Comments on: The Ethics of Urban Foraging

By: Ian Duckles

Ian Duckles — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:38:55 +0000

Some interesting responses to my earlier post! I would like to say a few things about the obligation I identified above. In particular, it does seem to me that there are situations where we can have obligations even if there is no direct interest that is harmed. In the environmental realm, there does seem to be a sense among some writers that we have obligations to the earth and to the environment (I am thinking of the deep ecology movement here). In addition, it does seem that we have a general obligation to not be wasteful. The justifications for this is related to potential and actual interests that are deprived, but often there is not a specific subject of harm. In either case, I would argue that there is a general obligation not to be wasteful.

In the context of foraging, it does seem to me that a kind of debt is incurred when we devote energy and resources to growing a plant and then fail to consume those resources. Fruit that is not eaten is a waste of water, fertilizer, and energy. I do think that we ought to try and harvest that fruit to donate to food banks (and there are groups that do this), but more generally, I feel a strong physical revulsion at the sight of so much good food going to waste. Perhaps this is an inappropriate emotional response, but I think not.

Lastly, about how to tell whether someone wants their fruit or not, if there is fruit rotting on the tree, it seems safe to assume that the owners do not have any interest in that fruit (not to mention that some trees, particularly citrus trees, produce more fruit than a family could reasonably consume).

By: Dwight Furrow

Dwight Furrow — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:12:28 +0000

Ian,

I’m not sure I see why we have an obligation to use something that might go to waste. Usually, an obligation is a moral requirement to avoid some specific harm. But I’m not sure I see an interest here that can be harmed. Surely, the fruit is not harmed by you not eating it. And I take it there is no way to harvest the fruit to feed the hungry. Even if you are benefiting the tree by harvesting the fruit I’m not sure a tree is something that has interests. I just don’t see a basis for obligation.

As to whether foraging counts as theft, if it is possible to determine that the owner is not going to use the fruit, then it is theft in only a technical sense. It is someone else’s property, but the property owner is not being harmed. Again it seems to me obligations are related to requirements to avoid harming something, and if nothing is being harmed I’m not sure I see the basis for an obligation (to refrain from taking the fruit). But it does strike me as presumptuous that you could determine whether someone intends to use the fruit or not without asking.

I agree that “usufruct” is not going to help here. That principle would make a hash out of copyright law, etc.

By: Ian Duckles

Ian Duckles — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:59:17 +0000

You are certainly correct that there is a rationalization here, but I was trying to find a framework to justify the very strong emotional feelings that arise when I see perfectly good food rotting away in someone’s yard. Something about that seems very wrong and the post was my attempt to sort through those feelings. I was definitely trying to rationalize those feelings, but I think this is an important part of what one does in ethics. One is confronted by a situation requiring a moral judgment (and this situation is, itself, revealed through our emotional responses), one thinks through the situation and tries to see if the initial emotional responses were justified or rational. So, it is a kind of rationalizing, but not, I think, the fallacious kind.

By: Moriae

Moriae — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:20:56 +0000

This seems to share a lot less to do with ethics than it does ‘rationalizing’ favored inclinations—a particularly American scourge.