trc@houca.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (09/01/83)
Response to Ed Pawlak: Your example is an interesting one - and I agree that it is a fair example of the sort of moral questions that do arise in real life. First, let me say that any action that Bud Wiser *must* take is only on the basis of respecting others' rights. This is the point on which you, implicitly, seem to be in err: you state the problem in terms of morality (respecting other's rights) VS rationality. I claim that it is rational to respect the rights of another. There are conditions under which they give up part or all of their rights (such as when they try to violate yours), but this does not apply in the example that you gave. (Nor do lifeboat considerations of "them or me", as you correctly stated.) If Bud knows that he is indeed violating the rights of certain people, he should seek to repair the damage done, and either do his part to prevent the conditions that led to the damage from recurring, or else make other arrangements satisfactory to all concerned. Specifically, he might offer to pay what he considers to be his fair share of repairing damage to statues, or damages done to recreational lakes, etc. In order to prevent future damages, he might offer to pay his share to help protect the things that were damaged before. He might also seek to find a solution to the problem, if that were possible. (Perhaps there is some cheap way to buffer or neutralize the pollution coming from his chimneys?) This latter is not required, if the people have agreed to accept payments for futuer damages done. It might be a wise business move, to prevent large damages in the future. And if Bud happens to be a champion of rights, he might even go so far as to help the injured parties get satisfaction from the other manufacturers in the area - by law suit if necessary. Again, this is not morally required, and need not be altruistically motivated - he could simply dislike seeing people's rights violated. Similarly, even if he is not morally required to repair the damage and clean up the air, he might *desire* to do so. And there is one other point that needs to be made: If Bud was there first, and has always been polluting, he effectively established a property right to the use of the air and land surrounding for the purpose of dumping his acids. This sounds "harsh" on the other people, but in fact, it is just. Justice is not always pleasant for all that are involved. Had the damage been greater, the people would not have moved into the area. In fact, air pollution has been around for a long time, and people moving into the area of a factory should be aware of it. If this is the case, people's property rights are not being violated any more than those of someone who drops money into his neighbor's fireplace. The principle is the same. Because the principles of establishing property have not always been extremely precise in the past, there are probably cases where there are conflicting claims (such as to air, where the residents have been there as long as the factory, which has slowly become a worse polluter). This makes the matter as complex as it is. The only solution would seem to be to try to first make the property rights precise, and then make a decision on that basis. And finally, if it turns out that the manufacturer is totally within his rights, but there turns out to be some economical solution (that costs far less than the damages, say), the injured people might make arrangements with the manufacturer to implement that solution - if it involved pollution control for example. The manufacturer might go along with this for public relations purposes, or even on a profit basis if he wished. He would not be morally obligated to do so. The above are my opinions - but I may not have covered all cases that should be covered. I hope that this example does at least give you an idea of the type of considerations that a person should rationally make. Tom Craver houca!trc
sts@ssc-vax.UUCP (Stanley T Shebs) (09/05/83)
"Property rights to the surrounding air"!?! How far does that extend? Do smelters in Ohio own the air in Canada?? Or should the smelter operators pay the Canadian Indians, since they were there first? Sorry Tom, your answer is just a bit fantasical to go with the problem. But let's get more realistic anyway! Suppose ol' Bud Wiser doesn't believe that acid rain causes damage, and he has a zillion studies by various scientists to prove that it's harmless. Then a government report comes out stating that acid rain has proved to be dangerous. What's poor Bud to do? He's never seen acid rain cause any damage himself, and now people are claiming that he doesn't know reality! Can he claim that they don't know what reality is? Where's the judge that will decide what the *real* and *absolute* reality is? stan the l.h. ssc-vax!sts (also utah-cs!shebs)