Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 169–186 | Cite as

What’s Wrong with Joyguzzling?

  • Ewan Kingston
  • Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
Article

Abstract

Our thesis is that there is no moral requirement to refrain from emitting reasonable amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) solely in order to enjoy oneself. Joyriding in a gas guzzler (joyguzzling) provides our paradigm example. We first distinguish this claim that there is no moral requirement to refrain from joyguzzling from other more radical claims. We then review several different proposed objections to our view. These include: the claim that joyguzzling exemplifies a vice, causes or contributes to harm, has negative expected value, exceeds our fair share of global emissions, and undermines political duties. We show why none of these objections succeeds and conclude that no good reason has yet been proposed that shows why joyguzzling violates a moral requirement.

Keywords

Climate change Individual responsibility Moral requirements Climate ethics Greenhouse gases Causation Virtue Politics Fair shares 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Douglas Maclean, John Broome, Christian Baatz, Avram Hiller, Mark Budolfson, Sara Bernstein, Shelly Kagan, Dale Jamieson, and two anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Archer D, Brovkin V (2008) The millennial atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2. Clim Chang 90:283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer D et al (2009) Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 37:117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baatz C (2014) Climate change and individual duties to reduce GHG emissions. Ethics, Policy & Environ 17:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broome J (2012) Climate matters: ethics in a warming world. WW. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cafaro P, Sandler R (2005) Environmental virtue ethics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  6. Caney S (2010) Climate change and the duties of the advantaged. Crit Rev Int Soc Pol Phil 13:203–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caney S (2012) Just emissions. Philos Public Aff 40:255–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cripps E (2013) Climate change and the moral agent: individual duties in an interdependent world. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fragnière A (2016) Climate change and individual duties.Wiley Interdiscip rev. Climate Change 7:798–814Google Scholar
  10. Hartzell-Nichols L (2012) How is climate change harmful? Ethics & the Environ 17:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hiller A (2011) Climate change and individual responsibility. Monist 94:349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hourdequin M (2010) Climate, collective action and individual ethical obligations. Environ Values 19:443–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hursthouse R (1991) Virtue theory and abortion. Philos Public Aff 20:223–246Google Scholar
  14. Jamieson D (2007) When utilitarians should be virtue theorists. Utilitas: A J of Utilitarian Stud 19:160–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jamieson D (2014) Reason in a dark time: why the struggle against climate change failed--and what it means for our future. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson B (2003) Ethical obligations in a tragedy of the commons. Environ Values 12:271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kingston E (In preparation) The aesthetic value of green lifestylesGoogle Scholar
  18. Lane MS (2012) Eco-republic: what the ancients can teach us about ethics, virtue, and sustainable living. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawford-Smith H (2016) Difference-making and individuals’ climate-related obligations. In: Heyward C, Roser D (eds) Climate justice in a non-ideal world. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Moellendorf D (2014) The moral challenge of dangerous climate change: values, poverty, and policy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Morgan-Knapp C, Goodman C (2015) Consequentialism, climate harm and individual obligations. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 18:177–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nefsky J (2011) Consequentialism and the problem of collective harm: a reply to Kagan. Philos Public Aff 39:364–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nolt J (2011) How harmful are the average American's greenhouse gas emissions? Ethics, Policy and Environ 14:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ostrom E (2009) A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. World Bank policy research working paper series, no. 5095. World Bank, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Rentmeester C (2014) Do no harm: a cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural climate ethics. De Ethica a J of Philos, theological and app. Ethics 1:5–21Google Scholar
  27. Sandberg J (2011) My emissions make no difference. Environ Ethics 33:229–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwenkenbecher A (2012) Is there an obligation to reduce one’s individual carbon footprint? Crit Rev Int Soc Pol Phil 17:168–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sinnott-Armstrong W (2005a) It's not my fault. In: Sinnott-Armstrong, W and Howarth, R perspectives on climate change: science, economics, politics, ethics. Emerald Group publishing limited, new Milford, pp 285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sinnott-Armstrong W (2005b) You ought to be ashamed of yourself (when you violate an imperfect moral obligation). Philos Issues 15:193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wimsatt W (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. World Bank (n.d.) World bank open data. http://data.worldbank.org/. Accessed 14 Mar 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations