Ethical Oil: A Moral Misnomer

The argument outlined in Ezra Levant's book Ethical Oil demonstrates exactly the wrong way to think about managing resources in an open society.

Policy and media circles are all abuzz lately with the term “ethical oil,” largely due to Ezra Levant’s book of the same name. The book argues for a provocative thesis: that it is more ethical to buy oil produced in Canada – Alberta oilsands included – than from nations whose track record on such things as human rights, environmental responsibility, and wage-labour fairness is weak.

At a superficial level, the argument works. Maybe that’s what makes it so easy to float by newly christened environment ministers like Peter Kent – or even by Stephen Harper himself. But once we put Levant’s argument in relief against some fairly standard ideas of what it means to reason about ethics, it presents a working example of exactly the wrong way to think about managing resources in an open society.

Justifying an ethical argument requires that we do not make our premises depend on the conclusion. That’s called circular reasoning, and Levant appears to be fond of it. First, he presumes to argue from a liberal point of view, which at its ethical core implies something like: we can do what we like so long as we don’t harm others or ourselves and refrain from needlessly destroying resources. So, when you go to the pump, think about it. You need gas. It’s better to buy from sources that produce the least harm, so buying from Canada is the right thing to do.

But if resolving an ethical debate depends on avoiding circularity, Levant is off his game. He presumes precisely what is at issue by starting out with a stacked deck. His deck legitimizes the act of purchasing oil as a necessary option (notwithstanding liberalism’s own provisos of course). But it’s not necessary. It is contingent on a certain way of living, a liberal one. And it’s circular to presume liberalism in defence of a liberal view toward the problem of which oil to buy. All that Levant accomplishes is to say that "ethical oil" can solve a problem for liberalism. But this says nothing about potential ethical problems of liberalism itself. And some of these problems are exactly those that environmental philosophers argue are central to ethics and resource use.

The rejoinder, of course, is that even if it is not strictly necessary, we’re pie-in-the-sky idealists if we don’t acknowledge our dependence on oil. I agree. Further, Levant can say, we do have some impartial ways to support the broader liberal project. Here Levant invites us into a type of thought experiment. Imagine some scales of justice balanced by things like human rights, peace, wage-labour equity, or environmental protection. Any universal standard will do. Put Canada on one side and virtually any OPEC country on the other. Using these weights and measures, we’re the clear winner. So too bad if you don’t like the liberal way, we’ve got that covered.

But here Levant is asking us to chase our tails. In fact, I’d venture that this is exactly the wrong way to think about managing our resources in an open society. Why? To start, Levant’s thought experiment asks us to have a sort of container-view of the space in which ethical arguments take place. Canada is one container. We’ve got laws and institutions, rights over resources, all that good stuff. Nigeria, Venezuela, these are other containers. They have a set of practices that don’t weigh up to ours – at least not on the oil front. Yet this sort of reasoning should trouble us deeply. This is a kind of ethical foreclosure. You and I may very well ask: is this Canada-container the one we want? Why does Levant get to put the lid on it?