Illya Somin, over at The Volokh Conspiracy brings up a fascinating question: Is it ethical to benefit from policies you oppose?

Which of these cases are defensible and which are not? There is no easy answer, but let me suggest a helpful way of thinking about the problem.

Some policies are wrong in an absolute sense: every individual instance of the practice they promote is an evil. Even if no one else owned slaves, Thomas Jefferson’s owning some was a grave evil. In cases of this kind, it is indeed wrong to take advantage of practices that you oppose. Even if Jefferson lacked the political leverage necessary to get slavery abolished throughout the country, his failure to free his own slaves was a serious injustice in and of itself.

Some actions, however, are only wrong because of their aggregate effects. An individual instance of deducting state income taxes or burning oil does little if any harm. It is only the aggregate impact of these practices that does damage. Thus, no good would be achieved by my deciding to forego my income tax deduction. Only an across-the-board policy change would do any real good. The same goes for Al Gore and his contributions to the greenhouse effect. OK, maybe this is my way to get myself off the moral hook (even at the cost of doing the same for Al Gore). But I think that the argument is sound, even if self-serving.

To me, I feel that an “ideal” advocate of a policy would not take advantage of policies he or she opposed, within reason.  For instance, as I expressed in an earlier article, Al Gore’s extremely high home energy bill disappointed me and many other Al Gore fans out there (even though the cost was inflated because of secret service agents living there, buying from green power sources, etcetera).  Yet I don’t think that Gore is wrong to drive a car or to fly in a plane (the word on the street is that he’s flying coach now) to spread his message about climate change.  If he couldn’t travel, he would be ineffective.  Giving up travel to avoid being called a “hypocrite” would result in smaller personal carbon footprint, but probably a larger global carbon footprint.

Taking this one step closer to an environmental article: is it OK for environmentalists to pollute in order to spread a “green” message?  I would say yes, as long as they are polluting efficiently – creating the least possible pollution to achieve a reasonable goal.  Thus, I feel like it is hard to call an environmentalist a hypocrite for driving a car, flying on a plane, or doing other such tasks.

Please comment.

No tags