Harm to Opportunity

There is a notion that it is possibly to do harm to others by undertaking actions that obstruct their opportunity to act – that is, because you have done something, another person no longer has the opportunity to act in a way that he intended: your action has prevented his action. While this seems plausible, it is extremely tenuous.

It is reasonable to conclude that one action may prevent another, whether by means of physical obstruction or by altering the environment in a way that the prerequisites of the second action are no longer possible. For a solitary individual in an environment devoid of others, it is an objective fact that the choice to perform one action prevents the performance of others, even if the only prerequisite is the time required to perform the task. In a social setting, it becomes more problematic.

My sense is that the notion of property settles most of the disputes about obstruction of opportunity. One cannot rightly claim that another person has obstructed his action if he had not the material prerequisites to undertake that action. That is to say, the person must own the property necessary to the action, or have the permission of the owner to use it.

In the latter instance, where the owner of property has granted permission to multiple parties for the use of property (such as “public” property that the state proposes to be available to all citizens), such conflicts can arise, and it is generally accepted that the owner is responsible for resolving these conflicts by being more specific in the conditions of the permission granted other parties. In the context of politics, this is the basis of a considerable amount of law.

With this in mind, I am unable to conceive of an instance in which the notion of doing harm by obstructing another party could be said to exist where no property is involved. And so, if one considers harm to opportunity, it is most often a consequence of harm to property – though the logic seems to become circular when harm to property is grounded in the harm to opportunity. As such, I can conclude that the two are related, but the cause-and-effect nature of this relationship remains a bit muddled (specifically, in terms of which derives from the other).

Consequences: Opportunity Cost

The concept of opportunity cost has been implied, but not directly addressed, by previous posts. Specifically, the consequences of action may be situations that are caused by the action itself, but there is also the negation of other opportunities.

Using something for one purpose prevents its use for other purposes. Wood that is used to fuel a fire cannot be used to build a house - though when the situation is reversed, the wood used to build the house cannot be used to fuel a fire at that time, though the wood may be taken from the house and burned (but at some point, the amount of wood taken would cause the house to no longer exist).

When speaking in terms of commodities, the concept may seem a bit vague. Given a sufficient quantity of wood, some of it may be used to fuel a fire, and some of it may be used to build a house. And if the quantity is insufficient, one may seek out other wood to increase supply to satisfy both purposes. But at some level, "wood" becomes unique: a specific piece of wood can be used for only one of these purposes.

Sufficiency of supply is considered in terms of ethics, but it is also a concept that is of interest to economics: given the scarcity of supply, such that it is not possible for all who demand an item to have use of it, how is the determination made as to which party may use it.

This bears consideration, but not at the present time. For now, I will limit the consideration to a single individual, in possession of an item that will be consumed in undertaking an action, and who must consider that the consequences of his action include the unavailability of the item for other purposes.

Opportunity cost also applies to things that are not tangible - such as time. An individual who chooses to undertake a course of action that consumes time accepts, as part of that decision, that it will not be possible to spend his time doing other things.

In both senses, the decision of which course of action to pursue is to be assessed not merely by its direct outcomes, but by the elimination of other opportunities.