Environmental racism is obvious in practices that uncover racial minorities in the United States, and non-white individuals around the globe, to unbalanced shares of environmental hazards. In the article, Just Garbage, Peter Wenz explains his reasoning on the justness of current practices concerning issues of toxic waste is involved with racism. In my opinion, the disproportionate shares of environmental hazards are more associated with economics than racism due to the Doctrine of Double Effect. The Doctrine of Double Effect states “an effect whose production is usually blameworthy becomes blameless when it is incidental to, although predictably conjoined with, the production of another effect whose production is morally justified.” According
…show more content…
This principle states that those who benefit from something should also bear the burdens that come with that benefit. This means that the people who have access to more money than they need –regardless of whether that money is earned by working hard or inheritance –should share a burden of improving the balance and justice of society with the government. The government spends tax money on necessary causes such as to “protect the public from dangerous private property,” and “promote economic growth and equal opportunity” by providing the homeless and unemployed with welfare. Furthermore, many professional athletes and corporate executives make a lot more money compared to their work “burden.” According to Wenz, it may seem unfair because the people on welfare do not shoulder the burdens of work, it is justified for moral reasons. In my opinion, the problem with this is that some homeless or unemployed individuals do not deserve the welfare they receive due to the fact that some of them are homeless or unemployed because of unjustified reasons. These unjustified reasons consist of illegal matters or bad decision-making. In other words, some individuals are homeless or unemployed because he or she was in prison by breaking the law or made bad decisions, which resulted in that individual to be lonely and not accepted by others. This also proves the fact that unbalanced shares …show more content…
He says to distribute LULUs in communities per the burden and benefits. In other words, rich people should have more LULUs since they receive more benefits from the environment compared to poor people. Wenz suggests, “ill health associated with toxic hazards should be related to benefits derived from processes and products that create these hazards.” To ensure justice without a total reformation of the current waste management process, those who reside near LULUs because of their economic background should receive a monetary compensation from those who live further away from LULUs. Wenz has a valid point for his suggestion because all the toxic waste in LULUs affects the poor people the most. In my opinion, no individual should have to suffer from toxic hazards; therefore, to avoid reducing everyone’s quality of life, significantly more money should be invested into our current waste management system. Not to mention, this furthermore proves that economics has a sufficient role in disproportionate environmental hazards compared to
This principle states that those who benefit from something should also bear the burdens that come with that benefit. This means that the people who have access to more money than they need –regardless of whether that money is earned by working hard or inheritance –should share a burden of improving the balance and justice of society with the government. The government spends tax money on necessary causes such as to “protect the public from dangerous private property,” and “promote economic growth and equal opportunity” by providing the homeless and unemployed with welfare. Furthermore, many professional athletes and corporate executives make a lot more money compared to their work “burden.” According to Wenz, it may seem unfair because the people on welfare do not shoulder the burdens of work, it is justified for moral reasons. In my opinion, the problem with this is that some homeless or unemployed individuals do not deserve the welfare they receive due to the fact that some of them are homeless or unemployed because of unjustified reasons. These unjustified reasons consist of illegal matters or bad decision-making. In other words, some individuals are homeless or unemployed because he or she was in prison by breaking the law or made bad decisions, which resulted in that individual to be lonely and not accepted by others. This also proves the fact that unbalanced shares …show more content…
He says to distribute LULUs in communities per the burden and benefits. In other words, rich people should have more LULUs since they receive more benefits from the environment compared to poor people. Wenz suggests, “ill health associated with toxic hazards should be related to benefits derived from processes and products that create these hazards.” To ensure justice without a total reformation of the current waste management process, those who reside near LULUs because of their economic background should receive a monetary compensation from those who live further away from LULUs. Wenz has a valid point for his suggestion because all the toxic waste in LULUs affects the poor people the most. In my opinion, no individual should have to suffer from toxic hazards; therefore, to avoid reducing everyone’s quality of life, significantly more money should be invested into our current waste management system. Not to mention, this furthermore proves that economics has a sufficient role in disproportionate environmental hazards compared to