Responding to Global Warming:

Ethical DimensionsSean McAleer, Ph.D.

Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

UW - Eau Claire27 March 2013

ECON 268

Topics

1. Basic Concepts

2. The Tragedy of the Commons

3. Justice

4. Pascal’s Wager and Global

Warming

1. Basic Concepts

a. Moral Agency: the capacity to act on/for moral reasons

b. Moral Standing: who/what counts morally[i.e., whose interests ought a moral agent consider]

c. Moral Significance: how much something counts morally [i.e., how much weight ought a moral agent give x’s interests?]

d. A criterion: x has moral standing iff …… x is rational? … x is sentient? … x is alive?

2. Tragedy of the Commons

Suppose a grazing pasture is a commons, regulated only by voluntary self-restraint; what will happen?Carrying capacityWhat is individually rational may be collectively irrational.How might the tragedy be avoided?– Central authority– PrivatizationIs the atmosphere a commons?Problems of collective action/agency

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

OtherConfess Don’t Confess

Confess < 5, 5 > < 1, 10 >

You Don’t Confess < 10, 1 > < 3, 3 >

What should you do, acting in your own interest?If the other confesses then you should ……… ?If the other doesn’t confess then you should ……… ?The other will either confess or not confess.Therefore, you. should ……… ?

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

OtherConfess Don’t Confess

Confess < 5, 5 > < 1, 10 >

You Don’t Confess < 10, 1 > < 3, 3 >

Won’t the other do the same, if she’s rational?How do you both end up, acting from self-interest?Suppose you can confer before entering your plea -- what deal should you make?What should you say, when you’re asked for your plea?

A less artificial example

OtherEgoist Altruist

Egoist Dog-eat-dog King of the world

You Altruist Sucker! Pretty Good

What should you be, acting in your own interest?If the other is rational, what will the outcome be?Even if you’ve made a deal, do you have an incentive to free-ride?

3. Justice

a. Distributive Justice: How should access to a finite resource be allocated? Justice and equality?Think of the atmosphere as a sink into which we dump our waste gasses.

b. Compensatory Justice: How much does A owe B for harming B?

3a.Distributive Justicei. Time-slice principles (e.g., Rawls’ egalitarianism)ii. Historical principles (e.g., Nozick’s voluntarism)Access-allocation is just if …Equal Share: … every country has equal per capita

access to the sinkBenefit the Worst-off: … it is to the benefit of the worst

off countriesEconomic Activity Principle: … every country has equal

per unit of economic activity access to the sinkEconomic Efficiency Principle: … every country’s

access is proportional to its economic efficiencyUtilitarianism: … it leads to the greatest net happiness

for allVoluntarism: … it is the result of voluntary exchange

Choosing principles of distributive justice

Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance procedure:1. Imagine that you are ignorant of various material facts that might

make you select principles that would benefit only you or members of your group(s) – e.g., race, sex, education level, ethnicity, religious affiliation, nationality, etc.

2. Assume rational self-interest.3. Choose principles of distributive justice that will further your

interests.

Rawls: Principles chosen from this original position of equality would be fair (because they would secure unanimous consent).

No reasonable, self-interested person would choose a principle benefiting white men, for example, since from behind the veil of ignorance you don’t know whether you’re white or a man.

Relevance to global warming?

Rawls’ Difference Principle(s)

Rawls thinks that from behind the veil of ignorance you’d choose the following principle:

Goods are to be distributed equally …unless an unequal distribution would

(a) benefit everyone OR(b) benefit the least well-off

Nozick’s Argument Against Time-Slice Principles

Suppose some time-slice principle allocates x. How could subsequent voluntary exchanges of x fail to be just, even if the subsequent distribution violates the time-slice principle?Conditions on voluntariness: mental competence; adequate information; absence of fraud; absence of coercion.

4. Global Warming, Pascal’s Wager, and the Precautionary

Principlea. Examples of the PPb. Structure of the PPc. Pascal’s Wagerd. Precaution and paralysis?

4a. Examples

Rio Declaration (1992):Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

4a. Examples

The Wingspread version (1998): Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public bears the burden of proof.

4a. Examples

UNESCO (2005):When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.Morally unacceptable harm refers to harm to humans or the environment that is• threatening to human life or health, or• serious and effectively irreversible, or• inequitable to present or future generations, or• imposed without adequate consideration of the human rights of those affected.

4b. PP: Structure

DAMAGE CONDITION KNOWLEDGE CONDITION REMEDY

Serious Possible Ban

Harmful Suspected Moratorium

Catastrophe Reasonable Promote Alternatives

IrreversibleNot proven beyond ……

that the activity won’t create the damage

Reduce uncertainty

Diminish negative consequences

4c. The PP & Pascal’s Wager

What you believe and how you act

Theism Atheism

What the facts are

God exists

God doesn’t exist

Pascal’s wager gives a prudential reason for theism, not an epistemic reason.

4c. The PP & Pascal’s Wager

What you believe and how you act

Theism Atheism

What the facts are

God exists Eternal blissEternal torment

God doesn’t exist

Minor loss Minor gain

4c. The PP & Pascal’s Wager

What you believe and how you act

Drastically cut CO2

Don’t drastically cut

CO2

What the facts are

GW is real & anthropogenic

GW isn’t real or anthropogenic

4c. The PP & Pascal’s Wager

What you believe and how you act

Drastically cut CO2

Don’t drastically cut

CO2

What the facts are

GW is real & anthropogenic

Avoided catastrophe

Enabled catastrophe

GW isn’t real or anthropogenic

Minor (?) economic loss

Minor (?) economic gains

What happens if we apply the to the remedy PP suggests?

Many Gods objection to Pascal’s Wager.

4d. Precaution and Paralysis

The worry: as commonsensical as it sounds, strong versions of the PP lead to paralysis

•the remedy the PP proposes might itself be potentially catastrophic

•not adopting the potentially catastrophic remedy might itself be potentially catastrophic

What are the odds of dying?

one year lifetime… in a motor-vehicle accident 1 / 6,584 1 / 85… from a fall involving furniture 1 / 329,319 1 / 4,238… from falling out of a building 1/ 475,100 1 / 6,115… by accidentally drowning 1 / 83,365 1 / 1,073… from exposure to smoke, fire, flames 1 / 95, 968 1 / 1,235… ignition or melting of nightwear 1 / 59,672,595 1 / 767,987… from exposure to natural cold 1 / 574,880 1 / 7,399… being struck by lightning 1 / 6,348,148 1 / 81,701… suicide 1 / 8,960 1 / 115… assault by firearm 1 / 23,326 1 / 300… legal execution 1 / 6,215,895 1 / 79,999… alcohol poisoning 1 / 847,622 1 / 10,909

Source: The National Safety Council <http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/Odds%20of%20Dying.pdf>

Some ResourcesPeter Singer, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (Yale

University Press, 2004). Neil Manson, “Formulating the Precautionary Principle.”

Environmental Ethics 24 (2002): 263-74.Stephen Gardiner, “Ethics and Global Climate Change.” Ethics

114 (2004): 555-600.Dale Jamieson, Ethics and the Environment: An Introduction

(Cambridge University Press, 2008).Stephen Gardiner et al., eds., Climate Ethics: Essential Readings

(Oxford University Press, 2010).Cass Sunstein, Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle

(Cambridge University Press, 2005).Jonathan Westphal, ed., Justice (Hackett, 1996).Andrew Brennan, “Environmental Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia

of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/