So there’s a ski resort in the mountains, with a bunch of condos - each with a fireplace. Owners stay at their condos one week per year. Wherever it is these people live the other 51 weeks of the year, they don’t build many fires. Some don’t have fireplaces at all. Let’s say that of the ones that do, they are aware of the environmental consequences of their use. They use them very occasionally, if at all. But when they go on their one week trip to the ski resort in the mountains, they build a fire in the fireplace of their condo every night for a week. After all, it’s their special one week vacation and it’s a treat. End result - every condo at the resort has a fire burning every night of the winter. As a result, the local air quality is poor. Lung diseases increase - asthma, cancer, etc.
There are obvious and typical ways of looking at this situation; namely, that culpability rests with the resort owners, and/or the local governing bodies. But what about the people who build the fires? Is it unreasonable for them to have some consciousness of what it is they are contributing to? Is it unreasonable for someone with lung cancer to blame them for their actions? Can the ability to recognize the consequences of one’s actions be developed in any other way than education combined with mindfulness?
This is just a hypothetical case, but I’m thinking of how the citizens of various countries relate to each other. Particularly as an American (U.S.), I often get the sense that the personality of the United States (the U.S. as seen from abroad) is quite different from the personality either of its citizens or of its leaders.
Maybe it’s a bit like the maps we’ve all seen of the election split. Blue states, red states. We’re supposedly a deeply divided country. But what if everyone in a blue state is a moderate who leans a little bit to the left, and everyone in a red state is a moderate who leans a little bit to the right? If that were the case, the country would be deeply divided, while its citizens are really quite similar.
You’re more than correct about that. Most people would agree with most moderate policies if asked the right way (without the left/right context clouding their perceptions of the question). Most people are generally decent people as well, but minor disagreements end with terrible perceptions of the state of morality.
It’s the tragedy of the commons. The blame is shared, and the lung cancer is seen as statistical, so the personal responsibility is small enough that you don’t psychologically feel it, and certainly small enough for cognitive dissonance to overrule/forcibly ignore it. Education (in the academic sense) can teach you the effects of your actions, but it can’t make you care about them.
It’s the problem with a two-party system - everything is polarised. The only way for one party to differentiate itself from the other is to hammer on the differences, make them life-and-death matters of the country’s future welfare.
On a related note, I saw a study showing the success of Fox News being inversely related to the success of the Republican party. The hypotheses being that a more vocal far-right media pushes the right-wing candidates to more extreme stances, which alienates the (much greater in number and much less vocal) moderates and pushes them to the only alternative. If identifying yourself as a Republican identifies you with Fox Media, goes the theory, you’d rather have nothing to do with either.
Agreed. The extreme left wants to protect you from living and the extreme right wants to punish you for living. The vast majority of peoples would prefer just being left the hell alone.
I keep hoping that more women continue to fill positions of power. The girls seem to be more pragmatic and much less followers of extreme ideologies. Women tend to keep the answers simple: “Eat your veggies or no dessert.” Given the opportunity, they neither smother you or spend all their time kicking your ass. It’s do what you have to do and get on with it. I’d like to see that gender perspective applied more in the policy decisions that govern us.
Yes, I think so. However, I think it is also the responsibility of the owners to educate the visitors on the consequences of their actions. I don’t think the visitors are being malicious so much as ignorant—and ignorant of their own ignorance, at that. Not in a purposely harmful or dismissive way, but they just don’t know any better.
I think it would be most reasonable to blame the practices of the owners/industry.
Thanks for the welcome responses everyone. O_H, I didn’t know there was a name for the hypothetical example I provided - thanks for that.
I guess one thing I’m wondering is if a group can have characteristics that none of its members have (to exaggerate a bit), can the group be held accountable for its actions - meaning, “groups” don’t suffer punishments - individuals do. Is there a way to punish a group while sparing its individual members?
I’m just exploring out loud. I realize I might look silly in the process. But you never know what kind of brilliant answer someone might come up with…