At the foundation of our modern legal and judicial system is the belief in Rights of Man to which all human beings are entitled. Because humans are rational, self-aware and autonomous beings, Kantians would argue, they are inherently valuable and worthy of respect to their dignity. To protect this dignity, universal human rights are adopted to outline the necessary conditions for humans to lead a dignified life. Of course, we must be alive and healthy to lead a dignified life, which is why, though some rights may vary from location to location, human health is always prioritised. Increasingly, we are coming to the realisation that the environment in which we live in is a major component of our health and is not nearly as protected as other components such as food and water. Instead, the environment is designated as public space. What follows is this space being used and polluted by some more than others and to the detriment of us all. Is it any wonder that some would argue for new and more stringent laws to protect the environment which they perceive as an extension to their health and well-being?
An article entitled, “Should environmental rights be in the constitution?” features two parts. In the first, David Boyd argues for the entrenchment of our environmental rights in the Constitution to empower the courts to prosecute environmental crimes, compel citizens and corporations to behave more responsibly and more. After all, constitutional rights are harder to dismiss for the sake of expediency or convenience. However, the second part of the article is a rebuttal by Emmett Macfarlane who doubts the effectiveness of this strategy. He notes that many countries struggle to fulfill the promises of even more crucial constitutional rights, so that alone guarantees nothing. It would also shift the moral dilemmas of society from the political sphere where there can be discourse, to the judicial sphere where there is only arbitration.
Being a person largely ignorant and unfamiliar with the intricacies and subtle manoeuvring of courts and politics, I struggle to provide an informed commentary. Articles such as the one above only garner feelings of confusion and inadequacy. Like Macfarlane, I am left questioning the protections guaranteed by constitutional rights and the potential damage caused by lack of public debate to resolve moral dilemmas. At the same time, I am sceptical that the political system would consistently champion environmental causes, without it turning into just another partisan issue to rally for or against as a show of party loyalty. While constitutions tend to be more stable and longer-lived than political parties, would it still be able to safeguard environmental concerns from waxing and waning with the shifting of political tides? And on and on my questions continue with no answers to be found.
I suspect I am not the only one facing this problem. Evidence of the limits of human knowledge and attention are omnipresent and our collective ignorance has always been a barrier to make rational, informed decisions. Though we may agree that environmental concerns about important and necessary to a dignified life, we seem to disagree about most everything else. These disagreements range from the philosophical, such as whether the environment is inherently value regardless of its usefulness to humans, to the practical, such as whether an increase of 1oC in global temperature is really that bad. While it is easy to prescribe education and information as a cure to ignorance, the reality is more complicated. Who would you say is more dangerous, a person who knows nothing or a person who knows just enough to think they know everything? If the simple answers and easy solutions were readily available, environmental issues would not be such a contentious dilemma. It seems that all I can add to this debate is a remainder to be open to new information, be sceptical of its source and try to understand the limits of your ignorance and that of others.
Keisey
Works Cited
Boyd, D. R., & Macfarlane, E. (2014, March 3). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? Retrieved November 30, 2020, from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/second-regard/boyd-macfarlane/
Hello Keisey,
I love your artistic way of explaining your feelings towards this complex situation and I think you painted a clear picture of the situation and how confusing it is. There are many layers to be addressed and many possibilities of what will work and what wont. I think a lot of our class will relate to the confusion regarding the situation. I love the point you made about constitutions being more stable and longer-lived than political parties, I think this is a very important point to bring into the discussion that I did not think of. I do think adding more factual evidence on the amount of countries where creating environment based laws helped and where it did not help, as well as in what ways nations were changed by new rules. I believe analyzing these facts will help point us in the right direction of what has been working and what has not. I believe an ignorant person can cause a lot more harm by not understanding their actions than a person who is more educated, regardless if they believe they are the smartest, they would still have at least some capacity to see how their actions effect the world around them.
Overall I loved your blog and found it very relatable! You brought many good points in to the discussion and asked some good questions that got my brain thinking!
Olivia Salioh