Dr. John Nolt, a professor in the philosophy department at UTK, author of various books and articles, and the man who (co)spearheaded UTK's 25 year energy plan, lectured on "Individual Responsibility for Climate Change" at UT recently, and I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend. I must say I was particularly excited for this lecture because, as a prospective philosophy major myself, I was intrigued how a philosophy professor would tackle the issue of climate change, which ordinarily is dealt with solely by those within the sciences.
He began with his thesis, essentially that the potential harm for climate change is so great and the need for emissions reduction so urgent that where the use of greenhouse gas emissions should be halted as expediently as possible. This seemed a logical enough statement; it is backed by all of the data and research that has been done on the subject, and could come straight out of any IPCC study. As he continued, he laid out several points which led to this conclusion. These are the (generalized) conditions which Dr. Nolt utilized to build his argument:
-Climate change will kill/harm lots of people
-Harm relates directly with emissions
-Individual contribution to emissions important
-This contributes to an unjust domination of posterity by current affluence
-Emissions are, unless necessary, morally inexcusable
-Emissions should be halted
I quite enjoyed the utilization of such a philosophical approach toward this issue: building a case based on premises which, if true, lead to the stated conclusion. The first few points are fairly standard, and can be shown to be accurate with any research on the subject. Though, the examination of the issue as a dominator:subordinate relationship connecting the population of today with our posterity was a new formation of the argument against emissions. It is understood that we of today have a responsibility to ensure at least the possibility for generations which will exist when we no longer do so to survive. However, Dr. Nolt posed the argument in a very endearing way: that we of today not only have a responsibility to help future generations, but that if we do not, we are acting unjustly. This shifts the perspective of the argument entirely; the general consensus of the population of today is that anything we actively pursue for the benefit of future generations is generous benevolence on our part, purely altruistic. Though, with the other view, it is merely acting justly, and to act otherwise would be a serious ethical issue.
This point was the key point which allows for the moral implications of the argument. It now appears that to not stop all unnecessary emissions immediately would be a grossly unjust action toward the world of the future. Dr. Nolt presented the issue through a primarily ethical lens, rather than an empirical display of the dire effects that climate change would have on us, an argument still based on appeal to one's self interest. The talk was informative and enlightening, and I hope that this mantra can be spread to allow more to see the moral implications of our driving Hummers and otherwise creating greenhouse gasses unnecessarily. It certainly opened my eyes to the effects that every decision i make will have for millennia to come.
He began with his thesis, essentially that the potential harm for climate change is so great and the need for emissions reduction so urgent that where the use of greenhouse gas emissions should be halted as expediently as possible. This seemed a logical enough statement; it is backed by all of the data and research that has been done on the subject, and could come straight out of any IPCC study. As he continued, he laid out several points which led to this conclusion. These are the (generalized) conditions which Dr. Nolt utilized to build his argument:
-Climate change will kill/harm lots of people
-Harm relates directly with emissions
-Individual contribution to emissions important
-This contributes to an unjust domination of posterity by current affluence
-Emissions are, unless necessary, morally inexcusable
-Emissions should be halted
I quite enjoyed the utilization of such a philosophical approach toward this issue: building a case based on premises which, if true, lead to the stated conclusion. The first few points are fairly standard, and can be shown to be accurate with any research on the subject. Though, the examination of the issue as a dominator:subordinate relationship connecting the population of today with our posterity was a new formation of the argument against emissions. It is understood that we of today have a responsibility to ensure at least the possibility for generations which will exist when we no longer do so to survive. However, Dr. Nolt posed the argument in a very endearing way: that we of today not only have a responsibility to help future generations, but that if we do not, we are acting unjustly. This shifts the perspective of the argument entirely; the general consensus of the population of today is that anything we actively pursue for the benefit of future generations is generous benevolence on our part, purely altruistic. Though, with the other view, it is merely acting justly, and to act otherwise would be a serious ethical issue.
This point was the key point which allows for the moral implications of the argument. It now appears that to not stop all unnecessary emissions immediately would be a grossly unjust action toward the world of the future. Dr. Nolt presented the issue through a primarily ethical lens, rather than an empirical display of the dire effects that climate change would have on us, an argument still based on appeal to one's self interest. The talk was informative and enlightening, and I hope that this mantra can be spread to allow more to see the moral implications of our driving Hummers and otherwise creating greenhouse gasses unnecessarily. It certainly opened my eyes to the effects that every decision i make will have for millennia to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment