For individuals living in remote areas with limited transportation options, the moral dilemma of flying for essential travel in the face of climate change presents a unique challenge. Advice often assumes access to trains or buses, which are not universally available, leaving some feeling conflicted about prioritizing personal needs against environmental concerns.
One individual described living in an isolated part of a developed country, facing a 12-hour drive to the nearest city and lacking public transit. While considering a move to a more connected area, the prospect of still needing to travel to visit family created further anguish. The approach of flying less frequently and staying for longer periods was attempted, but was overshadowed by resentment toward friends who traveled without apparent concern.
This situation highlights a broader tension between individual actions and systemic change regarding climate change. While the personal contribution of one flight may be minuscule in global terms, the act of flying is also recognized as a privileged action, raising questions of personal responsibility and the right to travel ethically when convenient alternatives are absent.
The complexities of these moral dilemmas are explored through the lens of value pluralism, the idea that individuals hold multiple, equally valid values that can conflict. While protecting the planet is a crucial value, so too are nurturing relationships, pursuing career development, learning about other cultures, or creating art.
Philosophical perspectives suggest that striving for absolute moral perfection, or becoming a "moral saint," can lead to a life devoid of personal projects and experiences that contribute to a well-lived life. Philosopher Susan Wolf argues against optimizing morality through extreme self-sacrifice, as it can diminish personal well-being and relationships. The pursuit of non-moral virtues, such as artistic or athletic talent, is also seen as valuable.
For some, a "purist" approach, like entirely forgoing flights, simplifies moral decision-making by eliminating the need to balance conflicting values. However, this often demands significant self-sacrifice. For others, navigating the balance between different values is more complex, as there may be no objectively "right" answer. This inherent messiness of ethical life, as described by philosophers like Bernard Williams, suggests that scientific objectivity cannot fully capture ethical choices.
Instead of aiming for extreme altruism, a path of moderation may be more sustainable. This involves establishing a personal balance, such as limiting flights to one roundtrip per year, and then releasing the guilt associated with it. The emotional toll of resentment and guilt can be detrimental, harming individual well-being and relationships, and potentially alienating others from climate-friendly movements.
To mitigate resentment, individuals are encouraged to broaden their perspective and recognize that many others share similar concerns. Studies indicate that a significant portion of the population underestimates public support for climate policies, leading to a feeling of isolation. Connecting with like-minded communities, such as those focused on reducing air travel, can foster a sense of belonging and positive association with reduced-flying lifestyles.
Replacing resentment with gratitude can also be beneficial. Engaging in enjoyable activities in nature and recognizing how a reduced-flying lifestyle helps preserve these pleasures can foster feelings of pride and gratitude towards oneself for living in accordance with one's values. This approach acknowledges that ethical choices are multifaceted and personal, involving a dynamic balance between various deeply held values.