Introduction to Political Theory

made through a chain of authorities, such as local, national and supra-national,

then if those decisions are made by majority vote the chances of local interests being

ignored increase with the addition of every link in the chain.

Garrett Hardin and the ethics of the lifeboat

Garrett Hardin (1915–2003) was a highly influential environmentalist. Although

his arguments were neither original, nor profound, there are good reasons for

discussing his work. First, he was concerned with a major issue for environ-

mentalists: population growth (a secondary, but related, issue that concerned him

was immigration to the developed world from the developing world). Second, he

is sometimes, and quite erroneously, labelled an ecologist, as distinct from an

environmentalist, and his arguments are quoted in political debates against

ecologists. Third, he challenged one of the fundamental human rights – the right

to procreate – and, more generally, his work raises important questions about global

justice, questions to which we return in Chapter 22.

Hardin’s most famous essay was ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, which was based

on a presidential address delivered at a meeting of the Pacific Division of the

American Association for the Advancement of Science at Utah State University in

June 1968. In the following 30 years it was reprinted in many collections, and Hardin

himself revised it several times. The central problem is, by Hardin’s own admission,

not original; indeed, it is simply a statement of the prisoner’s dilemma, which we

discussed in Chapter 8. We are to imagine common lands on which herdsmen graze

their cattle. So long as the numbers of herdsmen and cattle are low the commons

will recover from the effects of grazing, new grass will grow, the cattle will be fed

and the herdsmen will make a living and so not starve. However, if the number of

herdsmen and cattle grow – perhaps because population growth is no longer kept in

check by war and disease – there will come a point at which the commons will not

recover, and indeed deteriorate to the point where even the original low level of

grazing would not be supported. As we saw in our analysis of the prisoner’s dilemma,

even if an individual herdsman recognises the consequences of his actions – that is,

can see clearly the ‘tragedy’ before him – it is in his interests to continue grazing.

Hardin makes a point that appears to echo those of deep ecologists: the harm

from an individual action cannot be ‘pictured’ – the effects may not be discernible

for years, and effects are, in any case, cumulative. Such is the case with the tragedy

of the commons. Morality must take into account the full effects of an action; in

Hardin’s words, it must be ‘system sensitive’. Without questioning the validity of

Hardin’s argument, it is important to distinguish his ‘system’ from that of Leopold

or Næss – the long-term effects which concern Hardin are the effects on humanity.

Hardin’s argument, while concerned with environmental degradation, is thoroughly

anthropocentric.

Almost all moral and political theorists have accepted that actions have to be

assessed against their full consequences, so Hardin’s argument is directed much more

at popular moral beliefs, rather than at previous thinkers – indeed, it is doubtful

that he is aware of the heritage of the arguments he propounds. Hardin argues that

a popular morality focused simply on the rights of individuals, without regard to

Chapter 16 Ecologism 367