For some reason, this doesn’t totally surprise me:
In an experiment, participants were randomly assigned to select items they wanted to buy in one of two online stores. One store sold predominantly green products, the other mostly conventional items. Then, in a supposedly unrelated game, all of the participants were allocated $6, to share as they saw fit with an anonymous (and unbeknownst to them, imaginary) recipient. Subjects who had chosen items from the green store coughed up less money, on average, than their counterparts. In a second experiment, participants were again assigned to shop in either a green or conventional store. Then they performed a computer task that involved earning small sums of cash. The setup offered the opportunity to cheat and steal with impunity. The eco-shoppers were more likely to do both.
I never fail to be simultaneously amused and disturbed by the hypocritical self righteousness of the same leftists who criticize Christians for the same thing. I also like the way they accuse businessmen, who actually create the wealth in this country, of “greed” while being themselves very generous only with other peoples’ money. Michael Moore is the canonical example of someone who claims to love humanity, but treats actual people like manure.
I think the “moral accounting” idea sounds appropriate. The idea is that you can’t do good deeds continuously, so you stop at a certain point when you think you’ve “done enough” for the period of time. That’s been my thinking at times.
But what bothers me is when “good deeds” are as useless as recycling your plastics (which is the example the author mentions at the end of the story). In that case, the subject feels like they’ve done something without actually doing useful work. If moral accounting is the mechanism at work, then it’s going to result in a real decline in good deeds simply because people feel they’ve done the appropriate good deed with whatever green makework has been demanded of them.
Exactly what I’ve been saying — the religion of environmentalism is just like the Pope and the selling of indulgences. The lefties need a nice Martin Luther and a reformation. 😛
Organic products. Every time someone starts harping to me, about how chemical fertilizers are bad and organic fertilizer is good, I feel like clobbering them in the head. Clearly they never lived in the countryside and smelled manure in their life. When I point them out that chemical fertilizer contains nitrogen, which plants extract from air anyway, they start blinking and get a blank expression.
There’s a little more needs adding to this statement.
.
.
“I just proved I’m a good person, so what I’m doing now must be okay”
.
.
It should really read,
.
.
I just proved I’m a good person by doing / saying / promoting / protesting / (add the ‘ING’ du lour here), so what I’m doing now must be okay, regardless of who or how many it affects negatively. I work for the masses, not individuals!! You need us / me / our organization.
.
.
That, in a nut shell, is what every liberal says when they tell non-liberals about themselves and their intent. It’s in many, many more words than that. And somehow, they are always in the top position(s) when the project gets going.
In their minds, the only day we are smart, is the day we vote them into office. The day after that, we’re ignorant again, and need their liberal guidance.
The bad part is, that many non-liberal elected officials are doing it too these days.
Before they leap to conclusions about “moral licensing” they need to run a set of trials where the altruistic act comes first, then the eco-shopping. They may simply have run into the fact that liberals tend to be stingier than conservatives:
Who Really Cares?
In Seattle, this is fairly typical. You can actually catch people admitting it, “Yeah, well, I (use the bus/bike to work/buy whole foods) so there’s no way I’m …”
Years ago I worked at a private (religious) school and was the main liaison with a computer technician who worked with us for awhile. We became chummy, and he revealed to me that all the technicians at his company had noticed that the management at the non-profit places were regularly much nastier people than the management at the for-profit businesses. I had noticed the same thing in years past when I had done temporary office work at a variety of non-profit and for-profit places.
Correlation does not necessarily entail causation, and if it does in this case it’s not clear which way the causation goes. But the Hollywood staple of the mean, nasty businessmen and the upstanding, idealistic not-for-profit people seems to have no relation to real life.
I think such behavior — the flagrant display of a supposedly higher moral behavior — is part of a continuing con game dishonest people pull on those around them. Dishonesty requires them to do it, in order to hide their modus operandi from the rest of us — and to identify potential marks…
There’s no information in this article regarding liberals or conservatives. Like the article says, “It would be foolish to draw conclusions about the real world from just one paper and from such an artificial scenario.” The research really addresses a common behavioral trait in human beings, that of “moral licensing”. In other words, “I already gave at the office.” I could definitely imagine folks including acts of environmentalism in their moral accounting, but that just makes them like anybody else.
And by the way, regarding plastic recycling, it’s a good idea if for no other reason than to make sure it doesn’t make its way out of a landfill and out to sea:
http://www.alternet.org/water/76056/
Here in Albuquerque, plastic is actually collected and properly recycled. During the winter I wear a little bit of it in the form of long underwear.
I think that many liberal-left people have mood instability, which is why they are liberal-left.
It is the old “obediance vs sacrifice” meme. As in, making sacrifices to make up for bad behavior, instead of just doing the right thing in the first place.
It reminds me of a study out of Europe a couple years ago showing people who recycled and participated in other ‘green’ behaviors the most also took the most vacations flying around europe, the pollution from which was worse than any they could have saved throughout the year. When it was pointed in followups the respondants didn’t think there was anything wrong because they sacrificed so much daily.
It would be interesting to see experiments with better controls, looking at a variety of “good” behaviors.
I haven’t noticed any real nastiness at the non profit I work at, nor relative to my old jobs, but they are socialist almost to a person. I don’t talk about politics there 😛
And by the way, regarding plastic recycling, it’s a good idea if for no other reason than to make sure it doesn’t make its way out of a landfill and out to sea:
Here in Albuquerque, plastic is actually collected and properly recycled. During the winter I wear a little bit of it in the form of long underwear.
Dumping in a landfill is proper recycling. While it’s relatively nice that Albuquerque doesn’t dump its plastic in the ocean, I imagine it didn’t do when it didn’t recycle plastic. And I think it’s hilarious that you admit to wearing a hairshirt.
Dumping in a landfill is proper recycling. While it’s relatively nice that Albuquerque doesn’t dump its plastic in the ocean, I imagine it didn’t do when it didn’t recycle plastic. And I think it’s hilarious that you admit to wearing a hairshirt.
Actually, I didn’t. But, yes, I am wearing a fleece undershirt composed of recycled plastic. My jacket is composed of the same stuff. In an old chilly house or out on a cool early morning when the wind chill brings the temperature down around 0F, they’re quite comfortable.
Tee hee hee, something to share with your frat friends.