Journal of Moral Philosophy 14 (4):435–462 (2017)
AbstractRecent debates over climate change policy have made it clear that the choice of a social discount rate has enormous consequences for the amount of mitigation that will be recommended. The social discount rate determines how future costs are to be compared to present costs. Philosophers, however, have been almost unanimous in endorsing the view that the only acceptable social rate of time preference is zero, a view that, taken literally, has either absurd or extremely radical implications. The first goal of this paper is to show that the standard arguments against temporal preference are much less persuasive than they are usually taken to be. The second goal is to explore two different avenues of argument that could be adopted, in order to show that temporal discounting of welfare may be permissible. The first involves simply an application of the method of reflective equilibrium, while the second involves consideration of the way that our abstract moral commitments are institutionalized.
Similar books and articles
Climate change, intergenerational equity and the social discount rate.Simon Caney - 2014 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 13 (4):320-342.
On the social rate of discount: The case for macroenvironmental policy.J. A. Doeleman - 1980 - Environmental Ethics 2 (1):45-58.
Time preference, the environment and the interests of future generations.E. Wesley & F. Peterson - 1993 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2):107-126.
Evaluating Time Streams of Income: Discounting What? [REVIEW]Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin - 2007 - Theory and Decision 63 (2):95-120.
Discounting the Future: John Rawls and Derek Parfit's Critique of the Discount Rate.L. van Liedekerke - 2004 - Ethical Perspectives 11 (1):72-83.
Discounting the future, yet again.Geoffrey Brennan - 2007 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (3):259-284.
Ethics and Climate Change: A Commentary on MacCracken, Toman and Gardiner.Peter Singer - 2006 - Environmental Values 15 (3):415 - 422.
What Climate Policy Can a Utilitarian Justify?Bernward Gesang - 2013 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (2):377-392.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The Social Cost of Carbon: Valuing Inequality, Risk, and Population for Climate Policy.Marc Fleurbaey, Maddalena Ferranna, Mark Budolfson, Francis Dennig, Kian Mintz-Woo, Robert Socolow, Dean Spears & Stéphane Zuber - 2019 - The Monist 102 (1):84-109.
Principled Utility Discounting Under Risk.Kian Mintz-Woo - 2019 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 6 (1):89-112.
Does a discount rate measure the costs of climate change?Christian Tarsney - 2017 - Economics and Philosophy 33 (3):337-365.
Review of Tyler Cowen’s Stubborn Attachments. San Francisco: Stripe Press, 2018, 158 pp. [REVIEW]Joseph Heath - 2019 - Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 12 (1):114-124.
Time discounting, consistency, and special obligations: a defence of Robust Temporalism.Harry R. Lloyd - 2021 - Global Priorities Institute, Working Papers 2021 (11):1-38.
References found in this work
Climate Change, Human Rights and Moral Thresholds.Simon Caney - 2010 - In Stephen Humphreys (ed.), Human Rights and Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. pp. 69-90..
Climate change and the future: Discounting for time, wealth, and risk.Simon Caney - 2009 - Journal of Social Philosophy 40 (2):163-186.