In this section we will go over some more common ethical dilemmas the average person may have come across quite often, even for seemingly small matters. These will be broken up by products first, and then scenarios. Select each one for the easy answer, and dive deeper for the debate as to why.
One common technique that is applied through this section to help make everyday decision easier is a Life Cycle Assessment. This technique is applied often by academics, regulators, or environmental rights groups to determine a total impact of an item for a consumer to use. What this means is someone should have went through and collected data on all the processes, materials, and transport used to make something and deliver it to you as well as to the trash after it is finished. They do this strictly from a data (quantitative) perspective however, and do not typically take into account human conditions or any non numerical (qualitative) effects of processes along the way. This is why it is an effective tool to make informed conscious decisions, but not the whole ethically conscious picture.
To add to life cycle assement strategy for ethical consumption, you must also think on how you can personally change the life cycle of a product. For many items, if you source and produce the final product yourself from local suppliers, you are in effect reducing the overall supply chain. Further, you can personally attest to the product ingredients/adulterations, who is impacted by its production, transport, as well as the environmental impacts of its usage and production. For this reason, the most ethical products, and the most ethical lifestyle, often involves what you can produce in your local community. This is does not apply in the reverse of course, just because its local and the best ethical choice for you, does not make it the best choice for someone else non local.
Paper or Plastic? (Shopping Bags)
Paper if you have a specific need of the paper after use already, otherwise Plastic.
Why?
There is quite a large study done by the Danish Government on the environmental impact of production of all kinds of shopping bags. It compared everything from paper and organic cotton to the typical flimsy plastic grocery/takeout bags you may be used to. In short, when accounting for air/water pollution and energy requirements the best solution was to simply reuse the plastic grocery bag one additional time more (say as a trash bag). They are cheap, effective, and so long as they are disposed properly (litter was not measured), outpace any environmental concern compared to any other type of bag. Of course, there’s the concern for the human element as well, but unfortunately neither the oil/plastics industry nor the forestry industry, are surprisingly high on the list. The areas where both are made are typically not the best for workers, so you are presented with a lesser evil case. Of course, if you have a local supplier of any, this could vastly change the dynamics of the ethical implications, but for the majority its pretty settled in terms of group ethics. Morals however, may often push people towards their own preference.
Mechanical vs Wooden Pencil
Mechanical wins so long as you don’t lose it. Life cycle analysis was done at Ghent University. It’s important to note they compared the lead in a mechanical pencil to 10 wooden pencils per year based on a college students use. So, your mileage may vary depending on your use.
Milk, or Milk Alternative?
Most Nutrition Density
Cow’s Milk
Least Environmental Impact
Oat
Most Nutritiously Similar Alternative
Soy
Details
Now there is a lot of personal opinion on this subject. Remember this falls under moral principles and can be different for everyone, and is irrelevant for the broad ethical discussion. Food is very tricky to find a complete ethical consumption analysis, and if you take it to the extreme you may find yourself in a philosophical debate over what deserves to exist more, prey or predator. There are many life cycle studies out there to point to on this subject, but this one does a good job of pointing out weaknesses in data and summarizes current efforts. There is also some nuances to additives and chemicals in some of these products. Namely, hormones in cow’s milk, product enhancers and stabilizers in alternatives, and estrogen effects of soy. The good news is most of these concerns are alleviated with lower consumption and varied diets. Even further, the best ethical choice is typically what is local to you, and for a basic ingredient such as milk, you can largely grow and/or refine your own alternative; or have a cow yourself. Finally, there’s the question of the human element. The dairy industry is not generally known to be harsh on humans, but is of course harsh on cows. Agricultural methods for most of these products are largely mechanized, and the human suffering is generally reserved to side effects of processes rather than the labor. Do to this, the ethics on this are clear, milk alternates are far more humane, at least on a volume of animal suffering to human suffering comparison. The final decision largely then leans towards oat generally as most conscious all around, but there are of course circumstances where each may be more ethical than another.
Fabric (synthetics, blended, natural materials)
Generally blended wins.
Details
This is a broad industry and very hard to compare all possible data. We are looking forward to a study coming out in 2027 from Textile exchange. As far as current data goes, petroleum (synthetic) products tend to lead in Life Cycle Assements. This puts things like polyester in the lead. This tracks with the Danish study on plastic bags, and tracks logically, as a pipe full of oil is much easier to work with and requires much less work than growing acres of natural materials. HOWEVER, there is always the microplastics, oil spills, and harsh chemicals to content with. On top of this, longevity is often not taken into account for these products, nor is function. This leads to a properly selected blended generally being the best of both worlds so long as it is a quality durable product. Otherwise, much like the bag study, the amount of times a natural product must be used and reused in order to have similar lice cycle values may never be reached before the product is no longer usable.
GLASS
Arguably one of the best and coolest materials we have made. It’s chemically inert, meaning it wont absorb smells, nor react with any sort of chemical product, nor will it degrade over time. Further, its non toxic, made from incredibly abundant silica. Its a great candidate for recyclability as well. However, its does quite literally involve moving sand and melting it, which is very energy intensive. The Life cycle Analysis (LCA), much like with other LCA’s, will say that plastic containers win out over glass. This win is largely due to the weight of glass itself vs the thin light plastic containers. Much like with shopping bags, it becomes a race to see how many uses you can get out of the plastic container vs the glass container. So, the suggestion for ethical consumption is this: If you need to purchase a long term storage solution, see if you can opt for glass. It should serve well in the long run and can be used for any sort of storage. Above all, you should be reusing nearly every piece of glass you can, as it should be very easy to clean and repurpose glass. It should also be noted that OVEN SAFE GLASS IS NOT RECYCLABLE in the same programs as regular glass.
Filtered vs Delivered Water
Filtered
Details
I’m not sure who needs to hear this but building a pipe and sending water through it definitely wins over filling a plastic jug and throwing it on a truck. Things can get quite complicated when it comes to water rights however, but this will be left to individual circumstances and out of scope of this discussion. There are some legitimate concerns over quality of water. Unfortunately, it comes down to where your source for water comes from, and that will dictate the proper response you should choose. For the majority of municipal water systems in the US, its advisable at minimum to use a filter for chemicals from treatment, such as carbon filtrations for common chlorine/chloramines and even then, you will likely still have a better ethical footprint than delivered water. Not to mention, its phenomenally cheaper to filter your own water.
Bottled Water Vs Refillable
Refillable
Details
Much like other life cycle analysis have pointed out, thin plastic is hard to beat. However, the amount of water you consume in a lifetime will very easily justify having a water specific refillable stainless steel bottle. Keep it well maintained, and it can easily last decades. We suggest stainless steel over other options, but glass is likely best but with a caveat for having to treat it gently. This study has put any and all questions to rest.
This section is much broader in scope, and these likely get the most attention in media, with no clear end in sight to the discussion. We bring them here to try to finalize the discussion in terms of ethics, as, for the most part, the concepts do not change much over time only very small aspects of each scenario.
Vegans/Omnivores/Vegetarian/Carnivores
This section requires expansion, and quick answer is not recommended, but generally ethically conscious consumption largely falls under veganism if certain criteria and ability are met for it to exist. The debate will be had, but its naive to think ethics does not side with veganism in an abundant prolific society.
Pro or Anti Birth (Natalism)
This is an interesting one. Broadly ethics points towards reproductive autonomy.
Details
Ethically speaking, so long as you BELIEVE you can safely raise a healthy kid to adulthood (purposefully vaguely defined adulthood, healthy, as well as heavy emphasis on individual consciously applied belief), you can and should have that kid or kids, until that belief is no longer sustained. Should you know beforehand that you likely cannot guarantee safety and health to that child, you would be acting unethical. Now, this is incredibly vague, because ethics is simply not a good lens to determine when to have a child. An animal does not ask itself if reproducing is ethical, only humans can. Ethically speaking, it could possibly never be a good time to have a child based on the above. For example an “ethically conscious” settling tribe of the XX00’s may never have reached that required belief, had kids anyway, and the outcome have been positive for the tribe or society yet still be ethically wrong. However, the converse cannot be true, there will never be a “ethically speaking always a good time to have a child”, for that, would simply be not applying any consciousness to the decision. In a similar vain, “pro natalism” arguments are in effect to apply no consciousness to the decision and have as many kids as possible. This, without regarding the ethically conscious view as stated above, is in effect an attempt to throw children at a wall and see what sticks. Many would say it is the ideology of a cancer cell to reproduce at all cost. Ethically speaking, its far worse than a cancer cell, as cancer does not have the option to use consciousness, humans do, and to choose reproduction at all cost in all scenarios is anti ethical, in effect, having consciousness and choosing not to employ it.
Digital ID
Ethics is actually surprising on this subject. Digital ID, in the sense of all online actions verified to be from a specific user with no expectations of anonymity, is largely an ethical choice with 1 major HOWEVER. HOWEVER, this implies a fully secure means of implementation and verification with 100% certainty and security, as well as no separate special status or rules for any individual or organization including governing and supplying agencies and officers. In other words, their is no possibility to impersonate nor be anonymous, even for governing bodies. Because of this point, the ethics of digital ID are obfuscated, and nearly impossible to practically be caried out, and therefore, ethics are against it. It should be mentioned there is of course persecution of speech usually depending on laws of nations, and its broadly accepted this could have consequences when there’s no anonymity. I’d like to remind the audience laws are not concerned with ethics, they are concerned with the governing class.
Suburban or Urban Development (single family vs multi family housing)
Urban of course. There’s economy of scale in everything to do with urbanism and simply eclipses any benefit of suburban development. Spreading out wide has consistently lead to worse social impacts, economic, environmental, and other effects. It’s almost exhausting to come up for specific references for this. Actually, it is exhausting.
Fast Fashion/Thrifting
Ethics doesn’t need to look good. There should be no doubt that it is more ethical to use and reuse something, therefore to thrift over purchase new whenever possible. Of course there’s limits, and sometimes some garments are better off recycled into something else rather than being patchwork waiting for one bad day to fall apart.