@Mrs Macross, an interesting idea but you are using absolutes instead of a sliding scale. Petrol companies are going to be corrupt, the people who live in a country with oil are probably never going to see any of the money the oil produces and the environment is going to get ruined but instead of telling people to just stop using cars for recreation outright you could try and ask them to find better ways to continue doing what they're doing. i.e. (?) asking them to back legislation for the betterment of electric cars.
First, at what point did I ask anyone to do anything? I was pointing out what I consider to be an obvious ethical problem in the reasoning used above. Second, I did not say that fuel money would ever go to the PEOPLE of any country, but their corrupt and unstable governments certainly do profit from oil they export.
I don't believe we said it was not harmful. I believe we said it was not wasteful, so we were okay with it. Frankly, I cannot function in my daily life without handing over money that will go (eventually) to something I probably would not support. We all make compromises.
Sure, it can be harmful. However, I don't see how you can separate that from the other things you do. By shopping at the grocery store instead of a local farmer's market, you support the shipping of the food products you buy. That means you support the gas burned to bring you those goods, which is probably exported by those corrupt governments. To a certain extent, we need food to eat. However, there are a lot of things that we choose to eat that are unnecessary. Does this mean that it's wrong to buy sweets or gourmet foods at the grocery store?
Driving a car for fun, while it may have a link to oil consumption that is easier to point out, is by no means the only thing we do for fun that contributes to bad things. Sometimes you can get rid of bad things by not supporting them. However, a good bit of the oil they export is used for necessary things. In this case, oil is used so diversely that it is practically impossible to cut consumption enough to stop funding the corrupt governments. The change in those governments is going to have to come from somewhere else: the citizens, foreign political pressure, running out of oil, etc.
@Mrs Macross, an interesting idea but you are using absolutes instead of a sliding scale. Petrol companies are going to be corrupt, the people who live in a country with oil are probably never going to see any of the money the oil produces and the environment is going to get ruined but instead of telling people to just stop using cars for recreation outright you could try and ask them to find better ways to continue doing what they're doing. i.e. (?) asking them to back legislation for the betterment of electric cars.
First, at what point did I ask anyone to do anything? I was pointing out what I consider to be an obvious ethical problem in the reasoning used above. Second, I did not say that fuel money would ever go to the PEOPLE of any country, but their corrupt and unstable governments certainly do profit from oil they export.
The same argument that says driving a car for enjoyment is a waste can be made for almost every other enjoyable activity in which humans partake. Should we shut down all the movie theaters because of how much electricity they waste and how much trash they generate? Everyone should wear plain utilitarian clothes, and only replace them when they wear out, because of how polluting and horrible clothing factories are.
We can always strive to make our use of resources more efficient. We can make a clothing factory that makes more clothes faster with less wasting of material. We can make a movie theater projector that has a brighter, cheaper, bulb that lasts longer and uses less electricity. We can make a car that both goes faster and has better fuel economy.
However, if you want to start making judgements that say it's ok to expend resources enjoying movies, but not ok to spend resources enjoying driving cars, you need some sort of justification. You can't justify it based on your personal subjective preferences for entertainment. You can't make any sort of objective measurement of how much enjoyment is being derived either. You can somewhat objectively measure a quantity of resources consumed, but to make that work fairly, you would have to somehow come up with a ratio of resources to enjoyment derived. However, that relies on a ratio of an objective measure to a subjective measure, and is again unfair.
In a perfect world we would be able to calculate a resource expenditure to enjoyment ratio of any unnecessary human activities. We would them be able to fairly draw a line at some spot that fairly delineated what is considered wasteful and what is not. We would be able to say this activity uses X resources and only derives Y entertainment, so it's not allowed. This activity only costs X/10 resources, but derives 10*Y enjoyment, so it's allowed. Sadly, this is an impossible thing to measure because enjoyment and entertainment are entirely subjective. Who's to say that it's a waste to spend gas having fun driving but not a waste to use electricity for a huge arena rock concert? Who's to say it's a waste to use electricity on radio, but not television? There's no way to make this determination.
Because it is impossible to make a fair judgement, we are sadly only left with the two extreme options of either allowing all, or disallowing all, expenditures of resources for entertainment purposes. When given that false dichotomy of choices, I will opt for allowing before disallowing, as I think will most people who aren't the unibomber. Ideally a policy that draws the line somewhere in the middle would be optimal, but sucha policy is impossible to implement due to the subjective judgements required. At the very least we can say that an expenditure of resources for no reason whatsoever is wasteful.
I want to point out an argument that has been made and no one has addressed. It has been said that if someone enjoys an activity that makes unnecessary use of a limited resource over which wars have been waged, hands funds over to unstable and corrupt governments AND the use of this resource contributes to air pollution which (regardless of global warming issues) has a negative effect on the environment (acid rain) and on human health (major respiratory diseases), then it is not wasteful or harmful. Does the enjoyment of any number of people really validate harm?
Since this is clearly directed at me I'll respond by saying that I drive a SAAB, which is pretty much the cleanest burning cars on the road. Other than that, I agree with what Scott has said.
Wow. It wasn't directed at anyone. I am aware of the practicalities. I was taking this to an academic standpoint and highlighting that we had defined wasteful poorly and seemed to sweep possible moral issues under the rug.
I'm with Scott on the rebuttal of Mrs. MacRoss argument on waste. I don't want to live in a world where everyone drives the exact same vehicle or wears the exact same clothes because they have been found to be the most efficient way to use resources.
Seriously, it's all about moderation, about thinking about your decisions. Just like being thrifty rather than reckless with money is good for your pocketbook, being environmentally conscious is also good too. It helps everybody.
I was unaware that morality had anything to do with defining wasteful. Wasteful and wrong are two very different words.
Is it moral to waste, or to allow waste? Do we have any duty to be good stewards of our estates and of our environment for the benefit of our heirs?
Waste is sometimes subjective.
Take modern art for example. I consider it a waste to spend good money on what is nothing more than a pile of scrap metal welded into place. Same goes for paintings that look like a group of first graders tossed paint at the canvas.
Owning a Hummer and never taking it off road is a waste. Not a waste of fuel but a waste of a good vehicle. I'd feel the same way if you spent millions buying a prize race horse still in its prime and then used it for kiddie rides and birthday parties.
Owning a Hummer and never taking it off road is a waste.
If you mean a real Humvee, then I agree with you. But, if you mean an H2 or H3, then I submit that there is no possible excuse for the purchase of one save an inexcusable feebleness of the mind. They can't actually go off-road effectively. They offer nothing but waste and excess.
We can argue the merits of different cars and SUVs all day, and all sides can make valid points, but on the specific issue of the "hummer," I put forth that no intelligent being, of sound mind, would ever purchase one, and that endeavoring to do so in fact proves the contrary of their person.
If you mean a realHumvee, then I agree with you. But, if you mean an H2 or H3, then I submit that there is no possible excuse for the purchase of one save an inexcusable feebleness of the mind. Theycan'tactually go off-road effectively. They offer nothing but waste and excess.
Beat me to it. I was going to post it yesterday, but forgot. The real Humvee, the vehicle used by the military, is a monster with a million practical uses. The consumer Hummers, H2s, and H3s have none of the capabilities of an actual Humvee. They look like they can offroad, but they can't. If you want to go offroad and have a good time, nothing beats a good old Jeep.
If you want to go offroad and have a good time, nothing beats a good old Jeep.
My mom had a fully kitted Wrangler for years. Great fun, but still amazingly more practical and efficient than most of these faux-offroad vehicles people drive.
If you want to go offroad and have a good time, nothing beats a good old Jeep.
My mom had a fully kitted Wrangler for years. Great fun, but still amazingly more practical and efficient than most of these faux-offroad vehicles people drive.
16 mpg is a efficient??? Well I guess in the company it keeps. I'm thinking of pulling the 4.0L relic that powers mine and replacing it with a SAAB 2.3 turbo.
For a vehicle that can actually off-road, and is used primarily for such? Certainly. The Wrangler wasn't taken on the highway when it could be avoided, and it would be ludicrous to use one as a daily-use car.
Take modern art for example. I consider it a waste to spend good money on what is nothing more than a pile of scrap metal welded into place. Same goes for paintings that look like a group of first graders tossed paint at the canvas.
Do you have anything on your walls at home except wall paper? I think this has nothing to do with energy consumption. Maybe you'd consider it to be a waste of money, but I can't see how it is a waste of energy.
Not entirely true - they are just fine offroad, Up to a point. If you want to take them through some light offroading - For example, more than a sedan would handle, but less than an average Jeep, they'll do just fine. However, if you take them out on sand, or anything worse than your average pissweak yuppie-tank would be able to handle, you're stuffed.
Is gambling waste? How about buying lottery tickets?
Gambling and lotteries just redistribute resources, not waste them. The NY State lottery takes money from stupid people and gives it to schools. Idiots pay to make sure other people don't end up like them. Real casinos, while they don't usually use their money for things like education, do pay a lot of taxes, and they also create a lot of jobs. Gambling also provides entertainment.
Comments
Sure, it can be harmful. However, I don't see how you can separate that from the other things you do. By shopping at the grocery store instead of a local farmer's market, you support the shipping of the food products you buy. That means you support the gas burned to bring you those goods, which is probably exported by those corrupt governments. To a certain extent, we need food to eat. However, there are a lot of things that we choose to eat that are unnecessary. Does this mean that it's wrong to buy sweets or gourmet foods at the grocery store?
Driving a car for fun, while it may have a link to oil consumption that is easier to point out, is by no means the only thing we do for fun that contributes to bad things. Sometimes you can get rid of bad things by not supporting them. However, a good bit of the oil they export is used for necessary things. In this case, oil is used so diversely that it is practically impossible to cut consumption enough to stop funding the corrupt governments. The change in those governments is going to have to come from somewhere else: the citizens, foreign political pressure, running out of oil, etc.
We can always strive to make our use of resources more efficient. We can make a clothing factory that makes more clothes faster with less wasting of material. We can make a movie theater projector that has a brighter, cheaper, bulb that lasts longer and uses less electricity. We can make a car that both goes faster and has better fuel economy.
However, if you want to start making judgements that say it's ok to expend resources enjoying movies, but not ok to spend resources enjoying driving cars, you need some sort of justification. You can't justify it based on your personal subjective preferences for entertainment. You can't make any sort of objective measurement of how much enjoyment is being derived either. You can somewhat objectively measure a quantity of resources consumed, but to make that work fairly, you would have to somehow come up with a ratio of resources to enjoyment derived. However, that relies on a ratio of an objective measure to a subjective measure, and is again unfair.
In a perfect world we would be able to calculate a resource expenditure to enjoyment ratio of any unnecessary human activities. We would them be able to fairly draw a line at some spot that fairly delineated what is considered wasteful and what is not. We would be able to say this activity uses X resources and only derives Y entertainment, so it's not allowed. This activity only costs X/10 resources, but derives 10*Y enjoyment, so it's allowed. Sadly, this is an impossible thing to measure because enjoyment and entertainment are entirely subjective. Who's to say that it's a waste to spend gas having fun driving but not a waste to use electricity for a huge arena rock concert? Who's to say it's a waste to use electricity on radio, but not television? There's no way to make this determination.
Because it is impossible to make a fair judgement, we are sadly only left with the two extreme options of either allowing all, or disallowing all, expenditures of resources for entertainment purposes. When given that false dichotomy of choices, I will opt for allowing before disallowing, as I think will most people who aren't the unibomber. Ideally a policy that draws the line somewhere in the middle would be optimal, but sucha policy is impossible to implement due to the subjective judgements required. At the very least we can say that an expenditure of resources for no reason whatsoever is wasteful.
Still, it brought out some good points.
Take modern art for example. I consider it a waste to spend good money on what is nothing more than a pile of scrap metal welded into place. Same goes for paintings that look like a group of first graders tossed paint at the canvas.
Owning a Hummer and never taking it off road is a waste. Not a waste of fuel but a waste of a good vehicle. I'd feel the same way if you spent millions buying a prize race horse still in its prime and then used it for kiddie rides and birthday parties.
We can argue the merits of different cars and SUVs all day, and all sides can make valid points, but on the specific issue of the "hummer," I put forth that no intelligent being, of sound mind, would ever purchase one, and that endeavoring to do so in fact proves the contrary of their person.