Today, there is a global movement for countries to become less dependent on oil and there has been a switch towards natural gas. Natural gas is a better energy source because it is a lot cheaper than oil and a lot more efficient. I read an article today in the Dallas News about an increase in benzene levels in the air around areas in Texas where they drill for natural gas. Benzene is a toxin known to cause cancer that is produced in the drilling process. So this brought an ethical question to my mind: Is it okay for these companies to drill for a better source of energy even if in the process a toxin is produced that could potentially bring harm to humans?
Locke would be happy with the fact that the companies are laboring to the land. He believes that each person has the right to labor to the land and he believes when a person instills their labor into something, they now own it. These companies are drilling for natural gas and so they own whatever they dig up. But Locke also says that a persons labor should benefit mankind as a whole. Locke would argue that these companies are not benefiting mankind as a whole. By drilling and collecting natural gas from the earth these gas companies are producing a toxin that causes cancer in humans. Even though they are doing something good by collecting natural gas, they are producing something that is harmful to humans. Should these companies be allowed to continue this?
This article really opened my eyes to a disadvantage of natural gas. Up until now I have heard nothing but good things about natural gas and for the first time I heard what harms it could bring to people. Locke would argue that these companies should either stop drilling or to find out a way to correct the problem. The article does talk about how the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality has been working to correct the problems and they say strongly that the problems can be fixed. This is a good thing for the future but I just feel bad for the people in that area who might have been affected already by these high levels of benzene.
Good post. I think that Locke would be for some parts of this against the other parts. I don't that you can say he would be totally for the whole situation or totally against it. This company found a cheaper more efficient product that's helping other and they are productively using the land/property. On the flip side some people may get sick from it. It's just like what we discussed about the movie flow, it's hard to say what side is right. In my opinion you have to lose some to gain some and that's life. A few get hurt for the sake of a greater majority. I don't know it's like a catch-22. It could go either way depending on the person
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post,Kevin. The oil resource is a huge problem for uncountless countries in our world today. In Locke's view, the earth is a gift for all men equally. But in real world, it dosen't make sense. Not every single person, or every company has has the right to drill the oil BEFORE get government's permission in my country. I think it's same in America. Even people want, they don't own the equal opportunity to invest their labors on what they need.
ReplyDelete