Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Sinnott-Armstrong's argument - Coggle Diagram
Sinnott-Armstrong's argument
Thesis (2018)
There is no (shown) moral requirement to abstain from joyguzzle solely for pleasure (2018, 1)
joyguzzle is shorthand for "emitting reasonable amounts of greenhouse gases"
Assumptions (2005)
Global warming has begun and will increase
anthropogenic activity is the largest cause (fossil fuels)
global warming will create serious problems for humans
the world's poor will suffer the most
governments (especially the biggest and richest) can mitigate global warming
it is too late to stop global warming
we can slow, or reduce the severity of GW, but these steps will be expensive
despite these costs, governments are obligated to take these steps (and costs)
Actual Act Principles (2005)
the harm principle
: you have an obligation not to perform an act that causes harm to others
global warming will occur regardless of your joyguzzle. Even if you do lots of joyguzzling, your action will not cause global warming unless lots of other people do it too. Therefore, the action is neither necessary, nor sufficient for GW.
Counter: there are some special cases in which you can be blameworthy for a unnecessary/sufficient act (car on cliff) because you intend to cause harm and because the act is unusual
Criticism? Could argue that you are being reckless in the case of GW too, and that the act is unusual in that it's very different from the most other humans
No specific molecules from joyguzzling will result in harm to a particular person
pouring a quart of water into the river that is flooding a town does not make you responsible for the flood.
the indirect harm principle
: you have an obligation to perform an act that causes harm to others indirectly by causing another person to carry out that harm
joyguzzling isn't that influential and therefore is not really an indirect harm
Criticism: might not appear influential, but consider how you are influenced by your parent's actions. Then you can control not only your own life, but perhpas even future generations too.
also the same problem as above: as long as you don't intend the harms, then you have no moral obligation to do that
the contribution principle
: we have a moral obligation not to make problems worse
joyguzzling won't make anyone else in particular worse off.
objection: this is not what we mean by greenhouse gase.
The gas principle
: we have a moral obligation not to expel greenhosue gases into the atmosphere.
the gas principle is obviously incorrect
Internal Principles (2005)
Universalisability principle
: (Kant) do nothing you cannot will to be a universal law
rejects this for intentional reasons again (intention is not to do anything particuarly bad)
doctrine of double effect
: we have a moral obligation not to harm anyone intentionally (end or means)
I do not intend to harm anyone, nor does the driving harm anyone
virtue principle
: we have an obligation not to do an action that expresses a vice
Collective principles
ideal law principle
we should not perform an action that ought to be illegal
the group principle
: we must not perofmr an action if that action makes us a member of a group whose actions together cause harm
Counterfactual principles
general action principle
: I am obligated not to X if it would be worse for everyone to do an act of the same kind
general permission principle
: I am obligated not to perform an act if it would be worse if everyone was permitted to do an act of that kind
contractualist principle
: I have an obligation not to perform an act if it violates a general rule that nobody could reasonably reject as a public rule for governing action in society.
key aspects of joy-guzzling