Theoretical Framework

Using Karen Warren's ideas, I explain an ecofeminist rejection of the logic of domination, patriarchy and Kalabagh Dam: 

1. Under Pakistani socio-legal norms, men and dominant ethnic groups are regarded superior to women, nonhuman nature, and members of non-dominant ethnic groups.[i]
2. For any given A and B, if A is superior to B, then A is justified in subordinating B
3. The ‘superior’ former group considers itself justified in subordinating the ‘inferior’ latter group.
4. The Kalabagh Dam perpetuates this patriarchal paradigm by allowing the superior former group to continue subordinating women and nonhuman nature.
5. Consequently, rejecting patriarchy and logic of domination as understood in Warren’s ecofeminist ethic requires us to reject the Kalabagh Dam.[ii]

Before building this case further, it is necessary to define how I use terms and weigh interests.

How are good and harm defined?

Interests of Living Organisms: Refers to the potential of each individual to develop according to her/his kind. [iii] For self-conscious sentient animals such as mammals, interests include possessing the potential to feel happy. Happiness arises when self-conscious preferences -- desires, plans or projects, etc -- are satisfied. [iv]

Good Intervention:  Enhances the interests of entities.

Harmful Intervention: Reduces their interests.[v] 

My Weighing Scale

For this case, consequentialism explains how interests are weighed.  Under my rule consequentialist framework, it is wrong to harm to historically subjugated entities such as women and nonhuman nature.[vi] 

Harming the subordinated entities is not ethically acceptable even when it benefits more people. For instance, if an intervention takes a loaf of bread from a poor woman with only one loaf, and gives 4 loaves of bread to 5 rich men possessing 10 loaves each, it is ethically impermissible. It benefits more people, but it is wrong because it causes greatest degree of suffering for the most disadvantaged. Subordinated entities form the majority of the biotic community. Interventions that harm the most disadvantaged entities increase the likelihood of starvation and war to maximize suffering world over. Hence,  the interests of subordinated women and nonhuman nature are prioritized here.

Like John Stuart Mill, I think of injustice as being synonymous with what is "wrong" or "morally impermissible".[vii] From an ecofeminist and rule consequentialist perspective, building the Kalabagh Dam is unjust or wrong when it sustains domination of one group over another, maximizing harm for society. In the next sections, I examine the cases for and against the dam and build support for my argument.

---

[i]

Note: For my argument, dominant ethnic groups are ones that have accessed power – particularly employment in Pakistan’s military and civil service – with greater ease in Pakistan’s history. Punjabis and New Sindhis or Muhajirs fall with the category of dominant ethnic groups. Non-dominant ethnic groups include Sindhis, Baloch, Pakhtun, Hazara and others. While exceptions exist, the writings and personal histories of these groups indicate discrimination and domination. For more information see the additional resources section.

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

[iii] Attfield, Robin. "Good of Trees." Journal of Value Inquiry 15 1 (1985): 35-54. Print.

[iv] Singer, Peter. (1974) "All Animals Are Equal" Philosophical Exchange 1:103-106

[v] Attfield, Robin. "Good of Trees." Journal of Value Inquiry 15 1 (1985): 35-54. Print.

[vi] Hooker, Brad, "Rule Consequentialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/consequentialism-rule/>.

[vii] 6) Mill, J. S. (1971) Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs—Merill, ch. 5.; Barry, B. "Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice.