The Good, the Bad, and the Ethical: A Moral Philosopher's Perspective on Sustainable Urban Mobility

The United States is more car-reliant than any other major country, emphasized by the fact that American households own an average of two vehicles. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 5-Year American Community Survey 91.7 percent of households had at least one vehicle, with Idaho and Wyoming having the highest rate of car ownership at 96.2 percent.

This dependency on cars is deeply rooted in the U.S.’s urban planning and infrastructure policies, most notably minimum parking requirements and a lack of investment in sustainable alternatives like public transit systems. And it has significant quality of life and environmental implications.

Owning a car now costs over $12,000 a year, driven by higher vehicle prices, financing, insurance, and maintenance. With costs like depreciation and high interest rates, it's becoming a significant financial burden for many people. Urban sprawl is linked to car dependency, leading to low-density development, reducing accessibility and increasing transportation costs. These rising costs highlight the need to rethink our reliance on cars by promoting denser developments and better public transportation, which can improve accessibility and lower the need for cars.

Reliance on fossil-fuel-powered vehicles also worsens the epidemic of carbon emissions and contributes to inefficient land use and a culture prioritizing individual car ownership over public and eco-friendly transportation options. The UN Environment Programme's reports highlight a critical juncture in the fight against climate change, emphasizing the urgent need to reduce emissions significantly to avoid surpassing the 2.5–2.9°C temperature rise threshold. 

Human activity has been pinpointed as the sole cause of global heating over the past two centuries, leading to more frequent and severe weather events and underlining the necessity to cut 2030 emissions by 28–42 percent to meet the Paris Agreement targets. These findings from the International Institute for Sustainable Development underscore an accelerated warming trend and record-high greenhouse gas concentrations, demanding immediate and substantial global action to mitigate climate change impacts.

However, given the fact that Americans are extremely resistant to even whisperings about reducing space for parking or disincentivizing driving through strategies like road usage charges, let alone redesigning cities with car-lite infrastructure, what are urban planners, engineers, and policymakers to do? Should they maintain the status quo and give the people what exactly they want? Or, in the words of Chidi Anagonye from The Good Place, do they have an ethical imperative to combat car dependence for the greater good, which in this case is to reduce global emissions and combat the negative consequences of climate change? 

To answer this question, let's channel our inner Chidi, pull out our metaphorical chalkboard, and explore the ethical dimensions of car dependency through the lenses of utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and the Rawlsian theory of justice. Each of these ethical theories offers a unique insight into the moral imperatives for reducing reliance on automobiles in favor of more sustainable and equitable transportation solutions.

Utilitarian perspective

In chapter 19 of The Good Place, Chidi Anagonye introduces the trolley problem to explain utilitarianism. In this famous thought experiment taught in philosophy classes worldwide, a trolley hurtles down the line toward five people tied to the tracks up ahead. You are presented with the choice to continue on your current trajectory or divert the trolley onto another track, where only one person is tied up. What should you do? 

This classic moral dilemma leads people to choose utilitarianism, which is commonly defined as a philosophy that emphasizes maximizing happiness and minimizing harm for the largest number of people. While Chidi’s students wrestled with the simulated (and messy) ethical implications of the trolley problem, urban planners and other transportation stakeholders are grappling with its application in the real world:

Should we continue sprawling suburban development with its large highways and seas of parking lots, or should we end car dependency and explore other transit options at the expense of our personal convenience to save the planet?

Utilitarianism prompts us to consider the collective well-being when making decisions in the transportation sector. By recognizing the harm caused by car dependency, such as greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, we can see the need to shift toward more sustainable transportation options. Just as diverting the trolley onto the track with fewer people minimizes harm in the thought experiment, embracing alternatives like public transit and cycling can reduce environmental damage and improve public health for society. So, just as Chidi, Elenanor, and Michael grapple with the trolley problem, we, too, must navigate the ethical landscape of transportation, striving to promote the greatest good for the planet.

Deontology

Throughout The Good Place, Chidi frequently has trouble deciding between two or more choices, no matter how seemingly simple. His struggle highlights a key concept called deontology. This idea, mainly developed by philosopher Immanuel Kant, says that some actions are right or wrong based on the rules they follow, not the outcomes they produce. For example, this theory tells us to treat everyone with respect and not use them just to get what we want, no matter what the results might be. This way of thinking about right and wrong focuses on doing what’s morally right because it’s the right thing to do, not because it leads to the best outcomes. 

One way we see Chidi apply deontology is when he is asked to choose a muffin. Why is he so indecisive? Because in this case, the muffin is an “end.” An “end” is something we’re trying to get or achieve. Kant tells us that moral agents, humans, certain animals, and the environment are all ends in themselves and that they should be treated morally. So the muffin isn’t the only choice a Kantian is making; a Kantian is also making the choice to support the “means” that led to that muffin being created. Thus, Chidi is also considering the workers who picked the blueberries in his muffin as ends in themselves, and he’s also considering the environmental effect of the growing of the wheat. Basically, deontology teaches and urges people who make choices to consider the things that lead to making that choice. Treat the means as ends in themselves. 

If we apply this theory to urban mobility, Immanuel Kant would likely say the ethical choice is to have fewer parking requirements and to build cities more densely with engaging streets because it respects people's freedom and helps society without stepping on the toes of Mother Earth or other people to meet ends.

Research shows that having too many parking spaces can reduce how much money an area makes because it takes up space that could be used for something more profitable. Hence, we can conclude that unnecessary large amounts of parking — and, by extension, the idea of individual car ownership in itself — is unethical because it does not respect the freedom of business owners to use their land for their own means. Removing these parking rules often leads to more housing, better city designs, and lively public spaces. These changes make cities more functional and help the economy by turning low-profit parking spots into valuable developments. This approach improves people's lives by giving them more choices for where to live and how to travel, which aligns with Kant's belief in treating people as valuable in themselves. Also, by depending less on cars, we respect individual rights and freedoms to choose other, cheaper transport modes, making a solid ethical case to support practical environmental policies.

Virtue ethics

In Season 1 of The Good Place, Eleanor asks Chidi, “Who died and left Aristotle in charge of ethics?” during their lessons on Aristotelian ethics, also known as virtue ethics. Aristotle advocated for the “virtuous mean,” which is living a balanced life, avoiding extremes of excess and deficiency.

In later seasons, Michael and Janet meet Doug Forcett, who exemplifies “too much” virtue. Doug is so committed to virtue that his actions become counterproductive. For example, he tries so hard to be good that when he goes to donate blood, he ends up needing to receive blood instead. This illustrates how an excessive focus on virtue can be harmful.

Doug shows how virtue is the practice of moral excellence, characterized by acting with integrity and balance, avoiding extremes of deficiency and excess.

Exploring the ethical implications of car dependency highlights the need for policy changes and for shifts in individual and societal behaviors grounded in virtue ethics.

This ethical framework emphasizes moral character and the virtues of responsibility, prudence, justice, temperance, and courage. Society should reevaluate transportation choices and encourage actions to align with these virtues to mitigate environmental impact and enhance communal well-being.

In The Good Place, Michael goes down to Earth and poses as a bartender to hopefully put Eleanor on the right path while she's being "rejudged." He highlights that the true reward of doing the right thing is the inner fulfillment it brings, rather than external praise or rewards. This concept can be related to urban planning and transportation engineering. For transportation professionals and decision-makers, the satisfaction of developing policies that reduce car dependency comes from knowing they are creating healthier, more sustainable communities. Instead of seeking recognition, their motivation lies in the joy of contributing to cleaner air, safer streets, and better quality of life for everyone. This inner sense of accomplishment mirrors the virtue ethics approach of finding happiness in doing good for its own sake.

Virtue ethics prompts individuals to act responsibly and prudently by choosing sustainable transportation methods like public transit, biking, walking, and carpooling and advocating for urban planning that prioritizes these options. Such choices and advocacy efforts reflect wise decision-making, a commitment to long-term environmental sustainability, and improved quality of life. It also involves supporting infrastructure developments that ensure everyone has access to these sustainable transportation modes regardless of socioeconomic status.

The push for sustainable transportation requires courage to change personal lifestyles and advocate for systemic changes despite potential resistance. Virtue ethicists and people aiming to live virtuously are called to lead by example—promoting and participating in civic activities supporting public transit improvements, reducing car dependency, and making personal transport choices that lessen environmental impact. These actions can help shift societal norms toward more sustainable practices, contributing to a more equitable and virtuous society.

Rawlsian justice

The Trolley Problem is often used to explore the impact of the veil of ignorance in ethical decision-making. In the most basic scenario, participants must decide whether to push one person onto the tracks to save five others from a speeding trolley. The dilemma becomes more intricate when considering the personal connections of those involved, which illuminates how self-interest can influence our choices. This concept is examined in The Good Place, when Michael uses various iterations of the Trolley Problem to torture Chidi, including making him choose between running over strangers versus people he knows or historically significant figures. Here, the series delves into John Rawls's theory of justice, particularly the idea that decisions should be made as if behind a veil of ignorance, ensuring fairness by preventing personal biases. Basically, when choosing to kill five people or only one, remember that your personal biases can play into the decision, and you need to put a veil of ignorance over yourself.

The ethical complexity illustrated by the Trolley Problem, especially when viewed through the lens of John Rawls' theory of justice, is not limited to hypothetical scenarios. It extends to real-world issues such as car dependency, where our daily transportation choices can have significant ethical implications.

The challenge lies in recognizing that just as the Trolley Problem encourages us to make decisions devoid of personal biases to ensure fairness, addressing car dependency requires a similar ethical approach. We must consider the broader impact of our transportation habits on public health and the environment, reflecting the need to prioritize the rights and well-being of all individuals, particularly the most vulnerable.

By adopting a Rawlsian perspective, we can advocate for transportation policies and personal practices that promote a healthier, more sustainable future, aligning our actions with the ethical principle of fairness and the universal right to a healthy environment.

This concept is especially relevant when discussing car dependency and its ethical implications. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights highlights the need for an environment that supports everyone's health and dignity. However, the widespread use of cars has led to environmental issues like air pollution, which undermines public health and infringes on individuals' rights to a healthy life. These effects tend to impact vulnerable groups such as children and older people more severely.

Car dependency contributes to environmental degradation and affects the quality of urban life by promoting urban sprawl and reducing public spaces. This limits community engagement and recreational opportunities, impacting people's happiness and well-being. Such consequences challenge the Rawlsian view that our actions should not prevent others from enjoying their rights, including pursuing happiness.

To address these issues, policies that reduce car reliance are aligned with Rawlsian ethics, focusing on protecting health, happiness, and future sustainability. These policies include improving public transport, creating pedestrian-friendly areas, and enforcing stricter emissions standards so that the freedom to travel does not severely harm others. Individuals can also contribute by choosing sustainable transportation options and supporting community initiatives to build healthier, more livable cities. In doing so, we can better align our transportation habits with the ethical commitment to respect and uphold everyone's rights, now and in the future.

Case study: Copenhagen

Copenhagen, Denmark, is renowned as the most bicycle-friendly city in the world, a distinction it has held since 2015. The city boasts an extensive infrastructure designed for cyclists, including 546 km of bike paths, bridges, and superhighways, making cycling a safe and enjoyable mode of transportation. This setup encourages 62 percent of Copenhageners to use bicycles for their daily commutes to places like work or school, accounting for nearly half of all trips to such destinations. Each day, residents collectively cycle about 1.44 million kilometers.

The transformation of Copenhagen into a cycling hub began in the early 20th century and accelerated during the 1970s oil crisis. This crisis prompted a shift in urban planning and policy, prioritizing cycling over cars to improve city life. Decades of focused policies have bolstered cycling infrastructure, safety, and cultural acceptance, setting Copenhagen as a model for urban micromobility. Micromobility vehicles are defined as less than 500 kg (1,100 lb), lack internal combustion, and top speed capped at 28 mph. The city continues to adapt its strategies to encourage micro-mobility, such as strategically reducing car parking spaces and implementing synchronized green traffic lights for micromobilists to minimize wait times at intersections. 

Copenhagen's commitment to micromobility is reflected in its culture and policies, with more bicycles than cars over a five-to-one ratio. Micromobility is integrated into everyday life, from early education on cycling safety to public campaigns celebrating cycling. This has led to significant environmental and health benefits, such as lower carbon emissions and improved public health. Despite challenges like integrating cycling with other public transport and adverse weather, Copenhagen innovates with solutions like heated bike lanes and covered paths. By allowing micromobilists to move safely, Copenhagen is presented as a leader in ethical mobility by ensuring the mobility of one does not adversely affect the mobility of someone else. This is a perfect example of how Rawlsian justice is implemented in transportation.

These efforts make Copenhagen a leading example for cities worldwide, demonstrating the benefits of sustainable urban mobility and serving as a guide for reducing car dependency and embracing cycling.

Community-driven change

Based on the four ethical theories we’ve discussed, the answer to the original question of whether urban planners, engineers, and policymakers have a moral imperative to combat car dependence for the greater good is clear. Professionals have an ethical imperative to work to reduce car dependency. America's deep-seated car dependency amid the escalating climate crisis calls for an urgent shift toward sustainable transportation.

The moral arguments urge us to emulate the transformation seen in places like Copenhagen and adopt more equitable and eco-friendly transit options. This shift isn't just beneficial; it’s an ethical mandate to combat climate change and ensure a healthier, more sustainable future for all.

By embracing alternatives like public transit and cycling, we can address our ethical responsibility to protect our planet and secure a livable future for future generations.

Local governments and community groups play a crucial role in this shift toward more sustainable ways of getting around our cities. By working together, we can develop creative solutions specially designed for the specific needs and wants of our communities. For example, cities like Portland, Oregon, have listened to their residents to build better bike paths and improve public transport services that reflect what the community wants. In other parts of the world, local movements have pushed for areas where pedestrians are the priority, leading to significant changes in city layouts that make them more people-friendly than car-dominated.

There's also a great potential in partnerships between the public sector and private companies, mixing the private sector's drive for innovation with the public sector's focus on community needs and regulatory frameworks. An excellent example is the collaboration between cities and bike-sharing companies, which helps expand affordable and easy-to-access transport options without spending much public money. These partnerships also include tech companies that help make public transport smarter, making it more efficient and easier to use for everyone. These local efforts are essential because they get people involved and ensure that the transportation solutions meet the local community's needs and environmental goals.

As cities grow and face new challenges like increasing populations and climate change, they must rethink their reliance on cars. This includes dealing with urban sprawl and the need for long car commutes, which are barriers to creating denser, more sustainable metropolitan areas. However, these challenges also offer chances to innovate and be resilient. For instance, the rise in electric vehicles and the use of renewable energy in public transit are helping lower the pollution from urban transport. Ideas like the circular economy inspire cities to use resources more wisely, including recycling bikes and upgrading old bus and train systems. These steps help the environment, create new jobs, and make our cities more livable. 

It's clear that cities can move toward a more sustainable and inclusive future by planning ahead and adopting new approaches.

Mustafa Haque is an undergraduate at Southern Methodist University, pursuing dual degrees in civil engineering and public policy. His diverse background includes extensive research in transportation equity and practical experience as a civil engineering intern at Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnan. You can reach him at [email protected].