Posts
“I can remember when the air was clean and sex was dirty” (George F. Burns)
There's a lot of buzz these days about “sustainability” and being “eco friendly”. More than anything else, this is a trend. Sure, some people have been concerned about the planet for quite a while, but it's only been in the past few years that this has been popularized into a “green” movement. And while it's a trend that has, arguably, good effects I've got 2 reservations:
First, as far as I can tell, I ain't motivated to live a “sustainable” life.
I say this because I'm not sure going out of my way to make sure the world will be able to provide for humans longer than I'll be alive is in my best interest or, even, something I should care about altruistically. I mean, so long as the planet doesn't die before I do, everything's cool (for me). That is, I'm motivated to ensure that the world is capable of giving us (me included) what we need for however long I'm likely to live. After that, though, I don't think I care. And why should I? After that point I'll be dead and the condition of the world won't matter to me. (How could it – I can't care about anything if I'm dead... right??)
However – and this is important – if people I care about are going to live longer than I, then I should care about the longevity of the Earth. And if I should care about the longevity of the Earth, then I ought to act now in a way to ensure that those people that I care about will have a clean 'n' pretty lil' planet to live on.
Now be sure to recognize the antecedent of that first conditional statement: it focus on people I care about; not imaginary (i.e. non-existent) people and not people I don't know. Until there are people who I care about that are going to live longer than I, making sure the environment will last isn't a priority. While I care about lots of people – for instance friends and family – they are pretty much all of my generation or an older one; I don't got any kids and I ain't friends with anyone else's. And were all gonna die around the same time.
Those damn dirty idealists out there might have 3 objections here: That I should care about the planet because: (a) There might someday be people (e.g. kids) who I'll care about that'll need a healthy planet; (b) There are people outside my generation alive now that will need a healthy planet; and, (c) The planet is something we should just care about for it's own welfare. These are all stupid. Let's look at each of them in turn.
So what about the kids I might have some day? (Cries out the tree-huggin' hippy.) Nope, they don't count. I say this because it's non-sensical to talk about having obligations to people who don't exist or who you don't presently care about. To have obligations to someone you need to stand in the right kind of relation to them. And of all the possible right kinds of relations, I think, they all necessarily involve the target person(s) being tangible; like how you can't tie a rope to you and your pretend kid, you can't have obligations towards a pretend kid. So even if I intend to have kids someday, and I want my kids to have the best life possible, until they are actual moral patients I'm not motivated to change my actions to actions that will benefit them. Just because I suspect that there will be people I care about who will survive me, that's not reason enough to care about the environment today.
And sure, there are other people in my community or society who will out live me with a significant enough margin such that me living a green life would probably make a difference for their lives (and the lives of those they care about). But it just isn't the case that I have a default level of care or obligation to them that makes me obligated to live green just because we share a community or society or or earth or whatever. To require me to make a lifestyle change of that significance requires a much stronger kind of relationship.
I'll note that this does hinges on 1 other important claim: that the earth isn't itself a moral patient. While some hemp wearing jerkwad might wanna disagree with me on that, I think it's pretty obviously true. At the end of the day the environment is just a collection of non-sentient lifeforms. And that's not enough to qualify as a moral patient. It's no more than an instrument we use to survive. It seems that people get confused on that because we need to share it with everyone else. But those we share it with are the ones we might have obligations to; not the instrument itself. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.
5 comments:
Good post, I would go so far as to say your best so far. I agree, but would be interested to hear you explain the fact that the Green Party gets a lot of its support from younger voters (I could find some statistics but I don't think it's necessary).
Do you think it's because those voters are irrational? Or that the Green Party has other policy platforms (marijuana) which appeal to youth?
I would say that the Green Party agrees with your argument to a large degree, as evidenced by their 2008 election campaign with the whole "vote for you children" thing, clearly designed to appeal to those who care about people the worsening will affect. So why are young people still attracted to them?
Thanks, Will.
I speculate that the Green party gets so many votes for 2 reasons: (a) b/c younger voters are irrational or "stupid"; and, (b) b/c pretending to care for the environment has be come trendy or "cool".
Ya, in short, ppl who vote Green are irrational. They haven't given the issue enough critical thought to realize that that vote is against their own self-interest (that is, assuming they are enough like me so that what I said also holds true for them). At the end of the day, young people are just stupid.
More broadly though, caring about the planet is in vogue. So much so that ppl say they care when it's not much more than hot air (i.e. their actions don't reflect their "commitment"). If they say they care but don't take adequate steps, then they don't actually care. I mean, come on, soccer moms, suburban yuppies, and so many douches in between do *some* green-looking things cuz it's wot their neighbors and fav celebrities do. Often, the "eco friendly" actions they take aren't really eco friendly at all; they're just presenting themselves as being eco friendly (more on this in part 2). Voting for the Green party is one of these ineffectual actions -- if that's all you do to makes it look like you care, you don't really care.
We don't have obligations to future persons because we don't stand in the right kind of relation to them?
I would think a sufficiently morally relevant relation would be that our action could harm or benefit them, or violate a right. While you may scoff at future persons having rights (or simply throw an ad hominem at whoever holds such a position; worst blogging technique EVAR) merely because their identity is uncertain does not preclude moral obligation. To steal an example from Derek Parfit, it would be considered morally wrong to fire an arrow into a wood because there may be someone there I may harm; the fact that my actions may violate a right or cause harm is what is important, not the relation in which I stand with regards to them. This can easily be extended to future persons; the fact that they will exist and my actions may harm them is enough for an obligation.
Sorry, no sale.
While you *might* (read: I'm not entirely convinced but let's run with it for now) be right that a sufficiently morally relevant relation would be on where our actions would (rather than just could?) harm someone or violate a persons right, that's not applicable here. A necessary prerequisite to be the subject of a harm, or have a right that can be violated, is that you need to exist; if you don't exist you can't be harmed and you don't have rights. Full-stop. This is why we don't stand in the right kind of relation to currently non-existent future persons; and which is why we don't have moral obligations to them.
your confusion seems to hinge on where the focus is. By that I mean you seem to think it's about identity when it's not. Why it's not about identity, I hope, will be clear in light of my thoughts on the Parfit's counter-example you raised:
Parfit's counter-example fails insofar as the analogy between a person in the forest and a currently non-existent future person doesn't hold. Me shooting a fire arrow into a forest is wrong b/c the someone who may be in it exists -- and as such she has rights. In short, I shouldn't burn the forest because I have obligations to the person who may or may not be in the forest; I have obligations to her b/c I stand in the right kind of relation to her; I stand in the right kind of relation to her b/c she exists.
(As a last aside, at first glance my intuition is contra Parfit's (or yours) re: this counter-example. That is, I'm not sure I'm obligated to not shoot a fire arrow into a forest just b/c someone might be in there. But I'm not sure about it...)
While it may seem grossly counter-intuitive, I disagree that an agent must exist currently to be the subject of a harm or possess a right. If rights exist to protect interests, then the morally important fact should be that an action could harm such interests. If it is reasonably certain that an action will harm an interest, then there exists a duty to refrain from such an action. Existence of a specific agent at any given time or place is contingent to this duty insofar as it is reasonably certain a non-specified agent in whom the interest is instantiated could exist then or there.
Post a Comment