Needs and Wants

Differences between Needs and Wants: The Moral Dimension

For some commentators—notably mainstream economists and the political philosophers close to them—and in the consumer culture literature, there are no significant differences between needs and wants. They can be used more or less indifferently or, still better, not used at all, but replaced by the pair “preferences” and “utility.” For economic liberalism, individuals behaving as sovereign consumers maximize their utility (their welfare, pleasure, happiness) by purchasing on the market the commodities corresponding to their preferences within the limits of their budget constraints. There is no moral perspective in economic liberalism: the individual alone is the sole authority over his desires and his ability to pay is the sole criterion for judging whether his desires are to be satisfied.

Therefore, from the market point of view, it does not matter whether I buy a car because I think I need it or because I just want it. The difference becomes relevant only if I cannot afford the car and claim that I have a right to some help from the state to get it, or if my buying a car threatens legitimate and more urgent needs of other people. In both cases, what will enter into the moral or political deliberation is the comparison between the harm I would endure if I lacked the car and the harm others would undergo otherwise. In this deliberation, what will be weighted is the importance of wants with respect to needs and of some needs with respect to others. In sum, from a collective point of view, the distinction between needs and wants is meaningful only in a moral and/or political context, in relation to rights, moral obligations, and claims on social entitlements or shares of some public resources. It follows that the difference between needs and wants is crucial for sustainable development. The authors of Our Common Future, the well-known report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, would certainly resist firmly [Page 314]the idea of replacing “needs” by “wants” in their definition of sustainable development as “development that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” By talking of needs instead of wants or desires, they had in mind objective, urgent, and satiable motives (needs), not subjective, particular, and insatiable ones (wants).

Contrary to wants, needs are objective because they can be assessed by external and impartial observers. Medical doctors and psychologists can, in principle, diagnose unfulfilled physical (food, water, sleep, clothes, shelter) or psychological (autonomy, recognition, self-esteem) needs even in people unaware of their needy situation, on the basis of specific symptoms generally associated with a deficit in some need satisfaction. Thus, a need can be ascribed to individuals even in the absence of any expression or articulation of it (the anorexic's need for food, the desk-bound person's need for exercise), and there can be unwanted needs, as there are unneeded wants. Some needs are also objectively ascribed to individuals by the social, economic, and cultural norms and values of their society and by the necessity to have them satisfied to become and stay a fully participating member of this society. For example, depending on one's job or other circumstances of life, a car can be a real necessity—not a luxury or a mere convenience. The need for it could be objectively assessed by an impartial observer aware of the existing conditions of membership in our society and informed on the circumstances of living of the needing person.

...