Authors
Anne Schwenkenbecher
Murdoch University
Abstract
Moral duties concerning climate change mitigation are – for good reasons – conventionally construed as duties of institutional agents, usually states. Yet, in both scholarly debate and political discourse, it has occasionally been argued that the moral duties lie not only with states and institutional agents, but also with individual citizens. This argument has been made with regard to mitigation efforts, especially those reducing greenhouse gases. This paper focuses on the question of whether individuals in industrialized countries have duties to reduce their individual carbon footprint. To this end it will examine three kinds of arguments that have been brought forward against individuals having such duties: the view that individual emissions cause no harm; the view that individual mitigation efforts would have no morally significant effect; and the view that lifestyle changes would be overly-demanding. The paper shows how all three arguments fail to convince. While collective endeavours may be most efficient and effective in bringing about significant changes, there are still good reasons to contribute individually to reducing emission. After all, for most people the choice is between reducing one’s individual emissions and not doing anything. The author hopes this paper shows that one should not opt for the latter.
Keywords ethics of climate change  aggregate harm  collective duties  climate change mitigation  Parfit
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2012, 2014
DOI 10.1080/13698230.2012.692984
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Famine, Affluence, and Morality.Peter Singer - 1972 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (3):229-243.
Responsibility and Global Justice: A Social Connection Model.Iris Marion Young - 2006 - Social Philosophy and Policy 23 (1):102-130.
Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory.Liam B. Murphy - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality.Peter Singer - 1972 - Oxford University Press USA.

View all 23 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

What’s Wrong with Joyguzzling?Ewan Kingston & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 2018 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21 (1):169-186.
Causing Global Warming.Mattias Gunnemyr - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (2):399-424.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ethical Obligations in a Tragedy of the Commons.Baylor L. Johnson - 2003 - Environmental Values 12 (3):271-287.
The Irreducibility of Personal Obligation.Jacob Ross - 2010 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (3):307 - 323.
It's Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations.Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 2005 - In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong & Richard Howarth (eds.), Perspectives on Climate Change. Elsevier. pp. 221–253.
Liberty and Contractual Obligation in Hobbes.Daniel Eggers - 2009 - Hobbes Studies 22 (1):70-103.
Treading Lightly on the Climate in a Problem-Ridden World.Dan C. Shahar - 2016 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 19 (2):183-195.
Essentially Shared Obligations.Gunnar Björnsson - 2014 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 38 (1):103-120.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-07-09

Total views
794 ( #5,604 of 2,362,028 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
110 ( #4,853 of 2,362,028 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes