Global Ethics, Structural Injustice, and Environmental Responsibility Flashcards

Global ethics examines ethical dilemmas that operate across national borders, including climate change, migration, global trade, human trafficking, pandemics, poverty and humanitarian intervention. It considers both the theoretical and practical dimensions of these problems and how ethical decisions shape global governance and future generations.

Global ethics is not the same as “a global ethic.” It does not seek to impose one universal moral code or way of life. Instead, it provides an approach for examining global ethical problems while considering different moral frameworks.

Three Characteristics of Global Ethics

1. Global in Scope

The globe is the ethical frame, meaning the rights, interests and needs of all global actors should be considered. Ethical reasoning should avoid prioritising powerful nations or groups over vulnerable populations.

→ Responsibility applies to individuals + states + institutions + organisations.

1. Multidisciplinary

Global ethical problems are complex and require knowledge from multiple fields, including philosophy, sociology, economics, politics, international relations and law.

1. Theory + Practice

Global ethics connects ethical theory to real-world action and policy. Its purpose is not simply to develop theories, but to reduce suffering and injustice through practical change.

Global ethics = global scope + multidisciplinary analysis + theory and practice

Structural Injustice

Structural injustice occurs when social, economic and institutional processes systematically disadvantage some groups while benefiting others.

It is often produced through many people acting within normal laws, conventions and institutional practices, rather than through one person's deliberate wrongdoing.

Key idea: An unjust outcome can occur even when no individual intended to create it.

Liability Model of Responsibility

The liability model is the traditional approach to responsibility. It asks:

Who caused the harm and who should be blamed?

It focuses on:

• an identifiable wrongdoer

• direct causation

• voluntary actions

• knowledge of consequences

• blame, punishment or compensation.

The model is mainly backward-looking, focusing on a harm that has already occurred.

Limitation

The liability model struggles with structural problems because there may be no single identifiable person responsible.

Iris Marion Young — Social Connection Model

Young proposes the social connection model to explain responsibility for structural injustice.

People who contribute through their actions to social processes that produce unjust outcomes share responsibility for changing those processes. Responsibility comes from participating in interconnected social and institutional systems.

Five Features

1. Not isolating: Responsibility is shared rather than restricted to one guilty individual.

2. Judges background conditions: Examines the normal social, economic and institutional conditions producing injustice.

3. Forward-looking: Focuses on changing structures to prevent future injustice rather than simply assigning past blame.

4.  Shared responsibility: Those participating in the structures have some responsibility for their outcomes.

5. Collective action: Structural injustice cannot be solved individually; change requires coordinated political and social action.

Liability vs Social Connection

Guilt vs Responsibility

Drawing on Hannah Arendt, Young distinguishes between guilt and political responsibility.

Guilt is individual and requires evidence that a specific person caused a specific harm. Political responsibility is broader and can apply to people who participate in ongoing social systems that reproduce injustice.

→ Not being personally guilty does not necessarily mean having no responsibility.

Global Environmental Ethics

Environmental ethics is a major area of global ethics because environmental degradation crosses national borders and affects health, poverty, migration, conflict and human survival.

Climate change is driven largely by greenhouse gases produced through:

• fossil fuels

• land and vegetation clearing

• livestock farming

• industrial agriculture.

Its impacts include rising temperatures, melting ice, sea-level rise, ocean acidification and increasingly extreme weather.

Climate Change + Global Justice

Climate change affects groups and regions unequally. Pacific Island nations face significant risks from rising sea levels and extreme weather, while Australia has experienced severe flooding and bushfires, including the 2019–20 Black Summer fires.

This creates ethical questions:

Who contributes most? → Who suffers most? → Who should act? → Who should bear the costs?

Global Climate Governance

Climate change requires international cooperation. Major responses include the:

• UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

• COP climate conferences

• international climate agreements such as Kyoto and Paris.

These demonstrate that environmental problems cannot be addressed by individual countries alone.

Peter Singer — Speciesism

Singer argues that moral equality should extend beyond humans because non-human animals can experience suffering.

Speciesism = unjustified discrimination based solely on species membership.

Animals' interests should therefore be included in ethical decisions, raising questions about animal consumption, exploitation and experimentation.

Responsibility for Climate Change

Climate responsibility exists at multiple levels:

• Global organisations: international agreements and climate targets.

• Nation-states: regulation, carbon policies and environmental protections.

• Institutions/corporations: reduce emissions and resource consumption.

• Individuals: reduce waste, plastics, energy and water consumption.

Applying Young

Climate change fits Young's social connection model because millions of actors participate in systems that collectively produce environmental harm, even though no single person is solely responsible.

Structural problem → shared responsibility → forward-looking action → collective change

Environmental Activism

Environmental social movements attempt to turn ethical responsibility into action through:

• protests and demonstrations

• direct action

• petitions and advocacy

• social media campaigns

• legal challenges.

The School Strike for Climate, associated with Greta Thunberg, demonstrates how young people have mobilised collectively around climate responsibility.

Australian Youth Climate Case

In 2021, Australian children and teenagers challenged the expansion of a NSW coal mine. The Federal Court initially recognised a duty of care concerning the climate impacts on young people, although the ruling was overturned on appeal in 2022.

This illustrates the idea of intergenerational justice — present actions can create ethical consequences for future generations.

Key Concepts

• Global ethics — examines ethical issues using the globe as the frame.

• Structural injustice — injustice produced through interconnected social and institutional processes.

• Liability model — assigns responsibility through direct causation and individual blame.

• Social connection model — people participating in structures producing injustice share responsibility for changing them.

• Forward-looking responsibility — focuses on transforming future outcomes rather than assigning past blame.

• Collective action — coordinated action needed to transform structural injustice.

• Speciesism — discrimination based on species membership.

• Intergenerational justice — ethical responsibility to consider how present actions affect future generations.

During the tutorial, each student will play an active role in a tutor facilitated group discussion.  The aim of the class presentation is for each student to demonstrate their knowledge of a central concept/theory

 
Key Ideas about Iris Marion Young’s Social Connection Model of Responsibility

1. Shared Responsibility
- Responsibility is collectively shared among those participating in social processes that produce injustices.
- Individuals are not isolated in their culpability; rather, everyone involved contributes to maintaining or changing unjust systems.
- *Example*: In a factory that pollutes the environment, workers, management, and consumers all share in the responsibility for the resulting harm.

2. **Forward-Looking Approach**
- The model emphasizes the transformation of structures to prevent future injustices rather than solely assigning blame for past actions.
- This proactive mindset encourages individuals and groups to seek solutions that change structural dynamics leading to injustice.
- *Strength*: Promotes longer-term solutions and societal change instead of cyclical blame.
- *Weakness*: May overlook the need for accountability in instances of clear wrongdoing.

3. **Collective Action**
- Addressing structural injustices necessitates coordinated political and social efforts; individuals cannot achieve meaningful change alone.
- The model highlights the importance of solidarity among people to effectively challenge and change unjust structures.
- *Contemporary Example*: Environmental movements, like the School Strike for Climate led by Greta Thunberg, show how collective action can mobilize change on a global scale.

**Discussion Points for Class Presentation:**
1. How does the concept of shared responsibility reshape our understanding of social justice?
2. What are some limitations of relying solely on a forward-looking approach in addressing injustices?
3. In what ways can collective action be effectively organized to create social change?