Environmental Ethics

Milbrath believes that a good life is not simply aquired through prosperity, an idea that is commonly accepted by politicians, economists, advertisers, etc. He thinks that this notion is what has made our species sucessful but also what is causing terrible consequences for the planet. He argues that these consequences are due to overpopulation and drainage of our resources, and so we must redefine the good life so we do not destroy ourselves and Earth.

“Quality in living is not a thing; it is a feeling” (p.200). Milbrath wants us to stop defining a good life in monetary terms, but in quality. He says of quality in living that it is “experienced only by individuals and is necessarily subjective.”

He believes that persons who experience a high quality of life
1-have a persistent feeling of happinness with their life
2-have a sense of physical well-being
3-have a sense of satisfaction and achievement in life
4-greet each day with hope and excitement over every new day

Persons who experience a low quality of life
1-have a sense of despair, hopelessness, and fear
2-have a sense of having failed in life
3-have a sense of poor physical well-being
4-have a pervading sense of unhappinness

“It is easy to recognize that a decent life requires minimal provision of food, shelter, and clothing, and that society bears an obligation to provide at least that minimum” (p.201).
But what if this obligation conflicts with environmental policy? He uses the example of someone whose economic situation has been diminished in order to preserve some aspet of the ecosystem. He cites the loggers in the Pacific Northwest of the USA. Milbrath argues both the loggers and the owels who are becoming extinct because of the logging are important. However, logging is a privilege, not a basic right, and Milbrath suggests that priority should be given to the ecosystem in order to ensure a good life in the future.

In order to redefine the good life, Milbrath looked at the ways individuals reach a good life before such extreme material consumption existed. Really living would be getting back in touch with a way of life which is not centered around consumption.

Goods that are not Zero Sum
zero sum: economists call most goods exchanged in markets zero sum– because i have it, you can’t have it.
Milbrath argues “many of the most satisfying and fulfilling things in life are enhanced when shared,” so he lists goods which are shared and not zero sum:
1-Love: good for people and society. many people assume our affluent society has lost the meaning of love.
2-interpersonal relationships: socializing with family and friends; we should enjoy companionship
3-enjoyment of nature: this does not mean going to an overcrowded beach or natural park…that’s not fulfilling
4-nature protection and beautification: not only fulfilling but also necessary so we don’t run out of clean air, water, and soils
5-learning: deepens our understanding of of onesself and the world
6-creating, and appreciating literature, music, and art
7-play: for example, this does not mean going to sporting events, which is more a part of the entertainment industry. Games not only pass time pleasurably, but also nurture good health.
8-self-governance: everyone benefits when better laws are passed or when better community programs are undertaken

Milbrath also touches on
1-leisure: we should take time to enjoy personally fulfilling activities, but not at the expense of a “leisure industry” that encourages us to think that happinness must be bought with beach houses, boats, pedicures, massages, etc.
2-voluntary simplicity: Milbrath cites Duane Elgin’s book on voluntary simplicity. Elgin argues that people voluntarily choose a life of simplicity because it is richer than modern consuming lifestyles. This choice is deliberate and made consciously. “Self-reflexive consciousness” is an advanced awareness in which we are continuously and consciously ‘tasting’ our experience of ourselves.

He lists 4 reasons living more consciously is better:
1-we can see things as they really are and life will go smoothly
2-enables us to respond more quickly to subtle feedback that something is amiss
3-we are less bound by our habitual patterns of thought and behavior and so we have greater choice in how we will respond
4-it promotes an ecological orientation toward all of life
These qualities are essential to our further evolution and survival.

“Conscious simplicity is not self-denying but life-affirming.”
“Simplicity is not turning away from progress; it is crucial to progress” (p.204)

So in general, Milbrath is saying that we must redefine the goodlife, and this redefinition must be learned. If we do not learn this new good life, our actions will lead us to destruction.

In respect to Matthews, both philosophers seem to agree that consummerism and over consumption is quickly leading the world to its demise. Matthews would agree with Milbrath that we currently define progress in terms of growth in material consumption. They differ, however, in that Matthews would say yes, progress in terms of growth in material consumption is bad, so just stop and let things be as they are. Milbrath wants to redefine progress so that it means growth in terms of self discovery and satisfaction in life. Milbrath wants us to pass new legislation and create new community programs because these things give us fulfillment. He wants us to be proactive in preservation. Matthews discourages creation of new ideas, institutions, and physical things like apartment buildings.