My Case

Kiril Stanchev, "Sun Nuance." 2011

I reject the absolutism of the anti-Kalabagh Dam school to present a more nuanced case against building the dam.

 By failing to acknowledge that the dam will enhance the interests of some entities, the anti-Kalabagh Dam school makes its case inadequate for countering arguments in the dam’s favor. In other words, the conventional anti-Kalabagh Dam school of journalists, geographers and political activists does not devote enough attention to explaining how the dam maximizes suffering.

My argument, however, adequately explains why we should not build the dam at Kalabagh. From the anti-Kalabagh Dam school's propositions, it follows that Kalabagh Dam accrues greater benefits and fewer harms for Pakistan’s privileged elite, previously defined as men and dominant ethic groups. Conversely, Kalabagh Dam affords fewer benefits and more harms for women, nondominant ethnic groups and nonhuman nature.

As explained in the theoretical section, the former superior group subordinates the latter. By enhancing interests of the superior group and harming interests of the inferior group, Kalabagh will perpetuate subjugation of the most disadvantaged. Since harming the most disadvantaged is morally impermissible under my ecofeminist ethic informed by rule consequentialism, Pakistan’s government should not build the dam.

Critics, however, will disagree with my position. They are most likely to posit:

1.    Long run and net gains outweigh short term losses to subordinated groups
2.    Kalabagh Dam benefits some women

In the first argument, critics use economic claims to argue that in the long run, net gains from building Kalabagh Dam will trickle down to the affected people. In making this argument, they ignore that Keynes, an economist whose ideas inform our fiscal policy, said, “In the long run we are all dead," to stress how long-term arguments cannot always weigh over present economic concerns.[i]

Even if their economics is sound, it does not refute my case. Long-term net gain will neither adequately make up for losses in the quality of life for subordinated humans today, nor will it compensate for irreversible ecological damage such as the Indus Delta's depletion or palla-macchi's extinction. 

In the second argument, they claim that while Kalabagh Dam will damage interests of women in Keti Bandar and other coastal areas, it will benefit interests of women in northern Sindh, and should therefore be built. Even if I accept that dam will benefit women in northern Sindh, their argument is ethically untenable. From my theoretical framework, the duty of nonmaleficence emerges stronger than the duty of beneficence.[iii] In other words, our commitment to not harm the most disadvantaged women in Keti Bandar is more important than our commitment to benefit women in northern Sindh. 

Having countered arguments against my case, I summarize my argument:

1. Building Kalabagh Dam causes harm to subordinated entities

2. Causing harm to subordinated entities is wrong

3. Consequently, building Kalabagh Dam is wrong

Thus, my policy prescription:

Pakistani legislators should vote against the Kalabagh Dam. The dam is divisive, unjust, and harmful to the interests of historically subordinated entities. Instead, the government should focus on environmentally friendly energy projects that do not harm subjugated and marginalized Pakistani living entities.

---

[i]  Keynes, John Maynard. (1924). "The Theory of Money and the Foreign Exchanges” from A Tract on Monetary Reform. London: Macmillion.

[ii] Warren, Karen. (1990) “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism.” Environmental Ethics, 12: 125-46

[iii] Karnani, Neel. 2008. Bioethics: Apply the Basic Principles to Resolve an Ethical Dilemma.  Northeast Florida Medicine Supplement. Web. http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2008journals/ethics/bioethics_principles.pdf