written by Stephan Grabner
I think fuel prices should be raised to encourage people to use less of it, and to help offset the costs of climate change. Yet when I book a flight, I go for the cheapest one, and only once have I ever added the CO2-offset option. Have you ever noticed yourself acting in ways that seemed similarly contradictory? If you feel strongly about workers’ rights, does that make it weird to buy an iPhone?
I think fuel prices should be raised to encourage people to use less of it, and to help offset the costs of climate change. Yet when I book a flight, I go for the cheapest one, and only once have I ever added the CO2-offset option. Have you ever noticed yourself acting in ways that seemed similarly contradictory? If you feel strongly about workers’ rights, does that make it weird to buy an iPhone?
Most of us like to think that we are consistent in our values and how we act upon them. We care about human rights and act in ways that help to promote them, right? We care about the environment and generally do what we can to help protect it, or at least to minimize the damage we do. But we are also often inconsistent. For example, there are many people who think that the government should increase the tax rate so that more money is available for social welfare programs that help the least fortunate. But when it comes to doing taxes, nobody adds a little extra- we make use of all the deductions we can claim. We know everybody else does, so why would we be the suckers?
Many philosophers argue that we need to distinguish between our private and public rights and responsibilities. In our role as a citizens, we should work to advance the values we hold dear- though lobbying, activism, voting and so on. But as private individuals, we don’t have these obligations. A number of reasons could be given for this. For one, many issues just seem too large in scale for an individual’s action to have any real effect. What does it matter if I drive an SUV or a Prius? Climate change will happen either way. It may be noble to act in accordance with the values we think society should embrace, but it’s really of no use- and we certainly don’t have to do it (or so goes the argument).
Secondly, we may think that the resources we’d have to spend to act consistently could actually be used for greater good elsewhere. Do we have to sacrifice a great good for the sake of our moral integrity or purity? Climate change is a serious matter, but for a parent with a limited budget, sending the kids to a good school and providing them with healthy meals might seem more important than spending extra money on environmentally friendly products that may not even make a difference.
The issues I mentioned at the beginning of this blog post are collective action problems: I may want tighter regulations and higher taxes, but why would I take one for the team if everyone else think of themselves first? My action won’t have a tangible impact, and the only outcome will be that I’m worse off. Since most of us think this way, we maintain a status quo in which all of us a worse off. There are various solutions to collective action problems, and one of them is political action. If people pay the least possible amount of taxes to the government but think that everyone should pay more, the government should raise the tax rate.
Of course, such issues are often controversial. Many people don’t think taxes should be higher; some don’t think that climate change is real. Would it be right for the government to impose a “solution” to something many don’t even consider to be a problem?
We can also think of our individual actions as votes for the solutions we support. For example, if I am concerned about worker’s rights and buy only shirts produced under fair conditions, we can think of the dollars spent on fairly and safely produced shirts as votes cast for worker’s rights. But this raises many more questions- wouldn’t wealthy consumers have more votes than poor ones? Are acts of consumptions properly understood as attempts to promote a value or as expressions of preference? A further complication is that we can’t tell why a person performed an action just from our observation of the action. Is the purchase of a shirt a vote for fair treatment of workers, or for red shirts with peculiar collars? Those who make the distinction between public and private responsibilities might also believe that there are certain things that markets shouldn’t be allowed to regulate, either because it is not the most efficient way to do it, or not the right one.
Whatever you think about all this, it should be clear by now that our consumption decisions are inherently ethical. It might not be reasonable to try to be aware of all the implications of any and all decisions we make in the market, but being aware of the underlying tension is a good first step.
Many philosophers argue that we need to distinguish between our private and public rights and responsibilities. In our role as a citizens, we should work to advance the values we hold dear- though lobbying, activism, voting and so on. But as private individuals, we don’t have these obligations. A number of reasons could be given for this. For one, many issues just seem too large in scale for an individual’s action to have any real effect. What does it matter if I drive an SUV or a Prius? Climate change will happen either way. It may be noble to act in accordance with the values we think society should embrace, but it’s really of no use- and we certainly don’t have to do it (or so goes the argument).
Secondly, we may think that the resources we’d have to spend to act consistently could actually be used for greater good elsewhere. Do we have to sacrifice a great good for the sake of our moral integrity or purity? Climate change is a serious matter, but for a parent with a limited budget, sending the kids to a good school and providing them with healthy meals might seem more important than spending extra money on environmentally friendly products that may not even make a difference.
The issues I mentioned at the beginning of this blog post are collective action problems: I may want tighter regulations and higher taxes, but why would I take one for the team if everyone else think of themselves first? My action won’t have a tangible impact, and the only outcome will be that I’m worse off. Since most of us think this way, we maintain a status quo in which all of us a worse off. There are various solutions to collective action problems, and one of them is political action. If people pay the least possible amount of taxes to the government but think that everyone should pay more, the government should raise the tax rate.
Of course, such issues are often controversial. Many people don’t think taxes should be higher; some don’t think that climate change is real. Would it be right for the government to impose a “solution” to something many don’t even consider to be a problem?
We can also think of our individual actions as votes for the solutions we support. For example, if I am concerned about worker’s rights and buy only shirts produced under fair conditions, we can think of the dollars spent on fairly and safely produced shirts as votes cast for worker’s rights. But this raises many more questions- wouldn’t wealthy consumers have more votes than poor ones? Are acts of consumptions properly understood as attempts to promote a value or as expressions of preference? A further complication is that we can’t tell why a person performed an action just from our observation of the action. Is the purchase of a shirt a vote for fair treatment of workers, or for red shirts with peculiar collars? Those who make the distinction between public and private responsibilities might also believe that there are certain things that markets shouldn’t be allowed to regulate, either because it is not the most efficient way to do it, or not the right one.
Whatever you think about all this, it should be clear by now that our consumption decisions are inherently ethical. It might not be reasonable to try to be aware of all the implications of any and all decisions we make in the market, but being aware of the underlying tension is a good first step.