Ethical Obligations of Climate Change
Most individuals are aware of the issue of climate change which has become a topic of heated debate for most the early 21st century. As more and more research is being released, we are starting to see the full scope as to how much our world is going to be drastically affected by our industrial presence. For the duration of this paper I will be assessing the moral question of whether or not the United States has an obligation to implement policy that attempts to alleviate the effects of climate change through the framework of act and rule utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and Peter Singer’s “drowning child” thought experiment. While I will be remaining neutral while assessing my question through the various ethical frameworks, I will conclude that policies should be put in place by the government that mitigates the effects of climate change.
The most difficult aspect of climate change is its uneven dispersion of causes and effects. Greenhouse gases, despite their geographical origin, enter the atmosphere and then their effects are not realized strictly at their conception but are felt most detrimentally in the places that are some of the least significant greenhouse gas contributors. This due to a lack of resources in those particular areas to properly adapt to the drastically shifting climate. Although all countries contribute to the harmful greenhouse gases that erode the ozone layer, the United States is one of the worst culprits. To get even more specific, the United States has a very heavy reliance on factory farming, which products supplement much of the American diet. According to Ramona Cristina Ilea’s article, Intensive Livestock Farming, factory farming accounts for 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide. (508) The United States has not made extensive efforts to implement policy that would impose stricter regulations on the factory farming industry because of the financial burden it would impose on smaller farms and the pushback they would receive from many of the large-scale productions. The effects of climate change range in severity; however, one of the most common side effects is extreme weather events. These results of climate change disproportionately affect lesser developed countries as they are in a more compromising situation as they don’t have the resources to adjust for the sporadic weather changes. According to Women for Women International, “In parts of Africa, women are responsible for 80% of food production, and 70% of the world’s farmers are women, who produce 60-80% of the world’s food crops.” (Glazebrook, Women and Climate Change, 546) With sporadic heat waves and droughts now being coming more and more common, 60-80% of the world’s food source is compromised. Additionally, with this level of crop loss, it can be directly linked to malnourishment and developmental delays in children that rely on these crops as a main source of nutrients.
The case has been built for the United States being one of the main contributors to climate change; however, they are not alone the culprit. So the question remains: does the United States have a moral obligation to attempt to mitigate the effect of climate change through policy implementation? John Stewart Mill was one of the major supporters of the utilitarian theory, which advocates for making decisions based on the happiness or pleasure that is intended and the pain that is avoided. He also argues that all individuals happiness should be considered equal. This principle can be summed up concisely with the statement, “This being according to the utilitarian opinion the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality, which may accordingly be defined “the rules and precepts for human conduct”’ (Mill, 12) Taking everyone’s happiness into account as a moral compass can be applied to the climate change fairly simply. If the United States continues to go about their industrial practices unchanged in regards to climate change, they will be directly harming the planet as a whole which will be decreasing everyone’s quality of life and in turn their happiness. This is openly against utilitarianism, but I would also like to assess this question from the viewpoint of act and rule utilitarianism as things are not always as simple as good and bad. Act utilitarianism accesses a single action and its rightness in proportion as it increases happiness and wrongness as it increases the reverse of happiness. Every time a cow is raised for food or a person gets in their car, these are both single instances. They both increase pleasure because the alternative of starving or being fired from their job because they choose not to drive their car, they avoid a negative outcome. In those singular instances, their actions are not wholly bad; however, rule utilitarianism emphasizes the application of a decision if it were to become a universal moral rule similar to Kant’s categorical imperative. With a rule utilitarian stance, the implications of any decision have to be applied universally. Julia Driver, philosopher and author of Rule Consequentialism, defines rule utilitarianism as: “the right action which is performed in accordance with a rule, or set of rules, the following of which maximizes utility” (Driver, 64) For instance, if everyone on earth drove a car to work, the impact of the collective emissions would be dangerous for the atmosphere. Hence, a rule utilitarian would emphasize a responsible outlook toward environmental issues, such as opting to ride a bike to work should the distance not be too great. Looking at climate change through these two lenses, act utilitarianism says that you should raise the cow or drive the car because in that single instance there would be greater happiness from doing those two things than doing the less environmentally-friendly alternative. Rule utilitarianism would say that you shouldn’t raise the cow or drive the car because the collective negative outcomes from each of those decisions as a universal rule would be detrimental to the environment.
Kantian ethics align with some of the same basic principles as utilitarianism; however, Kantian ethics has slightly more significant criteria for what actions can be considered morally permissible. Kant puts a stronger emphasis on the intentions of actions rather than their outcome in determining moral permissibility. For Kant, it is vital that the motivations behind one's actions are moral. Particularly in regard to decisions impacting other humans, Kant emphasizes that one must always treat another human as an ends, capable of rational moral thought, and not a means to achieve a goal. If we were to apply this policy to the moral question, the United States should implement policy to encourage climate change mitigation because according to Kant’s categorical imperative the action is moral and justifiable as a universal moral rule. If all other nations followed suit and implemented environmentally friendly policies, the entirety of humanity, future and present would benefit.
Peter Singer wrote Famine, Affluence, and Morality, which focuses people in poverty and assessing whether or not individuals with the capacity to help have any kind of moral responsibility to them. Singer offers the thought experiment of the drowning child to help explain his stance. The experiment states: “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing” (Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, 134) From this experiment, Singer argues that “it makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor…or a Bengali whose name I shall never know” (Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, 134) The second conclusion he draws is that there is “no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same position” (Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, 134) Although, this thought experiment was written in the context of famine, we can apply it to the moral question of climate change. Many developed countries are in the position to implement policy that would help mitigate the effects of climate change, yet they don’t. This diffusion of responsibility goes directly against Singers experiment because just because there is a large pool of responsible parties doesn't lessen the responsibility of any of the parties. The United States should implement policy because they are just as morally responsible as every other country to help mitigate the effects of climate change. The second part of the thought experiment refers to proximity. Although the United States is one of the main contributors to greenhouse gases on a global scale, the argument could be made that we are some of the least affected by it. Due to the inherent nature of climate change, the regions that contribute the least are the ones that most directly feel the effects. Applying Singers criteria, even though the United States is not directly feeling the effects, they are causing harm to other individuals and regardless of proximity, the United States should feel morally obligated to assist those in need especially as developed countries like the United States are primarily responsible. Conclusively, the United States should put policy in place because it would help “drowning child” to which, from a humanitarian standpoint, we have a moral obligation despite our extensive distance.
Through the lenses of the previously discussed moral frameworks, it can be seen that action and inaction can both be justified as a way to approach climate change. In my assessment of climate change, it is clear that implementing stricter environmental regulation seems like a logical solution; however, I am in no way denying that it will be difficult to have something officially put into effect and enforced. From an ethical standpoint, the United States is one of the main contributors of greenhouse gasses due to our heavy reliance on factory farming and traditional forms transportation. Unfortunately, the bystander effect has come into play when it comes to implementing any kind of policy. Many countries have attempted to address and design policy that would encourage environmentally friendly practices; however, no country wants to be “the guanine pig” and are looking for others to make the first move. If the United States were to implement policy, then it stands to reason that over countries will quickly follow. From an ethical standpoint, I think since the United States has the means to attempt to alleviate the detrimental effects of climate change and save many individuals from the potential suffering of malnutrition, they ought to, especially since we are one of the main perpetrators of the problem. Ideally, a sort of global governance on the issue should be implemented because the responsibility to elevate our greenhouse gas admissions falls on the global community, but there isn’t a global governing body that can implement policy in a way that is fair and equal. If the United States decides not to act and continue to go about business as usual, they will knowingly be doing harm to individuals which is using them as a mere means and that directly goes against Kantian ethics and general utilitarian models. Conclusively, the United States must implement policy that reduces greenhouse gases otherwise they are not taking responsibility for their actions and are condoning the suffering of others.