Community Corner

Letter to the Editor: A Resident's Reply

Faith Bjalobok replies to Bill Merrell's letter.

to the people of Peters in which he made several assertions regarding the content of the ballot referendum. Based on the development of the western intellectual tradition in the last century in relation to environmental ethics, environmental law, and human rights, I respectfully disagree with several of his comments and conclusions. Further it is my contention that the referendum is not a meaningless document but the natural outgrowth of the western intellectual tradition that has its origin in the philosophies of the Enlightenment thinkers.

Mr. Merrell questions the concept that natural objects have rights and implies that it is a nonsensical concept. Assigning rights to the natural environment is the result of the move away from an anthropocentric view of the natural world towards biocentrism. Philosophers have argued that the natural world has intrinsic value not merely instrumental value.

In 1948 Aldo Leopold, a forestry ranger, introduced the concept of the “land ethic” in which he argued based on his concept of a “land pyramid” that humans are an interconnected part of nature. He also suggested that based on that connection we needed to extend our concept of the moral community to include natural objects.

Find out what's happening in Peterswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

In 1963 expanding upon the “land pyramid” Rachel Carson (Chatham College biology major) published Silent Spring an account of how the pesticide DDT entered the food chain. This work became an impetus behind the development of environmental ethics as a sub-discipline of philosophy.

Beginning in the 1960s, philosophers began to rethink our relationship to the natural world and introduced new views on how we “ought” to interact with the natural world. In terms of secular ethics; utilitarian ethics, Kantian deontology and virtue ethics all provide a theoretical framework for assigning moral rights/obligations to the natural world.

Find out what's happening in Peterswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The seminal work of Trees authored by law professor Christopher Stone suggested that the natural world should also be assigned legal standing similar to those conveyed to corporations. In the 1972 Supreme Court Case 405 U.S. 727 Sierra Club v Morton, Supreme Court Justice Douglas referenced Stone’s work and Leopold’s work in his dissenting opinion regarding legal standing in relation to natural objects suggesting it provided a way for communities to protect themselves and their environment.

Since 1972 laws have been introduced both at the federal and state levels to allow citizens to bring suits on behalf of the environment. Therefore, in essence the natural environment has indirect legal rights because of the granting of legal standing to bring suit for environmental damages.

While Mr. Merrell is certainly free to align himself with Baxter and other individuals who maintain an anthropocentric view in relation to the natural environment, it is, I believe,  rather arrogant on his part to summarily dismiss over fifty years of philosophical thought without providing a well argued refutation of the works of such contemporary philosophers of environmental ethics as Taylor (respect for nature), Rollin (environmental ethics and international justice), and Naess (deep ecology).

As to his assertion that the claim that citizens have a right to be free of air pollution amounts to the case that one would only be allowed to run their car in a closed garage, please consult the Clean Air Act enacted on December 31, 1970 at Title 42 USC Chapter 85 Part A and you will see the exact same terminology as stated in the referendum. Simply stated the director of the EPA is ordered to set standards on the allowable levels of “any air pollutant that causes harm.” The key words are “causes harm” which is synonymous with the wording of the referendum. The goal is to protect human health through the control of air pollutants. Also it is significant to note that the EPA was the creation of the conservative republican President Richard Nixon.

The idea of protecting our water goes back to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act which is still enforced by the Army Core of Engineers. Based on the historical development of the concept of the need for clean air and water, Mr. Merrell’s claims that imply that these are meaningless concepts are counterfactual.

The next issue that Mr. Merrell raises is in relation to a community’s right of self-governance. This concept has its origins in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. In 1979 at a conference on human rights, Karel Vasak introduced the idea of three generations of human rights that are aligned with the cry of the French Revolution: liberte, eqalite, and fraternite. Translated the first generation rights are negative liberty rights, e.g., freedom of speech, the second generation rights are economic rights, e.g., freedom from discrimination, and the third generation rights are the rights of solidarity, e.g. self-governance and community identity. My point being that the idea of community self-governance is not some anomaly that first rears its head in the Peters’ referendum, but the logical outgrowth of an international commitment to creating the best human societies.

Like the ideas and principles that underlie our system of government, the concepts of the referendum are grounded in the same philosophical tradition that began with the French Philosophes and Enlightenment thinkers. It was the ideas of those individuals that gave assent to the rights of man and challenged the legitimacy of the Divine Right of Kings. All I am arguing is either agree or disagree with the concepts and principles introduced in the referendum but do not dismiss them as nonsensical. They have a legitimate theoretical history and established meaning within the western intellectual tradition.

Finally as to the claims that the courts will do this or that and taxes will increase, that view assumes a theory of law along ago refuted by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes in his essay Legal Realism. As Justice Holmes argued the law is not, as some would argue, reducible to purely deductive reasoning. In other words, if the law were reducible to purely deductive reasoning where p implies q, p therefore q then justices could be replaced with computer programs. As Dworkin argues, the law is like a narrative and although the basic principles provide the parameters of legal decisions, there is room for interpretation.

Blaine Township seems to provide the paradigmatic case for those who argue tax increases etc. Please remember that Blaine was not a home rule community so in that aspect Peters and Blaine are dis-analogous. Finally, I have been unable to find any record of Range Resources being awarded any financial compensation based on the court’s ruling that their ban was illegal. The referendum does as Johnson correctly states, “the referendum places us in unchartered waters.” But remember that your right to vote YES or NO is a right because of the philosophical ideas that grew out of the Enlightenment.

Let the attacks against my stated position begin. Philosophers are by nature a contentious group but please stay within the established guidelines of civil discourse. That is to say, stay on topic and if I have misstated facts please provide a proper reference for the source I have misinterpreted. If you disagree with the position of one of the authors cited, please be prepared to respond with a well stated argument as to why their premises do not support their conclusions. The rules of formal debate require respect and name calling is strictly prohibited. 

-Faith Bjalobok, Peters Township resident


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here