Though voluntary conservation may be one wedge in an effective carbon-reduction pie, the other wedges will have to be morally boring, like a carbon tax and new energy technologies, or even taboo, like nuclear power and deliberate manipulation of the ocean and atmosphere. Our habit of moralizing problems, merging them with intuitions of purity and contamination, and resting content when we feel the right feelings, can get in the way of doing the right thing.
It's long, but Pinker is a good writer and the mix of biology, philosophy, and even a little game theory make it worth your time. Another excerpt:
The moral sense, we are learning, is as vulnerable to illusions as the other senses. It is apt to confuse morality per se with purity, status and conformity. It tends to reframe practical problems as moral crusades and thus see their solution in punitive aggression. It imposes taboos that make certain ideas indiscussible. And it has the nasty habit of always putting the self on the side of the angels.
1 comment:
This points to the reason two people can both be right at the same time. If the ethical system I base my beliefs off of is different than yours we can come to valid and true conclusions about the same thing though they are different. of course one of us is probably wrong but its nearly impossible to prove an ethical system right or wrong. In the end I'm happy to talk to someone who's thought out their positions and willing to change if they realize a mistake in their thinking or something in the larger picture they missed.
Post a Comment