Ethical Sham, the Highs and Lows of Television

For some inexplicable reason I'm watching Newsnight. The pseudo-intellectual drival is hard to bear at the best of times, but tonight they're having a retrospective of "Ethical Man's" year-long attempt to patronise the British public into environmental indifference. The premise is so ridiculous I don't know where to start, but let me sum it up thusly:

It's not taught me anything about becoming more ethical.

I was provoked into writing this whinge when I saw the panel: a politician, another politician, another politician, and a member of the Green Party. I reached for the laptop, began typing, "For some inexplicable reason I'm watching Newsnight"... and then noticed Bjorn Lomborg on the satellite link up. It took Gavin "wide smile" Esler half an hour to remember he was there, but eventually Bjorn got some airtime. Fair play Newsnight, (if only there were more skeptics who wore t-shirts...)

Lomborg's message was that we should judge actions not intentions, which is the only time the debate approached an ethical position and seems quite sensible (unless you're willing to accept that being "ethical" is mimicking a Newsnight lurch).  As a rhetorical tactic it's effective, since it seperates pragmatists from fanatics - pragmatists want solutions and are open-minded to the best means to produce them; fanatics see the ends as just and the means irrelevent. If fairtrade coffee create unintended consequences, the pragmatist reassesses their commitment, whilst the fanatic continues regardless.

According to Lomborg the actual consequence of "Ethical Man's" effort is that he has done £7 worth of good. No-one questioned that calculation. Politicians don't calculate. But it's an elementary and imperative necessity to engage in opportunity cost reasoning. If you don't you're a fraud. Whatever the figure, creating value is commendable, but compared to the opportunity cost it's lamentable. It is visible, obvious, but sick. If "Ethical Man" had devoted his year to global issues such as malaria, malnutrition, or HIV Aids his impact would have been far greater. Take that you smug, self-righteous knobhead - by indulging in such prepostorous nonsense you've been killing babies. The issue is about facing trade-offs, not "sustainability".

Having said all this, I don't wish to subscribe to James' view that current TV is rubbish. I've previously argued that there is good TV about, and this week saw the finale of Life on Mars. Bonanza.

Comments

[chris]

I fear you might be misunderstanding the word "ethical". For Newsnight's target audience, it means merely a sense of self-righteousness.

[Quinn]

But is Lomborg a pragmatist or is a contrarian? He seems very good at criticising some climate change arguments but not very good at the solutions.

For example, he mocked the amount of co2 the Newsnight presenter cut over the year, regardless of the reasonable point made that by switching to energy efficient light bulbs and not putting things on stand-by he saved money regardless of the effect on the environment. He criticised the effect the UK alone could have on climate change, saying we had to get China and India on board, yet made no attempt to propose how we do this. In fairness, the politicians did, buy saying it is the responsibility of the “developed world” to get their house in order first.

And then he said the money spent on fighting climate change could be better spent fighting malaria. He may well be right. If so, why does he not spend his time campaigning for money to help fight malaria, rather than criticising efforts to combat climate change, and all the while largely courting and preaching to a constituency that opposes foreign aid as well?

[Matthew Whitfield]

Hmm, Anthony, why so angry? Why does Ethical Man have to a 'self-righteous knobhead'? He's just a journalist, exploring a story over an entire year. He's not even particularly self-righteous as an individual, and, in my opinion, has been healthily skeptical throughout the entire process. It really is just journalism, not the last word and certainly not the one-sided Public Service Broadcast you're painting it to be.

[aje]

Quinn - I wasn't trying to say that Lomborg was a pragmatist. I called him a "skeptic", you've used the term "contrarian", both I think are fairly accurate. I agree with what you've said - i'm not trying to say that we should all be like Lomborg, but given the amount of fanatics I think a few skeptics/contrarians are necessary!

"the reasonable point made that by switching to energy efficient light bulbs and not putting things on stand-by he saved money regardless of the effect on the environment"

It is a reasonable point, but hardly one that warrants a Newsnight special. Everyday we modify our behaviour in this manner, the problem lies in the fact that there isn't sufficient pecuniary incentive for self-interested people to alter their behaviour by as much as environmentalists want. This demonstrates that a) some "wasteful" activity is actually efficient (i.e. sometimes it takes more resources to recycle an item than to just bin it and start again; and b) there's incomplete markets and therefore prices don't fully reflect the cost of disposal.

A perceived inefficiency (i.e. waste) is either an illusion, or a profit opportunity. The irony is that media campaigns (such as the ones to switch off things at the plug) use resources, and can therefore negate the opportunity! As I say though, politicians don't calculate.

It's a shame that reasonable point isn't more publicised though. As resource prices rise we switch to substitutes, and find technology to replace them. It's economics baby, and it'll save the planet.

Matthew - I'm angry because it hasn't taught me anything about being more ethical.

"He's not even particularly self-righteous as an individual, and, in my opinion, has been healthily skeptical throughout the entire process"

I accept that he's skeptical about whether giving up his cars and foriegn holidays really makes a difference, but I don't think he's skeptical about the moral rhetoric he's using. From what i've seen he started with the premise that being green (i.e. recycling, low carbon footprint, Fairtrade labelling etc) was being ethical, and the purpose of the experiment was to see how difficult it is to lead an "ethical" life thus defined. To my knowledge he didn't consider the invisible hand argument (that self-concern leads to common good) AT ALL; didn't articulate his theory of ethics; and didn't consider the unseen effects or unintended consequences of being green. I admit I haven't seen every installment, but if you feel he covered these points do point them out.

"It really is just journalism, not the last word and certainly not the one-sided Public Service Broadcast you're painting it to be."

I think it's two-sided, and facilitates a Socialist/Fascist coalition against Libertarians.