Here’s a second guest case analysis from Vancouver, Washington HSEB coach Michael Andersen. Thanks so much for sharing, Michael! Great job once again, this time with some keen insights from the perspective of Virtue Ethics, and a nice quote from Ethics in a Nutshell (open source Ethics Bowl Edition available for all ethics bowl participants here on the Resources page) on Kantianism. And agreed that a good way to open a presentation on this case might be to concede its complexity — many moving parts.
Case #10 “Belief vs. Action” is one that we all can relate to, as we have all heard the saying “People should practice what they preach.” A widely-shared moral intuition is the expectation that our leaders–especially teachers charged with guiding young people into public life–should strive to be moral exemplars (or, at minimum, not hypocrites); and we see it as tarnishing their credibility when their actions consistently and significantly appear to contradict their message. But how demanding must we be of others and ourselves when, on principle, we advocate for more ethical lifestyles (in this case, that of living more sustainably)? Should only moral exemplars in this arena of life take on leadership roles?
Surely our democracy and society can make room for people in leadership positions who are less-than-perfect, whose lifestyles involve some degree of waste and occasional excess. Who among us isn’t habitually wasteful some of the time? More than likely, if our standards are too stringent, then we will attract very few qualified people into such positions. So, to frame our thinking on this case, a bit of practical reasoning helps us see that our assessments of those in positions of leadership or responsibility should (within reason) allow some wiggle room for personal shortcomings and imperfections–if only because we ourselves are imperfect and would similarly face harsh recriminations, should we fail to live up to public standards of whatever constitutes an ethical and sustainable lifestyle. We need qualified people in leadership roles, so together we have a vested interest in refraining from making such positions available only to those who are morally flawless.
When evaluating this concern, the virtues of authenticity (1) and integrity (2) rank high on many peoples’ lists, and adhering to our principles (no surprise) requires us to make sacrifices of convenience or comfort when the situation demands it (like when politicians who advocate for campaign finance reform have to disclose their own campaign contributions). When people in leadership roles, or more broadly in positions of responsibility, behave in ways that seem to run counter to their message or role, then they risk being judged, by others and themselves, as inauthentic and/or lacking integrity. When the contradiction between their stated beliefs and actions is particularly embarrassing or egregious, these are often grounds for dismissing them from the position or demoting their role in an institution, as well as facing a general loss of social status.
At the root of this contradiction-concern are some very powerful intuitions that our species has evolved to navigate our social relations with others, which help to form our shared ideas about the virtues of honesty (3) and trustworthiness (5) (or more specifically the vices of dishonesty and duplicitousness). These concepts are crucial for our shared moral life together, as Kant argued (and Matt Deaton summarized) with his categorical imperative about refraining from lying:
“For example, imagine a world in which people always lied when it was to their advantage. What would happen? Lots of things, but at root, if people always lied, the social convention of trust, which is based on the expectation that people generally tell the truth, would dissolve. This would mean no one would ever take anyone at their word, and therefore there would be no benefit to lying.” (Ethics in a Nutshell: An Intro for Ethics Bowlers, 3rd Edition, p. 27) (5)
When Kayla, the Environmental Ethics teacher in the case #10 description, worries that she “sometimes feels like a fraud,” you could also say that she presently feels “inauthentic,” “lacks integrity,” or is “dishonest” by maintaining a facade of an environmentalist that–she feels–conflicts with the reality of her family’s lifestyle. …It is worth noting in passing that Kayla’s moral character is developed enough that she is sensitive to this apparent contradiction, as she is (justifiably?) concerned what her students will think of her: “If students knew how she lives her daily life, they’d be shocked.” You might conclude that she deserves some reproach for finally deciding to accept the students’ invitation to serve as the adviser to the Environmental Club, despite her apparent contradiction of belief vs. action; but at least she deserves some credit for deliberating on the question in apparent good faith. A good analysis of her situation will take this into account.
Also worth noting here (very briefly, as it’s a complex idea) are the criticisms of Consequentialist Ethics by advocates of Duty Ethics or Care Ethics, who view as insufficient the former framework’s emphasis on consequences alone as the basis for moral judgement. If we were to assess Kayla’s final decision exclusively by the merits of its probable consequences, ignoring completely her inner dialogue about the complexities of her choice, we would be missing something vital about her character and her process of deliberation. For instance, the case description tells us that “Kayla also knows that refraining from eating meat and dairy is one of the most effective ways to reduce her negative impact on the Earth. But her husband and kids love these products, and it’s difficult for the family to cook two separate meals.” This implies that her choices about living sustainably affect, and are affected by, her relationships with her family members, and thereby constrain her autonomy somewhat–at least insofar as she can’t really disown or neglect her husband and children in her desire to align their lifestyle with her environmental principles. (While the case description doesn’t tell us, one wonders how hard she has tried to reasonably convince her family on this point, appealing to their shared responsibility to care for the Earth, and to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, given her public professional role.) In the end, you might find her behavior and judgment lacking; nevertheless, a fair analysis of her motives shows that she appears to feel genuinely conflicted and yearns to do good in the world, which is evident when she concludes that: “Advising the Environmental Club would enable her to do even more good and inspire many more students to advocate for environmental issues and make a difference. Disclosing how she actually lives feels more honest, but it might undermine her work, making people take her arguments less seriously.”
Furthermore, regarding matters of environmentally-friendly living, judgments about personal authenticity and integrity can be tricky, as observers making the judgments are not always partial to private information. Neither is genuine sustainability an easily-achievable standard to live up to. (6) Given that all of us are enmeshed in complex systems of economics and infrastructure (usually not of our own choosing), and that psychologically motivating people to change is fraught with potential pitfalls, is it realistic for Kayla to feel that she’s a fraud because her family’s lifestyle falls short of what her environmental principles demand? Should she actively pressure her family members to live more sustainably, even though this strategy might backfire, causing them to resent her or exacerbate their consumerism and wastefulness? Should she refuse the leadership role until her lifestyle lives up to her own standards? When exactly would that be, and under what specific conditions?
Assuming that Kayla lives in the United States, her options for more sustainable alternatives (like convenient mass transit) and her reliance on a built infrastructure for energy, transportation, food, water, and other necessities is likely to vary, depending on where she lives; but probably her personal ecological footprint will be heavier due to these broader conditions of her life as an American. (7) While some of these factors are within her personal control, some aren’t, and therefore our assessments about the degree that she should feel morally responsible for her lifestyle’s ecological footprint should take these factors into account.
On the other hand, compared to the small ecological footprints of billions of “poor” people in “developing” countries, and the hardships and sacrifices they live with, perhaps Kayla should feel more responsible to align her lifestyle with her principles. One of her core intuitions is that “Surely an essential part of being an environmentalist is living like one.” If this is the case, and billions of people already manage to live more simply, with smaller ecological footprints, then should the present circumstances of Kayla’s life–many of which are a product of her past and present choices–excuse her from the uncomfortable difficulties of aligning her beliefs and actions? Perhaps not, and she just needs to stop making excuses for not trying harder. Surely people currently living in “developed” countries (like, presumably, Kayla does) have a variety of options for learning about and pursuing more sustainable lifestyles–for instance, buying vegan options at the grocery store, purchasing carbon offsets, supporting renewable energy sources, reducing their consumption of wasteful products, etc. Kayla’s own specific awareness of the environmental costs of her family’s lifestyle reveals that (potentially, at least) she has access to educational resources and networks of people to support her transition to an environmentally-friendly lifestyle. (The case description notes that she has an “office” and that she works on “campus”; so it’s likely that she’s a college professor or at least a teacher in a relatively affluent secondary school.)
Perhaps most intriguing for this case, it is worth reflecting whether Kayla’s challenge is merely a personal one. Given the realities of climate change, the environmental degradation we see around us, the alarming loss of biodiversity, and the mountains of waste our society produces, perhaps Kayla’s challenge is our challenge. What do you think? What do the facts of Kayla’s situation (and ours) demand of her (and us)?
Finally, the second study question asks us to think about whether Kayla has a duty to tell her students about her environmentally irresponsible choices Should there be room for her not to disclose her personal shortcomings on privacy grounds? Would hiding such apparent contradictions between her lifestyle and her principles jeopardize her relationship with her students (and the Environmental Club’s reputation in general)? Deciding what should matter most here depends in part on your personal moral convictions, but also on the quality of the supporting reasons and evidence we ought to consider concerning Kayla’s circumstances and her underlying motivations. The supporting reasons and evidence relevant to Kayla’s condition, to our shared ecological challenges, to the long-term sustainability of our way of life, and to the future of our planet’s biosphere deserve your close examination. …Don’t be surprised if the wider context of this case feels dauntingly complex. Perhaps a good start for your team’s position on case #10 is to acknowledge some of this complexity before settling on an answer to Kayla’s dilemma that you judge is the most viable.
NOTES:
(1) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authenticity/
(2) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/integrity/
(3) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/#Virt
(4) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trust/#NatTruTru
(5) Ethics in a Nutshell: An Intro for Ethics Bowlers, 3rd Edition, p. 27 https://www.ethicsbowl.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Ethics-in-a-Nutshell-for-Ethics-Bowlers-3rd-Edition.pdf
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability(7) https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/