American Consumerism and it's....Morality?

A cultural practice that seems morally problematic to me is overconsumption in the United States of America. By overconsumption, I mean buying too much stuff and using too much energy (electic, oil, natural gas). I shall defend why people in the United States of America do not see why their overconsumption is a problem, refering to Mary Midgley's Trying out one's New Sword, as well as Shafer-Landau's Ethical Subjectivism. I shall also refer to the general implications of subjectivism as well as my own philisophical thought process. The practice of overconsumption is normative to most United States Americans. However, the practice is immoral according to myself and my fellow social justice activists. It is immoral to us because we are knowledgable of the implications that overconsumption has on our environment, as well as on other people and species throughout the entire world.
This relates to cultural realativism in numerous ways. In defense of equal footing, we need to make moral progress. Once people learn about the implications of their abuse of the planet, they tend to realize that they are morally wrong and need to change their ways. People make moral progress, but it must be learned, since morals are instilled upon a person over time (according to the cultural realativism handout). This also can relate to arbitrary claims. Just because someone believes in something unconditionally does not mean that they are correct. Sincere belief, in my opinion, is not sufficient. Evidence must be presented. “Because I said so!” and “The stars are aligned that way” is not sufficient evidence. We have evidence that human consumption has negative implications on our planet as a whole. I am not accepting that fact based on nothing. I have sufficient reason.
In terms of infallibility, nobody, especially United States Americans, wants to admit that they are wrong or what they are doing is wrong. Everyone wants to be infallible; but in reality, nobody is. Therefor, people choose to be ignorant about the issue at hand (that their overconsumption is leading to the demeise of the world as we know it). The key part of the word ignorance is “ignore”. People ignore what is going on. It seems impossible to me to ignore the implications, but people still do. It's like people ignoring that there is no proof that God exists, but they still believe. Contradiction also applies here. Two people can disagree as to whether or not overconsumption leads to the demise of our planet. According to cultural realativism, that means that the claim is both true and false. This makes sense; the claim is true to me, but false to people who want to ignore the evidence and don't want to change their ways.
At first, I disagreed that there is no moral disagreement possible regarding this subject. However, I know that I feel this way because I sincerely believe my claim. While it is true that people are just reporthing their beliefs rather than disagreeing as to whether or not it is wrong to overconsume, there is research that supports the fact. Therefor, one person must be wrong. The question at hand is not a hypothesis; it's a non falsifiable fact. I can accept that people may think that it is not wrong to engage in an activity that exploits child labor or environmental degregation, but it is a proven fact that these things will lead to the demise of our society. And some people may think that the demise of our society is a good thing, thus nullifying my argument that there is no moral disagreement possible.
Normative subjectivism attempts to specify conditions under which an action is morally right or wrong. In this case, it would attempt to explore variables as to why overconsumption is moral or immoral. The following views regarding arguments regarding normative subjectivism are those of Shafer-Landau.
From the point of view of democracy, if everyone has an equal right to have and voice moral opinions, then everyone’s moral opinions are equally plausible. Basically, if everyone is able to speak their minds, everyone’s opinion is worth something to the argument. The democracy point of view also argues that everyone does have an equal right to voice moral opinions, which backs up the aforementioned statement. The result of this is that there are no objective ethical truths. We do not know what the ethical truth is regarding overconsumption; there is no right or wrong, from the point of view of democracy.
Disagreement argues that if there is persistent disagreement among informed, good-willed, open minded people about a subject matter, than there is no truth to the subject. I disagree with this because I feel that informed, good willed, open minded people would not be over consumers. Then again, there must be a disagreement in order for there to be no truth to the subject. If everyone agreed, there would be a truth; at least among those who agree. Therefore, there are no objective ethical truths. If everyone agreed, there would be no objection.
According to tolerance, if normative subjectivism is true, then no one’s deepest opinions are more plausible than anyone else’s. I agree with normative subjectivism; the conditions are observed to judge whether or not consumption is right or wrong. Therefore, I agree that tolerance is plausible. In the realm of tolerance, we can tolerate and respect everyone’s opinion as to whether or not overconsumption negatively affects the planet and its inhabitants. We must keep in mind, however, that the argument of tolerance risks being self-defeating. Tolerance is just a theory; a philosophical opinion. It is a falsifiable hypothesis. We also must take human nature into account; are people really going to respect and tolerate everyone else’s opinion? I sure don’t think so.
In addition to the argument that we may be unable to respect and tolerate everyone else’s opinion, Midgley wonders why we respect and tolerate other cultures; for instance, China and India are becoming very consumptive, and the United States of America is respecting and tolerating them as a developing nation. She argues that this may be because of moral isolationism. Moral isolationism argues that it makes no sense for us to critique what we don’t understand. I strongly disagree with this; I personally criticize China and India because I feel very passionate about overconsumption and have done quantitative research and data collection regarding the data; therefore I feel like I do understand, and I do have a right to critique.
While we are not members of the culture of India and China, we need to understand why they want to be like us. Why do they want to be westernized and consume so much and have so many cars? Is it because of our easy, glamorous lifestyle? Is it appealing? Do they realize that climate change and global crisis on account of consumption is not appealing? Do they realize that we are not acting in a moral fashion? (I ask these questions because when one judges, they must ask questions that rise from where we stand, we are comparing our culture to theirs, as you can tell by the kinds of questions I beg. It makes sense to ask these questions.) Because they do not fully understand our culture, maybe they are unable to judge! They do not judge us because they don’t have a right (according to Midgely). They don’t understand. We are strangers to them, and they think that we are strangers worth learning from. Rather than criticizing our actions, they learn from them.
Judgment involved forming an opinion and expressing it when called for. Moral isolationism does not allow for judgment, which once again is why I disagree with the theory. I think that if we can’t judge other cultures, we will be unable to judge our own (whether or not our practices are moral or immoral). If we do not judge, we have nothing to compare our own practices against; we lose a measurement tool. We have nothing to take as an example to aim for or avoid.
If we do succeed in understanding other cultures the way I feel that I have, we will be able to understand thier morals. We will know why they do what they do, the way I think that I know why China and India does what they do. Once we understand and have a moral truth to apply the overconsumption to, we will be able to judge them. Midgely argues that this would allow us to judge them favorably, but I disagree, because I feel that I understand, and I am not judging them favorably.
Real moral skepticism can only lead to inaction. We will loose interest in moral questions, most of which concern other societies. By this I mean that we will think that our issues don’t matter, because there is no moral truth as to whether or not we should be fighting to stop overconsumption. We will begin to think that the fight is not worth it, because what we are fighting may not be immoral.
One thing that Midgely did say that I agreed with immensely was her closing statement to Trying Out One’s New Sword. She says that “there is only one world and we all have to live in it”. A cultural practice that impedes the rights of others to live in our one world, our home that we all share, is morally problematic. We do it, other countries do not, and it negatively effects other countries. It gives them problems that they did not cause. The arguments presented by Midgely and Shafer-Landau opened my eyes as to why people over consume; they do not think that it is immoral at all; they rarely if ever think about the effects of swiping their credit card or not turning off the lights when they leave a room. The arguments also made me seriously ponder why I am an environmental activist. Am I wasting my time? I have no idea as to whether or not my activism is moral or immoral.

Stop Bitching and Take Action.

Kristen Henry, a reporter for The Little Rebellion, interviewed me on my fight against tuition hikes in Albany. I felt that it was blog worthy. Rock and Roll.


1) What exactly did you do to combat the tuition hike and budget cuts the state government made?
2) Why did you do it?
3) Did you use the school's web site supportnewpaltz to send letters at all?
4) Did you do anything separate from NYPIRG?
5) How did you feel when you realized that the 80/20 budget was passed?
6) Do you think there's still room for change? Should students remain involved?
7) How do you feel that the budget cuts are affecting our school so drastically?
8) Do you think that a good effort was made from the school and students to try to counteract the state's actions?
9) All in all, do you feel you made a difference, even if it was passed?
10) Anything else you want to add?


1)What did I do to combat the hike? First and most importantly, I educated myself. It's corny and elementary, but knowledge IS power! I learned everything I needed to know, from the laws, to why the hike was happening, to who voted what way, and so on. That way, when I had the opportunity to speak with legislators, I was informed. They weren't able to sugar coat things or give me empty answers. I knew the answers to what I was asking so that I could make it known that I was pissed off and I knew what I was talking about, and that I insisted they make change. The key is to corner them before they corner you. It really is a battle, but within the mind. You MUST be able to hold them accountable for what they are doing. You must remember that you have the power and not them. You voted for them. You hired them. Your taxes fill their paychecks. They must listen to you. Don't be intimidated. They should be intimidated! But don't go in there with that kind of attitude. You have to be sweet and nice and polite and professional. Start a revolution, but a quiet respectful one! Save the yelling for the streets.

3)I personally as a student used the school's website to send out some e mails. However, in addition to this, I sent many handwritten letters. This is because writing handwritten letters on looseleaf paper speaks volumes louder than simply clicking a mouse. They appreciate the effort. A friend of mine works as a legislative aid in Albany, and she told me this information. Here's what you need to remember. We are a democracy. It is the job of an elected official to vote in a way which their constituency wants them to. We must show them what their constituency wants. If we send 100 hand written letters, that is enough to sway the vote in a certain direction. That's all it takes! 100! And trust me, it works. After all, we passed the Bigger Better Bottle Bill =)

4)I dabbled in the Working Families Party's fair share tax reform campaign, but decided it wasn't for me. They use very strong language that may work for some people, but just wasn't my thing. Also, they are a political party, and I fancy myself to be non partisan. Other than that, most of my activities were guided by NYPIRG, but student lead, so lead by myself, and a few other students (Rachel Williams, Emily Lubicich, Emma Kershen). So while NYPIRG guided us and took us to lobby, everything we did on campus was pretty much our own thing...which is why I LOVE NYPIRG!!! We get guidance and we are mentored but it really is student run! Man did I feel empowered....

5)While the 80/20 budget was meant to appease us, it ANGERED me!!! I was angry because they were like, oh look you get 20 instead of 10! Your glass is half full!!! I was like, hell no, I know that we should be getting 100!!! Never say die. Don't settle. We are still fighting. NONE of our money should be going to fill that gap. I pay my tuition for my professors, my campus staff, my beautiful, beautiful campus! I do not pay that tuition to fix potholes or keep nonviolent criminals in jail or fund elementary schools. That's what my family's OTHER taxes are for.

6)As I just stated above, there is ABSOLUTLEY still room for change!!!! Students should remain involved! There should not be a lull. Then they'll think that we've settled and they'll screw us over more. We have NOT settled. The millionaires who are not getting taxed aren't taking a break to protect their money. We can't take a break either.

7)Well, did you get that e mail sent out the other day by Poskanser about how it's effecting SUNY New Paltz? That's part of my answer. In addition to that, people who can't afford the hike are going to have to drop out. We are going to loose our culture. We are going to loose our identity. We are going to loose our diversity. Because you know who CAN afford those tuition hikes? Rich upper class white people. And that sucks. Everyone deserves an education. Sorry to be blunt.

8)Students need to learn to stop bitching and start a revolution. Many students don't care because their parents pay their way. Some student's parents CAN afford to pay their way. Many students don't even know what's going on because they don't watch the news or check their e mail. They aren't involved in the going-ons of the world. They simply exist. Class, dorm room, maybe a party later. It's a problem. They don't realize how hard they are being slammed, effected, pillaged! In terms of the students, it's always the “usual suspects” combating things. NYPIRG, Working Families Party, and Ben Olsen. Maybe some other little people here and there that I don't know about. But students, this is our fight and our future. Get with it. The school will not exist without the students. But if the students show that they don't care, why should Albany care? I do NOT think that the students made a good effort. But the school most definitely did. Poskanser said himself that he does not like to get involved in politics, and he did. He sent out that e mail. Professors are angry and telling students that they should be taking action. Administrators went to Albany to meet with elected officials the week before I went. The school definitely put forth a good effort, which shocked me. I was very happy about it, and I hope they continue this effort.

9)Honestly? I always feel like I can do so much more. I feel like I haven't done enough. I constantly feel like I am failing. But in the end it makes me work harder. I have to remember that every victory, no matter how small, is my victory, the student's victory. At least I'm trying to do something. I definitely made a difference; I gave the students a voice in Albany.

I'd say that was pretty sufficient. I don't think I have much else to add. I hope that this article empowers students to get off their asses and do something. Tell them to join NYPIRG. SUB 431. We're friendly people. Our chapter meetings are Wednesdays at 3 but we're in the office all the time. Become empowered and make change...and new friends =)

Love,

Maria Davila
Student.

NYPIRG Passes the New York State Returnable Beverage Container Act of 2009!!!

This is the official E Mail NYPIRG sent all of us:

It is with great pleasure that we announce the successful passage of the Bigger Better Bottle Bill. NYPIRG has been spearheading the effort to expand New York's bottle bill since 2002 and today the public interest has finally triumphed over special interest money and their attempts to suppress this tremendous environmental initiative.

Specifically, this legislation will expand the nickel deposit system to include water bottles, which account for nearly 1/4 of the beverage market, or about 3.2 billion containers per year. This will also generate about $115,000,000.00 annually in funding that can now be put back to work for the public instead of becoming a windfall profit for the beverage companies, as well as increasing handling fees and other incentives that will boost recycling efforts across the State.

This is how I responded:

WOOO HOOOO!!!!!!! All that hard work has paid off! Baby, we're rock stars!!!!

Oh, and I went to NYPIRG's student empowerment conference last weekend. It was amazing!