*However, they seem to want these things to be moral imperatives, not just prefe...

pingswept · on May 21, 2009

What's the difference between a moral imperative and an extremely strong preference, I wonder? For example, I like peanut butter a lot, and I think torture is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. The first is a preference; the second is a moral imperative. If asked to defend either proposition, I can say only, "I am convinced that this is true."

There are, of course, lots of arguments for or against torture or peanut butter, but they aren't moral propositions. For peanut butter, they might be about health; for torture, they might be about what's legal, or what works to stop terrorism.

One difference I notice is that preferences extend just to myself, while moral claims extend beyond me, i.e. I think it's fine if you don't like peanut butter, but what I think is moral I think applies to everyone (modulo my uncertainty about it).

Perhaps that gets at what irks some people about the article-- the builder's implying not just that his way is good, but that your way is bad. (In this case, he makes his case in a pleasant enough tone, but I think it's fair to say that he condemns the modern system of housing and land management.)

netsp · on May 22, 2009

That's an interesting line of thought. I also share the opinion that preference, aesthetic or otherwise, is intimately related to ethics.

"There are, of course, lots of arguments for or against torture or peanut butter, but they aren't moral propositions. For peanut butter, they might be about health; for torture, they might be about what's legal, or what works to stop terrorism."

That's quite an assertion. It borders on Nihilism. You imply that there is no different between preference & what we see as morals.

I don't think you're free and clear though. There are all sorts of ways to draw a distinction between the two. From a utilitarian perspective, you could argue that torturing causes pain & is therefore bad. From a rights/liberty perspective, you could argue that it violates some ones rights or liberties. Form the Kantian/Deontological or many other perspectives, you'd see that you would not want torture to be widespread or that it is inherently wrong.

Basically, almost to the extent that morality can be said to exist, torture can be said to be wrong. Peanut butter eating can be said to be right. Hobbit houses are quite clearly in the peanut butter category.

In a more practical sense, you just answer the question about whether you should coerce or encourage others to eat peanut butter, stop torturing or build hobbit houses for any reason other then that they will enjoy it.

simplesimon · on May 24, 2009

I've just been blown away reading this fantasic debate - thank you. I really hear netsp's point. I am the author and It makes me feel like apologising for being so judgemental.

I started out on this road as one of the "people who do have a preference to live this way without any eco-political agendas", at least not that I was consciously aware of. Then I think two main things happened.

1. I was subject to a positive feedback loop that goes roughly - the more time I spent in nature - the more I loved and understood it - the more concern I had for ecological issues - the more i wanted to live more harmoniously with nature - the more inclination to workwith and care for the land - the more time spent in nature and so on

after some years seems i've inadvertently drifted into a position where i'm questionably become a radical and i definitely do have a concious eco-political agenda

2. I have experienced the resistance to the sort of thing we're doing. It simply goes against the status quo which there are many vested interests in preserving. So I see that whilst the construction industry is causing investment and in turn economic growth it must be preserved and expanded. Where it's business can be made more complex,there are new markets and room for growth. Then I see the industry satisfying the needs of growth and profit before its customers needs for shelter which could actually be achieved more effectively in simpler ways.

So if I sound critical or angry its the part of me that feels like people are being conned into expensive, unhealthy houses without being allowed or even told about the alternatives.

I am critical of conventional modern houses. I am NOT critical of people who live in them. I would like to be sure that they have the choice and that they understand the implications of their choice.

I am critical of modern construction techniques and of modern agriculture because they are not sustainable ie. they cannot continue to work in this way - this is a practical problem for us all regardless of whether or not it is a moral one. Finding systems to provide food and shelter for the long term are important problems that will require good design and judgement. I hope that in trying to practice and share good judgement of these systems I don't come across as judgemental of the people who use them.

netsp · on May 25, 2009

Thanks for jumping in. Welcome.

I hope I haven't come across as critical at your expense. I was very intrigued by your project and I read the site more or less cover to cover. The house is very beautiful. I also agree with much of what you say (and the things you didn't say) about zoning restrictions being used in a way which is harmful. I do not think there is sound economic reasoning compelling governments to artificially inflate housing prices. I think if anything, the opposite is true.

Regarding the discussion here: Most of what I was saying doesn't necessarily apply directly to you but vaguely to that part of the "sustainability movement" that I don't have a name for. That is people who have a certain aesthetic (for lack of a better word) preference for home grown foods, locally produced goods, traditional practices and such. A lot of it seems to be reactionary to industrialisation.

Ecological arguments (with climate change being the contemporary variety) become a vehicle for making this preference part of something bigger. Often the arguments themselves are very silly. 'Food miles', are a perfect example. That is, the ecological effect is zero, harmful or negligible relative to the level of advocacy. At other times they are not silly in this way. That is, the proposed action or lifestyle may be actually ecologically beneficial. I'd like to note that I am inclined to think this project falls into this latter category. However, I am also inclined to think that it is not a scalable solution and is therefore unlikely to be part of a wide solution to the ecological problems it averts. Regardless, the logic is still backwards.

The ecological arguments are not the starting point with houses such as these the logical solution. I think that if mass produced housing or increased scale agriculture turned out to be solutions to the same ecological problems, they would not have the same advocates. The house (or a hobby farm or local produce), is a preconceived end searching for a grand Raison d'Etre. This sort of flawed logic opens doors for the type of illogic you can see in food miles. More harmfully, it opens the doors to bad government decisions or outright exploitation such as the (now dead, I hope) US plan for ethonol production.

The other reason this rubs me the wrong way is precisely because it is beautiful. Just like garden markets & hobby farms, I like this house. I would be very proud of it if it were mine. I am frustrated that those that share my preference feel they need more of a justification then this.

In any case, the overwhelming response here is positive. Even the criticism is not really a criticism of you or the project, but of a general phenomenon.

I may be near Wales in about a year. If I am, I think I'll be tempted to drive by for a peak.