Environmental ethics Term paper /w readings
WORLD HUNGER, MORAL THEORY,AND RADICAL RAWLSIANISM Rodney G. Pefler.
INTRODUCTION
i Hunger, starvation, malnutrition, under-nutrition, and absolute poverty are widespread
phenomena on our planet. Recent estimates are that, on average, each year about one million
people (mostly children) starve to death, about 10 million succumb to complications from
severe malnutrition or under-nutrition (often dying from infections easily warded off when
not malnourished or under-nourished), and some 1.2 billion people live in absolute poverty
(i.e. poverty so severe that their basic needs for adequate nutrition, potable water, minimally
decent housing and clothing, and basic health care and sanitation are not met on a continuing
i. basis). But, by all reliable accounts, there is presently more than enough food to feed
everyone on our planet and~-in almost all cases of large-scale famine-more than enough
i food to meet everyone’s nutritional needs in the very countries or areas suffering famine.l Yet
1 ~ people continue to starve, to be malnourished, and otheiwise to live in absolute poverty. This
i is morally appalling-and intolerable.
In order to approach this exceptionally important issue in a logical and clear-headed
manner I provide a set of questions which can help to organize our thinking about it by acting
as a flow chart for a decision-making process. Although I certainly would not claim that this
i is the only way to structure such a process, this problematic will, I believe, help us to see
more clearly the normative and empirical issues that divide theorists on this question and,
i f thus, help us plot a course through what sometimes seems to be an almost impassable
g _ wilderness of cross-cutting analyses. After setting up this problematic I will indicate what I
t believe to be the best answers to these questions and argue for a theory that, I believe, best
i 1 See Amartya Sen, Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1981); Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze, Hunger and Public Action (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989); Ainartya
i Sen and Jean Dreze, The Political Economy of Hunger (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990); and Frances Moore
Lappe, et al., World Hunger: Twelve ll/lyths, 2nd ed. (New York: Grove Press, 1998).
(1) I have proposed a modified Rawlsian theory of social justice in which the most fundamental principle is that of protecting and respecting people’s basic rights
(i.e. their subsistence rights and security rights), and I have argued that the economic components of any theory of social justice must be applied internationally as
well as nationally. I even advocate that Rawls’s Difference Principle be applied internationally over the long run, given the fact that almost the entire earth is now
an interrelated economic system. (See my “A Modified Rawlsian Theory of Social Justice: Justice as Fair Rights,”) I have also argued that there are certain essential –
and feasible – measures necessary for solving the interrelated problems of (1) world hunger/under-nutrition/malnutrition/starvation, (2) over-population, (3) over-
consumption (by wealthy nations and individuals), and (4) environmental destruction/degradation & resource depletion.
They are as follows.
(A) the policy of national food self-reliance in which (i) societies make sure that land is distributed and used in a fair and efficient manner (i.e. land reform
is instituted); (ii) arable land is used to grow enough food staples (that people in those cultures eat) to ensure everyone adequate nutrition, rather than used
primarily to raise non-staple crops, cash crops, and/or export crops; and (iii) food entitlement systems (of some type) are in place which guarantee that people have
access to adequate nutrition. (See my “World Hunger, Moral Theory, and Radical Rawlsianism,” including the section titled “Amartya Sen’s Analysis: A Critique” – in
which I explain that Sen accepts (iii) above, but seems not to agree with (i) and (ii), advocating instead that nations attempt to maximize national income by
utilizing their “comparative advantages” and then import food staples, if necessary – as well as the video “The Business of Hunger.”)
(B) the so-called demographic transition in which (i) population growth rates automatically decrease whenever people’s basic needs – including their social
security in case of old age or inability to work – are guaranteed to be met; (ii) people have access to family planning in terms of both education & contraceptive
technologies; and, finally, (iii) women are given more opportunities for gaining social status outside the roles of wife, mother, and child-bearer & raiser by being
given greater access to education and opportunities to earn an income – either inside or outside the home – if they should choose to do so). (See my “Fateful Triangle:
Extreme Poverty, Population Pressures, & Environmental Problems”).
(C) adopting and implementing all of the major international environmental treaties, conventions, & protocols, including the Rio Earth Summit protocols (1992), the
Kyoto Protocol (which was designed to cut back 1990 level green house gas emissions by 5% in developed nations by 2012) and its follow up agreements, and even going
beyond to adopt a full-fledged Carbon-Credit Scheme and a Planetary Management Authority (in order to implement it) which would require massive transfers of
environmentally friendly technology and capital to the developing world from the over-developed world, while encouraging both to adopt clean energy and other green
technologies. (See my “World Justice, Carbon Credit Schemes, and Planetary Management Authorities” and James Burke’s documentary video “After the Warming, Part II”).
Also, any significant movement away from petroleum-based, industrial agriculture towards environmentally friendly, organic agriculture should be strongly encouraged,
as should using less land to grow crops to feed stock animals (or to grow crops for corn-based ethanol production). (See the video “The Greening of Cuba” and “Diet for
a New America”.) Finally, the measures advocated by the so-called “Cochabamba Peoples’ Agreement” and “Rights of Mother Earth,” both adopted at the World People’s
Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia on April 22, 2011 should be seriously considered and discussed, and many of them
should be implemented as rapidly as possible: even the demand to demilitarize the planet for purposes of (i) eliminating large-scale wars, (ii) saving the natural
environment, and (iii) using at least some of the saved resources to build hospitals, schools, universities, sports facilities, cultural venues, environmentally
friendly economic infrastructures, etc.
(2) I have also openly wondered whether a capitalist socioeconomic system – even a fairly wellregulated one – can solve these problems or whether some sort of
socialism (specifically, a variety of democratic market socialism) is necessary on a national and international scale. Although I don’t want you to spend too much time
on this topic in this paper, I think a proper analysis here would distinguish between
(A) a completely unregulated – or almost completely unregulated – laissez faire capitalist economy (accompanied by an absolutely minimal or extremely scaled-down
state) (of which there are no historical examples and, arguably, never will be1);
(B) a lightly regulated capitalist economy (accompanied by a corporation-dominated representational democracy or, more accurately, a polyarchy: e.g. the U.S.);
(C) a moderately to heavily regulated capitalist economy (accompanied by a socialdemocratic or “social” state, which may be either a real democracy or a polyarchy:
e.g. Germany, Japan, Sweden);
(D) an incredibly heavily regulated command socialist economy (which has historically been accompanied by an authoritarian or even totalitarian “communist” state:
e.g. the former Soviet Union and “Soviet Bloc” Eastern European countries, pre-reform – i.e. pre-1978 – China, and present-day North Korea); and
(E) a moderately to heavily regulated market socialist economy (such as existed in Yugoslavia from the early 1950s until the late 1980s, of which the Mondragon
Cooperative in Spain is a good example, and which might be beginning to evolve in China in the past few decades.) Although I believe that this type of economic system
is compatible with (genuine) political democracy as well as with greater degrees of social – e.g. workplace – democracy, so far these kind of economic systems have not
been accompanied by thorough-going democratic governments (states). However, it should be noted that Yugoslavia – the only country in history so far that has had a
market socialist economy – had a much better record on political democracy and protecting civil liberties than any other so-called “communist” countries during the
time it existed (from about 1950-1989). Some take this as evidence – albeit certainly not conclusive evidence – that a thorough-going market socialist economy is,
indeed, compatible with thorough-going (genuine) political democracy (which, by definition, includes protection of civil liberties), as well as with greater social
(e.g. workplace) democracy, the latter on which both Yugoslavia had – and the Mondragon Cooperative has – a very good record.
(3) Besides underdevelopment and maldevelopment – especially in the Third World – the other major problem is over-consumption, especially in the First World).
Therefore, it is also necessary, I believe, to seriously question our overly-materialistic culture replete with massive over-consumption and the (related) social norm
that conspicuous consumption and conspicuous displays of one’s wealth are the – or at least a – major way of gaining social status and respect (which in turn may be
related to one’s own selfrespect!), and to subject these matters to a serious moral, cultural, and psychological critique. (As Arne Naess puts it, we should create a
culture in which individuals strive to be self-fulfilled or self-actualized to a high degree (and thus achieve social status and respect primarily in these ways); not
one in which individuals strive to have more and more goods. more and more material wealth. We should strive not to have but to be … i.e. we should strive to develop
our natural talents and abilities (that are socially appreciated and that contribute to human culture and the general social good), to develop our moral character, and
to live in harmony with our natural environment. In connection with this issue I think that all “manipulative” advertising – but most especially that aimed at children
– ought to be banned from television, radio, the internet, print media, etc. And here we need not tie ourselves in knots trying to come up with an exact definition of
“manipulative” advertising. It is much simpler and practical to advocate allowing only simple advertisements giving pertinent information concerning the product (or
service) along with a plain photo (or other visual depletion). Despite the current US Supreme Court’s recent ruling that corporations have a right to political speech
that cannot be infringed except for very powerful reasons (such as “imminent danger”), not even that court recognizes all commercial “speech” (or communication) as
having the same status as political speech (which is so strongly protected). Moreover, not only would such a measure seriously reduce the hundreds of billions of
dollars (and related resources) devoted to advertising and the “sales effort” in First World societies – and increasingly in other societies – such that these
resources could be used to build (and support) more socially worthy projects like hospitals, schools, universities, sports facilities (and programs), and cultural
venues (and programs) and/or to reduce our current pillaging of the natural environment– but it would almost undoubtedly have a significant impact on the overly-
materialistic attitudes and conspicuous consumption so prevalent in our cultures … which is so environmentally destructive in the long run (not to mention the possible
view that it is also destructive of social relations and good moral character). Finally, in addition to justifying such measures (to preserve nature) on grounds that
this is essential for long-term human well-being and flourishing, we can also justify these measures on grounds that nature and all the amazing living beings that
inhabit it have intrinsic value in and of themselves such that we have a moral duty to not destroy them (or severely degrade or denigrate them) except for essential
(and extremely important) human purposes; and that when we have destroyed or degraded them we have a compensatory moral duty to rehabilitate them.
1
Intimate Triangle: Extreme Poverty, Population Pressures, & the Natural Environment
Dr. Rodney G. Peffer
Social Justice & the Natural Environment
– Environmental Justice is usually taken to refer to justice in the distribution of environmental benefits and burdens (e.g. clean air and pleasant landscapes versus
polluted air and blighted landscapes) and injustice in the distribution of such burdens as correlated with income and ethnic groups (e.g. poor people having to live in
more polluted environments). Closely related to these issues is the relation between social and economic justice and environmental problems and policies. This is the
topic I will examine here.
