The Landfill or the Salmon

     Who or what counts morally is one of the most discussed but never agreed upon topics that I have come across in environmental science so far. This discussion is all part of what is called the ‘Demarcation Problem.’ The Demarcation Problem asks us to list everything that applies morally to an action or idea. There are many different view points that need to be taken into consideration. The ones we will consider fall under consequentialist and non-consequentialist. To answer the Demarcation Problem, we must have an idea of what we consider to count morally.    The article this is being applied to is “Landfill a threat to salmon: conservation group (CBC.CA)” from the CBC. The article talks about The Atlantic Salmon Federation being opposed to a new landfill in northern Newfoundland.

     From a consequentialist point of view (more specifically a utilitarian view,) we consider how many people benefit from both the landfill and the salmon. There are the people who use the landfill by putting garbage out on the curb every week, as well as those whose job it is to take the garbage from the curb to the landfill. If the landfill weren’t to be put in place the garbage would have to go somewhere, so more people and animals would be displaced. On the other side there are the fishermen whose livelihood depends on these salmon. Many people and animals use salmon for food. This point of view literally considers the consequences of taking (or not taking) an action.

     From a non-consequentialist point of view (specifically a deontological view,) we look at the rights of all things affected by this action. From a rights view we argue that the salmon have a right to live, and a right to a healthy habitat. The fishermen also have a right to make a living. But if there are no salmon left, then this isn’t possible. Then there is the idea that rights generate duties. So we have a duty to keep the salmon’s environment as unpolluted as possible. As well there is the duty to not take away a major source of income for the fishermen. But we (the garbage-producers) have rights as well. We don’t really think about it much in our daily lives, but all the waste that we produce has to go somewhere. It is commonly accepted (in many parts of so-called ‘developed nations’) that it isn’t necessary to live our lives surrounded by garbage. We seem to have a right to live a sanitary and unpolluted life, just as much as the salmon do. There is also the right for the garbage collectors to be able to make a living.

     In this example of the landfill and the salmon, there are a couple of things that we seem to consider as ‘counting morally.’ There are the salmon, the fishermen, the environment being changed by the landfill, the consumers and the garbage collectors. Now the question is which ones among these few count the most. Since there are already other landfills in place, the probable (moral) outcome would be to protect the fish.

 

 

References:

 

"CBC News - Nfld. & Labrador - Landfill a threat to salmon: conservation group." CBC.ca - Canadian News. Web. 03 Nov. 2009. .