Stephen M. Gardiner and David A. Weisbach: Debating Climate Ethics

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 923-925
Author(s):  
Katla Heðinsdóttir
Keyword(s):  
Climate Ethics

Climate Ethics

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Gardiner ◽  
Simon Caney ◽  
Dale Jamieson ◽  
Henry Shue
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Human Dimensions ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
General Reference ◽  
Science And Policy ◽  
Climate Ethics ◽  
Climate Economics ◽  
Intergenerational Ethics

This collection gathers a set of seminal papers from the emerging area of ethics and climate change. Topics covered include human rights, international justice, intergenerational ethics, individual responsibility, climate economics, and the ethics of geoengineering. Climate Ethics is intended to serve as a source book for general reference, and for university courses that include a focus on the human dimensions of climate change. It should be of broad interest to all those concerned with global justice, environmental science and policy, and the future of humanity.

Anthropocentrism in Climate Ethics and Policy

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie McShane
Keyword(s):  
Climate Ethics

Climate Ethics

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Xavier Landes
Keyword(s):  
Climate Ethics

Stephen M. Gardiner and David A. Weisbach, Debating Climate Ethics

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-108
Author(s):  
Martin Schönfeld
Keyword(s):  
Climate Ethics

Climate Change and Non-Identity

Utilitas ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Lukas Tank
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Practical Relevance ◽  
Identity Problem ◽  
Climate Ethics ◽  
Big Picture ◽  
Central Claim

Abstract What is the practical relevance of the Non-Identity Problem (NIP) for our climate change-related duties? Climate change and the NIP are often discussed together, but there is surprisingly little work on the practical relevance of the NIP for the ethics of climate change. The central claim of this article is that the NIP makes a relatively minor difference to our climate change-related duties even if we pursue what has become known as the ‘bite the bullet’ strategy: endorse a person-affecting view threatened by the NIP and not modify it in such a way as to evade the NIP. In particular I will argue that a harm-based view can justify the big-picture call for action emerging from the field of climate ethics. The key to reaching this conclusion is pointing out the consequences of our climate change-related decisions for people whose existence does not depend on these very decisions.

Responding to Critics of Emotions and Collectives

2021 ◽  
pp. 104-115
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Fredericks
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Moral Development ◽  
Negative Emotions ◽  
Moral Emotions ◽  
Climate Ethics ◽  
Rational Individual

Chapter 6 explore three questions: why other climate ethicists including Dale Jamieson, Stephen M. Gardiner, and Tracy Lynn Isaacs have not examined moral emotions or the negative emotions of guilt and shame; why their philosophical assumptions prevent them from doing so; and what the advantages are of taking guilt and shame seriously in environmental and climate ethics. Philosophical climate ethics generally prioritizes rational, individual analyses and direct linear causality. These commitments are challenged by the complex layers of agency causing climate change and lead scholars to overlook (1) the contributions of guilt and shame to moral development and (2) how such moral emotions can help agents recognize their as-yet unacknowledged moral commitments––particularly critical tasks in rapidly developing moral circumstances such as that of climate change. Additionally, philosophical commitments of most climate ethicists hinder their recognition of important ethical questions: What are the ethical ramifications of environmental guilt and shame? Should agents intentionally induce them? Regardless of how these emotions come to exist, how should agents respond to them? A more capacious vision of ethics as outlined in this project—which draws on insights of laypeople as well as academics in multiple disciplines; includes rationality, emotion, relationships; acknowledges the agency of individuals and collectives; and recognizes human limits—can address a broader scope of ethical questions including but not limited to those sparked by environmental guilt and shame.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document