What’s going on here?

Synapses is a repository for columns, rants and reflections, mostly on secular humanist issues and politics in South Africa. Please take a look around, and leave a comment if so inclined. You can also subscribe by RSS, or follow me on Twitter.

Who writes this stuff?

All the content, unless otherwise specified, is the work of Jacques Rousseau. If you want to get in touch with me, here are some contact details. Please do not reproduce content elsewhere without linking back to the relevant post.

Comment policy

I'm a firm believer in free speech. However, there are ample opportunities for venting of spleen elsewhere on the internet. I reserve the right to edit or delete comments that exceed the threshold of my tolerance for stupidity or malice.

Related Posts

No related posts.

2 Responses

  1. Kent
    Kent May 23, 2010 at 11:30 pm | | Reply

    Would you say that (as it seems) you reject of the division of moral responsibility?
    I am most interested in that aspect of this article.

    I would agree that if we were truly concerned about the extinction of the bluefin tuna, then the most effective means of acting to protect the species would be at the political level (i.e. legislative) rather than a encouraging a grassroots-level ethical campaign, but only because of the existence of a large part of the human populace on this planet which either incorrectly rejects the division of responsibility, or simply does not care about other species at all.

    You appear to be directly linking your lack of ethical concern with its extinction to the tragedy of the commons, implying an inevitability to the scenario that is I would suggest is not really inescapable. The real problem with the tragedy of the commons is not common use or ownership, but ineffective legislation, as mentioned in the linked article: “What’s really needed is a moratorium for bluefin.” I disagree that “the commons of the high seas are not effectively governable”, because if, for example, someone like Dr Carl Safina were in charge of I.C.C.A.T. then quotas would be set in line with scientific studies, which I would consider to be governed effectively. Legislation could also then be made even more effective with a purely land-based approach, with a source certification and licensing process for wholesalers selling and restaurants serving fish.

    Pointing out that an individual (overwhelmingly) has no control and very little influence on this level of action does not mean that they ought to behave without regard to the moral implications of their decisions. If, as you mention, a large factor in the problem is that “bluefin tuna… is in high demand due in part to our fondness for sushi”, then it follows that a reduction in that demand would lessen the problem. This is where the division of moral responsibility comes in.

    I think Jonathan Glover demolished objections to as he termed it “The principle of divisibility” with this thought experiment:

    In cases where harm is a matter of degree, sub-threshold actions are wrong to the extent that they cause harm, and where a hundred acts like mine are necessary to cause a detectable difference I have caused one hundredth of that detectable harm.

    Anyone who doubts this principle should consider the consequences of assigning zero harm to sub-threshold acts.

    Suppose a village contains 100 unarmed tribesmen. As they eat their lunch 100 hungry armed bandits descend on the village and each bandit at gunpoint takes one tribesman’s lunch and eats it. The bandits then go off, each one having done a discriminable amount of harm to a single tribesman. Next week, the bandits are tempted to do the same thing again, but are troubled by new-found doubts about the morality of such a raid. Their doubts are put to rest by one of their number who does not believe in the principle of divisibility. They then raid the village, tie up the tribesmen, and look at their lunch. As expected, each bowl of food contains 100 baked beans. The pleasure derived from one baked bean is below the discrimination threshold. Instead of each bandit eating a single plateful as last week, each takes one bean from each plate. They leave after eating all the beans, pleased to have done no harm, as each has done no more than sub-threshold harm to each person. Those who reject the principle of divisibility have to agree.

    Applied Ethics, Oxford Readings in Philosophy, 1986.

    Of course you might not reject this divisibilty at all, but rather disagree that there is anything intrinsically valuable about other sentient species, and whether we have any moral responsibilities to them at all. Or perhaps they don’t meet the threshhold of sentientism to qualify, as opposed to say, whales?

  2. Kent
    Kent June 29, 2010 at 12:38 pm | | Reply

    Jerry Coyne has a short comment about another story on the Bluefin in the New York Times.

Leave a Reply