Lecture 4

Early (Christian) anthropocentrism:
Genesis
St Thomas Aquinas

Anthropocentrism and “property rights”:
John Locke (1690)
Garrett Hardin

1. What is a property right?
An individual right
An exclusionary right

2. Why are property rights important for environmental ethics?

3. How do we “justify” property rights?

Locke's 5-step argument:
1. The state of nature
2. Self-ownership
3. Labour-mixing
4. Value-adding
5. The Lockean proviso

1. The state of nature
The pre-social world; no politics or authority
The natural right to self-preservation
That is, we have a natural right to make use of what “nature affords for our subsistence”

The philosophical challenge:
Locke says; “God gave the world to humankind in common; but since it was given to them for their benefit, it cannot be supposed that he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated”

In the pre-social state, all natural resources seem to be given to humanity “in common”
How can individuals appropriate what is “owned” in common with the rest of humanity?
“It seems to some very great difficulty how any one should come to have property in any thing”

2. Self-ownership
 Locke’s argument starts with the proposition that each person is a legitimate owner of him- / herself
 “Every man has a property in his own person. This no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, are properly his”

3. Labour-mixing
We gain property rights over previously un-owned resources when we mix our labour with them
The analogy: gathering acorns or apples from an un-owned tree on common or un-owned land
“This labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to… (at least where there is enough, and as good, left for others)”
“The labour was mine; removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them”

4. Value-adding
 Additionally, property rights are realized when resources are employed for the benefit humankind
In particular, un-owned land according to Locke is value-less and has no positive human benefit
But, once land is brought under productive use, its value increases many times over, for both the owner and anyone else who might receive the benefit of increased production
Hence, property rights are once again justified so long as there is “enough, and as good” of essential resources left for other people

5. The Lockean “proviso”
Each argument above gives a glimpse of the “moral logic” of Lockean property rights…
This logic is found explicitly in several passages:
“No man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to (at least where there is enough, and as good, left for others)” (added)
o “For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as much as take nothing at all”

The key to the 5-step argument is the “Lockean proviso” — restraints on legitimate property acquisition

In acquiring property rights, it’s essential that the situation of others isn’t made worse
One can acquire a property right over a common resource only if that appropriation doesn’t “harm” other people
The “moral logic” of Lockean property rights:
Natural resources can be legitimately owned, so long as their appropriation doesn’t worsen the situation of others

Improvement of “open” resources
Not worsening the situation of others

The strengths of Locke’s 5-step argument:

1. It surpasses the early anthropocentric approach toward natural hierarchy and dominion by putting them into a precise non-religious argument
2. It puts a high value on increasing humankind’s productive use of natural resources (social benefits)
3. It establishes “constraints” on property rights by appealing not to theology, but “universal” ideas about the equality of persons (equal consideration)

The weaknesses of Locke’s argument:

1. Are we supposed to accept the story as historically valid?
2. Locke obviously had a misleading idea of resource sustainability
3. The labour-mixing metaphor is vague about how and why property rights “emerge”
4. The Lockean approach is a culturally chauvinistic idea of ownership (it seems “natural” only to those who live in a society like our own)

5. Property rights under this approach are:
Individualistic
Exclusionary
o Some say it’s more accurate to approach property rights according to what’s called the “bundle view”


Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”
Step 1:
Picture a common grazing pasture open to the shepherds in a community. We expect each shepherd to maintain as large a flock as possible. Each wants to maximize his/her number of sheep, thereby increasing personal wealth, status, etc.
Basically, each shepherd asks; “what is gained by adding another animal to my herd?” And the rational choice is always to add another animal, and another, and another... The benefit of adding one sheep goes straight to the individual; yet all costs, in terms of grazing space needed, is shared by everyone.

Step 2:
When other shepherds reach the same conclusion, we see the tragedy unfold. Eventually too many sheep will be added, and the essential grazing area will be overgrazed and barren.

…Therefore, when essential resources are left under a commons, people are compelled to increase their resource use, even when those resources are being completely exhausted.

Hardin’s method/style:
• Argument by analogy
• Under this strategy, our moral judgments about one type of situation are attacked -
• Moral judgments should apply consistently in parallel situations
• Example:
o Terrorism is always wrong (judgment 1)
vs.
o Bombing of civilians by Britain during WWII was not wrong (judgment 2)

• To evaluate analogical arguments:
Find the judgment(s) under attack
Decide whether the analogy successfully attacks this judgment

Is there a difference between the two situations?
Should we adjust judgment # 1 or judgment #2 ?
The strengths of Hardin’s argument:

1. It provides some insight into problems like resource depletion and waste disposal

2. Suggests strategies for protecting natural resources that are currently held in a commons situation


Place resources under a private ownership scheme
or
Create governmental regulations over private use

The weak points in Hardin’s argument:

1. Is Hardin’s assumption about human nature believable?
2. Can’t essential resources be protected under some “collective ownership” regime?


Ten minute essay on property rights
Take out a piece of lined paper
Plan to write roughly ¾ of a page in essay form
Begin with one clear proposition
Give 2-3 clear propositions to explain/support it

Answer these questions:
1. Identify a “common resource” in your local environment. What would either Locke or Hardin suggest as a way of dealing with this resource. Which moral claims are behind their position(s)?
________________________________________