Well-Being and Consumption

Depending on which theory of well-being one holds, differing opinions and beliefs regarding what society ought to do in regards to consumption can arise. Two of these theories, mental state and objective, can put forth polar opposite solutions to the question of whether or not society should adopt public policies aimed at decreasing our consumption. Mental state theory holds particular views on what makes one's life good that could easily argue against such policies. Conversely, objective theories of well-being can make equally strong arguments in favor of this aim. How these opposite theories arrive at their respective conclusions is relevant to their overall position regarding consumption in general. From the perspective of a mental state theory, policies aimed at decreasing consumption may not only be useless, but contrary to the interests of those whom it affects.

Mental state theories about well-being hold that the only things that intrinsically add to the quality of one's life are mental states. There are different accounts as to what these mental states are and their relative position in constituting a good life. The most basic mental state theory, hedonism, posits only two states: pleasure and pain. These states can be supplemented and complemented with other states, since it seems implausible that many of us today would agree that the simple satisfaction of physical pleasure and avoidance of pain (the opposite of pleasure) would constitute a good life. One of the ways in which this has been expanded is the mental state of happiness.

Happiness, as a mental state, was discussed in the book Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics by philosopher L.W. Sumner as playing a necessary component to well-being (albeit, insufficient). Sumner described happiness as the positive feeling one has towards one's own life as a whole. This description of happiness incorporates two characteristics: a cognitive and affective one. The cognitive component requires judging one's own life according to one's own standards. The affective component implies a feeling of satisfaction or fulfillment from towards living up to one's own standards. This makes happiness (as a mental state) self-reflective and more involved than classical hedonism, but remains subjective. Sumner continues to say that well-being is not happiness alone, but also must include some characteristics of a desire-theory as well; however, for the purposes of a mental state theory this is not necessary. Since, according to mental state theory in general, a subjective feeling about one's own life is the only relevant factor.

By incorporating Sumner's definition of happiness to extend beyond the limitations of classical hedonism, an argument can be made against public policies that aim at decreasing our consumption. A mental state theory of well-being based on happiness would invariably rely on subjective accounts of one's own life. That being said, policies aimed at decreasing consumption would have negative impacts on those people whose happiness was directly related to their consumption. To understand this point, it's important to remember that feelings of happiness are wholly subjective.

The subjectivism of mental state theories is important because its implications mean that there is no single set of values, characteristics, lifestyles, or ideals that add quality to life. Rather, it is dependent upon the individual's own judgment of his life. If this is the case, then the feelings one has about his life will be the sole determining grounds of judgment. Consuming does seem to make people happy, and the amount of consumption one does throughout the course of his life can account for a quantitative measurement of how happy that person was. If person x experiences happiness when he consumes, and this feeling of happiness is given a corresponding quantitative measurement; then if at the end of his life he has felt more happiness through his consumption, then his life has been good. Therefore, public policies aimed at decreasing consumption would be a disservice to all those people who experience contentment and happiness by virtue of their consumption. These people, who genuinely feel happy about their lives when they consume, will then experience a quantitative decrease in their feelings of happiness, which in turn results in qualitative decreases in their overall well-being. These policies would restrict their consumption and limit their possibility for happiness. If the feeling of happiness is not present, then (from a mental state theory) they are not living good lives. Thus such policies would be unjustified on grounds that they would promote unhappiness, and in turn, negatively affect well-being in the population.

Contrary to this position, an objective theory of well-being could come to the exact opposite conclusion regarding public policies of this nature. This theory holds that there are certain things about one's own life which are necessary conditions for well-being. They're objective because they apply to all human beings regardless of experience, and exist independent of their awareness or attitudes towards them. One method of constructing an argument for policies that would decrease consumption is a theory of prudential virtue and vice. As it relates to consumption, the vices imply a stronger case for such policies.

One description of certain vices that seem intuitively connected to our consumption was outlined by Philip Cafaro in his article "Gluttony, Arrogance, Greed, and Apathy: An Exploration of Environmental Vice." Consuming, at least when it extends beyond the satisfaction of basic needs, seems to promote, legitimize, and reinforce certain vices in our character. The strongest cases can be made (in relation to consumption) for gluttony and greed. To demonstrate then that these particular vices negatively impact one's well-being, they have to exhibit prudential harms against the individual. Such a case can be made, and if argued properly, would make for an excellent promotion of public policy aimed at decreasing consumption.

Vices can have negative impacts on one's own well being in a number of ways. In the case of the glutton there are substantial reasons to believe that his behavior has a negative impact on his well-being. By consuming more, the glutton leaves a greater ecological footprint for which the burden is placed on nature. Degradation of the environment can have rebound effects on human quality of life. Decreases in the quality of water, air, foodstuffs, and the draining of resources will all have serious consequences on human quality of life, including the glutton's. Likewise, by consuming more, the glutton puts himself at risk of increasing his changes of bodily harm. Over consumption of food, drink, and certain substances can have deleterious effects on one's health. Furthermore, the glutton's constant satisfaction of his own desires means he is neglecting other important factors of his well-being. Over consumption promotes selfishness and unjustified self-importance, which in turn are vices in themselves. Excessive consumption can pose risks to health, relationships with others, and self-image. The impact on these other important factors (that many of us hold to have some relation to our well-being) places a great amount of strain on the belief that the glutton is living a good life.

Greed is best understood as an excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth. The effects of this vice on the perpetrator are wide and potentially devastating. First of all, greediness stems well beyond the desire for economic/financial security. The vice occurs when one wants an excess of such material resources. This excess tends to promote a feeling of dissatisfaction and a perpetual desire for more. This dissatisfaction over time can have a negative impact on one's own opinion of one's life. Furthermore, the constant pursuit of excesses of wealth and material goods makes it possible for individuals to neglect other valuable things in their lives, such as close, meaningful relationships, the development and cultivation of talents and skills, and can possibly undermine one's own subjective feelings of happiness and well-being.

Gluttony and greed are two vices that seem inextricably linked with consumption. And since it would be impossible to try to eliminate these vices from our behavior in general, we can try to limit their promotion by limiting consumption. Through limitations imposed on consumptive behavior, society will also promote the cultivation of contrasting virtues. Public policies that limit consumption limit the vices of greed and gluttony in our personal behavior. It follows then that limiting these vices limits their negative effects on our overall well-being.