Abstract
Philosophers, political theorists and cognitive scientists have applied the traditional distinction between deontology and consequentialism to determine ethical responsibilities – usually of states – to take action in response to climate change. Most of this work is either purely conceptual or based on experiments with individuals, who are not part of the global political process. This paper makes two contributions to this debate. First, based on interview data I describe existing patterns of ethical reasoning among global political actors rather than groups selected for lab experiments. Integrating theories of risk perceptions, international relations and moral philosophy, I identify both deontological and consequentialist cognitive patterns, and examine their constitutive elements. My second contribution concerns the role of emotion in moral reasoning. Using the same qualitative data, I offer support for a controversial argument about the emotional nature of deontological reasoning. Further, I argue that many negotiators experience climate change not as an impersonal threat posed by the environment, but rather as an “up, close and personal” threat, over which other negotiation participants have significant control.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I will leave aside virtue ethics for the purpose of this paper.
References
Allman J, Woodward J (2008) What are moral intuitions and why should we care about them? A neurobiological perspective. Philos Issues 18(1):164–185. doi:10.1111/j.1533-6077.2008.00143.x
Bruneau EG, Dufour N, Saxe R (2012) Social cognition in members of conflict groups: behavioural and neural responses in Arabs, Israelis and South Americans to each other’s misfortunes. Philos Trans of the Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 367(1589):717–730. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0293
Caney S (2005) Cosmopolitan justice, responsibility, and global climate change. Leiden J Int Law 18(04):747–775. doi:10.1017/S0922156505002992
Caney S (2010) Climate change and the duties of the advantaged. Crit Rev of Int Soc and Pol Philos 13(1):203–228. doi:10.1080/13698230903326331
Churchland PS (2011) Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Cushman F, Young L, Hauser M (2006) The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment testing three principles of harm. Psychol Sci 17(12):1082–1089. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x
Damasio AR (1995) Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, 1st edn. Perennial, Harper
Dean R (2010) Does neuroscience undermine deontological theory?”. Neuroethics 3(1):43–60. doi:10.1007/s12152-009-9052-x
Duncan S, Barrett LF (2007) Affect is a form of cognition: a neurobiological analysis. Cogn & Emot 21(6):1184–1211. doi:10.1080/02699930701437931
Falkner R (2005) American hegemony and the global environment. Int Stud Rev 7(4):585–599. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2005.00534.x
Gardiner SM (2004) “Ethics and global climate change.”. Ethics 114(3):555–600. doi:10.1086/382247
Gardiner SM (2010) Ethics and climate change: an introduction. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1(1):54–66. doi:10.1002/wcc.16
Giddens A (1992) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press.
Grasso M (2007) A normative ethical framework in climate change. Clim Chang 81(3–4):223–246. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9158-7
Grasso M (2013) Climate ethics: with a little help from moral cognitive neuroscience. Environ Polit 22(3):377–393. doi:10.1080/09644016.2012.730263
Greene JD (2008) “The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul”. In Moral Psychology: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development, 3:35–80. Bradford Books. MIT Press, Cambridge
Greene JD, Nystrom LE, Engell AD, Darley JM, Cohen JD (2004) The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron 44(2):389–400. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027
Haidt J (2001) The emotional Dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 108(4):814–834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
Hall RB (1999) National Collective Identity: Social Constructs and International Systems. Columbia University Press.
Hochstetler K, Manjana M (2013) “Emerging powers in the climate negotiations: shifting identity conceptions.”. Polit Res Q 67(1):224–35. doi:10.1177/1065912913510609
Kaarbo J (2003) Foreign policy analysis in the twenty-first century: back to comparison, forward to identity and ideas. Int Stud Rev 5(2):155–202
Mitzen J (2006) Ontological security in world politics: state identity and the security dilemma. Eur J Int Relat 12(3):341–370. doi:10.1177/1354066106067346
Okereke C (2010) Climate justice and the international regime. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1(3):462–474. doi:10.1002/wcc.52
Paavola J (2005) Seeking justice: international environmental governance and climate change. Globalizations 2(3):309–322. doi:10.1080/14747730500367850
Page E (2013) “Climate Change Justice”. In Handbook of Global Climate and Environmental Policy, 1st ed., 231–47. Handbooks of Global Policy. Wiley-Blackwell, Somerset
Pessoa L (2008) On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci 9(2):148–158. doi:10.1038/nrn2317
Prinz J (2006) The emotional basis of moral judgments. Philos Explor 9(1):29–43. doi:10.1080/13869790500492466
Roeser S (2006) The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Saf Sci 44(8):689–700. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2006.02.001
Roeser S (2010) Intuitions, emotions and gut reactions in decisions about risks: towards a different interpretation of ‘neuroethics.’. J Risk Res 13(2):175–190. doi:10.1080/13669870903126275
Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2012) The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal 32(6):957–972. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x
Sunstein CR (2007) Of Montreal and Kyoto: a tale of two protocols. Harv Environ Law Rev 31:1
Vohs KD, Roy FB, George L (2007) Do Emotions Help Or Hurt Decision Making?: A Hedgefoxian Perspective. Russell Sage Foundation.
Wood AW (2007) Kantian Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is part of a special issue on “Multidisciplinary perspectives on climate ethics” with guest editors Marco Grasso and Ezra M. Markowitz.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Milkoreit, M. Hot deontology and cold consequentialism – an empirical exploration of ethical reasoning among climate change negotiators. Climatic Change 130, 397–409 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1170-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1170-8