~People or Penguins William F.

Baxter
Spheres oI Freedom Criterion
,ste is , B,d Thing
;ery Hum,n Reg,rded ,s ,n nd R,ther Th,n , Me,n
The Incenti;e ,nd Opportunity to Impro;e His Sh,re oI S,tisI,ctions Should Be
Preser;ed to ;ery Indi;idu,l
Optim,l St,te oI Pollution
iIIerence Between oll,rs ,nd Resources
William T. Blackstone's proposed human right to a livable environment
4 ,s essenti,l to permitting e,ch to li;e , hum,n liIe
r,tion,l
Iree & selI-determining
4 imposes , duty on others not to interIere with this right
4 this right o;errides property rights
4 ,nd should be recognized under l,w
O ctu,l en,ctments embodying something like Bl,ckstone's Principle
4 ,tion,l n;ironment,l Policy ct oI 1969:
,sserts , right oI ,ll meric,ns to "surroundings" th,t ,re
"s,Ie, he,lthIul, producti;e, ,nd ,esthetic,lly ,nd cultur,lly ple,sing"
4 ,ter Pollution Control ct oI 1972:
,sserts , duty to Iirms to "use the best pr,ctic,ble technology" to get rid
oI pollution
implies , correl,ti;e right to , pollution Iree en;ironment.
O r,wb,ck oI this ,ppro,ch: its inIlexibility
4 ch,r,cteristic oI ,ll ,bsolute rule or ,bsolute rights b,sed ,ppro,ches (comp,re
K,nt)
4 ,bsolute rights gi;e rise to ,bsolute duties
not to pollute
reg,rdless oI cost
4 un,ble to gi;e "nu,nced guid,nce" in;ol;ing "tr,de oIIs"
with other hum,n rights
property rights
positi;e rights to economic welI,re (which loss oI jobs m,y
;iol,te)
with utility: pollution control in some c,ses might h,;e high costs in
terms oI
decre,sed producti;ity
incre,sed prices
O The more nu,nced ,ppro,ch would h,;e to en,ble us to ,ssess the "tr,de oIIs"
4 more utilit,ri,n in spirit: b,l,nce the beneIits ,g,inst the costs
4 current ,ppro,ches -- since the e,rly 80s -- b,sed on this: xecuti;e Order o.
12291 require ,ll new en;ironment,l regul,tions to undergo , cost-beneIit
,n,lysis

Morality, Money, and Motor Cars - Norman Bowie
Business doesn`t h,;e ,n oblig,tion to protect the en;ironment beyond wh,t is required by
l,w
William Frankena`s hierarchy of moral obligations:
1. ;oid h,rm
2. Pre;ent h,rm
3. o good
According to Bowie, why don`t obligations toward the environment fall under avoid
harm`?
utomobiles ,nd H,rm
'Ought implies 'C,n
According to Bowie, do automobile companies have an obligation to build cars as safe
as they know how? Do you agree with Bowie that, to some extent, what the company is
capable of is a function of what is profitable?
Soci,l consensus on the en;ironment circ, 1990
The oblig,tion oI consumers with reg,rd to the en;ironment
The one speci,l mor,l oblig,tion oI business tow,rds the en;ironment
'Tr,dition,lly it is the Iunction oI the go;ernment to correct Ior m,rket I,ilure.
According to Bowie, why do businesses have an obligation to avoid intervention in the
political process for the purpose of defeating and weakening environmental
regulations?
According to Bowie, why is environmental legislation often contrary to a politician`s
self-interest?
imit,tions on the oblig,tion to ,;oid interIerence
duc,ting the public
n his article ~Morality, Money, and Motor Cars, Norman Bowie
O ,rgues th,t 'Business does not h,;e ,n oblig,tion to protect the en;ironment o;er
,nd ,bo;e wh,t is required by l,w..
O The Iirst corpor,te en;ironment,l duty to ,dhere to en;ironment,l l,ws ent,ils ,
requirement th,t corpor,te m,n,gers ,dhere to , mor,l minimum oI ,;oiding h,rm.
O corpor,tions produce pollution, which c,n be re,son,bly considered to h,rm some
(but not ,ll) indi;idu,ls, m,n,gers ,re not necess,rily mor,lly li,ble Ior ,ll such
,ctions.
O s long ,s the risks in;ol;ed in using p,rticul,r products ,re known, it is not wrong
th,t some ,;oid,ble h,rm be permitted so th,t other soci,l ,nd indi;idu,l go,ls c,n
be ,chie;ed.
O The le;el oI permissible h,rm is decided by soci,l consensus when considering the
tr,de-oIIs between potenti,l h,rm ,nd the utility oI the product.
O so long ,s corpor,te m,n,gers oper,te their respecti;e Iirms in ,ccord,nce with
en;ironment,l l,ws, it is re,son,ble to think th,t society ,ccepts most oI the h,rm
done to the en;ironment by corpor,tions.
The e;idence Ior this cl,im is pro;ided by the I,ct th,t
O most consumers ,re unwilling to p,y extr, Ior en;ironment,lly Iriendly products;
demonstr,te little eIIort to conser;e resources by recycling; ,nd ,re unlikely to
support incre,sed t,x,tion to Iund en;ironment,l c,uses.
O it is unre,son,ble to pl,ce the Iull bl,me Ior en;ironment,l h,rms on the shoulders
oI corpor,te m,n,gers, since consumers contribute to such h,rms by dem,nding
en;ironment,lly un-Iriendly products.
O iI consumers knowingly ,nd willingly consume products th,t contribute to
en;ironment,l degr,d,tion, then corpor,te m,n,gers ,re Iree to meet the dem,nds
oI their customers ,s long ,s they ,dhere to en;ironment,l l,ws.
lso, , corpor,te m,n,ger ,cting Irom mor,lity h,s two duties: , Iiduci,ry duty to oper,te
the Iirm in , proIit,ble m,nner ,nd , duty to s,;e the en;ironment.
Bowie, 'Mor,lity, Money, ,nd Motor C,rs (579-589)
oes Bowie think businesses h,;e ,ny speci,l oblig,tion to protect the en;ironment?
O Businesses h,;e no speci,l oblig,tions to protect the en;ironment ,bo;e wh,t is
required by l,w.

II not, does Bowie think businesses c,n do wh,te;er they w,nt to the en;ironment?

Or ,ccording to Bowie ,re there oblig,tions th,t businesses do h,;e which h,;e
implic,tions Ior their beh,;ior tow,rd the en;ironment?
O Business h,s ,n oblig,tion to obey the l,w.
O Business h,s ,n oblig,tion to ,;oid negligent beh,;ior.
O Business H,s the Oblig,tion to ;oid Inter;ening in the Politic,l ren, in Order to
e,ken or eIe,t n;ironment,l egisl,tion
O The oninter;entionist Policy

ccording to Bowie, do businesses h,;e ,n oblig,tion to ,;oid h,rm? xpl,in using his
ex,mple oI the h,rms c,used by ,utomobiles. (p. 582)
O 50,000 persons will die in wrecks this ye,r in the U.S..
O 250,000 persons will be injured.
O utomobiles c,n be m,de much s,Ier so ,s to signiIic,ntly reduce the possibility oI
h,rm.
O oing so would be ;ery costly.
O Consumers ,re unwilling to p,y Ior ultr,-s,Ie c,rs.