PK here
Steve said
"Nobody said making a decision is
costless." Very true.
The cost of making an ethical decision about consumption in a developed
economy may be the loss of indulging appetites for fashion, conveniemce and
in the case of food, tastiness.
The cost of making an ethical deicision in a country egaged in genocide
night be the loss of you own life. (the two cases might of course
co-exist).
The point being that the economic or political sytems in which we opperate
may change the costs of ethcal action but not the essence of what ethical
action is.
Some systems may make it easier for individuals to make ethical choices
about sustainability than others and my preference would enable
individuals to make choices of consumption in a democratic state, whose
goverment may be imperfect but which does have the mandate and authority
to curb excesses by regulating the free market.
Then, if rapacious destructive corporations (selling worthless goods) exist
it is because we give them our money and if immoral destructive
goverments exist it is because we give them our votes. Ultimately ethical
sustainability depends upon individuals choosing to whom they give their
permissions and resources.
If we do not believe that the population as a whole will ever be able to
make informed choices or that these choices will be sustainable then
sustainability might be achieved only through edict. On what ethical
authority would such imposition take place? (I am not ruling out, or
ruling in, this necessity but am interested in the ethical problem).
An important rider to the utopian ethical free market is of course that
governments are able to act free from self-interested corporate pressure.
My under -reserached opinion is that this seems to be becoming less
likely.
PS) As a former engineer I am part of a profession that is paid to make
choices of consumption on behalf of others. That is engineers specify what
shall be used in constructing an object or building for a client. In this
role it is possible to decide to use materials or methods that are "more
sustainable" than others. This may cost the client more but since he/she
is unlikely to understand what you are doing he/she may bear the
additional cost in ignorance and without complaint. While this may be to
the benefit of the wider society is this imposition of sustainable criteria
ethical or is it a betrayal of trust. (or both)?
Regards Paul K
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|