In my last post, I pointed to a blog by psychologist Paul Bloom in which he tried to make a psychologically supported case for indulging the simple pleasures of life more, and retraining less (an obviously version of his argument). And yet, I (and a few of the commentors) felt a little underwhelmed by his argument, even though we liked the general project. Before going onto my own response to his argument, I want to lay out a quick hypothetical, and get your thoughts.
Recent evidence on car purchasing from Haper’s Index shows the interesting fact that 1/3rd of all individuals who own a full hybrid Toyota Prius also own a gas guzzling SUV. Tyler Cowen calls this portfolio theory. Ryan Sager calls it moral self-regulation.
So here is the hypothetical. You have a friend at work who drives a Prius. Over the course of the year, you two have become quite close friends and you are especially drawn to his/her ecological responsibility.
One Saturday night, he invites you and your boy/girlfriend over for dinner. When you arrive at his house, you see parked next to his mini-Prius a 10 mpg Hummer H2. You are shocked that your ‘green auto’ friend also owns one of the least fuel-efficient cars on the market.
Over the course of drinks, he mentions one of four explanations for the combo of vehicles in his garage:
- “It is my spouse’s car, and I really don’t like how s/he owns it.”
- “We used to have 2 SUV’s, but are making an effort to be more green and replaced our other SUV last year. Our carbon footprint dropped so much!”
- “We really like both cars… so different, but they fit such different aspects of our personalities”
- “I am really into off-road riding and the Hummer is great for getting around in the trecherous driving up in the mountains.”
My question is, which of these things is most likely to quell your astonishment at this purchase? Would you, or would you not pass judgment regardless of their explanation? Is there something else s/he could say besides these? Does s/he need to say anything?
The Captured Perspective 
Every single couple I know that owns a Prius, also owns an SUV. Their reasoning for keeping the SUV is for the extra cargo room that a small Prius does not offer – whether it’s for hauling large items or carting multiple kids in carseats around. It makes sense to me, and like you said, it’s better than owning two SUVs, right?
Yeah, I would say that (4) or its variants based on the utility of a larger vehicle (if not necessarily a hummer) are persuasive. This is even more true if the smaller more fuel efficient vehicle is the one used for the long daily commute.
Part of me doesn’t want to answer this question since I probably pass enough judgment as it is, but since you asked…
Regardless of the other car, I probably wouldn’t be that impressed with the Prius purchase. Sure, it’s better than a Hummer, but it’s still a car that requires gas and doesn’t represent any real lifestyle changes on the part of the consumer.
For what it’s worth, I do know a couple in U. City (with two young kids) who about a year ago purchased a Prius and got rid of all their other vehicles. I’m not that impressed that their only car is a Prius, but I am impressed at the changes they’ve adopted to make it work (ie. taking turns walking/biking/public transport to get to work, etc.)
I would have to say that number 2 is the most persuasive. In the sense that they are making an effort (baby steps).
And no, neither of the options (3,4) that indicate a sense of pleasure for pleasure sake are compelling to me.
And finally, I have never met anyone who uses their Hummer for off-road riding. I know, I know…sweeping generalization. I am prepared for rebuke on any reader out there who has used a Hummer of off-road riding.
If I was half of the couple in question, I would feel alright only with justification 1. But I think anyone could certainly come up with situations to justify each of the numbers on the list…
If I am looking at others, their carbon footprints, their ethical decisions, well even if it isn’t how I realistically operate now (now I would probably judge hardcore on all of the justifications), the ideal would be to withhold judgment, as much as possible.
For ethical decisions that are not bound by law (and sometimes even then), I simply can’t see developing any system that could provide us the omniscience wherein we Could create a satisfyingly accurate/fitting judgment.
Ok…. so to sum up:
lindsey says a functional solution is appropriate
peter too says a functional solution works for him
Carrie seems to suggest that this approach isn’t going far enough (e.g. 1 car), and thus not that impressive.
Kate seems to argue that it is the movement towards a larger goal (1 car at a time) that works best
Tim only feels good about the car being someone elses, though would ideally like to withhold judgment across all conditions.
I think this suggests as a whole that we struggle with the right motives, and especially feel like there can be justifications following out behavior, which feel somewhat cheap. I am going to make an argument that ethical decisions come out of the narrative arch of one’s life, and that this makes it hard to make some all-knowing judgment on individuals (a la Tim), but that there still might be subjective movements in the right direction in so much as our life is constituted by certain ends which we strive for…
not sure if i can do it, but ill try 🙂
Brilliant post,Maybe I might sign up to your rss.