Bill McKibben, one of the nation’s leading environmentalists, actually pollutes far more than the average American. And he’s justified in doing so.
Last week I presented why a concept known as “earning to give” may be, counter-intuitively, a better strategy to do good than working in the non-profit sector for some. Earning to give is a strategy of working in a high-earning sector and donating a large amount of your money away to the best charity you can find.
One of the strongest criticisms of this strategy is that one’s employment may do more harm than the person’s giving does good (or at least that the person’s “net good” is lower than working on a another job). Not all “high-earning” jobs are morally equivalent. This is a justified critique that is important for each of us to consider before taking a job; however, there are two key considerations that make this point less compelling to me.
The first is considering one’s “value above replacement” (marginal utility for Econ buffs). For example, say Jennifer works at J.P Morgan and Tom works at the charity x. Let’s assume that a firm can always find an adequate replacement employee, and that both Tom and Jennifer are similarly talented as other job seekers, but are more socially conscious. If you believe that J.P. Morgan has a negative effect on the world – which is plausible – that does not actually mean that Jennifer does.
We should think of her contribution relative to a hypothetical replacement, or her “value above replacement.” If she is equally skilled but more socially responsible within her role at the bank than her replacement would have been, she could be having a very positive net contribution for the world. Tom should also be judged relative to his hypothetical replacement employee at charity x, where his replacement is likely to share similar values. In this sense, the return on an individuals’ social consciousness may be higher in banking than in charity.
Talent may work in the opposite direction: if Tom is particularly talented, his return of “good” on that talent might be higher in managing an effective charity than if he were the very best trader at J.P. Morgan. Innovation and leadership in the non-profit sector is extremely valuable, while low-skilled desk work is less so. Therefore, evaluating people by the industry or company they work for is a flawed endeavor.
The other key insight is acknowledging that each of our impacts on the world is marginal. Jennifer may be participating in an unjust social order, but as a marginal actor, simply refusing to participate in the twisted game that is our contemporary global economy is actually reneging her responsibility to face the moral ambiguities that come with power. Somebody else will fill her job – in fact, there are probably thousands vying to at any moment – so it’s better her than a likely replacement. Change is just as likely to come from within powerful institutions, driven by morally conscious individuals like Jennifer, as from activists or non-profits.
This marginal consideration matters for each of us, and leads to some morally uncomfortable but compelling conclusions about how we conceive of doing the most good. This is where McKibben comes in.
If everybody cut his or her carbon emissions by 20 percent, our environment would be in much better shape. That does not mean McKibben should not fly on planes every week to protest environmentally destructive policy; he should, even if it means his carbon emissions are 75 times that of the average American, so long as his impact is greater than his harm. In fact, if he had a moral stance against flying on planes, his net positive impact would be far less (and Keystone XL could be halfway done).
The same is arguably true about those passionate about the greater good but who are unwilling to grapple with a high-earning job for ethical reasons.
This marginal consideration also matters with regard to where you give. I am profoundly disgusted by U.S. domestic incarceration, and think it is the principle human rights issue that we face as a nation. However, because I am operating at the margin, I will likely never give any money to incredible organizations like the Innocence project. The opportunity cost of giving to such causes instead of de-worming children in Africa or distributing malaria nets is far too high. I loathe domestic incarceration, but my money will always be guided by where the highest marginal return of each dollar is, which is likely to always be abroad and meeting fundamental human needs.
So long as you believe that all human lives are morally equivalent – at least outside of your immediate family or closest friends because, lets face it, we’re selfish – it should not matter for marginal actors (i.e. everybody) who most deserves to be helped, but rather how one can do the most good for the most people. As we saw with Margaret and Ben last week, the lives saved by one cause can be orders of magnitude higher than those saved by another.
We should prioritize the maximum good of the world above a personal concept of justice, even if the means are unsavory and it requires complex ethical dilemmas. Want to save the environment? It may mean you may have to take a plane.
Justifying a Carbon Footprint
Comments