Abstract
There are no moral entitlements with respect to pollution prior to legal conventions that establish them, or so I will argue. While some moral entitlements precede legal conventions, pollution is part of a category of harms against interests that stands apart in this regard. More specifically, pollution is a problematic type of harm that creates liability only under certain conditions. Human interactions lead to harm and to the invasion of others’ space regularly, and therefore we need an account of undue harm as a basis of assigning legal protections (rights) and obligations (duties) to different agents, which creates standards for holding those agents responsible for harm. Absent such positive standards with respect to pollution at the domestic or international level, it does not make sense to hold agents responsible. This fact has two fundamental implications. First, contrary to what some defenders of environmental justice argue, we cannot hold people responsible for polluting without a system of legal rights in place that assigns entitlements, protections, and obligations, and second, contrary to what opponents of environmental regulation claim, the lack of moral entitlements to pollute creates room for quite extensive legal restrictions on people’s ability to pollute for the sake of the environment and human health. Indeed the scope of those restrictions is wide and open-ended.
Highlights
There are no moral entitlements with respect to pollution prior to legal conventions that establish them, or so I will argue
Human interactions lead to harm and to the invasion of others’ space regularly, and we need an account of undue harm as a basis of assigning legal protections and obligations to different agents, which creates standards for holding those agents responsible for harm
The analysis offered here identifies a different, more fundamental problem with pays principle (PPP)
Summary
Pollution is a specific type of harm. In the absence of positive laws, we have no basis to judge whether someone has imposed undue harm that constitutes a rights violation on others. Obligations, and responsibilities will not make sense until the villagers gather evidence, evaluate competing interests, and make new rules to solve the problems confronting them Perhaps they will choose to keep the pasture in common, but create rules about its use, such as how many cattle each person is allowed to graze, where to dump the waste, and so on. The restrictions would interfere with a general liberty interest everyone has in having a choice whether to pursue the prohibited occupations and activities.[4] This interest is affected every time options are closed or made prohibitively expensive by regulation In between these two extremes, lies a range of sensible, moderate approaches that take everybody’s interest into account and attempt a delicate balancing act between reducing harm from environmental damage and allowing people to engage in productive activities.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call