Armstrong on Justice, Well-being and Natural Resources

This paper argues first that Armstrong is led to see natural resources primarily as objects of consumption. But many are better seen enjoyment, where one person’s access a resource need not prevent others from enjoying equal access, or production, granting control person may produce collateral benefits others. Second, Armstrong’s approach distribution, which requires everyone must have welfare, conceals an ambiguity whether this means opportunity for simply welfare – the underlying issue being how far individuals (or countries) should be held responsible use they make allocated. Third, when attacks arguments appeal ‘improvement’ basis claims resources, he treats them making comparative desert claims: if country A makes claim improved on its territory, it show their value accurately reflects productive deserts members compared those countries B. in fact, needs only much weaker done more than enhance resources. Overall, welfarist fails appreciate dynamic advantages allocating best able productively.