An Aristotelian approach to landfill issue

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/07/2023 (779 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

INDIGENOUS communities and their supporters want Manitoba and Canada to excavate the Prairie Green landfill in hopes of finding the remains of their loved mothers, daughter, sisters, and aunts. The Manitoba government has indicated that it is not willing to support this course of action, claiming safety concerns raised in a preliminary feasibility study. It has accused the federal government of politicizing the matter by calling their responses heartless.

How are we to understand these conflicts, and what is the right thing to do?

Aristotle, the original moral justice philosopher, had ideas about justice which might give us some insights into how we got to this point and suggestions as to how we might think our way through the current impasse. For him, the current situation would be fundamentally political, but not in the partisan sense. He would add that the decision to be made is an ethical one, since all political decisions have moral aspects and consequences. He would conclude that it is really about, and should be about, the meanings and purposes of living a good life, a matter decided between and among others. And a good life aims at a just life.

In my view the parties are operating from competing and incompatible notions of justice very closely related to our current political ideological conflicts. The two sides are seeking public sympathy for their positions, both more complex than I am able to articulate here in thinking about appropriate action.

As I see it, the provincial government is operating from the present populist stance, a stance it would claim is the best practical alternative and echoes the denials of anti-Indigenous bias of many of their backers. We might call it a utilitarian-libertarian hybrid of doing the right thing: utilitarian in the sense that it avoids physical risk and harm, it hesitates to undertake initiatives which have no pre-determined guaranteed outcomes, it saves money which could be used for other purposes and keeps their supporters on their side; and, libertarian in the sense that the Indigenous community is deemed to be making the wrong choices, wrong choices in the past which may have contributed to the current situation and wrong choices in the search demand and the Brady landfill blockade. On these bases their responses are justified and just.

The Indigenous community and its supporters base their claims on virtue, based on respect and honour, as an overriding moral imperative. Not only that present wrongs regarding the devaluation of Indigenous lives must be addressed, but also past harms of oppression and abuse based on race and culture need to be acknowledged and redressed. They are implying that the attitudes and actions which have led to the TRC and MMIWG are continuing to this day, and the provincial government’s stance is evidence of this truth. Justice would require that the remains be found and spiritual practices regarding the treatment of the dead be honoured, and further that the recommendations of the Commission and the Inquiry be actively and publicly pursued.

In Aristotelian terms, the provincial government’s stance is unjust, and its claims to being apolitical just wrong-headed. The government has recently committed hundreds of millions of dollars on short-term initiatives which also have no guarantees of success. Many physically riskier projects have been successfully undertaken in the past, and arguably more wrong choices with graver consequences — residential schools, the ’60s Scoop, abusive foster home placements, to name a few — have been made without the approval of those affected. On that note, Aristotle emphasizes that justice based upon a definition of the good life cannot be unilaterally determined or imposed. What is just always results from respectful dialogue and agreement among consenting equals, in other words, responsible politics.

By Aristotelian standards, an argument based on some consensus of moral responsibility is always stronger and more just than utilitarian-libertarian arguments. It is impossible to argue that 150 years of oppression, exploitation, and systemic racism have been overcome and their consequences adequately redressed until Indigenous people agree they have.

To that end, the federal government should call the recognized leaders of all parties to the table, taking the lead in stating that the landfill search will proceed as expeditiously as possible to reduce further degradation of the site and greater political conflict.

That’s probably as close as we can come to justice in this situation, as justice is always based on real events and situations, meaning it must be continuously revisited and renewed.

John R. Wiens is dean emeritus at the faculty of education, University of Manitoba.