I was kayaking on the bay where I live this morning, enjoying the bobbing seals who didn’t seem to mind my presence, and breaking a line through the thick carpet of spruce pollen that floated on the ocean. When I turned around to return home, I was struck by several newly constructed mansions on the shore. These are summer homes, a couple of which are occupied only a few weeks of the year. Their square footage is equivalent to that of dozens of families living in poverty in other countries.

I know that the owners of these summer homes earned their wealth, and have probably created many jobs that have employed and provided a living to many people, including the jobs just to build these huge homes. They may also be philanthropists, creating opportunities and possibilities for countless others. And, I too, live in a big home (which we share with the Institute for Humane Education) and have loads of stuff (including my kayak), so I’m not one to talk. Yet, in the context of this series of posts on consumerism, I do wonder whether these big houses bring their owners joy, and whether the negative impact on the environment is morally justifiable. These are not environmentally-friendly, solar-powered homes; but even if they were — even if their owners purchased carbon offsets — there are still ethical questions to consider.

What is ethically justifiable consumption? Can we imagine a MOGO litmus test or rating system? What would we include? Who decides?

~ Zoe

Image courtesy of albany_tim via Creative Commons.

Filed under: consumerism, Environmental Preservation, integrity, MOGO (Most Good) Tagged: | consumerism, consumption, ecological footprint, environmental protection, ethical consumerism, integrity, Maine, mansions, MOGO principle, values, wealth