A Deontological Approach to Issues Surrounding the Environment Quite often when discussing issues surrounding the environment, it is easy to look at the problems as a matter of cause and effect. X amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over Y number of years will lead to Z feet of sea level rise. Consider for a moment then, what happens if an individual foregoes the notion of effect and simply examines if humans have a duty to protect the environment, regardless of consequence? The answer—in taking a deontological approach to the environment, it is clear that the environment has intrinsic value and in examining the work of three notable deontologists, it is apparent that it is the duty of the moral agent to take no harmful actions against
…show more content…
John Rawls presents a thought experiment in his book A Theory of Justice, called the veil of ignorance; this theory imagines that people make decisions based on what type of world they would like to live in if they had no knowledge of what type of person they would be, this “ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances” (11). This idea relates to the geopolitical issues surrounding climate change, because one should not simply look at other countries and think because they pollute more we have no obligation to limit our output—were these individuals to imagine themselves behind a veil of ignorance, they could say that regardless of what part of the world they are born into, they would like people in the United States to limit their pollution. Moreover, simply because you do not have a respiratory problem such as asthma, does not mean that you do not have an obligation to make the world just as breathable for those people by using the principle of the veil of ignorance. Moreover, those who have the most to gain from lack of things like a carbon tax or other regulations on emissions (companies in energy sectors, factories, and other conglomerates with heavy …show more content…
The implication here is that there exists a responsibility for nature to be conserved for someone (or something) else (for example, future generations, for God, for our children)” (393-394). This idea comes back to the discussion on the intrinsic value of the environment previously stated when discussing Kant. The principle is that the environment is not our property and thus is not ours to destroy. This relates back to Rawls’ veil of ignorance because there includes an aspect of recognizing other generations and understanding that you could be part of some future generation, thus you would not want an environment destroyed by a generation in the past. This philosophy borders on being consequentialist, as it does discuss consequences (for future generations), but it should be looked at in the same regard as the universalization of the maxim—this only examines the future in the notion of the means and the ends. How does worsening the symptoms of climate change treat those of the future—perhaps not with the respect of being ends in of themselves. To treat future generations with respect is to treat them justly, and that is something that a deontologist would agree is the right thing to
John Rawls presents a thought experiment in his book A Theory of Justice, called the veil of ignorance; this theory imagines that people make decisions based on what type of world they would like to live in if they had no knowledge of what type of person they would be, this “ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances” (11). This idea relates to the geopolitical issues surrounding climate change, because one should not simply look at other countries and think because they pollute more we have no obligation to limit our output—were these individuals to imagine themselves behind a veil of ignorance, they could say that regardless of what part of the world they are born into, they would like people in the United States to limit their pollution. Moreover, simply because you do not have a respiratory problem such as asthma, does not mean that you do not have an obligation to make the world just as breathable for those people by using the principle of the veil of ignorance. Moreover, those who have the most to gain from lack of things like a carbon tax or other regulations on emissions (companies in energy sectors, factories, and other conglomerates with heavy …show more content…
The implication here is that there exists a responsibility for nature to be conserved for someone (or something) else (for example, future generations, for God, for our children)” (393-394). This idea comes back to the discussion on the intrinsic value of the environment previously stated when discussing Kant. The principle is that the environment is not our property and thus is not ours to destroy. This relates back to Rawls’ veil of ignorance because there includes an aspect of recognizing other generations and understanding that you could be part of some future generation, thus you would not want an environment destroyed by a generation in the past. This philosophy borders on being consequentialist, as it does discuss consequences (for future generations), but it should be looked at in the same regard as the universalization of the maxim—this only examines the future in the notion of the means and the ends. How does worsening the symptoms of climate change treat those of the future—perhaps not with the respect of being ends in of themselves. To treat future generations with respect is to treat them justly, and that is something that a deontologist would agree is the right thing to