Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Environmental ethics - a world record for misplaced concern

By Mirko Bagaric - posted Thursday, 15 February 2007


There is no logical or normative basis for ranking the interests of one person higher than another. An argument along the lines that “I am more important than you” is inherently discriminatory and morally vacuous. Moreover, it is incontestable that certain harm carries more weight than speculative harm in any moral calculus.

These universal moral truths, coupled with the fact that present day preventable suffering grossly exceeds the most dire predictions of climatologists stemming from global warning, exposes the intractable ethical shortcomings of the environmental movement.

The predictable response to my argument is that we should multi-task and fix both: world poverty and the environment. This is code for moral nihilism. It is a sure-fire way of continuing to consign more distant people to early unmarked graves from readily preventable causes.

Advertisement

Concern for others, like economic resources, is finite. We have to be very strategic in how we empty our sympathy gland. The history of human kind shows this.

To avoid charges of moral bankruptcy the Green movement has to do more than make the glib statement that we should fix everything. To underpin its principal cause, it needs to spell out in definite terms the argument that will move self-obsessed Westerners to take seriously the pitiable plight of distant people so that the 1 per cent of GDP that the Stern Report stated was necessary to fix the environment is more than matched by money flowing to hungry parts of Africa.

The answer needs to be better than shallow comments that environmental concerns relate to future generations and hence reveal a capacity for the current population to put ethics above self-interest. Greenhouse warning concerns have only resonated with the mainstream populace since climatologists have started making predictions of adverse climate events in our lifetime. Pretty much no one cared when the bad stuff was meant to happen hundreds of years into the future.

In truth we don’t care an inch about future people. Current practices show that we would ditch them in an instant if it meant even slightly limiting our way of life.

Concrete proof of this is that we live in a community where the only post-womb environment that is experienced by one in four embryos is the bottom of an abortionist’s bucket. This equates to approximately 90,000 future people being exterminated annually in Australia, normally for the economic convenience of the mother.

And finally, it’s time to consign the spurious Green mantra that people in developing nations will also benefit from curbing global warning into the non-recycling bin. In the 90 seconds that it took you to read this article 30 of them have just died. In the same time, the sea-levels haven’t risen a milli-fraction.

Advertisement

So by all means people should be encouraged to go Green, but first they need to cure pressing ethical problems: world hunger, followed by eradicating the massive gratuitous suffering we inflict on animals. Until that’s done, the Green movement will remain ethically barren - like the sand which is main anti-resource of the developing world.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

A version of this article was first published in The Australian on February 5, 2007.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

54 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mirko Bagaric, BA LLB(Hons) LLM PhD (Monash), is a Croatian born Australian based author and lawyer who writes on law and moral and political philosophy. He is dean of law at Swinburne University and author of Australian Human Rights Law.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mirko Bagaric

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Mirko Bagaric
Article Tools
Comment 54 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy