Green morality? It's a steal

Martin Adamson

Not a new discovery, there's even a phrase for it, the justified sinner.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Private-Memoirs-Confessions-Justified-Classics/dp/0199555028/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268738851&sr=8-2

Glen Green

Very interesting, and similar to another thought provoking study I once read. It stated that people usually give to charities for purely selfish reasons; it makes "you" feel good.
The human psyche is an odd thing.

cmp

'people who wear what they call the ‘halo of green consumerism’ are less likely to be kind to others'

Y'know I've noticed this about Socialists.

Jon_Boy

The whole green movement has come about due to the mysterious need for human beings to have a feeling of moral superiority.

In the western world where traditional religious values and morals have been completely jettisoned a new moral superiority system has been invented.

How else would all our celebrities be able to claim a moral high ground in their conspicuous world of sex drugs and excess consumption.

Through lip service to green issues and so called human rights issues of the moment.

Unfortuntaely most of them are as hpocritical as their earlier ancestors who would moralise from the pullpits when in fact they themselves were leading completely imoral lives.

Many of the contemporary movers and shakers in this movement who aren't celebrities have all so often trodden the same path of student marxist activities in their youth shrilling at others on how they should live their lives and how and what they should think to a comfotable and privileged middle age of shrilling about green issues.

The craziest thing is that I do believe that we are probably dangerously damaging and destroying the environment.

However I am also fully aware that the green movement is simply a bunch of privileged people who have no genuine intention of actually making sacrafices themselves and will just expect people like me and the third world to bear the brunt of all the sacrafices they deem necessary.

I can picture it now me sitting in my cold house with no internet and not allowed to drive whilst all the green activists will be out there driving up and down the motorways because they have made exemptions for themselves like they are disabled, their work is considered vital etc and that they must have internet at home in order to continue their work.If anyone doubts this is how it would be then you are deluding yourselves.

ragdie gadgie

I cant say I'm suprised by the findings. Observation of such types in the field, as it were, quickly shows such people to be visceral haters of their own society. This gives them the right to be immoral thieves. In their view 2 wrongs do make a right.

Roger Thornhill

what cmp says.

Appears to me more like correlation and not causation. The "green purchases" not causing a "halo" that "permits" the stealing. It might be, as others indicate, that the green mentality (in some cases barking mad irrational enforced collectivist wibble) is just one tip of the same thieving iceberg.

Watt Tyler

So we have noticed that there has been an attempt to set Greenism up as the new religion and the new code of morality. It fits in with the Marxist/Freudian idea of self-satisfaction at the expense of self-responsibility.

Judeo-Christianity, which the Marxists planned to replace, teaches self-sacrifice and self-responsibility, - that which can be considered real morality.

It is easy to see how Greenism fits in with a plot to subvert. Camerons conservatives should be analysed in this respect.

Oflife

Whilst I tend to agree with most of M's comments on this here blog, on this, I disagree. I do agree that there are those that exploit green issues, but that should not be reason to label the rest of those of us who are sincere in our approach.

mary

Did they do any research into whether there is a certain type of person who is most likely to espouse a "green" life?People who already feel that they are worth saving and who are quite scared for their own skins?They would also be fairly well off(look at the price of Ecover) and acquisitive and so already selfish before their green conversion.Why on earth would there be any correlation between someone's natural instinct to survive and their honesty or kindness?

Dixon

I have been observing this dissonance in people for decades. Well, cant we all see how it is ultimately manifest in a totalitarian form in "idealist" societies such as the USSR? Dont most of us know individuals who are wrapped up in the cloth of altruism and dont give a damn about the people around them? As I have mentioned before, it is a trait associated with idealist intellectuals. A great book on it is "Intelectuals" by Paul Johnson.

However, its something else entirely to see it established as an axiomatic aspect of human behaviour in a controlled experiment. Brilliant! Proves us right all along.

Observing this altruism/ratbag dissonance is one of the factors that lead me to the fundamental position I have often expressed on these forums: that concern for the well-being of abstract "others" ( eg, environmentalism ) is always at the cost of real people in ones immediate community. That "morality" tends to foster the former over the latter and that the only humanly valid ethics is to concentrate squarely upon the needs of ones own community, family, self...ones own "tribe".

Dixon

"Oflife
March 16th, 2010 1:02pm
Whilst I tend to agree with most of M's comments on this here blog, on this, I disagree. I do agree that there are those that exploit green issues, but that should not be reason to label the rest of those of us who are sincere in our approach."

Hang on... greenies are forever barking about their version of "science". Now THIS is science. By their criteria, the statement "I disagree" is absurd. Theres nothing to agree or disagree with? You can critique the science and find fault with it, but you cannot just dismiss the person who reports it with "I disagree".

BTW, Psychology ( of the experimental variety ) is a real science, unlike "climate science".

Kevinc

The same phenomenon can be seen daily in London, where "right-on" cyclists routinely storm through red lights, zebra crossings and mount pavements, usually with a smug, holier-than-thou smirk on their faces. Their thought process (if it can be called that) obviously goes: I am a Guardian reader, I ride a bike, therefore I am morally above the common herd and can do as I choose. The sheer hypocrisy and irrationality of their position never seems to occur to them, and when challenged, like global warmers, they are very experienced at justifying their actions - with what else but a foul-mouthed tirade of personal abuse.

Jane

Indeed.

This is perhaps the first study to focus on green issues, but the phenomenon is far from new.

All those Brits who were signed up to the ideas of Stalin thought that the ends justified the means. Dead bodies? Who cares?

Many people who have sympathy for that kind of thinking have been in government for the last decade.

That mindset has not changed for people such as Bob Ainsworth et al. They simply worked out that if they could control the cultural sphere, they could use that to close down debate.

That's why they have seized on global warming as a tool for their ends.

Even despite the climate-gate emails Ed Miliband was categorical recently - claiming the science of climate change is settled.

Settled. That's it. Do you hear? No questions, thanks. No questions on the science equals no questions on Labour's policies based on that science.

Close down the debate. And if you can't call someone a global warming denier, see if you can call them a racist.

The playbook has to be this simple just so it can be quickly taught to all the illiterate Guardianistas.

Just close down that debate because there's no way Alan Rusbridger could win it otherwise.

Robin

Kevinc..

Love it.

Raymond in DC

None of this should surprise. Numerous studies in the US have confirmed that "conservatives" give more liberally to charity than "liberals". The average small town resident who "clings to guns and God" (to use Obama's phrasing) give more than does VP Joe Biden. And he makes a lot more than they do.

Eddie

The quasi-religion of environmentalism is truly stomach-churning for sure; I've noticed too that those most likely to wag the finger at others - the green gestapo maybe - are usually yummy mummys who never stop consuming, buying big cars and houses, and breeding like rabbits (on a massively populated planet) - deciding to be childless is the most green' thing anyone can ever do, and perhaps breeders should pay much more tax, and the childless less?

No idea if sanctimonious greenie hypocrites become less ethical after buying organic lube or whatever they buy in Waitrose these days - they all seem consitiently irritating to me at all times, to be honest...

Discerning Reader

I found Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong's paper here http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/greenproducts.pdf

While I haven't had time to look at their study yet, the inferences they make from other studies are easy to take apart. Here are the first two:

1. "Monin and Miller (2001) found that a previous gender-egalitarian act licensed subsequent gender-discriminatory behavior."

That study http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/crow/labexpressprej2options.htm asks "does establishing moral credentials cause the release of true sexist attitudes?" and then goes on to prove its authors don't understand causality, when they observe that sexists tend to preface their remarks with evidence of how they are not sexist. - Following intent, and since no-one likes a label, it should be obvious that the desire to espouse gender-discriminatory behavior CAUSES the cushioning remarks, not the other way around (even though they come first in the sentence)!

2. "Sachdeva, Iliev, and Medin (2009) found that reminding people of their humanitarian traits reduced charitable donations."

Probably true, since guilt and fear of social stigma of not giving is a big driver in charitable giving (proof: Is it hard to say no to the $1 donation at the checkout? Yes!)

But the authors then link charitable giving in a confrontation (will you give?) with people buying green products in the safety of their own aisle. Hopefully people aren't buying green just to impress the checkout clerk.

Baron Pippin II

The Canadians got it wrong, it’s the other way round. People who are less likely to be nice and kind to others adopted green consumerism as a smokescreen, and got it rubber stamped by the pseudo-liberal elite.

Dixon

Jane, I agree, except when you say:
"That mindset has not changed for people such as Bob Ainsworth et al. They simply worked out that if they could control the cultural sphere, they could use that to close down debate."

I find that a bit far fetched. I mean, when you look at Bob Ainsworth, listen to him drag out a sentence like an elephant giving birth to triplets (with difficulty) how can you imagine that to be a man who even understands what a "cultural sphere" is? Morons arent capable of such deviousness as you suggest. They just do what they do because they are morons. Guilelessly. Moronically.

Peter

I think JonJ Boy makes a good point when he observes the raison d'etre of the green movement relates to
'the mysterious need for human beings to have a feeling of moral superiority.'
It blinds them to the obvious fact that they share the same human condition as those they look down on.Looks like this study bears that out beautifully.

David in Newtown

Isn't buying green products today like purchasing indulgences from the Catholic Church in the middle ages? Allows you to commit all kinds of sins.

Skeptic

Not surprised, but this is hardly true only for "greens", but for most who are satisfied of their own moral superiority, from fanatical religious believers to socialists.

Noah Aaron Bashi

Green people+lefties+Islamic Extremists+Atheist Extremists=Fraud

michael

A skewed moral superiority is the conscience behind much criminal psychology. I think this may be why socialism is always corrupt.