Each year tons of toxic wastes are exported from the global North to poor communities around the world. This practice is linked with health hazards, such as high rates of illness and death, as well as ecosystem damage.
In 1991 Lawrence Summers signed off on a memo that came to be known as the Summers Memo. This memo supported an increase in the amount of global dumping on the least developed countries worldwide. The reasons given in the memo argue is that it is more economically efficient to dump in poorer countries, that the least developed countries are under-polluted; that a small amount of a toxin could be catastrophic in Los Angeles or Mexico City and have no impact in countries that have yet to be exposed to that toxin, and that the value of a life in a developed country is much higher than that in a less developed country. Therefore it is more important for us to spare the life of the individual living in a developed country.
While cost benefit analysis and utilitarianism would support this view, we find the Summer’s memo morally reprehensible through the frameworks of value effective analysis and the land ethic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Would Social Contract Theory also support or disprove your argument? My understanding is that this type of dumping is a political agreement where US government is exercising it's imperialism power? If yes, then there was some kind of implicit contract between countries, is US paying the 3rd world countries for the dumping? The problem clearly here is US has dumping too much and that exist the limit on the contract and so this issue comes bigger and bigger.
ReplyDeleteCan you go further in depth about what a utilitarian would say about this? One of Bentham and Mill's propositions (according to Rachels) is that each person's happiness counts the same; therefore, there should be no disparity between the value of individual lives.
ReplyDeleteHow would a consequentialist view this issue?
ReplyDeleteClearly Summer's ideas are extremely egotistical. It is environmentally irresponsible to produce as much waste as we currently are, therefore, what is his ethical platform for how much waste we actually produce? Does he think that it is irresponsible?
ReplyDeleteIn a way he seems to be portraying the idea that some people have intrinsic value and other people only have instrumental value. That people from the third world should be of instrumental value to the first world populations. If I am accurate, what is his argument for this?
This could be complicated because it looks morally wrong from the point of us the developed country dumping on the undeveloped. However, how do you account for the fact that some of these countries may welcome this dumping? In poor countries putting food on the table is far more important than a clean environment and in fact many may die from hunger or malnutrition before cancer from toxins. So in order to provide for ones family the underdeveloped countries may agree to take on our waste. If they are, is it still morally wrong? Should we deny them this way to provide food for their children?
ReplyDelete_
ReplyDeleteAre we denying that humans in developing countries have no intrinsic value? does it go against any of the three world views?
ReplyDeleteCould you talk about the ethics of authority making these decisions rather than the individual? It may be that the government of these poorer countries sees it ethically sound to allow toxic dumping in exchange for monetary benefits, but what about the individual view? I guess my refined question would be "Is it ethical for a government to make decisions for the entirety of the country?"
ReplyDeleteClearly this memo treats people as unequal. It gives more value to those of the developed world and less to those of the developing world. However, dumping of toxic waste is a necessary evil so someone has to deal with its consequences unless you launch it into space. If the latter is not viable option, whom do you propose of burdening and what is your reasoning behind it?
ReplyDeleteCan you address how this memo relates to animals? Are they taken into account? If not, does this have an implication on their value? What does this say about the current status of Aldo's Leopold's ideal land ethic?
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity: How is this practice displayed in areas within the United States? Clearly, some parts of cities are more effected than others, namely the poorer neighborhoods. Would Summers also support this practice?
Using Bentham principle of utility to approach this problem, how can human's rights be taken into consideration in regards to environmental toxins? Should the cost-benefit analysis always be monetarily driven or should it take into consideration human rights?
ReplyDeleteThe idea of human rights is a big issue in this topic. In what way is this morally right/wrong based on the two definitions of rights we have learned? Also, is this an example where just because the authorities say it is right doesn’t make it right?
ReplyDeleteIf the US continues to dump their waste problems elsewhere, it is very likely that we will not decrease the amount of waste we make because we do not physically see the effects of it. By taking on other nation's responsiblities, this solution creates a competitive disadvantage for 3rd world countries. Are their environmental laws that support this idea? How can the government expect businesses to be more socially and environmental responsible for their externalities, when this issue demonstrates the opposite?
ReplyDeleteThe abstract seems to focus on a value of a life, how do you tie in land ethic, more than the fact people live on it?
ReplyDelete