Quote:
Originally Posted by smoore
How would I logically say that it is hypocritical to deride a protest against excessive energy use and wanting to posses a luxury car?
|
You wouldn't, because it's not hypocritical. There is no logical inconsistency inherent in opposing Earth Hour and wanting a luxury car. For one, opposing Earth Hour implies (but does not necessarily confirm) an indifference towards carbon emissions, which would be logically consistent with indifference towards a car's fuel efficiency or emissions output. Further, even if we assume that Cynthetiq (as our example case here) does support increasing energy efficiency in the home and opposes Earth Day due to it's perceived ineffectiveness in furthering this cause, we still don't have a logical inconsistency. One may support increased energy efficiency for a variety of reasons, such as economic concerns, opposition to a specific type of power generation (nuclear power, for example) or even out of concern regarding a power shortage. Carbon emissions are one reason to support a reduction in consumer electricity use, but they're not the only one. And finally, a vehicle may be classified as a luxury car and still be fuel efficient; in fact, the BMW 1 series includes a suite of features and design specifications collectively called EfficientDynamics, which are designed specifically to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. Therefore, one may desire a vehicle that's classed as a luxury car and still be committed to 'green' policies.
Your problem here is that you're confusing consumerism with environmentalism; these are two unrelated issues, although they often go together politically and philosophically. Had Cynthetiq made an anti-consumer statement here and expressed a desire to own an expensive vehicle elsewhere, he would be a hypocrite. As it is, there is no inconsistency between what he's said here and what he's said elsewhere that I've seen.