Everyday Ethics

     As an environmental, tree-hugging dirt worshipper, I am often baffled by people’s utter lack of concern for environmental issues.  It seems that most people are blissfully unaware that we require clean air, water, and soil in order to survive, and that we do a lot of stuff every day that makes these resources dirtier and less usable.  My own family is no exception, as I spent an evening several months ago listening to several of its members discuss the horribly bad air of California’s Central Valley.  They mentioned several relevant issues, such as geography and the fact that Highway 99 is a major shipping corridor, and then drove away in several excessively large vehicles to homes that contain an abundance of rooms disproportionate to the number of inhabitants. 

Further, as a case manager for Welfare to Work participants, my previous occupation, I was constantly working with individuals struggling to meet their most basic needs.  One morning, while preparing for my first client, I had a realization.  Maslow tells us a great deal about why many people are simply not concerned about their environment. 

For those unfamiliar with his work, Maslow is a psychologist who developed the theory that human needs exist in a hierarchy, and that higher level needs, such as meaningful activity and self-realization, cannot be meet until certain basic needs have been fulfilled.  This is important when we consider issues like global warming or natural resource depletion because there is a disconnect between our choices and actions that prevents us from realizing the true consequences of certain behaviors, and this is common to most higher level desires. 

Lower level needs, on the other hand, have a very strong connection between actions and consequences.  If I choose not to purchase and consume food, I feel hungry after a fairly short time.  The consequences follow from the choice almost immediately and I become aware that one thing stems from the other.  In the case of global warming, there is no readily recognizable consequence to purchasing an enormous car that I do not need, at least not on the level of our most basic needs.  Over time, this choice is detrimental and will lead to all manner of negative consequences that are far worse in terms of species survival than simply feeling a bit hungry.  But the time lag between cause and effect that follows from higher level needs makes it difficult to understand how my actions lead to such consequences. 

Perhaps an even bigger problem for advocates of environmental preservation is that the vast majority of humans on earth are struggling to meet their most basic needs, such as food and security.  Many people have nowhere to live or live in squalor with no guarantee of their personal safety from day to day.  Many more have no idea where their next meal will come from, or what they might have to do to get it.  Thus, we have to consider that meeting the basic needs of at least a certain percentage of people on earth is crucial to the environmental movement. 

Philanthropy and ecology would do well to partner up, not only in the interest of helping others, but also in the hope of preventing a pending environmental collapse.  As long as basic needs continue to go unmet, higher level concerns like the long-term survival of humanity are simply not open for discussion.  The most ethical choice may be to preserve and protect our ecosystem, but it is not rational to expect people to invert Maslow’s pyramid and place a priority on what is essentially a higher level need. 

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.