Environmental Ethics Final

ethical egoist argument

We have no ethical duties to to other people at all

Humans are naturally selfish and self-interested; we can only care about ourselves; we have no reason to protect the environment aside from personal gain

against ethical egoists

people can care about one another, because most people do

there wont be future generations argument

christian end times belief

arguments against mitigating climate change for future generations’ sake (5)

ethical egoists

there won’t be future generations

the non-existence argument

the ignorance argument

the different people argument

arguments against “there won’t be future genations”

People have been wrong in the past

Stewardship

The non-existence argument

Future generations have no moral rights because they do not yet exist

Something can only have qualities/properties if it exists

against the non-existence argument (3)

Fallacious argument; rests on the false picture of how moral responsibilities are grounded

One way a moral duty can be generated by being connected to rights, but not every moral duty has a corresponding right

ex. The red cross doesn’t have a right to your money, even if you have the moral duty to donate

Kant “imperfect duties”

duties that can be fulfilled in many ways

the ignorance argument (2)

We know nothing about these people, and therefore do not know if our sacrifices for their benefit will actually benefit them

Ex. new technologies might make seawalls and electric cars obsolete and a waste of time (maybe different technology, major events, population change)

against the ignorance argument (3)

Not all future generations are remote generations - we know the basics of what they will want

New technologies will not just appear - they need to be worked toward

Time has no ethical relevance if you respect humanity (precautionary principle)

Precautionary principle

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationship are not fully established scientifically

The different people argument (who and what)

Derek Parfit

Lot of big things humans do change the course of history, but those effected have no right to blame those who affected change; The people impacted would not have excised had the historical event not ˇtaken place - they are not worse off than having not been born

against the different people argument (4)

Not true that all people impacted by historical events would not have been born without it

Only applies to major historical events

Again, many sources of moral pull other than moral rights - people today have a duty to not cause suffering

Retroactive justification - assumes that this will happen

1983 nuclear war scare operator

Petrov

What We Owe the Future: In Conversation with William MacAskill argument

Numbers of future populations will exceed past and present combined, so their moral wieght is higher than ours

luck to be born now

long term-ism

Applies not only to environmental issues, but also global collapse and values of civilization

long-termism

we have an obligation to people far removed from us into the future (ex. not only your grandchildren)

catalogue of jobs that make a difference, related resources

80,000 hours

upsides to large populations (3)

Increased economic activity

many young workers paying taxes (some of which goes to taking care of the elderly)

Greater chance of geniuses/remarkable people

large population downsides

Crowding, particularly in cities

Toll on the planet - nearly all environmental problems are linked to population, though some contribute disproportionately

Risk of catastrophe due to non-exponential food supply growth and climate change

thomas Malthus

“Risk of catastrophe”

Population growth grows geometrically (2, 4, 8, 16), which food supply increases arithmetically (1,2,3,4)

Either more deaths, of less births (claims will not happen because of “the passion between the sexes” is a biological constant)

solutions to overpopulation

Demographic transition - assistance for family planning in poor, high-fertility countries via support in modernization (gender equality, universal education, old-age insurance, etc.)

consumption

Particularly in affluent industrialized nations, the buying or using of goods and services in the economy, usually in ways that reduce those goods or services, or make them unavailable or less available to others

Why do people consume so much in america

they can

america in particular -

• a magnet for those seeking material prosperity

• Corporations (which spend ridiculous amounts on advertising) dominate american life

  • Many super-rich individuals

• Belief that money can buy happiness

• Income inequality - Income inequality

Ecological conversion

pope francis, substantially correlating production and consumption in rich countries, lead lower-consumption live (including christian values like unselfishness, temperance, generosity, contemplativeness, and other worldliness)

Practicalities that prevent lowering one’s consumption

Travel for work, physical location preventing changes, etc.

Significant personal sacrifice

Instead, consider donations, buying carbon offsets, volunteer work, voting, etc.

what if everyone decreased consumption at once?

68% of the american economy is based on consumer spending

• Unemployment, bankruptcy, homelessness, government spending decreases, tourism decrease, crime rates rise, ultimate economic depression

Must be planned carefully and have a safety net

does wealth make us happy?

Jump from lower to middle increases happiness, middle to upper is slower

Julina Simon - Irreplaceable Economist, Irreplaceable Man thesis

Were not running out of resources, we have scarcity

increasing population is a sign that the problem has been solved, and creates more einsteins

free market capitalism will always respond to the population

(revisit card)

according to simon, why is scarcity positive

resources are actually infinite

Better off for having faced scarcity, because we solved the problem

according to simon, what is the real “population problem”

Children are costly to parents, and their economic contributions come later in life, and not to parents

Simon’s bet with Ehrrlich

over inflation, which E predicts will rise

only economic reasoning and evidence (not gut feelings and guesses) can predict the future

Ehrrlich’s book

the population bomb

resources vs conditions

how long does the typical mammal species live for? what does this mean for human population?

1 million years; 95% yet to be born

how do we know what cause to focus on?

Significance

Persistence

Contingency (likelihood/inevitability)

democracy vs free market

Democracy - a person-run system of government

Free market capitalism - an economic system shaped by people, not government (private ownership)

• No incentive to worry about externalities

• short-term

greenwashing

Most consumers are not particular

The role of the company is to subdue, not solve the problems of, the consumer

Paris Agreement (2015) emissions goal and cut (2)

keep increase in average global temperatures to 1.5 degrees above pre industrial levels

Cut emissions by 45% by 2030, and reach net-zero by 2050

why have emissions risen since the paris climate agreement?

Cost

implementation

political obstacles (ex. infusions of aid)

10 countries emit ___% of all greenhouse gasses

80

Techno-fix/climate optimists/geoengineering examples (5)

fertilizing ocean with iron to spur phytoplankton growth

planting billions of trees

vast plantations of carbon-sucking machines

capturing and burying emissions

huge mirrors to deflect sunlight

injecting sulfur into upper atmosphere pros (4)

Already have materials

Cost-effective

Happens naturally with volcanoes

• More predictable impacts

Reflects a small amount of sunlight

injecting sulfur into upper atmosphere cons (6)

“Bleach” the sky - turn it white-ish

May harm the ozone layer

Some parts of the world would benefit, some would be harmed (ex. Droughts and hurricanes, crop adaptation) - tensions

If there is a malfunction, rapid heating

Does not address other effects of climate change (ex. Ocean acidification)

Reckless and arrogant, no consequences and encourages unsustainable practices

why are climate ethics difficult? (3)

Challenging because it involves anonymous, far-off (in time and space) individuals whom we harm through seemingly innocuous acts

Who should bear the brunt of the cost, and why?

Rich, industrialized

• Reap rewards, high past emissions, face least consequences, can afford

how to fairly allocate remaining emissions (3)

Quotas to discourage free-riders and encourage fairness

Equal per capita

Equal on all countries

Subsistence emissions

Equal per capita emissions reasoning

Differing energy needs, especially for the economy

Equal on all countries emissions

Great advantage to wealthy countries (revisit)

subsistence emissions (how they work, cons)

Minimal quality of life

unclear

What happens to the non-subsistence emissions

how can allocating emissions not work?

Enforceable sanctions against those who fail or drop out

Klein

Economic and political systems at war with climate

While wealthy corporations control the government, not effective change can be made

Genuine self-government that prioritizes people and the planet above money

David Brooks on reading

Americans are losing their ability to reason

• literacy and math declining for decades

• achievement gap between the top and bottom scorers increasing; top not falling

Blames social media

leading to cultural change

• disengaging from the whole idea of mental effort and mental training

• Low attendance

Donald Trump’s tariff policy