Monday, November 17, 2014
Positive Responsibilities
I was very interested in our discussion today on the Corporate Social Responsibility and the Common Good. I particularly enjoyed our discussion about positive versus negative responsibilities. Personally, I think it would be very difficult to promote a "positive responsibility" culture where we are tasked not just with doing or not doing various things outlined by law, but rather going beyond and doing those "good samaritan" things because we deem them ethically just. I wonder if we will ever experience a society which will not just applaud those praiseworthy actions (i.e. driving a fuel efficient car), but rather condemn us if we do not. If our concept of unethical actions was extended to include certain measures to promote sustainability, for example, perhaps we would live in a "greener" world. Do you think we can ever reach a point where people take on those positive responsibilities for the sake of living a more ethical life?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your question as to whether or not there will ever exist a society in which we are condemned for not being green is a very interesting topic. I think that the world that we live in today is actually somewhat close to such a society. There have been many environmental protests over the past few decades and greater awareness of our ecosystem has followed. I think that we are close to this society because I have actually be condemned for not doing eco-friendly actions. On several instances I have thrown away recyclable goods into the garbage and received dirty looks or questions as to why I did it. So in that regard we are close. But, I do not think that it is very plausible to think that we can reach a point when people take on these responsibilities just to be more ethical. I hold this position because being green usually requires more work and can be more expensive. In my opinion, unless the price and convenience of being green become more attractive, I think that people will generally pick the cheaper and easier route to life instead of the ethical one.
ReplyDeleteI agree what you are saying here Charlie. It seems reasonable to say that, until going green becomes more convenient, people will generally choose the less expensive, easier route. Nevertheless, I think that many people are trying their best to make more environmentally friendly decisions even if the costs are a little higher. As an environmental science major, I am surrounded by a lot of people that are interested in improving the way we live our lives in respect to the planet. Although it may not always be an easy task, I have learned that people are trying to do as much as they can to help the environment. Even if it is simply recycling a bottle, this small act is still significant. I think if people continue to try and make environmentally friendly decisions, whether they be big or small, more people will be inclined to do the same. Ultimately, we can only hope that people begin to make these decisions based on what they feel is best for the world we live on rather than what the easiest option would be.
DeleteI don’t think that the government should condemn its citizens for not abiding by certain environmental policies. I could imagine a society in which these types of laws could initiate psychological reactance, similar to what happens in America with the drinking age at 21. Citizens under 21 want to express their free will and rebel against this law as a means to do so despite the fact that it is legal. Perhaps a government that promotes certain environmental standards would best work. I envision this as very similar to the ones we have now, but maybe with more campaign efforts. For example, recycling is now considered a norm and someone is in the minority if he/she does not take this environmental action. The reason it became so popular is because it has tremendous support from officials, authority figures, and fellow citizens. People often feel their own self-worth decrease if they do not participate in this environmentally friendly behavior because they are no longer part of a large group contributing to a positive outcome. Instead of forcing environmental laws upon people, I think the environmental movement would gain more followers if we used persuasive tactics to inform citizens, as well as encourage them to contribute their efforts to a worthy cause.
ReplyDeleteI completely see Lexi's point regarding the government condemning citizens for acting in ways that go against the common good. I immediately jump to seeing signs on the side of a highway that expresses the fine one will receive for littering. Could we consider that to be a fine for going against the common good? Littering certainly has negative environmental effects. Larissa's point involving recycling is also a good example of this and I believe if the government did not promote recycling then people would not be so motivated to do such. Considering Michelle Obama promoting healthy living is not her condemning junk food, however it is the little things that can be said and promoted by higher officials in the USA that further pushes individuals to act more towards the common good. Can obesity damage the common good? I think so. When people develop diabetes they seek medical attention, when such individual cannot cover the medical costs they rely on the government agencies to do so. With a growing demand for medical coverage because of the higher increase of obesity in individuals more taxes must be collected by the average citizen to cover the costs. In working towards the common good here, one must be conscious of eating habits and physical activity in order to do what is best for oneself and society.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that you used the term "common good" in your response here, Jacqueline. I suppose this is what I was envisioning when I posed this question. I wonder if we can ever change our perception of the common good in this arena. Perhaps "condemnation" was too strong a term here, but I do wonder whether the common good when it comes to "living green" will ever be more black and white. I agree that these little actions by civilians and government officials are helping, but I still see such a grey area, and I think most of these comments support my claim.
DeleteI think it is too optimistic to think that we will reach a time when people will take on positive responsibilities simply because it is the right thing to do. In fact, I think that as time goes on, the likelihood of this occurring is actually decreasing. With more technology comes more pollution and while there are initiatives being done to reduce pollution, it will never be completely under control. In today's society, too many people are worried about themselves to even think about how their actions are effecting nature. As Lexi mentioned, I believe the only way to see a change is condemnation of certain bad acts. And it's unfortunate that the only way society cooperates is if we have no other choice. But while a brighter future is hopeful, it is not realistic.
ReplyDeleteI think it is nice to think that we are moving towards a more sustainable society, but it’ll be a while before it becomes a requirement. Think of the Industrial Revolution. People basically went crazy investing in companies which were big in this revolution and mass production and shipment of goods went wild. However, realize that no one really cared about the side effects. On the surface, it seemed like a great idea, but, we now know that atmospheric greenhouse gas levels increased substantially more than they should have as a result of these changes. All this says is that there is inherent risk with these big rewards. There is even great debate as to whether hybrid cars, like the ever-popular Toyota Prius, are better or even worse for the environment (shipping of batteries and production costs, etc.). The all-electric Tesla Model S even costs a crazy amount of money and powering this car with electricity can have secondary consequences.
ReplyDeleteThis might all seem like I’m arguing against technological and scientific innovation, but I think the bigger point here is that it makes sense to come to terms with the idea that “Hey, there is big risk inherent in reward-chasing,” and thinking that sustainability is first and foremost on the minds of technological innovators is asking a bit too much.
I think that the idea being presented would be great in an ideal setting but the practicality is the major issue at hand. First and foremost, people (especially Americans) will always resent being told what to do to some degree. People like to be "green" because they choose to and they realize that their actions are benefiting a "greater good". Once you make this type of policy required there will be a natural pushback against it for that very reason. If the government is the one requiring this behavior the pushback will be even greater because many people don't feel that the government has the right to tell them to do these things. Finally, even if the government were to impose some sort of repercussion for not being "green" the enforcement of these laws would be difficult and expensive which present an entirely separate set of obstacles. If we want a society that values good behavior such as being "green" we would have to promote and celebrate these ideals at the individual level to make people want to participate in this behavior on their own accord. It is highly unlikely that one would ever be able to get everyone on board. There will always be people who don't follow the rules or just don't care.
ReplyDelete