Collective action problem.


The tragedy of the Commons is economic trouble that evokes men and women to sacrifice beneficial assets. This outcome in immoderate takes, insufficient investment, and useful resource depletion. As demand for help exceeds supply, besides delay, every personality consuming extra will harm others who can no longer profit. In general, beneficial assets of the hobby are reachable to absolutely everyone except problems. Common tragedy happens when human beings are seeking for non-commercial hobbies and overlook the well-being of society. A good question that allows us to understand and overcome common tragedy is the position in which institutional and technical factors act in the custody and monopoly of goods. Human societies have developed various strategies to segregate and enforce rights other than economic and natural resources and to punish those who have historically swallowed frequent assets.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Collective action problem.
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

The actionable action is the direct control of the law or communal resource descending from authority. Regulations on consumption and use, or the legal exclusion of certain people, can minimize over-consumption. Authorities that fund conservation and aid renewal can prevent consumption. For example, the laws can limit the amount of livestock that should be grazed in addition to the government’s land and the quota of having problems catching fish. However, the choice of top-down agency tends to be different from the question of information finding royalties, the best agents, and information embedded in central financial planning and political processes. In particular, collective action may be useful in situations where technical or natural challenges prevent general aid from being substantially divided into small individual plots, With the help of consumption control. In many cases, this will successfully transit members to various benefits with useful group resources, including allowing only those who are parties to the Collective Convention on Action. (Hardin,Garret,2009)

Conventional Theories of Political Philosophy

The most extreme current ecological threats seem to avoid the conventional theories of political philosophy. A vital cause for this is associated with the global and intergenerational nature of many acute ecological threats, global interrelationships of the ecological system itself, as well as the growing global interconnection of human activities, patterns, and effects. Many of the ecological problems are often widely dispersed around the world. Also, some of the most crucial problems are delayed. For example, the most extreme influences of local climate change, such as sea-level rise, take a very long time to realize. Therefore, many of our contemporary activities have a significant impact not only on humans of advanced and future generations but also, the future humans residing on this planet will be in many years.

All of these skills range from problems in using a frequent environment beyond the limits of current political communities and authorities. The huge dispersion of patterns and results also leads to fragmentation of the agency, that is to say, that the problem is not generated now with the help of an agent; however, using a wide range of unified individuals and institutions for any complete form of organization that wishes to support and guide our normative assessment of the situation. As a result, a lot of common sense moral and political principles such as accountability, equity, and democracy- are at the heart of our current social and political orientation mechanisms institutions seem to be losing their regulatory control.

Another reason for the inadequacy of conventional political options is that philosophy is linked to the complexity of ecological problems. Ecological systems contain interaction across a wide variety of factors and the relationships between these factors are regularly non-linear, including unpredictable consequences of the rebound and giant spatial and temporal variations. All this will increase uncertainty about the current or future ecological situation conditions and sanctions for human actions. It makes the environment particularly sensitive to a range of divergent interpretations of the relevant ecological data and understanding as well as regulatory criteria. This thesis significantly explores some of the theoretical suggestions provided in the literature on environmental political philosophy to overcome the challenges mentioned above and suggests some promising approaches for the future. Against those who proposed collective ideas pass because of the collective nature of ecological problems, the thesis defends an Individualist approach. However, the thesis helps some traditional techniques of political philosophy to clarify the problems of large-scale collective movement by establishing justified political authority.

If democratic tactics remain a necessary means to produce legitimately authorized environmental results, the Intergenerational scale of problems requires justification it transcends the democratic strategies themselves. Here, the paper defends a type of Rawlsian contractualism as a means of justifying the authority of certain intergenerational and global concepts and argues that even on current non-ideal occasions; the Rawlsian precept of equity provides us with training on the legitimacy of our institutions. Social, laws and policies, and the limits within which they deserve our compliance. Using the precept of equity, it is also possible to impose new citizenship obligations, even at the international and intergenerational level. If current establishments and insurance policies are clearly distinguished from honest expressions of international and intergenerational social cooperation, the precept of equity constitutes a justified floor even for fairly radical acts of civil disobedience.

Furthermore, this paper defends the frequent precept of feeling harmless that it is maintained independently of institutional preparations between people. Due to the wide dispersion of reasons and effects, a growing variety of environmental ethicists have questioned its applicability in the context of large-scale environmental problems. Others have proposed its application at the collective level. Unlike these authors, the thesis proposes a defense of the individualistic principle of non-prejudiced as a form of common sense to justify the Obligations of individuals to modify their behavior dangerous to the environment and to promote greater high quality collective and institutional approaches to Environmental damage.

Application of Principle

If the perception of Rawlsiancontractualism is correct, as advised in this paper, there does not seem to be insurmountable conceptual problems that would stop increasing Rawlsian theory at the international and intergenerational levels. There is another central thing in Rawls’ theory of intergenerational justice, which can further add its common-sense plausibility. Rawls’ idea is that the distribution of benefits and burdens between generations is only required until a safe stage and for a positive reason (Rawls 1972, p. 290; see also Attas 2009, Wolf 2009). The reason the precept of the financial economy today is not to benefit future generations per se, but only to provide the fabric base necessary to establish and maintain judicial facilities for generations. Once this broad stage is reached, no additional savings are required. For this reason, Rawls’ explanation of intergenerational justice was considered to be one of the first elements of the so-called sufficiency strategy for justice (see, for example, Meyer 2016).

The second problem is the problem of non-identity (NIP), which seems each one proposes a substantial mission with the precept of not doing harm as well as Intergenerational contractualism (see, for example, Attfield 2012, Boonin 2014, Heyd 2009, Parfit 1984). Consider the case of alternative local weather as soon as it is again. So recent Climate reports attest (IPCC 2014), our current GHG emissions are all likely to many humans will feel seriously ill in the future. However, NIP concludes that we are not harming future human beings by our movements of increased local climate pollution, as our contemporary choices create the future of the polluted local climate also depends on it as a vital situation. The existence of these future human beings who will pass through the sorrows of our pollution.

About the precept of no harm, the NIP arises; the form of perception of “harm” is comparative in the following sense: it maintains that an action (or inaction) only damages an individual if the agent aggravates this character than it would have been if the agent hadn’t interacted with this character at all. Therefore, it seems incredible to state that we would have worsened the future humans of the local climate polluted by our actions, as this would suggest that we have been able to assess the domain of these humans until they do not exist, and then conclude that these humans would have gone further if they had not already existed. Since the future world of the polluted local climate is no longer so horrible that it makes the lifestyles of humans in this world interesting, such a statement would be implausible.(Boonin, David 2014)

But the conclusion of the NIP only follows if we maintain the previous comparison understanding of the damage. According to a threshold considered as detrimental, an action is detrimental to any individual if the agent ensures that the individual is in a state below the applicable detailed regulatory threshold. Since identifying threshold damage no longer requires that we should be able to better assess the status of this subliminal person in his kingdom in a scenario that he would have received in the absence of injurious action, we are able to stay away from non-identity Problem. For contractualist theory, the NIP will become a challenge, as it seems remarkably unlikely that representatives in the authentic role will select concepts (for example, these to limit pollution), which implies that they would not exist at all now. Appreciating Rawls’ unique position also presents a way to stay away from the NIP. The truth that in the past, technology also has the strength to determine the identification of the future era is a type of unfair asymmetry comparable to that caused by the use of social positions, skills that the authentic function tries to remove. Therefore, it seems plausible to think that, just as the representatives behind the veil of lack of knowledge now do not recognize their social function and natural abilities, they also ignore the problem of what unique people of any age would do. (seeReiman 2007).

As mentioned above, Rawls applies input interpretation of the authentic function but the limit by the condition of universality. In this Interpretation, the activities of future humans are no longer represented by a real participation in an authentic function (which would lead to a NIP) but rather because the relevant interests count due to the situation of universality and because the representatives no longer understand what time they belong. Consequently, it is in everyone’s interest to choose as if they were choosing “for everyone” (Rawls 1972, p. 121).


From this point of view, what is morally applicable is whether one is safe or not, the activities or skills for ordinary functioning are satisfied, despite what specific person we might cease to be. Yes, it’s Thus, the truth that the preference between polluting and non-polluting insurance policies also has an impact on which future human beings will have no ethical relevance in the unique position, and current technology has a responsibility to limit air pollution to the local climate that threatens activities and skills essential to normalcy functioning of future humans. The ecological mission facing humanity is indeed serious. Like Stephen Gardiner in his revolutionary book, A Perfect Moral Storm, he writes, it is also true that the tragedy is “more centrally an ethical failure, and one that involves our institutions, our moral and political theories, and in short, ourselves, considered as moral agents “(Gardiner 2011, p. 3). Likewise, the scale of the tragedy no longer seems to “overwhelm our cognitive and affective systems, “but also” to flood the team with moral, at least as it is manifested in our moral conscience “, as another great specialist in environmental ethics, Dale Jamieson, writes in his most recent book Reason in a Dark Time (Jamieson 2014, p. 144).

However, my effort in this article is to protect common sense and traditional ethical principles as a theoretically possible floor for normative political theory, even in the era of ecological tragedy. In summary, this paper presents a defense of the ethical principles of fairness, the principle of non-harm and sufficientarianism in the context of large-scale and widely dispersed environmental problems that extend beyond the boundaries of political communities and authorities current. It is also evident from the fact that Non-Identity Principle is proven wrong; Identity principle can be applied for solving the tragedy of commons in the international political view. It advocates a sure perception of democratic authority as an epistemologically and morally high-quality way to enforce these concepts in a complicated and insecure world.

Calculate your order
Pages (275 words)
Standard price: $0.00
Client Reviews
Our Guarantees
100% Confidentiality
Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.
Original Writing
We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.
Timely Delivery
No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.
Money Back
If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.
Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.
error: Content is protected !!
Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp

Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code GOODESSAY