Argues applying principles doesn't imply that he has a moral obligation to not take a Sunday drive

Instead gov has moral obligation to address problem because only they are in a position to help fix it

Even if scientists prove global warming, economists confirm cost would be less, political theorists agree governments must do something about it

1. Global warming has begun and is likely to increase

2. Big amount of GW is due to human activities biggest cause: fossil fuels

3. GW will create long-term problems by causing climate changes: storms, floods from rising sea level, drops, heat waves, many deaths

Poor - most hurt, closer to sea level. Which countries causing most of global warming, but will adopt two changes easily.

Govs can minimize GW by imposing limits on emissions, require / give incentives for increased energy and efficiency, stop deforestation and fund reforestation, develop ways to sequester CO2 in oceans or underground, find alternatives to fossil fuels

It's too late to stop GW because so much CO2 in atmosphere already since it remains a long time anyways. We will remain dependent on fossil fuels in future, govs (mostly rich) can slow down GW but can't prevent it, need to adapt: build sea walls, reinforced houses that can't sand storms, move populations in low areas

Steps will be costly: increase energy efficiency can reduce expensive, create jobs, make money in research and production of fossil fuel alternatives. But any steps to reduce TW slow down economy is in short-run, hurt people especially poor

It's clear that INDIVIDUAL moral obligations don't always follow from COLLECTIVE moral obligations

Just bcuz gov ought to do something doesn't prove you should do it even if gov fails

Sometimes obligations are parallel to individual

My individual obligations: protest against bad gov policies, vote candidates who will make gov help GW, support private organizations against GW (Pew Foundation), boycott companies that contribute to GW (oil companies)

Focus on one act: driving for pleasure: not for work, groceries or cuz ur sad

Could drive fuel efficient car but I don't so let's focus on the ride

Risks: cause an accident, see you exhaust in breathing space

Question: do facts about GW give me any moral obligation to not drive gas guzzler just for fun?

Some people yes bcuz it seems like wasteful driving. But moral intuition might be distorted by overgeneralization from other cases such as large goes having more obligations to fight GW and desire to avoid conflicts with environmentalist friends.

GW generates strong emotions because of political implications and how scary its effects are

It's a modern case because it's on a grander scale then what moral intuitions evolved to handle long ago (when it didn't have such long term effects on future or ppl weren't aware of effects)

We have a moral obligation to not performing act that causes harm to others

If person had an inhale exhaust from my car (get sick) this would harm him and this gives me more obligation to not drive car for fun

Even if I don't drive for fun global warming will still occur less many people don't expel greenhouse gases

But there are acts that cause harm without being necessary sufficient for that harm

Imagine it takes 5 ppl to push car off cliff with a passenger locked inside, and 3 ppl are already pushing

If I push, my ACT is neither necessary for sufficient for the car to fall.

Either way, my Act is a cause were part of the cause of the harm to the passenger

Why? Bcuz I intend to cause harm to passenger and my ACT is unusual

When I intend to harm to occur my intention provides a reason to pick my act because of background circumstances and identify it as a cause (find any excuse even if it doesn't make that much sense?)

We need to strike friction for a match to light up, including O2

O2 isnt the cause of fire since 02 is usually present

There are reasons for something to not be a cause when it's the usual thing

Labeling act of cause of harm and holding its agent responsible for that harm by blaming or condemning his act is counterproductive when others are doing the same

If average are condemned, then people doing worse will suspect that even if they start to improve, they will still face condemnation

We should distribute blame and praise to give incentives for worst offenders to improve.

Its usual to go for joyrides since drivers don't intend hard. Hence, we shouldn't see act as a cause of global warming for its harms

Harms of GW result in massive quantities greenhouse gases in atmospheres. my joy ride itself doesn't cause massive quantities that are harmful

Contrast: someone pours cyanide poison in River. Later someone drinking dies of poison.

This is diff from GW causal chain because molecules in my car don't have same direct way of causing harm to person drinking River water

GW is more like a river that will flood because of strong rains. Me pouring a quart in the river won't cause flood

Contrast: I have no moral obligation to contribute to famine relief because it will continue and people will die whether I donate money or not. However I could help if I gave my donation to a certain individual

Distinguishing global warming from climate change

Maybe (probably not) my driving raises temperature of globe by a small amount.

It, however, doesn't cause climate change since floods and storms can't trace my individual act of driving

It's the climate change that causes harm to ppl

Global warming by itself causes no harm without climate change

Hence, individual act on one Sunday doesn't cause climate change or harm

My exhaust isn't too Overkill (like poisoning someone who's already dying from Poison), its not sufficient for the harms of global warming (& I don't intend those harms), the point isn't to to give harm in the future (like placing a bomb that will cause harm years later), the point isn't that the harm I caused is a sort of increase and GW (& it's not small)

Point is my joy ride doesn't cause global warming, climate change, or any of their resulting harms DIRECTLY

However my acts can lead to other acts (by me or others)

We have a moral obligation to not perform an act that causes indirect harm two others by causing someone else to carry out those indirect Acts

Prob is that my acts aren't influential even though people like see themselves more influential then in reality

Joyriding is not habit forming, doesn't make me drive next Sunday, not addicting. Driving next Sunday is separate decision and it won't undermine my devotion to environmentalism

If I keep this compatibility in mind, then my joyriding with no moral obligation is compatible with the gov fighting global warming HAVING that obligation tho.

Ex. David has a habit of joyriding on Sundays, isn't an environmentalist, no one likes him so no one follows his example. But he still has moral obligation to not joyride just as I have that same obligation.

So moral obligation can't depend on factors of indirect harm principle

As long as I don't intend harm or do anything usual, my act can cause climate change even if I create bad habits and followers. Climate change scale is too big for me to cause it, even with little help from my Friends

Contribution principle we have moral obligation to not make problems worse

Problem: my joyriding doesn't make climate change worse, it would be just as bad.

Reason climate change becomes worse is if more people and animals are hurt. Nothing bad about GW or climate change and its self if no people/animals are harmed

But there's no person / animal who will be worse off if I drive then if I don't. GW and climate change occur on massive scale that my individual driving makes no difference to the welfare of anyone

We have moral obligation to not expel greenhouse gases into atmosphere

If this was true it would explain why I have a moral obligation to not joyride.

Hard to see any reason to accept this principle – nothing immoral about greenhouses gases in themselves when they cause no harm

Greenhouse gases include CO2 and water vapor which naturally occur and help plants grow.

Prob of GW is because of high quantities of greenhouse gases, not because of anything bad about small quantities.

Hard to see why I have moral obligation not to expel harmless quantities of greenhouse gases

Moral obligation to not boil water - water vapor, or exercise that expel CO2.

Maybe reason is risk: sometimes morally wrong to create risk of a harm even if harm doesn't occur

We have moral obligation to not increase risk of harm to other ppl

Prob: GW isn't like drunk driving. You can identify victim of drunk driver easily. There is no way to identify any particular victim of my joy riding in normal circumstances

Same point before, this principle would be very restrictive

No boiling water, no exercising since it increases risk of global warming same way as driving

Ppl defend principles by distinguishing significant from insignificant risks or increase in risks.

Prob in this situation: a risk is called significant when it's too much

We need to ask what makes this risk too much when other risks are not too much.

Kantians claim moral status of Acts depends on motives, intentions, or plans

Universalizability principle: we have moral obligation to not to act on any Maxim that we can't will to be a universal law

Some maxims can't be thought of as a universal law of nature without contradiction

Prob: my intention is to have harmless fun - no way to find a contradiction from a universal law on people having fun

Kantians may say my intention is to expel greenhouse gases - there would be bad consequences, but still not a contradiction

Anyways my intention is sent to expel greenhouse gases. My goals would be reached completely if I joyriding and had fun without expelling greenhouse (bcuz it's a small amount and I'm not the cause) gases. leave no ground for claiming my driving violates Kants first formula

Second formulation is the means principal: don't treat other people as a means only

To treat someone as means means me my using harm to person as part of my plan to achieve my goals.

Doctrine of double effect: we have moral obligation to not harm anyone intentionally as an end or means

Principal fails because driving doesn't cause harm to anyone and because I don't intend harm to anyone.

Virtue principal: moral obligation to not perform an act that expresses vice or contrary to virtue

We can't tell if joyriding expresses advice, it expresses a desire for fun. Nothing vicious about having fun

Having fun becomes vicious if it's harmful or risky. Already responded to principles of harm and risk

If other people didn't produce so much greenhouse gas, I could drive without anyone being harmed by GW

Other see vice, others don't – fun. Questions to what you see when others don't and you have no reason to believe your vision is any clearer than theirs

Some virtue theorists say it'll be better if people focused on general character traits, including green virtues such as moderation and love of nature

Different Focus on particular obligations doesn't escape GW problems

Ideal law principle: moral obligation to not perform an action if it's illegal

Gov should fight GW. One way is to make it illegal to Joy Ride or sell/by gas guzzlers.

Enforcement costs against Joy rides - enormous.

Law against gas guzzlers - easier to enforce. But inducements to efficiency (high taxes on gas and gas guzzlers, or tax breaks for buying fuel efficient cars) - what accomplish same goals for less loss of freedom

Alternative laws would not make it illegal to joyride a gas guzzler. Alternative laws are better than outright prohibitions because they allow more freedom

Gov should accomplish goals with less loss of freedom, they can

Our checks would not solve problems and others would conduct biz as usual

Orchestras and political parties plan to do what they do and adjust actions to other members of group in order to achieve common goal

Groups are held for joint acts even when no individual alone performs acts

Prob: gas guzzler drivers don't share goals, make plans together, or adjust acts to each other

A membership in a set is too random rather than on reason to create moral responsibility

Only feature that holds together group of gas guzzler drivers is that they all perform same kind of act.

Fact that so many people carry out that act is that it creates or worsens GW

Group principle: moral obligation to not perform an action if action makes us a member of a group whose actions TOGETHER cause harm

If it's bad for everyone in a group to perform the same acts, then it's morally wrong for an individual to perform that kind of act.

Very questionable: if few people we're talkin there would be no problem hearing announcements of their flights if they were talkin loud.

If I said loudly but not too loudly I wish everyone would be quiet – my speech isn't immoral since it doesn't harm anyone. Maybe there should be ruler law against loud speech in this setting. But if there is not it doesn't seem immoral to do what others do as long as they're going to do it anyway – harm is going to occur anyway

If gov sent a $600 check to everyone, gov deficit will grow, programs would be slashed, severe economic and social problems will result

I know if enough people cash their check results will be to a great degree inevitable. it's legal to cash my check even though I think it should be illegal because checks shouldn't have been issued in the first place

It's not morally wrong to cash my check because I caused no harm by itself and had no intention to harm

Me cashing the check makes me a member of a group that collectively causes harm but doesn't give me moral obligation to not join group by cashing check since I can't change what the group does

General action principle moral obligation to not perform an act when it would be worse for everyone to perform an act of the same kind

If everyone in the world drove gas guzzler often enough global warming would increase a lot. We would run out of fossil fuels quickly.

If every human had no children - disastrous. But is it morally wrong for an individual to choose to not have children – no moral obligation to have at least one child

General permission principle: moral obligation to not perform an act whenever it would be worse for everyone to be permitted to perform that kind of act

Principal is supposed to explain why it's morally wrong to steal / lie / cheat / rape / murder because it would be disastrous as if everyone was permitted to do these kinds of things whenever they wanted to

Agent is permitted / allowed when they won't be liable to punishment, condemnation by others, or feelings of guilt for carrying out act.

It wouldn't be disastrous for everyone to be permitted to steal – if nobody knew that they were permitted to steal, since they would still be deterred by fear of punishment, condemnation, or guilt

Public permission principal: moral obligation to not perform act whenever it would be worse for everyone to know that everyone is permitted to perform that kind of act

Ex. 1000 people wanted to take flight 38 to Amsterdam but plane isn't large enough to carry that much people

These people are stupid and stubborn enough that if they knew they were all allowed to take flight they would pack themselves, despite warnings, and flight would crash

Of course in real life plane only sells 300 tickets and doesn't allow anyone on flight without that ticket

Nothing morally wrong with me taking flight along with 299 who have tickets

Shows an act that is not always morally wrong when it would be disastrous for everyone to know that everyone is allowed to do it (allowed to fit 1000, even though there's no law against it?)

Disaster occurs an airplane when too many people do what is harmless by itself

Similarly disaster occurs when too many people burn too mucj fossil fuels

But it's still not wrong for an individual to perform an individual act that's harmless by itself

Ex. Couple in open marriage love each other and value the other person's love. They think sex as fun activity they separate from Love.

After careful discussion before marriage, each agreed to have sex with whoever as long as they reported it to each other – no secrets, still love each other, see no problem with having sex with other people

They don't tell anyone about this feature, but they know it works for them after years of experience

Nonetheless couple is filled with people in society who are diff from them

If everyone knew they are permitted to have sex during marriage with other people as long as spouse formed and agrees to arrangement, various problems would arise

Merely asking if they're willing to enter in this agreement would create suspicions and doubts that would undermine many marriages or keep couples from getting married. They would have remained married if they had not been offered this agreement

Society - lust love, unstable marriages, more unhappy children of unnecessary divorce.

Things would be better if everyone believed such agreements weren't permitted in the first place oh, so they condemn them and felt guilty for even considering it

Even if other people are like this - so that it would be worse (condemnation for everyone to know that there a lots have outside sex with consent and knowledge in marriage

If open marriage couple still have that joint agreement that works and keeps it secret – nothing immoral about them having outside sex (whether or not this counts as adultery) - general permission principal fails

Contractualist principal: moral obligation to not perform an act whenever it violates a general rule that nobody could reasonably reject as a public rule for governing action in society

General rule against adultery – voluntary sex between married person and outside person, even if spouse knows and consents

Couple could not reject this rule because they want to avoid problems for their own society by keeping it secret

Test of what can be rejected reasonably depends on Moral intuitions

Environmentalist I think it unreasonable to reject the principle that prohibits me from joy riding, others will think it reasonable to reject such a principle because it restricts my freedom to perform an act that harms nobody

Environmentalists might be able to specify reasons why it's unreasonable, but then it's those reasons that explain why act is morally wrong

Left with no defensible principal to support claim that I have moral obligation to not joyride

Ppl have suggested journey through various principles teaches we shouldn't look for general moral principles to backup our moral intuitions.

Sees arguments as "reductio ad absurdum" of principlism: moral obligations or our beliefs in them depend on principles

particularism: Principles are unavailable so we should focus on particular cases

The fact we can't find any principle, doesn't show that we don't need one

Reasons as why we need moral principle to back up our intuitions in this case

Cases controversial, emotional, modern, likely to disturb by over-generalization and partiality

We seem to need a moral principle - have none. does it mean wasteful driving isn't morally wrong - shows we don't know whether it's morally wrong. Ignorance may be temporary

Even if individuals have no such moral obligations, still morally better / ideal for individuals to not waste gas

We can / should praise for those who save fuel, Express personal dislike for wasting gas and for people who do it. Might be justified in condemning wasteful drivers rare public rebuke is appropriate. Perhaps people joyriding should feel guilty for their backs and ashamed, they perform the writing regularly; and we should bring it up to our children so that they will feel these emotions

These reactions are available even if we can't truthfully say that joyriding violates a moral obligation

Even if individuals have no moral obligations to joyride, govs still have more applications to fight global warming, because they can make a difference

Point is the GW is such a large problem it's not individuals who caused it or need to fix it. Govs need to fix it quickly. Finding in implementing real solution is govs task.

Environmentalists should focus efforts on those who aren't doing their job rather than ppl joyriding

Some environmentalists keep hands clean by withdrawing into simple life where they use little fossil fuels – think that they have done their duty, so they rarely come to work for political candidates who could and would change government policies

This attitude helps no one. We shouldn't think we can do enough simply by buying fuel efficient cars insulating houses, setting up windmill to make electricity

Does little/nothing to stop GW, this Focus doesn't fulfill our real more applications – to get goes to do their job to prevent disaster of excessive GW