Anyone who knows me already knows my answer to this, and probably already knows that this will be a somewhat pretentious post. Oh no, I’m becoming what I hate! But let’s face it, plenty of actions (if not all) are subject to moral scrutiny – your driving behaviors included. In this post I’ll be applying utilitarianism and Kant’s Categorical Imperative to driving a big truck. Now I don’t mean any big ol’ truck. I mean the type of truck the good ol’ boys drive. I know some are used for work purposes. 18-wheelers come to mind and I’m sure plenty of people own a huge V-12 whatever for their small business. The people I’ll be referring to here are those who have a big truck for no reason other than they find some gratification in it. Such as this:
 |
| Learning from octopuses, the truck leaves a smokescreen in its trail for a quick escape. |
So to start, we have to know what those two ethical theories I mentioned are. We’ll start with utilitarianism. This won’t be an exhaustive exposition of the theory, just a mere introduction for the purpose of this post. What’s the big idea in utilitarianism? Well, the big idea is to perform actions which bring about the greatest good, usually measured in utility. That sounds simple enough, but what is utility? It’s the satisfaction of preferences. Utility is similar to happiness, I would venture to say; you might even be able to say that it’s the promotion of someone’s or some group’s interest. Okay, so we want to bring about the greatest good measured in utility. This means that utilitarianism is a rather economic moral theory, we attribute a moral property (right, wrong) to an action based on how its cost-benefit analysis comes up. The goal then is to maximize the good by performing an action until the costs equal the benefits. Let’s apply this to driving a big truck. To do so, we’ll have to think of what the benefits and costs are of people owning big trucks.
Clearly, there is going to be some benefit to driving big trucks. People need to get to work, and their trucks get them there. That’s good for the economy. Yet, there are other means of commute – car pool, bike, bus, subway, and the like. This makes me consider the commuting benefit of big trucks as minimal. Another benefit is the utility an individual gets from driving a truck. I imagine the satisfaction from controlling a big, heavy thing is pretty high. Since there are a lot of big truck owners, and I imagine they’re all pretty happy with their trucks, I’ll place the benefit here as significant. I think it’s also safe to say that their spouses or partners get a kick out of seeing them be so manly with the trucks. The spouses don’t have as much at stake, but their utility counts also. I deem it somewhat significant. Big trucks can also pull heavy things, such as cars out of mud. In other words, they come in handy every now and then. Yet, that’s why we can rent tow-trucks, U-Hauls, and the like. A moderate amount of utility there. I think this exhausts all of the benefits unique to big trucks.
The costs are more plentiful however. The elephant in the room is pollution and gas consumption. Moving a two-ton vehicle requires energy, and a lot of it. Unfortunately, this means it requires a lot of fuel, which once processed in the truck’s engine turns into pollution (some at least). This is an explicitly significant negative externality which effects not only the truck owner’s contemporaries, but even future generations. The pollution effects the environment and the gas consumed is a valuable resource. That’s a shame really. Trucks can also impose negative externalities in others ways. For one, they’re big. Should I get into an accident with a truck, the damage to my car and the probability of my death is significantly higher than an accident with a sedan. However, I suppose this could be negated by the safety for the truck driver. The size issue doesn’t stop there however. There have been plenty occasions where my view of oncoming traffic has been blocked by a giant truck, whether it was making a left or right turn. That is horrifically dangerous! Other costs are less certain, so I won’t bother writing about them.
That’s an adequate look at costs and benefits of people driving big trucks. Needless to say, the costs certainly outweigh the benefits. However, not all hope is lost! Could it be morally permissible to drive a big truck under Kant’s Categorical Imperative?
Well you probably don’t know, because you probably don’t know what that is. The general idea is that the Categorical Imperative is a rule that applies to everyone at every time. It says that you ought to act in a certain way, otherwise your actions are immoral. Kant felt the need to share it with us through three different formulations, two of which are discussed the most in the philosophical community. One formulation reads, “Always act in such a way that you could will your maxims to be universal law.” Maxims? No, not scarcely-clad ladies in a magazine, but rather motivations – that’s what maxims are here. In other words, unlike utilitarianism, where the outcomes of our actions determined their moral culpability, our motivations will be doing that instead. The other formulation says, “Never use someone as a mere means to your own end.” The emphasis here is on “mere means”. Before we explain this, however, let’s look at the universal-law formulation.
With this formulation, you want to view every action as a person making an argument. Their argument is that everyone in the world should behave the way they’re behaving (or more technically, have the same motivations.) A good example of this is killing. Clearly, if everyone shared the same motivations in regards to killing, maybe, “I should kill whomever I please,” then the world would be in bad shape – who would be alive? Thus killing is justified as bad (in general) on Kantian grounds. Of course, a motivation such as “I should kill anyone trying to kill me” would be morally permissible. Now what about big trucks? What is the motivation behind driving a big truck? I’m not sure, I don’t drive one. My best guess would lead me suspect it includes manliness or ruggedness. After all, who could deny the testosterone rush after revving the engine and leaving that lame little sedan at the light? Regardless, we can universalize the action. Of course, should everyone drive a big truck, many of the costs mentioned before would be exacerbated greatly. Not good.
There is also the other formulation regarding not using others as a mere means. Kant believed that each person was intrinsically and unconditionally valuable, that each person had a certain dignity about them that ought to always be respected. Hence, even though he was a proponent of the death penalty, he was only approving of it if performed in an appropriate and dignified manner. Thus, using someone as a mere means violates this dignity, and thus the action in question would be immoral. I have a hard time seeing how this could apply to driving big trucks. I don’t think any person intends to use others by driving their trucks… The only way I could justify this one were if a truck driver were aware of the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy is that if each person acts in their own self-interest, society won’t be very well off at all. If everyone acts in the interest of the community, then society fares pretty well. Unfortunately, some people can free ride and act in their own self-interest while others don’t. They get away with it while society remains okay. Applied to the truck-scenario, we could imagine that a truck owner is aware of this: that the tragedy will be a polluted environment. However, he can get away with his Hummer if most other people drive sedans, car-pool, etc. In other words, he doesn’t work towards the good of the society and others do. In this way he may be using others – he uses the social responsibility of others to make an excuse for his own actions.
Actually, I think that’s a good justification.
Hopefully, I’ve convinced you that driving a big truck unnecessarily is immoral. In review, here is my argument:
- An action is moral if it is morally permissible by the lights of utilitarianism or Kantian ethics.
- Big truck driving is not permissible by utilitarianism.
- Nor is it permissible by either of Kant’s formulations of the Categorical Imperative.
- Thus, big truck driving is immoral.
In other words, driving a big truck is selfish and I think those who do are assholes.