It’s Not My Fault
Global Warming (=GW) and Individual Moral Obligation
1. No individual moral obligation to not drive a gas guzzling SUV for fun
2. Allows that wasteful driving might not be morally best in other ways
a. Allows it might be (is?) better, even morally better, to not wastefully drive
b. Might be justified in publically condemning wasteful driving
c. Perhaps these people should feel guilty and ashamed (if do these things regularly)
d. But no individual moral obligation not to wastefully drive
i. If one should feel guilty, does it not follow that is because one failed to do what one had a moral obligation to do?
ii. Is he saying it is not morally wrong to wastefully drive? Or does he allow it might be morally wrong, but just not violate a moral obligation?
3. Moral obligations we do have
a. U.S. has special moral obligation to help mitigate and adapt to CC
b. Individuals have a moral obligation to get governments to carry out their obligations
4. Major point: GW is such a large problem that it is not individuals who cause it or who need to fix it; Governments need to
a. Environmentalists should focus their efforts on those who are not doing their jobs (government), rather than those who drive wastefully
5. Individual action not enough (or required?)
a. Mistake to think withdrawing into simple life enough
b. Not enough to simply buy fuel efficient cars, insulate homes, set up own personal windmill
c. For it does little or nothing to stop GW
d. Good to keep one’s hands clean by using very little fossil fuels but not enough
6. Does not fulfill our real moral obligations: To get government to do its job to prevent disaster of GW
a. Need to do things like work for political candidates who would change policies
b. Better to enjoy Sunday drive while working to change law so it is illegal to drive on Sunday
i. Is this hypocritical?
ii. Not clear
iii. Example: Is it wrong to accepting a tax break one thinks should not exist? To not accept it does not change the policy and involves taking a loss that produces no gain
(1) Is this true? Perhaps there is a small, imperceptible gain, even though policy not changed
7. Things individual might do if government fails to address GW
a. Protest bad gove policies
b. Vote for candidates who will make government fulfill its obligation
c. Support private organizations that fight GW
d. Boycott companies that contribute too much to GW
e. Not engage in wasteful driving
f. Each case is different, focuses on last
8. Ideas and questions
a. Perhaps it’s our obligation to lessen our contribution in some significant way (fewer hot showers, ride bike instead of drive, keep heat lower)
b. Or perhaps its our obligation to do something significant
i. Like promote GW government policies by writing letters, making calls, contributing funds to env groups, boycotting
ii. “Obligation to be part of solution not just part of problem”
c. Can financial contributions, or working for GW policies, substitute for lessening our GW footprint?
d. Is it worse to wastefully drive than to fail to do these other things?
e. Are any of these more important?
9. *Do arguments allowing wasteful driving also allow political inaction?
a. I fear that his arguments that green living is ineffectual also apply to green politics, and if no obligation to do the first (because will do no good), then no obligation to to the second (also do no good, and cause no harm if don’t)
10. Individual moral obligation do not always follow from collective obligations
a. That your government ought to do something, does not prove that you ought to do it, even if government fails
11. Bridge example (individual obligation does not follow)
a. If a bridge is unsafe, government ought to fix it
b. If government does not, I have no obligation to fix it
c. I also have no obligation to fill in one crack even if its true that if everyone filled in one crack, the bridge would be fixed
d. Should encourage the government to fulfil its obligations
i. I don’t have to take on those obligations myself
e. Worry: Let’s say bridge would fail and kill people if we didn’t fix it and it was practically easy for people to go and fill in one crack (and if most/all did, bridge fixed and people saved); not clear to me we do not violate our moral obligation if we don’t do our fair share (or perhaps even more)
12. Teach math example (individual obligation does follow)
a. Government has obligation to teach math to children in my town
b. If it fails, I have obligation to teach my child math
i. Because of special relations to my child
c. But not other children (no special relation)
d. Note that we have no special relation to future people who will be harmed by GW
13. REASONS IT MIGHT BE WRONG TO WASTEFULLY DRIVE (ALL OF WHICH SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG ARGUES FAIL)
14. WASTEFUL DRIVING DOES NOT HARM ANYONE
15. Does wasteful driving harm someone? (No)
a. I would be harming someone if my driving forced one person to breath all my exhaust, if I didn’t drive he wouldn’t be harmed
b. GW not like that
c. It will occur even if I don’t drive for fun
d. Even if I drove my guzzler for long time GW won’t occur unless lots of others also expel GHG
16. Perhaps this is a response to Singer’s and Caney’s suggestions that we are killing people and violating their rights by our ordinary everyday activities.
a. How can we be killing them if they would die whether or not we drive our cars?
17. Individual act of wasteful driving neither necessary nor sufficient nor GW
18. Sometimes act can harm even if not necessary or sufficient for the harm, but this is only true when act is unusual and harm intended
19. Help push car over cliff example
a. Takes 3 people to push car off cliff (person inside) and 5 people already pushing
b. If I join, I cause harm to the person, even though my act is not necessary nor sufficient for that harm
c. Because I intend harm and my act is unusual
20. What makes something a cause? Intention and unusualness
a. If one intends harm that is a good reason to pick act out of all background circumstances and call it a cause
b. If the act is unusual, then reason to call it a cause
i. Strike match, presence of oxygen, which cause of fire? Both necessary, neither sufficient, striking match is cause as unusual
21. Since person who joy rides neither intends to cause GW nor acts in unusual way, should not see it as a cause of GW or GW’s harms
a. Intention is not necessary to be responsible (a cause); knowledge that one is contributing to this result is enough
i. I might be pushing the car to get exercise, not to kill the person, but I am responsible for the result and a cause of person’s death
ii. I might be joy riding for fun, not to cause global warming, but I know I am contributing to this result, so I am responsible (hence a cause)
iii. Time lag: One difference between helping to push the car over the cliff and helping to causing CC is the time lag
(1) So there is uncertainty and opportunity for others to intervene and stop the harm
(2) So it is like helping pushing car down a very long hill before the cliff and thinking there are always people who might intervene to stop the car or maybe the car won’t make it to the cliff?
b. Unusualness is not necessary to be responsible (a cause)
i. Slave ownership was not unusual
ii. Still they were the cause of wrong/harm, even if not unusual
iii. And even if they did not intend to cause slaves harm (but intended to help them get out of their state of savagery)
iv. Also, blaming average slave owner would not be an effective way to get worst slave owners to behave better, still appropriate to blame them
v. Environmental problems such that very usual, commonplace activities are causing lots of harm!
c. So is wasteful driving causing the harms of CC like being the 6th person to push a car off a cliff is causing them harm/death?
23. River cyanide/flood example
a. Contributing to GW not like pouring cyanide into river and later having someone drink some molecules of poison
b. More like flood coming downstream and I pour a quart of water into it (because I don’t want to carry it)
i. This does not cause the flood
ii. But it contributes to it
iii. And it is not as if the flood is independent of one’s activities; one’s GHG lifestyle is a partial (very small) cause of the flood
a. Cyanide: Emitting GHG like everyone putting the tiniest bit of cyanide in the river and then someone drinks river water and gets sick?
i. Except cyanide is a poison, and CO2 is not
b. Flood: Emitting GHG like being one of millions of people who pour our extra quart of water in a river that is causing an ongoing flood that harms people downstream (in future)
25. Emitting GHG is fine in small quantities; problem is only when massive quantities emitted; my wasteful driving does not cause massive quantities that are harmful
a. **No one will be helped if I deprive myself of joy ride (even lots of times)
i. So no one is hurt if I do this (even many times)?
b. Even if true that wasteful driving by one person causes temperature of globe to rise infinitesimally, this cause no CC:
i. No storms or floods or heat waves can be traced to my individual act of driving
ii. So it causes no harm to anyone
26. Imperceptible harm? Claims wasteful driving is also not causing an “imperceptible harm”
a. Imperceptible harm:
i. Thousand men are dying of thirst and I take a drop of water from each so I can fill my squirt gun
ii. This is a harm, though no one will notice, so it is imperceptible
iii. (Like stealing a small item from a chain retailer, no shareholder one will perceive the harm?)
27. Sets bad example? Is wasteful driving a harm because it sets a bad example for others or undermines my own personal environmentalism? (No)
a. The scale of climate change is too big to for me to cause it even with “a little help from my friends”
28. Makes problem worse?
a. Moral obligation not to make problems worse and so we ought not wastefully drive because it make CC worse
b. But it does not make CC worse, CC just as bad if do not drive
c. CC is only worse if more people dies or animals hurt
d. But my driving will not lead to more people/animals being hurt
e. CC is on such a massive scale that my individual driving makes no difference to the welfare of anyone
29. OTHER REASONS WASTEFUL DRIVING MIGHT BE WRONG (BESIDES CAUSING HARM)
30. Expresses a vice?
a. Do we have a moral obligation not to wastefully drive because doing so expresses a vice and we ought not act in ways that express vice
b. Reply: Why a vice to drive for fun when doing so harms no one?
31. World would be better if people acted on green virtues, such as moderation and love of nature
a. And wasteful driving fails in this regard
b. Reply: Yes, but this does not show we have a moral obligation not to wastefully drive
i. There are other important moral issues besides moral obligations
ii. Doesn’t mean they aren’t important
c. ****So is he allowing that the wasteful driver morally fails in ways other than violating a moral obligation?
32. Do we have a moral obligation not to perform an action if it ought to be illegal?
a. Since wasteful driving or even having a gas guzzler ought to be illegal, we ought not drive them
b. Reply: False the it is wrong to do something that ought to be illegal
i. Gas tax: Government should raise gas taxes to reduse usage and fight CC
(1) Doesn’t mean I should pay that tax now by sending a check to the government
(a) It would not help solve the problem
ii. Assume gas guzzlers should be illegal
(1) Maybe I have an obligation to work to make them illegal
(2) Doesn’t’ follow that I have a moral obligation not to own one (while they are legal)
(3) Is this true? Flood insurance example
33. Group principle: We have moral obligations not to perform an act when this makes us part of a group whose actions together cause harm
a. Begs question
b. Airport talking example
i. Everyone is talking loudly at the airport and this results in such noise that some people miss their flights
ii. Not wrong for me to talk loudly (to do what others do) as long as they are going to do it anyway, so the harm is going to occur anyway
c. Cash a $600 check from the government that everybody gets
i. If everyone cashes it this will harm people (government programs for poor will have to be slashed)
ii. But given that everyone else will cash the check and the harm will result in any case, no moral obligation not to cash your check
35. General action principle: ought not to perform an act when it would be worse for everyone to perform an act of that kind
a. Reply: Disastrous if everyone did not have children, but does not make it wrong if a particular individual decides not to
37. Wrong to act in a way that if everyone acted that way there would be very bad consequences?