phil terms and concepts

● Utilitarianism

• When we ignore intention and only view the outcome of actions. Actions that produce the most net max happiness

● Consequentialism

• Ignoring intention and viewing the consequences of an action 

• If you help an old lady cross the street and she gets hit by a car, you are at fault because your actions led to that. Even if your intentions were good. 

● Distributive justice 

• is equity-focused, centering on the manner in which the benefits and problems of society should be allocated.

● Corrective justice

• related to how individuals should be punished for misdeeds.

● Mill’s harm principle 

• The core idea is that individuals should be free to act as they please, as long as their actions don't cause harm to others. 

● Nozick’s libertarian theory of Justice

• emphasizes individual rights and minimal government intervention, arguing that a just distribution of resources and wealth occurs through voluntary exchanges and that any forced redistribution is unjust.

● Cosmopolitan egalitarianism

• argues for the equal moral status and rights of all individuals, regardless of their citizenship or national affiliation, advocating for a global community where everyone has access to the material means needed to lead a good life

● Identity-based persecution vs. humanitarian definitions of refugees

• Identity based persecution is when someone is being threatened and discriminated against based on their identity. Things like race, gender, and ethnicity. 

• The humanitarian definition of refugee is basically someone who is seeking refuge and security because of their environment. So war, natural disaster, and poverty. 

● Rule of law considerations]

• Everyone, including those in government, is subject to and accountable under the law, which must be clear, accessible, and applied fairly and consistently. 

● Complicity

• the state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.

• For example, if you are aware a business is in support of a wrongdoing but still are a consumer you can be labled complicit in their wrongdoing. 

● Parfit’s Harmless Torturers

(specifically: application to civil disobedience, climate change)

• Derek Parfit’s Harmless Torturers thought experiment raises questions about moral responsibility in cases where small individual actions contribute to large-scale harm. The thought experiment describes a scenario in which a thousand torturers each slightly increase the pain of a victim using a device, but no single increase is enough to be noticeably harmful. However, the cumulative effect is extreme suffering. This challenges traditional moral reasoning that ties responsibility to direct, perceptible harm.

• Climate change: Parfit’s argument is particularly relevant to climate change. Many people justify environmentally harmful actions (e.g., driving gas-powered cars, excessive consumption) by arguing that their individual choices make no noticeable difference. However, the cumulative impact of millions of similar choices leads to significant environmental destruction. Just as in the Harmless Torturers case, the fact that no single action directly causes global catastrophe does not absolve individuals of moral responsibility.

• Civil Disobedience: Parfit’s argument can be used to justify collective action against systemic injustices. If an unjust system only functions because of countless small contributions (e.g., passive complicity, bureaucratic enforcement, or everyday participation), then individual acts of resistance—while seemingly insignificant on their own—can collectively undermine the system. This reinforces the moral legitimacy of civil disobedience: even if one protest or boycott does not immediately change a policy, the aggregated efforts can cause meaningful change.

● Obligation vs. supererogation

• Obligation: to actions that one is morally required to do. Failing to fufill an obligation is considered morally wrong

• Supererogation: actions that go above and beyond moral duty, acts that are praiseworthy but not required

● Prisoner’s dilemmas (and application to climate ethics)

• The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a classic game theory scenario that models situations where individual rationality leads to collective harm. In its standard form, two prisoners must decide whether to betray each other or remain silent. If both cooperate, they receive a moderate sentence; if both betray, they get a harsher sentence; if one betrays while the other cooperates, the betrayer goes free while the cooperator gets the worst outcome. The dilemma arises because mutual cooperation is collectively best, but individual incentives push toward betrayal.

• The climate crisis is a large-scale Prisoner’s Dilemma, where countries, corporations, and individuals face the temptation to act in self-interest rather than cooperating for the common good.

● Future discounting (i.e. how economic models discount the wellbeing of future people)

• Future Discounting is a concept in economics and philosophy that refers to the tendency to value present benefits more than future benefits.

• Governments and corporations often prioritize short-term economic growth over long-term environmental sustainability.

● The principle of intergenerational equality

• The Principle of Intergenerational Equality is the idea that present and future generations have equal moral worth and that we have a duty to ensure future people inherit a world that is at least as livable and just as the one we enjoy today. This principle is central to climate ethics, environmental justice, and long-term policy planning.

● Longtermism

• Longtermism is the ethical view that the long-term future matters significantly and that we should prioritize actions that positively shape the trajectory of humanity over millions or even billions of years.

• If we accept that future lives matter, then we have a duty to act now to prevent irreversible environmental damage.

  • Objections: 

    • Some argue it over-prioritizes distant future risks while ignoring present injustices (e.g., poverty, inequality).

    • There is uncertainty about how far into the future we should plan, as predicting outcomes over centuries is difficult.

● Adaptation vs. mitigation costs

• Mitigation refers to efforts to reduce or prevent greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change (e.g., transitioning to renewable energy, carbon taxes, reforestation).

• Adaptation involves adjusting to climate change's effects (e.g., building sea walls, developing drought-resistant crops, relocating vulnerable communities).

● Principles for distributing the costs of climate change:

○ Polluter pays principle (PPP)

• Those who contribute to the pollution should be the ones to pay. Like oil and big corporations.

  • Objection to this is that like where do we draw the line? Everyone benefits from polluters. 

○ Beneficiary pays principle (BPP)

• Those who benefit from the resources that cause pollution should pay

○ Ability to pay principle (APP).

• Those who are in the finacial place to pay should pay

  • Can does not mean ought though

  • People aren’t obligated to pay

● Geoengineering 

• Manufacturing of climate mitigation.

• Large-scale technological interventions designed to alter the Earth's climate and counteract climate change. 

  • Space mirrors 

  • Aerosols 

● The Green New Deal

• The Green New Deal (GND) is a policy framework that aims to address both climate change and economic inequality through large-scale government investment in clean energy, green infrastructure, and social programs. Inspired by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, it seeks to transition the U.S. (and other economies) to a sustainable, low-carbon future while creating millions of jobs.

● Degrowth

• reducing overall economic production and consumption to achieve environmental sustainability, social well-being, and economic justice.

• Objections and challenges: 

  • Economic Stability: Critics argue degrowth could reduce jobs, incomes, and government revenues, leading to recession.

  • Political Feasibility: Governments and corporations prioritize economic growth, making degrowth difficult to implement.

  • Technological Optimism: Some believe innovation (e.g., green energy, carbon capture) can solve climate problems without requiring degrowth.

● The Individual Causal Inefficacy (ICI) view

• The Individual Causal Inefficacy (ICI) view is the idea that individual actions often seem too small to make a meaningful difference in large-scale problems like climate change, systemic injustice, or economic inequality. It raises the question: If my personal choices don’t directly change the outcome, do I have any moral obligation to act?

● Prima facie vs. all-things-considered wrongs

• Prima Facie: A prima facie wrong is an action that is wrong at first glance or under normal circumstances, but this wrongness can be overridden by stronger moral considerations.

  • Example: Lying is prima facie wrong because it undermines trust. But lying to protect someone from harm (e.g., hiding refugees from an oppressor) may be justified. 

  • Civil disobedience is legally wrong, but it might be morally justified if it fights against injustice (e.g., the Civil Rights Movement).

• All-things-considered wrong: An all-things-considered wrong is an action that remains morally wrong even after weighing all relevant factors—there is no sufficient justification to override its wrongness. 

  • Example: Killing an innocent person for personal gain is always an all-things-considered wrong because no other moral factor justifies it.

  • Fossil Fuel use: If alternatives (renewables) are available, continued fossil fuel reliance may be deemed all-things-considered wrong due to irreversible climate damage.

● Civil vs. uncivil disobedience

• Civil Disobedience: Civil disobedience is the intentional and nonviolent violation of laws to protest perceived injustice while maintaining respect for legal and moral order. It is often seen as a legitimate, sometimes even necessary, tool for social change. 

• Uncivil Disobedience: Uncivil disobedience is the violation of laws or norms in a way that is confrontational, disruptive, or even violent, often rejecting the moral obligation to remain peaceful or accept punishment.

• Implications of Disobedience: The choice between civil and uncivil disobedience can significantly impact public perception and the effectiveness of movements aimed at addressing issues like fossil fuel reliance and climate change.