Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Discussion
box:
The
Tragedy
of
the
Commons
In his classic work “Tragedy of the Commons,” Garrett Hardin gives an example of the individual
herder and the utility of a single cow and what is best for the pasture.
37
If everyone takes the
egocentric view, the pasture will surely be overgrazed. So, the farmer who will gain immediate
financial gain by adding a cow to the herd must decide the utility of the cow
versus
the collective
utility of pasture. The utilities, for the herder, are not equal. The individual utility is 1, but the
collective utility is less than 1. In other words, the farmer may be aware that the collective cost
to each herder on the pasture adding a cow is that overgrazing will cause the pasture to be
unproductive for all herders at some threshold. So, the utility becomes inelastic at some point.
The damage may even be permanent, or at least it may take a very long time to recover to the
point where it may “sustain” any cows including those of the individual herder.
Hardin's parable demonstrates that even though the individual sees the utility of preservation
(no new cows) in a collective sense, the ethical egoistic view may well push the decision toward
the immediate gratification of the individual at the expense of the collective good. The benefits
differ in kind, time, and space from the risks.
Libertarians argue that the overall collective good will come as a result of the social contract.
Utilitarianism determines that a moral act should produce the greatest amount of good consequences
for the greatest number of beings. Even Mill, however, saw the need for the “harm principle”
to counterbalance that temptation to use good ends to rationalize immoral methods, i.e., “ends
justifying the means.” The harm principle states:
[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the
liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power
can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent
harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully
be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him
happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. The only part of
the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part
which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own
body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
38
More recently, Rawls conceptualized the “veil of ignorance.” Rawls argues that rational people
will adopt principles of justice when they reason from general considerations, rather than from
their own personal situation.
39
Reasoning without personal perspective and considering how to
protect the weakest members comprise Rawls' veil of ignorance. Both the harm principle and the
veil of ignorance are buffers against pure ethical egoism; that is, the utilitarian view requires that
one not be so self-centered that a personal decision causes harm to another, and the Rawlsian
view requires that the weakest members of society be protected from the expressions of free
will of others. So, the need to “protect the pasture” must be balanced against decisions based on
individual utilities. The tragedy of the commons is that even when we know we are creating harm
to others and ourselves, we may still likely decide to take that action if the consequences are to
some amophorons society.
