Mr Gore's Nobel: Like the wife-beater winning for Shelters

Great Debates
181

It’s not my logic that you don’t have to stop abusing your wife until everyone else does. It’s that if society is full of wife abusers, and we give the Nobel to a wife beater who also establishes shelters, it is an inappropriate award.

The wife-beater is not deserving of the award because his personal conduct is the opposite of his public stand.

Neither will there be a substantial public change in behaviour since the Nobel role model beater gives the berators permission to feel good about themselves in comparison.

182

I believe that was your argument earlier, but nevermind. I’ve demonstrated that it is a poor analogy.

If I say it would be good for everyone to exercise more, and I convince hundreds to do so even though I only exercise a little more, you wouldn’t say I’m underserving of an exercise-promotion award, would you?

I don’t understand this sentence. Can you rephrase?

183

I’m a little confused. Are you claiming that Gore has gotten us much closer to preventing future global warming?

So an award recipient’s personal conduct is irrelevant if it is “conditionally and indirectly wrong” but it’s relevant if the conduct is “intrinsically and directly wrong”?

184

Well, me and the Nobel Committee.

No. That is, however, *part *of why it’s not relevant.

185

What are the other parts? That the conduct can be physically compensated for; and that it falls on a spectrum?

That means yes?

186

Well, I would call that an inexhaustive list of the categorical moral differences between contributing to C02 emissions and beating one’s wife. I’m sure that together we could come up with more. Indeed, I think one might reasonably argue that CO2 emissions do not fall neatly into the world of moral oughts, but rather policy oughts.

Yes. Though I wasn’t very careful about the wording, I think Gore has brought us much further toward the goal of preventing massive climate change.

187

So an award recipient’s personal conduct is relevant UNLESS his personal wrongdoing is indirect and conditionally wrong; AND the misconduct can be physically compensated for; AND the misconduct falls on a spectrum AND a few other conditions that you could come up with if necessary.

Sorry, but it looks to me like you are proposing an ad hoc standard set up for the purpose of excusing Al Gore.

I disagree, but I suppose it’s a topic for another thread.

188

You’re confusing the creation of discrete conditions with a general description about why two things fall into separate moral categories. Do you understand why we don’t make it a crime to contribute to the release of C02? Do you understand why it isn’t criminal to not get enough exercise? Do you understand how there can be moral praise for giving to charity without moral condemnation for not giving to charity? If so, then you understand how there are different moral categories. If, as above, you want to place each into a well-defined logical niche, I encourage your effort and your eventual publication.

Moreover, as noted above, I’m not even sure morality is the right framework for discussing conservation. But if it is a moral question, it is of a wholly different kind that wife-beating.

189

You are the one who is confused. The issue is not whether Gore’s behavior is immoral. The issue is whether he is setting a bad example with his personal behavior.

As an example, there’s nothing immoral if the President of the Coca Cola Corporation decides to publicly purchase and consume Pepsi instead of Coke. However, that sort of behavior would and should get him into trouble with the board of directors.

Because if a person accepts the mantle of prominent leadership, his or her personal conduct should not be inconsistent with the principles of whatever institution or movement he or she is leading.

190

Well, I don’t think what Chief Pedant has said is consistent with your framing of the issue, but we can discuss your framing of it if you desire.

I don’t think his conduct is inconsistent with the principles of his movement, even if he hasn’t done everything he can to conserve. But for the sake of the hypothetical, I direct you to my previous analogy: If I say it would be good for everyone to exercise more, and I convince hundreds to do so even though I only exercise a little more, would you say I’m underserving of an exercise-promotion award?

191

If it actually comes to pass that Al Gore…hypocritical, self-righteous animatronic roboscold…actually has a significant impact, maybe even preventing an historical apocalypse that would make WWII look like a day at the beach…

I can probably find it in my heart to forgive these dastardly crimes…

192

I certainly hope the mixed message his behavior sends does not cause people do disregard his warnings.

193

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant:
“Neither will there be a substantial public change in behaviour since the Nobel role model beater gives the berators permission to feel good about themselves in comparison.”

I do not think there will be any real or substantial change in the personal behaviour of the world. There will be marches and “concerned citizen groups” and “awareness-raising” and crap like that, but basically each of us is going to live our lives comfortably because of a perception that a single individual is not able to make any real difference. Collectively, of course, that means that nothing will really change, brouhaha to the contrary. There will be nothing that even remotely comes close to lifestyle changes substantive enough to have any real effect by AGW standards, here or in the developing world. You are going to see groups who identify and analyze the crisis up the wazoo. You are not going to see much more than lip service from the broad masses.

Among the things that drives this psychology which makes us unwilling to sacrifice–really sacrifice–personal consumption for the public good is the perception that no-one is willing to really sacrifice, so why should we? Mr Gore’s supporters want to argue that because he recommends (and perhaps follows) personal reduction in CO2-related consumption, that is sufficient merit. I want to argue that the absolute individual consumption level creates an equally important standard (along with the standard of simply encouraging reduction/credits/etc). And Mr Gore’s absolute consumption level is egregiously high, solar panels or not. Moreover it has been ridiculously high for many years despite his self-admitted early awareness of the problem. If he can’t persuade himself to be inconvenienced, I just do not see how he is going to persuade anyone else. And the reason he will not persuade them is…Al Gore’s personal consumption level. I’d be delighted to give him a Nobel for living his own Inconvenient Truth even if no one else is persuaded, but if he is the poster child for why they are not persuaded, I have problems with that.

We will feel OK about not sacrificing our own consumption because there are so many others consuming so much more. Mr Gore’s high level of personal consumption ameliorates any guilt about our level.

Anyway…

This will be my last post on this topic b/c I think it’s time to let it go and I do not want to bump my own exhausted OP. Thanks all for the observations and comments.

**Number of posters persuaded to switch opinons: ** 0
Mr. Quixote has left the building.

194

Perhaps, it would depend on the particulars of the situation. How much is “more” and “a little more”? What exactly is the award for?

To expand a little on your analogy, let’s suppose that you write a weekly collumn encouraging people to exercise every day; to eat healthily; and so on. However, you yourself exercise rarely if ever; you eat poorly; and you are in lousy shape. If the president names you to be the national physical fitness guru, I would say you are a bad choice.

195

Quixote had three problems, Chief: he was an absolutist, he was Spanish, and he was nuts. Lets leave the last two aside for the moment, (oddly, rings a bell, kinda can’t put my finger on it, like crimson anger or pink pique…Yurpeen, definitely…oh, well…)

The first of many major hurdles is going to be sheer awareness, nothing more substantial that an idea spread by the monkey version of a computer virus, we talk to each other. We preach, we scold, we propagandize, we jump up and down and set our hair on fire, whatever it takes.

The progress on that front is both heartening and depressing, we have made great strides in awareness, and itsy-bitsy micronano baby steps towards practical solutions. Which is to be expected, won’t happen any other way. To get great minds focused on a problem, you gotta get their attention. And then you gotta get money. Lots of money. Megabucks. Godzillabucks.

Al Gore is a convenient focus, an acceptable spokesman, but he ain’t leading shit, and he knows it. (He has to report of Commissars Soros and Clinton, after all…) The award can best be interpreted in that light, as an encouragement to a movement, less than a man.

Keeping in mind that the award was divided, and there are many other recipients as well, should we review their bona fides? Well, all right, then, alphabetical order…

  1. Aardvaark, Anthony A.: American born climatologist, suspected of setting the office thermostat to uncomfortable levels…
196

Number of posts in thread: Almost 200
Number of views of thread: Over 4500
Number of posters persuaded to switch opinions: As always, unknown.

[quote]

That has not been the pattern when sacrifice for the common good has been required before or at present. Look at the changes that have taken place just during your own lifetime. They have come at a cost of great personal sacrifice and heroism. It goes on around us all the time. Firemen. Soldiers. Teachers. The Third Order Franciscan, Rescuers. Peacemakers. Demolition experts. The unexpected hero.

197

I (and millions of others) have changed my behavior, and not due (entirely) to any desire to save the earth. Anytime attitudes and industries change it creates great opportunity both for entreprenuers and investors. When a Whole Foods Market opened in my town in the late 90’s, and I saw what a grocery store could be, AND the packed parking lot all day long, I finally started putting my money on individual stocks. While the .com crash crushed a lot of people, I saw my investments double and double and double again. Whole Foods and United Natural Foods, Inc. both increased tenfold in about six years.

The same thing is going to happen in response to Global Warming. Alternative fuels and water management/consulting firms are exploding. Corporations, including ones like Exxon, are spending tons of money looking to develop new fuel sources.

People will change. You can ride the crest of the wave or wait until it crashes over you and you are forced to change.

198

I think they could have chosen better. There must be a few leaders in the environmental movement who “walk the walk.”

199

Here’s an idea: Cash out all your Whole Foods stock and put it into environmental stocks. Actually, buy options so that your gains will be magnified. Six years from now, you can gloat here about how you’re a millionaire because you could clearly see the trends that were taking place.

It’s easy money, right?

200

Most people are smart enough to realize that nobody’s perfect. They hear Gore’s message & see what they can do in their own lives.

I commute by mass transit. Do you?