What I Say
New member
A rationalization is a way of looking at a circumstance that makes questionable behavior acceptable. I asked several questions already about whether or not a car is a "basic human need," which it could never be, but it seems many Americans think when you live in a specific region the car is indeed a basic human "need," and they insist a person cannot survive without the car. My argument against this has two points: 1) Living in a region that you "need" a car to get resources is a choice, and because you can live somewhere else it's arguably a choice that leans toward being maladapted. Why? Because cars break, and they're costly. Because there are alternatives to get resources for survival other than requiring the car (the obvious one is not living in a location that a car is the only means to obtain resources), the car is not a basic human need. 2) Water is an example of a basic human need because there's no alternative. Basic needs are the same for all human beings (not just for some based on something like a location), that's why they are called "basic human needs." A car does not become a basic human need only for a select group of people because of the location they live in. Why?--Because the real problem is they are choosing to live so far away from the resources that are needed to survive, which again, is arguably maladapted behavior.
People don't need to drive a car to the store to get groceries when they can walk, ride a bike, push a cart, get help from someone else, make more than one trip if there's too much to carry, and many many more ways of accomplishing the task without having to use the car. Yet, when you approach some Americans with the dilemma of getting necessary resources they insist there's no other way to go to the store but to use the car. They start arguing in the extreme making up the worst case scenarios (Such as: What if it's -20 degrees outside and a mother of five needs to get food and she's elderly and crippled? She should walk?), but for the most part these people who routinely depend on their cars don't fall into such extreme cases. The handful of Americans that truly "need" a device like a car (which again, doesn't make it a basic human need) should never be confused with how most people use a car, which when you strip down the rationalization is merely for the sake of convenience. You might as well try to argue a cell phone is a basic human need--but nobody ever dies because of not having a phone! Such a claim would confuse not having a phone with what the real cause of death would be.
I am not simply looking for people here to agree with me because there are people who tell me I'm wrong. I'm not looking for others to validate my "opinion" because this is not simply my opinion. I'm looking for someone to convince me that most Americans are NOT just rationalizing and that they do "need" a car. Again, my point is that the real problem is they refuse to make the necessary changes so that they no longer "need" a car. Somebody give me a sound argument in favor of a car being a "basic human need" because I certainly can't come up with one without rationalizations and relying on a set of values that puts convenience at the top of the list. If you have to make rationalizations about it (e.g., But my job is too far away...) this is a sign it is not a basic human need. You can't survive without something you truly need. Americans WANT their cars, they allow themselves by choice to become dependant on cars, but most do not need them.
My question is: Aren't most Americans only rationalizing that they "need" to have a car?
People don't need to drive a car to the store to get groceries when they can walk, ride a bike, push a cart, get help from someone else, make more than one trip if there's too much to carry, and many many more ways of accomplishing the task without having to use the car. Yet, when you approach some Americans with the dilemma of getting necessary resources they insist there's no other way to go to the store but to use the car. They start arguing in the extreme making up the worst case scenarios (Such as: What if it's -20 degrees outside and a mother of five needs to get food and she's elderly and crippled? She should walk?), but for the most part these people who routinely depend on their cars don't fall into such extreme cases. The handful of Americans that truly "need" a device like a car (which again, doesn't make it a basic human need) should never be confused with how most people use a car, which when you strip down the rationalization is merely for the sake of convenience. You might as well try to argue a cell phone is a basic human need--but nobody ever dies because of not having a phone! Such a claim would confuse not having a phone with what the real cause of death would be.
I am not simply looking for people here to agree with me because there are people who tell me I'm wrong. I'm not looking for others to validate my "opinion" because this is not simply my opinion. I'm looking for someone to convince me that most Americans are NOT just rationalizing and that they do "need" a car. Again, my point is that the real problem is they refuse to make the necessary changes so that they no longer "need" a car. Somebody give me a sound argument in favor of a car being a "basic human need" because I certainly can't come up with one without rationalizations and relying on a set of values that puts convenience at the top of the list. If you have to make rationalizations about it (e.g., But my job is too far away...) this is a sign it is not a basic human need. You can't survive without something you truly need. Americans WANT their cars, they allow themselves by choice to become dependant on cars, but most do not need them.
My question is: Aren't most Americans only rationalizing that they "need" to have a car?