Elizabeth Kolbert at Williamstown College of Art 4/24

Kolbert read parts of her book, The Sixth Extinction, and opened up the floor for a very brief question session.   Someone asked, if she could recommend three steps to President Obama, what would they be?   Kolbert said, carbon tax, get rid of oil subsidies, and when pressed for a third, do not build the pipeline.   There was also of course a resilient member of the climate denial team present.  His comments are not worth repeating here as we have heard the ‘arguments’ many times already.  

Kolbert’s response was swift, and no doubt well-rehearsed, she said, “well, you and I are not going to solve that today”, fine, next question.   What was striking was the absence of students.   Though it was standing room only, my best estimate is that students accounted for roughly 2-5 percent of the audience.   At one point when Kolbert said that it was up to you the students.  The “you” which should have been a resounding call to arms resembled more of a whisper.

The most intriguing statement by Kolbert, for me, was “We don’t have any initiative.”  Then she began to suggest ways that the government might extend subsidies and add more tax breaks for solar panels and other green initiatives.   Her suggestion was that we did not have enough outside stimulation for internal motivation.  In other words, human action needs reward in the form of external benefits for any real positive gains. This is a key point as this represents extrinsic motivation and not intrinsic motivation.  

What I argue (like Naess and others) is that we do have intrinsic motivation in the form of our character; the person we want to be.   Success in this sense is not represented by material wealth but by spiritual wealth and genuine concern for the well-being of others and ourselves.  (By spiritual I am not referring to any of the new wave spiritualists that seek (selfishly in my view) the “I” or “One” at any costs.)  By spiritual wealth I mean the physical nature of human character. 

The question that comes to mind in this scenario is a practical one given the world as it is.

Is caring antithetical to capitalism?

 

Principle of Double Effect and Moral Indifference

The first of typically four principles in meeting the criteria for the Doctrine of Double Effect is 'The Nature of the Act' condition.  This states that the act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.   We may cause moral harm in the pursuit of a moral good, IFF our means of doing so are morally good.    This calls into question the intent of the action.   But what of our motives?   Are these such that we know with certainty our intent, or what is morally good in every situation?   What precisely does indifferent mean here?   What kind of attitudes do we adopt that might qualify as 'indifferent'?  In a Kantian sense this means removing our subjective selves from an objective aesthetic experience, yet in terms of moral concerns this seems lacking as it is precisely our moral subjective selves under consideration.  

Aquinas' in Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7) introduces the example of killing another person(s) as an unintended consequence as a justifiable means of self-defense.  But we sometimes understand our motives to be 'by whatever means necessary' in regards to protecting loved ones or ourselves.   And because of this deep seated intent or subconscious motive we may act in such a way that distorts what is morally good, or what is a moral harm.   Perhaps this is why Mill states that intent cannot be a factor as what we understand as being morally good may have questionable motives.   

The Doctrine (or principle) of Double Effect relies on the differences between intended and unintended consequences: under this criteria what is morally good in one context may be morally wrong in another. 

Are cases like Aquinas' example epiphenomenal in that new emergent phenomena arise in life or death scenarios - is this what we might understand as moral indifference?   

Is our current model of 'success' working?

One case scenario: Ought we to limit pay or create a maximum wage?  There is much talk about our minimum wage, not so much about maximum wage. Eg, Should we limit CEO pay (as some countries do) and going further do we limit the amount of money a person can earn?  Say we set a limit of 'ethical' capitalism (do these two terms fit together, they seem abrasive at first glance) at a generous 1 Billion.  Some will say this proposition in turn hinders individual initiative for great ideas or new technology; but, not when we consider that after a person earns his/her cutoff of 1 Billion they may display human ambition and ingenuity in other ways,  such as invention and creative work - (should Trump pick up a paintbrush?) all proceeds after that mark must be donated to legitimate charities.   Others may commit to genuine philanthropic work.   The Walton clan, and the other 1%  may respectfully disagree. 

Is an idea or invention everything?    The Hollywood adage says, "The Idea is King"; but there seems to be something missing here.  In reality many people make things happen or bring ideas to fruition - is it a healthy tendency to worship or idolize ideas?   

Does our inclination to secure workers or resources at minimum cost and maximize profits for a select few exploit people, animals, and the environment?  

Our psychological selves are entrenched in current modes of thinking and feeling (50); but we might extract something positive from this; consider that we invest our creative energies in things and ideas we believe in; and we also have the power to change things by re-examining our fundamental beliefs about how we live.

Is restructuring capitalistic attitudes a Utopian fiction?