In this essay, I argue that individuals do have obligations to reduce our own personal contributions to climate change. To begin, I will present my current view based on “The Perfect Moral Storm” by Gardner and three moral obligation assumptions to support my argument. Then I will introduce objections to the three assumptions from “It’s Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Obligations” written by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and analyze his threshold perspective on climate change. Finally, I will provide two different responses to Sinnott-Armstrong’s objections and view, one is his flaws in his threshold model and second is to present a better representation of climate change through an accumulation model.
In my opinion, both the citizens …show more content…
Walter believes it is not the individual’s responsibility to help slow down global warming at all. According to Sinnott-Armstrong, even if he were to accept the three assumptions stated above, individuals would still have no moral obligations to reduce their own emissions. He explains his objection through the example of joyriding. Driving a gas guzzler for fun will bring pleasure to the driver which produces the most positive outcome for the individual (assumption one). He argues that the ride does no direct harm because “In contrast, global warming will still occur even if I do not drive just for fun.” (Sinnott-Armstrong, pg 334). Meaning, this single act of joy riding is an insignificant contribution towards global warming. Temperatures will continue to rise either way because past emissions of greenhouse gas molecules are still roaming in the atmosphere. Additionally, Walter claims that a joyride doesn’t cause indirect harm because it is not influential nor addictive. It will not cause a wide spread action where everyone begins to joyride nor will he become obsessed with driving. Therefore, he believes that such actions do no damage to anyone because these acts alone will not add much to our current levels of air pollution (assumption two and three). Then based on the three assumptions, from Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s perspective, citizens are not responsible for their own emission increasing
In my opinion, both the citizens …show more content…
Walter believes it is not the individual’s responsibility to help slow down global warming at all. According to Sinnott-Armstrong, even if he were to accept the three assumptions stated above, individuals would still have no moral obligations to reduce their own emissions. He explains his objection through the example of joyriding. Driving a gas guzzler for fun will bring pleasure to the driver which produces the most positive outcome for the individual (assumption one). He argues that the ride does no direct harm because “In contrast, global warming will still occur even if I do not drive just for fun.” (Sinnott-Armstrong, pg 334). Meaning, this single act of joy riding is an insignificant contribution towards global warming. Temperatures will continue to rise either way because past emissions of greenhouse gas molecules are still roaming in the atmosphere. Additionally, Walter claims that a joyride doesn’t cause indirect harm because it is not influential nor addictive. It will not cause a wide spread action where everyone begins to joyride nor will he become obsessed with driving. Therefore, he believes that such actions do no damage to anyone because these acts alone will not add much to our current levels of air pollution (assumption two and three). Then based on the three assumptions, from Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s perspective, citizens are not responsible for their own emission increasing