By Debra Chase
Does religious morality establish the only “real” responsibility for protecting the planet from the devastations of climate change or is there a sense that many people have grown to a level of “environmental” responsibility as a result of the dramatic climatic changes we have seen occur on the planet in the last 20 years? If the latter is the case, how lasting are the effects? Are they lifeless and therefore prone to extinction if the person does not readily see the effects of his/her daily acts on all of the lives around them? Concurrently, if religious morality is what establishes “real” responsibility then what of those that are non-believers? Is religious morality the only type of moral duty that “confronts us with conscious”? Does humanity really need some form of divine authority to regulate or decide between the good and bad choices humans make every minute of every day? These questions and more have come to mind as Pope Francis’s climate change Encyclical was leaked to the Italian press and then the world press on Monday June 15, and the full text is expected to be unveiled Thursday June 18 after a press conference.
According to the Vatican News the Pope states, “My appeal is, therefore, to responsibility, based on the task that God has given to man in creation: ‘to till and tend’ the ‘garden’ in which humanity has been placed (cf. Gen 2:15). I invite everyone to accept with open hearts this document, which places itself in the line of the Church’s social doctrine.” As reported in The Guardian and many other news sources, the leaked document translates into English a portion of the Pope’s text which goes on to state: “Humanity is called to take note of the need for changes in lifestyle and changes in methods of production and consumption to combat this warming, or at least the human causes that produce and accentuate it,” he wrote in the draft. He goes on to say, “Numerous scientific studies indicate that the greater part of the global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases … given off above all because of human activity.” “The attitudes that stand in the way of a solution, even among believers, range from negation of the problem, to indifference, to convenient resignation or blind faith in technical solutions.”
Pope Francis is not the only religious leader that has brought a call to action and personal responsibility to the battle of climate change. Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh in his 2014 essay, “Falling in Love with the Earth” reminds us all that “The bread in your hand is the body of the cosmos.” “There’s a revolution that needs to happen and it starts from inside each one of us. We need to wake up and fall in love with Earth. We’ve been homo sapiens for a long time. Now it’s time to become homo conscious. Our love and admiration for the Earth has the power to unite us and remove all boundaries, separation and discrimination. Centuries of individualism and competition have brought about tremendous destruction and alienation”
His Holiness The Dalai Lama writes: “Peace and survival of life on earth as we know it are threatened by human activities that lack a commitment to humanitarian values. Destruction of nature and natural resources results from ignorance, greed, and lack of respect for the earth’s living things. This lack of respect extends even to the earth’s human descendants, the future generations who will inherit a vastly degraded planet if world peace doesn’t become a reality and if destruction of the natural environment continues at the present rate.”
There are other religious groups too numerous to name here that have taken up the call to mitigate climate change from a sense of moral duty and we still have the problems we have. To live an unselfish life has many realms from a modern human perspective. What to eat; does one cut all animal products from the diet reducing the 18% greenhouse gas emissions that the animal industry puffs into the atmosphere? Is it possible to eat local all the time? What to drive: is it feasible for the automobile industry to switch entirely from gasoline-powered automobiles to all electric, or is riding mass transit an option? (You can bet the Tesla Company is challenging this in a good way). What about housing and business structures: is renewable energy an option?
For many in the western world, change in personal behavior and choice is possible. We must lead the way in this endeavor because we are the greatest consumer of the world’s natural resources. Others in poorer countries do not have the same options and neither do the many different species of life that depend on us to protect their environment. The less fortunate and less capable among us are more concerned with how to get clean water to drink, food to eat, healthcare and shelter, not whether they can water their lawn, get their nails done, drive the latest car or get the newest iPhone.
Will the Pope’s Encyclical cause a great upheaval in individual moral duty and personal responsibility? Perhaps it will. The greatest change most likely to be seen will be in the Church itself, if the Pope holds true to his words. The American people are smart enough though to make the right choices with or without divine leadership it just takes the right motivation. Living an unselfish life, being mindful of the effect your choices have on others takes some effort, but not much if you think about seriously. Having a healthy place to live today and for future generations is great motivation and always has been.
The late Ernest Callenbach, writer of the famous book Ecotopia, reminds us, “If you reflect on our change from thoughtless trash-tossing to virtually universal recycling, or from the past in which smokers didn’t hesitate to blow smoke in anybody’s face to our present restrictions on smoking in public places, it’s clear that shared ideas about acceptable or desirable behavior can change markedly. Such changes occurred without anybody getting arrested in the dark of night. Further changes will come.”
Debra Chase is a self-taught traditional chef with over three decades of professional experience. She currently resides in Colusa County on a small farm.
Apocalyptic Christians, including several recent presidential advisers and cabinet members, take a radically different moral stance. Universal recycling is more the result of economics than “morality.” In developing third world nations, how can a “Stewards of the Earth” attitude by the US appear anything but hypocritical?
;>)/
“how can a “Stewards of the Earth” attitude by the US appear anything but hypocritical?”
I could see it as aspirational. And if the US were seen to be steadily progressing towards this goal, it could potentially be seen as inspirational.
“I could see it as aspirational. And if the US were seen to be steadily progressing towards this goal, it could potentially be seen as inspirational.”
As viewed from one of the most comfortable spots in the first world, lol. It looks very different to the mostly young and hungry third world.
;>)/
Selfishness comes in many forms. But it is only that behavior that seeks personal gain resulting in net material harm to others that is selfish. To claim otherwise is, in fact, selfish.
Frankly: But it is only that behavior that seeks personal gain resulting in net material harm to others that is selfish.
Can’t disagree, but I don’t think you would find consistent or broad agreement on how to apply that statement.
Frankly:
Let’s run with this.
1. What if one is ignorant of how one’s personal gain results in material harm to others? Is one absolved of responsibility?
2. Must the material harm be “direct”, i.e. if my personal gain leads other people to extract something from a third party to enable my gain, am I absolved of responsibility?
3. Specifically, what if I am benefitting as part of a system that engages in materially harmful practices to provide me with a benefit? Because I am a small part of a larger “depersonalized” system, am I absolved of responsibility?
4. What about the “free rider” problem: i.e. if my personal gain comes because I am benefiting from the actions of others but I derive the benefit as a free rider, am I absolved of responsibility if others are harmed by the actions of the primary beneficiary?
4. How is net material harm calculated? Direct financial? Full economic costing?
There are also less readily-defined harms to “others” such as damage to the environment.
Good stuff. I was traveling on business the yesterday and did not have time to read and respond.
First and most important time. The term “material” is like the term “reasonable”. Both are relied upon in financial and legal considerations, and should be also key in ethical and moral consideration. Certainly there is going to be subjectivity and qualitative assessment to get to some point of agreement for what is material harm and what are reasonable impacts. Reasonable people will often disagree.
But contract law utilizes “material” and “reasonable” and these terms tend to hold up when challenged. They hold up based on measures of existing standards and routine valuations. Check out family law for examples of this. That is an area where parties’ strong emotional responses cause them to assess harm and value to extremes. The legal system attempts to level this tendency using assessment of “material” and “reasonable”.
On the question of ignorance – yes, I generally agree that true ignorance should absolve someone of responsibility for a single occurrence of harm. People should be able to make honest mistakes and learn from them. Though make that same mistake twice, and ignorance is not longer a justified salvation. A society that seeks to minimize material harm should seek to minimize ignorance. Our public education system foments a lot of ignorance, IMO.
In terms of direct versus indirect… I don’t think it matters except in consideration of ignorance. Sometimes the cause and effect are complicated and/or long-term. But if there are significant risks that can be determined, the complete assessment should be done to help account for all the potential harm before actions are taken. The end does not justify the means if the full impact of harm is not analyzed and reported truthfully.
These two points (ignorance and indirect) are interesting and important to me, because I think politicians and other change agents too often rely on obscurity and short-term promises to get their way… flying below the radar of comprehensive analysis and truth benefiting themselves or some at the greater long-term expense of harm for others or society as a whole.
Your point about being part of a larger system that engages in material harmful practices and it having a “depersonalizing” tendency. I don’t know why you think there is any connection. Why would any behavior be depersonalized? Why should we accept that any behavior is done in the absence of knowing the consequences? I think this takes us back to the ignorance point. Every action has consequences. If the action is taken, the consequences should be well-vetted and known. Previously unknown consequences that occur become part of the new knowledge set to prevent future mistakes in judgement. Organization and society as a whole should be a constantly learning and constantly improving system.
In Davis, if you demand no change, it has consequences that materially harm others. And change can also material harm others. I give no quarter to those that deny the material harm in advocacy for one or the other.
The “free rider” point again is one of ignorance. If you know that you are part of a subsystem or set of behaviors that is materially harmful, then you are not absolved of responsibility. I hold out extra special ire for those that I know are educated enough to know, but that remain in denial for the harm caused by their actions and positions.
A analogy…
If I invite a bunch of young kids to a park and just leave them to do what they want to do with no rules and no structure, I would eventually have some big problems and probably quite a bit of material harm.
If combat this risk with a lot of rules and rules enforcement, that too can cause material harm in a loss of individual freedom.
The optimum governance is one that better influences self-organization and balances individual freedom with a need for what I call “framework” rules… in a system that is much more dynamic and constantly improving and self-correcting. The kids need room to self-organize into activities that keep them positively occupied and focused and with limited risk of harm. They need a well-designed “big game”.
There are movements in the business world to adopt more dynamic and self-managing governance. For example, Zappos is in the process of implementing a “holocracy”… eliminating much of the book of rules and also eliminating layers of top-down control.
I believe that the reason the US (the Great Experiment) has been such a successful county is that we have had this well designed big game. That game is what we call democratic free-market capitalism.
Just like in a kid’s game, there will be winners and losers. There will be kids that compete at a high level and others that cannot. However, if the game is big enough, there should be positive roles for almost everyone. And there would be dynamic shifts that create new opportunities for the constant flow of new people coming to the game.
I see social justice crusaders working to eliminate the big game because they are unable to grasp the big picture of good, and instead focus on transactional and temporary struggles people have finding a place in the game and becoming accomplished at some role. They conflate standard human struggle with material harm. In other words, they are too quick and two narrow-focused in their assessment of material harm; and in remedy to make life easier for those that struggle, they reduce individual capacity and capability to learn how to cope and persevere in struggle… to win at the big game.
And so they cause significant and long-lasting material harm to the very people they believe they are helping.
When I play a game and win, you can certainly assess that I have caused material harm to the loser… or you can take a step back and appreciate the game and make it even bigger and more dynamic and help the loser better compete for the next round.
I agree with you that the perspectives are very different. I have done third world outreach and was an anthropology major, so I do have some insight into the validity of different points of view. Indeed if we were to continue on our current trajectory of conspicuous consumption valuing material success above all else, we would indeed be hypocrites. But I believe that we can and should embrace a different paradigm. I believe that we are so very wealthy that we could give up a great deal, live much more lightly on the earth, and still be entirely comfortable. We have not chosen this route. But we certainly could. I see the Pope’s message as shining light on this option as an alternative set of values to our current materialism.
I love America very much. I love this country not because of what it is at present, but for our potential. We have an unparalleled potential for leadership based not only on our wealth and power, but on our ingenuity and drive. We have the potential to lead. However, true leadership occurs by example rather than just telling others what to do.
Frankly
“But it is only that behavior that seeks personal gain resulting in net material harm to others that is selfish. “
I disagree strongly. I will give an example. Power is a valuable commodity. Domestic abusers frequently use emotional manipulation to enhance their own power. They may not beat their victims, or physically harm them in any way. They may not deprive them of material goods. But their control over the psyche of their victim can be as devastating as a physical blow or financial deprivation.
Verbal and/or psychological abuse is material harm if it exceeds a standard for acceptable behavior.
There are a great many wonderful changes in our country and in the world that started with the commitment of individuals. The Americans with Disabilities Act is one that changed the lives of the disabled and was a result of individuals taking responsibility and not leaving things up to local or federal governments. Slavery is another both here in this country and in others. Environmental protection: the endangered species act, the clean water act etc. They came about because average citizens demanded it. Great change can also be brought about concerning the dire situation of global warming today if the citizens of the US were to collectively demand the necessary changes. We are the ones that have our financial portfolios invested in fossil fuels and other companies that are not in line with protecting the planet. We are the ones that are pumping the gas into our cars and using animals for food and clothing and other products. We are the ones that are supporting the junk food manufactures by buying the products they sell. We are the ones that have had our personal responsibility and moral duty hijacked by our own naivete of how our actions are affecting our environment. The corporations and governments are responding to what we have said that we want. So this level of personal responsibility means that each person is capable of doing at least one thing that can help to make great change. Many US citizens can do more than one thing. I am reminded that today is the day that Susan B. Anthony, the prominent American suffragist was sentenced and fined for voting. Her reply to the judge that sentenced her? “May it please your honor, I shall never pay a dollar of your unjust penalty”. It is this kind of commitment from ordinary citizens that pushes any change required into a state of reality.
All of your comment is very nice, Debra. Yet the citizens of this country continue to elect people who, term after term, and through the decades have demonstrated, they are no friends of the people they represent. So why re-elect them?
Lots of these representatives get elected based on what they stand for, but do not let us know what the agenda really is. And instead of working from outside in, they think they can sneak something in once they have some buddies on the inside. What a shame. and what a shame they keep getting re-elected.
Debra
I think you make very good points. I particularly agree that the individual choices that we make are what drives the adverse environmental impacts. When thinking about the plethora of goods that we have I am often reminded of a line from the Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver. Briefly it involves a woman whose father was a missionary in Africa. She marries a native and has two sons. At one point, she and the boys travel to the US where for the first time her sons go into a very big box store. One of the boys looks in awe at the stacks and stacks of goods available and asks her “What is all that ? ”
Her automatic response was “rows and rows of things that no one needs.” I think this sums up very well, and in some ways very chillingly, our attitude towards material possessions which is too often one of entitlement rather than one of gratitude.
Yes! Climate Change is not only an environmental issue it is a profound social issue of which those of us in the west can readily mitigate.
debra
“which those of us in the west can readily mitigate.”
Agreed. And to a large degree, I believe that we are the only ones positioned to begin the process of mitigation. Some examples:
1) We cannot expect women who have no access to reliable contraception to lead the way in population control. However, we have the means to lessen our current near 50% rate of unintended pregnancy by improving education, expecting that our young people both male and female will act as responsible adults and to aide them, providing free, easily accessible long lasting highly reliable contraception and incentivizing them for every year in which they do not have an unplanned pregnancy. Once we improve our own rates, we would have the credibility to help other countries do the same.
2) We cannot expect people to choose healthful choices when we export our unhealthful, but cheap sodas and fast foods. This is the height of profiting by creating material harm to the health of others and yet these companies are richly rewarded for exporting their junk under the name of food. In this vein, we could choose to stop exporting death in the form of cigarettes by making it unprofitable to manufacture cigarettes and then sell them to the poor of other countries. We could promote the growing of food locally rather than growing markets for “food products” which is the goal of Mars.
3) Probably most importantly we could choose to buy, consume, use and discard less. Michelle Millet is a poster child for this in household practices. Rob and Nancy Davis are leaders in living a car free life. My next door neighbor is a master of home gardening and reuse of the discards of other people, not because he has to, but because he sees the value of self sufficiency and resourceful repurposing. All of these folks are far further along this path than I even though I am a minimalist in terms of material acquisition. They are my inspiration for how to improve. Yes, it would take a major mindset shift for the majority of Americans. But we have made such shifts in our priorities before and this is a real opportunity for leadership in a very worthy environmental and social cause and possibly could serve as a survival advantage for the people who will be directly threatened.
Yes Tia, I agree with you on this point. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Pope took on this topic and changed the Catholic Church’s teachings on contraception?
The Pope should stick with feeding his spiritual flock and stay away from economics and unproven science. Of coarse, if he wants to sell off Vatican art to feed the poor, go for it.
American “greed” has developed probably a substantial portion of the current medically necessary drugs and inventions the past 100 years, not Cuba, France, or Venezuela.
TBD: The Pope should stick with feeding his spiritual flock and stay away from economics and unproven science.
This is an interesting response from you. In the past you have taken a conservative embrace of religion in one’s life (see for example, this), and now you’re appealing for secular space on this issue. “Do as I say, not as I do”?
TBD obviously has no science training, whereas the Pope has a degree in chemistry. If you think he’s referencing “unproven science,” please document your assertion.
The Vatican needs to reconcile such statements on protecting the natural environment with their official ‘nyet’ position on birth control, as these two positions are becoming increasingly incompatable as world population continues to rise. We can decrease our consumption of material goods, but in the absence of birth control then within a few more generations population will increase to a level where most people will be reduced to poverty; with an overly-harvested and degraded environment unable to sufficiently provide for more and more teeming billions.
Yes, this would be the most important thing the Pope could do if he were really serious about improving life for future generations.
Our political leaders won’t lead. The Earth and Humanity are in real danger. The Pope takes his job seriously and HAD to take a stance. Whether religious or not, we all owe him a big “THANK YOU”.
As other posters have pointed out, the Pope has failed to address the issue of the Catholic Church’s outdated stance on birth control and family planning.
With or without the approval of the Pope, we are probably within 5 years of a real revolution in contraception, the availability of a long term, highly reliable, non hormonal contraceptive for men. Now if we have the wisdom to embrace this, educate and make it readily available we will have taken a huge step forward in addressing this problem.