Consequences Of Climate Change : Consequentialism And Environmental Ethics

Kai Nielsen defended consequentialism and showed how it can still agree with commonsense, deontological convictions in his article “Traditional Morality and Utilitarianism.” His article focused on closing the gulf between consequentialism and deontology by showing how closely they can agree, and he further evaluated the systems and found that consequentialism as he sees it should be practiced is morally superior to traditional deontology. First, this essay will explain his argument that consequentialism squares with the commonsense convictions of deontology, and second, it will show how Nielsen arrived at the conclusion that consequentialism is a good moral system

Far too often, humans don’t consider the consequences of their actions, and whether this is due to the fact that we have power or wealth or we simply just don’t care, because we’re determined to get something done, we as a species should always consider what the outcome of our actions are going to be. Perhaps if we did so more often, we would have the problems that we’ve accumulated over the years, like deforestation and pollution. So, as humans progress further, there is one important question that we must ask ourselves, is our determination in doing something justified, and will our actions have a positive

While environmental questions are frequently channeled through practical and economic prisms, it is also appropriate to consider our econolgy as a function of morality. The ethical dilemmas which contribute to our policies and our behaviors regarding the use of fossil fuels and our attention to global climate change are frequently overshadowed by more immediate concerns of survival or mere comfort.

In Michael Pollan’s article “Why Bother?”, he addresses the issue of climate change and the inner reasoning behind those who don’t acknowledge or bother with the crisis. Pollan intertwines a discussion of the rising danger of global warming with a psychological discussion of personal virtue. He emphasis his main point of climate crisis by providing examples and data stating, “we have only ten years left to start cutting—not just slowing—the amount of carbon we’re emitting…So:eight years left and a great deal to do.” (117). His discussion of personal reasoning to the problem of people not responding to global warming is intertwined through the direct question that is the title and by other experiences such as Wendell Berry’s comments on the

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

The primary form of consequentialism used by the majority of individuals when making ethical decisions is known as Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism weighs the outcomes by whether they create pleasure or pain for the individuals involved. This creates a standard when evaluating the consequences rather than allow the individual to create their own (Kyte 108). Even though there is a plethora of different pleasures and pains of various forms and severities. Since we often choose familiar pleasure, only an individual familiar in both side can voice their opinion based on their understanding of both sides. However, it is not always easy to make accurate predictions on the outcomes and also consider the consequences of every individual that could be effected by the decision (Kyte 120, 122). Even though we understand the concept of consequences, it is not easy to think of every potential one, how they affect others, and whether they cause pleasure or

Thus the former is morally culpable for the actions of the latter by virtue of being the cause of the action. Opponents of consequentialism argue that negative responsibility, and the consequentialist doctrine as a whole, is unacceptable because it reduces an agent to merely “a locus of causal intervention in the world.” Instead of being people, agents are no more than origin points of cause and effect, and their integrity is forfeit as a result. Although Williams dedicates a significant portion of his paper to illustrating the problem of integrity, he offers no defense against it. In fact, he acknowledges that life-defining projects and integrity exist, agrees that it is absurd to expect an agent to discard them in order to be moral, and then departs from the problem of integrity without further discussion.

Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are both action based ethical frameworks that people can use to make ethical judgments. Consequentialism is based on examining the consequences of one’s actions as opposed to non-consequentialism which is focused on whether the act is right or wrong regardless of the outcome (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006). The three sub-categories of consequentialism are altruism, utilitarianism and egoism.

Climate change in our natural ecosystems are at risk; since human economics and cultures depend on. Caused by human factors such as greenhouse gases, the evidence of climate change is becoming more clearer. These ecosystems, it threatens humans as well. According to Stephen M Gardiner, money and morals block our way to stop global warming. In his essay “A Perfect Moral Storm”, he lists these types of dilemmas, or “storms”that prevent meaningful action against climate change: the global storm, the intergenerational storm, the theoretical storm, and the moral storm. By “theoretical storm”, Gardiner refers to the fact that the ongoing climate change is a result of uncontemplation. On the other hand, Climatologist John R Christy believes that global warming isn’t something that we should worry about and our impact will be minuscule if we try to stop it. Of these dilemmas, the theoretical storm is most critical to Christy’s testimony because the time to fixate global warming is now before the future populations decide it’s too late.

Consequentialism states that an act is moral if the consequence of the act will bring the greatest amount of good and immoral if the act will bring bad consequences.

In this reading “A Critique of Utilitarianism,” Bernard Williams discusses Utilitarianism: actions that produce moral good and how personal integrity is more affected than justice. Williams also discusses Consequentialism and uses two examples of negative responsibility to justify his reasoning.

Consequentialism is ordinarily distinct from deontology, as deontology offers rightness or wrongness of an act, rather than the outcome of the action. In this essay we are going to explore the differences of consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the quandary

Present generations are reaping what their forefathers had sowed for them; future generations will reap what present generations have been sowing whether they like it or not. Past, present and future generations are dependent on each other’s choices. Technologies are zooming rapidly. Humanities prefer to overwork natural resources and often fell into technologies’ competitive temptations. Generations are getting smarter and innovative each day. New products are constantly changing to catch customers’ attention, while current products are still young and are not even ready to mature yet. While many are embracing technologies, few are concerned with the scars that have been embedded on natural resources. It is so easy to fall into the

Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong in human conduct. Environmental ethics studies the effects of human’s moral relationships on the environment and everything within it (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008). The ethical principles that govern those relations determine human duties, obligations, and responsibilities with regard to the Earth’s natural environment and all of the animals and plants that inhabit it (Taylor, 1989). The purpose of this paper is to reveal environmental issues that are threatening the existence of life on Earth, and discus our social obligations to refrain from further damaging our environment, health and life for future generations. I will discus the need for appropriate actions and the ethical

“Our generation has inherited an incredibly beautiful world from our parents and they from their parents. It is in our hands whether our children and their children inherit the same world” (Richard Branson). This quote is a brief rewording of the issue we have today with global warming. For those who are not aware of what global warming is, it is when too much carbon dioxide is added into the atmosphere. Global warming can cause sever hurricanes, intense weather, and many other natural disasters. For example, the lack of protection to our species and natural resources has led to many conflicts around the world. The lack of conservation of natural resources and need for habitat protection has had a major impact on the environment also.