• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Obligations to neighbours:

Are There Any?

by Simon Longstaff

Of all the topics likely to stir up lively debate in the bush, few cause people to boil over as quickly as the suggestion that restrictions should be imposed on the way farmers manage their own land. This deep-seated belief that a person's land is theirs to do with, as they like, lies at the core of disputes about many of today's most contentious issues in rural and regional Australia.

Should a person be free to clear as much of their land as they see fit? Should a person be free to use water, as they will? Should a person be free to grow or stock plants and animals that take their fancy? For a sizeable percentage of the population on the land, the answer to such questions will be obvious – ownership confers the right to do whatever you like with your possession. As a corollary of this, many subscribe to what can be considered an eleventh commandment; “Thou shalt not interfere with another person's land”.

Any appeal to the rights of ownership is likely to trace back to the old idea that 'an Englishman's home is his castle". The 'sovereignty of ownership' is a simple idea with intuitive appeal. Surely, there ought to be a limit to the ability of strangers (in general) and governments (in particular) to intrude on the privacy of individuals and families. Even more basic is the idea that a person's property should be theirs to use without interference from others. Much of the political theory of liberal democracy is based on ideas derived from John Locke. Locke placed special emphasis on the importance of respecting property rights – an idea that still resonates today.

Yet, despite the easy familiarity of such ideas, what are to make of them? More specifically, if property ownership confers rights, then what are the matching obligations owed to others affected by the way we make use of our property?

Consider the case of a friend of mine. His property is next to an orchardist who thinks it necessary to spray his growing crop of apples. The orchard extends to the boundary of my friend's property. Although generally supportive of the principles of organic farming, my friend is not a zealot. However, he generally prefers 'natural' remedies to those manufactured by industry. Given this, his clear preference is that the chemicals used in his neighbour's spray stay confined to the next-door property and that they not drift on to his own.

As noted above, many people wish to link the idea of freedom from interference by others with the full enjoyment of property rights. However, defenders of the right to liberty have always accepted that this basic right is limited to the extent that our actions are harmful to others. We see the application of this principle in much of our law. Generally speaking, our laws tell us what we may not do. This approach to legislation is supposed to leave us with the maximum degree of freedom. In most cases, if it's not proscribed, then we can do it.

However, there may be many areas of life that the law has never got around to considering. For example, the law may have nothing to say about the conditions under which a neighbour may spray his orchard. The fact that the law might be silent on a subject does not mean that we may do anything we like.

Ultimately, we must each take responsibility for our choices and actions – with the law offering a persuasive framework to which we must respond on our own account. Beyond the law, there are informal, ethical considerations that need to be taken into consideration. For example, we might ask ourselves basic ethical questions like: “How would I like it if this happened to me?” or “Are my actions likely to cause harm to another?” or “How would I feel if the thing I'm about to do were to appear on the front page of the newspaper and then be read by the people I most respect and admire?”.

If the answer to one or more of these questions would cause you concern, then this is an initial reason (at least) to think again. The point is a fairly obvious one – the simple fact that I own a piece of land does not override my ethical obligations to others. If anything, the responsibility of ownership brings ethical obligations into sharp focus.

Does this mean that the orchardist cannot spray his crop? Of course not. However, a responsible neighbour will warn others of what is intended and check to see if there are any concerns. Good neighbours will identify the risks and work out some reasonable risk-management strategies. For example, the orchardist may offer to spray early in the morning when the winds tend to be light. He might invite the neighbour to monitor the process and indicate if the level of control is adequate.

Adopting such measures will not necessarily solve every problem. For example, it's easy to imagine a situation in which a good neighbour does everything right only to find the wind comes up just when the spraying is almost complete – and when a small amount of chemical remains to be applied. The temptation to keep on working would be considerable. But is the convenience of finishing the job worth the cost of a good relationship with an immediate neighbour? And would a neighbour really object to the spraying continuing if the relationship was a good one based on mutual respect and consultation?

The issues are, at one level, pretty clear when they involve next-door neighbours. The problems become far more complex when those affected are far removed from the property. This goes to one of the oldest questions in ethics, “Who is my neighbour?”. Is it just the person down the road or river? Is it the person in town who operates the local post office? Is it the person in the city who worries about salinity on land they'll never set foot on? Is it anyone affected by my choices and actions?

The general trend in ethics has been to cast a pretty wide net when it comes to identifying our neighbours. To do so can be frustrating because the more people affected, the more complex the situation. Then again, thinking about ethics has never been simple.

discuss this article

---