Ashford 4: – Week 3 – Discussion 2

Distributive Justice and Scarce Natural Resources

   In Chapter 3 of the text, the author calls attention to how struggles for   scarce natural resources will pose increasingly difficult problems of   distributive justice in the future, on both the local and global levels.   “Case 3.4 – Fracking Friction” (in Section 3.4) explores this issue in the   context of fracking for natural gas.
 

  Suppose that the connection between fracking and adverse health effects is as   yet an unproven possibility. Do individuals’ health interests outweigh the   property interests of energy companies in withholding information about   fracking chemicals, which they claim are trade-secrets? Why or why not?
 

  Your initial post must, from the perspective of distributive justice, explain   your response to the above questions as they relate to Case 3.4. Consider the   issue from both sides (the pros and cons). Incorporate arguments that draw   upon libertarian, utilitarian, and egalitarian views of distributive justice.
 

  To help you successfully complete this discussion, review the following   required resources: Fracking secrets        by thousands keep U.S. clueless on wells Fracking: Abundant        energy, but at what cost? Is fracking making        people sick? [Radio broadcast] Fracking our food        supply

   Your initial post should be at least 300 words in length. Support your claims   with examples from at least two of the required resources for this   discussion, and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your   classmates’ posts by Day 7 whose viewpoints are different from yours. Each   peer response must be at least 125 words. Stimulate critical thinking by   contrasting your perspective with your classmate’s and explaining yours, or   by asking your classmate a question and explaining why your question is   significant.