Practical need not be amoral

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/07/2023 (775 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

John Wiens (An Aristotelian approach to landfill issue, The Free Press, July 24) has pointed out that some issues need to be considered from a moral point of view when trying to determine what the right thing to do may be.

Wiens may be correct in suggesting we have a moral responsibility to respond to the families whose murdered loved ones may have ended up in a local landfill, but that responsibility has many dimensions.

Certainly, the anguish of the families of the murdered women is understandable. As is the empathy that people naturally feel for anyone who has lost a loved one, and particularly in this case, where the murdered women’s remains are assumed to be lost in a waste disposal area.

The provincial government’s suggestion that the search cannot be carried out for reasons relating to the safety of the searchers seems disingenuous.

If teams of people can fight ebola in villages in Africa safely, surely we can sort through residential garbage to find human remains. It has been done before.

That doesn’t mean it is the only moral thing to do. Spending as much as $200 million to recover the remains of people who tragically lost their lives may be justifiable morally, but there are other equally pragmatic and morally sound alternatives.

Perhaps the options being considered need to be broadened.

Perhaps the dilemma facing the families of these murdered women should be framed as more than just a question of dealing with their death, but a question of how can something good can come from such tragedy.

Each family’s dilemma is similar, in some ways, to families who are asked to consider donating organs from a loved one killed in an accident.

The first reaction might be one of horror, the thought of burying a loved one without their eyes or heart is undoubtedly unsettling at first. However, knowing that the loss resulting from a tragedy can become a chance to offer long lasting — even life-giving support — to others, may overcome the reluctance to make such a choice.

The result may be that someone gets a new heart or the gift of sight. These are moral choices as well.

Given that it is likely to cost at least $100 million, or more, to attempt to recover the remains of the individuals assumed to be buried in the landfill, is there a better way to respect the dead and the grief their families feel?

Is there an alternative course that is also morally justifiable?

Is there another choice that brings solace to the grieving and hope to others?

Although money can never undo the tragedy that the families of these murdered women face, some permanent good would be possible if the money to be spent on recovering the remains were used instead to support these families and their communities in a different way.

Establishing a non-profit foundation, one that involved the families, with the money which would have been used to find the remains, is one practical alternative.

If even a fraction of the estimated cost of search for the remains was invested in an ongoing family foundation, it could bring lasting benefits to the families and their community.

For example, a $10-million dollar contribution from governments could establish a foundation, remembering the victims, but looking forward to helping others.

Instead of spending the money on a one-time search for remains, a foundation honouring the victims and their families could be established to improve the lives of individuals and groups marginalized and struggling. It would be a gift honouring these women that would keep on giving in perpetuity.

A $10-million family foundation would generate about $500,000 in interest annually.

Each year, the interest could be used to help others.

Such a fund could support a half dozen suicide support workers in communities, or mental health care workers, or fund a dozen post-secondary students.

It would be support that would be available not just once, but every year for the foreseeable future. A result that would also honour the lives of the women taken by turning a tragedy into hope for others.

Would that also be a moral choice that made sense?

Jerry Storie was the MLA for Flin Flon from 1981 to 1994, and held several provincial cabinet positions, including Education.