Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Countering Sinnott-Armstrong, Governments release tangible quantities.…

- - - - governments have this responsibility because (the countries they govern) "cause the problem" (2005, 286)
      - governments (used interchangeably with countries now) are also exempt from moral responsibility for the same reasons (the principles) as individuals are
        
        their contributions are neither necessary nor sufficient, they can't end it alone, not assuming other effects etc., actual harm principles are just scaled up, internal principles are the same
        
        so only a consortium, or international agreement of governments whose total change would be great enough to bring climate change back to a sustainable level is sufficient (and necessary) for making a difference to climate change (2005, 289)
        
        it is not immediately clear which countries bear this responsibility (to be a part of reducing efforts). The biggest contributors? The per-capita ones? The already developed? The undeveloped (as they have less to lose - Carl Knight, Grandfathering) etc.
        
        Perhaps, the answer is an international consortium: everyone needs to join in. But this seems wrong still, for the same reasons as before. A country could drop out of the agreement, and yet not violate any clear moral requirements, because climate change would still be under control. They may violate a legal requirement, but that's all.
        
        SA's analysis has ended up excusing everyone from moral responsibility. This buck-passing could result in no-one doing anything, which seems wrong.
        
        SA's analysis must have gone wrong somewhere.
        
        not sure this is right. He is saying that there is no moral requirement outside of the legal obligation. If they violate the legal obligation, then they have violated the moral obligation.
        
        suppose you could say that it's not clear that quantity really generates a legal obligation for the freeriders etc.?
        
        okay, the issue is that the international government would solve the issue of who is addressing climate change while failing to address why the freerider problem - too hasty
        
        a larger point: governments and countries are almost completely arbitrary in relation to climate change. Why select that group of people to gotogether? Simply because they are geographically and culturally close together? Isn't what matters here carbon emissions? Could you group people by similar carbon emissions even if they are eographically disparate?
        
        Governments are different from individuals. They have responsibilities to limit and protect us. This may be true, but what is implicit in SA's argument is that governments partially have a moral responsibility because "they cause a large part of this problem". I want to show that this is not an acceptable justification.
        
        governments are different because the nature of the problem is emergent. This excuses individuals, but not governments.
        
        address this in the next section? or an earlier section. Makes little sense to me metaphysically.
        
        this is quite an important objection. I don't particularly think it's true, but needs to be addressed.
        
        this is where most of the work in the argument line will be done
- - - - he posits some sort of jump inbetween individual and governmental
        
        Sorities paradox to show the issue
        
        Hiller posits (and SA doubles-down on) emergent entities
        
        okay, so what is wrong with emergent properties?
        
        although we cannot see it/measure it, those CO2 molecules will very clearly go into the sky. They will absorb and reemit some photons, some of which will be back towards the earth. Those photons will continue to heat the earth. That heated earth will infitesimally melt the polar icecaps. Those melted polar icecaps will cause floods etc.
        
        therefore individuals are responsible for at least some of what comes about from their actions
        
        2 more items...
        
        the earth has been very measurably getting warmer. It is gradual, and slow but measurable?
        
        the properties he discusses are ones that are to do with human sensitivity (sliminess, and yellowishness). Climate change is not like this. Therefore, the analogy falls down.
        
        mistake of imperceptibility with harmful
        
        he very specifically denies that he makes this mistake
        
        1 more item...
        
        although he doesn't really say much as to why
        
        The total CO2 added might be greater with each indiviudal emission. However, climate change (and associated harms) wouldn't happen with each individual emission are emergent (as opposed to aggregate). This means that extra emissions do not make the effect worse