pora ry cor por ate cap ital ism (or its sta te ent erp rise image ) and as soc iate d thir d wor ld imp eria lism , aa the his tor ica l det ails of nuc lear <lev elopmen t both in dev elop ed cou ntri es and in less dev elop ed cou ntri es mak es pla i . (for main det ails , see Gyorgy p. 307 ff.) . And the pra ctic es of con tem pora ry corp ora te cap ital ism and ass oci ated imp eria liam are not acc epta ble by the sta nda rds of eith er of the Paradigms or the ir var ian t&: they are cer tain ly no t eth ica lly acc epta ble. �• .• . ·• REFERENCES USED Works esp eci ally use ful for fur the r inv est iga tion of the e.th ica l issu ea rais ed by nuc lea r dev elop men t are ind ica t_ed wit h an ast eri sk (*) . S. Cot gro ve and A. Duf f, "En viro nme ntal ism , mid dle -cla ss rad ica lism and po liti cs' , Soc iolo gic al Review 28( 2) (1980), 333 -51 . W.R . Cat ton , Jr. , and R. E. Dun lap, 'A new eco log ica l par adig m for pos t exu ber ant soc iolo gy' American Beh avi ora l Sci ent ist 24 (19 80) . 15- 47. For Rep ort : Ranger Uranium Env iron men tal Inq uiry Fir st Rep ort, Au stra lian Government Pub lish ing Ser vic e, Can ber ra, 1977. *R. E. Goodin, "No moral nuk es', Eth ics 90 (19 80) , 417-49. *A. Gyorgy and fri' end s, No Nukes : eve ryo ne's gui de to nuc lea r pow er, Sou th End Pre ss, Bos ton , Ma ss., 197 9. *n . Mannison, M. McRobbie and R. Rou tley (ed ito rs) , Env iron men tal Phi los~ phy , RSSS, Au stra lian Nat ion al Un ive rsit y, 198 0. N. Myers, The Sin kin g Ark, Pergamon Pre ss, Oxf ord , 1979. R. Nader and J. Abb otta , The Menace of Atomic Ene rgy , Me lbou rne, 1977. Outback Pre ss, *K. S. Shr ade r-F rec het te, Nuclear Power and Pub lic Pol icy , 1980. Rei del , Dor dre cht , R. and V. Rou tley , 'Nu clea r energy and obl igat ion tJ to the fut ure ', Inq uiry 21 (19 78) , 133-79. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Richa rd and Val Rout ley 1. NUCLEAR POWER - SOME ETHICAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS 1 One hardl y needs initi ation into the dark myst eries of nucle ar phys ics to cont ribut e usefu lly to the deba te now wide ly ragin g over nucle ar powe r. While many impo rtant empi rical ques tions are still unres olved , these do not reall y lie at the centr e of the contr over sy. Inste ad, it is a deba te abou t value s .•. many of the ques tions which arise are socia l and ethic al ones .2 I. THE TRAIN PARABLE AND THE NUCLEAR WASTE PROBLEM. A long dista nce coun try trai n has just pulle d out. The train which is crowd ed carri es both passe ngers and freig ht. At an early stop in the journ ey someone consi gns as fr e ight, to a far dista nt desti natio n, a packa ge which conta ins a highl y toxic an d explo sive gas. This is packe d in a very thin conta iner which , as t he consi gner is awar e, may well not conta in the gas for the full dista nce f or whi ch it is consi gned , and certa inly will not do so if the train shou ld s t r i ke any real troub le, for exam ple, if the train shou ld be dera iled or i nvo l ved in a colli sion , or if some passe nger sh:>u ld inter fere inad verte ntly or de liber ately with the freig ht, perha ps tryin g to stea l some of it. All o f these sorts of thing s have happe ned on some previ ous journ eys~ If the co ntain er shoul d break the resu lting disa ster would proba bly kill at least some of the peop le on the train in adjac ent carri ages , while othe rs could be maimed ~or poiso ned or soon er or later incur serio us disea ses. Most of us would round ly condemn such an actio n. What migh t the cons igner of the parc el say to try to justi fy it? He migh t say that it is not certa in that the gas will escap e, or that the world needs his prod uct and it is his duty to supp ly it, or that in any case he is not respo nsibl e for the train or the peop le on it. These sorts of ~xcu ses howe ver would norm ally be seen as ludic rous when set in this conte xt. Unfo rtuna tely, simi lar excu ses are o ;,...:'. ~ f'\ o t- s " 99• ole~~ seen when the cons igner , again a (resp onsib le) busin essm an.pu ts his wor kers' healt h or other peop les' welf are at risk. Suppo se he says that it is his own and othe rapr essin g needs which justi fy his actio n. The company he cont rols, which produ ces the mate rial as a by-p rodu ct, i s in bad finan cial stra its, and could not affor d to produ ce a bette r cont ainer even if it knew how to make one. If the company fails , he and his famil y wi ll suffe r, his empl oyees will lose their jobs and have to look for othe rs, aP.d the whole company town, throu gh loss of spend ing, will be worse off. The poor and unem ploye d of the town, whom he would other wise have been able to help , will suffe r espe ciall y. Few peop le would acce pt such groun da as justi ficat ion. Even where there are serio us risks and costs to ones elf or some group for whom one is conce rned one is usua lly cons idere d not to be entit led to simp ly trans fer the heavy burde n of those risks and costs onto othe r uninv olved parti es, espe ciall y where they arise from one's own, or one's grou p's chose n life- style . The matte r of nucle ar waste has many mora l featu res which resem ble the train case. How fitti ng the analo gy is will becom e appa rent as the argum ent prog resse s. There is no known prove n safe way to packa ge the high ly toxic waste s gene rated by the nucle ar plan ts that will be sprea d aroun d the world as large -scal e nucle ar devel opme nt goes ahead . The waste probl em will be much more serio us than that gene rated by the 50 or so react ors in use at prese nt, with each one of the 2000 or so react ors envis aged by the end of the centu ry produ cing, on avera ge, annu al waste s conta ining 1000 times the radio activ ity of the Hiros hima bomb. Much of this waste is extre mely toxic . For exam ple, a milli onth of a gramme of pluto nium is enoug h to induc e a lung canc er. A leak of even a part of the waste mate rial could invol ve much loss of life, wide sprea d disea se and gene tic dama ge, and conta mina tion of innnense areas of land. Wast es will inclu de the react ors them selve s, which will have to be aband oned after their expe cted life times of perha ps 40 year s, and whic h, some have estim ated, may requ ire U~ milli on y~ars to reach safe leve ls of radio activ ity. Nucl ear waste s must be kept suita bly isola ted from the envir onme nt for their entir e activ e lifet ime. For fissi on prod ucts the requ ired stora ge perio d avera ges a thous and years or so, and for trans uran ic elem ents, which inclu de . pluto nium, there is a half milli on to a milli on year stora ge probl em. Serio us probl ems have arise n with both shor t-term and propo sed long- term metho ds of stora ge , even with the comp arativ ely ~mal l quan tities of waste produ ced over th last twent y years . Shor t-term metho ds of stora ge requ ire conti nued human inter vent ion, while propo sed longe r term metho ds are subje ct to both human inter feren ce and risk of leaka ge throu gh non-human facto rs. No one with even a sligh t know ledge of the geolo gical and clim atic histo ry of the earth over the last milli on year s, a perio d whose fluct uatio ns in clim ate we are only just begin ning to guage and which has seen four Ice Ages , could be confi dent that a rigor ous guara ntee of safe stora ge could be provi ded for the vast perio d of time invol ved. Nor does the histo ry of human affa irs over the last 3000 years give groun d for confi denc e in safe stora ge by metho ds requ iring human inter vent ion over perha ps a milli on year s. Propo sed long- term stora ge meth ods such as stora ge in gran ite form ation s or in salt mine s, are large ly spec ulati ve and relat ively unte sted, and have alrea dy prove d to invol ve diffi culti es with attem pts made to put them into prac tice. Even as regar ds expe nsive recen t prop osals for first embe dding conc entra ted wast es in glass and enca psula ting the resu lt in mult ilaye red meta l conta iner• befor e rock depo sit, aimu latio n mode l• , J, 3. revea l that radio activ e mate rial may not remai n suita bly isola ted from human envir onm ents. - In short , the best prese nt stora ge propo sals carry very real poss ibilit ies of irrad iatin g futur e peopl e and damaging their enviro nmen t. 3 Given the heavy costs which could be invol ved for the futur e, and given the known limit s of techn ology , it is metho dolog ically unsou nd to bet, as nucle ar natio ns have, on the disco very of safe proce dures for stora ge of waste s. Any new proce dures (requ ired befor e 2000) will proba bly be but varia tions on not. only have prese nt propo sals, and subje ct to the same inade quaci_e s. For insta nce,/ none of the propo sed metho ds for safe stor age~ been prope rly teste d, but they may well prove to invol ve unfor eseen diffi culti es and risks when an attem pt is made to put them into pract ice on a comm ercial scale . Only a method that could provi de a rigor ous guara ntee of safet y over the stora ge perio d, that place d safet y beyond reaso nable doubt , would be accep table . It is diffi cult to see how -such rigor ous guara ntees could be given conce rning eithe r the geolo gical or futur e human facto rs. But even if an econo mical ly viabl e, rigor ously safe long term stora ge met~ d could be devis ed, there is the proble m of guara nteein g that it would be unive rsally and invar iably used. The assum ption that it would be (espe cially if, as appea rs likel y, such a method prove d expen sive econo mical ly and polit icall y) seems to presu ppose a level of effic iency , perfe ction , and conce rn for the futur e which has not previ ously been encou ntered in human affai rs, and has certa inly not been consp icuou s in the nucle ar indus try. The risks imposed on the futur e by proce eding with nucle ar devel opme nt are, then, signi fican t. Perha ps 40,00 0 gener ation s of futur e peopl e could be force d to bear signi fican t risks resul ting from the provi sion of the (extra vagan t) energ y use of only a small propo rtion of the peopl e of 10 gener ation s. Nor is the risk of direc t harm from the escap e or misus e of radio activ e mate rials the only burde n the nucle ar solut ion impos es on the futur e. Becau se the energ y provi ded by nucle ar fissio n is merel y a etop gap, it seems proba ble that in due cours e the same proble m, that of making a trans ition to renew able sourc es of energ y, will have to be faced again by a futur e popu lation which will proba bly, again as a resul t of our actio ns, be very much worse place d to cope with it. Their world will most likel y be a world which is serio usly deple ted of non-r enewa ble resou rces, and in which such renew able resou rces as fores ts and soils as remai n, resou rces which inevi tably form an impo rtant part of the basis of life, are run-down or destr oyed. Such point s tell again st the idea that futur e peopl e must be, if not direc t bene ficiar ies of energ y from nucle ar fissio n, at least indir ect bene ficiar ies. ( The "solu tion" then is to buy time for conte mpora ry socie ty at a price .which not only creat es serio us proble ms for futur e peopl e but which reduc es their abili ty to cope with these probl ems. Like the consi gner in the train parab le, conte mpora ry indus trial socie ty propo ses, in order to get itsel f out of a mess arisin g from its own life- style - the creat ion of econo mies depen dent on an abund ance of non-r emwa ble energ y, which is limit ed in suppl y to pass on costs and risks of serio us harm to other s who will obtai n no corre spond ing bene fits. The "solu tion" may enabl e the avoid ance of some uncom fortab le chang es in the lifeti me of those now livin g and their imme diate desce ndant s, just as the consi gner• • actio n avoid s uncom foriab le chang es for him and those in his imme diate surro undin gs, but at the expen se of passi ng heavy burde ns to other uninv olved parti es whose oppo rtunit y to lead decen t lives may be serio usly jeopa rdise d. If we apply to the nucle ar situa tion the stand ards of behav iour and moral princ iples gener ally ackno wledg ed (in princ iple, if not so often in fact) in the ·conte mpora ry world , it is not easy to avoid the concl usion that nucle ar devel opme nt invol ves injus tice with respe ct to the futur e on a grand scale . There appea r to be only two plaus ible ways of tryin g to avoid such a concl usion . First , it might be argue d that the moral princ iples and oblig ation s which we ackno wledg e for the conte mpora ry world and perha ps the imme diate futur e do not apply to those in the non-im media te futur e. Secon dly, an attem pt might be made to appea l to overr iding circu mstan ces; for to rejec t the consi gner' s actio n in the circum stanc es outlin ed is not to imply that there are no circum stanc es in which such an actio n might be justi fiabl e. As in the case of the consi gner .of the packa ge there is a need to consi der what these justif ying circum stanc es might be, and wheth er they apply in the prese nt case. We consi der these possi ble escap e route s for the propo nent of nucle ar develo pmen t in turn. l II. OBLIGATIONS TO THE (DISTANT) FUTURE. ./ I I The espec ially probl emati c area is that of the dista nt (i.e. non-im media te) futur e, the futur e with which peopl e alive today will have no direc t conta ct; by comp arison , the imme diate futur e gives fewer proble ms for most ethic al theor ies. In fact the quest ion of oblig ation s to futur e peopl e prese nts tests which a number of ethic al theor ies fail to pass, and also has serio us reper cussi ons in polit ical philo sophy as regar ds the adequ acy of accep ted (demo cratic and other ) insti tutio ns which do not take due accou nt of the inter est• of futur e creat ures. \ r Moral phil osop hers have , pred icta bly, diff ered on ques tion s of obli gati ons to dist ant futu re crea ture s. A good many of the phil osop hers who have exp lici tly cons ider ed the ques tion have come down in favo ur of the same cons ider atio n bein g give n to the righ ts and inte rest s of futu re peop le as to thos e of cont emp orary or imm edia tely futu re peop le. Othe rs fall into thre e cate gori es: thos e who ackn owle dge obli gati ons to the futu re but who do not take them seri ousl y or who assi gn them a less er weig ht, thos e who deny , or who are com mitte d by thei r gene ral mora l posi tion to deny ing, that ther e are mor al obli gati ons beyond the imm edia te futu re, and thos e who come down, with adm irab le phil osop hica l caut ion, on both side s of the issu e, but with the weig ht of the argu men t favo urin g the view unde rlyin g prev ailin g economic and poli tica l inst itut ions , that ther e are no mora l obli gati ons to the futu re beyond thos e perh aps to the next gene ratio n. Acco rdin g to the most extre me of thes e posi tion s agai nst mora l obli gati ons to the futu re, our beha viou r with resp ect to the futu re is mor ally unco nstra ined ~ ther e are no mora l rest rict ions on acti ng or fail ing to act deri ving from the effe ct of our acti ons on futu re peop le. Of thos e phil osop hers who say, or whose view s impl y that we do not have obli gati ons to the (non -imm edia te) futu re, many have base d this view on acco unts of mora l obli gati on which are buil t on rela tion s which pres uppo se some degr ee of temp oral or spa tial con tigu ity. Thus , mora l obli gati on is seen as pres uppo sing vari ous rela tion s whic h coul d not hold betw een peop le wide ly sepa rate d in time (or some time s in spac e). Let us call the posi tion that we have no obli gati ons to (dis tant ) futu re peop le the Nocon stra ints posi tion . Among sugg este d base s or grou nds of mora l obli gati on for the pos itio n, which would rule out obli gati ons to the nonimm edia te futu re, are thes e. Firs tly. ther e are thos e acco unts whic h requ ire that someone to whom a mora l obli gati on is held be able to claim his righ ts or enti tlem ent. Peop le in the dist ant futu re will not be able to claim righ ts and enti tlem ents agai nst us, and of cour se they can do noth ing to enfo rce any claim s they migh t have agai nst us. Seco ndly , ther e are thos e acco unts whic h base mora l obli gati ons on soci al or lega l conv enti on, for exam ple a conv entio n whic h would requ ire puni shm ent of offe nder s or at leas t some kind of soci al enfo rcem ent. But plai nly thes e and othe r conv entio ns will not be inva rian t over chan ge in soci ety and amendment of lega l conv enti ons; henc e they will not be inva rian t over time . Also futu re peop le have no way of enforcin & thei r inte rest s or puni shin g off~ ndin g pred eces aora . \ I i _L The No-cons traints view is a very difficu lt one to sustain . Conside r, for example , a scienti fic group which, for no particu lar reason other than to test a particu lar piece of technolo gy, places in orbit a cobalt bomb set off by a triggeri ng device designed to go off several hundred years from the time of its despatch . No present ly living person and none of their immedia te descend ants would be affected , but the populat ion of the earth in the distant future would be wiped out as a direct and predicta ble result of the action. The ·Ho-con straints position clearly implies that this is an accepta ble moral enterpr ise, that whateve r else we might legitim ately criticiz e in the scienti sts' experim ent (perhaps its being over-ex pensive or badly designed ) we cannot lodge a moral protest about the damage it will do to future people. The no-cons traints position also endorse s as morally accepta ble the followin g sorts of policy: I A firm discove rs it can make a handsome profit from mining, process ing and manufac turing a new type of materia l which, although it ca~ses no problem for present people or their immedia te descend ants, will over a period of hundred s of years decay into a substan ce which will cause an enormous epidemi c of cancer among the inhabita nts of the earth at that time. Accordi ng to the Ko-con straints view the firm is free to act in its own interes ts, without any conside ration for the harm it does remote future people. Such countere xamples to the NQ-con straints position , which are easily varied and multipl ied, might seem childlis hly obvious . Yet this view is far from being a straw man; not only have several philosop hers endorsed this position , but it is a clear implica tion of many current ly popular views of the basis of moral obligat ion, as ~eli as of prevaili ng economic theory. It seems that those who opt for the No-con straints position have not conside red such example s, despite their being clearly implied by their position . We suspect that {we certain ly hope that) when it is brought out that their position admits such countere xamples , that without any constra ints we are free to cause pointles s harm for example , most of those who opted for this position would want to assert that it was not what they intended . What many of those who have put forward the No-con straints posit ion~ to have had in mind (in denying moral obligat ion) is rather that future people can look after themsel ves, that we are not respons ible for their lives. The popular view that the future can take care of itself also seems to assume a future causally indepen dent of the present . But it is not. It is not as if, in the countere xample cases or in the nuclear case, the future is simply being left alone to take care of itself. Present people are influenc ing it, and in doing so thereby acquire many of the same sorts of moral respons ibilitie s as they do in causally affectin g the present and immediate future, a.oat notably the obligat ion to take account in 7. 'what they do of peop le affec ted and their inter ests, to be care ful in their ac tions , to take accou nt of the genu ine prob abili ty of their actio ns causi ng harm, and to sec that they do not act so as to rob futur e peop le of the chnnc c of a good life. Furth ermo re, to say that we are not resp !~ibl e for the lives of futur e peop le does not amount to the same thing as sayin g that we are free to do as we like with respe ct to them. In just the same way, the fact that one does not have or has not acqu ired an oblig ation to some stran ger with whom one has neve r been invol ved does not imply that one is free to do what one likes with respe ct to him, for example to rob him or to serio usly harm him when this could be avoid ed. V These diffi culti es for the No-c onstr aints posi tion resu lt in part becau se of a failu re to make an impo rtant disti nctio n. Some of our oblig ation s to othe rs arise becau se we have volu ntari ly enter ed into some a greem ent with them - for exam ple, we have made a prom ise. Othe r oblig ation s, howe ver, such as our duty not to damage or harm some one, do not assume that an agree ment has been struc k betwe en us. Let us call oblig ation s of the f ormer kind acqu ired oblig ation s and those of the latte r unac quire d oblig ation s. There is a cons idera ble diffe renc e in the type of resp onsi bilit y asso ciate d with each. In the case of acqu ired oblig ation s resp onsi bilit y arise s becau se one s hould do some thing which one can fail to do, e.g. keep a prom ise. In the case of unac quire d dutie s resp onsi bilit y arise s as a resu lt of being a caus al ag ent who is aware of the conse quen ces or prob able conse quen ces of his actio n, a resp onsi bilit y that is not depen dent on one's havin g perfo rmed some act in the past (e.g. , made a prom ise). Our oblig ation s to futur e peop le clear ly are ,una cqui red. not acqu ired oblig ation s, a fact the No-c onstr aints posi tion ~ simpl y fails to take into acco unt. These oblig ation s arise as a resu lt of our abili ty to produ ce caus al effec ts of a reaso nably pred ictab le natu re, whet her on our cont emp orar ies~ on those in the dista nt futur e. Thus , to retur n to the train para ble, the cons igner cann ot argue in justi ficat ion of his actio n that he has. for exam ple, neve r assumed or acqu ired resp onsi bilit y for the passe ngers . that he does not know them and there fore has no love or symp athy for them and that they are not part of his mora l comm unity; in shor t, that he has acqu ired no oblig ation , and baa no apec ial oblig ation • to help them. All that v t ' r . ". one needs to argue conce rning the train , and in the nucle ar case, is that there are moral oblig ation s again st impos ing harm ~ ~ ~·~ which are not speci ally oblig atiq9 s to the dista nt acqui red. Nor can this claim be rebut ted by the all prete nce tha:,( tutur e i~vo1 ve heroi c self sacri fice, somet hing "abov e and beyon d" what is norm ally requi red. One is no more engag ing in heroi c self sacri fice by not forcin g futur e peopl e into an unvia ble life posit ion or by refra ining from causi ng them direc t harm than the consi gner is resor ting to heroi c self sacri fice in refra ining from shipp ing the dange rous packa ge on the train . V III. ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE OBLIGATIONS TO THE FUTURE. In evadi ng these diffi culti es the No-c onstr aints posit ion may be quali fied rathe r than wholl y aband oned. Accor ding to the Quali fied posit ion we are not entir ely uncon strain ed wi th respe ct to the dista nt futur e. There are oblig ation s, even to dista nt futur e peopl e, but these are not so impor tant as those to the prese nt, and the inter ests of dista nt futur e peopl e canno t weigh very much in the scale again st those of the prese nt and imme diate futur e. The inter ests of futur e peopl e then, excep t in unusu al cases , count for very much less than the inter ests of prese nt peopl e. Hence such thing s aa nucle ar devel opme nt and vario us explo itativ e activ ities which bene fit prese nt peopl e shoul d proce ed, even if peopl e of the dista nt futur e are (somewhat) disad vanta ged by them. The Quali fied posit ion appea rs to be widel y held and is impli cit in preva iling economic theor ies, where the posit ion of a decre ase in weigh t of futur e costs and bene fits (and so of futur e inter ests) is obtai ned by appli catio n over time of a disco unt rate, so disco untin g costs and risks to . aM- a...-pi~ ~ \ -4 . futur e peopl e. The attem pt to apply econo mics as a moral theor y, -eeme th'-t that is becoming incre asing ly common, can lead the~ to the Quali fied posit ion. What is objec tiona ble in such an appro ach is that econo mics must opera te withi n the bounds of ackno wledg ed non-a cquir ed moral cons train ts, just as in pract ice it opera tes withi n legal const raint s. What econo mics canno t legiti mate ly do is determ ine what these const raint s are. There are, moreo ver, alter nativ e econo mic theor ies and simpl y to adopt . witho ut furth er ado, one which disco unts the futur e, givin g much less impor tance to the inter ests of futur e peopl e, is to beg all the quest ions at issue . Among the argum ents that econo mists offer for gener ally disco untin g the futur e, the most threa dbare is based on the Rosy -futur e assum ption , that futur e gener ation s will be bette r off than prese nt ones (and so bette r place d to handl e the waste probl em). Since there is moun ting evide nce that futur e gener ation s may wel l~ be bette r off th,Z prese nt ones, espec ially in thing s that matte r, no argum ent for disco untin g the inter ests of futur e gener ation s on this basis can carry much weigh t. For the waste proble m to be hande d dovn V I to the futur e gener ation s, it would have to be shown, what recen t economic progr ess hardl y justi fies, that futur e gener ation s will be not just bette r off but so much bette r off that they can (easi ly)ca rry and contr ol the nucle ar freig ht. A more plaus ible argum ent for disco untin g, the Oppo rtunit y-cos t argum ent, build s direc tly on the notio n of oppo rtunit y cost. It is argue d from the fact that a dolla r gaine d now is worth much more than a dolla r receiv ed in the nonimme diate futur e (beca use the first dolla r could meanw hile be inves ted at compound inter est}, that disco untin g is requi red to obtai n equiv alent mone tary value s. This same line of reaso ning is then appli ed to the alloc ation of re sourc es. Thus, comp ensati on - which,___1s what the waste proble m is taken to come to econo mical ly - cost~ much less now than later , e.g. a few penni es set aside 1-1:>V (e.g. in a trust fund ).the futur e, if need be, will suffi ce to comp ensate event ually for any ~ctim s of remot e radio activ e waste leaka ge. Two proble ms ~ First , there are, beset this appro ach. prese ntly at least , insurm ounta ble pract ical diffi culti es about apply ing such disco untin g. We simpl y do not know how to determ ine appro priate futur e disco unt rates . A more serio us objec tion is that the argum ent depen ds on a false assum ption. It is not true that value , or damages, can alway s be conve rted into mone tary equiv alent s. There is no clear "mon etary comp ensati on" for a varie ty of damag es, inclu ding cance r, loss of life, a lost speci es. The disco untin g theme , however argue d for, is inade quate , becau se it leads back in pract ice to the No-c onstr aints posit ion. The reaso n is that disco untin g impos es an" economic horiz on" beyond which nothi ng need be consi dered , since any costs or bene fit which might arise are, when disco unted back to the prese nt, negli gible . A diffe rent argum ent fot the Quali fied posit io~. the Prob abilit ies argum ent, avoid s the objec tions from cases of certa in damage throu gh appea l to proba bility consi derat ions. The dista nt futur e, it is argue d, is much more uncer tain than the prese nt and imme diate futur e, so that prob abili ties are conse quent ly lower , perha ps even appro achin g or coinc iding with zero for any hypot hesis conce rning the dista nt futur e. Thus, the argum ent conti nues, the -inter ests of futur e peopl e must (apar t from excep tiona l cases where there is an unusu ally high degre e of certa inty} count for (very much) less than those of prese nt and neigh bouri ng peopl e where (much') highe r prob abili ties are attac hed. So in the case of confl ict betwe en the prese nt and the futur e, where it is a quest ion of weigh ing certa in bene fits to the peopl e of the prese nt and the imme diate futur e again st a much lower proba bility of indet ermin ate coats to an indet ermin ate number of V assuming anything like similar costs and benefit s were involve d. is however badly flawed. The argumen t Firstly , probab ilities involvin g distant future situatio ns are not always less than those concern ing the immedia te '"'tt..N ~ ~ -~ -q Nat l'-.Now wJ~a..+. ~,NA. «f ~~e J~N f2.(;.~ ~L of. ~~ft.. - ~ t~( _d-'z..,ve.. , ~ 1t:e.. future in the way the argumen t suppose s.AMor eove)th e outcome s of some moral problem s often do not depend on a high level of probabi lity. . In many cases it is enough, as the train parable reveals , that a signific ant risk is created ; such cases do not depend critica lly on high probabi lity assignm ents. Nor, of course, can it be assumed that anything like similar ly weighte d costs and benefits are involved in the nuclear case, especia lly if it is a question of risking poisonin g some of the earth for half a million or so years, with consequ ent risk of serious harm to· thousand s of generat ions of future people, in order to obtain quite doubtfu l, or even trivial , benefit for some present peopl jin the shape of the opportu nity to continu e (unnece ssarily) shigh energy use. And even if the costs and benefit s were compara ble or evenly weighte d, such an argumen t would be defectiv e, since an analogo us argumen t would show that the consign er's action in the train parable , is accepta ble provided the benefit (e.g. the profit the company stood to gain from imposin g signific ant risks on · other people) was sufficie ntly large. Such a cost-be nefit approac h to moral and decisio n problem s, with or without the probabi lity frills, is quite inadequ ate when differe nt parties are involved or when cases of conflic t of interes t involvin g moral obligat ions are at issue. permiss ible s For example , such a cost-be nefit approac h would imply that it is for a company to injure, or very likely injure, some innocen t party provided only that the company stands to make a sufficie ntly large gain from it, that costs to some group are more than morally larger benefit s to another group. compens ated for by But costs or benefit s are not legitim ately transfer red in any simple way from one group to another . The often appealed to maxim "If you (or your group) want the benefit s . you have to accept the costs" is one thing, but the maxim "If I (or my group) want the benefit • then~ have to accept the coat• (or aome of theDJ at leaat)" i• another an_d_ _ __ // very different thing. It is a widely accepted moral principle that one is not, in general, entitled to simply transfer costs of a significa nt kind arising fro~ an activity which benefits oneself onto other parties whQ are not involved in the activity and are not beneficia ries. 6 This Transfer -limiting principle is especiall y clear in cases of whiea e thalidomide rnaoufact u~ias and mark.eti.Ag eompany J:9 or.a.,.. where the significa nt costs include an effect on life or health or a risk thereof, and where the benefit to the benefitti qg - e. -1, J -tt.. e ~ ~ "" { party is of a noncrucia l or dispensib le nature/\ The principle is of o ~f'(.,v,._{ ,~ fundamen tal importanc e in the nuclear debate, and appears again and again ~ c. ta it applies not merely to the waste problem but as regards several other liabiliti es of nuclear developm ent, e.g. the risk of nuclear war, the matter of reactor meltdown. ln particula r, the principle invalidat es the compariso n, heavily relied on in building a case for the ~cceptab ility of the nuclear risks, \ between nuclear risks and those from such activitie s as airplane travel or cigarette smoking. In the latter case those who supposedl y benefit from the activity are also, to an overwhelm ing extent, those who bear the serious health costs and risks involved. In contrast the users and supposed beneficie aries of nuclear energy will be risking not only, or even primarily , their own lives and health, but also that of others who may not be beneficia ries at allwho may be just the opposite! More generally , the distribut ion of costs and damage in such a fashion, i.e. on to non-bene ficiaries, is a characte ristic of certain serious forms of po llution, and is among its morally objection able features. productio n, from nuclear or fossil pollution . i mportant necessary condition for energy options: ~ energy option risks of harm Large-sca le energy fuel sources, can cause or lead to serious Thus from the Transfer -limiting principle emerges an To be morally acceptab le should not involve the transfer of significa nt costs or ~ parties who .!!!. ~ involved, benefit correspon dingly from!!!.!, energy source. ~ do ~ ~ ~ do n_ ~ ~ ~ t::.-L-~ ~ Included in the acope of c~ @. this cond ition , which nucl ear deve lopm ent viol ates , are futu re peop le, i.e. not mere ly peop le livin g at the pres ent time but also futu re gene ratio ns (tho se of the next town s). A furth er coro llary of the prin cipl e is the Tran smis sion Prin ciple , that we shou ld not hand the worl d we have so expl oited on to our succ esso rs in subs tant ially wors e shap e than we "rec eive d" it. For if we did then that would be a sign ifica nt tran sfer of cost s. The Tran sfer- limi ting prin cipl e can be deriv ed from cert ain ethi cal theo ries (e.g . thos e of a deon tic cast such as Kan t's and Raw ls') and from common prec epts (such as the Golden Rule ), where one serio usly cons iders putt ing ones elf in anot her's posi tion . But the prin cipl e is perh aps best defe nded , on a broa der basi s, indu ctive ly, by way of exam ples. Supp ose, to embr oider the train para ble, the company town deci des to solv e its disp osal prob lem by ship ping its noxi ous wast e to anot her town down the line , which (like futu re towns) lack s the means to ship it back or to regi ster due prot est. The inha bitan ts of this town are then force d to face the prob lem eith er of unde rtaki ng the expe nsive and diff icul t disp osal proc ess or of sustaini ng risk s to thei r own live s and heal th. Most of us would rega rd this kind of tran sfer of cost s as mora lly una~ cept able , however much the cons igne r's company town flou rish es. IV. UNCERTAINTY AND INDETERMINACY ARGUMENTS FOR REDUCED RESPONSI BILITY. Many of the argu ment s desig ned to show that we cann ot be expe cted to take too much acco unt of the effe cts of our actio ns on the dist ant futu re appe al to unce rtain ty. Ther e are two main components to the Gene ral Unc ertai nty argu ment , capa ble of sepa ratio n, but freq uent ly tang led up. Both argu ment s are mist aken , the firs t, an argum ent from igno ranc e, on.! prio ri grou nds, the seco nd on a post erio ri grou nds. The Argument from igno ranc e conc erned runs as foll ows :/ In cont rast to the exac t info rmat ion we can obta in abou t the pr;s ent, the infor mati on we can obta in abou t the effe cts of our actio ns on the dist ant futu re is unre liab le, wool ly and high ly spec ulati ve. But we cann ot base asse ssme nts of how we shou ld act on info rmat ion of this kind , espe ciall y when IE accurate informati on is obtainabl e about the present which would indicate different action. Therefore we must regretful ly ignore the · uncertain effects of our actions on the distant future. ignorance A striking example of the argument from at work is afforded by official US analyses favouring nuclear developm ent, which ignore (the extensive ) costs of 7 grounds of uncertain ty. More formally and crudely waste control on the the argument concerned is this: One only has obligatio rts to the future if these obligatio ns are based on reliable informati on. distant future. There is no reliable informati on at present as regards the Therefore one has no obligatio ns to the distant future. This argument is essential ly a variant on a sceptical argument concernin g our knowledge of the future (formally , replace 'obligati ons' by 'knowledg e' in the crude statement of the argument above). The main ploy is to considera bly overestim ate and overstate the degree of certainty available with respect to the present and immediate future, and the degree of certainty which is - required as the basis for moral considera tion both with respect to the present and with respect to the future. Associate d with this is the attempt to suggest a sharp division as regards certainty between the present and immediate future on the one hand and the distant future on the other. We shall not find, we suggest, that there is any such sharp or simple division between the distant future and the adjacent future and the present, at least with respect to those things in the present which are normally subject to moral constrain ts. We can an~ constantl y such do act on the basis ofj"unre liable" informati on, which the sceptic as regards the future convenien tly labels "uncerta inl,,'. In moral situation s in the present, assessmen ts of what to do often take account of risk and probabil ity, even quite low probabil ities. Consider again the train parable. We do not need to know for certain that the container will break and the lethal gas escape. In fact it does not even have to be probable, in the relevant sense of more probable than not, in order for us to condemn the consigne r's action. that there is a significa nt risk of harm . It is enough in this sort of case. It does not matter if the decreased well-bein g of the consigner ia certain and that the ...... prospects of the passenger s quite uncertain . It is wrong to ship the gas. But if we do not require certainty of action to apply moral constrain ts in contempo rary affairs, why should we require a much higher standard of certainty in the future? The unwarrant ed insistenc e on certainty as a ·necessary condition before moral considera tion can be given to the distant future, then, amounts to a flagrant double standard. According to the second argument, the Practical -uncertai nty argument. even if in theory we have obligatio ns to the future, we cannot in practice take the interests of future peopl~ into account because uncertain ty about . the distant future is so gross that we cannot determine what the likely consequen ces of actions on it will be. Therefore , however good our intention s to the people of the distant future are, in practice we have no choice but to ignore their interests . Given that moral principle s are characte ristically of universal implicati onal form, e.g. of forms such as "if x has character then x is wrong, for every (action) sharply thus: x", h the argument may be stated more We can never obtain the informati on about future actions whicl\. ~ t-~ ,< tt a.s c t..tu._ a.. ~~ h J• would enable us to iea ■ Jh the anteceden t of the implicati on/\ Therefore , even r.r; c if in theory moral principle s do extend to future people, in practice they cannot be applied to obtain clear conclusio ns. It is true that if the distant future really were so grossly uncertain that in every case it was impossibl e to determine in any way better than chance what the effects of present action would be, and whether any given action would help or hinder future people, then moral principle s, although applicab le in theory to the future, would not in practice yield any clear conclusio ns about how to act. In this event the distant future would impose no practica l . moral constrain ts on action. ~ However. the argument is factually incorrect in as s uming that the future always is ao grossly uncertain or indeterm inate. Admittedl y -there is often a high degree of uncertain ty concernin g the distant future, but as a matter of (continge nt) fact it is not always so gross or sweeping •• the argument ha• to •••um•. There are aome areas where uncertain ty ia - not so great as to exclud e const raints on action . For examp le, we may have little id ea what the fashio ns will be in a hundre d years or, to take anothe r morally -irrel evant factor , what brands of ice cream people will be eating , if any, but we do have excel lent reason to believ e, espec ially if we consid er 3000 years of histor y, that what people there are in a hundre d years are likely to have mater ial and psych ic needs not entire ly unlike our own, that they will need a health y biosph ere for a good life; that like us they will not be immune to radiat ion; that their welfa re will not be enhanc ed by a high incide nce of cancer or geneti c defec ts, by the destru ction of resou rces, or the elimin ation from the face of the earth of that wonde rful variet y of non-human life which at presen t makes it such a rich and intere sting place. The case of nuclea r waste storag e, and of uncer tainty of the effec ts of it on future people , is onearea where uncer tainty in moral ly releva nt ~espe cts is not so great as to preclu de moral const raints on action . For this sort of reason , the Pract ical uncer tainty argum ent should be reject ed. Through the defec ts of the prec~d ing argum ents, we can see the defec ts in a number of widely employed uncer tainty argum ents used to write off proba ble harm to future people as outsid e the scope of prope r consid eratio n. Most of these popula r moves employ both of the uncer tainty argum ents as suits the case, switch ing from one to the other. For examp le, we may be told that we canno t really take accou nt of future people becaus e we canno t be sure that they will exist or that their tastes and wants will not be compl etely differ ent from our own, to the point where t.hey will not suffer from our exhau stion of reso\l rces or from the things that _would affec t us. But this is to insist upon compl ete - certai nty of a sort beyond what is requir ed for the presen t and immed iate future , where there is also commonly no guaran tee that some disas ter will not overta ke those to whom we are moral ly comm itted. Again we may be told that there is no guaran tee that future people will be worthy o( any effort s on our part, becau se ,a- MOc-CJ. , Ne,,.,i ~v -fl~ ,v- they may be morons o/ foreve r plugge d into/\Emjoyment., _/-- ef othe ·, ±-ultiR ea Even if one is prepar ed to accep t the elitis t approa ch presup posed - accord ing to which only those who meet certai n prope rly civili zed or intell ectua l standa rds are l eligib le for moral consid eratio n - what we are being handed in such argum ents V ... ..,. i s again a mere outside possibility. . Neither the contemporary nor the historical situation gives any positive reason for supposing that a lapse into universal moronity or universal-pleasure-machine escapism is a serious possibility. We can contrast with these mere logical possibilities the very real historically supportable risks of escape of nuclear waste or decline of a civilisation through destruction of its resource base. Closely related to uncertainty arguments are arguments premissed on the indeterminacy of the future. For example, according to the tndeterminacy argument, the indeterminacy of the number and exact character of people at future times will prevent the interest of future peopie being taken into account where there is a conflict with the present. Since their numbers are indeterminate and their interests unknown how, it is asked, can we weigh their competing claims against those of the present and immediate future, where this information is available in a more or less accurate form? The question is raised particularly by problems of sharing fixed quantities of resources among present and future people, for example oil, when the numbers of the latter are indeterminate. Such problems are indeed difficult, but they are not resolved by ignoring the claims of the future. Nor are distributional problems involving non-renewable resources as large and representative a class of moral problems concerning the future as the tendency to focus on them would suggest. It can be freely admitted, that there will be cases where the - indeterminacy of aspects of the future will make conflicts very difficult to resolve or indeed irresoluble - no realistic ethical theory can give a precise answer to every ethical question. But, as the train parable again illustrates, there are cases where such difficulties do not hinder resolution, and cases of conflict which are not properly approached by weighing numbers, numbers of interests, or whatever, cases for which one needs to know only the most general probable characteristics of future people. The case of nuclear power is like that. The failure of these various arguments reveals, what can be iodependently -+- '-" thelr placement . does noL ar gued from the universalisability features of moral principles, 8 thatf disqualify future people from full moral consideration or reduce their claimsr , tllUU' ,.., ') \trt2r / below the claima of present people. That ia, we hav, "tbe ••m• ions V /1 to future people as to the presen t; 1 thus there is the same obliga tion to take accoun t of them and their intere sts in what we do, to be carefu l in our action s, to take accoun t of the probab ility (and not just the certain ty) of our action s causing harm or damage, and to see, other things being equal, that we do not act so as to rob them of what is necessa ry for the chance of _a good life. Uncert ainty _,, and indeter minacy do not relieve us of these obliga tions. v. PROBLEMS OF SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATION REACTOR EMISSIONS AND CORE MELTDOWN. The ethica l problem s with nuclea r power are by no means confine d to waste storag e and future creatu res. entitle ment Just as remote ness in. time does not er~de obliga tions or to just treatm ent, neithe r does locatio n in space, or a partic ular geogra phical positio n. Hence severa l furthe r problem s arise, to which princip les and argume nts like those already arrived at in consid ering the waste problem apply. For exampl e, if one group (socia l unit, or state) decide s to dump its radioa ctive wastes in the territo ry or region of anothe r group, or not to preven t its (radioa ctive) polluti on enterin g the territo ry of anothe r group, then it impose s risks and costs on presen tly existin g people of the second group, in much the way that presen t nuclea r develop ments impose costs and risks on future people . There are differe nces howev er: spatia lly distan t people cannot be discou nted in quite the way that future people can be, though their Jiie ~~~ o·F-tu ~t..+ . intere sts and objecti ves/\Nt ?Wlc ignored or overrid den. People living in the vicini ty of a nuclea r reacto r are subjec t to specia l costs and risks. One is radioa ctive pollut ion, becaus e reacto rs routin ely dischar 1 radioa ctive materi als into the air and water near Emissio n problem . the plant : hence the Such "norma l" emissio n during plant operat ion of low level radiati on carrie s carcino genic and mutage nic costs. While there are undoub tedly costs, the number of cancer s and the precis e extent of geneti c damage induced by exposu re to such radiati on are both uncert ain. If our ethica l princi ples permit ted free transfe r of coata and riaka from one person to anothe r, the ethica l iaaue direct ly raised by nuclea r ••miaa ion•wo uld be: what extent of Q__ .......- ..... cancer and genetic damage, if any, is permissibly traded for the advantages of nuclear power, and unde{ what conditions? Since, however, risks and benefits are NOT {morally) transferable this way - recall the Transfer-limit ing principle - such a cost-benefit approach to the risks nuclear emission poses - for those who live near a reactor cannot with justice be approached in this fashion~ > And these risks are real! v In the USA, people who live within 50 miles of a nuclea · power plant bear a risk of cancer and genetic damage/as much as 50 times that borne by the population at large. ✓ And children living in this region are even more vulnerable, since they ar~ several times more likely to contract cancer through exposure than normal adults. The serious costs to these people cannot be justified by the alleged benefits for others, especially when these benefits could be obtained without these costs. Thus it is not just complacent to say 'It's a pity about Aunt Ethel dying of cancer, but the new airconditioner s ' make life comfprtable'. ~~e+,~ For such benefits to some as airconditioner~ provide,~which can be alternatively obtained, for example by modification of buildings, can in no way compensate for what others suffer. Among the other strategies used in trying to persuade us that the +£«-0:sc w~ \,14 e close ~ Nu<.. (e..a.,R,. pt~~ imposition of radiation ~ d i H - most of whom have no genuine voice in the location of reactors in their environment and cannot move away without ~\ \ serious losses - is really quite ,'right is the Doubling argument. ~ccording I to the US Atomic Energy Commission, "ho dcployud dU.&i nr• it is pennissfble to double, through nuclear technology, the level of (natural) radiation that a population ha$ received with apparently negligible consequences, the argument bei ng that the additional amount (being equivalent is also likely to have negligible consequences. to the "natural" level) The increased amounts of radiation - with their large man-made component - are then accounted normal, and, its; claimed, what is normal is morally acceptable. ;-tTb1s ::J ,"6r argument is sound. I, ~er.c of eh@ seeps Drinking one bottle of wine a day may have no ill-effects, whereas drinking two a day certainly may affect a person'• well-being; and while the smaller intake may have become norm.al for the person, the larger one will, under euch conditiona, not be. Finally, what ia or has become norcna_l_, _ _ _~ . e.g. two murders or twenty canc ers a day in a give n city , may be far from acce ptab le. / IJ \ In fact , even the USA, which has very stri ct stan dard s by compar_ison with most othe r cou ntrie s with planned nucl ear reac tors , perm its radi atio n emis sion s very sub stan tiall y in exce ss of the stan dard s laid down; so the emis sion situ atio n is much worse than what cons ider atio n of the stan dard s would disc lose . Furt herm ore, the mon itori ng of the stan dard s "imp osed " is entr uste d to the nucl ear oper ator s them selv es, scar cely disi nter este d part ies. Thus pub lic poli cy is dete rmin ed not so as to guar ante e pub lic hea lth, but rath er to serv e as a "pub lic pac ifie r" whil e pub licly -sub sidi zed priv ate nucl ear oper atio ns proc eed rela tive ly unhampered? · While radi oact ive emis sion s are an ordi nary feat ure of reac tor ope ratio n, reac tor breakdown is, hop eful ly, not: offi cial repo rts even try to make an acci dent of mag nitud e, as a mat ter of defi niti on, an 'ext raor dina ry nucl ear occu rren ce'. But "def init ions " notw iths tand ing, such acci dent s can happ en, and almo st have on seve ral occa sion s (the most noto riou s bein g Thre e Mile Isla nd): henc e the Core-meltdown prob lem. If the cool ing and emergency core cool ing syst ems fail in American (lig ht wate r) reac tors , then the core melt s and 'con tain men t fail ure' is like ly, with the resu lt that an area of 40,0 00 squa re mile s coul d be radi oact ivel y 10 cont amin ated . In the even t of the wors t type of acci dent in a very sma ll reac tor, a steam expl osio n in the reac tor vess el, abou t 45,0 00 peop le would be kill ed inst antl y and at leas t 100, 000 would die as a resu lt of the acci den t, prop erty damages would exce ed $17 bill ion and an area the size of Penn sylv ania would be dest roye d. Modern nucl ear reac tors are abou t five time s the size of the reac tor for which thes e cons erva tive US figu res (sti ll the best avai labl e from 11 offi cial sour ces) are give n: the cons eque nces of a sim ilar acci dent with a modern reac tor would acco rdin gly be much grea ter. The cons igne r who risk s the live s and well -bei ng of pass enge rs on the trai n acts .i nadm issib ly. A government or gove rnm ent- endo rsed util ity appe ars to act in a way that doe• not diff er in mor all;y aign ifica nt resp ect• in -------~ siti ng a nuc lear rea cto r in a commun ity, in pla ntin g such a dan gero us pac kag e on the "community trai n". More dir ect ly, the loc atio n of a nuc lear rea cto r in a community, even if it sho uld hap pen to rec eiv e a fav our able ben efit -co st ana lysi s and oth er economic app rais al, would vio late such eth ica l requ irem ents ~ as the Tra nsf er-l imi ting prin cip le. The adv oca tes of nuc lear power hav e, in eff ect , end eav oure d to avo id que stio ns of cos t-tr ans fer and equ ity, by shi ftin g the disp ute out of the extr aor din ary imp rob abil it't, , V e thic al aren a and into a tech nol ogi cal disp ute abo ut eaau~ theJ of · 0 r eac tor mal fun ctio n. They hav e argu ed, in par ticu lar, what con tras ts with the trai n par able , tha t the re is no rea l pos sib ilit y of a cata stro phi c nuc lear v acc iden t. Inde ed in the infl uen tial Rassmussen rep ort - which was ext ens ive ly used to sup por t pub lic con fide nce in US nuc lear fiss ion tech nolo gy - an even stro nge r, an inc red ibly stro ng, imp rob abil ity clai m was stat ed: nam ely, the ' like liho od of a cata stro phi c nuc lear acc iden t is so rem ote as to be (alm ost) imp ossi ble. However, the mat hem atic al models reli ed upon in this rep ort, var iou sly call ed "fa ult tree ana lysi s" and "re liab ilit y esti mat ing tech niq ues ". are unso und , bec aus e, among oth er thin gs, they exc lude as "no t cre dib le" tha t the pos sib ilit ies tha t may wel l happen in the rea l wor ld. It is not sur pris ing , the n,/ methodology and dat a of the rep ort hav e bee n sou ndly and dec isiv ely crit icis ed, or tha t off icia l sup por t for the rep ort has now been with draw n.12 Mor eov er, use of alte rna tive methods and data ind icat es tha t the re is a rea l pos sib ilit y, a non -ne glig ible pro bab ility of a · seri ous acc ide nt. In resp ons e it is con tend ed tha t, even if the re is a non -ne glig ible \ pro bab ility of a rea cto r acc ide nt. sti ll tha t is acc epta ble, bein g of no gre ater ord er than risk s of acc iden ts tha t are alre ady soc iall y acc epte d. Here we enc oun ter aga in tha t insi dio us eng inee ring app roac h to mor alit y bui lt into dec isio n models of an economic cas t, e.g . ben efit -co st bala nce she ets, risk asse ssm ent mod els, etc . Ris k asse ssm ent, a sop his tica tion of tran sac tion or trad e-o ff mod els, pur por ts to pro vide a com pari son betw een the rela tive riak a atta che d to diff ere nt opt ion s, ••I• ene rgy otp ion a, whi ch aet tlea the ir eth ica l stat us. The foll owi ng assu mpt ions are enc oun tere d in risk asse ssm ent as app lied to ene rgy opt ion s: A · If o~io n'.J t_im pos es (co mpa rab le)B osts B on few er peo ple than op tio n~ then opt ion ,i_ pre fera ble to opt ion . ; AL is ,,_....,_,, . AH. Op tion iinv olv es a tota l net cos t in term s of cos t to peo ple (e.g . t3J dea ths, inju ries , etc .) which is less than tha t of opt ion .wh ich is •~re ady acc epte d; the refo re opt ion ~is acc ept abl ef 3 These assu mpt ions are then app lied as foll ows . \....--" Sin ce 't he number like ly to eve ntu all' i' by nuc lear power sta tion cata stro phe is less !ha n the like ly number I kill ed by cig are tte smoking, and sinc e the risk s of cig are tte smoking are acc epte d; it foll ows tha t the risk s of nuc lear power are acc epta ble. A litt le refl ect ion rev eals tha t this sor t of risk asse ssm ent argument gro ssly vio late s the Tra nsfe r~ lim itin g prin cip le. In ord er to obt ain a pro per eth ica l asse ssm ent we need be kill ed J a much full er pic ture , and we need to know at lea st thes e thin gs: / Do the cos ts and ben efit s go to the same par ties ; and is the pers on who vol unt aril y und erta kes the risk s also the pers on who prim aril y rece ives the ben efit s, as in driv ing or cig are tte smoking, or are the cos ts imposed on oth er par ties who do not ben efit ? It is only if the par ties are the same in the cas e of the opt ion s l S vC-t... compared, and the re are no ~d ist rib uti on al prob lem s, tha t a com pari son 8ft •-•h ~ would be sou ndly bas ed. Thi s is rare ly the cas e, and it is not ao in the case of risk asse ssm ents of ene rgy opt ion s. VI. OTHER SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND COSTS OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR WAR. The prob lem s alre ady disc uss ed by no means exh aus t the env iron men tal, hea lth and safe ty risk s and cos ts in, or aris ing from , the nuc lear fue l cyc le. The ful l fue l cyc le incl ude s many stag es both bef ore and afte r rea ct or ope rati on, apa rt from was te disp osa l, nam ely, min ing, mil ling , con ver sion , enri chm ent and pre par atio n, rep roc essi ng spe nt fue l, and tran spo rtat ion of materia ls. Sev eral of thes e stag es inv olv e haz ard s. Unl ike the spe cial " risk s in the nuc lear cyc le - of sab otag e of pla nts , of the ft of fiss ion abl e mat eria l, and of the furt her pro life rati on of nuc lear armaments - thes e haz ards µ have para llels . if not exac t equi vale nts, in othe r high ly poll utin g methods of gene ratin g powe r. e.g. 'wor kers in the uran ium mini ng indu stry sust ain "the same risk" of fata l and nonf atal inju ry as work ers in the coal indu stry '.14 The prob lems are not uniq ue to nucl ear deve lopm ent. Othe r soci al and envi ronm enta l prob lems - thou gh endemic wher e dang erou s larg e-sc ale indu stry oper ates in soci etie s that are high ly ineg alita rian and inclu de sect ors that are far from afflu ent - are more intim ately linke d with the nucl ear power cycl e. Though poll utio n is a comm on and gene rally unde sirab le component of larg e-sc ale indu stria l oper ation , rad~ oact ive poll utio n .suc h as urani um mini ng for insta nce prod uces . is espe ciall y a lega cy of nucl ear deve lopm ent. and a spec ially unde sirab le one, as rect ifica tion cost s for dead radi oact ive land s and wate rway s reve al. Though sabo tage is a thre at to many larg e indu strie s, sabo tage of a nucl ear reac tor can have dire cons eque nces , of a diffe rent orde r of magn itude from most indu stria l sabo tage (where core meltdown is not a poss ibili ty). Though thef t of mate rial from more dubi ous ente rpris es such as mun ition s works can pose thre ats to popu latio ns at larg e and can assi st terro rism , no thef ts for alleg edly peac eful ente rpris es pose prob lems of the same orde r as thef t of fissi onab le mate rial. No othe r indu stry prod uces mate rials which so read ily perm it fabr icati on into such mass ive expl osiv es. No othe r indu stry is, to sum it up, so vuln erab le on so many fron ts. In part to redu ce its vuln erab ility , in part beca use of its long and cont inuin g asso ciati on with mili tary acti viti es, the nucl ear indu stry is subj ect to, and enco urag es, seve ral prac tices whic h (give n thei r scal e) run coun ter to basi c featu res of free and open soci etie s, cruc ial featu res such as pers onal libe rty, freedom of asso ciati on and of expr essio n,an d free acce ss to info rmat ion. Thes e prac tices inclu de secr ecy, rest ricti on of info rmat ion, form ation of spec ial poli ce and guar d forc es, espio nage , curt ailm ent of civi l libe rtie s. Alre ady oper ators of nucl ear inst alla tion s are give n extr aord inar y powe rs, in vett ing empl oyee s, to inve stiga te the back grou nd and acti vitie s not only of empl oyee s but also of thei r fami lies and sometimes even of thei r frien ds. The inst alla tion s them selve s become armed camps, whic h espe ciall y offe nds Brit ish sens ibili ties . The U.K. Atomic Energy (Spe cial Con stab les) Act of 1976 crea ted a spec ial armed forc e to guar nucl ear inst alla tion s aud..made it answ erab le • • • to the U.K. .. dAtom ic En• · ~ ' These devel opme nts, and worse ones in West Germany and elsew here, presa ge along with nucle ar devel opme nt incre asing ly auth orita rian and anti- demo crati c soci eties . That nucle ar devel opme nt appe ars to force such poli tical conse quen ces tells heav ily again st it. Nucl ear devel opme nt is furth er indic ted poli tical ly by the direc t conn ectio n of nucle ar powe r with nucle ar war. It ia true that ethic al ques tions conc ernin g nucle ar war - for exam ple, whet her a nucle ar war is justi fied , or just, unde r any circu msta nces, and if so what circu msta nces - are disti ngui shab le from those conc ernin g nucle ar power. Undo ubted ly, however, the sprea d of nucle ar power is subs tanti ally incre asing the techn ical means for engag ing in nucle ar war and so, to that exte nt, the oppo rtuni ty for, and chanc es of, nuc~ ear engagement. Since nucle ar wars are neve r accou nted posi tive good s, but are at best the lesse r of majo r evils , nucle ar wars are alway s high ly ethic ally unde sirab le. The sprea d of nucle ar power acco rding ly expan ds the oppo rtuni ty for, and chanc es of, high ly unde sirab le conse quen ces. .,.fina l:½) the lac cet, sb irlete a&In g r.huuw cbancac i'itid Opt111c I Oil I I te:::s, is Heal f unda sha~ h, ■Rd 'lber efore )wha t . leads to it;nu clea r devel opme ntA is unde sirab le. This is, in outli ne, the argum ent from nucle ar war again st large -scal e nucle ar devel opme nt. 16 t5 F ·~ , ~ ATl" VII. ,\CONFLICT ARGUMENTS~ JND R5Ila ff!f~ ~1 JN C~ THE IDEOLOGICAL BASES OF NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT. Much as with _nucle ar war, so given the cumu lative caTe again st nucle ar deve lop~e nt, only one justi ficat ory route rema ins open , that of appe al to over ridin g circu msta nces. That appe al, to be ethic ally acce ptabl e; must go beyond mere ly economic cons idera tions . For, as obse rved, the cons igne r's actio n, in the train para ble, cann ot be juati fied by pure ly econ omis tic . argum ents, such as that his prof its would rise, the company or the town would be more prosp erous , or by appe aling to the fact that some poss ibly unco mfor table chang es would other wise be neede d. So it is also in the nucle ar ½-12., case: ./Tra nsfe r-lim iting princ iple appl ies. But suppo se now the cons igner argue s that his actio n ia justi fied becau ae unlea a it 1• taken the town will die. It ia ✓ i l by no means clear that even such a justification as this would be sufficient, especia lly where the risK5 to the passengers is high, since the case still to A amo~ntsione of transfer of costs and risks onto others. But such a conflict situation, where a given course of action, though normally undesirable, is alleged to be the lesser of two evils in a given case, is morally more problemthan c~ses atica;(where v~fer-limitin g principle is clearly violated. Nuclear development is often defended in this way, through Conflict arguments, to the effect that even though nuclear development does have undesirable features, nevertheless the alternatives are worse. Some of the arguments advanced to demonstrate conflict are based on competing commitments to present people, and others on competing obligations to future people, both of which are taken to override the obligations not to i mpose on the future significant risk of serious harm. The success of such conflict arguments requirESthe presentation of a genuine and exhaustive set of alternatives (or at least practical alternatives) and showing that the only al ternatives to admittedly morally undesirable actions are even more undesirable ones. If some practical alternative which is not morally worse than the action to be justified is overlooked, suppressed, or neglected in the argument (for example, if in the train parable it turns out that the town has another option to starving or to shipping the parcel, namely earning a living in some other way), then the argument is defective and cannot readily be patched. Just such a suppression of practicable alternatives, we shall argue, has occurred in the argument designed to show that the alternatives to the nuclear option are even worse than the option itself. A first argument, the Poverty argument, is that there is an overriding obligation to the poor, both the poor of the third world and the poor of industrialised countries. Failure to develop nuclear energy, it is often claimer, would amount to denying them the opportunity to reach the standard of affluence we currently enjoy and would create unemployment and poverty in the industrialised nations. And this would be worse - a greater evil - than such things as violating the Transfer-limit ing principle through nuclear development. The Poverty argument does not stand up to examination, either for the poor of the industrial countries or for those of the third world. There is good evid ence that large-scale nuclear energy will help increase unemployment and poverty in the industrial world, through the diversion of very much available capital into an industry which is not only an exceptionally poor provider of direct employment, but also tends to reduce available jobs through encouraging substitution of energy use for labour use. The argument that nuclear energy is needed for the third world is even less convincing. Nuclear energy is both politically and economically inappropriate for the third world, since it requires massive amounts of capital, require• number• of imported acientiata and en2ineera. --------- ~cr eate s negl igibl e loca l employment, and depen ds for its feas ibili ty upon large ly non- exist ent utili ty syste ms - e.g. estab lishe d elec trici ty trans miss ion syste ms and back- up faci litie s, and suffi cien t elec trica l appli ance s to plug into the syste m. Poli tical ly it incre ases forei gn depen dence , adds to cent ralis ed entre nche d power and reduc es the chanc e for chang e in the oppr essiv e poli tical struc tures which are a large part of the probl em. The fact that nucle ar energ y is not in the inter ests of the peop le of the third world does not of cours e mean that it is not in the inter ests of, and wante d (ofte n for milit ary purpo ses) by, their ruler s, the west ernis ed and often milit ary elite s in whose inter ests the econo mies of these coun tries are usua lly organ ised. But that does not make the pove rty argum ent anyth ing othe r than what it is: a fraud . There are well- know n energ y-con servi ng alter nativ es and the prac tical optio n of deve lopin g furth er alter nativ e energ y sourc es, alter nativ es some of which offe r far bette r prosp ects for helpi ng the poor , both in the third world and in indu stria l coun tries : coal and othe r foss il fuels , geoth erma l, and a range of solar optio ns (incl udin g as well as narro wly sola r sourc es, wind , wate r and tidal powe r). Anot her majo r argum ent advan ced to show conf lict, the Ligh ts-go ingout argum ent, pppe als to a set of supp osedl y over ridin g and comp eting oblig ation s to futur e peop le. We have , it is said, a duty to pass on the immensely valua ble thing s and insti tutio ns which our cultu re has devel oP,ed . Unle ss our high- techn ology , high- energ y indu stria l socie ty is conti nued and foste red, our valua ble insti tutio ns and tradi tions will fall into decay or be swep t away. The argum ent is esse ntial ly that witho ut nucle ar powe r, witho ut the conti nued level of mate rial weal th it alone is assumed to make poss ible, the light s of our civil izati on will go out. Futu re peop le will be the loser s. The argum ent does raise impo rtant ques tions abou t what is valua ble in our socie ty and what char acte risti cs are nece ssary for a good socie ty. But for the most part these large ques tions can be by-p assed . The reaso n is that the argum ent adop ts an extre mely uncr itica l attit ude to prese nt high- techn ology soci eties , appa rentl y assum ing that they are unifo rmly and uniqu ely valu able. it It assum es that techn olog ical socie ty is unmo difia ble, thaic anno t be chang ed in the direc tion of energ y cons ervat ion or alter nativ e.(pe rhap s high techn ology ) energ y sourc es witho ut colla pse. These assum ption s are all hard to acce pt. The assum ption that techn olog ical soci ety's energ y patte rns are unmo difia ble is espe ciall y so; after all, it has survi ved even ts such as world wars which requ ired majo r socia l and techn olog ical restr uctu ring and consu mptio n modi ficat ion. If west ern soci ety's demands for energ y were (con trary to the evide nce) total ly unmo difia ble witho ut colla pse, not only would it be comm itted to a progr am of incre asing destr uctio n, but much of ita cultu re would be of dubio us value to future people, who would very likely, as a consequence of this destruction , lack the resource base which the argument assumes to be essential in the case of contemporar y society. The uniformity assumption should certainly be challenged. Since hightechnology societies appear not to be uniformly valuable, the central question is, what is necessary to maintain what is valuable in such a society? While it may be easy to argue that high energy consumption centrally controlled is necessary to maintain the political and economic status quo of such a society, it is not so easy to argue that it is essential to maintain what is valuable, and it is what is valuable, presumably ,that we have a duty to pass on to the future. The evidence from history is that no very high level of material affluence or energy consumption is needed to maintain what is valuable. There is good reason in fact to believe that a society with much lower energy and resource consumption would better foster what is valuable than our own. But even if a radical change in these directions is independen tly desirable, it is unnecessary to presuppose such a change in order to see that the assumptions of the Lights-goin g-out argument are wrong. The consumption of less energy than at present need involve no reduction of well-being: and certainly a large increase over present levels of consumption assumed in the usual economic case for nuclear energy, is quite unnecessary . What the nuclear strategy is really designed to do then is not to prevent the lights going out in western civilisatio n, but to enable the lights to go on burning all the time - to maintain and even increase the wattage output of the Energy Extravagan za. ~ In fact there is good reason to think that, far from~hig h energy consumption society fostering what is valuable, it will, especially if energy is obtained by means of nuclear fission,be positively inimical to it. A society which has become heavily dependent upon a highly centralised , controlled and garrisoned, capital- and expertise-i ntensive e~ergy source, must be one which is highly susceptible to entrenchmen t of power, and one in which the forces which control this energy source, whether capitalist or bureaucrati c, can exert enormous power over the political system and over people's lives, even more then they do at present. Such a society would almost inevitably tend to become authoritati an and increasingl y anti-democ ratic, as an outcome, among other things, of its response to the threat posed by dissident groups in the nuclear situation. Nuclear development may thus help in passing on to future generations some of the worst aspects of our society - the consumerism , alienation, destruction of nature, and latent authoritaria nism - while many valuable aspects, such as the degree of political freedom and those opportuniti es for personal and collective autonomy which exist, would be loat or diminished: political fr eedqp for example, is a high price to pay for consumerism and.#ener gy extravagenc e. Again, as in the case of the poverty arguments, clear alternative s, a lternative social and political choices, which do not involve such unacceptabl e consequence s, are available. The alternative to _the high technology- nuclear option is not a return to the cave, the loss of all that is valuable, but either the adoption of an available alternative such as coal for power or, better,the development of alternative technologie s and lifestyles which offer far greater scope for the maintenance and further development of what is valuable in our society than the highly centralised nuclear option. The Li ghts-going -out~umen t, as a moral conflict argument, accordingly fails. Thus the fttrther escape route, the appeal to conflict, is, like the appeal t ~ futurity, closed. If tbea we apply, as we have argued we should, the ~ 1, t. same standards ef ■eral1t¥ to the future as we ought to acknowledge for the ;present, the conclusion that large-scale nuclear development is a crime against the future is inevitable. Closed also, in the much same way, are the escape routes to other arguments (from reactor meltdown, radiation emissions, etc.) for concluding that nuclear development is unacceptab le. In sum, nuclear development is morally unacceptabl e on several grounds. SOCIAL OPTIONS: SHALLOW AND DEEP ALTERNATIVES. The future energy option that is most often contrasted with nuclear power, namely coal power, while no ·doubt preferable to nuclear power. is hardly acceptable. For it carries with it VIII. the likelihood of serious (air) pollution, and associated phenomena such as acid rain and atmospheric heating, not to mention the despoliatio n caused by extensive strip mining, all of which will result from its use in meeting very high projected consumption figures. Such an option would,more over, also violate the Transfer-li miting principle: for it would impose widespread costs on nonbenefic iaries for some concentrate d benefits to some profit takers and to some users who do not pay the full costs of production and replacemen t. To these main conventiona l options a third is often added which emphasizes softer and more benign technologie s, such as those of solar energy and hydroelec tricity. Such softer options - if suitably combined with energy conservatio n measures (for there are solar ways, as well as nuclear ways, of energy extravaganc e and of producing unnecessary trivia which answer to no genuine needs) - can avoid the ethical objections to nuclear power. The deeper 8 choice is not however technolo~ic al, nor merel~Jindi vidua1}' 6fifrtocial, and involves the restructuri ng of production away from energy intensive uses and, v at a more basic level, a change to nonconsum eristic, less consumptive lifestyles and social arrangem~n ts} 7 Thes.e iore fundamental choices between social +"f? "'- •• t tt ti, fll ~ ~ t- e ,, ., , ~ f'I t- ~l.al t e rna t 1v e s,""convent i ona 1 technologic a~ly-orient ed discussion of energy options, ~ teod• to e&acur•. It ie not juet • utter of decidina in which way to meet the v 1 unexamined goals nuclear development aspires to meet, but also a matter of examining the goals themselves. That is, we are not merely faced with the question of comparing different technologie s for meeting some fixed or given demand or level of consumption , and of trying to see how best to meet these; we are also faced, and primarily, with the matter of examining those alleged needs and the cost of a society that creates them. It is doubtful that any technology, however benign in principle, will be likely to leave a tolerable world for the future if it is expected to meet unbounded and uncontrolle d energy consumption and demands. Even more benign technologie s may well be used in a way which creates costs for future people and ~ ,~hich are....., __, likely to result in a deteriorate d world being handed on to them. In short, even more benign technologie s may lead to violation of the Transmissio n ~equirem ent. Consider, to illustrate, the effect on the world's forests, commonly counted as a solar resource, should they be extensively used for production of methanol or of electricity by woodchippin g. While few would object to the use of genuine waste material for energy production, the unrestricte d exploitatio n of forests - whether it goes under the name of "solar energy" or not - to meet ever increasing energy demands could well be the final indignity for the world's already hard-presse d natural forests. The effects of such additional demands on the maintenance of the forests are often dismissed by the simple expedient of waving around the label "renewable resources". Many forests are in principle renewable, it is a true, given a certain (low) rate and kind of exploitatio n, but in fact there are now very few forestry operations anywh~re in the world where the forests are treated as completely renewable in the sense of the renewal of all their values. In many regions too the rate of exploitatio n which would enable renewal has already been exceeded, so that a total decline is widely thought to be imminent. It certainly has begun in many regions, and many forest types, especially rainforest types,are now, and rapidly, being lost for the future;s The addition of a major further and not readily !imitable demand pressure for energy on top of the present demands is one which anyone with both a realistic appreciatio n of the conduct of forestry operations and a concern for the long-term conservatio n of the forests and remaining natural conununities must regard with alarm. The result of massive deforestati on for energy purposes, resembling the deforestati on of much of Europe at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, again for energy purposes, could be extensive and devastating erosion in steeper lands and tropical areas, desertifica tion in more arid regions, possible climatic change, and massive impoverishm ent of natural ecosys~ems, including enormous loss of natural species. Some of us do not want to pass on, and by the Transmissio n principles we are not entitled to pass on, a deforested world to the future, any more than we want to pass on one poisoned by nuclear 29. produ cts or pollu ted by coal prod ucts. In abor t, as the fores t situa tion illus trate s, a mere switc h to more benig n techn olog ies - impo rtant thoug h this is - witho ut any more basic struc tural and soci al chang e1 is inade quate . The deep er socia l optio n invol ves chall engin g and ·begi nning to alter a socia l .stru cture which prom ote, consu meris m, consu mptio n far beyond genu ine needs and an economic struc ture which enco urage s incre asing use of high ly ener gy-in tensi ~e_ modes of prod uctio n. The socia l chang e optio n tends to be obscu red in most dis cussi ons of energ y optio ns and of how to meet energ y ~eed s, in part becau se it does ques tion unde rlyin g value s of curre nt socia l arran geme nts. The conv entip nal discu ssion proce eds by takin g alleg ed demand (ofte n conf lated with e ::s<.)..,..J1.~ f,. ~ants or need s) as unch allen geab le, and the issue to be one ,',If which techn ology V can be most prof itabl y employed to meet.llhetft. This effec tivel y prese nts a ( "'"tt--~ ~ cJL.t ~ J.. ....~4'-- l~..,, wL., c v .~ ~.:i.4~ - <e ---4(\ 1 >-..~ wt:S,;....,..1~ ,.s l r N Cl'-'~ r false choic e. M\-d is the reett l-~-ef -t-ald'--:rigC. needs and=' CQRt ext IJl.h-.-t'f-- '"ft~ so that d'etnamt=-n--bek-i ftt-a- &&&, i-a.J- ~ . the.--ao,Q,:l:-a-1- ·etrt:t et·ttr-e,--wMeh-p-tt&titte-ee--the-, ,:nead&---i&- •&im-i-l&r-l-y-· t aken as unch allen geab le and unch angea ble. The poin t is read ily illus trate d. I t is commonly argue d by repre senta tives of such indu strie s as trans porta tion and petro leum , as for exam ple by McGrowth of the XS Consumption Co., that peop le want deep freez ers, air cond ition s, power gadg ets, •••• It would be auth orita rian to preve nt them from satis fyin g these want s. Such an argum ent from creat ed wants conv enien tly ignor es the socia l framew-0rk in which ~uch \ " N ~c..;'2,... f -t1,.Q. ~ft:. plA,.i--1~<' needs and wan~ arise or are produ ced. 'I:..+To pe~ n~ . th ~ dat.e i;m-~ &~ ~:::,... t >-.irl "'(At.J c" .... c..!,,..~, (IC . ~N t\ f1..,e_ ~~ ' f''-'l ~~t'. ...~ tN tu 9A-( C2..... o!&n,-J ma"n¥- sueh-warrt s· a c rhe "'fl"'~Trnrk- ieve-1-- ia.:. no,.t....,.,.•how e\t~t o., assum e .,tha.t, ...-t,h&y-. ~ c l-«:i , c...12.o ,J'!:', ~-ft. -.<./ t..-f 4'}. c.. ,._ 1.1 ..+ e. bF. ~t" 1£~ ~ :i~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~~ :;;; ;a : : h se ~ -.,~ft~ .....__ ~-~; ,.; ;~ 2 ~eval.-<a--e--~ l ~' tdal _w;g_ ;!_nf, _!!_at ~ ~hing as ·-tndi~ .tl!u arcir o-i-e ~••t~ i.nat io.n -at.._jl_ll... ~ t .. is 1Te--- ao£ ial framework as a majo r facto r in deter mini ng~c e~tai n kinds ................ .,,....,.....,.... ,•• of choic es, such as those -.. ·fo.t_ _~rav el, and k.inds ---~ f . ,...:1-nf-r·a struc ture, and to see appa rentl y indiv idua l choic es ~~:i°~') .n :,.'8uch':·;;~; ers as being chan nelle d and direc ted by a soci al fr,amework deter mine d large ly "' 1n ·· th&.-. .inter ests of corp orate ...,, and priva te prpf~-t" -~nd adva ntage . The soci al chang e optio n ia a hard optio n, inso far as it will be diffi cult to imple ment poli tical ly; but it ia ultim ately the only way of avoid ing the passi ng on of serio us costs to futur e peop le. And there are othe r sorts of reaso ns than such ethic al ones for takin g it: it is the main , indee d the only sort of optio n,ope n to those who adop t what is now calle d a deep ecolo gical persp ectiv e, as cont raste d with _a shall ow ecolo gical outlo ok which regar ds the natu ral world and its nonhuinan deniz ens as not worth while in them selve s but only of value in as much as ther answ er back to human inter ests. The .deep ecolo gical persp ectiv e is an integ ral part of the Alte rnati ve Ecol ogica l Parad igm and is incom patib le wi;~h cent ral these s of the Dominant Soci al Parad igm (whic h is esse ntial ly the ideol pgy of claa aica l and neoc lassi cal econo mics) _·-~ . ,.....,,, ,......... ,.... •, • c..-,.t. ... , • 30. and its vari ants (rou ghly , what are calle d Stat e Soci alism , and Dem ocrat ic \/,-tu JtN,k Soci alism ).19 It is inco mpa tible with &w&h . a&Fhmptiafts as •h•• the n~tu ral l( N ~0.S k.Mlt- JL,.. a..~ °'M.A ~ " " Co.. I ~ ~ envir onme nt '" "' va'1u,e .9nly as a reso urce , ~b y And la~ hos tile /\~. .> ~ vM~ ~ .s -to ' t«. A~ ~~ o :r 9'\ d 11\.J , ~ -tt. «... o-t\...va... ~ u~ le ee11 tnlla hle :f:n ht1 11a ~a, e 1 a,ul uhAl ~ · r t h e • A.do mina tion- over wkt ,~ '-'4.. /2.42.A .... '' natu re themes ~th e Dominant Parad igm and its vari ants . The conf lict betw een Alte rnat ive and Dominant Para digm s, which is fast incr easi ng, exte nds of cour se far beyond attit udes to the natu ral worl d, sinc e core valu es of the Dominant Par,~digm such as the meri ts of unimpeded economic growth and mate rial prog ress ar ~ at stak e; the conf lict invo lves fund amen tal 1 diffe renc es over the whole fron t of econ omic al, poli tica l and soci al arra ngem ents. The conf lict unde rlies much of ;the nucl ear deba te, inso far as it is not spec ifica lly limi ted to questio1~s of tech nolo gica l fixe s, but take s up the basi c ethi cal issu es and the so ~ial ques tions to which they lead .20 The 1 ethi cal requ irem ents alrea dy de1fended and appl ied brin g us out, when follo wed throu gh, on the Alte rnat ive sid1~ of the parad igm conf lict, and acco rdin gly lead to the diff icul t soci al ch1nge optio n. The soci al chan ges that the deep alte rnat ive requ ires will be stron gly resis ted beca use they mean chan ges in curr ent soci al orga nisa tion and power stru ctur e. To the exte nt that the optio n repr esen ts some kind of thre at to part s of pres ent poli tica l and economic arran gem ents, it is not surp risin g that offi cial ener gy ppti on disc ussi on proc eeds by misr epre sent ing and ofte n obsc uring it. But diff icul t as it is to suita bly alte r "the syste m," espe ciall y one with such far-r each ing effe cts on the prev ailin g power stru ctur e, it is impe rativ e to try: we are all on the nucl ear train . w • FOOTNOTES 1. This paper is a condens ation of an early version of our 'Nuclea r power - ethical , social, and politic al dimensi ons' (ESP for short, availab le from the authors ), which in turn grew out of Routley (i.e. the work so referred to in the referenc e list). For help with the condens ation we are very conside rably indebted to the e~itors . In the condens ation, we simplify the structu re of the argument and suppres s underly ing politic al ~1nd ideolog ical dimensi ons (for example , the large measure of respons ibilit~r of the USA for spreadin g nuclear reactor s around the world, and thereby in enhancin g the chances of nuclear disaste rs, includin g nuclear war). We also considet ·ably reduce a heavy load of footnote s and referenc es designed and needed to help make good many of our claims. · Further , in order to contain referenc es to a modest length, referenc e to primary sources has often been replaced by referenc e through seconda ry sources . Little difficu lty should be encount ered however in tracing fuller referenc es through seconda ry sources or in filling out much importa nt backgrou nd materia l from work cited herein. For example , virtual ly all the data cited in section s I and VII is referenc ed in Routley . At worst ESP can always be consulte d. 2. All but the last line of the quote is drawn from Goodin, p. 417; the last line is from the Fox Report, p. 6. While it is unneces sary to know much about the nuclear fuel cycle in order to conside r ethical and social dimensio ns of nuclear power, it helps to know a little. The b~~sics are presente d in many texts, e.g. Nader & Abbotts , Gyorgy. Of course ~~n order to assess fully reports as to such importa nt backgrou nd and stage~,s etting matters as the likeliho od of a core meltdown of (lightw ater)1 reactor s, much more informa tion is require d. For many assessm ent purpose s h~,wever, some knowledge of economic fallacie s and decision theory is at least as importa nt aa knowledge of nuclear technolo gy. 3. Natural ly the effect on humans is not the only factor that has to be taken into account in arrivln g at moral assessm ents. Nuclear radiatio n, unlike most ethical theorie s. does not confine its scope to human life and welfare . But since the ham nuclear developm ent may afflict on nonhuman life, for example , can hardly improve its case, it suffice s if the case against it can be made out solely in term• of its effects on human life in the convent ional way. .For refe ren ce to apd a brie f disc uss ion of (hu man -ori ente d) sim ulat ion models see Goodin, p.42 8. 4. The Opp ortu nity -co st . argument is also def ecti ve in oth er resp ects . It pres upp ose s not mer ely the (mi stak en) red ucti ons invo lved in the con trac tion of the eth ica l domain to the economic; it also pres upp ose s tha t the pro per methods for dec isio n which affe ct. the futu re, such as tha t of ene rgy cho ice, app ly disc oun ting . But , as Goo din arg ues , more app rop riat e dec isio n rule s do not allo w disc oun ting . 5. Thi s is one of the reas ons why exp ecte d uti lity theo ry, roug hly cos t-be nef it ana lysi s wit h pro bab ility fril ls, is inad equ ate as a dec isio n method in such con tex ts. 6. App aren t exc epti on~ to the prin cip le such as tax atio n (and red istr ibu tion of income gen era, lly) van ish when wea lth is con stru ed (as it has to be if tax atio n is to be pro per ly jus tifi ed) as at lea st par tly a soc ial ass et unf airl y mon opo lise d by a min orit y of the pop ulat ion . Examples such as tha t of mot orin g dan gero usly do not con stit ute cou nter exa mpl es to the prin cip le; for one is not mor ally ent itle d to so mot or. 7. For det ails , and as to how the off icia l ana lys~ s become argu men ts aga inst nuc lear dev elop men t whe.p some atte mpt is made to tak e the -ign ored cos ts into acc oun t, see Shr ade r-Fr ech ette , p. 55 ff. 8. See Rou tley , p. 160 . 9. For much furt her disc uss ion of the poi nts of the prec edin g two par agrap hs, see Shr ade r-F rec het te, p. 35 ff.; and also Nader & Abbott&. 10. Gyorgy. Most of the rea cto rs in the wor ld are of this typ e; 11. See Shr ade r-Fr ech ette , cha pter 4. see 12. See Shr ade r-Fr ech ette . A wor thw hile ini tia l view of the sho rtco min gs of the RassmutJsen rep ort may be reac hed by com bini ng the crit iqu e in Shr ade r-Fr ech et~e wit h tha t in Nader & Abb otts . 13. The re are var iati on$ on Ai and Aii which mul tipl y cos ts aga inst numbers such as pro bab ilit ies. In this way risk s, con stru ed as pro bab le cos ts, can be take n into acc oun t in the asse ssm ent. (Al tern ativ ely . risk .a may be aaaeaaed thro ugh •~e h fam ilia r aeth oda •• inau ran ce). • A princ iple varyi ng Aii, and formu lated as follow s: Aii'. a is ethic ally accep table if {for some b) a inclu des no more risks than band bis socia lly accep ted, was the basic ethic al princ iple in terms of which the Cluff Lake Board of . Inqui ry recen tly decid ed that nucle ar power devel opme nt in Saska tchew an is ethic ally accep table : see Cluff Lake Board of Inqui ry Final Repo rt, Department of Envir onme nt, Government of Saska tchew an, 1978, p. 305 and p. 288. In this repor t, a is nucle ar power and b is eithe r activ ities clear ly accep ted by socie ty as alter nativ e power sourc es. In other appli catio ns b has b•en taken as cigar ette smoki ng, motor ing, minin g and even the Vietnam ~ar (!). The point s made in the text do not exhau st the objec tions to princ iples Ai - Aii'. The princ iples are certa inly ethic ally subst antiv e, since an ethic al conse quenc e canno t be deduced from nonet hical prem isses, but they have an inadm issibl e conve ntion al chara cter. For look at the origi n of b b may be socia lly accep ted thoug h it is no longe r socia lly accep table , or thoug h its socia l accep tibili ty is no longe r so clear cut and it would not have been socia lly accep ted if as much as is now known had been known when it was introd uced. What is requi red in Aii', for insta nce, for the argument tQ begin to look convi ncing is that b is 'ethic ally accep table ' rath, r than 'soci ally accep ted'. But even with the amendments the princ iples are inval id, for the reaso ns given in the text, and other s. It is not disco neert ing that princ iples of this type do not work. It would be sad to see yet anoth er area lost to the expe rts, ethic s to actua ries. 14. See Shrad er-Fr echet te, p. 15. 15. Goodin . p. 433. 16. The argum ent is elabo rated in ESP. 17. For some of the more philo sophi cally impor tant mate rial on alter nativ e nonco nsum eristi c $OCi al arran geme nts and lifes tyles , see work cited in V. and R. Routl ey, 'Soci al theor ies, self manag ement and envir onme ntal probl ems' in M,nni son et al, where a begin ning ia made on worki ng out ~ of alter nativ ••• thoaa of a plura listic anarchism. ••t flA-t fn 18. l ·.:. The~ situa tion of the world 's tropi cal rainf orest s is expla ined in, for insta nce, My~ra; the reaso ns are untan gled in R. and V. Routl ey 'World rainf orest destr uctio n - the socia l cause s' (avai lable from the autho rs). 19·. For a fulle r accou nt of the Dominant Socia l Parad igm and its rival , the Alter nativ e Envir onme ntal Parad igm, see Cotgr ovean d Duff, espec ially the table on p. 341 which encap sulate s ' ' the main assum ption s of the respe ctive parad igms; compare also Catto n and Dunla p, espec ially p. 33. Contemporary varia nts on the Dominant Socia l Parad igm are consi dered in ESP • .., The shallo w/dee p contr ast as appli ed to ecolo gical posit ions, which is an impor tant component of the parad igm conf lict, was introd uced by Naess . For furth er expla natio n of the contr ast and of the large r array of ecolo gical posit ions into which it fits, see R. and V. Routl ey, 'Huma n chauv inism and ~ envir onme ntal ethic s' in Mannison '------'"'et al, and the refer ences there cited , espec ially to Rodman's work. 20. The more elabo rate afgum ent of ESP sets the nucle ar debat e in the conte xt of parad igm confl ict. But it is also argue d that, even withi n assum ptions framework of the ~,min ant Socia l Parad igm and its varia nts, Ti. Nucle ar develo pmen t is no,~ the ratio nal choic e among energ y optio ns. The main argument put up for n\Jcle ar devel opme nt withi n the framework of the dominant parad igm is an Ec~,nomic growth argum ent. It is the follow ing I' versi on of the Light s-goin g-ou~; argument (with economic growt h duly stand ing in for mate rial wealt h, and fo~r what is valua ble!) :- Nucle ar power is neces sary to susta in economic $rowt h. Economic growt h is desir able (for all the usual reaso ns, e.g. to incre ase the size of the pie, to postp one redis tribu tion probl ems, etc.) . There fore nucle ar power is desir able. The first premi ss is part of US energ y polic y (see Shrad er-Fr echet te, p.111 ), and the secon d prem iss ia suppl ied by stand ard economics textb ooks. But both premi sses are defec tive, the secon d becau se what is valua ble in economic growth can be achie ved by (not witho ut growt h but) selec tive economic growt h, which jettis ons the heavy socia l and envir onme ntal costs carri ed by unqu alifie d economic growt h. More to the point , since the secon d premi ss is an assum ption of the Dominant Parad igm, the first premi ss (or rathe r an appro priate and less vulne rable restat emen t of it) fails even by Dominant Paradigm stand ards. For of cours e nucle ar power is not neces sary given that there are other , perha ps costl ier alter nativ es. The premi ss usual ly defen doJ is some elabo ration of the prem iae: Nucle ar power is the econo mical ly beat way to auata in economic arowth. 'econ omica lly beat' be ing fill ed out as 'mo at eff icie nt', 'che ape st', 'hav ing the most favo urab le ben efit -co st rat io', etc~ Unf oitu nate ly for the argu men t, and for nuc lear development sche mes , nuc lear power is none of thes e thin gs dec isiv ely (un less a good dea l of economic che atin g - easy to do - is don e). Tii . ' pro per Dominant Para digm acc oun ting , nuc lear cho ices sho uld gen era l ly be reje cte d, both as priv ate uti lity inve stm ents and as pub lic cho ices . On Nuc lea r dev elop men t is not eco nom ical ly via ble but has bee n kep t goin g, not by cle ar economic via bili ty, butr by mas sive sub sidi zati on of sev era l typ es (dis cus sed in Shr ade r-Fl ech ette ~, Gyorgy and Nader & Abb otts ). Even on var ian ts of ~;he Dominant Para digm , nuc lear dev elop men t is not jus tifi ed, as con side rati on of dec isio n theo ry methods wil l rev eal: Til i. rej cted , Whatever reas ona ble 4ec iaio n rule is ado pted , the nuc lear cho ice is as the argu men ts of Goodin on alte rna tive dec isio n rule s help to show. What sus tain s the nuc lear jug ger nau t is not the Dominant Para digm ~r i ts var ian ts, but con tem pora ry cor por ate cap ital ism (or its sta te ent erp rise image ) and as soc iate d thir d wor ld imp eria lism , aa the his tor ica l det ails of nuc lear <lev elopmen t both in dev elop ed cou ntri es and in less dev elop ed cou ntri es mak es pla i . (for main det ails , see Gyorgy p. 307 ff.) . And the pra ctic es of con tem pora ry corp ora te cap ital ism and ass oci ated imp eria liam are not acc epta ble by the sta nda rds of eith er of the Paradigms or the ir var ian t&: they are cer tain ly no t eth ica lly acc epta ble. • .• . ·• REFERENCES USED Works esp eci ally use ful for fur the r inv est iga tion of the e.th ica l issu ea rais ed by nuc lea r dev elop men t are ind ica t_ed wit h an ast eri sk (*) . S. Cot gro ve and A. Duf f, "En viro nme ntal ism , mid dle -cla ss rad ica lism and po liti cs' , Soc iolo gic al Review 28( 2) (1980), 333 -51 . W.R . Cat ton , Jr. , and R. E. Dun lap, 'A new eco log ica l par adig m for pos t exu ber ant soc iolo gy' American Beh avi ora l Sci ent ist 24 (19 80) . 15- 47. For Rep ort : Ranger Uranium Env iron men tal Inq uiry Fir st Rep ort, Au stra lian Government Pub lish ing Ser vic e, Can ber ra, 1977. *R. E. Goodin, "No moral nuk es', Eth ics 90 (19 80) , 417-49. *A. Gyorgy and fri' end s, No Nukes : eve ryo ne's gui de to nuc lea r pow er, Sou th End Pre ss, Bos ton , Ma ss., 197 9. *n . Mannison, M. McRobbie and R. Rou tley (ed ito rs) , Env iron men tal Phi los~ phy , RSSS, Au stra lian Nat ion al Un ive rsit y, 198 0. N. Myers, The Sin kin g Ark, Pergamon Pre ss, Oxf ord , 1979. R. Nader and J. Abb otta , The Menace of Atomic Ene rgy , Me lbou rne, 1977. Outback Pre ss, *K. S. Shr ade r-F rec het te, Nuclear Power and Pub lic Pol icy , 1980. Rei del , Dor dre cht , R. and V. Rou tley , 'Nu clea r energy and obl igat ion tJ to the fut ure ', Inq uiry 21 (19 78) , 133-79.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 74, Item 2049: Draft of Nuclear power - some ethical and social dimensions Subject The topic of the resource Typescript (photocopy) of draft, with handwritten emendations and annotations, undated. Handwritten above title: Almost final version. Paper published, Routley R and Routley V (1982) 'Nuclear power—some ethical and social dimensions', in Regan T and VanDeVeer D (eds) And justice for all: new introductory essays in ethics and public policy, Rowman and Littlefield. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=val+routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Val Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 74, Item 2049 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [36] leaves. 45.78 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:a4e917c">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:a4e917c</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1982-01-01 Australian National University Office Australian National University Office > Filing Cabinet 5 > Top Box 74: Unlisted and Untitled https://www.antipodean-antinuclearism.org/files/original/0b17d50e19500ff0b2b32520f6a252ed.pdf 89d18b08b7b801165a65380cf512aeec PDF Text Text AGAINST THE INEVITABILITY OF HUMAN CHAUVINISM In our enlightened times, when most forms of chauvinism have been abandoned at least in theory by those who consider themselves progressive, western ethics still appears to retain, at its very heart, a fundamental form of chauvinism, namely, human chauvinism. ethical theories For both popular western thought and most western assume that both value and morality can ultimately be reduced to matters of interest or concern to the class of humans. Class chauvinism, in the relevant sense, is substantially differential, discriminatory, and inferior treatment (characteristically, but not necessarily, by members of the privileged class) of items outside the class, for which there is not sufficient justification. Human chauvinism, like other varieties of chauvinism, can take stronger and weaker forms; an example of the weaker form is the Greater Value Thesis, the invariable allocation of greater value or preference, on the basis of species, to humans, while not however entirely excluding non-humans from moral consideration and claims. We will be concerned primarily with strong forms of human chauvinism, which see value and morality as ultimately concerned entirely with humans, and non-human items as having value or creating constraints on human action only insofar as these items serve human interests or purposes. In recent years, since the rise of the 'environmental consciousness', there has been increasing, if still tentative, questioning of this exclusive concern with, or at least heavy bias towards, human interests; and indeed, at a time when human beings are rapidly accelerating their impact on the natural world, the question as to the validity of this basic assumption is not merely an abstract one, but is of immediate and practical concern in its implications for This thesis has, among other unacceptable outcomes, the consequence that, if there is only room in one's boat for one and one must choose between saving Adolf Hitler and a wombat which has lived a decent and kindly life and never harmed a living creature, one is morally obligated to choose the former. That would not be the choice of the authors. �2. human action. In reply to this questioning (which appears to originate largely from people with environmental interests), modern moral philosophers - fulfilling their now established function of providing a theoretical superstructure to explain and justify contemporary moral sensibilities, questioning fundamental assumptions - tend to argue that the bias towards human interests, which is an integral part of going ethical theories, is not just another form of class chauvinism which it is both possible and desirable to eliminate, but rather a restriction dictated by the logic of evaluative and moral concepts, and that there is no coherent, possible or viable alternative to the "human chauvinism" of standard ethical theories. series of In this paper we want to consider and reject a arguments in the theory of value designed to show that this is so, and thereby to advance the cause of an alternative, non-chauvinistic, environmental ethic. The orthodox defence of human chauvinism argues that it is inevitable that humans should be taken as the exclusive subjects of value and morality. Humans are uniquely and exclusively qualified for moral consideration and attributions of value, according to this defence either because the human species alone does, as a matter of fact, possess properties which are a pre­ condition for such ascriptions or because, as a matter of the definition or the logic or the significance of moral concepts in natural language, such considerations are restricted, as a matter of logic, to the human species. In the first case the restriction of morality and value to the human species will be taken as contingent, in the second necessary. In either case, if the argument is correct, the bias in favour of humans in current theories is inescapable, so that, depending on one's definition of chauvinism, either human chauvinism itself is inevitable, or human bias is, because justifiable, not a real chauvinism at all. We shall consider the logical or definitional approach first. According to the definitional approach, moral and evaluative terms are, as a matter of their definitions, restricted in their application to members of the human species; only in a secondary way at best do such terms find a �3. wider application, according as evaluated items are instrumental to human interests. The thesis is often backed up by the production of definitions which are so restricted, for example, 'the value of a thing is its capacity to confer a benefit on someone, to make a favourable difference to his life' (Baier, in [13], p. 40), where in the intended context 'someone' is obviously restricted to humans. The attempt to preserve human chauvinism in an unchallengeable form through definitions involves the fallacy of taking definitions to be self­ validating and unchallengeable, and appears to be based on the confusion of abbreviative definitions with those involving or presupposing substantive claims, such as creative definitions, which may be accepted or rejected. Such definitions as those above, cannot be merely abbreviative because they attempt to characterise or explicate already understood terms, such as 'moral' or 'value'. Worse still, they do so in a way which is not dictated by prevailing usage - which does not require that moral and value terms be restricted in range to human:in order that they continue to apply to humans in the ordinary way. Alternative definitions which do not so restrict the range of application may be supplied, they can in fact be found by looking up dictionaries, and these alternatives quite properly do not close off genuine issues which natural language itself leaves open. The fallacy of the definitional move is that of believing that by converting the substantive evaluative theses of human chauvinism to matters of definition they become somehow exempt from challenge or need for justification. This is comparable to justifying discriminatory membership for a club by referring to the rules, similarly conceived as self-validating and exempt from question or justification. Since a similar move could obviously be employed to limit membership of the Moral Club to say, white male humans in place of humans, it is plain that such a definitional argument does far too much, and is capable of use to produce completely unacceptable conclusions. But of course substantive theses involved in definitions, like club rules, are not exempt from challenge and may be arbitrary, undesirable, restrictive, c/ �4. and in need of justification. Once this is grasped the definitional move can be seen as entirely question-begging, since the question of the acceptability and inevitability of human chauvinism is simply transformed into the question of the acceptability and inevitability of the definition. The production of such human chauvinist definitions has done nothing to advance the case of human chauvinism, other than to throw a spurious air of unchallangeability and over the highly challengeable and arbitrary substantive theses they embody. The attempt to settle substantive issues 'by definition' is both philosophically facile and methodologically unsound, and is especially so when there are clearly alternative definitions which would not settle the issue in the same way. What, however, of the substantive claim presupposed by the definitional move, namely that as a matter of natural language usage, or the logic of moral and evaluative concepts, the meaning of moral and value terms, it is logically necessary that direct, non-instrumental, application of such terms be restricted to the human (a claim made at least in the case of rights by Ritchie [4], p. 107, and subsequently by Passmore [5] and [9]^,p. 116, 189, Ay and,others). But usually, when it is asserted that non-humans cannot have rights, obligations and such like, what sort of 'cannot' is involved is not specified - whether it is a 'cannot' of logical impossibility, or of non-significance or absurdity, or something else again (the point is nicely illustrated by Feinberg's discussion of McCloskey, McCloskey [11] itself). in p. 195 , and by In any case, however, the thesis appears to be mistaken, for it rules out as logically impossible or absurd a number of positions and theses which are very plainly neither and which it may even, in some circumstances, be important to consider. For example, it is surely neither impossible nor absurd to consider moral questions concerning conduct of humans towards other species, e.g. to a race of sensitive and intelligent extraterrestrial beings, and similarly moral questions arising from their conduct towards or concerning humans, indeed science fiction writ .ers do this commonly without producing nonsense or contradicting themselves. Not only does the proposed restriction appear quite �5. mistaken given current usage, but there seems indeed to be something logically unsound about the attempt to place a logical restriction to a particular species on such terms, just as there would be in restricting membership of the Moral Club to people with blue eyes and blond hair who are over 6 feet tall. The accident of being a zoological human, defined in terms of various physical characteristics, cannot be morally relevant. It is impossible to restrict moral terms to particular species, when species distinctions are defined in terms of physical characteristics which are not morally relevant. More generally, any attempt to derive a logically necessary connection between humanity itself and the applicability of morality is bound to fail. For creatures anatomically and zoologically distinct from humans which are identical with humans in terms of all morally relevant features are logically possible, upsetting any logical linkage. tie between humanity But attempts to establish a logical and morality through features which all and only humans possess and which are themselves linked logically to morality, would, of course, involve a modal fallacy, namely that of substituting a contingent equivalence within an opaque modal conte t of logical necessity. In order for such an argument to be val? d, it would have to be logically necessary that non­ humans do not possess such features, not merely a contingent fact that they do not; but this assumption must be incorrect for morally relevant characteristics. The only proposal which has ac/n/tce of succeeding, then, is the factual one which makes the selection of just humans for the Moral Club a contingent matter, the claim being that as a matter of contingent fact all and only humans possess a certain set of characteristics, which characteristics themselves are logically tied with qualification for moral consideration and for direct attribution of value to the possessor. What this contingent form of human chauvinism has to produce then, in order to establish its case, is a set of characteristics which satisfy the following conditions of adequacy: �6. 1. The set of characteristics must be possessed by at least all properly functioning humans, since to omit any significant category usually considered subject to moral consideration, such as infants, young children, primitive tribesmen etc., and to allow that it was permissible to treat these gro^J^L^ in the way it is considered permissible to treat non-humans, ^s mere instruments, would certainly be repuguant to modern moral sensibilities, and would offend common intuitions as to the brotherhood of man, the view that all humans are possessors of inalienable rights. Thus human chauvinism, if it is to produce a coherent theory which does not unacceptably rule out some groups of humans must find some set of features common to the most diverse members of humankind, from Rio Tinto executives to hunter-gatherer tribes of Amazonian Indians, from those who engage in highly abstract activities such as logic and mathematics to those who cannot, from the literate and cultured to the illiterate and uncouth, from the poet and professor to the infant. This alone will be no easy task. 2. In order for human chauvinism to be justified this set of characteristics must not be possessed by any non-human. 3. The set of characteristics must not merely be morally relevant,but sufficient to justify, in a non-circular way, the cut-off of moral consideration at exactly the right point. If human chauvinism is to avoid the charge of arbitrariness and unjustifiability, and demonstrate its inevitability and the impossibility of alternatives, it must emerge from the characteristicj why items not having may be used as mere instruments to serve the interests of those which do possess There must be some explanatory logical connection between the set of characteristics and membership of the Moral Club. Chauvinists aie. fc stress distinguishing points between the privileged class and those outside it - and there is no lack of characteristics which distinguish humans from non-humans, at least functioning healthy adult ones. The point is that these distinctions usually do not warrant the sort of radically inferior treatment for which they are �7. proposed as a rationale. On the basis of the characteristics then the proposed radical difference in treatment between the privileged and non­ privileged class and the purely instrumental treatment of the non-privileged class, must be warranted, that is, the distinguishing characteristics must be able to carry the moral superstructure placed upon them. A large and exceedingly disparate collection of features has been suggested as distinguishing humans from non-humans and justifying human chauvinism. But it turns out that every one of these, on examination, either fails to pick out the desired privileged class of humans in an unequivchcal fashion, that is, it applies to some non-humans or excludes some humans who should not be excluded, or, when it does select the desired class, fails on condition 3, and does not warrant the exclusive claim to moral consideration of the privileged class. Many suggested criteria in fact fail on more than one count. The traditional distinction between humans and the rest in terms of rationality illustrates the point. Once the theological doctrines of the exclusively human soul on which the distinction once rested are abandoned, it is not so easy to see what is meant by this term. Indeed it often appears to function as little more than a self-congratulatory predicate applied exclusively to humans, with no other clear function at all. clarifications are sometimes offered. However various For example rationality may be said to be the ability to reason, this being tested by such basically linguistic performances as the ability to do lo^ic, to prove theorems, to draw conclusions from arguments and to engage in inductive and deductive linguistic behaviour. But such stringent and linguistically-loaded criteria will eliminate far too many members of the human species who cannot perform these tasks. If, however, behavioural criteria for rationality are adopted, or the ability to solve problems and to fit attion to individual goals becomes the test - that is, practical reasoning is the test - it is obvious that many non-human admission to the Moral Club, rather than the ability to perform some other �tasks or meet some other set of standards, such as orienteering ability,the ability to mix concrete (the use of concrete being, afte^all, a far more conspicuous feature of modern human society than the use of reason). One senses also in the appeal to such criteria (andespecially to linguistic criteria) the overvaluation of the things in which the privileged class typically excells and the undervaluation of the skills - not obviously^ in any non—circular way inferior - of the non-privileged class, which is such a typical feature of chauvinism. We list some of the suggested characteristics supposedly justifying human chauvinism, and indicate in brackets after each some of the conditions they fail: using tools (fails 1, 2, 3), altering the environment (1, 2, 3), the ability to communicate (1, 2, 3), the ability to use and learn language (1, 2, 3), the ability to use and learn English (1, 3), possession of consciousness (2, 3), self-consciousness or self-awareness (1, 2?, 3), having a conscience (1, 2?, 3), having a sense of shame (1, 2?, 3), being aware of oneself as an agent or initiator (1, 2, 3), having awareness (2, 3), being aware of one's existence (1, 2?, 3), being aware of the inevitability of one's own death (1, 2?, 3), being capable of self-deception (1, 3), being able to ask questions about moral issues such as human chauvinism (1, 3), having a mental life (2, 3), being able to play games (1, 2, 3), being able to laugh (1, 3), to laugh at oneself (1, 3), being able to make jokes (1, 3), having interests (2, 3), having projects (1, 2, 3), being able to assess some of one's performances as successful or not (1, 2, 3), enjoying freedom of action (2, 3), being able to vary one's behaviour outside a narrow range of insttnctu al behaviour (1, 2, 3), belonging to a social community (1, 2, 3), being morally responsible for one's actions (1), being able to love (1, 2), being capable of altruism (1, 2), being capable of being a Christian, or capable of religious faith (1, 3), being able to produce the items of (human) civilisation grid, culture * (1, 3). * This feature typifies a number of rather circular distinguishing characteristics, or at least ones which raise serious theob^. tical problems for human chauvinism, because they attempt to explain the unique value of humans in terms of their ability to produce items which are taken to be independently valuable, thus contradicting human chauvinism (see the discussion in [10],/?.;77/, �It appears that none of these criteria meet the conditions of adequacy; furthermore it seems most unlikely that any other characteristic or any cowbinlation of the^characteristics does so. Thus we conclude that these contingent direct arguments for human & chauvinism^not establish its inevitability, and that indeed the position rests on a shaky base and so f^r lacks a coherent theoretical justification. Human chauvinism cannot be restored by a detour through the concept of a person, that is by linking perso/JnoocL with membership of the /* foral (lub, and identifying the class of persons contingently with the class of humans. For then the same problem as above arises with different terminology even if the of person since, can be specified in such a way as to justify the restriction of moral privileges to persons, the class of persons will then not conicin the way human chauvinism requires^ with the class of humans, but will either include a great many non-humans or exclude a good many humans^morally considered. Attempts to enlarge the privileged class, for example to persons (broadly specified), or to sentient or preference having creatures, may avoid many of the problems of arbitrariness and justification which face the strong form of human chauvinism, but, as we shall argue, face a set of problems of coherence and consistency common to all instrumentalist theories of value and morality. ******* There are a number of indirect arguments for human chauvinism based on features of value and morality. argument We turn now to consider these. One abstract which is supposed to establish that values are, or must, be determined through the interests of humans or persons - a central argument underlying chauvinism - takes the following form:- �10. A. Values are determined through the preference rankings of valuers. (The no detachable values assumption). B. Valuers' preference rankings are determined through valuers' interests. (The preference reduction thesis). C. Valuers are humans [persons]. (The species assumption). Therefore: D. Values are determined through human interests [through the interests of persons]. Hence, it is sometimes concluded, not only is it perfectly acceptable for humans to reduce matters of value and morality to matters of human interest, there is no rational or possible alternative to doing so: any alternative is simply incoherent. Although th{$ argument does not, so far as we are aware, appear anywhere with its premisses explicitly stated, it does seem to reflect the sorts of considerations those who claim that there is no rational or coherent alternative to organising everything in human interests usually have in mind. Of course once the premisses are exposed, it is easier to see that this initially persuasive argument, like others in the area, rests on fallacious assumptions. y<2^ — We shall claim that although the argument to conclusion D is formally^given only some quite conventional assumptions such as that the relation of determin­ ation or functionality is appropriately transitive and the principle of replacement of necessary identicals - not all the premisses should be accepted. The argument can be treated as the major representative of a family of similar arguments. For there are many variations that can be made on the argument with a view to amending it, tightening it, varying or strengthening its conclusion, and so on. Our criticisms of the argument will, for the most part, transfer to the variations. qualifies the determining relation; A first group of variations replaces or for example, 'determined through' or 'determined by' may be replaced by 'answer back to', of', 'can be reduced to', or 'are a function of'. 'reflect', 'are a matter (The latter functional form makes it plain that 'determined' has to mean 'exactly determined', which �11. ensures that no extraneous factors enter into the chauvinistic determination: mere partial determination would be quite compatible with the rejection of human chauvinism.) Alternatively, 'determined' may be modally upgraded to 'have to be determined', in order to reveal the sheer necessity of conclusion D. (In this case it is essential that premiss C be of modal strength, and not merely contingent as it would be if the original form were retained; other­ wise the argument would contain a modal fallacy.). Another familiar, and appealing, variation we have already bracketed into the form of the argument given; class by persons. namely the replacement of humans as base This straightaway increases the cogency of premiss C, which otherwise - while better than, say, 'Valuers are white (North American) humans' - would at best be contingently true (which is not good enough for the argument and in fact appears false, since some valuers may not be human; and certainly not all humans are valuers), while at worst it is simply a circular way of reintroducing the logical version of human chauvinism by rest^cting the class of valuers a priori to humans. That all valuers are persons may be made analytic on the sense of 'person' - given a redefinition of 'person' away from its normal English usage, which philosophical English appears to almost tolerate - thus shielding premiss C from criticism. Other base classes than persons can replace humans in premiss C, for example animals, thus leading to the conclusion, of animal chauvinism, that values are determined through the interests (considerations and concerns) of animals, sentient creatures, or whatever. In the end, of course premiss C could be absorbed (as: Valuers are valuers or valuing creatures) and accordingly omitted, leaving the conclusion: Values are determined in the interests of valuers. However even the analytic form of premiss C does not, as we shall see, save the argument. Much the same applies in the case of premiss A. The premiss is certainly not unobjectionable in the usual sense of 'determined'; but there are ways of repairing it so that the argument still works in a sufficiently damaging form, and one way goes as follows:— What is true, analytically, if sufficiently many valuers are taken into account, is that values are deter­ �12. mined through the value rankings of valuers. Value rankings cannot however be cashed in for preference rankings since, as is well-known, preference rankings and value rankings can diverge: value and can value what is not preferred. a valuer can prefer what has less Let us amend the argument then - so that we can locate the real cause of damage - by replacing premiss A by the following premiss: A^. Values are determined through the value rankings of (appropriate) valuers. Correspondingly B will be adjusted to B^ in which 'value' replaces 'preference'. The really objectionable premiss in the central argument is neither premiss A nor premiss C, but premiss B - or, more exactly, where A is repaired, premiss B^. Suspicion of premiss B may be aroused by noticing that it plays an exactly parallel role in the class chauvinism argument to that the critical premiss BE. One's preferences of choices are always determined through self-interest, plays in familiar arguments for egoism, that whatever course of action one adopts, it is always really adopted in one's own selfish interests. The argument for egoism runs along the following, parallel, lines:- AE. Individual persons [agents) always act (in freely chosen cases) in the way they prefer or choose, i.e. in accordance with their preference rankings. BE. Individual preference rankings are always determined through ^reflect) self­ interest. Therefore: There is nonetheless an esoteric, semantical, sense of 'determined' in which premiss A is demonstrably true, and so a sense in which it is analytically true that value rankings are semantically determined by the preference rankings of situations by a class of valuers. The details of these semantical foundations for values are set out in 131. But while premiss A can be corrected by replacing 'determined' by 'semantically determined' and giving this an appropriate construal, such a move would do nothing to restore the intended argument: for it would either invalidate the argument, through change in the key middle term 'determined', or, alternatively, if 'determined' is systematically replaced throughout the argument, drastically alter the intended conclusion D - so that looking at the interests that humans in fact have would no longer provide a guide to values (instead the interests of hypothetical valuers with respect to worlds that never exist or could exist would have to be gathered). �13. DE. Individual persons ^agents] always act in ways determined by self interest [that reflect their own interests^. Thereafter follows the slide from in their own interests^ to to their own advantage, or for their own uses or purposes. The final conclusion of egoism again parallelling the class chauvinism case, is not only that the egoistic position is perfectly in order and thoroughly rational but that there are no alternatives, that there is, or at least ought to be, no other way of acting, 'that men can only choose to do what is in their own interests or that it is only rational to do this' ([2], p. 140). Thus human chauvinism, as based on the central argument, stands revealed as a form of group selfishness, group egoism one might almost say. Likewise the criticisms of the Group Selfishness argument, as we shall now call the central argument, parallel those of egoism, in particular premiss B (B ) succumbs to similar objections to those that defeat premiss BE (BE^). Group selfishness is no more acceptable than egoism, since it depends on exactly the same set of confusions between values and advantages, and slides on such terms as 'interests', as the arguments on which egoism rests. Nowell-Smith's very appealing critique of egoism ([2], p. 140-144) may, by simple paraphrase, be converted into a critique of group selfishness. recast B^ and BE" *" This is obvious once we and set them side by side: BE^. Individual value rankings are determined through (individual) self­ interest; and B^. Valuers' [groups'] value rankings are determined through valuers' (group) interests [joint interests of groups]. Because, however, one sets up or selects one's own preference or value rankings, it does not follow that they are set up or selected in one's own interests; similarly in group cases, because a group determines its own rankings, it does not follow that it determines them in its own interests. Just as BE^ is, prima facie at least, refuted by a range of examples where �value, and also preference, rankings run counter to self-interest, e.g. cases of altruism, so prima facie at least, B is refuted by examples where value, and also overall preference rankings, vary from group interests, e.g. cases of In the case group altruism. of limited groups examples are easy to locate, e.g. resistance movements, environmental action groups, and so on; case, however, of the larger human group in the are bound to be more controversial (since B^ unlike BE^ is a live thesis), but are still easy to find, especially if future humans are discounted, e.g. it is in humans' selfish interests to have plentiful supplies of this and that, electricity from uranium, oil, Me were Sy/Z/ey whalemeat, fish, etc., right now rather than^which would result from restraint, but altruistic value rankings would rank the latter above the former. It is often in selfish human interests (no less selfish because pertaining to a group) to open up and develop the wilderness, strip mine the earth, exploit animals, and so on, but environmentalists who advocate not doing so, in many cases not merely because of future humans, are apparently acting not just out of their own or human group interests. But, just as BE^ is not demolished by such counterexamples of apparently altruistic action, neither is B : in each case it can be made out that further selfish interests are involved, e.g., in the case of B , that an agent did what he did, an altruistic action, because he liked doing it. As Nowell-Smith explains in the egoism case, interest is written in as an internal accusative, thereby rendering such theses as BE^ true at the cost, however, of trivialising them. More generally, valuing something gets written in as a further sort of "interest"; whatever valuers value that does not seem to be in their interests is said to provide a further interest, either the value itself or an invented value surrogate; for example^the environmentalist who works to retain a wilderness he never expects to see may be said to be so acting because he has an interest in or derives benefit or advantage from just knowing it exists, just as he would be in the egoist case. theses can be retained; By such strategies the for then a valued item really is in valuers interests, in the extended sense, even if they are in obvious ways seriously inconvenienced �15. by it, i.e. even if it is not in their interests in the customary sense. ', * Thus.BE' like 4^', is preserved by stretching the elastic term 'interests', in a way that it too readily admits, to include values, or value surrogates, among interests. Then however the conclusion of the &roup Selfishness argument loses its intended force, and becomes the platitude that values are determined through valuers' values , just as egoism, under the extension a which makes us all covert egoists,loses its sting and becomes,platitude. It can be seen that human chauvinism in this form, like egoism, derives its plausibility from vacillation in the sense of 'interests', with a resulting fluctuation between a strong false thesis - the face of^chauvinism usually presented - and a trivial analytic thesis,between paradox and platitude.-^ To sum up the dilemma for the argument then:- when 'interest' is used in its weaker sense premiss B may be accepted but the argument does not establish its intended conclusion or in any way support human chauvinism. intended effect of the argument, in the crude form is this: values it is enough to look at human advantage: For the in determining nothing else counts. If the argument were correct, then one could assess values by checking out the local (selfish) advantage of humans, or, more generally, the advantage of the base class somehow assembled. If, on the other hand, 'interest' is used in its strong sense, the conclusion would lice^'hce a form of human chauvinism, but premiss B now fails. Most philosphers think they know how to discredit the egoist arguments. It is curious indeed then, that an argument which is regarded as so unsatisfactory in the individual case - that for egoism - remains unchallenged and is still considered so convincing in a precisely parallel group case - that for human chauvinism. ******** The technique of rescuing philosphical theses by natural extensions and accompanying redefinitions of terms, including the thesis "We're all selfish really", is delightfully explained in Wisdom [7], chapter 1. �16. The Group Selfishness argument is often employed in another way, as the presentation for a choice between the conclusion D, that value is determined by or reducible to a matter of human interests, and the denial of premiss A, which denial is seen as entailing a commitment to a detached,intrinsic or naturalistic theory of value. Thus, it may be said either one accepts the conclusion, with its consequent instrumentalist account of value, or one is committed to an intrinsic or detached value theory which takes values to be completely independent of valuers, and no way determined by them. But, it is assumed, the latter theory is well known as untenable, and may even be seen as involving mysticism or as irrational ^e.g. by Passmore [9], chapter 7). Thus it may be concluded, there is no real coherent alternative to such an instrumental account of value, and hence no real alternative to human chauvinism. The form of the argument then, is essentially: *^A v D, but A,therefore D, or, if a stronger connection, of intensional disjunction, is intended: but A, therefore D. It can be seen that the main premiss, -A v D, has resulted from the exportation and suppression of premisses B and C of the Group argument. ^A, Selfishness This suppression does nothing to improve the standing of the premisses although it does have the (possibly advantageous) effect of making it more difficult to see the fallacious assumptions on which it is based. For of course the choice a false one, and for precisely the same reasons that led us to say that premiss B was false. To reject the instrumentalist conclusion D is by no means to be committed to ^A, or to the view that the valuer's and their preference rankings play no role in determining values and that values are a further set of mysterious independent items in the world somehow perceived by valuers through a special (even mystical and non—rational) moral sense. Valuers' ; * preference rankings may be admitted to play an important role in evaluation are still not committed to D unless we assume - what amounts to premiss B these preference rankings reflect, or can be reduced to, valuers' interests. * on page 16a we that �16a Value rankings can be semantically analysed in terms of preference or interest rankings, as in [3]; but this does not offer a reduction of values to preferences or interests, as [8] explains. The semantical foundations, while conceding nothing to subjectivism or instrumentalism, make it easy to concede main points of the case (attributed to Dewey) against detached values, against the view that there are values somehow out there (in Meinong's aussersein), purely naturalistic values completely detached from all valuers, or from all preference rankings of valuers. Put differently, there are no values that do not somehow answer back to preference rankings of valuers, and so no values that are entirely detached from valuers and valuational activity such as preference-ranking of situations. But the answering back is made explicit and precise by the semantical analysis, not by any syntactical reduction or translation of value statements into statements about valuers' preference or interest rankings; and the valuers of the analysis are, like the situations introduced, ideal and need in no way exist. As a result then, valuations may be independent of the aggregated preference rankings of all actual humans or, for that matter, of all persons over all time. Thus too the semantical analysis makes it easy to navigate a course between the alternatives of two influential false dichotomies, to the effect that values are either instrumental or else detached, or that values are either subjective or else detached. For though a semantical analysis can be given, upsetting the detached value thesis, no translation or syntactical reduction of the sort subjectivism assumes is thereby effected. �17. The dichotomy frequently presented between instrumentalist accounts of value, on the one hand, and detached theories (or what are mistakenly taken to be the same, intrinsic theories) is, for the same reason, a false one. Instrumental theories are those which attempt to reduce value to what is instrumental to^contribute$to a stated goal. Typically such theories take the goal to be the furtherance of the interest of a privileged class; for example the goal may be taken to be determined in terms of the interests, concerns, advantage or welfare of the class of humans, or of persons, or of sentient creatures, depending on the type of chauvinism. In particular, human chauvinist theories are, characteristically, instrumentalist theories. In contrast,an item is valued intrinsically where it is valued for its own sake, and not merely as a means to something further; and an intrinsic value theory allows that some items are intrinsically valuable. Intrinsic theories then, instrumental contrast with Z. theories, and what 'intrinsic' tells us is no more than that the item taken as intrinsically valuable is not valued merely as a means to some goal, i.e. is not merely instrumentally valued. Accordingly detached value theories, since disjoint from instrumental theories, are a subclass of intrinsic value theories; be detached: and they are a proper subclass since intrinsic values need not something may be valuable in itself without its value being detached from all valuing experience. It is evident, furthermore, that the identification of intrinsic and detached value theories presupposed in the argument is no more than a restatement of the false dichotomy -^A v D, or ^A, The assumption i.e. non-instrumental, therefore detached^that if preference or value rankings are involved at all the resulting assignments must be instrumental is either false or or is variation of the fallacious premiss B which plays a crucial role in the Group Selfishness and Egoist arguments; the variation is that if value or preference rankings are involved they must reflect valuers' interests, therefore such values are instrumental, because the items valued are valued according as they reflect valuers interest, therefore according as they are a means to the end of satisfying the valuers' interest. It follows that intrinsic value theories �18. may allow for a third way between instrumental and detached theories, because of the possibility of value rankings (and also preference rankings) which are not themselves set up in a purely instrumentalist way, that is attributing value to aiitem only according as it is a means to some goal. The argument that there is no coherent alternative to instrumentalism does not however rely just on misrepresenting alternative intrinsic accounts as logically incoherent by assimilating them to detached accounts. It also trades on a contemporary insensitivity to the serious logical and epistemological problems of instrumental accounts of value, problems which were well known to classical philosophers (see e.g., Aristotle Metaphysics, 994b9-16) It does not appear to be widely realised that the classical arguments apply not just to a few especially shaky instrumentalist theories which adopt questionable goals but to instrumentalism in general, since they assume only quite general features of the instrumentalist position. Instrumentalist positions take as valuable (or in the moral case, as creating moral constraints) just what contributes to a stated end. which comes to mind is utilitarianism. An obvious example However in the more general case we are concerned with, of instrumentalist forms of human chauvinism, there may be a set of goalnot just a single goal such as that of maximising net happiness of humans; the human chauvinist assumption is that the values (indeed constraints) are goal-reducible, and that all goals reduce in some way to human goals, or at least can be assessed in terms of human concerns and interests. Human chauvinist positions are not necessarily instrumental, but those that are not (e.g. the position that just humans and nothing else are intrinsically valuable) tend to make the arbitrary chauvinistic nature of their assumptions unwisely explicit - most successful contempory chauvinisms being covert ones. Problems for instrumentalism arise (as Aristotle observed) when questions are asked about the status of the goal itself. Instrumentalism relies entirely for its plausibility upon selecting a set of goats which are widely accepted and are, in �19. It relies at bottom on an implicit the theory, implicitly treated as valuable. valuation which cannot itself be explained in purely instrumental terms. Of course a value assumption is not eliminated on this fashion: the general consensus it is merely hidden under that such a goal is appropriate, that such an end is valuable. But the strategy of successful instrumentalism is to avoid recognition of the fact that the goal is, and indeed must be, implicitly treated as valuable, by selecting a set of goals so much part of the framework of comtemporary thought, so entrenched and habitual 3s a valued item by humans that the value attached to the goal becomes virtually invisible, at least to those the framework. Thus it is with the assumption of human chauvinist instrumentalism that goals are exclusively determinable in terms of human interest. The basic, convincing and self-evident character of this assumption rests on nothing more than the shared beliefs of the privileged class of humans concerning the paramount and exclusive importance of their own interests and concerns, on a valuational assumption or goal which is ^'self-evident'" because it is advantageous and is habitual. The consensus features, of which instrumentalists make so much, are nothing more than the consensus of the privileged class about the goal of maintaining consensus of interests. their own privilege, i.e. a This sort of agreement of course shows very little about the well-grountiness of the position. Unless the goals set are widely accepted as valuable, the account will be unconvincing to those who do not share the goal and even to those who appreciate that it is possible to reject the goal. In order for instrumentalism to work logically however, the goal must be implicitly treated within the theory as valuable, for otherwise the proposed analysis loses explanatory and justificatory power and lacks compulsion. For how can the value of an item be explained and justified in terms of its contribution to an end not itself considered valuable! Serious problems also arise about the nature of value statements under the instrumentalist analysis unless the goal is treated as valuable. For if the goals themselves are not so treated within the theory, but are taken simply as unevaluated facts, then a valuational statement 'x is valuable' becomes, under the proposed analysis, �20. simply the statement that x tends to produce a certain result, to contribute to certain human states, a statement whose logical status, openness to verification, allowance for disagreement, and so on, does not substantially differ from that statement that x tends to producejoxide, to contribute to the rusting of human products. Such an account of value statements is open to the same sort of objections as other naturalistic reductions of value, for example, Mill's account the desirable in terms of the desired. of The special logical and epistemological character of value statements then, especially with respect to verification and disagreement,must be supplied in instrumentalism, if it is to be supplied at all, by the implicit treatment of the goal itself as valuable. The fact that the goaL of an instrumental account must be taken as itself valuable, gives rise to two choices. In the first, the goal is taken as itself instrumentally valuable, which creates an infinite regress. For if the end, reason or assignment for which other items are intrumentally valuable is itself only instrumentally valuable then there must in turn be some other end, reason or assignment in terms of which it is valuable (by definition of instrumental). A regress is thus begun, and if this regress is not to be viciously infinite, it must terminate in some end or feature which is taken as valuable just in itself, that is, with intrinsic values. On the alternative option the goal is not taken to be instrumentally valuable but is admitted to be valuable in some other way. Unless an 'except' clause is , so that all values are held to be account instrumental with the exception of the goal, the will of course be contextually added to the original instrumentalist inconsistent, since it is inconsistent when contextually supplied assumptions are added. For these include the assuption that the goal itself is valuable, but not in the way that the instrumentalist thesis claims is the only way possible. the goal is taken to be both valuable and not valuable. If, on the other hand, an'except^ clause is added, this amounts to an admission that the goal is taken to be non-instrumentally valuable. Thus the account may be able to retain consistency, but does so at the expense of Thus �21 explicitly admitting a value, that of the goal, which cannot be accounted for in purely instrumental terms, in short, that the gcdl is taken as intrinsically valuable. To sum up, the dilemma for the instrumentalist can be put as follows: Consider the desirability of the goal of the instrumental theory: it must implicitly be judged to be desirable, for otherwise nothing could be justified by reduction to it. or not? Ask: Is this goal also instrumentally desirable (valuable) If it is, i.e. it is only desirable as a means to a further goal, then either a regress is initiated or the same issue arises with respect to the new goal. But if it is not, then the instrumental theory is again refuted, since the goal is desirable though not desirable according to the test of the theory because it is not instrumental to the goal. Whichever ho rn of the dilemma is taken^ then> the outcome is the same: the instrumentalist must rely on treating the goal itself as implicitly valuable in a way not purely instrumental, that is, as intrinsically valuable. Thus the instrumentalist is, at bottom, guilty of precisely the same crime of which he accuses the adherent of a intrinsic account, with the added delinquency of failing to admit and face up to his basic assumptions. The logical and epistemological position of such an instrumental account is certainly no better than that of an intrinsic account, since there is logically no difference between the recognition of one intrinsic value (or one set in the case where gcals are multiple) and the recognition of many of them, ancf^lxtgical and epistemological status of the instrumentalist's account is no better than that of the goal to which his values are taken as instrumental. Since the instrumentalist has implicitly admitted the legitimacy of an intrinsic value assignment in setting up his account, he cannot claim any superiority over a more general intrinsic theory which allows for many intrinsic values, since what is legitimate in the case of one value assignment must be equally legitimate in the multiple case. �22, This abstract dilemma for human chauvinist instrumentalism is illustrated in a concrete case by Passmore's procedure in [9]; for Passmore (1) wishes to say that there is no coherent alternative to instrumental values, that an item is valuable insofar as it serves human interest, and (2) wants to explain the unique value attributed to humans in terms of their production of valuable civilised and cultural But (2) involves the admission of values, that items. of civilised items, which cannot be valuable in the way (1) states, and indeed (2) amounts to the admission of non-instrumental values. The proposed account is inconsistent because if intrinsic values are admissible in the case of civilised items, they cannot be logically ^oherent in the way (1) claims. The sort of problem faced by Passmore is however not a readily avoidable one for the instrumentalist; for if the charge of arbitary and unjustifiable human chauvinism is to be avoided by those who opt for (1), and humans are not themselves to be awarded intrinsic values,, thus conceding the logical legitimacy of intrinsic values generally, and hence the avoidability of human chauvinist accounts of value, some explanation must be provided for the exclusive value attributed to humans. But only explanation capable of justifying this valuation in a non-arbitray and non-chauvinistic way would have to refer to properties of humans, and would have to say something like: 'Humans are uniquely valuable because they alone have valuable properties x,y,z,... or produce valuable items A, B, C...'. distinguishing The list of proposed features already considered on page 8 are usually those that will be employed here. But this is to admit intrinsic value for the properties which explain the exclusive value of humans. The dilemma for the human chauvinist is that he must either take the exclusive human value assumption (the goal) as ultimate—laying him open to the charge of arbitrary chauvinism and of attributing intrinsic values to humans-or attempt to explain it* in which case he will again end by concedingly non-instrumental values. Thus the case for the inevitability of human chauvinism, that alternatives to it must be based on an incoherent and logically and epistemically defective account of values, namely a non-instrumental account, has not been established by these arguments. & * &&&& ** **& �23. Egoism, not group selfishness, is one of the assumptions underlying the next The leading ideas of the representative series of abstract defences of chauvinism. argument we first consider are essentially those of social contract theories. This argument takes the following form (the bracketed paramaeters X and Z are filled out in the representative argument respectively by: and: J. justification of moral principles, enter into contracts): The only justification of moral principles [only X] is a contractual one, i.e. the entry into contracts of agents [Zry]. K. Agents only enter into contracts [only Z] if it serves their own interests. (The egoist assumption) L. Humans [persons] are the only agents that enter into contracts [that Z]. Therefore, by K and L, M. Humans [persons] only enter into contracts [only Z] if it serves their own interests Therefore, from J and M, N. The only justification for moral principles [only X] is the (selfish) interests of humans [persons]. * The argument can be varied by different choices of parameters, X and Z. example, X could be filled out by replaced by 'community-based' For 'determination of value judgments', and 'contractual' (i.e. Z is filled out by 'are community-based' or some such) yielding in place of J the familiar premiss that the only justification of value judgments is a community-based one, and leading to a conclusion, analytically linked to D above, that all value judgments are determined by human self-interest. Alternatively just one of X or Z may be so replaced, leaving the other as in the original example . Another variation of the argument that has figured prominently in the discussion of animal rights fills out X and Z respectively by 'determination of rights' and 'belong to human society'. Under this assignment the parametric premiss The logical transitions in the argument take on more evidently valid form upon analytic transformation of the premisses, to those now illustrated:J'. All justifications of moral principles are cases of (justified by) the entry into contracts of agents. K'. All cases of the entry into contracts are cases of self-interests of agents. And so on for L' through M'. �24. J becomes essentially that commonly adopted (e.g. [4] and [5] again), but already criticised above, that 'rights are determined solely by reference to human society'. As the arguments are in each case valid, the issue of the correctness of the conclusions devolves on that of the correctness of the premisses. In each case too the arguments could be made rather more plausible by replacing 'humans' by 'persons' (and correspondingly 'human society' by 'society of persons', etc.); for otherwise premisses such as L and its variations are suspect, since there is nothing, legally or morally, to prevent consortia, organisations and other non-humans from entering into contracts (and these items are appropriately counted as persons in the larger legal sense). Given that that amendment deals with premiss L, the correctness of the arguments turns on the correctness of premisses J and K. But both these premisses are false, and premiss J imports the very chauvinism that is at issue in the conclusion. Though the representative contract argument is only one of several important variations that can be made on the general parametric argument, it is often regarded as having special appeal, because the contract model appears to explain the origin of obligation, and offer a justification for it, in a way that no other model does, and thus to provide a bulwark against moral, and political, scepticism. That the appearance is illusory, because the obligation to honour contracts is assumed at bottom, is well enough known and not our concern here. What is of concern is the correctness of representative premisses J and K. The egoist assumption K is faulted on the same grounds as egoism itself. For agents sometimes enter into contracts that are not in their own interests but are in the interests of other persons or creatures, or are undertaken on behalf of, for instance to protect, other items that do not have interests at all, e.g. rivers, buildings, forests. The attempt to represent all these undertakings as in human interests, because done in the "selfish interests" of the agents is the same as in the egoist arguments, and the resolution of the problem is the same, namely to distinguish acting, valuing, and so on, clearly from acting in one's own selfish (or in group) interests. However even if premiss K were amended to admit that agents may enter into �25. contracts on behalf of non-human items, it would still result in a form of human chauvinism given familiar assumptions, since non—human items will still be unable to create moral obligations except through a human sponsor or patron, who will, presumably, be able to choose whether or not to protect them. Natural items will generate no moral constraints unless humans freely choose to allow them to do so; since the obligatory features of moral obligation thus disappear, no genuine moral obligations can be created by natural items under such an amended account. Thus the amended premiss assumes the question at issue. Premiss J, the view that moral obligations are generated solely by contracts undertaken by moral agents, is then the crucial assumption for this argument for human chauvinism. J however has serious difficulties, for there are many recognised moral principles which apparently cannot be explained as contractually based, at least if "contract" is to be taken seriously. There is no actual contract underlying the principle that one ought not to be cruel to animals, children and others not in a position to contract. Adherents of a social contract view of moral obligation are of course inclined to withhold recognition of those moral principles that cannot be con­ tractually based, so that the contract thesis becomes not so much explanatory as pre­ scriptive. But even allowing for this, the thesis has many unacceptable consequences just concerning humans, and if the notion of contract plays a serious role, it is difficult to reconcile with the view of all humans a possessing rights. A crucial feature of contracts is that they are freely undertaken by responsible parties. If they can be freely undertaken there must be a choice with respect to them the choice of not so contracting. But then we are left with the conclusion that it is permissible to treat those who do choose not to contract as mere instruments of those who do, in the way that the non-human world is presently treated; these contractual dropouts, like those outside society, can have no rights and there can be no moral constraints on behaviour concerning them,whatever their capacity for suffering. A similar conclusion emerges if humans who are not morally responsible are considered, for although we are normally considered to have quite substantial obligations to such �26. humans, e.g. babies, young children, those who are considered mentally ill or as having diminished responsibility, they cannot themselves be free and responsible parties to a contract, and will, on the social contract view, presumably have to depend for their rights on others freely choosing to contract on their behalf. If^this does not^for some reason^) occur we will be left with a similarly unacceptable con- elusion as in the case of the contractual dropouts. Obviously then, moral obligations do not require morally equal, freehand responsible contracting parties, in the way the social contract account presupposes. Worse, the argument would appear, with but little adaptation, to justify the practices of such groups as death squads, multi­ rr nationals, and the Mafia, it! If these unacceptable conclusions are to be avoided, all humans will have to be somehow, in virtue of simply being human, subject to some mysterious, fictional, social contract which they did not freely choose to enter into, cannot get out of, and which can never exclude any member of the human species. So the unacceptable con- sequences are avoided only if crucial features of the notion of contract such as freedom and responsibility are dropped, and the notion^and premiss J so seriously weakened as to become virtually without conditions. For the argument to work the residue has to be mere common humanity, and the "contract" little more than the convention of morally considering just other members of the human species. convention differs little however from a restatement of human chauvinism; Such a the pro­ ferred explanation is really no explanation, for such a convention can neither justify human chauvinism nor, since different conventions could be arranged, explain why it is inevitable. The social contract account of moral obligation is defective because it implies that moral obligations can really only hold between responsible moral agents, and attempts to account for all moral obligation as based on contract. But of course the account is correct as an account of the origin of some types of moral obligation; there are moral obligations of a type that can only hold between free and responsible agents, and others which only apply within a social and political context. Yet other types of obligation, such as the obligation not to cause suffering, can arise only with respect to sentient or preference-having creatures - who are not necessarily morally �27. responsible — and could not significantly arise with respect to a non—sentient item such as a tree or a rock. What emerges is a picture of types of moral obligation as associated with a nest of rings or annular boundary classes, with the innermost class, consisting of highjyintelligent, social, sentient creatures, having the full range of moral obligations applicable to them, and outer classes^ such non—sentient items as rocks having only a much more restricted range of moral obliga­ trees and tions significantly applicable to them. between the rings. In some cases there is no sharp division But there is no single uniform privileged class of items, no one base class, to which all and only moral principles directly apply, and moreover the zoological class of humans is not one of the really significant boundary classes. The recognition that some types of moral obligation can only apply within the context of a particular sort of society or through contract does nothing to support the case of human chauvinism. The failure of the contract theory nevertheless leaves the issue as to whether there is some logical or categorial restriction on what can be the object of moral obligations, which would reinstate human chauvinism or animal chauvinism. There is however no such restriction on the object place of the obligation relation to humans or sentient creatures. Even if the special locution 'Y has an obligation towards X' requires that X is at least a preference-having creature, there are other locutions which are not so restricted, and one can perfectly well speak of having duties toward land and of having obligations concerning or with respect to such items as mountains and rivers, and without necessarily implying that such moral constraints arise only in an indirect fashion. Thus neither natural language nor the logic of moral concepts rules out the possibility of non-sentient items creating direct moral constraints. There is then, given this point and the annular model, no need to opt for the position of Leopold [12] as the only alternative to human (or animal) chauvinism, that is for a position which simply transfers to natural items the full set of rights and obligations applicable to humans, leading to such non-significance as that rocks have obligations to mountains. Distinctions between the moral constraints appropriate to different types of items can be recognised without leading back to human chauvinism. The point is an important one since many objections to allowing moral obligations to �28. extend beyond the sphere of humans, or in some cases the sphere of sentient creatures, depend on ignoring such distinctions, on assuming that it is a question of transferring the full set of rights and obligations appropriate to intelligent social creatures to such items as trees and rivers - that the alternative to chauvinism is therefore an irrational and mystical animism concerning nature (cf. Passmore [9], p. 187 ff.). ***** * * The ecological restatement of the strong version of human chauvinism, according to which items outside the privileged human class have zero intrinsic value, is the Dominion thesis, the view that the earth and all its non-human contents exist or are available for man's benefit and to serve his interests, and hence that man is entitled to manipulate the world and its systems as he wants, that is^ in his interests. The thesis indeed follows, given fairly uncontroversial, analytic, assumptions, from the conclusions of the main chauvinistic arguments examined, notably D, that values are determined through human interests. The earth and all its non-human contents thus have no intrinsic value, at best instrumental value, and so can create no direct moral constraints on human action. For what has only instrumental value is already written down, in this framework, as serving human interests. And since what has no instru­ mental value cannot be abused or have its value diminished, it is permissible for humans to treat it as they will in accord with their interests. thesis. Ergo the Dominion Conversely, if non-human items are available for man's use, interests and benefits, they can have no value except insofar as they answer his interests. Other­ wise there would be restrictions on his behaviour with respect to them, since not any sort of behaviour is permissible as regards independently valuable items. value is determined through man's interests, i.e. D holds. is strictly equivalent to D. implies human chauvinism. Accordingly Thus the Dominion thesis It follows that the Dominion thesis, like D, strictly Conversely, the strong version of human chauvinism strictly implies D, and so the Dominion thesis, completing the sketch of the equivalence argument. Since the positions are equivalent what counts against one also counts against the others. In particular, then, the Dominion thesis is no more inevitable This view encompasses what Passmore [9] has isolated as the Western environmental ideologies, both the dominant view and the lesser traditions: see [10]. �29. than, and just as unsatisfactory as, strong human chauvinism. The upshot is that the dominant ethical systems of our times, those clustered as the western ethic, and other kindred human chauvinistic systems, are far less defensible, and less satisfactory, than has been commonly assumed, and lack an adequate, and non-arbitrary, basis. Furthermore alternative theories are far less incoherent than is commonly claimed, especially by philosophers. are viable alternatives to the Dominion thesis, Yet although there the natural world is rapidly being preempted in favour of human chauvinism - and of what it ideologically underwrites, the modern economic-industrial superstructure - by the elimination or over-exploitation of those things that are not considered of sufficient instrumental value for human beings. Witness the of the non-human world, the assaults being made on tropical rainforests, surviving temperate wildernesses, wild animals, the oceans, to list only a few of the victims of man's assault on the natural world. Observe also the associated measures to bring primitive or recalcitrant peoples into the Western consumer society and the spread of human chauvinist value systems. The time is fast approaching when questions raised by an environmental ethic will cease to involve live options. As things stand at present however, the ethical issues generated by the preemptions - especially given the weakness and inadequacy of the ideological and value—theoretical basis on which the damaging chauvinistic transformation of the world is premissed, and the viability of alternative environmental ethics - are not merely of theoretical interest, but are among the most important and urgent questions of our times, perhaps, that human beings, whose individual or group self-interest is the source of most environmental problems, have ever asked themselves. R. and V. Routley Plumwood Mountain Braidwood Australia 2622 �References [1] R. and V. Routley, 'Human chauvinism and environmental ethics', mimeographed, privately circulated, 1974. [2] P.H. Nowell-Smith, Ethics, Penguin, London, 1954. [3] R. and V. Routley, 'Semantical foundations for value theory', Nous (forthcoming) [4] D.G. Ritchie, Natural Rights, Allen and Unwin, London, 1894. [5] J. Passmore, 'The treatment of animals', Journal of the History of Ideas, _36 (1975), 195-218. [6] T. Regan and P. Singer (editors), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976. [7] J. Wisdom, Other Minds, Blackwell, Oxford, 1952. [8] R. Routley, 'The semantical metamorphosis of metaphysics', Australasian Journal of Philosophy^5A (1976),157. [9] [10] J. Passmore, Man's Responsibility for Nature, Duckworth, London, 1974. V. Routley, Critical Notice of [9], Australasian Journal of Philosophy 53. (1975) 171-185. [11] H.J. McCloskey, 'Rights', Philosophical Quarterly, 15 (1965), 115-127. [12] A. Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, with other essays on conservation from Round River, Ballantine, New York, 1966. [13] K. Baier and N. Rescher (editors), Values and the Future, the impact of techno­ logical change on American values, The Free Press, New York, 1969. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Draft Papers Description An account of the resource Sylvan's literary executor encountered an archive in which “all his projects were current", since manuscripts were undated and unattributed. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document AGAINST THE INEVITABILITY OF HUMAN CHAUVINISM In our enlightened times, when most forms of chauvinism have been abandoned at least in theory by those who consider themselves progressive, western ethics still appears to retain, at its very heart, a fundamental form of chauvinism, namely, human chauvinism. ethical theories For both popular western thought and most western assume that both value and morality can ultimately be reduced to matters of interest or concern to the class of humans. Class chauvinism, in the relevant sense, is substantially differential, discriminatory, and inferior treatment (characteristically, but not necessarily, by members of the privileged class) of items outside the class, for which there is not sufficient justification. Human chauvinism, like other varieties of chauvinism, can take stronger and weaker forms; an example of the weaker form is the Greater Value Thesis, the invariable allocation of greater value or preference, on the basis of species, to humans, while not however entirely excluding non-humans from moral consideration and claims. We will be concerned primarily with strong forms of human chauvinism, which see value and morality as ultimately concerned entirely with humans, and non-human items as having value or creating constraints on human action only insofar as these items serve human interests or purposes. In recent years, since the rise of the 'environmental consciousness', there has been increasing, if still tentative, questioning of this exclusive concern with, or at least heavy bias towards, human interests; and indeed, at a time when human beings are rapidly accelerating their impact on the natural world, the question as to the validity of this basic assumption is not merely an abstract one, but is of immediate and practical concern in its implications for This thesis has, among other unacceptable outcomes, the consequence that, if there is only room in one's boat for one and one must choose between saving Adolf Hitler and a wombat which has lived a decent and kindly life and never harmed a living creature, one is morally obligated to choose the former. That would not be the choice of the authors. 2. human action. In reply to this questioning (which appears to originate largely from people with environmental interests), modern moral philosophers - fulfilling their now established function of providing a theoretical superstructure to explain and justify contemporary moral sensibilities, questioning fundamental assumptions - tend to argue that the bias towards human interests, which is an integral part of going ethical theories, is not just another form of class chauvinism which it is both possible and desirable to eliminate, but rather a restriction dictated by the logic of evaluative and moral concepts, and that there is no coherent, possible or viable alternative to the "human chauvinism" of standard ethical theories. series of In this paper we want to consider and reject a arguments in the theory of value designed to show that this is so, and thereby to advance the cause of an alternative, non-chauvinistic, environmental ethic. The orthodox defence of human chauvinism argues that it is inevitable that humans should be taken as the exclusive subjects of value and morality. Humans are uniquely and exclusively qualified for moral consideration and attributions of value, according to this defence either because the human species alone does, as a matter of fact, possess properties which are a pre­ condition for such ascriptions or because, as a matter of the definition or the logic or the significance of moral concepts in natural language, such considerations are restricted, as a matter of logic, to the human species. In the first case the restriction of morality and value to the human species will be taken as contingent, in the second necessary. In either case, if the argument is correct, the bias in favour of humans in current theories is inescapable, so that, depending on one's definition of chauvinism, either human chauvinism itself is inevitable, or human bias is, because justifiable, not a real chauvinism at all. We shall consider the logical or definitional approach first. According to the definitional approach, moral and evaluative terms are, as a matter of their definitions, restricted in their application to members of the human species; only in a secondary way at best do such terms find a 3. wider application, according as evaluated items are instrumental to human interests. The thesis is often backed up by the production of definitions which are so restricted, for example, 'the value of a thing is its capacity to confer a benefit on someone, to make a favourable difference to his life' (Baier, in [13], p. 40), where in the intended context 'someone' is obviously restricted to humans. The attempt to preserve human chauvinism in an unchallengeable form through definitions involves the fallacy of taking definitions to be self­ validating and unchallengeable, and appears to be based on the confusion of abbreviative definitions with those involving or presupposing substantive claims, such as creative definitions, which may be accepted or rejected. Such definitions as those above, cannot be merely abbreviative because they attempt to characterise or explicate already understood terms, such as 'moral' or 'value'. Worse still, they do so in a way which is not dictated by prevailing usage - which does not require that moral and value terms be restricted in range to human:in order that they continue to apply to humans in the ordinary way. Alternative definitions which do not so restrict the range of application may be supplied, they can in fact be found by looking up dictionaries, and these alternatives quite properly do not close off genuine issues which natural language itself leaves open. The fallacy of the definitional move is that of believing that by converting the substantive evaluative theses of human chauvinism to matters of definition they become somehow exempt from challenge or need for justification. This is comparable to justifying discriminatory membership for a club by referring to the rules, similarly conceived as self-validating and exempt from question or justification. Since a similar move could obviously be employed to limit membership of the Moral Club to say, white male humans in place of humans, it is plain that such a definitional argument does far too much, and is capable of use to produce completely unacceptable conclusions. But of course substantive theses involved in definitions, like club rules, are not exempt from challenge and may be arbitrary, undesirable, restrictive, c/ 4. and in need of justification. Once this is grasped the definitional move can be seen as entirely question-begging, since the question of the acceptability and inevitability of human chauvinism is simply transformed into the question of the acceptability and inevitability of the definition. The production of such human chauvinist definitions has done nothing to advance the case of human chauvinism, other than to throw a spurious air of unchallangeability and over the highly challengeable and arbitrary substantive theses they embody. The attempt to settle substantive issues 'by definition' is both philosophically facile and methodologically unsound, and is especially so when there are clearly alternative definitions which would not settle the issue in the same way. What, however, of the substantive claim presupposed by the definitional move, namely that as a matter of natural language usage, or the logic of moral and evaluative concepts, the meaning of moral and value terms, it is logically necessary that direct, non-instrumental, application of such terms be restricted to the human (a claim made at least in the case of rights by Ritchie [4], p. 107, and subsequently by Passmore [5] and [9]^,p. 116, 189, Ay and,others). But usually, when it is asserted that non-humans cannot have rights, obligations and such like, what sort of 'cannot' is involved is not specified - whether it is a 'cannot' of logical impossibility, or of non-significance or absurdity, or something else again (the point is nicely illustrated by Feinberg's discussion of McCloskey, McCloskey [11] itself). in p. 195 , and by In any case, however, the thesis appears to be mistaken, for it rules out as logically impossible or absurd a number of positions and theses which are very plainly neither and which it may even, in some circumstances, be important to consider. For example, it is surely neither impossible nor absurd to consider moral questions concerning conduct of humans towards other species, e.g. to a race of sensitive and intelligent extraterrestrial beings, and similarly moral questions arising from their conduct towards or concerning humans, indeed science fiction writ .ers do this commonly without producing nonsense or contradicting themselves. Not only does the proposed restriction appear quite 5. mistaken given current usage, but there seems indeed to be something logically unsound about the attempt to place a logical restriction to a particular species on such terms, just as there would be in restricting membership of the Moral Club to people with blue eyes and blond hair who are over 6 feet tall. The accident of being a zoological human, defined in terms of various physical characteristics, cannot be morally relevant. It is impossible to restrict moral terms to particular species, when species distinctions are defined in terms of physical characteristics which are not morally relevant. More generally, any attempt to derive a logically necessary connection between humanity itself and the applicability of morality is bound to fail. For creatures anatomically and zoologically distinct from humans which are identical with humans in terms of all morally relevant features are logically possible, upsetting any logical linkage. tie between humanity But attempts to establish a logical and morality through features which all and only humans possess and which are themselves linked logically to morality, would, of course, involve a modal fallacy, namely that of substituting a contingent equivalence within an opaque modal conte t of logical necessity. In order for such an argument to be val? d, it would have to be logically necessary that non­ humans do not possess such features, not merely a contingent fact that they do not; but this assumption must be incorrect for morally relevant characteristics. The only proposal which has ac/n/tce of succeeding, then, is the factual one which makes the selection of just humans for the Moral Club a contingent matter, the claim being that as a matter of contingent fact all and only humans possess a certain set of characteristics, which characteristics themselves are logically tied with qualification for moral consideration and for direct attribution of value to the possessor. What this contingent form of human chauvinism has to produce then, in order to establish its case, is a set of characteristics which satisfy the following conditions of adequacy: 6. 1. The set of characteristics must be possessed by at least all properly functioning humans, since to omit any significant category usually considered subject to moral consideration, such as infants, young children, primitive tribesmen etc., and to allow that it was permissible to treat these gro^J^L^ in the way it is considered permissible to treat non-humans, ^s mere instruments, would certainly be repuguant to modern moral sensibilities, and would offend common intuitions as to the brotherhood of man, the view that all humans are possessors of inalienable rights. Thus human chauvinism, if it is to produce a coherent theory which does not unacceptably rule out some groups of humans must find some set of features common to the most diverse members of humankind, from Rio Tinto executives to hunter-gatherer tribes of Amazonian Indians, from those who engage in highly abstract activities such as logic and mathematics to those who cannot, from the literate and cultured to the illiterate and uncouth, from the poet and professor to the infant. This alone will be no easy task. 2. In order for human chauvinism to be justified this set of characteristics must not be possessed by any non-human. 3. The set of characteristics must not merely be morally relevant,but sufficient to justify, in a non-circular way, the cut-off of moral consideration at exactly the right point. If human chauvinism is to avoid the charge of arbitrariness and unjustifiability, and demonstrate its inevitability and the impossibility of alternatives, it must emerge from the characteristicj why items not having may be used as mere instruments to serve the interests of those which do possess There must be some explanatory logical connection between the set of characteristics and membership of the Moral Club. Chauvinists aie. fc stress distinguishing points between the privileged class and those outside it - and there is no lack of characteristics which distinguish humans from non-humans, at least functioning healthy adult ones. The point is that these distinctions usually do not warrant the sort of radically inferior treatment for which they are 7. proposed as a rationale. On the basis of the characteristics then the proposed radical difference in treatment between the privileged and non­ privileged class and the purely instrumental treatment of the non-privileged class, must be warranted, that is, the distinguishing characteristics must be able to carry the moral superstructure placed upon them. A large and exceedingly disparate collection of features has been suggested as distinguishing humans from non-humans and justifying human chauvinism. But it turns out that every one of these, on examination, either fails to pick out the desired privileged class of humans in an unequivchcal fashion, that is, it applies to some non-humans or excludes some humans who should not be excluded, or, when it does select the desired class, fails on condition 3, and does not warrant the exclusive claim to moral consideration of the privileged class. Many suggested criteria in fact fail on more than one count. The traditional distinction between humans and the rest in terms of rationality illustrates the point. Once the theological doctrines of the exclusively human soul on which the distinction once rested are abandoned, it is not so easy to see what is meant by this term. Indeed it often appears to function as little more than a self-congratulatory predicate applied exclusively to humans, with no other clear function at all. clarifications are sometimes offered. However various For example rationality may be said to be the ability to reason, this being tested by such basically linguistic performances as the ability to do lo^ic, to prove theorems, to draw conclusions from arguments and to engage in inductive and deductive linguistic behaviour. But such stringent and linguistically-loaded criteria will eliminate far too many members of the human species who cannot perform these tasks. If, however, behavioural criteria for rationality are adopted, or the ability to solve problems and to fit attion to individual goals becomes the test - that is, practical reasoning is the test - it is obvious that many non-human admission to the Moral Club, rather than the ability to perform some other tasks or meet some other set of standards, such as orienteering ability,the ability to mix concrete (the use of concrete being, afte^all, a far more conspicuous feature of modern human society than the use of reason). One senses also in the appeal to such criteria (andespecially to linguistic criteria) the overvaluation of the things in which the privileged class typically excells and the undervaluation of the skills - not obviously^ in any non—circular way inferior - of the non-privileged class, which is such a typical feature of chauvinism. We list some of the suggested characteristics supposedly justifying human chauvinism, and indicate in brackets after each some of the conditions they fail: using tools (fails 1, 2, 3), altering the environment (1, 2, 3), the ability to communicate (1, 2, 3), the ability to use and learn language (1, 2, 3), the ability to use and learn English (1, 3), possession of consciousness (2, 3), self-consciousness or self-awareness (1, 2?, 3), having a conscience (1, 2?, 3), having a sense of shame (1, 2?, 3), being aware of oneself as an agent or initiator (1, 2, 3), having awareness (2, 3), being aware of one's existence (1, 2?, 3), being aware of the inevitability of one's own death (1, 2?, 3), being capable of self-deception (1, 3), being able to ask questions about moral issues such as human chauvinism (1, 3), having a mental life (2, 3), being able to play games (1, 2, 3), being able to laugh (1, 3), to laugh at oneself (1, 3), being able to make jokes (1, 3), having interests (2, 3), having projects (1, 2, 3), being able to assess some of one's performances as successful or not (1, 2, 3), enjoying freedom of action (2, 3), being able to vary one's behaviour outside a narrow range of insttnctu al behaviour (1, 2, 3), belonging to a social community (1, 2, 3), being morally responsible for one's actions (1), being able to love (1, 2), being capable of altruism (1, 2), being capable of being a Christian, or capable of religious faith (1, 3), being able to produce the items of (human) civilisation grid, culture * (1, 3). * This feature typifies a number of rather circular distinguishing characteristics, or at least ones which raise serious theob^. tical problems for human chauvinism, because they attempt to explain the unique value of humans in terms of their ability to produce items which are taken to be independently valuable, thus contradicting human chauvinism (see the discussion in [10],/?.;77/, It appears that none of these criteria meet the conditions of adequacy; furthermore it seems most unlikely that any other characteristic or any cowbinlation of the^characteristics does so. Thus we conclude that these contingent direct arguments for human & chauvinism^not establish its inevitability, and that indeed the position rests on a shaky base and so f^r lacks a coherent theoretical justification. Human chauvinism cannot be restored by a detour through the concept of a person, that is by linking perso/JnoocL with membership of the /* foral (lub, and identifying the class of persons contingently with the class of humans. For then the same problem as above arises with different terminology even if the of person since, can be specified in such a way as to justify the restriction of moral privileges to persons, the class of persons will then not conicin the way human chauvinism requires^ with the class of humans, but will either include a great many non-humans or exclude a good many humans^morally considered. Attempts to enlarge the privileged class, for example to persons (broadly specified), or to sentient or preference having creatures, may avoid many of the problems of arbitrariness and justification which face the strong form of human chauvinism, but, as we shall argue, face a set of problems of coherence and consistency common to all instrumentalist theories of value and morality. ******* There are a number of indirect arguments for human chauvinism based on features of value and morality. argument We turn now to consider these. One abstract which is supposed to establish that values are, or must, be determined through the interests of humans or persons - a central argument underlying chauvinism - takes the following form:- 10. A. Values are determined through the preference rankings of valuers. (The no detachable values assumption). B. Valuers' preference rankings are determined through valuers' interests. (The preference reduction thesis). C. Valuers are humans [persons]. (The species assumption). Therefore: D. Values are determined through human interests [through the interests of persons]. Hence, it is sometimes concluded, not only is it perfectly acceptable for humans to reduce matters of value and morality to matters of human interest, there is no rational or possible alternative to doing so: any alternative is simply incoherent. Although th{$ argument does not, so far as we are aware, appear anywhere with its premisses explicitly stated, it does seem to reflect the sorts of considerations those who claim that there is no rational or coherent alternative to organising everything in human interests usually have in mind. Of course once the premisses are exposed, it is easier to see that this initially persuasive argument, like others in the area, rests on fallacious assumptions. y<2^ — We shall claim that although the argument to conclusion D is formally^given only some quite conventional assumptions such as that the relation of determin­ ation or functionality is appropriately transitive and the principle of replacement of necessary identicals - not all the premisses should be accepted. The argument can be treated as the major representative of a family of similar arguments. For there are many variations that can be made on the argument with a view to amending it, tightening it, varying or strengthening its conclusion, and so on. Our criticisms of the argument will, for the most part, transfer to the variations. qualifies the determining relation; A first group of variations replaces or for example, 'determined through' or 'determined by' may be replaced by 'answer back to', of', 'can be reduced to', or 'are a function of'. 'reflect', 'are a matter (The latter functional form makes it plain that 'determined' has to mean 'exactly determined', which 11. ensures that no extraneous factors enter into the chauvinistic determination: mere partial determination would be quite compatible with the rejection of human chauvinism.) Alternatively, 'determined' may be modally upgraded to 'have to be determined', in order to reveal the sheer necessity of conclusion D. (In this case it is essential that premiss C be of modal strength, and not merely contingent as it would be if the original form were retained; other­ wise the argument would contain a modal fallacy.). Another familiar, and appealing, variation we have already bracketed into the form of the argument given; class by persons. namely the replacement of humans as base This straightaway increases the cogency of premiss C, which otherwise - while better than, say, 'Valuers are white (North American) humans' - would at best be contingently true (which is not good enough for the argument and in fact appears false, since some valuers may not be human; and certainly not all humans are valuers), while at worst it is simply a circular way of reintroducing the logical version of human chauvinism by rest^cting the class of valuers a priori to humans. That all valuers are persons may be made analytic on the sense of 'person' - given a redefinition of 'person' away from its normal English usage, which philosophical English appears to almost tolerate - thus shielding premiss C from criticism. Other base classes than persons can replace humans in premiss C, for example animals, thus leading to the conclusion, of animal chauvinism, that values are determined through the interests (considerations and concerns) of animals, sentient creatures, or whatever. In the end, of course premiss C could be absorbed (as: Valuers are valuers or valuing creatures) and accordingly omitted, leaving the conclusion: Values are determined in the interests of valuers. However even the analytic form of premiss C does not, as we shall see, save the argument. Much the same applies in the case of premiss A. The premiss is certainly not unobjectionable in the usual sense of 'determined'; but there are ways of repairing it so that the argument still works in a sufficiently damaging form, and one way goes as follows:— What is true, analytically, if sufficiently many valuers are taken into account, is that values are deter­ 12. mined through the value rankings of valuers. Value rankings cannot however be cashed in for preference rankings since, as is well-known, preference rankings and value rankings can diverge: value and can value what is not preferred. a valuer can prefer what has less Let us amend the argument then - so that we can locate the real cause of damage - by replacing premiss A by the following premiss: A^. Values are determined through the value rankings of (appropriate) valuers. Correspondingly B will be adjusted to B^ in which 'value' replaces 'preference'. The really objectionable premiss in the central argument is neither premiss A nor premiss C, but premiss B - or, more exactly, where A is repaired, premiss B^. Suspicion of premiss B may be aroused by noticing that it plays an exactly parallel role in the class chauvinism argument to that the critical premiss BE. One's preferences of choices are always determined through self-interest, plays in familiar arguments for egoism, that whatever course of action one adopts, it is always really adopted in one's own selfish interests. The argument for egoism runs along the following, parallel, lines:- AE. Individual persons [agents) always act (in freely chosen cases) in the way they prefer or choose, i.e. in accordance with their preference rankings. BE. Individual preference rankings are always determined through ^reflect) self­ interest. Therefore: There is nonetheless an esoteric, semantical, sense of 'determined' in which premiss A is demonstrably true, and so a sense in which it is analytically true that value rankings are semantically determined by the preference rankings of situations by a class of valuers. The details of these semantical foundations for values are set out in 131. But while premiss A can be corrected by replacing 'determined' by 'semantically determined' and giving this an appropriate construal, such a move would do nothing to restore the intended argument: for it would either invalidate the argument, through change in the key middle term 'determined', or, alternatively, if 'determined' is systematically replaced throughout the argument, drastically alter the intended conclusion D - so that looking at the interests that humans in fact have would no longer provide a guide to values (instead the interests of hypothetical valuers with respect to worlds that never exist or could exist would have to be gathered). 13. DE. Individual persons ^agents] always act in ways determined by self interest [that reflect their own interests^. Thereafter follows the slide from in their own interests^ to to their own advantage, or for their own uses or purposes. The final conclusion of egoism again parallelling the class chauvinism case, is not only that the egoistic position is perfectly in order and thoroughly rational but that there are no alternatives, that there is, or at least ought to be, no other way of acting, 'that men can only choose to do what is in their own interests or that it is only rational to do this' ([2], p. 140). Thus human chauvinism, as based on the central argument, stands revealed as a form of group selfishness, group egoism one might almost say. Likewise the criticisms of the Group Selfishness argument, as we shall now call the central argument, parallel those of egoism, in particular premiss B (B ) succumbs to similar objections to those that defeat premiss BE (BE^). Group selfishness is no more acceptable than egoism, since it depends on exactly the same set of confusions between values and advantages, and slides on such terms as 'interests', as the arguments on which egoism rests. Nowell-Smith's very appealing critique of egoism ([2], p. 140-144) may, by simple paraphrase, be converted into a critique of group selfishness. recast B^ and BE" *" This is obvious once we and set them side by side: BE^. Individual value rankings are determined through (individual) self­ interest; and B^. Valuers' [groups'] value rankings are determined through valuers' (group) interests [joint interests of groups]. Because, however, one sets up or selects one's own preference or value rankings, it does not follow that they are set up or selected in one's own interests; similarly in group cases, because a group determines its own rankings, it does not follow that it determines them in its own interests. Just as BE^ is, prima facie at least, refuted by a range of examples where value, and also preference, rankings run counter to self-interest, e.g. cases of altruism, so prima facie at least, B is refuted by examples where value, and also overall preference rankings, vary from group interests, e.g. cases of In the case group altruism. of limited groups examples are easy to locate, e.g. resistance movements, environmental action groups, and so on; case, however, of the larger human group in the are bound to be more controversial (since B^ unlike BE^ is a live thesis), but are still easy to find, especially if future humans are discounted, e.g. it is in humans' selfish interests to have plentiful supplies of this and that, electricity from uranium, oil, Me were Sy/Z/ey whalemeat, fish, etc., right now rather than^which would result from restraint, but altruistic value rankings would rank the latter above the former. It is often in selfish human interests (no less selfish because pertaining to a group) to open up and develop the wilderness, strip mine the earth, exploit animals, and so on, but environmentalists who advocate not doing so, in many cases not merely because of future humans, are apparently acting not just out of their own or human group interests. But, just as BE^ is not demolished by such counterexamples of apparently altruistic action, neither is B : in each case it can be made out that further selfish interests are involved, e.g., in the case of B , that an agent did what he did, an altruistic action, because he liked doing it. As Nowell-Smith explains in the egoism case, interest is written in as an internal accusative, thereby rendering such theses as BE^ true at the cost, however, of trivialising them. More generally, valuing something gets written in as a further sort of "interest"; whatever valuers value that does not seem to be in their interests is said to provide a further interest, either the value itself or an invented value surrogate; for example^the environmentalist who works to retain a wilderness he never expects to see may be said to be so acting because he has an interest in or derives benefit or advantage from just knowing it exists, just as he would be in the egoist case. theses can be retained; By such strategies the for then a valued item really is in valuers interests, in the extended sense, even if they are in obvious ways seriously inconvenienced 15. by it, i.e. even if it is not in their interests in the customary sense. ', * Thus.BE' like 4^', is preserved by stretching the elastic term 'interests', in a way that it too readily admits, to include values, or value surrogates, among interests. Then however the conclusion of the &roup Selfishness argument loses its intended force, and becomes the platitude that values are determined through valuers' values , just as egoism, under the extension a which makes us all covert egoists,loses its sting and becomes,platitude. It can be seen that human chauvinism in this form, like egoism, derives its plausibility from vacillation in the sense of 'interests', with a resulting fluctuation between a strong false thesis - the face of^chauvinism usually presented - and a trivial analytic thesis,between paradox and platitude.-^ To sum up the dilemma for the argument then:- when 'interest' is used in its weaker sense premiss B may be accepted but the argument does not establish its intended conclusion or in any way support human chauvinism. intended effect of the argument, in the crude form is this: values it is enough to look at human advantage: For the in determining nothing else counts. If the argument were correct, then one could assess values by checking out the local (selfish) advantage of humans, or, more generally, the advantage of the base class somehow assembled. If, on the other hand, 'interest' is used in its strong sense, the conclusion would lice^'hce a form of human chauvinism, but premiss B now fails. Most philosphers think they know how to discredit the egoist arguments. It is curious indeed then, that an argument which is regarded as so unsatisfactory in the individual case - that for egoism - remains unchallenged and is still considered so convincing in a precisely parallel group case - that for human chauvinism. ******** The technique of rescuing philosphical theses by natural extensions and accompanying redefinitions of terms, including the thesis "We're all selfish really", is delightfully explained in Wisdom [7], chapter 1. 16. The Group Selfishness argument is often employed in another way, as the presentation for a choice between the conclusion D, that value is determined by or reducible to a matter of human interests, and the denial of premiss A, which denial is seen as entailing a commitment to a detached,intrinsic or naturalistic theory of value. Thus, it may be said either one accepts the conclusion, with its consequent instrumentalist account of value, or one is committed to an intrinsic or detached value theory which takes values to be completely independent of valuers, and no way determined by them. But, it is assumed, the latter theory is well known as untenable, and may even be seen as involving mysticism or as irrational ^e.g. by Passmore [9], chapter 7). Thus it may be concluded, there is no real coherent alternative to such an instrumental account of value, and hence no real alternative to human chauvinism. The form of the argument then, is essentially: *^A v D, but A,therefore D, or, if a stronger connection, of intensional disjunction, is intended: but A, therefore D. It can be seen that the main premiss, -A v D, has resulted from the exportation and suppression of premisses B and C of the Group argument. ^A, Selfishness This suppression does nothing to improve the standing of the premisses although it does have the (possibly advantageous) effect of making it more difficult to see the fallacious assumptions on which it is based. For of course the choice a false one, and for precisely the same reasons that led us to say that premiss B was false. To reject the instrumentalist conclusion D is by no means to be committed to ^A, or to the view that the valuer's and their preference rankings play no role in determining values and that values are a further set of mysterious independent items in the world somehow perceived by valuers through a special (even mystical and non—rational) moral sense. Valuers' ; * preference rankings may be admitted to play an important role in evaluation are still not committed to D unless we assume - what amounts to premiss B these preference rankings reflect, or can be reduced to, valuers' interests. * on page 16a we that 16a Value rankings can be semantically analysed in terms of preference or interest rankings, as in [3]; but this does not offer a reduction of values to preferences or interests, as [8] explains. The semantical foundations, while conceding nothing to subjectivism or instrumentalism, make it easy to concede main points of the case (attributed to Dewey) against detached values, against the view that there are values somehow out there (in Meinong's aussersein), purely naturalistic values completely detached from all valuers, or from all preference rankings of valuers. Put differently, there are no values that do not somehow answer back to preference rankings of valuers, and so no values that are entirely detached from valuers and valuational activity such as preference-ranking of situations. But the answering back is made explicit and precise by the semantical analysis, not by any syntactical reduction or translation of value statements into statements about valuers' preference or interest rankings; and the valuers of the analysis are, like the situations introduced, ideal and need in no way exist. As a result then, valuations may be independent of the aggregated preference rankings of all actual humans or, for that matter, of all persons over all time. Thus too the semantical analysis makes it easy to navigate a course between the alternatives of two influential false dichotomies, to the effect that values are either instrumental or else detached, or that values are either subjective or else detached. For though a semantical analysis can be given, upsetting the detached value thesis, no translation or syntactical reduction of the sort subjectivism assumes is thereby effected. 17. The dichotomy frequently presented between instrumentalist accounts of value, on the one hand, and detached theories (or what are mistakenly taken to be the same, intrinsic theories) is, for the same reason, a false one. Instrumental theories are those which attempt to reduce value to what is instrumental to^contribute$to a stated goal. Typically such theories take the goal to be the furtherance of the interest of a privileged class; for example the goal may be taken to be determined in terms of the interests, concerns, advantage or welfare of the class of humans, or of persons, or of sentient creatures, depending on the type of chauvinism. In particular, human chauvinist theories are, characteristically, instrumentalist theories. In contrast,an item is valued intrinsically where it is valued for its own sake, and not merely as a means to something further; and an intrinsic value theory allows that some items are intrinsically valuable. Intrinsic theories then, instrumental contrast with Z. theories, and what 'intrinsic' tells us is no more than that the item taken as intrinsically valuable is not valued merely as a means to some goal, i.e. is not merely instrumentally valued. Accordingly detached value theories, since disjoint from instrumental theories, are a subclass of intrinsic value theories; be detached: and they are a proper subclass since intrinsic values need not something may be valuable in itself without its value being detached from all valuing experience. It is evident, furthermore, that the identification of intrinsic and detached value theories presupposed in the argument is no more than a restatement of the false dichotomy -^A v D, or ^A, The assumption i.e. non-instrumental, therefore detached^that if preference or value rankings are involved at all the resulting assignments must be instrumental is either false or or is variation of the fallacious premiss B which plays a crucial role in the Group Selfishness and Egoist arguments; the variation is that if value or preference rankings are involved they must reflect valuers' interests, therefore such values are instrumental, because the items valued are valued according as they reflect valuers interest, therefore according as they are a means to the end of satisfying the valuers' interest. It follows that intrinsic value theories 18. may allow for a third way between instrumental and detached theories, because of the possibility of value rankings (and also preference rankings) which are not themselves set up in a purely instrumentalist way, that is attributing value to aiitem only according as it is a means to some goal. The argument that there is no coherent alternative to instrumentalism does not however rely just on misrepresenting alternative intrinsic accounts as logically incoherent by assimilating them to detached accounts. It also trades on a contemporary insensitivity to the serious logical and epistemological problems of instrumental accounts of value, problems which were well known to classical philosophers (see e.g., Aristotle Metaphysics, 994b9-16) It does not appear to be widely realised that the classical arguments apply not just to a few especially shaky instrumentalist theories which adopt questionable goals but to instrumentalism in general, since they assume only quite general features of the instrumentalist position. Instrumentalist positions take as valuable (or in the moral case, as creating moral constraints) just what contributes to a stated end. which comes to mind is utilitarianism. An obvious example However in the more general case we are concerned with, of instrumentalist forms of human chauvinism, there may be a set of goalnot just a single goal such as that of maximising net happiness of humans; the human chauvinist assumption is that the values (indeed constraints) are goal-reducible, and that all goals reduce in some way to human goals, or at least can be assessed in terms of human concerns and interests. Human chauvinist positions are not necessarily instrumental, but those that are not (e.g. the position that just humans and nothing else are intrinsically valuable) tend to make the arbitrary chauvinistic nature of their assumptions unwisely explicit - most successful contempory chauvinisms being covert ones. Problems for instrumentalism arise (as Aristotle observed) when questions are asked about the status of the goal itself. Instrumentalism relies entirely for its plausibility upon selecting a set of goats which are widely accepted and are, in 19. It relies at bottom on an implicit the theory, implicitly treated as valuable. valuation which cannot itself be explained in purely instrumental terms. Of course a value assumption is not eliminated on this fashion: the general consensus it is merely hidden under that such a goal is appropriate, that such an end is valuable. But the strategy of successful instrumentalism is to avoid recognition of the fact that the goal is, and indeed must be, implicitly treated as valuable, by selecting a set of goals so much part of the framework of comtemporary thought, so entrenched and habitual 3s a valued item by humans that the value attached to the goal becomes virtually invisible, at least to those the framework. Thus it is with the assumption of human chauvinist instrumentalism that goals are exclusively determinable in terms of human interest. The basic, convincing and self-evident character of this assumption rests on nothing more than the shared beliefs of the privileged class of humans concerning the paramount and exclusive importance of their own interests and concerns, on a valuational assumption or goal which is ^'self-evident'" because it is advantageous and is habitual. The consensus features, of which instrumentalists make so much, are nothing more than the consensus of the privileged class about the goal of maintaining consensus of interests. their own privilege, i.e. a This sort of agreement of course shows very little about the well-grountiness of the position. Unless the goals set are widely accepted as valuable, the account will be unconvincing to those who do not share the goal and even to those who appreciate that it is possible to reject the goal. In order for instrumentalism to work logically however, the goal must be implicitly treated within the theory as valuable, for otherwise the proposed analysis loses explanatory and justificatory power and lacks compulsion. For how can the value of an item be explained and justified in terms of its contribution to an end not itself considered valuable! Serious problems also arise about the nature of value statements under the instrumentalist analysis unless the goal is treated as valuable. For if the goals themselves are not so treated within the theory, but are taken simply as unevaluated facts, then a valuational statement 'x is valuable' becomes, under the proposed analysis, 20. simply the statement that x tends to produce a certain result, to contribute to certain human states, a statement whose logical status, openness to verification, allowance for disagreement, and so on, does not substantially differ from that statement that x tends to producejoxide, to contribute to the rusting of human products. Such an account of value statements is open to the same sort of objections as other naturalistic reductions of value, for example, Mill's account the desirable in terms of the desired. of The special logical and epistemological character of value statements then, especially with respect to verification and disagreement,must be supplied in instrumentalism, if it is to be supplied at all, by the implicit treatment of the goal itself as valuable. The fact that the goaL of an instrumental account must be taken as itself valuable, gives rise to two choices. In the first, the goal is taken as itself instrumentally valuable, which creates an infinite regress. For if the end, reason or assignment for which other items are intrumentally valuable is itself only instrumentally valuable then there must in turn be some other end, reason or assignment in terms of which it is valuable (by definition of instrumental). A regress is thus begun, and if this regress is not to be viciously infinite, it must terminate in some end or feature which is taken as valuable just in itself, that is, with intrinsic values. On the alternative option the goal is not taken to be instrumentally valuable but is admitted to be valuable in some other way. Unless an 'except' clause is , so that all values are held to be account instrumental with the exception of the goal, the will of course be contextually added to the original instrumentalist inconsistent, since it is inconsistent when contextually supplied assumptions are added. For these include the assuption that the goal itself is valuable, but not in the way that the instrumentalist thesis claims is the only way possible. the goal is taken to be both valuable and not valuable. If, on the other hand, an'except^ clause is added, this amounts to an admission that the goal is taken to be non-instrumentally valuable. Thus the account may be able to retain consistency, but does so at the expense of Thus 21 explicitly admitting a value, that of the goal, which cannot be accounted for in purely instrumental terms, in short, that the gcdl is taken as intrinsically valuable. To sum up, the dilemma for the instrumentalist can be put as follows: Consider the desirability of the goal of the instrumental theory: it must implicitly be judged to be desirable, for otherwise nothing could be justified by reduction to it. or not? Ask: Is this goal also instrumentally desirable (valuable) If it is, i.e. it is only desirable as a means to a further goal, then either a regress is initiated or the same issue arises with respect to the new goal. But if it is not, then the instrumental theory is again refuted, since the goal is desirable though not desirable according to the test of the theory because it is not instrumental to the goal. Whichever ho rn of the dilemma is taken^ then> the outcome is the same: the instrumentalist must rely on treating the goal itself as implicitly valuable in a way not purely instrumental, that is, as intrinsically valuable. Thus the instrumentalist is, at bottom, guilty of precisely the same crime of which he accuses the adherent of a intrinsic account, with the added delinquency of failing to admit and face up to his basic assumptions. The logical and epistemological position of such an instrumental account is certainly no better than that of an intrinsic account, since there is logically no difference between the recognition of one intrinsic value (or one set in the case where gcals are multiple) and the recognition of many of them, ancf^lxtgical and epistemological status of the instrumentalist's account is no better than that of the goal to which his values are taken as instrumental. Since the instrumentalist has implicitly admitted the legitimacy of an intrinsic value assignment in setting up his account, he cannot claim any superiority over a more general intrinsic theory which allows for many intrinsic values, since what is legitimate in the case of one value assignment must be equally legitimate in the multiple case. 22, This abstract dilemma for human chauvinist instrumentalism is illustrated in a concrete case by Passmore's procedure in [9]; for Passmore (1) wishes to say that there is no coherent alternative to instrumental values, that an item is valuable insofar as it serves human interest, and (2) wants to explain the unique value attributed to humans in terms of their production of valuable civilised and cultural But (2) involves the admission of values, that items. of civilised items, which cannot be valuable in the way (1) states, and indeed (2) amounts to the admission of non-instrumental values. The proposed account is inconsistent because if intrinsic values are admissible in the case of civilised items, they cannot be logically ^oherent in the way (1) claims. The sort of problem faced by Passmore is however not a readily avoidable one for the instrumentalist; for if the charge of arbitary and unjustifiable human chauvinism is to be avoided by those who opt for (1), and humans are not themselves to be awarded intrinsic values,, thus conceding the logical legitimacy of intrinsic values generally, and hence the avoidability of human chauvinist accounts of value, some explanation must be provided for the exclusive value attributed to humans. But only explanation capable of justifying this valuation in a non-arbitray and non-chauvinistic way would have to refer to properties of humans, and would have to say something like: 'Humans are uniquely valuable because they alone have valuable properties x,y,z,... or produce valuable items A, B, C...'. distinguishing The list of proposed features already considered on page 8 are usually those that will be employed here. But this is to admit intrinsic value for the properties which explain the exclusive value of humans. The dilemma for the human chauvinist is that he must either take the exclusive human value assumption (the goal) as ultimate—laying him open to the charge of arbitrary chauvinism and of attributing intrinsic values to humans-or attempt to explain it* in which case he will again end by concedingly non-instrumental values. Thus the case for the inevitability of human chauvinism, that alternatives to it must be based on an incoherent and logically and epistemically defective account of values, namely a non-instrumental account, has not been established by these arguments. & * &&&& ** **& 23. Egoism, not group selfishness, is one of the assumptions underlying the next The leading ideas of the representative series of abstract defences of chauvinism. argument we first consider are essentially those of social contract theories. This argument takes the following form (the bracketed paramaeters X and Z are filled out in the representative argument respectively by: and: J. justification of moral principles, enter into contracts): The only justification of moral principles [only X] is a contractual one, i.e. the entry into contracts of agents [Zry]. K. Agents only enter into contracts [only Z] if it serves their own interests. (The egoist assumption) L. Humans [persons] are the only agents that enter into contracts [that Z]. Therefore, by K and L, M. Humans [persons] only enter into contracts [only Z] if it serves their own interests Therefore, from J and M, N. The only justification for moral principles [only X] is the (selfish) interests of humans [persons]. * The argument can be varied by different choices of parameters, X and Z. example, X could be filled out by replaced by 'community-based' For 'determination of value judgments', and 'contractual' (i.e. Z is filled out by 'are community-based' or some such) yielding in place of J the familiar premiss that the only justification of value judgments is a community-based one, and leading to a conclusion, analytically linked to D above, that all value judgments are determined by human self-interest. Alternatively just one of X or Z may be so replaced, leaving the other as in the original example . Another variation of the argument that has figured prominently in the discussion of animal rights fills out X and Z respectively by 'determination of rights' and 'belong to human society'. Under this assignment the parametric premiss The logical transitions in the argument take on more evidently valid form upon analytic transformation of the premisses, to those now illustrated:J'. All justifications of moral principles are cases of (justified by) the entry into contracts of agents. K'. All cases of the entry into contracts are cases of self-interests of agents. And so on for L' through M'. 24. J becomes essentially that commonly adopted (e.g. [4] and [5] again), but already criticised above, that 'rights are determined solely by reference to human society'. As the arguments are in each case valid, the issue of the correctness of the conclusions devolves on that of the correctness of the premisses. In each case too the arguments could be made rather more plausible by replacing 'humans' by 'persons' (and correspondingly 'human society' by 'society of persons', etc.); for otherwise premisses such as L and its variations are suspect, since there is nothing, legally or morally, to prevent consortia, organisations and other non-humans from entering into contracts (and these items are appropriately counted as persons in the larger legal sense). Given that that amendment deals with premiss L, the correctness of the arguments turns on the correctness of premisses J and K. But both these premisses are false, and premiss J imports the very chauvinism that is at issue in the conclusion. Though the representative contract argument is only one of several important variations that can be made on the general parametric argument, it is often regarded as having special appeal, because the contract model appears to explain the origin of obligation, and offer a justification for it, in a way that no other model does, and thus to provide a bulwark against moral, and political, scepticism. That the appearance is illusory, because the obligation to honour contracts is assumed at bottom, is well enough known and not our concern here. What is of concern is the correctness of representative premisses J and K. The egoist assumption K is faulted on the same grounds as egoism itself. For agents sometimes enter into contracts that are not in their own interests but are in the interests of other persons or creatures, or are undertaken on behalf of, for instance to protect, other items that do not have interests at all, e.g. rivers, buildings, forests. The attempt to represent all these undertakings as in human interests, because done in the "selfish interests" of the agents is the same as in the egoist arguments, and the resolution of the problem is the same, namely to distinguish acting, valuing, and so on, clearly from acting in one's own selfish (or in group) interests. However even if premiss K were amended to admit that agents may enter into 25. contracts on behalf of non-human items, it would still result in a form of human chauvinism given familiar assumptions, since non—human items will still be unable to create moral obligations except through a human sponsor or patron, who will, presumably, be able to choose whether or not to protect them. Natural items will generate no moral constraints unless humans freely choose to allow them to do so; since the obligatory features of moral obligation thus disappear, no genuine moral obligations can be created by natural items under such an amended account. Thus the amended premiss assumes the question at issue. Premiss J, the view that moral obligations are generated solely by contracts undertaken by moral agents, is then the crucial assumption for this argument for human chauvinism. J however has serious difficulties, for there are many recognised moral principles which apparently cannot be explained as contractually based, at least if "contract" is to be taken seriously. There is no actual contract underlying the principle that one ought not to be cruel to animals, children and others not in a position to contract. Adherents of a social contract view of moral obligation are of course inclined to withhold recognition of those moral principles that cannot be con­ tractually based, so that the contract thesis becomes not so much explanatory as pre­ scriptive. But even allowing for this, the thesis has many unacceptable consequences just concerning humans, and if the notion of contract plays a serious role, it is difficult to reconcile with the view of all humans a possessing rights. A crucial feature of contracts is that they are freely undertaken by responsible parties. If they can be freely undertaken there must be a choice with respect to them the choice of not so contracting. But then we are left with the conclusion that it is permissible to treat those who do choose not to contract as mere instruments of those who do, in the way that the non-human world is presently treated; these contractual dropouts, like those outside society, can have no rights and there can be no moral constraints on behaviour concerning them,whatever their capacity for suffering. A similar conclusion emerges if humans who are not morally responsible are considered, for although we are normally considered to have quite substantial obligations to such 26. humans, e.g. babies, young children, those who are considered mentally ill or as having diminished responsibility, they cannot themselves be free and responsible parties to a contract, and will, on the social contract view, presumably have to depend for their rights on others freely choosing to contract on their behalf. If^this does not^for some reason^) occur we will be left with a similarly unacceptable con- elusion as in the case of the contractual dropouts. Obviously then, moral obligations do not require morally equal, freehand responsible contracting parties, in the way the social contract account presupposes. Worse, the argument would appear, with but little adaptation, to justify the practices of such groups as death squads, multi­ rr nationals, and the Mafia, it! If these unacceptable conclusions are to be avoided, all humans will have to be somehow, in virtue of simply being human, subject to some mysterious, fictional, social contract which they did not freely choose to enter into, cannot get out of, and which can never exclude any member of the human species. So the unacceptable con- sequences are avoided only if crucial features of the notion of contract such as freedom and responsibility are dropped, and the notion^and premiss J so seriously weakened as to become virtually without conditions. For the argument to work the residue has to be mere common humanity, and the "contract" little more than the convention of morally considering just other members of the human species. convention differs little however from a restatement of human chauvinism; Such a the pro­ ferred explanation is really no explanation, for such a convention can neither justify human chauvinism nor, since different conventions could be arranged, explain why it is inevitable. The social contract account of moral obligation is defective because it implies that moral obligations can really only hold between responsible moral agents, and attempts to account for all moral obligation as based on contract. But of course the account is correct as an account of the origin of some types of moral obligation; there are moral obligations of a type that can only hold between free and responsible agents, and others which only apply within a social and political context. Yet other types of obligation, such as the obligation not to cause suffering, can arise only with respect to sentient or preference-having creatures - who are not necessarily morally 27. responsible — and could not significantly arise with respect to a non—sentient item such as a tree or a rock. What emerges is a picture of types of moral obligation as associated with a nest of rings or annular boundary classes, with the innermost class, consisting of highjyintelligent, social, sentient creatures, having the full range of moral obligations applicable to them, and outer classes^ such non—sentient items as rocks having only a much more restricted range of moral obliga­ trees and tions significantly applicable to them. between the rings. In some cases there is no sharp division But there is no single uniform privileged class of items, no one base class, to which all and only moral principles directly apply, and moreover the zoological class of humans is not one of the really significant boundary classes. The recognition that some types of moral obligation can only apply within the context of a particular sort of society or through contract does nothing to support the case of human chauvinism. The failure of the contract theory nevertheless leaves the issue as to whether there is some logical or categorial restriction on what can be the object of moral obligations, which would reinstate human chauvinism or animal chauvinism. There is however no such restriction on the object place of the obligation relation to humans or sentient creatures. Even if the special locution 'Y has an obligation towards X' requires that X is at least a preference-having creature, there are other locutions which are not so restricted, and one can perfectly well speak of having duties toward land and of having obligations concerning or with respect to such items as mountains and rivers, and without necessarily implying that such moral constraints arise only in an indirect fashion. Thus neither natural language nor the logic of moral concepts rules out the possibility of non-sentient items creating direct moral constraints. There is then, given this point and the annular model, no need to opt for the position of Leopold [12] as the only alternative to human (or animal) chauvinism, that is for a position which simply transfers to natural items the full set of rights and obligations applicable to humans, leading to such non-significance as that rocks have obligations to mountains. Distinctions between the moral constraints appropriate to different types of items can be recognised without leading back to human chauvinism. The point is an important one since many objections to allowing moral obligations to 28. extend beyond the sphere of humans, or in some cases the sphere of sentient creatures, depend on ignoring such distinctions, on assuming that it is a question of transferring the full set of rights and obligations appropriate to intelligent social creatures to such items as trees and rivers - that the alternative to chauvinism is therefore an irrational and mystical animism concerning nature (cf. Passmore [9], p. 187 ff.). ***** * * The ecological restatement of the strong version of human chauvinism, according to which items outside the privileged human class have zero intrinsic value, is the Dominion thesis, the view that the earth and all its non-human contents exist or are available for man's benefit and to serve his interests, and hence that man is entitled to manipulate the world and its systems as he wants, that is^ in his interests. The thesis indeed follows, given fairly uncontroversial, analytic, assumptions, from the conclusions of the main chauvinistic arguments examined, notably D, that values are determined through human interests. The earth and all its non-human contents thus have no intrinsic value, at best instrumental value, and so can create no direct moral constraints on human action. For what has only instrumental value is already written down, in this framework, as serving human interests. And since what has no instru­ mental value cannot be abused or have its value diminished, it is permissible for humans to treat it as they will in accord with their interests. thesis. Ergo the Dominion Conversely, if non-human items are available for man's use, interests and benefits, they can have no value except insofar as they answer his interests. Other­ wise there would be restrictions on his behaviour with respect to them, since not any sort of behaviour is permissible as regards independently valuable items. value is determined through man's interests, i.e. D holds. is strictly equivalent to D. implies human chauvinism. Accordingly Thus the Dominion thesis It follows that the Dominion thesis, like D, strictly Conversely, the strong version of human chauvinism strictly implies D, and so the Dominion thesis, completing the sketch of the equivalence argument. Since the positions are equivalent what counts against one also counts against the others. In particular, then, the Dominion thesis is no more inevitable This view encompasses what Passmore [9] has isolated as the Western environmental ideologies, both the dominant view and the lesser traditions: see [10]. 29. than, and just as unsatisfactory as, strong human chauvinism. The upshot is that the dominant ethical systems of our times, those clustered as the western ethic, and other kindred human chauvinistic systems, are far less defensible, and less satisfactory, than has been commonly assumed, and lack an adequate, and non-arbitrary, basis. Furthermore alternative theories are far less incoherent than is commonly claimed, especially by philosophers. are viable alternatives to the Dominion thesis, Yet although there the natural world is rapidly being preempted in favour of human chauvinism - and of what it ideologically underwrites, the modern economic-industrial superstructure - by the elimination or over-exploitation of those things that are not considered of sufficient instrumental value for human beings. Witness the of the non-human world, the assaults being made on tropical rainforests, surviving temperate wildernesses, wild animals, the oceans, to list only a few of the victims of man's assault on the natural world. Observe also the associated measures to bring primitive or recalcitrant peoples into the Western consumer society and the spread of human chauvinist value systems. The time is fast approaching when questions raised by an environmental ethic will cease to involve live options. As things stand at present however, the ethical issues generated by the preemptions - especially given the weakness and inadequacy of the ideological and value—theoretical basis on which the damaging chauvinistic transformation of the world is premissed, and the viability of alternative environmental ethics - are not merely of theoretical interest, but are among the most important and urgent questions of our times, perhaps, that human beings, whose individual or group self-interest is the source of most environmental problems, have ever asked themselves. R. and V. Routley Plumwood Mountain Braidwood Australia 2622 References [1] R. and V. Routley, 'Human chauvinism and environmental ethics', mimeographed, privately circulated, 1974. [2] P.H. Nowell-Smith, Ethics, Penguin, London, 1954. [3] R. and V. Routley, 'Semantical foundations for value theory', Nous (forthcoming) [4] D.G. Ritchie, Natural Rights, Allen and Unwin, London, 1894. [5] J. Passmore, 'The treatment of animals', Journal of the History of Ideas, _36 (1975), 195-218. [6] T. Regan and P. Singer (editors), Animal Rights and Human Obligations, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976. [7] J. Wisdom, Other Minds, Blackwell, Oxford, 1952. [8] R. Routley, 'The semantical metamorphosis of metaphysics', Australasian Journal of Philosophy^5A (1976),157. [9] [10] J. Passmore, Man's Responsibility for Nature, Duckworth, London, 1974. V. Routley, Critical Notice of [9], Australasian Journal of Philosophy 53. (1975) 171-185. [11] H.J. McCloskey, 'Rights', Philosophical Quarterly, 15 (1965), 115-127. [12] A. Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, with other essays on conservation from Round River, Ballantine, New York, 1966. [13] K. Baier and N. Rescher (editors), Values and the Future, the impact of techno­ logical change on American values, The Free Press, New York, 1969.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 72, Item 1: Draft of Against the inevitability of human chauvinism Subject The topic of the resource Typescript of draft, with handwritten emendations and corrections with whiteout, undated. Paper published, Routley R and Routley V (1979) 'Against the inevitability of human chauvinism' in Goodpaster KE and Sayre KM (eds), Ethics and the problems of the 21st century, Notre Dame University Press. Description An account of the resource Unnumbered paper from collection, item number assigned by library staff. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=Richard+Routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Richard Routley</a> <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org/items/browse?search=val+routley&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bjoiner%5D=and&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=39&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=&amp;advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=&amp;range=&amp;collection=&amp;type=&amp;user=&amp;tags=&amp;public=&amp;featured=&amp;exhibit=&amp;geolocation-mapped=&amp;geolocation-address=&amp;geolocation-latitude=&amp;geolocation-longitude=&amp;geolocation-radius=10&amp;submit_search=Search+for+items">Val Routley</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <span class="MuiTypography-root-125 MuiTypography-body2-126">The University of Queensland's <a data-testid="rek-series" href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/records/search?page=1&amp;pageSize=20&amp;sortBy=score&amp;sortDirection=Desc&amp;searchQueryParams%5Brek_series%5D%5Bvalue%5D=Richard+Sylvan+Papers%2C+UQFL291&amp;searchMode=advanced">Richard Sylvan Papers UQFL291</a></span>, Box 72, Item 1 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="https://antipodean-antinuclearism.org">Antipodean Antinuclearism: (Re)constructing Richard Routley/Sylvan's Nuclear Philosophy</a> Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource This item was identified for digitisation at the request of The University of Queensland's 2020 Fryer Library Fellow, <a href="https://najtaylor.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dr. N.A.J. Taylor</a>. Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource For all enquiries about this work, please contact the Fryer Library, The University of Queensland Library. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource [31] leaves. 84.59 MB. Type The nature or genre of the resource Manuscript Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context <a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8fdfb47">https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8fdfb47</a> Box 72: Unlisted and Untitled Boxes