Systemic immorality - Are Journalists Culpable?

Even if we watch the news closely, we never see reports that go to the heart of our problems. Reporting focuses on symptoms of systemic defects while ignoring underlying causes. If we have a right to set limits to rates of putting pollution and depleting resources, we should expect conditions in the world to match what most people think is acceptable. If conditions do not match what a random poll would show as average opinion about what is acceptable, then our shared right to set limits to environmental impacts is not manifest in reality. (We can't match rates of emission of pollutants, extent of paving, etc., to what every person thinks is best, but matching to average opinion brings reality close to what the largest possible number of people think is most acceptable.)

If industries do not face a requirement to pay fees in proportion to pollution put, natural resources taken, or habitat disturbed or destroyed, then prices will not honestly reflect true costs, including the cost of lost opportunities associated with environmental harms. Ancient sacred texts tell us that truth is important. Truth is important everywhere, at all times. Even truth in pricing is important. If we persist in allowing society to function without embodying truth, we will create a more harsh reality for the younger generation.

A society that fails to embody a basic right in practice manifests moral failure. It cannot be successful in the long run. Our global civilization is not sustainable because prices are lying to us about true costs.

Ancient texts tell us that it is the younger generation that suffers for the sins (the irresponsibility; the immoral acts) of the older generation. If we allow environmental degradation to remain profitable to industry (because there is no requirement to pay compensation for environmental damage or degradation), then degradation will continue. Squandering of limited resources will continue. That spells disaster because a society cannot be sustainable when causing degradation of environmental quality is profitable. Collapse is inevitable. We cannot expect good results from continued dishonesty in pricing any more than we can expect good to come from other forms of persistent dishonesty.

Extreme poverty, economic disparity and perceived injustice cause social unrest and erode social cohesion. Economic stress draws people's attention away from a focus on maintaining healthy personal relationships and civic institutions, and can put both at risk. If proceeds from environmental impact fees were shared to all people equally, poverty would be eliminated and disparity would become a much smaller concern--no longer an existential threat to social stability.

Who will call for efficient and fair accounting of economic externalities? Who will demand shared ownership of natural resource wealth?


Equal Sharing of Natural Wealth Promotes Justice and Sustainability

Letter to the Editor

@TallPhilosopher

Do we have a moral duty?

Do we have a duty to end poverty and bring various human impacts on the environment into line with what is deemed acceptable by most people when we learn that we can do so?

We can charge fees to industries that put pollution (or require them to purchase a permit at auction), and we can share proceeds from these environmental impact fees to all people equally. We can raise fees gradually (or shrink the number of permits issued), until a system of random surveys shows that impacts of various kinds are within limits that average opinion says is OK.

If we have a right to define limits to various kinds of pollution (because we have a right to breathe, etc.), this right, when joined with basic precepts of a democratic society, implies a duty to create civic institutions that ensure that the economy functions in a way that produces only the amount of human impact on the environment that the largest possible number of people think is acceptable.

If we take a random survey, we might expect to see roughly equal numbers of people who will say limits are too strict as those who would say they are too lenient. This will correspond to a situation where the number of people in the middle who say things are about right re overall impacts of various kinds would be at or close to the highest possible number.

We have a moral duty to engage in the civic and political life. (Respond to surveys, when this paradigm is manifest. Assert that limiting impacts is a basic function of government and insist that this function be carried out; and insist that natural wealth be shared, in a world where that principle is yet to be embodied in practice.) We have a duty to engage in the civic life to the extent necessary to produce structures of government that manifest basic human rights in reality. We have a duty to limit humans' impacts on the environment because we have a right to do so--and that right is not manifest if we do not do what is necessary to make it manifest. Rights and duties are inextricably linked.

Before this alternative paradigm will be embodied in practice, we must say, repeatedly, persistently, in public spaces and forums, that natural wealth should be shared. A pre-condition for making the ideas manifest in reality is to make them widely known.

With natural wealth shared, we will understand that the decision for how fast to put pollution or deplete various resources should be a decision shared, in principle, by everyone. For practical reasons, we might take a number of random surveys to find what the average opinion says on various issues (various kinds of environmental impacts). Because people's time is limited, we cannot ask each person to decide appropriate limits for every kind of environmental impact.

We have the ability to end poverty by charging pollution fees, etc., as a way to moderate impacts on the environment, then giving fee proceeds to all people, to each an equal amount. As citizens who have a right to share in the benefits of ownership, we have a corresponding right to receive compensation when that which we own is damaged or degraded.

We have a responsibility to end poverty because we know that no one person has any greater claim to a right to benefit from (a monetary representation of) natural wealth than any other person. If we see a persuasive argument for why some should benefit from natural wealth more than others, we can reconsider, but absent that, our responsibility is clear: Share natural wealth.

If the answer is "No", someone can say why...

"We don't have a right/responsibility to limit humans' impacts and end poverty because _______________________________________________________________________________________"

How shall we produce a concerted effort to turn government toward embodiment of basic moral precepts? Share your thoughts in the comments section below. 

John Champagne 


Share natural wealth to embody basic moral precepts in reality