Climate Change is certainly unpleasant, but is it wrong?

From a guest blogger: What is it that St. Peter’s Basilica, Climate Change, the Euro Crisis and Beethoven’s Ode to Joy have in common? I shall not keep you guessing. All four demonstrate that humans are not only special, but also without doubt the most special of creatures on Planet Earth.

Consider for a moment what upheaval there would be if it were discovered that a colony of monkeys had created a fully functional church, or started using currency, or were worrying that they were changing the weather, or had written a fairly convincing Wesleyan hymn tune? If they had done even just one of these they would be considered unique among the apes. The argument in favour of basic human rights for chimps would have been lent a huge and potentially compelling argument. Naturalists from around the world would flock to their territory. It might be asked if there was any likelihood that chimps in captivity could develop capacities like those in this territory (which I shall name Chimpanzania), and philosophers and ethicists who have been declaring for decades that humans are nothing special would be buying themselves a large self-congratulatory drink.

At the time of writing none of these things have happened, although there did appear the other day a series of very cute pictures of chimpanzees on the Telegraph website under the heading ‘97% human’ a reference to the fact that humans and certain primates share about 97% of their DNA. But in reality these amount to just another, albeit charming, attempt at saying that humans are just rather clever apes. As images they are not so far removed from Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny and other highly entertaining, if intellectually dubious, aspects of the ‘pathetic fallacy’.

The truth is that humans are not simply clever apes. Although we, like monkeys, are affected by changes in the global climate one would be hard-pressed to assert that chimps saw anything wrong in droughts when there ‘should be’ rain. Drought for a chimp is doubtless unpleasant but we have no indication that a chimp would regard this as wrong even if aware that his own kind had caused such a disaster. Because humans can say something is wrong, as opposed to simply unpleasant, we should recognise ourselves as superior to the other co-inhabitants of this planet. The Euro Crisis actually points in the same diection. At its heart is the recognition of moral failing. Banks and governments did not control well enough the vast sums of money entrusted to them by millions of citizens and investors. They bear moral responsibility not only for sorting out the crisis but for preventing it from getting any worse. The fallout from default by Greece and its exit from the Euro would not only be extremely difficult for the poorest in society, but would also represent a moral failure by society’s more powerful members in a way that for chimps, whatever altruism they may otherwise demonstrate, simply does not exist.

Nonetheless, those involved in movements such as the Great Ape Project and thinkers like Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri still assert that there are no unbridgeable differences of a kind that demonstrate we are superior to the less developed primates.

Interestingly, one of the most useful insights in this discussion comes from the philosopher Mikel Dufrenne. In discussing the role of melody in music Dufrenne observes (albeit in rather dense prose) that ‘[melody] is the very meaning of the musical object, a meaning that cannot be apprehended except through perception of the work… [A]nything we may say of it in another language is pitifully inadequate to express what music expresses.’ He continues: ‘this ineffable meaning still deserves to be called meaning, for it is what the musical object says… [M]eaning informs music, making it music rather than an incoherent succession of sounds.’

At the heart of the matter is the question of meaning. The truth is that there clearly is meaning in architecture and religion, just as there is meaning in politics or in a tune by Beethoven, whether or not it is difficult to describe. The idea that the monkeys in London Zoo might declare their enclosures independent territories under their own rule is laughable precisely because of the serious implications of such an occurrence.

For all the song and dance about humans sharing most of our genes with monkeys I am inclined to go with what is clearly more meaningful even if it also more enigmatic. Like most people I hear a meaning in music just as I recognise meaning in friendship and liberty. It may be hard to define exactly how humans are special, but this is no reason to ignore the value of humanity when it is plain for all to see.

Related posts:

• Robert George On Natural Law, God, and Human Dignity

In the case of a neighbour offering to look after a cat during a holiday, however, it would probably be normal to trust him or her. A community, and so society, is functioning when those living in close proximity can trust one other. Considering the concept of trust at a national level, there should be a relationship of trust between the populace and its government. The former ought to be able to trust its leaders, duly elected in most cases today, to make sensible decisions for them. They trust that they will be appropriately defended should another nation act aggressively towards them. They trust government to ensure maintenance of law and order, penalising those who transgress. In many nations the majority of the people trust that, were they to be unwell, the government would make available appropriate facilities to care for them. The State, in return, trusts that individuals will pay the appropriate dues and not take advantage of services rendered.

The Government needs to reciprocate more of the trust that it's citizens places in it.

The foregoing, of course, rather simplifies the relationship between the individual and the State, but it does so for a very specific purpose. The bond of trust between the individual and State described might at present, and unfortunately, be described as broken. Since the end of World War II the relationship between the State and the individual has changed. The State has taken a more involved role overseeing the welfare of the people, and the term ‘Welfare State’ is in frequent use. The populace gradually began to trust that the State would provide more than it had previously. It might be argued that the State has over time ceased to trust the people both as collective groups and as individuals. Legislation has had the unfortunate effect of hindering charitable groups in their work. Individuals have begun to assume that personal involvement in their community is both unnecessary and unwelcome.

The advent of the ‘Big Society’ concept provided, at least for some, a degree of hope that the relationship between the State and the individual might be repaired. In a speech delivered on 31 March 2010 David Cameron said the following: ‘Big Society – that’s not just words. It is a guiding philosophy – a society where the leading force for progress is social responsibility, not State control’. It was hoped that the State, while not assuming an omnicompetent responsibility, would trust individuals singularly and collectively to make the right decisions for themselves in their particular circumstances and and for their communities. Perhaps this has indeed happened in some degree. There are still, however, and manifestly, instances where this has not been properly followed through.

The writer heard recently of a charity that provides a residential rehabilitation centre for men challenged by drug and alcohol addiction being refused financial assistance by the government. The reason given was not that there was any lack of readily available funds, but rather that the centre was transparent about its Christian origins and purpose. It could not be trusted to take on individuals without attempting to ‘proselytise’. Unlike the example with which this article began the motives for offering to help are clear in this instance. The centre was established by Christians concerned about a problem prevalent within the community, and their desire to help was driven by their faith. That desire did not include a wish forcibly to convert, or to push their faith with those whom they helped. They wished, rather, to assist with their addictions those who approached them for help, with a view to reforming their behaviour and enabling them once again to take a full part in society. If an individual were to ‘find Christ’, that would be an added benefit. Many had been through the centre and were freed from addiction but without coming to profess a Christian faith.

This may be only one example, and it is certainly true that one example does not make for a rule, but it is not the only case in which the State has seemingly not been willing to reciprocate the trust of its citizens. It is indeed the case that the charity in question is operating unhindered. Its desire for funding arose from a wish to increase the number of those it can help. If the Big Society is to work as a policy, if a more adequate relationship between individuals and the State is to be established, more must be done to ensure that the State reciprocates the trust it receives.

Now, in 2012, it has become law in the United States of America that contraceptives, including abortifacients must be provided by public medical institutions whether or not they are in accordance with the ethical traditions or codes of the bodies in question.

So far, there has not been a single coherent case made for why a newly conceived baby in utero is not as fully human as you or I, or indeed President Obama. Whatever a person may have done in his or her life it still has a value equal to that of every other human being. Whether or not a person can make an articulate plea for life the right to that life is unaffected. In destroying a human embryo a human person is destroyed just as if this were effected on death row. On death row, leaving aside the question of the morality of the death penalty, the person concerned has at least been found guilty by due process of some dreadful crime deemed a capital offense. In the womb, however, the person can have done do such thing.

To require by law that a person or institution must provide such doses of a drug as would terminate pregnancy must, for anyone mindful of the preservation of human life, constitute a very grave violation of conscience.

Freedom, as with any good thing, very often calls for a fight. Complacency in matters of liberty, as in the case of any of the virtues, is in itself a vice. It is now painfully clear that freedom has still to be fought for in, of all places, the land of the free.

Related Posts:

• Lives Unworthy of Life
• Fifty Years Later: Considering the Legacy of JFK

In its place is advanced a new notion of ‘equality’, a kind of umbrella term that suggests that anything we can call good ought to be imputed equally to all, while anything standing in the way of this is at best negotiable. This is to be seen in, for example, debates about wealth and education, but also in those relating to marriage and gender. If marriage is ‘a good thing’, it ought, we are told, to be something that can be imputed to all. In states that have recognised same-sex marriage it need only be a short step to extend the argument in favour of ‘marriage equality’ to polyandrous relationships and other varieties of attachment that any large enough, and adequately vocal, group deems important or meaningful. Ultimately, in such societies, the notion of marriage may come to mean next to nothing. By contrast, ‘Gender’ must be handled very carefully, for it can by common-sense, undermine notions of total equality in procreational roles. There is increasing support in the media for movements advocating that we be ‘genderblind’ and ignore gender altogether regardless of the radical social change that this would entail.

The essential tenets of such movements seem to run as follows:

•  some humans are unhappy and, without a radical re-ordering of society, will remain so;

• others are already happy and will not be less happy if society be reordered on more measurably egalitarian lines.

In this there is clearly a commitment to equality, but it is one without any metaphysical foundation. In the absence of a rationally articulated claim for equality of value between men and women, and in the face of demonstrable and uncontroversial differences, strands of a self-styled progressive movement have engaged in a remaking of society, and of people at large, to create an equality that while measurable is also deeply unnatural. It is such a conception of gender equality that led the European Court of Justice to declare, last year, that insurance companies might not distinguish between men and women in spite of clearly demonstrable differences in the shape of male driving habits and female life expectancy.

Such a materialistic notion of equality is rational in that it is apparently consistent, but it is also consistently wrong. It lacks any understanding of a non-material yet rational part of humanity beyond an equality that we, by force of sentiment, impute to ‘all’ people – unless, of course, they are still in the womb or wish to hold traditional notions of family and society.

It is essential to preserve a rational account of human equality. A right understanding of the equal dignity of all people is a vital component of any civilisation. The chivalrous notion of ‘women and children first’ emerged out of just such an account. This recognises the intrinsic dignity of women and children in that they ought to be saved (as opposed to being considered second-class citizens), while acknowledging that men can, on average, survive better in tough conditions. Moreover, children are necessarily the future of any civilisation and ought to be afforded special care. Women have traditionally provided much of this care – and notably still do so today in a society where fathers are not given adequate incentives to remain faithful to the mothers of their children. In spite of fifty years of ‘progress’ single parenthood frequently means ‘single motherhood’.

We need equality of value, but we also need to be able to hold this value in the face of quite clear, if sometimes ‘difficult’, differences between members of society. It is unfortunate that metaphysical accounts of human nature appear increasingly neglected in public ethics, since it is just such accounts of human nature that are the most successful in accommodating the tension between demonstrable material inequalities, while ensuring a rational foundation for equal rights and universal human dignity. We cannot remake society in whichever way we choose. It is time that we looked a little more closely at who we really are. We did not make ourselves, but we can, up to a point at least, direct our futures.

Related Posts:

• Discrimination = Bigotry?
• Love, Life and Language

Photo Credit: Rvongher. No endorsement implied.

Cardinal Galen declared:

If the principle that man is entitled to kill his unproductive fellow-man is established and applied, then woe betide all of us when we become aged and infirm! If it is legitimate to kill unproductive members of the community, woe betide the disabled who have sacrificed their health or their limbs in the productive process! If unproductive men and women can be disposed of by violent means, woe betide our brave soldiers who return home with major disabilities as cripples, as invalids!

Naturally Cardinal Galen was not much appreciated by the Nazi authorities. He was fortunate that the heavily Catholic nature of Westphalia led them to deem it probably damaging to local morale to have him ‘removed’. His address seems to us worthy of reconsideration in view of recent intensification of debate about euthanasia in the UK following news that Lord Falconer was to review the matter (again).

Attribution: Bundesarchiv, Bild 152-04-28 / Friedrich Franz Bauer / CC-BY-SA

Fortunately, for the present at least, the vast majority of those who now arguing for euthanasia would not consider for one moment imposing any form of involuntary euthanasia. Their expressed concern is with the right of individuals to determine when they should die. As indicated last week, however, we do find fault with the idea that one should have the ‘right’ to end one’s own life.

Cardinal Galen long ago addressed the issue of ‘quality of life’ that is so often brought up in discussions on euthanasia. The notion is one necessarily subjective. One individual might view his or her life as lacking in quality if no longer able naturally to communicate with others. Another might deem life poor in quality if mobility were lost. There is no universally acceptable definition of what the possession of ‘quality’ entails, nor, therefore, can be generally agreed at what point a life ceases to have it. It is easy to envisage the point at which some majority agreed on the absence of ‘quality’ becoming that at which involuntary euthanasia might begin to occur, at least in the absence of an expressed wish to the contrary.

If euthanasia were legalised legal safe-guards would surely have to be put in place. A phrase as subjective as ‘quality of life’, were it included in legislation, might leave the law open to all-manner of judicial review and reframing. But, in any event, the apparently appropriate safeguards could not be guaranteed efficacy. An individual suffering from prolonged depression might argue that it was discriminatory to deem him non compos mentis. He might well feel that his mental state afforded him little ‘quality of life’. As such matters are now discussed almost always in the language of ‘rights’. It is therefore perfectly possible to conceive of the judiciary, in London or Strasbourg, considering it such a person’s human right to have the same access to euthanasia as other sufferers. In fact, not only would such legislation be lacking in moral quality, but also in legal quality. Good legislation cannot be redefined according to the sympathies of particular individuals or groups of individuals.

‘Quality of life’, indeed, is as subjective and objectionable a term as ‘unproductive members of society’. The use of such language leads to variable outcomes according to the beliefs and moral codes of those affected. Human life is of such importance that it is unacceptable to discuss its ending by means of subjective and ill-defined terminology.

Lord Justice Coleridge’s position affords him an unusually deep exposure to family breakdown. The immense pain and suffering endured by both the separating couple, and more particularly their children, he observes on a daily basis. He declared: ‘My focus is on the children. I am unashamedly advocating marriage as the gold standard for couples where children are involved. I desperately want to avoid a moral crusade.’ The stated aim of the new body is to take a ‘practical’ approach to the issue by using data taken from known and specially commissioned research to show the damage caused by divorce. This is intended to deter couples from proceeding to divorce. The Foundation will also propose marrying only when a relationship is stable, and having children only when married.

Jennie Bristow, writing on the Prospect magazine blog, takes issue with the Lord Justice’s desire to ‘avoid a moral crusade’. She cannot understand how it is possible to argue for marriage without reference to the moral nature of marriage. As marriage is more than a mere social contract between two individuals there is a need to argue for the moral good ensuing, brought about by marriage. The blog post concludes: ‘That means tempering lawyerly “practicalities” with a belief in the power of love and the virtue of commitment, and engaging in moral debates rather than instrumental exhortations to “recycle your rubbish, but be very slow to recycle your partner”.’

Lord Justice Coleridge’s initiative should be welcomed. Divorce, regardless of the numbers actually resorting to it, damages the fabric of society. The former husband and wife come out of divorce as damaged individuals. Often depression, loneliness or addiction appear in either or both. The loss of a stable family home has a deep effect not only upon the former couple but also upon their children, and perhaps even other family members. The Foundation’s desire to promote perseverance within marriage is welcome, but it is also good to find it promoting marriage as the natural place for childbirth.

Jennie Bristow does, however, have a valid point. If marriage is not merely a social contract, it cannot be adequately advocated only with data and ‘practicality’. It is a special bond developed between a man and a woman, a statement of a profound union of one with the other. The term ‘moral crusade’ is often used negatively by commentators who conjure up an image of nanny-like individuals haranguing and judging others. This is perhaps why Lord Justice Coleridge has explicitly disavowed any such approach. Raw facts and figures that prescind from a moral framework may indeed illuminate convincingly issues such as the social cost of family breakdown. However, this will ignore the proper meaning of morality, of principles of right and wrong. Surely we do need to define how and why a particular thing may be referred to as ‘good’ in the context of human society.  There is definitely need to argue for the moral as well as the practical in underpinning the foundation-stone of society.

While assisted suicide and euthanasia are often presented as distinct concepts we must always consider whether or not a human life qua life is a valuable thing. Any proposed legalisation of assisted suicide presupposes that certain people’s desire to die is more important than their lives. Such would represent a sea change in how we approach the morality of life and death.

Crucially, the notion of a person’s ‘quality of life’ remains largely subjective. That raises the question of whether or not a rational account of morality is being marginalised in our public discourse, even in a matter so important as that of human life.

Regrettably, attempts to preserve the Report’s neutrality appear rather half-hearted. That the chair of this commission, Lord Falconer, should be so active in efforts to legalise assisted suicide, and that the commission should have accepted money from so a public supporter of assisted suicide as Sir Terry Pratchett, constitute, we believe, cause for serious concern.

• Assisted Suicide and the End of Love

• A ‘Perfect Storm’ for Euthanasia

• After Euthanasia: Will Our Heroes Still Be Heroic?

• The Disease With a Human Face

With only four week’s worth of hindsight to guide us, there is still reason to think that either position, or indeed both of them, may be correct. Benedict Brogan, writing in the Telegraph, observed that Cameron gave the nation a moment of catharsis, which seems to sum things up better than most accounts. Even if the Prime Minister’s refusal to enter into negotiations for a treaty that would very likely harm the City of London ends up as no more than rhetorical posturing his move has allowed many Britons to breathe a sigh of relief, albeit mild. At the very least the truth of the British people’s most widely held view of the European Union has now been acknowledged.

The dust raised by Cameron’s withdrawal from European discussions on how to secure the future of the Eurozone has settled to pose an interesting question, one highlighted by Nick Clegg’s absence from the House of Commons when the Prime Minister was delivering his report. After his initial support for Cameron’s decision it seems the ideological force of the Liberal Democrat core convictions has asserted itself bringing Clegg to make yet another ‘hard decision’ and toe his own party’s line on European relations.

Will National Interests be Able to Survive in a European Federal Republic?

With all the doubts about what the veto meant and evident strains on the integrity of the coalition it is perhaps a good moment to reflect on what ‘governing in the national interest’ actually means. In a rapidly changing world the argument in favour of increased integration of EU nations has been the promise of peace and prosperity combined.

‘Together we are stronger’ is prima facie and broadly speaking true, but there is also here an implicit assertion that ‘national characters’ must take a back seat while the interests of the wider continent are put above patriotic concerns. Undoubtedly prosperity and peace are (as everywhere) in Britain’s national interest but it is sobering to think that, if and when the Euro crisis is solved, we move full-throttle towards European federation there may be no more nation states left in whose interest anyone might govern. It can hardly be said to be in the national interest for a state so to dilute its identity and capacity for self-government that it be reduced to little more than a regional administrative convenience. Regrettably, this may already be the future for Greece, and perhaps for Italy, too.

It would be a sad day if national prosperity and national identity became values mutually opposed to one other. Losing one’s cultural identity is in a way like losing part of one’s self. Indeed, as the Euro continues to struggle through successive difficulties the Euro-sceptic project is no longer seen as quite so rabid and ‘foam-flecked’ as Europhiles would have us believe. It would be nice to hope that national characters may yet play a role in future negotiations, and that we may all learn to accept that the Germans are not like the Greeks who in turn are not like the Irish who are not like the English.

Readers of a Europhile persuasion may sense an implied suggestion that Britain should be afforded special consideration as if our national identity were somehow more valuable than those of other countries. Nothing could be further from the point. Mutual co-operation is without doubt the best course for nation states to pursue, but the goal must never be absorption of many nation-states into one ‘super-state’ – however materially profitable this may be thought likely to be. Each and every country in Europe needs special consideration, and their peoples likewise. Without this any super-state will be the fantasy of bureaucrats and politicos, an abstraction from national identity in the name of an increasingly unaccountable and dubious ‘greater good’.

Related Posts:

• Common Cause on the European Union’s Flaws
• Is the Euro a Spear Pointed at the Heart of the European Union?

 I know there are some who will question why I am giving this speech. And if they happen to know that I’m setting out my views today in a former home of the current Archbishop of Canterbury and in front of many great theologians and church leaders they really will think I have entered the lions’ den.

(AP Photo/Matt Dunham) (Credit: AP)

His use of the expression ‘lions’ den’ is significant. Most of us will now be familiar with the ire that religion, ‘theologians and church leaders,’ as well as those generally who constitute the faithful of religion, draw from the media and other public figures alike. It would surely not be unfair to claim that Christianity generally receives a far harsher treatment at their hands than other faiths. Statements made by religious leaders on social and economic affairs are generally treated as either reactionary or of the woolly left, and thereby unworthy of serious attention.

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, provided the following comment on the speech when approached by the BBC.

Mr Cameron’s promotion of faith for other people when his own is so wishy-washy is typical of a politician who thinks religion is a useful means of social control. But you cannot force people to believe what they have reasoned to be untrue. Nor will they be convinced that religion is the only route to morality.

The Prime Minister certainly did confess that he does not have a faith as sure and certain as that held by many other Christians. He describes himself as ‘a committed – but I have to say vaguely practising – Church of England Christian’. If, however, Mr. Sanderson had read further into the speech he would not have found religion directly or indirectly trumpeted as a form of useful control. In fact he would have found Mr Cameron approving the plural reality of modern-day Britain, including those who could be described as ‘non-believers’.

It is tempting to respond to the statements of Mr. Sanderson et al. by bemoaning attitudes prevailing amongst policy-makers and commentators, with a focus upon their constant efforts to ignore, belittle or exclude the voices of faiths and faith leaders. It is also tempting to ‘fisk’ the Prime Minister’s speech and criticise his failure to argue in stronger terms for Christian involvement in the public sphere. It is, however, probably better –and better in keeping with the spirit of the season – to highlight positive points.

It is, indeed, refreshing to hear a senior politician not only acknowledge the immense contribution Christianity has made to the development of the nation and its beloved institutions, but also encourage maintenance of that contribution. The Most Rev. Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, gave a lecture at the Thomas More Institute earlier this month which spoke to Pope Benedict XVI’s words – uttered in Westminster Hall over  year ago now –, ‘Faith in God is not a problem to be solved, but a vital part of the national conversation’. If the Prime Minister was not present at the lecture it is comforting to know that he shares sentiments expressed at it. In his speech Mr. Cameron said:

To me, Christianity, faith, religion, the Church and the Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions. So I don’t think we should be shy or frightened of this.

In the coming year there will certainly be many issues of moral and political importance that the government will have to address: the effects of rising unemployment and homelessness; issues of social and moral disengagement such as were apparent in the August riots; and so on. The economic and budgetary situation means that even if the government so desired, it lacks the means to tackle the issues alone and ‘from on high’. The involvement of groups and organisations at other levels will have to be called upon for working out solutions. The Prime Minister’s speech suggests he at least is not averse to faith-based organisations contributing, or to the voices of religion being raised in public debates.

His stated support for that hearing to be given religious voices is very much to be welcomed. As Mr. Cameron himself notes, it is essential for the stability of society that there be voices capable of stating what is right and what is wrong. The values upon which Great Britain is founded come from the stable moral thinking of Christianity. Christian voices, alongside those of other faiths, must continue to make themselves heard in the public square so as to keep those values grounded. This Prime Minister seems to recognise that, and so, on a positive seasonal note, we wish him tidings of joy.

A row of Terraced Housing awiting demolition

Recently Channel Four television has launched a campaign to have empty residential properties returned to use, claiming that there are about one million of them vacant. It is claimed that there are about three hundred and fifty thousand that have not had residential occupancy for over six months. In London the estimated number of empty properties is 70,468, in Leeds 16,865 and in Birmingham 13,109. Concurrently it is often stated that there is a housing shortage, meaning that more homes must be built.

The aforementioned blog-post states, ‘The solution surely lies in highlighting and drawing public attention (with due means if making disapproval clear) to the responsibilities of property ownership’. Our focus was on private-sector ownership, whether by individuals or companies. The Channel Four campaign estimates that about 88% of unoccupied properties in the UK are privately owned, implying that the remaining 12% are in the hands of councils, public institutions and public-housing trusts. Councils and public-housing trusts own residential property not for commercial gain but for the public or Common Good, providing homes for those unable to secure them due to their financial circumstances. Just as in the case of private individuals and companies, these organisations tend to ensure that empty properties in their ownership are kept secure so as not to be occupied by squatters. That is a costly expense. Liverpool spends £1.28 million per annum securing empty properties.

A property awaiting funds for renovation following the departure of a tenant can be justifiably kept empty for a time. However, many empty properties owned by public and charitable bodies are in fact awaiting demolition. Housing of a better quality, or better corresponding to local needs, is generally intended to replace the empty properties. In the case of a street or housing estate it obviously takes time to empty properties, some residents being reluctant to leave. Often the responsible council or public body sets out to demolish and clear a residential area and only then does it seek funding to rebuild. It is also frequent that an area will be cleared without any guarantee in place that funds will be available for demolition and rebuilding. That means that a great many properties, in ownership ostensibly for the Common Good, are deliberately kept empty at great expense.

One response to this state of affairs is to argue that all residential property be in private ownership on the grounds that public ownership inevitably results in properties being utilised effectively. It could also be argued that private ownership might result in a greater sense of responsibility, both to the property itself and to the community around. It would follow, theoretically, that properties would then be unoccupied only if there were a glut in the market. Most people do tend to maintain and look after that which they privately own. Ownership of one’s home also provides a sense of stability and security, with a knock-on effect upon an individual’s feelings towards the local community. Such an argument, however, does not refer only to owner-occupiers. There are companies and individuals who own multiple homes and rent them out. If an estimated 88% of unused property is in private ownership, most if not the entirety of that percentage will be owned by such companies and individuals. An unrefined private ownership does not, therefore, resolve the problem.

Councils and public-housing trusts certainly do serve the Common Good through ownership of property with a view to provision of housing for those – families or individuals – unable to use the market. Many can cover a portion of the cost of maintaining a home. If not assisted they could provide only for unsuitable accommodation. A few at particular times cannot cover even such a proportion of costs on their own. In existing economic circumstances, therefore, a manifest need exists for public and charitable bodies to provide housing.

It can indeed be legitimately stated, as the Channel Four campaign does, that the situation is scandalous. Many bodies work against their very raison d’être rooted in the Common Good when entire streets and estates are deliberately kept vacant for long and undefined periods, particularly when no assured financial plan exists for replacement. The effect upon local communities, as well as upon families maintained in unsuitable accommodation, is entirely negative. That results in serious damage to the fabric of our society.  The scandal is enhanced when such bodies are in receipt of huge sums of public money targeted at assisting them in providing for the Common Good.

Photo Credit: Paul Glazzard.