PHIL 2750 Final Exam Notes
Part A Study Focus
Know what is meant by the greenhouse
effect, global warming and why this is
causally related to human activity
The Greenhouse effect is a property of some gases referred to as
‘greenhouse gases’ – water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide and ozone. These gases absorb energy and then radiate it in all
directions. Some of the energy of the sun is reflected by the earth
back into space. Greenhouses gases in the atmosphere absorb some
of that energy and radiate a portion of it back to the earth. The
greenhouse effect is vital to life on our planet. Without the
greenhouse effect, the mean equilibrium temperature of the planet at
our distance from the sun would be -18 degrees Celsius. With it we
have a mean temperature of 15 degrees Celsius.
Global warming is an increase in the overall temperature of the
earth’s atmosphere caused by the greenhouse effect. Fossil fuels
power 86% of all human economic activity. Burning all that fuel
releases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Human activity
accelerates the carbon cycle and global temperatures have been rising
in tandem with the increased greenhouse gases in the atomosphere.
Know the environmental impacts of global
Warming
Extreme Weather Events, Shrinking Ice, Sea Level Rise, Drought and
Wildfires, Ocean Heat and Acidity, Loss of Biodiversity
Know the consequences for humans of the
environmental impacts of global warming
Extreme weather events – hurricanes, heat waves
Shrinking ice- 68% of the planet’s freshwater is locked in glaciers
Sea Level Rise – Melting ice ends up in oceans and causes sea level
rise. On track for a 1-meter sea level rise by the end of the century
Drought and Wildfires – Can cause firestorms, affect agriculture
Ocean Heat and Acidity 0 Oceans absorb 30% of human carbon
dioxide emissions, reacts with the ocean and increases acidity. The
acidity can affect living organisms in the ocean and affect biodiversity.
Loss of biodiversity – Living organisms are dependent on one another
(food chains) and when ecosystems are changed rapidly, it can lead to
extinction. This would affect dependent species.
Know why Simon natural resources are not
running out; specifically, know why Simon
believes that natural resources are infinite
Simon believes that you can take any physical element on the planet
and given human time frames, there is a fixed measurable (in
principle) quantity of it. We are interested in the services that
resources yield, not in the resources themselves. (goods and services).
Simon believes natural resources are merely a means to that end.
When costs rise because of the scarcity of goods and services, our
interest in those goods and services will spur innovation. (Different
means of providing the goods and services we desire, or different
ways of using the same means more efficiently.
Know how Simon’s argument relates to the
‘management approach’
Management approach is the idea that issues like climate change can
be managed by providing the right set of financial incentives or
penalties to drive human behaviour in the desired direction
Know why Sagoff would challenge our
consumption culture
When framed in the manner that some ecologists frame the question
(will resources for growing populations run out?) Sagoff’s answer is
no. Same reasons as Simon.
But if framed as a values question (Singer’s assertion that
consumption culture has a distorting effect upon humans), the answer
may be yes
Sagoff suggests that our consumption culture may be problematic on
value grounds
He gives 4 reasons:
1. Western-style consumption culture can be destructive to
traditional cultures
2. Increased consumption is attended by increases in well-being
3. Secondly, the things that do contribute to human well-being do
not depend upon material enlargement beyond an adequate
minimum
4. If the goals of a consumption society is to satisfy human material
desires, and if those desires are insatiable, then it would seem
that the goal is futile
While Sagoff agrees with Simon that there are no economic
imperatives for abandoning consumer culture, he nonetheless
believes that there may be moral or social reasons for change
Know Shue’s 3 principles of equity and how
he would apply them with respect to
distributing the burdens of addressing
climate change
Shue’s first principle- Concerns the contribution to the problem.
Those nations that industrialized early, burning fossil fuels to do so,
would bear a greater share of the costs of addressing climate change.
Shue’s second principle – Concerns the greater ability to pay. Equal
contribution to the problem among rich and poor nations, given great
differences in wealth, imposes disproportionately greater burden
upon poorer nations
Shue’s third principle – Requires that where conditions of radical
inequality exist, and all are being asked to contribute to a common
endeavor, an adequate minimum should be provided to those least
advantaged
Know the objections to his 3 principles of
equity that Shue canvasses and know how
Shue responds these criticisms
The first objection that lesser developed countries benefitted from
the early industrialization of the West – Shue’s response is that while
LDCs undoubtedly did benefit from early Western development, the
benefits largely flowed from LDCs to the West and whatever benefits
did accrue were paid for by LDCs
Second objection to first principle – western industrialization began in
the 18th century.
The climate consequences of burning fossil fuels only started to
become clear in the latter half of the 20th Century – Shue distinguishes
between (moral) punishment and (casual) responsibility.
CO2 lasts for a long time in the atmosphere. It is Western
industrialization that is overwhelmingly the cause of the problem. To
require those who are not primarily responsible for the problem to
bear an undue burden to clean up the West’s mess, would be to treat
them as moral inferiors
The third objection that Shue examines concerns the fact that those
of us in the West now cannot be morally responsible for the actions of
past generations. Shue’s response – In the West we have largely
continued the practice of burning fossil fuels – in the sense taking
ownership of the actions of past generations. Secondly, and more
significantly, he notes that those in the West now benefit by virtue of
early industrialization.
Objection to second principle – disincentivizes investment and
innovation
Shue’s response: Even if the objection was empirically well-founded,
it constitutes an economic rational and not a moral rationale
Second response: All growth is good paradigm has a distorting effect
upon the goals and purposes of human beings
Third response: The objection is empirically inadequate. People act
for many reasons other than pecuniary self-interest. The question of
what level of progressive contribution begins to constitute a
disincentive to innovation and growth is a factual matter.
Objection to third principle: The Rawlsian rationale (inequalities in
wealth and social status are permissible if they are to the greatest
advantage of the least advantaged under conditions of equal
opportunity) does not seem to apply to those who are outside of the
common endeavour that is the nation state
Shue’s response: the objection does not apply in the context of
climate change
Know the reasons why Jamieson believes that
the management approach must fail with
respect to climate change
Jamieson will argue that the nature of the climate change problem
presents challenges to a management solution. Jamieson notes the
effect of climate change will be regionally varied and, of course the
effects are spatially distal. This means emissions will be having effects
that are globally dispersed. And because the phenomenon is casually
complex, particular effects cannot be traced to particular emissions.
Climate change is a global phenomenon requiring global action, but
there is no sovereign global government. Management policies must
be implemented by nation states but while all nations do have an
interest in avoiding the worst effects of climate change, often
conflicting interests come into play in terms of how management
policy is to be formulated and implemented. Human and government
responses will be complex and varied in ways that challenge the
efficacy of management approaches. Jaimeson also notes that the
global nature of the phenomenon means that management policy
would require global data, which introduces uncertainty owing to the
disparities between nations.
Know why Jamieson believes that the
dominant responsibility-based value system
is ill-equipped to address the problem of
climate change
Jamieson argues that the responsibility paradigm breaks down in 3
ways:
1. Innocent acts can have devastating consequences – The actions
(emissions) of any single person are, by themselves, insignificant
in causing the phenomenon. Yet it is the aggregate of these
individual innocent actions that will cause significant harms.
2. Causes and harms may be diffused
Ex: CO2 will cause harmful effects but the phenomenon is causally
complex and we cannot trace any particular effect of a warming
climate to any particular emission
3. Causes and harms may be remote in space and time
Climate change is a substantially deferred phenomenon – significant
proportions of our CO2 emissions will exist in the atmosphere for a
long time. The impact of what is done now will be visited upon future
generations (contingent persons – persons who may or may not exist).
The responsibility paradigm is not well suited for dealing with
contingent persons. How can I be responsible for a harm that may or
may not happen to somebody who may or may not exist at some
future date
Know what focus Jamieson believes would be
more efficacious for dealing with climate
change & be able to speak to why this might
be thought to be more efficacious
Jamieson suggests that our focus should be on character. This would
be an aretaic or virtue approach to ethics. Instead of trying to manage
our way out of the problem with the right mix of incentives or
penalties, or by engaging in moral gymnastics to attribute
responsibility, we should try to cultivate environmentally virtuous
people.
Know what Gardiner means by the three
Storms
The Global Nature of the Problem
The Intergenerational Nature of the Problem
The Theoretical Problem
For the first and second storms he analyzes it in three ways:
1. The dispersal of cause and effect
2. The fragmentation of agency
3. Institutional inadequacy
The Global Nature of the Problem
The CAUSE of climate change (CO2 emissions) are globally dispersed
as are the environmental effects
Secondly, the EFFECTS of any particular action cannot be ascertained.
There is no sovereign global governance even though the problem is
global.
The Intergenerational Nature of the Problem
One of the aspects of the climate change phenomenon that makes it
particularly problematic for human beings is that the phenomenon
unfolds on a time scale that is outside of the time scale scope that
human beings evolved to deal with. Greenhouses gas emissions will
remain in the atmosphere for tens, hundreds, and thousands of years.
The effects are backloaded which means these were caused by the
emissions of our parents/grandparents. The temporal dispersal of
cause and effect creates a situation where the current generation
does little to address the problem. Even though from a generationally
collective standpoint cooperation is clearly in the interest of
humanity. Gardiner claims it is an iterated problem where each
generation is individually incentivized to postpone addressing the
problem, but each time it is postponed the problem becomes greater
for the later generation.
The Theoretical Problem
In traditional deontic ethical theories, we have moral duties to other
moral agents. But there are lots of living things that are affected by
climate change where there is no obvious connection to human
beings that would provide a basis for moral obligation. There is no
basis within traditional ethics for holding that I have a moral
obligation to something like an eco-system. These difficulties in
deploying traditional moral issues means that arguments for
conservation have typically been relegated to other categories of
value; aesthetics and more typically economic.
Know what Gardiner means by moral
corruption and why he believes this is the
result of the three storms
Moral corruption – simply by living and acting in ways that seem
morally unproblematic in our modern life, we end up harming those
who follow us
Know the Gardiner’s analysis re: global
dispersal of cause and effect, fragmentation
of agency and institutional inadequacy as
they relate to the global storm
Know the Gardiner’s analysis re: global
dispersal of cause and effect, fragmentation
of agency and institutional inadequacy as
they relate to the intergenerational storm
Know what Hursthouse believes constitutes a
virtue; i.e., what one would need to articulate
in order to describe a new (environmental)
virtue
Hursthouse believes for something to be a subject of a virtue, it needs
to be the sort of thing that can be described as a character trait, not
merely a common policy followed for prudential reasons. It should be
rooted in our emotional capacities. It should be a kind of know-how
that involves being able to act and react appropriately to changing
circumstances. And the know-how should be the kind of know-how
that is habituated – often most easily habituated during our early
development
Know what Hursthouse means by the
‘pessimistic possibility’
Know why the pessimistic possibility arises
and the problems that would arise from it