At what point does pollution constitute aggression?

[vforvoluntary]

I was listening to a video by Sam Harris in which he argued that fireplaces lead to several deaths per year because of the pollutants they release and are in fact much more dangerous than we think. This got me thinking about when pollution should be classified as aggression. By this type of logic cars would be banned. Clearly there has to be a reasonable standard for what aggression is. Clearly certain acts such as assault, murder or theft are considered aggression but other forms of possible aggression such as pollution are less clear. Clearly damages have to be proved. But what type. Are toxic substances that cause tiny amounts of damage entering a person's body enough? How much damage is necessary if any? A person who touches another without consent for example is not causing damage per se, but just about all of us would consider this wrong. What do y'all think about this?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

It's enough to know there is a point. Asking the exact point is an impossible question to answer because pollution is not digital. We can measure the point approximately as being when the pollution exceeds implicitly or explicitly agreed levels. 

[Carl Green]

I've not gotten to much of Sam's content so my opinion's not well founded but I think Sam is big on "intentions". If the polluter's intentions were good, there's no point at which it's wrong, even if it is aggression, I guess.

 

My criticisms of Harris aside, I think this topic is a lot "bigger" than most people consider it to be.

 

An example I thought of. Let's say a company owns a highway. Seems like the company that owns the land would be responsible for the pollutants from the people/cars on it. So that highway company would be keen to limit the amount of polluting vehicles it lets use its road before its neighbors can start to "have a claim".

[Mister Mister]

I was listening to a video by Sam Harris in which he argued that fireplaces lead to several deaths per year because of the pollutants they release and are in fact much more dangerous than we think. This got me thinking about when pollution should be classified as aggression. By this type of logic cars would be banned. Clearly there has to be a reasonable standard for what aggression is. Clearly certain acts such as assault, murder or theft are considered aggression but other forms of possible aggression such as pollution are less clear. Clearly damages have to be proved. But what type. Are toxic substances that cause tiny amounts of damage entering a person's body enough? How much damage is necessary if any? A person who touches another without consent for example is not causing damage per se, but just about all of us would consider this wrong. What do y'all think about this?

That claim by Sam sounds highly speculative.  But even if we accept that, I don't see why cars have to be banned.  People use cars because they benefit from them.  Even those who don't personally drive a car, probably use products which are transported by automobiles.  So this is less a moral issue and more of an economic one: a balance needs to be struck between limiting pollution, and life in a modern technological world.  It's similar to a call-in show recently where someone asked about safety regulations, and Stef said we could eliminate most traffic accidents by making a universal speed limit of 15 miles an hour.  But that would of course come with costs...

 

The only time pollution becomes a moral issue is when it is done in a way that will bring harm to others, that they are unaware of.  For example a company dumps some harmful chemicals into water that kids swim in, or that people drink, rather than disposing of it properly.  The fact that they try to hide it shows that they know it is wrong.

 

I think Murray Rothbard had some interesting things to say on this issue if you want to have a look at that.

[vforvoluntary]

I've not gotten to much of Sam's content so my opinion's not well founded but I think Sam is big on "intentions". If the polluter's intentions were good, there's no point at which it's wrong, even if it is aggression, I guess.

 

My criticisms of Harris aside, I think this topic is a lot "bigger" than most people consider it to be.

 

An example I thought of. Let's say a company owns a highway. Seems like the company that owns the land would be responsible for the pollutants from the people/cars on it. So that highway company would be keen to limit the amount of polluting vehicles it lets use its road before its neighbors can start to "have a claim".

I agree that there would be a reasonable solution to this since it is unlikely any court would consider a minuscule amount of pollution "aggression." I agree that property owners would have incentives to prevent pollution on their own roads. What I was mainly asking about is what philosophically should constitute aggression in regards to pollution irrespective of how the issue would be handled in practice.

[NotDarkYet]

Q:  How tasty should a pizza be?  

 

Q:  Where, exactly, is the right flavor point?

 

---

 

A:  Enter, the Market.  

 

A:  You choose your flavor point.

[jason_]

According to Wikipedia, the decision in Aldred's Case -- seen by some as the birth of environmental law -- where Mr. William Aldred's neighbor, Thomas Benton, setup a pig sty close to his house and made home unlivable was as follows,

 

a man has, "no right to maintain a structure upon his own land, which, by reason of disgusting smells, loud or unusual noises, thick smoke, noxious vapors, the jarring of machinery, or the unwarrantable collection of flies, renders the occupancy of adjoining property dangerous, intolerable, or even uncomfortable to its tenants..."

 

 

If this you can consider this the "point of aggression," I think the question becomes how to enforce this environmental standard.